pesticides

colt

Hi all have any of you noticed the rise in more pests over the last 10 years? I can only think its down to so many pesticedes being withdrawn. I understand that some of the chemicals were bad for us but how many think they was right to do so?

peter_the_piper

I can understand the reduction in chemicals being a good thing where food is concerned but agree less regarding ornamentals. The best current vineweevil chemical is being phased out as possibly harmful(too expensive to test it) however the main constituent is the same as that used in frontline for dogs/cats. Not removing that though.

A._Badger

It's absolute nonsense, Colt. If people are scared of 'chemicals' (and often their fear is based in ignorance - try warning them about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide - people have drowned in that evil stuff and yet it is still being openly sold! ) then that is fine - no one is forcing them to use them. But the rest of us are also having to suffer for this 'Green' hysteria.

Most of these bans come about not due to properly conducted research, but from the EU, where they are driven by twin lobbying influences - pressure groups and commercial interests (you'll have noticed how the very few pesticides we have left are almost all produced by two giant corporations).

It's a racing certainty that the regulators who pass these rules are neither gardeners, nor horticulturalists, nor experts in agrochemicals.

Anyway, brace yourself for worse to come. Permetrin has already gone, as has sodium chlorate (for heaven's sake!). Next up, apparently, are glyphosate and metaldehyde-based slug pellets.

Meanwhle, my local hardware store owner tells me that, in the New Year, he is going to be banned from selling either caustic soda or the dilute hydrochloric acid people have been using to clear blocked drains for decades.

The world has gone mad.

Lotus-eater

Metaldehyde based slug pellets are a nightmare, their residue cannot be removed from drinking water, it's a poison to us, amatuer gardeners can use it to whatever levels they like, which runs off into the drinking water take off. Agricultural allowable usage levels per hectare are unbelievably low, gardeners can use whatever amount they like, can buy whatever amount they like.

Alternatives are available, which work just as well, please give me one reason this poison in our water supply should remain.


"dihydrogen monoxide"..... please

A._Badger

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Metaldehyde based slug pellets are a nightmare, their residue cannot be removed from drinking water, it's a poison to us, amatuer gardeners can use it to whatever levels they like, which runs off into the drinking water take off. Agricultural allowable usage levels per hectare are unbelievably low, gardeners can use whatever amount they like, can buy whatever amount they like.

Alternatives are available, which work just as well, please give me one reason this poison in our water supply should remain.


"dihydrogen monoxide"..... please

That's the tragedy. The 'dihydrogen monoxide' scam works extremely well on the sort of people who think 'chemical' is somehow synonymous with 'evil'. If you've not come across it before, you might enjoy Googling the term to see how people have reacted.

As for metaldehyde, as I've said here before, let's have some convincing evidence that it is causing genuine (as opposed to theoretical) risk from amateur users.

It's the sheer silliness of these bans that irritates. No one objects where there are genuine dangers - but it's clear that isn't what is driving these EU diktats.

Lotus-eater

A._Badger wrote: »

As for metaldehyde, as I've said here before, let's have some convincing evidence that it is causing genuine (as opposed to theoretical) risk from amateur users.

It's the sheer silliness of these bans that irritates. No one objects where there are genuine dangers - but it's clear that isn't what is driving these EU dkitats.

So you didn't give me one reason then.

Only that the risk is theoretical, well it's not theoretical that it's in our drinking water and it's not theoretical that they can't get it out.
It's also not theoretical that one pellet contaminates an unbelieveable amount of water. You can google all this if you want.

Lets wait until we have convincing evidence shall we?

A._Badger

Lotus-eater wrote: »

So you didn't give me one reason then.

Only that the risk is theoretical, well it's not theoretical that it's in our drinking water and it's not theoretical that they can't get it out.
It's also not theoretical that one pellet contaminates an unbelieveable amount of water. You can google all this if you want.

Lets wait until we have convincing evidence shall we?

I'm sorry - I missed your request. Here's one reason. Because it has been used for decades and there has been a noticeable lack deaths or injuries as a result. Or, if you prefer, because no convincing evidence has been adduced that it is doing any harm.

So, how about justifying the banning of glyphosate ? Is that responsble for another pile of bodies we've all somehow missed?

Lotus-eater

Afaik 2 years ago was the first time this was detected in our water, why, either due to use or detection I don't know.
The problem is, that we really don't know what the repercussions are, nor do we know what problem it may have caused before, we just don't know. And if someone does know they are staying silent, certainly the companies selling the stuff are very tight lipped about any details.

But as I said before, what we do know is bad enough and should be enough to be sensible and say, this stuff is very bad for us and is getting into the main thing we need to stay alive, lets at least get rid of it for amateur users, where the usage can't be monitored.
I honestly don't understand your reluctance to change, the new safer pellets are available, why not use them?

I tend to be pragmatic about the whole thing, if things are shown to be bad for us or the environment, then get rid, the problem is of course is the doubt, in the past it has been shown time after time that these chemicals have been bad for us, that's why you won't find many people giving them the benefit of the doubt.


I only heard a few months ago that Glyphosate is maybe showing signs of being not so nice, I haven't heard much more about it since then. Depends why it's being banned.

A._Badger

The OP raised, IMO, a very valid point about the current EU craze for banning pesticides.

It isn't about reluctance to change per se, it is about having technological advances being rolled back on the scantiest of evidence, at the behest of activists.

Fine. If clear evidence exists that a product is doing genuine harm, then it is reasonable to restrict its use. Otherwise, it is just pandering to a noisy lobby.

This behaviour began with the banning of DDT (for which even Rachel Carson herself did not advocate a total ban) with the net result that, quite literally, millions of people were condemned to a hideous death from malaria on what turns out to have been flimsy evidence and highly emotive campaigning.

As I've said before, I couldn't care less if other people want to put their faith in Steiner's crackpot 'biodynamic' gardening method, or anything else that takes their fancy.

I'm perfectly willing to leave other people to make their own choices. Why can't the soi disant 'Greens' do the same?

I promise I won't make anyone else eat one of my cabbages!

colt

The OP raised, IMO, a very valid point about the current EU craze for banning pesticides.

It isn't about reluctance to change per se, it is about having technological advances being rolled back on the scantiest of evidence, at the behest of activists.

Could'nt agree more

I raised the same orginal question on our site today and 90% of plot holders think the EU have alot to answer. The trouble is with so many being removed people have started using pesticides that are mainly for industrial use, but are being used by the allotment holder. This in my opinion is causing more problems than the banned chemicals.

fedup100pc

I’m afraid it isn't be possible for an increase in pests being down to the banning or certain pesticides. This is because the number of pests in the world would be zillions higher than the mere handful that gardeners and farmers kill. The banning of certain pesticides wouldn’t even cause a minor blip in the big picture of things.

Even natural predators can’t put a minor dent in the number of pests out there. I have a Beech hedge in my garden and every year the foliage is absolutely covered in whitefly and the hornets and wasps can’t eat a tiny fraction of them there is that many. And that is just my one hedge.