Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
garde_newbie_2010

Pesticide in fruit

garde_newbie_2010
13 years ago

Every time I'm in an orchard or at a farmers' market when i ask them if they use pesticide on their fruit, they often reply with "only on the flowers, not on the fruit", which is even more disturbing than on the fruit itself in which case i could just peel off the skin. if the pesticide is on the flowers that would mean it eventually will be *inside* the fruit which makes it impossible to avoid the poison if we want to eat fruit. does anyone know how pest control works in fruit farming please??

Thanks!

Comments (30)

  • jellyman
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Newbie:

    A question like this, potentially very broad and complex in scope, could get us into the organic/chemical debate, which is not a good place to go. You are probably not going to get answers here that will satisfy you, but if you are really interested in this topic do some research. When you do, try to find sources that explore both sides of this issue.

    Meanwhile, do you know of anyone who has been harmed by "poisons" in fruit? If you don't, you may take some comfort in that fact.

    Don Yellman, Great Falls, VA

  • alan haigh
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The farmers you have spoken to are not being forthright. They don't spray insecticide on flowers but probably use fungicide when trees are in bloom. Pristine fruit in the east usually receives in the neighborhood of 10 separate cover sprays- some seasons more than that. Organic production requires more sprays than this- although in the east a very tiny fraction of tree fruit is produced organically. Commercial production of organic tree fruit requires almost desert conditions during the growing season.

    By the time the fruit is sold it is safe to eat as pesticide materials today break down quickly although as Don mentioned there is controversy on this point that has often come up on this site. Many people feel that organic methods produce safer food although I personally question that assumption. The debate goes on and on.

  • garde_newbie_2010
    Original Author
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thank you for your followups! well, i was not trying to stir up any debate. just wondering if my effort of diligently peeling fruit is actually a waste if the poison is inside. I have no doubt that these fungicide and other chemicals we end up eating with food play a big role in why there are so many cancer patients around us. don't know if "organic" is any better... anyways guess we just don't have a choice sometimes. thanks! Lin

  • myk1
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    What makes you think the poison would be inside even if the flowers were sprayed?
    The fruit doesn't form around the flower. On all my fruits the part that grows into the fruit is behind the flower.

  • olpea
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I won't comment on pesticides and cancer, because it's been debated here before.

    However, regarding washing fruit, by far, most of the pesticide is on, or in, the skin. However, as Myk points out, it wouldn't be an issue if the pesticide was just sprayed on the blooms. I don't know where you're located or what fruit you are talking about, but as was mentioned, I suspect the seller was lying to you. Common fruits like peaches, plums and apples would need more of a spray regimen than at bloom, in most areas.

    Proceeding on that assumption, the FDA sites some studies that show how much pesticide residues were reduced by various methods of washing a processing. Link

    EPA residue maximum tolerance levels for most pesticides are less than 10 ppm. Washing a peeling can remove more than 99% of that.

    Below is some good information about pesticide residues put out by Cornell. The internet is full of biased environmental groups that misrepresent information, but I think Cornell has a balanced approach.

    I sold some peaches at a Farmer's Market last week, and got this question quite a bit. I do spray, and would prefer not to, but people won't buy wormy peaches.

    Here is a link that might be useful: Cornell Fact Sheet

  • tcstoehr
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I agree with above posters. The flower has a tiny fruit (ovary) at its base. It is sealed. Pesticides can't readily get inside it unless you mean thru the stigma itself, which is unlikely and such a microscopic amount.
    I'm more worried for the bees that are visiting these flower while the farmers are spraying.

  • franktank232
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Its tough to almost impossible to grow without chemicals, especially plums, apples and sweet cherries (around here). Fruits like pears, most berries and peaches (if they make it through winter) seem do OK without spray (although you'll still have damaged fruit). I didn't spray any chemicals this year and still am able to eat a lot of different fruits...If i did it over? I would have sprayed chemicals and probably had 2x as much fruit (or 95% more in the case of my apples/plums).

