FARMSCAPING

Farmscaping: old, new, everywhere?

Getting animals to do the work for you. It might sound lazy, it might sound slightly mad, but this approach to farming and growing makes eminent sense.

Farmscaping is the latest attempt to get nature itself farming.

(image from WSU here)

�Farmscaping is a whole-farm, ecological approach to increase and manage biodiversity with the goal of increasing the presence of beneficial organisms� according to Professor Geoff Zehnder of Clemson University.

�Many pest populations can be managed by enhancing the efficacy and local abundance of the existing community of natural enemies through modification of the environment.�

He continues: �Farmscaping methods include the use of insectary plants, hedgerows, cover crops, and water reservoirs to attract and support populations of beneficial organisms such as insects, spiders, amphibians, reptiles, bats, and birds that parasitize or prey upon insect pests.

Insectary plants like mustards interplanted with market crops provide pollen and nectar to attract and maintain beneficial insects in the crop landscape.�

He also refers to trap crops as an example of extended farmscaping: �host plants that are more attractive to the pest than the cash crop that are planted near the cash crop to trap pests, thus reducing pressure and damage to the cash crop.�

In farmscaping, beneficial organisms are considered � and managed - as �mini-livestock�. They need �adequate supplies of nectar, pollen and plant-feeding insects and other arthropods as food to sustain and increase their populations. Flowering plants provide many of the food resources natural enemies need�.

However, this should not be done in an ad hoc way: �creating a farmscape of flowering plants picked at random may favor pest populations over beneficial organisms.�

Thus, he recommends being especially methodological about it: �use a range of selection criteria to determine appropriate botanical composition.�

Amongst the benefits are: reduced need for pesticides and savings in pest management costs; increased habitat and wildlife diversity on the farm; adaptability of farmscaping to farm plans; erosion control/soil building; value adding.

The latter comes from the fact that �farmscape plants like cut flowers and medicinal plants can be sold at market to generate added income for the farm� he suggests.

Examples of this approach are many. In Texas, a trap crop of black-eyed peas were grown for a Pecan crop, to hinder stink bugs. The growers determined for every dollar they spent establishing and maintaining the trap crops, they prevented $9.01 in kernel damage from stink bugs.

In Israel, birds of prey are now being being used instead of pesticides - kestrels for the daytime and owls at night.

A research project in the University of Georgia has just begun, which uses floral farmscaping with a 21,000 plant organic broccoli crop.

The experiment involves planting two sets of broccoli plants using organic methods. One set has flowers � such as yarrow and dill � in the middle, and the other set does not.

The flowers are intended to attract predatory insects like lady beetles that feed on harmful insects such as caterpillars and other pests that destroy crops.

The flowers also provide food and shelter for the insects that would naturally use broccoli for these resources and, in the process, ruin the crop.

In research quite directly applicable to the Irish situation, hedgerows are also useful for natural pest management.

Steve D Wratten (University of Southampton) and colleagues published research in 2004 in the journal Biomedical and Life Sciences. His research suggested that, along with various other benefits, hedgerows and can also impede crop damaging flying insects.

This research assessed the relative presence of types of pollen in hover flies, to assess how certain barriers performed, namely poplar trees and fencing. They found that �the poplar boundary restricted the movement of the flies, but the fence had no effect�.

With resources like fossil fuels and phosphate running out, farming will have to start to get creative with plants and animal biodiversity to keep feeding people profitably.

It is only a matter of time.

SCHOOLS, GARDENS AND THOSE PESKY 67 MILLION BIRDS

There is something just right about organic and gardening. Organic and gardening seem to go together like crackers and cheese, or laurel and hardy.

Add school children into the mix, and organic almost becomes de rigeur. This probably says a lot about societies' impression of children as innocent little bundles of delicate joy, as well as the very real physiological developmental differences between children and adults.

For example, it is easier now to get organic babyfood than conventional, and even conventional babyfood has severe ingredient restrictions which make it closer to organic anyway.

On the home page of Bord Bia's website, there is a link to an organic gardening for primary schools initiative. This features a complimentary DVD available to primary schools to equip them with the knowledge and ability to build, develop and maintain an organic garden within existing school grounds.

