Talk:Pesticide

This page is a good start but needs a lot of expansion considering it is such an important topic. We should really try to check the POV on the large chunk of (well written) text added by an anonymous ip who is most likely from the pesticide industry. We dont want this page to be a propaganda party. We need more on the environmental effects of pesicides, and we should consider merging some info from other articles. Fred, see the definition of pest which i added to the beginning of the article.Bonus Onus 04:27, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Could it be possible to isolate american policy from general discussion over pesticide consideration ? Anthère

It is a pleasure to contribute to what was already a good start as noted by Bonus Onus. I have tried to improve the text on pesticide dangers by modifying material that direct experience with the US regulatory process tells me is controversial or POV. For some specific examples, I changed "prove" to "indicate" where it was said that the US regulatory process requires that pesticides must be proven to be safe, and "scientifically sound risk assessments" to "scientifically based risk assessments." The latter change is due to the fact that the science that goes into these risk assessments is often marginal, and the final conclusions of US EPA risk assessments have been documented to be affected by political pressure. But to bash the science and conclusions that hard would have been to unnecessarily bias the discussion towards my opinion, so I have tried to use neutral terms. Interested readers should be given links to some case studies so they can form their own opinions, but I don't have those at hand.

I also tried to make the text less consumer-centric. For example, the dangers of pesticides section didn't include dangers to workers, and that is a big omission, because although not very well off and small in numbers relative to consumers, they are often badly impacted. I didn't touch much of the text on pesticide residues except to change the term "residual pesticides" to its more common arrangement, "pesticide residues." I have to do some homework on pesticide residues first, but after I do, I will be able to provide a bit more text on that subject fairly easily.

Finally, Anthère's request that the US-centricness woven into the article should be isolated seems completely fair, and I would be willing to tackle the separation at some point. My thought is that the section on pesticide regulation should have most of this material, and it should have subsections for various countries or blocks that regulate pesticides. On the other hand, the US has traditionally been a leader both in the use and regulation of pesticides, and many other countries have followed the US regulatory model and specific decisions, so the US-centricness is more generally applicable than it might seem. Brian Hill 01:37 Nov 13, 2005 (UTC)

At the moment the article seems to be biased against the use of pesticides with little on either the benefits of their use or the regulatory controls in place to control their use and ensure their safety. To start of saying 'Pesticides are usually, but not always, poisonous to humans' is emotive and misleading. Many pesticides have remarkably low acute toxicity and are no more toxic than a wide range of other chemicals we use. Cases of poisoning attributed to pesticides in the developed world are extremely rare these days. The section on regulation seems to concentrate on illegal use and the banning of particularly hazardous pesticides. I would like to see more on the systems in place to ensure safety to opertors, consumers and the environment (I work for a regulatory authority btw). A more balanced view (I believe) is to minimise the use of pesticides but to recognise their benefits. I have added links to the US and UK regulatory authorities and the European Commission plant health pages, all of which contain large amounts of information, and there are many other simialr websites.

Regarding Brian Hill's assertation that the "US-centricness" is more generally applicable I would urge caution. There are some substantial differences between the US and European systems. I believe the US system does not require a pesticide to be effective only to meet safety standards. In Europe pesticides can only be approved if there is an overall benefit to their use. This is a large area If I can find the time I will try and add an overview of the current European system. Maccheek 10:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion...I must admit I was dissapointed by this page. I stumbled upon this page looking for information about pesticides and discovered that there was scant little information in this article about pesticides themselves. What are the specific pesticides that are currently used? What are their chemical structures? How do they work? How are they used? Why are they used? This information is almost completely lacking. I'm not sure if the article names a single modern pesticide aside from DDT. Organophosphate pesticides and organochlorine pesticides are mentioned, but not explained. The sections about regulation, dangers, etc, are quite good but the lack of anything else makes the whole article appear unbalanced.