  • garde_newbie_2010
    Original Author
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks for all the followups. I especially appreciate olpea's useful links! Lin

  • mr.ed
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    One of reasons I grow it myself, is because, I can control pesticide use.

    But for commercial growers, it is a fact of life. A total crop failure is not an option, and with so many plants of the same species packed together, that is a real threat.

    That being said, most new pesticides are less harmful to humans, yet have a very short life in soil, fruit and environment. Is it perfectno. But it beats what you and I ate just 15 years ago. Hope you find some solace in that.

  • girlbug2
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    you might be interested in googling "the Dirty Dozen". It's a list of the top most pesticide-contaminated crops in the country. Topping the 2010 list is celery, followed by peaches, strawberries, apples and blueberries. The underlying principle seems to be that produce which you don't peel is the stuff that has the greatest amount of pesticide still on it by the time you go to eat it. The crops least likely to have pestide contamination (the "Clean 15) are the thickskinnned ones you peel, such as mangoes, bananas, and avocados.

    So basically what I'm saying is, pesticides appear to rest mainly on skins of fruits not inside the fruit--if that's any comfort to you.

  • oregonwoodsmoke
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Garde newbie, I have a suggestion.

    If you grow your own fruits and vegetables, you can control what is sprayed on the plants. Organic fruit and veggies do involve spraying with organic materials. It also involves some extra labor, but not too much extra labor if all you are growing is for one family.

    The chemicals used inside the USA are developed to do as little harm to non-target life forms as is possible. They all break down when exposed to sunlight.

    There are carefully tested withdrawal dates. The label will state how many days to stop spraying before harvest, to make sure that the chemical has enough time to break down.

    Now, if you are buying imported fruits and veggies, there is no way to know what has been sprayed on them, because the EPA is only in effect inside the USA, and there are some other countries that don't care what is sprayed on plants or what happens to the environment.

    Locally grown, from the farmers market, is going to be better than imported, in my opinion.

    Many of the sprays used are harmless to humans. Copper is sprayed in the fall and a thin mineral oil is sprayed in the spring. Sometimes bacteria that targets specific bugs and not humans is sprayed. So it is probably only the pesticides that you are worried about.

    If the fruit is grown inside the USA, and the farmer followed the label directions (and almost all do), you should be OK if you wash the fruit before you eat it.

    By the way, federal standards for organic are not the same as Mother Earth News standards for organic. If you want truly organic, grow your own, or buy from a farmer that you have carefully investigated and know you can trust. Expect real organic food to be quite expensive because it involves a lot of extra labor.

  • Monyet
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Do you know what happens to foreign fruits coming in the U.S.A? Mango's are beeing x-ray for insects.The seeds are usely killed by it. I use imadan to about 30 days before harvesting and i do not know if that is sufficient.I think imadan is one of the best chemicals in the orchard.What do you think?

  • gtippitt
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "The chemicals used inside the USA are developed to do as little harm to non-target life forms as is possible." The problem is that the chemical companies say one thing and the USDA politicians are paid to agree with it, and the truth is most often an entirely different thing entirely.

    DDT, Toxaphene, Chlordane, Benlate, etc. were all said to be so completely safe, you could practically spray them on your baby's bedclothes or use them for salad dressing if you were so inclined. The public was exposed to these chemicals for decades before the truth was known; that these chemicals were all deadly. Toxaphene pesticide contained more than 670 different chemicals. After 40 years of putting more than 500 million pounds of Toxapheen on our foods, its use was finally banned in the USA. There was found to be no safe use for Toxapheen. Its sale and use were banned in 1986 in the USA, but it was still legal to make it. For almost 20 years, our government allowed chemical companies in the USA to manufactor Toxapheen and sell it overseas. For 20 years after it was know that exposure to Toxapheen was deadly, the US goverment allowed companies sell it to farmers in Chile, where workers were exposed to high amounts. The fruits it was used on were then sent back to the USA for us to eat.