Students can learn how to grow healthy foods, understand plant life and the importance of seasonality. The garden can also be used to explain concepts such as water cycle, biodiversity, composting and other related areas.

This initiative began in February 2008, when four different schools had their progress recorded over an 18 month period. The schools, two in Dublin, one in Kildare and one in Louth, were assisted by a team of organic experts.

Children from all classes were involved in the project and the DVD demonstrates the children�s involvement in creating a garden. The focus was different in the different schools � for example very little development of a school garden had taken place in the Holy Trinity School in Donaghmede, Dublin, while the school in Prosperous, Kildare had a well developed garden in place and the focus here was in enhancing it. This involved an insect hotel and improving their composting facilities.

While this is impressive enough, the fact is that for the last two years, about 2000 schools have, to varying degrees, been involved in mostly organic gardening anyway.

Both agri-aware's meet the spuds and incredible edibles involved schoolchildren planting and maintaining school gardens. None of the instructions involved any agri-chemicals. Schools I visited over those two years certainly developed their gardens organically.

Over in the White House, Michelle Obama has had school children gardening organically too. Her aim is educational: �My hope is that through children, they will begin to educate their families and that will, in turn, begin to educate our communities� according to Obama.

Sniffing a PR disaster, The MidAmerica CropLife Asociaton wrote a slightly bizarre letter to the First Lady, outlining the importance of conventional agriculture.

Some of the claims are entertaining. The letter implies that organic garden is a rejection of the kind of farming that has help the US lead the world in �the advancement of science, communication, education, medicine, transportation and the arts�.

Interesting too is the claim that �sophisticated Global Positioning Systems can be specifically designed for spraying pesticides. A weed detector equipped with infrared light identifies specific plants by the different rates of light they reflect and then sends a signal to a pump to spray a preset amount of herbicide onto the weed.�

Less militaristically, the letter also claims that �agricultural land provides habitat for 75% of the nation's wildlife.�

Yet somehow at least 67 million birds die immediately as a direct result of pesticide applications in farming in the US every year.

In fact, this figure is considered conservative, as it does not include indirect bird deaths: �birds that perish after a period of illness, that die after feeding on poisoned insects, rodents, or other prey, or losses due to failed reproduction� according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Hardly the most precise use of biocides, or the most benign way to provide a habitat.

From Pennsylvania Avenue to Prosperous County Kildare, in the battle between holistic nature studies and scientific surgical strikes, it seems that the former is winning out.

After all, 67 million dead birds can't be wrong.

EU parliment votes on pesticides

The long awaited vote on the use and classification of pesticides in the EU was held on the 13th January.

The vote was opposed by Spain, Hungary, the UK and Ireland. The deal struck will,
according to the EU news portal EurActiv, will : �lead to a ban of a number of hazardous substances that pose a potential threat to human health and the environment�. It will also oblige �member states to embrace more sustainable use of pesticides�.

The EU Commission welcomed the Parliament�s decision, stating that �the new legislation will increase the protection of human health and the environment, will lead to a better protection of agricultural production and will extend and deepen the single market of plant protection products�

The package has yet to be formally adopted by the Council, which remains divided over the issue, despite a compromise reached in December.
That compromise deal divided up Europe into three mutual recognition zones - north, centre and south. Member states will still be allowed to ban specific products.
Indeed, that December deal would still allow for the use of pesticides due to be banned for up to five years, if they are proven to be what is considered essential for crop survival.
Otherwise, operators have three years to replace products containing certain hazardous substances, provided safer alternatives can be shown to exist.

Member states will have to adopt national action plans on pesticide use, and to work towards usage reduction and the establishment of appropriate measures such as protection of nature and establishment of buffer zones. Limitations will also be placed on the public use of pesticides.
Most of the debate has centred on price of food production and on the change from a risk to a hazard-based system.

When queried about the issue, our own Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food claimed that �the proposed hazard-based system will limit the number and type of plant protection products on the market without contributing to any significant reduction in overall operator, bystander, consumer or environmental exposures�.