I read this article and learned almost nothing about pesticides, except for the fact that the authors of this article don't like pesticides. And statements like "Pesticides are tools of convenience" and "Reducing the use of pesticides and replacing high risk pesticides is the ultimate solution to reducing risks placed on our society from pesticide use." don't appear very neutral to me, it's a policy suggestion. Pmw2cc.

Follow the links in the 'Types of pesticide' section of the page, most have long lists of specific pesticides.sbandrews 23:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of pesticide

The inclusion of herbicides within the concept pesticide is troublesome to an English speaker because pest = bug. Fred Bauder 19:24, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is standard language among manufactuers, farmers, acadamia, and government regulators. Herbicides and insecticides are considered subsets of pesticides... -Nydigoveth

Do insect repellents (DEET, etc) count as pesticides? Bonus Onus 15:33, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

The definition of "pesticide" is as something that kills, not as something that attracts or repels or does anything but kill. This is the definition in use for Category:Insecticides and Insecticide I'm wondering if a similar "killing only" definition would be appropriate here and in Category:Pesticides. With regard to the question about DEET, there is an obscure term, "insectifuge" which means "insect repellent" and I'm considering creating Category:Insect repellents Category:Insectifuges. I recently created (please don't laugh ... even though I did when I made it) Category:Human-animal conflict into which I could put Category:Insecticides but not Category:Pesticides, which leaves things like DEET out in the cold, having to be added to the "conflict" category article-by-article, which I don't find savory. Courtland 02:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I got rid of "control, attract or repel" in the definition of pesticide. According to standard definitions (e.g., [http://www.dictionary.com/), it is indeed something that kills pests, as already noted by Courtland. Also, "-cide" is a Latin suffix meaning "kill." There is already a broader term that covers other ways of dealing with pests: "integrated pest management." Brian Hill 03:00, Nov 13, 2005 (UTC)

I replaced existing definition with EPA's definition because they are the lead US agency and pesticides do more than just kill. Ozdog 22:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The European regulatory system uses the term 'Plant Protection Product' to include products such as fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, repellants, bio-control agents and plant growth regulators. Maccheek 10:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Biopesticides

A biopesticide is different from pesticides because instead of depending on chemical substances to control undesired species, it uses other orgamisms to control them, for example: a mushroom spore that if eaten by an insect it affects it's digestive system, leading to it's death. Later on the developed mushrooms are either easy to remove or non-harmful to humans.

This reduces the human health risk, but doesn't reduce the damage to the ecosystem, since it still kills an species and adds another one.

Dangers of pesticides

Anyone know of scientific studies (with verifiable sources) that can be added to support claims that pesticide use is harmful to humans (e.g. kids and pregnant women)? I've noticed that large studies in both the US (i.e. the Agricultural Health Study) and Canada (by the National Cancer Institute of Canada) have been done that failed to find any evidence of, at least cancer risk, and non are referenced in this article (yet).

What would also be useful would be a description of what tests a proposed pesticide would have to fail to be refused government (e.g. EPA) approval, and what they have to fail to be approved but only under close regulation. the link in the article is to a pesticides critical site and should probably replaced or balanced with something more neutral.

this link is in the organic food article, but is mostly concerned with effects of direct pesticide exposure. i would be also interested in studies that whether pesticide residues in food are dangerous, or better a summary of studies.

• Extensive Press Release on Pesticides from the Ontario College of Family Physicians

--trueblood 15:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference seems not to apply to the statement it's used for. It is referenced with respect to controlling the population of mosquitoes, and killing the natural control factors. I couldn't find (in admittedly, a brief read) more than a brief mention of mosquitoes in though I suppose the inference could be made based on later statements about animals consuming insects that have been poisoned. In general, I think this may be a pretty weak reference. Opinions and/or more solid references appreciated. --24.12.15.52 01:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Plant Growth Regulators?

