I fully agree that harmful chemicals should not be used for growing food, as well as other plants, and encourage all efforts to identify them and eliminate them from agriculture. I myself purchase certain organic products, such as apples and strawberries for the reasons mentioned in the article.

However, I think it is disingenuous to suggest that organic brussels sprouts or any other organic products, unless it comes from someone you know or you grow it yourself, is free of pesticides.

As far as I have looked into this, the following chemicals okay for organic agriculture...

copper ammonium carbonate
copper sulphate
copper oxychloride
rotenone, sulphur
nicotine sulfate
veratrine
azadirachtin
salannin
potassium permanganate
pyrethrin

Checking the pesticideinfo.org website, as somene suggested, reveals we know very little about some of these chemicals. For example, veratrine. I did learn that it is a carcinogen, affects mammalian fetuses, and that birds are very sensitive to it, but there is little additional information. And this is considered one of the safer natural pesticides.

Yes, I've posted this short list of chemicals several times. I'm probably considered a troll for for this. But an informal survey of friends and family reveals that a lot of people think organic farmer use chemicals that can cause cancer in mammals, kill fish, or kill birds that might ingest treated caterpillars. This is very very wrong.

It would be nice if some of the organic farmers officially contributing articles or commenting on the Grist website would make an effort to explain why these chemicals are really okay. Are you sure they are safe? How do you know? Shouldn't consumers be aware that such chemicals are used and that, if not used properly, they are deadly?

Part my reaction, of course, is because I feel GMOs are overly demonized. But if we are going to discuss food safety, whether conventional agriculture is dangerous, whether GMOs are even more dangerous, whether the solution is organic farming, then I think ALL the cards should be on the table. It is not right to discuss the hazards of a given GMO without telling consumers what is actually used to grow the organic version.

All you have to do is address the issue. I probably lack the information I need to no longer worry about this. Please try to share whatever you know that will convince me it is not a problem.

I think ALL food should be labeled to indicate where it came from, whether it is a GMO, and exactly what chemicals were sprayed on the plant, whether conventional or permitted under organic farming rules. Consumers should be fully informed.

Informal survey... should say...

But an informal survey of friends and family reveals that a lot of people think organic farmers DON'T use chemicals that can cause cancer in mammals, kill fish, or kill birds that might ingest treated caterpillars.

I'll add...

They are actually surprised to learn organic farmers use any chemicals whatsoever.

-Stephanie
Nutrition-Solution.Net

If the chemicals can be used, shouldn't consumers be aware of it? Or do you prefer that consumers incorrectly assume the organic produce they buy has never been touched by chemicals and that no animals were harmed? Sounds like greenwashing to me. I think consumers should be fully informed. Using your logic, I could argue that most GMOs are safe, so there is no reason to label them.

If the chemicals I listed are not used to any significant degree, then why not ban all chemicals from organic agriculture? If the chemicals are perfectly safe, why not let consumers know they were used?

You indicated that you use common sense to back up the notion that organic growers are not dumping tons of these chemicals on their crops. Well, I know one person who was going into organic farming because he thought it would be a profitable market niche. He would have no qualms about using whatever chemicals were available if it helped him out.

Some farmers appear to be jumping on the organic wagon to make money, not to be responsible stewards of the land. And organic produce appears to be shipped as far as conventional produce. Common sense suggests there is no reason to trust someone hundreds of miles or thousands of miles away. Why not label the products so we can decide whether we are comfortable consuming them?

One brief note: there's no such thing as a perfectly safe chemical.  All actions have equal and opposite reactions, so the issue is what the ecological reaction and your body's reaction to a chemical will be, not whether there will be one.

Would you please direct me to more information  about efforts to eliminate all pesticides and herbicides from agriculture without resorting to genetic engineering?

I'm interested in this primarily for personal reasons. I don't want to use chemicals -- natural or synthetic -- on the plants I'm growing, especially the fruit trees. Pests, of course, are becoming a problem. I'm concerned not only about the safety of natural pesticides -- for humans and wildlife -- but where they come from!

The one I mentioned above appears to be from a plant grown in China! So while we might feel good using it because it is better than synthetic pesticides, one has to wonder whether organic methods are used for growing the source of something like veratrine. How are the workers treated? How much land is sacrificed? Does the growing of the plant affect water quality? Do organic farmers look into this?

It is similar to the suggestion that fish emulsion is a natural fertilizer. Sounds great until one finds out it is from a very threatened fish -- menhaden -- that is an essential element in the ocean food web or from fish farms that are polluting the oceans.

When we consider using environmentally friendly alternatives to modern chemistry, we really have to look at exactly where those "wholesome" alternatives come. Any knowledgable folks want to tell us where most natural pesticides come from, how the plants are grown, how the pesticide is extracted, and what happens to the waste material?

But there's a fundamental problem/contradiction here: using agriculture instead of eating what grows naturally on its own creates problems with "pests," which of course are not really pests at all, but are insects that have adapted to certain ecological niches.  Humans have created pests by growing plants instead of letting what naturally grows do so.

Appears to be mined from the Earth...  and the mining and concentration process does not look very environmentally friendly...

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/334raymine.html

A lot of the suppliers are found in Asia. I wonder just how concerned they are about the environment. Is this really better than using GMOs?

New Hobby: Finding out exactly where chemicals approved for organic farming come from.

I still suspect organic farming is better than conventional agriculture as far as the environment is concerned, but I'm starting to wonder. Should I really spend money on organic produce if I'm encouraging open pit mining? And will organic methods be good for the environment if copper sulfate becomes one of the primary means of controlling fungi?

I welcome any information from organic farming experts who might diffuse my concern. Your silence suggest there is a serious problem here and you would prefer consumers not be aware of it.