They also pointed out that �some substances, which may fail to meet the criteria, are crucial to crop protection in Ireland.�

Withdrawal of products �is likely to cause significant agronomic and economic damage, will lead to a significant adverse impact on crop protection, will limit the range of chemistry available to avoid the build-up of resistance and will result in dramatically reduced crop yields� they suggested.

Most of the support for the change in legislation has come from environmental and health NGOs, and the organic farming and food sectors.

After the vote last week, Ireland�s largest certification body, the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association (IOFGA) �welcomed the 13th January vote in the EU Parliament to tighten the rules governing pesticide use and to ban the use of 22 chemicals deemed to be harmful to human health.�

They also stated that �the banned substances have been associated with causing cancer or having the potential to interfere with the human reproductive or hormonal
systems.

Kate Carmody Chairperson of IOFGA stated, �IOFGA welcomes the fact that the EU Parliament has put the protection of human health first, in banning these potentially dangerous pesticides many of which are endocrine disruptors. They did this despite extensive lobbying from the agrichemical industry.�

She also pointed out that �the fact that there is a thriving and growing organic farming sector in Ireland and across the EU which does not rely on pesticides proves that they are not necessary for the production of quality food.�

A qualified biochemist with a family history in the profession dating back to the 1830s, Carmody also stated that �we should remember that pesticides are essentially poisons which are routinely sprayed on crops in conventional agriculture. Do we really want to spray these on our food?�

pic from: www.citizenscampaign.org

All I want for christmas....

Before I start my annual christmas list to santy, if you are interested in accessing the most recent organic steering committee report, it's available here

(Pic is from young greens site of a green santy on grafton street)

for the previous wish list, click here

Now for the serious stuff:

Dear Santy
Wow. What a year eh? A real 'may you live in interesting times' of a year. I'm writing this to you from a state of mild confusion. Hopefully you'll understand what I mean, and I'll get some of these organic gifts from you.

I'm confused santy, because I thought that organic and conventional were different. Apparently you can even be sent to jail for claiming to be organic if you are not. There are people employed to go around inspecting operators to make sure they actually are organic to the letter of the law. And yet, when it came time for the Arnold Schwarzenegger-like Total Recall of pork products, they also recalled organic pork too Santy.

So this coming year, for Christmas, I'd love for differentiation between organic and conventional to actually mean something. I think the consumer has actually been more confused by organic pork's sudden disappearance, as they must surely have thought all along that that organic pigs eat different food to conventional ones. What must they think now?

Along with this Santy, I'd love some organic cosmetics. Or health and beauty products as they are usually called. For herself of course � I prefer the more rugged look myself.

Both certification bodies in Ireland now have the right to certify for organic cosmetics, making themselves and the Soil Association in the UK world leaders it seems. All the Irish ones need now are products!

I'd also love for the gift of continued organic growth of organics, if you know what I mean. So hopefully once the farmers can start converting again on New Year's Day � as one of their new year's resolutions - there will be a flood of them Santy. Queues out the door of the IOFGA and Organic Trust offices longer than the Dole queues � that's what we want.

Also, if you could give Minister Sargent the gift of a ring fence around the money he's managed to keep for organic farmers, that would be absolutely great Santy. In fact, make it an electric ring fence, and give him a few high voltage cattle prods. He's going to need them. That would cover a lot. I know I'm giving away a present there, Santy, but giving is a gift in itself.

It seems there is nothing but negative talk and thinking these days Santy. Everyone seems to think that food with ethical values will be the first thing to go. They keep saying 'in the current economic climate' or in these 'recessionary times' as if that means � �stop thinking about frilly little exotic irrelevancies like the planet � we have an economy to protect�.

But Santy, organic is the food of the future - the oil won't last forever. Even Teagasc research points out that organic makes sense for both the planet and the farmer. I know cos I was at their recent conference, and organic farmers are making just as much money as their conventional counterparts. In fact, organic cattle farmers are making up to 56% more. And most still do this while doing a better job environmentally.

I'm sure someone out there was asking for a reduction in the price of feeds, fertilizers and fuels, but there are environmental costs in all of these Santy. I'm not so sure that that's all good news. Your reindeer's don't seem to need any of these to keep themselves going � a bit like those mountain sheep and cattle. I'd love to see more of them going organic Mr Claus � they might as well be. Organic would suit both their farming restrictions and their terrain. They'd get a great mark up if they converted, so they would.