Removed : "* Plant Growth Regulators [1] for the modification of plant growth (examples: prevention of lodging in wheat, earlier initiation of flowering, production of larger table grapes and stimulation of root growth of cuttings)"

because these agents are not directed against a specific "pest". Ekem 23:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

Added a link to pesticideinfo.org. I would like to acknowledge that linking to pesticideinfo.org is self-promotion. I am a maintainer of that site. However, to verify that it is a significant resource, try web searches for specific pesticides, such as chlorpyrifos, methyl isothiocyanate, or chloropicrin, for example, and note pesticideinfo.org's ranking. Also, I removed the badly formatted and incorrectly placed croplifeamerica.org link from the external links to regulatory agencies. I will add a well-formatted link to croplifeamerica.org. Brian Hill 23:52, 25 April, 2006 (PDT)

Merge with article "Protectant"

Under "Types of pesticides" I propose the content in "Protectant" be merged with "Pesticides". Tmchk 19:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with the proposal, the subject of natural protectants deserves its own page. sbandrews 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a section in Pesticides, that briefly describes protectants and then says something like, "see main article on protectants". Tmchk 03:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Either way, I think the section "Types of pesticides" could be improved. I'll try to add an introduction to the section so it isn't just a list, or if it is a list, it's purpose relates better to the overall subject. Tmchk 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Globalise?

Would it be possible to get a definition that isn't specific to the USA? The article seems to be centred around pesticides in America (the diagram is of America as well) Does anyone else think I should add a {{globalise}} tag? (or is it jus me being... um... me) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is US specific, though I do not think it needs a globalize tag. We could add something about DDT being banned in Africa. Tmchk 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it "banned" in Africa? It might be banned for agricultural use, but the WHO is very specific on its availability for use in public health. See the malaria page. Reports about DDT and banning should be handled with care - there's a lot of misinformation out there. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Editoral Errors

The sentence using source 5 as a reference was wrong - someone had misread the source. The quote is "Organophosphates have gained popularity worldwide in preference to organochlorines, which are persistent and more damaging to the environment."

I have changed the sentence to reflect this error. source is reproduced below for convience!

http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1020-49892003000800004&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=en

Errors

In "Managing pesticides" the author is confused over the term "tankmixing". The word pesticides encompasses herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. The term does NOT mean the application of 2 different insecticides as this would be pointless and even illegal. If the insect is resistant to one insecticide you would not then apply it with another insecticide, you would simply use an effective product. No insecticide has a permit for application with another insecticide. "Tankmixing" means applying a herbicide (one or more), possibly with a fungicide (one or more), possibly with an insecticide. Mixes are carefully regulated.

In "Continuing development" the author is quick to point the finger at "agribusiness", implying that small farmers are everyone's friends and use fewer insecticides. This enables us to see the real reason for anti-pesticide sentiment - anti business / technology rather than because pesticides are dangerous. Tomcrisp7 11:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies & misleading slants

This article is filled with many facts that are ripped out of their wider context; it is extremely biased against pesticide use.

I regret not having time to correct all these errors (nor do I even know how to edit these pages, despite having tried & failed) but I will give one example:

Reference is made to, "However, in the 1960s, it was discovered that DDT was preventing many fish-eating birds from reproducing which was a huge threat to biodiversity." That is a perfect example of misleading info.

What is not said here is that the original scientists who conducted this early experiment later discovered that their experiment contain major flaws -- they had accidentally given the birds an unnatural and calcium-deficient diet, in addition to the DDT, and had included deildrin, a known softener of egg shells. They redid the study and then reversed their conclusion and stated that DDT has no negative effect on birdlife.

Numerous studies over many years have thoroughly refuted the initial claim that DDT has any negative effect on wildlife or birdlife or on bird egg shells -- but this is not mentioned in this article. Typical of the anti-pesticide crowd, the "fact" that a study once "proved" that DDT threatened birdlife is often repeated on all the anti-pesticide sites and is never corrected; it is thoroughly believed (and perpetuated) by the public, aided by inaccurate articles such as this one. But scientists all agree that the wealth of studies showing no negative effects from DDT are irrefutable.

