[…] A new joint report from the two NGOs has found that 37 active substances currently approved for use in pesticides are PFAS. That equates to 12 per cent of all approved synthetic substances. […]
I’ve got a technical bone to pick with the article. It seems that the article is referring to the active ingredients in pesticides themselves (instead of, say, some kind of perfluorinated surfactant additive). The active ingredients of the two pesticides called out in the article (Flufenacet and Diflufenican) each contain a -CF3 unit, and so they are PFASs themselves. The molecular structures are published, so saying “PFASs SHOCKINGLY discovered in pesticides” is a bit like saying “metal SHOCKINGLY discovered in food additives” in reference to table salt. Now admittedly table salt is pretty benign and pesticides are decidedly not, at least to certain organisms.
As a side note, fluorinated functional groups (including polyfluoroalkyls, the “PFA” of PFAS) are often incorporated into bioactive molecules to increase metabolic stability or to change properties like lipophilicity and acidity/basicity. This, even though fluorinated organic molecules are extremely rare in nature. You find them all the time in drugs, including well-known ones like fluoxetine (Prozac) and celecoxib (Celebrex). Given the huge space of possible structures that could contain such a group, I am skeptical that all polyfluoroalkyl-containing molecules (PFASs) are as bad as e.g., PFOS wrt stability and toxicity; however, given their greater tendency to stick around relative to their non-fluorinated counterparts, regulation is likely prudent, especially for higher-volume chemicals like coatings, surfactants, and yes, pesticides.
Wow, game over then. Looks like we’re all fucked. Apart from my son, who shuns vegetables.
Go for organics instead (obviously only an option if finances allow for it).
Eating animal products certainly is not the answer. Not least since those animals usually are fed with soy/corn grown in regions where pesticide use is not particularly well-regulated.
“Forever chemicals” is only mostly true anymore. There are ways to deal with at least some of them, although them being in the environment already makes it a lot harder. If humans would stop emitting, there’d be a chance of slowly getting to a better state again though.
Eating meat doesn’t save you. Animals eat pesticide-laced plants, you (or our son) eats animal. It doesn’t magically disappear in-between.
“Chronic exposure to a glyphosate-containing pesticide leads to mitochondrial dysfunction and increased reactive oxygen species production in Caenorhabditis elegans.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29190595
Im guessing all the news articles are intentionally not mentioning how long these chemicals last
My sarcastic comment is Isn’t that implied in the designator “forever chemical”?
But my real response is: The article doesn’t say. And I’m all for a healthy dose of skepticism. Does forever really mean forever? Or do the people studying this just not actually know yet? I’m fairly ignorant on the actual research on this.
I’d love to read a study explains it. I’ve only read stories like this. They outline we have a problem, and the more articles I read on PFAS, they seem pretty unavoidable. I was reading one that basically said it’s in our rain as well, so even the paper straws you get at restaurants contain them.
“Forever” means longer than is practical for humans. Nuclear waste doesn’t emit lethal doses of gamma radiation forever but it might as well be as it is in the timescale of 100’000 years and longer, a timescale which doesn’t compare to a human scale. I mean we haven’t even had electricity for 1000 years, yet alone 100’000.
Another reason a clear number isn’t given is because we don’t know for sure. If a scientist says “we’re not sure best guess at least 500 years” then the newspapers will headline “PTFE STAYS IN BABIES BRAINS FOR 500 YEARS”. A headline people will remember. In 20 years someone finds out it doeen’t accumulate in the brain but in the liver and the kidneys, and that until death, so for 90 years, not 500. Newspapers will headline “PTFE NOT IN BRAIN BUT LIVER”. People will go “aha, science can’t be trusted!” and refuse to get vaccinated, deny climate change or similar stupid things.
That is why scientists have become very, very cautious in giving out simple numbers which can and will be quoted out of context and in a misleading way until they are very, very sure.
As a computer scientist, I totally understand the reluctance to publish certain information. I am admittedly not “smart” on biology or other science topics, which is why I’ll never claim to have an understanding.