And what about that EU pesticide review? I think you can guess what I want on that one. That might even things up between conventional and organic Mr. Claus. Organic might not seem so expensive then, eh?

Overall Santy, I suppose I might as well ask for a lot, as you do seem to give me want I want when I ask. In other years, I was very suprised at how generous you were. Please keep up the good work.

Yours in expectation more than hope

Ollie

pesticides and EU regulations part 2: interview with Merf on alternatives

If the EU does indeed limit the use of pesticides in farming in Europe, as is currently being proposed, there will be a number of consequences.

The positives and negatives of these consequences depend upon where you are placed in the agri-food system.

The price differential between organic and conventional may decrease. This would have the effect of leveling the playing field between organic and conventional for the ultimate recipient of food, the consumer.

Consumer confidence in the food system in general may increase, as the consumer currently dislikes pesticides, and at the same time distrusts farmers, supermarkets and food manufacturers.

One consequence that may not begin to happen in Ireland, but which should as a matter of urgency, is the development of alternative approaches to pest and weed management.

This should include not just methods similar to those used in organic farming, but methods from the broader gamut integrated pest and weed management offer.

An expert on these options is UCD�s Dr. Charles Merfield. Merfield, or Merf as he�s more often known, is an organic cropping agronomist. He has helped develop a number of innovative approaches to weed and pest control, and has some interesting ideas on how we should go forward in this area.

�Up to now, the main way to control pests and weeds has been through the use of synthetic biocides, which are more commonly referred to as chemicals. However a more integrated approach is needed. All four sciences of the natural world should be utilized, that is physical, biological, ecological as well as chemical�.

He also points out the fact that �there is an immediate and looming problem for the industry. One set of controls are being taken away, but the replacements are not in place yet.�

He suggests that an integrated approach is more effective than a chemical only approach, while also have the bonus of being more sustainable.

Merf is concerned, however, that enough research into integrated approaches is not being done for the Irish situation. Worryingly he says that well functioning integrated management systems can take between 5 to 15 years to develop (similar to chemicals) �which for poses a major problem for Irish agriculture as chemicals are being lost right now, so integrated solutions are needed now�.

There are many lessons and techniques to be learned from organic farming: �organic weed management mostly uses physical and ecological techniques. Agro-ecological approaches such as cover crops are also viable options.�

Globally, according to Merf, those investigating alternative mechanisms for pest management have made more progress than those investigating weed management.

�Fifteen years ago, weed science journals were focused on chemical solutions. That�s changed in last ten years or so. There has been a rapid increase in herbicide resistance globally, which we haven�t seen as much here in Ireland�

He cites the case of the caterpillar in New Zealand. By simply providing the catterpillar�s parasitoids with extra food in the form of buckwheat flowers, a cheap, effective, safe and certainly image friendly option has been developed for the countries� wine industry.

Along with a business partner in his native New Zealand, Merf has developed a company promoting particular machines for physical weeding. These include direct fired steam weeders, flame weeders, the Four Wheel Hoe (pedestrian hoe), and false seed bed tillers (cultivators).

The business, called PhysicalWeeding, promotes what it calls the false and stale seedbed approach. This is done by creating a planting tilth but then delaying planting. The weeds germinate and/or emerge before the crop, to then be killed either by further tillage, thermal weeding or herbicides.

While there are solutions, problems remain. �even within organic approaches, there are pests and diseases that are difficult to control or the solutions are not so easy - carrot root fly crop covers are a pain. A biological control that could be applied by spraying would be much easier, but we need to look�.

Which prompts the inevitable question: will the agri-food sector in Ireland have the vision to look for this and other solutions, or will it try to continue down the ever more fraught path of business as usual?

(Pictured: Merf flogging a hoe at an organic conference. For more on the irrepressible merf, click here)

pesticides and EU regulations

for a bit of inspiration in the cold dark winter, look at how one of my long time links over there on the left has been doing recently:

georgina downs

and see her site here

This is the first of two articles on pesticides (where I started on this blog waay back)

(I'll add more links regarding the research outlined towards the end of the article v. soon)

The regulation of pesticides are in the news at the moment. The EU is considering changing from what is called a risk to a hazard based system of approval for pesticides. (for a good sum, see here)

Because the food they eat is the end point of farming, it is worth considering what the consumer thinks.