More on this inaccuracy, and on the reversal of the initial (inaccurate) conclusion by the scientists who conducted this study can be found at: Anderson DW, Hickey JJ, Risebrough RW, Hughes DF, Christensen RE. Significance of chlorinated hydrocarbon residues to breeding pelicans and cormorants. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 1969; 83:91–112.

Numerous further studies that set the record straight on the safety of DDT can be found at:

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

It's my hope someone else will be able to set the DDT-bird record straight. I am not versed in wiki editing. Also, I would hope others may be able to follow some of the links at the immediately above site and discover the many other inaccuracies in this article.

Another area of concern: Numerous "risks" are pointed out in the article without mentioning that most risks -- aside from being unproven and theoretical -- are related only to farmers who spray pesticides and have no relevance whatever to the minuscule residues on food ingested by consumers. As much as 99 percent of all residue is removed before eaten by consumers and the amounts are a few harmless molecules to begin with.

Also not mentioned is any relevance for such statements as "A higher risk of Parkinson's disease from pesticides"; these epidemiological studies prove nothing and further, a "70 percent higher risk" is considered insignificant in epidemiological studies (which never prove cause and effect in any cae). Because of the variables in epidemiology, anything less than a 300 percent greater risk is considered to be due to chance or confounding factors. But it sounds serious doesn't it? This is bad science.

The problem with this article is that it has been written by biased persons who have zero grasp of the fundamentals of scientific evidence.

209.161.228.166 18:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

209.161.228.166 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

== Inaccuracies & misleading slants ==

This article is filled with many facts that are ripped out of their wider context; it is extremely biased against pesticide use.

I regret not having time to correct all these errors (nor do I even know how to edit these pages, despite having tried & failed) but I will give one example:

Reference is made to, "However, in the 1960s, it was discovered that DDT was preventing many fish-eating birds from reproducing which was a huge threat to biodiversity." That is a perfect example of misleading info.

What is not said here is that the original scientists who conducted this early experiment later discovered that their experiment contain major flaws -- they had accidentally given the birds an unnatural and calcium-deficient diet, in addition to the DDT, and had included deildrin, a known softener of egg shells. They redid the study and then reversed their conclusion and stated that DDT has no negative effect on birdlife.

Numerous studies over many years have thoroughly refuted the initial claim that DDT has any negative effect on wildlife or birdlife or on bird egg shells -- but this is not mentioned in this article. Typical of the anti-pesticide crowd, the "fact" that a study once "proved" that DDT threatened birdlife is often repeated on all the anti-pesticide sites and is never corrected; it is thoroughly believed (and perpetuated) by the public, aided by inaccurate articles such as this one. But scientists all agree that the wealth of studies showing no negative effects from DDT are irrefutable.

More on this inaccuracy, and on the reversal of the initial (inaccurate) conclusion by the scientists who conducted this study can be found at: Anderson DW, Hickey JJ, Risebrough RW, Hughes DF, Christensen RE. Significance of chlorinated hydrocarbon residues to breeding pelicans and cormorants. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 1969; 83:91–112.

Numerous further studies that set the record straight on the safety of DDT can be found at:

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

It's my hope someone else will be able to set the DDT-bird record straight. I am not versed in wiki editing. Also, I would hope others may be able to follow some of the links at the immediately above site and discover the many other inaccuracies in this article.

Another area of concern: Numerous "risks" are pointed out in the article without mentioning that most risks -- aside from being unproven and theoretical -- are related only to farmers who spray pesticides and have no relevance whatever to the minuscule residues on food ingested by consumers. As much as 99 percent of all residue is removed before eaten by consumers and the amounts are a few harmless molecules to begin with.

Also not mentioned is any relevance for such statements as "A higher risk of Parkinson's disease from pesticides"; these epidemiological studies prove nothing and further, a "70 percent higher risk" is considered insignificant in epidemiological studies (which never prove cause and effect in any cae). Because of the variables in epidemiology, anything less than a 300 percent greater risk is considered to be due to chance or confounding factors. But it sounds serious doesn't it? This is bad science.