And it’s why I take headlines with a grain of salt. Basically, until death is what I’d consider forever. And I’d imagine they’d be transferred to whatever decomposes us. Like how mercury is very prevalent in large fish. But that’s an assumption.
Genetic engineering, hydroponics, and vertical farming.
Yet we’re still tilling lands for our food, which requires the destruction of ecosystems (even more so for “organic” farming) and fucktons of pesticide to keep weeds, bugs, and animals away.
GMO is for single crop mass production combined with extreme herbicides/fungicides. Basically biofuels and cattle feed. Also monoculture is devastating for the environment, both animals and other plants. Not a solution, nice for big chem not for the rest.
GMO could be used for better purposes. The issue is that the companies that currently control this market are the same-old agrochemicals companies that also sell pesticides and otherwise stand to profit off unsustainable practices too. If it were nonprofits developing GMOs, with goals that include ecosystem vitality, GMOs might be one part of addressing issues like droughts.
This. GMO is a fantastic technology which would get abused by the most evil of companies. That’s why it’s better to not use it at all because it would mean it’d only get used by them for evil purposes.
You’re throwing the whole technology under the bus because one or two big names are using it in a way that fits in their existing corporate ecosystem.
“Won’t anyone think of the sweet little grandmas genetically modifying plants at home for their beautiful home vegetable gardens? Not only huge powerful evil companies would actually get to do it!”
Dumb way to try and shut down an argument. I’m pretty sure you still have a phone, drive a car, have a computer, connect devices to the Internet.
Hydroponics and vertical farming never seem to grow anything with calories
The problem with hydroponics and vertical farming is, well, sunlight. How do you get sunlight to a plant that isn’t in direct view of the sun?
These things may be space efficient, buy they’re resource and energy intensive, as you cannot just use naturally occurring soil, and neither can you use naturally occurring sunlight. Fields are an effective, if space inefficient, way to grow crops.
GMOs are just a straight positive though, if they’re used correctly (and not like, patented).
GMOs are just a straight positive though, if they’re used correctly (and not like, patented).
Which will never happen. What company will invest billions if it can’t rake in the profits and completely control the markets later? It isn’t profitable enough.
Which is why I think GMO should be a public research effort, free for the world to use, ideally.
That would be nice, yeah
…hold on a second. Public research? ARE YOU A FILTHY COMMUNIST?
/s
If we ate fewer animal products - and this is important, we don’t have to go full vegan, just less - we’d have more than enough land to feed everybody. Even if we got to 15 billion it would suffice.
Much of the land we use for animals is not land that can be used for farming. And the animals eat a, lot of the products that would be considered waste otherwise (i.e. Wheat chaff).
But yes, I agree. However, this is not specific to animals. We live our lives with excess. A supermarket needs to be well stocked at all times with flawless products or everyone will complain. This requires an industry that over produces and throws a lot away. A complete waste of resources.
You know that “organic” farming does not use pesticides? You also know that fields, where to a certain degree weeds are allowed to grow and which are not handled overly destructive (so organic farming + hedges + smaller patches + fruit circle) are also important ecosystems?
You know that “organic” farming requires more land and more water and produces more food waste?
More land destroys use ecosystems, creates monocultures, which leads to more disease, and soils get tired.
If you rotate your crops the soil does not get tired. If you need to water your crops, then you plant the wrong ones.
Good organic farming thereby is not as monocultural as conventional farming, because you can only use physical methods to fight weed.
Also if you look at the landuse we have it’s very small compared to older times, at least speaking for Europe. The problem is mostly not that we use the space, but how we use and destroy it with conventional farming. Also most of the landuse is for animal food, which can easily be reduced. If you extensively put the farm animals on grass again the nature can also benefit.
Crop rotation is not industry sustainable and still tires out soil. Water is always necessary.
We have better more modern options. All this nonsense about “organic” farming is only complacency talking, that or straight up believing the wrong things. Sick of dumbasses limiting human progress.