A 2006 Eurobarometer survey found that concern about pesticides ranked highest of all food concerns amongst consumers and citizens � even higher than bird flu.

Remember bird flu? While it hasn�t gone away, it was front page news in 2005 and 2006. For pesticides to rank slightly higher as a concern among consumers, despite no high profile global pandemic moment, speaks volumes about what the consumer really wants.

The same Eurobarometer survey found that consumer groups (32%), physicians or doctors (also 32%) and scientists (30%) are considered as the most trusted information sources regarding serious food risks.

Public authorities (22%) and the media (17%) were next, while food manufacturers (6%), farmers (6%) and supermarkets or shops (3%) scored worst in the consumer�s opinion, when it comes to telling the truth about food.

Unless there is a seismic, high-profile revelation of thalidomide
proportions, the agri-food industry will always default towards business
as usual. Change involves the unknown and thus financial risk.

Our own Department of Agriculture fears �significant agronomic and economic damage� including likely �crop yield reductions� due to the currently proposed changes to pesticide regulations in the EU. It claims that the �the scientific principle of risk assessment (which takes �hazard� and �exposure� into account) is ignored in favour of hazard-based �cut-off
criteria�� in the proposed changes.

But in reality, pesticide exposure happens. Since the 1980s, traces of pesticides have been discovered in the fatty tissue of polar bears, which live far from the source of possible exposure.

And Europe accounts for about a quarter of the world�s consumption of pesticides, despite having just 4% of the world�s agricultural land.

In 2007, Dr Roberto Bertollini, director of the World Health Organisation�s Special Programme on Health and the Environment blamed pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables for contributing to a rising rate of mental and behavioural disorders, especially in children. And the French Institute of Public Health, Epidemiology and Development said farmers and gardeners using pesticides were more likely to suffer brain tumours.

More and more research is suggesting that the developing foetus, children, farm workers and the elderly are vulnerable.

Pesticide exposure in pregnant women has been linked to obesity in their children. According to a study by Frederick vom Saal, professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri-Colombia: �Certain environmental substances called endocrine-disrupting chemicals can change the functioning of a foetus�s genes, altering a baby�s metabolic system and predisposing him or her to obesity. This individual could eat the same thing and exercise the same amount as someone with a normal metabolic system, but he or she would become obese, while the other person remained thin. This is a serious problem because obesity puts
people at risk for other problems, including cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and hypertension.�

Pesticides are one of the main sources of these endocrine disruptors. Professor vom Saal�s study tested for socio-economic and cultural variables in the mothers, to eliminate these possibilities (such as the mother�s smoking, education, class, weight etc).

Research findings also suggests that women with breast cancer are five to nine times more likely to have pesticide residues in the body (2003); that pesticides have been linked to cancer in farm labourers (2000, 2003); and that high exposure to pesticides increased the risk of
Parkinson�s disease by 41% (2007).

The highest ever levels of pesticide residues were recorded in fruit, vegetables and cereals in the EU recently, with 5% of these above legal limits.

Rather than extreme claims of food price increases, which the consumer will not believe anyway, perhaps those representing farmers� interests should look to the opportunities for more integrated and holistic pest controlling techniques.

Which is what we will do here next when we talk to Dr Charles Merfield of UCD.

Pesticides and bees: the smoking gun located?

It is an ongoing story, one that has seen many conspiracies and possible culprits.

However, there has been a development of late, which is interesting from an organic farming and food perspective.

click here for an update on the story of the decline in the bee population worldwide.

Pesticides and other chemicals in the news ...