The problem with this article is that it has been written by biased persons who have zero grasp of the fundamentals of scientific evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.161.228.166 (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Outrageous

The information in this article is almost completely falsified.

Numerous statements are made without factual basis (such as the untrue assertion that pesticides accumulate in the environment or in our bodies; in fact, today's pesticides are biodegradable and break down in the fields and in our bodies into harmless metabolites -- every single molecule can be tracked radiographically and we know where every molecule ends up).

Numerous risks are cited without the context that proves these are not valid risks at all (such as implying that an association between ingestion of huge amounts of pesticides by farmers equates to any risk whatsoever to consumers who eat microscopic molecular amounts of pesticide residue on their foods).

Numerous studies are cited without any grasp of scientific proof levels (such as the constant citation of epidemiological studies, commonly accepted by scientists to be unable to prove any cause and effect; also omitted from the "70% greater risk" statements in this article, is the fact that only a 300% greater risk is considered to be meaningful to scientists in epidemiological studies).

This is bad science at its worst.

This article is beyond repair because the numerous assertions that have serious inaccuracies and unscientific slants are in every paragraph. Obviously written by environmentalists and anti-pesticide activists, it stirs suspicion of all wiki material on the site.

...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.161.228.166 (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

It certainly appears that way doesnt it? But no one ever said that wikipedia is a good source of unbiased information.Bugguyak 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Contact pesticides

Shouldn't these pesticides be included in the types of pesticides? --Yuenho 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Benefits of pesticides

I added a section of the benefits of pesticides since the article has such a negative slant. The section seriously needs to be expanded. Bugguyak 16:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I've just done a major copy edit, I hope no one minds my boldness. I would also like to suggest that we merge the two environmental effects sections, perhaps into a level 2 heading of its own. Also, I'd like to take out some of the detail from the pest resistance section and move it to pesticide resistance, a stub which is actually shorter than the section at this page. Any objections? I may go ahead and be bold if I don't hear any soon. delldot talk 18:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

K, well, I'd like to go ahead rather than waiting for a response, so I'll just go ahead, and if there are any problems with the edit we can undo the problematic part. So I'm going to put an {{inuse}} on the article for maybe 45 minutes. Hope this works for everyone. delldot talk 21:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Runoff" problem

I have a problem with the following statement in the article:

"Pesticide runoff has been found to be highly lethal to amphibians, according to a recent study by the University of Pittsburgh."

The study cited was not a "runoff" (i.e. rainfall runoff, which is what the term is usually used to mean) study but a study in which glyphosate was added to ponds to simulate the concentrations which might occur from direct sprays of the chemical onto water or possibly worst-case spray drift. Thus the statement is incorrect and might be changed to something like "pesticide spray drift directly onto water bodies can be damaging to aquatic ecosystems: see.e.g. [url cited]. I say "can" here because some, but not all pesticides have this problem. This is my first foray into wiki editing so please tell me if I am doing the right thing here...DonWauchope 02:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty good proposal, Don. I'd say you should go ahead! Don't be afraid to be bold with your edits. Yilloslime 02:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good for that study, Don, go ahead. Just a nitpicky thing: I'd recommend just using the citation at the end of the sentence rather than saying "see". Like this. I think the claim that runoff is lethal to amphibians can be substantiated with other sources, so I'll look for some. delldot talk 02:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that delldot, make a claim then look for sources to substantiate it. Bugguyak 12:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There's this reference, about the toxicity of organophosphate oxons to amphibians at environmentally relevant concentrations. The link is a news story about the study, and I haven't had a chance to dig up the actual report. Yilloslime 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback--I'll make the change. I think I will try to add info to this site a little bit at a time but I will always stick it under "proposed changes" for comment first. DonWauchope 19:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)