Europe discusses pesticides, and may even move on reducing them....

meanwhile, in the US, a chemical linked to various ailments is found to be leaching into canned food from the can itself

Ahhhh..... Valentine's day

what a time of the year. It's a time you rarely hear people moan about the true spirit being lost, eh? No 'let's get back to the essential meaning of the day' really, is there? Instead, it's one of the most blatantly commercial celebrations there is: it's really just the first real excuse to spend after xmas. And don't they really push a particular type of wine in the supermarkets for V day? All those wines with blurbs on the back about soft tannins, fruity, velvety smoothness....wines that are in fact bland, characterless and at the same time globalised and heavily promoted.

I mentioned commodity fetishism recently, which I'd describe as the masking of important and otherwise objectionable unpleasantness, or occasionally horror, with frivolous aesthetics and surface attractivness. In this context, let's compare the love Valentine flowers are supposed to represent with the production of said flowers. Whether its the environment or the people who work the fields or in particular the green and glass houses, the prettiness of the flowers often mask the reality on the ground....

The thing is, organic has won the battle of language. Whatever about sales levels, whatever about organic being used to display or represent esteem, or status, or distinction, flowers on Valentine's day will never be the same again unless they are organic...and more and more articles seem to pop up each year making this point: Often in the US sometimes even with twee and transparent flash movies

But no one quite does it like PAN, the pesticide action network . (I'm not sure if the whole greek god of nature, and possibly an origin of the devil thing is played on deliberately by them in their choosing of the name PAN....)
Here's a typical one from their yearly offerings...ah go on, it's valentine's day you deserve another one
Just spreadin the love, baby

Ok, this is the last of the pesticide articles. It is the global one, and it completes the series. It was written on the anniversary of Bhopal, december 3rd 1984.

The gas leak in the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, happened 21 years ago this month. This was the worst industrial accident in world history. Estimates vary, but anything up to 15,000 people died then, and up to 5,000 have died subsequently from the effects of the leak.

Half a million have been dehabilitated by illness caused by the leak; tests of the water supply found levels of contamination 500 times higher than the level recommended by the WHO.

Compensation has been minimal; Union Carbide gave the Indian government a lump-sum of $470 million and built a hospital. 99% of the victims got the equivalent of 400euro in compensation; many claim medical bills have eaten this up.

Union Carbide left India in 1989, and is now part of Dow Chemicals. They claim the case is done and dusted. They make profits of $32.6 billion a year, while babies with extreme deformities are still being born in Bhopal.

The problems with pesticides outlined over the last 2 weeks pale into insignificance when compared to the problem of pesticide poisoning in the third world. Whatever about residues in consumers and drift affecting rural communities and the environment, farm labourers in the third world who use pesticides are in an altogether different category of risk.

Looking at the figures gives us a clue both to the extent of the problem and to the difficulties in coming to grips with the problem. There is no agreement on the figures for how many people die from pesticide poisonings each year. Even the World Health Organization uses both the 20,000 and 200,000 deaths per year figures in separate reports.

Sometimes they cover themselves by giving wide, general figures; for example, they claim that there are between 1 and 5 million acute poisonings and 25 million non-acute poisonings each year.

The wide differences in the above figures are partly explained by the fact that mild poisonings can often go unreported, partly because symptoms can be similar to other health problems.

Also, pesticides can accumulate in land and water and cause negative effects in people (and in the food supply, the environment etc) over a period of years, without the connection being made to pesticides. There is also sometimes a long lag between the cause (exposure) and effect (disease), which can make it impossible to make a definite connection.

This is compounded by the fact that many poor farm labourers in the third world have no medical care, no desire to annoy their employers and some are undocumented, so reporting illness is pointless, job-threatening or dangerous. Then add lack of medical training, lack of state resources, the extra vulnerability of the already sick, the malnourished and the young.

Taking all of the above into account, it is reasonable to agree with the experts when they say that the true figures, for both chronic and acute poisonings, and indeed for deaths are far higher than any of the estimates.

Spraying pesticides in the third world can be a dirty and dangerous job. Problems in this area are made worse by illiteracy, poor labeling which is sometimes in a language the user doesn�t understand, and weak sales regulations.

The range of effects of acute pesticide poisonings read like an a-z of what could go wrong with your body. They can be broken into categories; neurobehaviourial, intestinal, respiratory, and finally skin and mucus complications.

Long term effects can include developmental and reproductive problems (e.g. increased still births, birth deformities etc), endocrine disruption (hormones behaving badly, lower sperm count etc) cancer (in adults and children) and, as already highlighted under acute poisonings, neurological (behavioural problems, lower intelligence) and immunological (a weak immune system in humans, especially children, obviously makes it harder for them to fight diseases).

It can sometimes seem daunting, looking at global issues and trying to find solutions to them.

However it is clear that if you are going to eat food imported from the poorer countries of the world, you should really make an effort to eat organic food. Only 1% of the pesticides allowed under the conventional regulations are allowed under organic regulations.

Don't worry, they won't all be about pesticides. In fact, I have been criticised for being too positive by other organic journalists! However, I've decided to 'finish it off' as it were. So I'm posting part 2 of the pesticide story here, and part 3 next. Then, let the positivity flow!

In many cases (and here with these pesticide articles) the originals were published in the Irish Examiner - various slight modifications may have been made before publication in the farming supplement.

Also, if your an academic-type, you may be interested in this:
That's a link to the new edition of the International Journal of Consumer Studies, and I've an article in it.

Finally, to to update the article below, I'll let you know that according to the editor of the Farming supplement I write for, the pesticide story isn't that bad in Ireland at present. He suggests that eutrophication of Irish water, caused more by rapid development than farming (but partly caused by farming) is more of a concern. See here

pesticides part 2:

The second of my three part series on pesticides, examines the effects of pesticides on rural areas. In particular, how pesticides damage the environment and harm people close to sprayed fields will be highlighted.

First, the good news. In Ireland, we have amongst the lowest usage of pesticides in Europe. However there is, according to the Heritage Council, �a strong spatial variation in the levels of pesticide usage in Ireland reflecting the uneven distribution of land use types�. So some areas are obviously more affected than others.

From 1965 to the present, the amount of pesticides used in Ireland has increased from 500 tonnes to well over 2000. This has led to the extinction of some plants and the corollary reduction in numbers of many different types of butterflies and moths, which are dependent on certain types of plant.

In the US, University of Pittsburgh assistant professor of biology Rick Relyea has stepped beyond the usual lab tests of one pesticide on one species. He has tested for direct and indirect effects of various pesticides in �realistic concentrations� on a number of plants and animals.

According to Relyea, "the most shocking insight coming out of this was that Roundup, something designed to kill plants, was extremely lethal to amphibians.�

Organic agriculture, on the other hand has been shown in numerous studies, to increase plant and bird biodiversity. Recently, I outlined UK research which found that birds, bats, spiders and wild plants were found in greater numbers on organic farms. This follows on from a whole range of research which makes similar claims; some endangered plants were only found on German organic farms in 1996, for example.

Some research has shown that maintaining, and not spraying hedgerows is particularly important for biodiversity. This would suggest that REPS farms are havens of biodiversity. However, according to recent research by Dr. Jane Feehan, the no-spray margins on REPS farms are too narrow. She suggested that it be increased from 1.5 metres to at least 3 metres. Research from Holland also backs up the idea of a 3 metre no-spray zone.

This �proves to be a very effective way of reducing pesticide drift to the ditch (by about 95%) and risks to aquatic organisms. �according to the Dutch research. Plant, insect and bird numbers were higher in the 3 metre unsprayed hedge zone.

It is noteworthy that a cost-benefit analysis based on the yield losses found the only crop type where the costs were too high was�sugar beet. If there�s one crop that won�t be grown in Ireland in the future, it�s sugar beet.

In the UK, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) has suggested increasing the no-spray margin on all fields to 5 metres, but for different reasons.

The RCEP are concerned about walkers and people living, working or attending schools near sprayed fields. Current research needs to be improved upon, to assess whether the genuine illnesses people who live near sprayed fields are experiencing are in fact caused by pesticides and herbicides.

From further afield, there are some very clear examples of pesticide drift causing serious damage to people. In California many thousands of people who happened to be close to sprayed fields have been poisoned, and many more cases are pending. In many cases, poor migrant farm labourers are the victims, as they live next to the sprayed fields.

In October, 2003, 130 people in Lamont, California were poisoned when a toxic pesticide drifted into a housing area. They were hit for two consecutive days; on the second day, roads were closed and people evacuated. Four months later, some victims said they still had headaches and breathing problems from the drift, while others claimed their children have since been diagnosed with asthma.

Following this and many other cases, the law was changed in California last year to implicate the sprayers directly in payments of damages to victims.

This helped pave the way for 84 residents of Avin county California, to be awarded $775,000 dollars in damages because of pesticide drift recently.

Here's a fun way to start:
Here's an article I wrote about pesticides! It's part of a three part series on pesticides I wrote for the Irish Examiner.

I'll post all 3, as there is a logical sequence to them. They go from the centre out, from the individual to the planet.

I write a weekly column for the Irish Examiner Newspaper. My column is in the farming supplement every Thursday, and is always in some way related to orgnaic farming. Occasionally, I'll post articles from there here (after they've been there first!)

Pesticides and people: part one.

There are three main areas where pesticides are a cause of concern. These are pesticide residues in food; pesticide drift (the implications for the environment and people who live near sprayed fields) and, finally, pesticide poisonings, mostly of farm labourers, and mostly, though not exclusively, in the third world. Over the next three weeks, each area will be examined in detail. Today, we�ll deal with pesticide residues in consumers.

First things first: pesticides are designed to attack the central nervous system of living creatures. Despite being different in many ways, both insects and mammals have a similar neural mechanism, so, in the �correct� dose, pesticides can obviously kill humans. For example, one teaspoon of Paraquat ingested would be fatal for a fully grown man. So there is no debate over whether pesticides are dangerous for humans or not, just over the levels.

A peer-reviewed report from the University of Washington from 2003 found that children who are a mostly organic diet had significantly lower pesticide residues in them than those who ate a mostly conventional food diet. Some pesticides were at a six times higher rate in the children who ate mostly conventional foods. This meant that the children eating organic food were in a �negligible risk� category, whereas the children eating conventional food were in an �uncertain risk� category.

The methodology used was particularly reliable. Rather than just testing mashed up apples for one pesticide at a time, (as is standard) they tested people (in this case 2-5 year old preschool children) over a period of days. Food diaries were used and the use of domestic pesticides (ie for gardening) was factored for.

The researchers decided to test for pesticide residues in children for a couple of reasons. For one thing, children eat more food as a proportion of their body weight than adults. Secondly, many of the foods children consume, and indeed are encouraged to consume as healthy, can be particularly high in pesticide residues. Examples include fresh fruit and freshly squeezed juices. (Being fresh, as opposed to processed increases the risk of residues being present)

In fact, what prompted the research in the first place was the discovery that out of 110 children previously tested, only 1 (yes 1) didn�t have measurable levels of organophosphate pesticides. That 1 child ate a diet the child�s parents described to researchers as �exclusively organic�.

We can also add the fact that children are still growing and developing, so substances which disrupt hormones or the development of the brain are of particular concern.

But are small does of pesticides dangerous? More research needs to be done, especially on the combined or cocktail effect of chemicals. It has been shown that their combined effect can be more potent, and that disrupting hormones even at minute levels can be especially risky for the foetus or for breast fed children.

Some toxicologists have expressed particular concerns. Dr. Vyvyan Howard, Senior Lecturer and Head of the Foetal and Infant Toxico-pathology Group at the University of Liverpool, states that it is impossible to test for all the combinations. However research conducted by Dr. Howard in 2001 found that when more than one pesticide is mixed together, they can be ten times more toxic than individual chemicals.

This is compounded by the fact that some pesticides are not broken down and excreted, but are instead stored in the body fat. According to Dr.Elizabeth Cullen, of the Irish Doctors� Environmental Alliance, �Exposure to chlorinated chemicals (which includes pesticides) has been linked to depressed immune systems, reduction in sperm counts, altered fertility and some adult cancers. In children they have also been associated with low birth weight, genital abnormalities and impaired neurological development�.

She goes on to claim that chemicals in body fat are not tested for in Ireland, and there is no national database of congenital malformations.

Taking all of the above into account, it is clear that the most reliable way to avoid pesticides is to eat organic food. It may all turn out to be fine, but do you really want to use yourself as a human guinea pig?