    I'm not going on an "Organic Jihad". Just because something is natural doesn't make it safe. For example don't decide to make a "healthy and natural" herbal tea from leaves of your tomato plants vines mixed with a handful of poison oak leaves. The extent to which synthetic poisons break down is debatable. The chemical companies say truthfully that their products break down after being exposed to air or sunlight for a given time. The problem is that the things they break down into may no longer be effective pesticides, but they are most often still very toxic chemicals.

    I think the most important thing to look for when you have a choice of a source for fruit and veg is to look for farmers who practice "Integrated Pest Management". IPM is the practice of using the fewest chemicals possible, regardless of their source. IPM farmers watch their crops carefully and use chemicals strategically to kill pest with the minimum of toxic chemicals. IPM strategically uses chemicals at the optimum times to interrupt the life cycle of pests and diseases, rather than simply spraying pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides on a set schedule whether they are actually needed or not. If an farmer has gone to the time consuming effort to get their farm certified organic, they have almost always also adopted IPM. Many organic and non-organic farmers have begun IPM, because it save them money on chemicals by simply using their eyes and brains.

    Farmers that tell you they spray their fruit trees with pesticides while they are blooming, are not using their brains. Regardless of the type of poison, natural or synthetic, spraying during blooming kills bees, prevents the trees from being pollinated properly, and reduces fruit yields. Poisons should not be sprayed until the blooms are falling off, and the fruit is about to begin formation.

    The alternative to having your fruits sprayed with some pesticides, is to have all of your fruit contain hidden little surprises alive in the next bite.

    "Do you know what is worse than finding a worm in an apple after you have taken a bite?"

    "Finding half a worm in the apple after you have taken a bite."

    On the other hand, irradiated foods are safe. The process is no different that the heat pasteurization of milk. It kills bugs and microorganisms in the food. Those of us of an age to remember of the Cold War have a natural tendency to think of radioactive fallout and cringe at the terminology. Anything you have put in your microwave oven is an "Irradiated Food". Exposing foods to ionizing radiation does not make the food radioactive. It does break down the DNA of any organisms in the food, just as boiling an egg breaks apart, or "denatures" the proteins in the egg.

    Other than what you can grow yourself, buying locally from farmers that practice IPM is the best way to get quality foods that are safe, fresh, good tasting, and have the least negative impact on our environment.

  • Embothrium
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    As usual it varies on a case by case basis. Which pesticide is applied, at what concentration, and when (relative to the time the fruits are consumed) are all pertinent to specific outcomes. Different pesticides have different modes of action and other characteristics. Trying to reduce every issue to all or nothing, black or white simplicity is unrealistic.

  • fruithack
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    There are books out that have the results of USDA tests for actual chemical residues found on randomly tested specific foods. Grains and nuts are very low risk in general, but everything else is dicy in general. Bananas are surprisingly safe. Strawberries, cherries, peaches, apples, spinach, and potatoes are pretty bad risks.

    The symptoms of pesticide poising are similar to food poising except with severe stomach cramping. For years I thought slightly less than ripe cherries gave me an upset stomach until I grew my own organically: it was the pesticides dummy! I will no longer eat commercial strawberries or cherries due to having gotten really sick from carefully washed fruit. I have lived 24/7 in commercial vineyards and orchards and the amount and frequency of chemicals applied is stunning. Typically in central Cal orchards something is sprayed from March until harvest on an average of every four days. I'm amazed no one has done a documentary on this. The push to increase yields has caused agriculture to become totally chemical centric. When you go into the market and see huge pieces of perfect fruit, figure it out! Better living through modern chemistry. When a small caterpillar is spotted crawling across one of my kid's salads I ask them whether they they would rather eat bugs they can see or chemicals they can't. I'm a pretty conservative person with a solid streak of redneck in me, but living in central California has put me face to face with some pretty gross realities.

  • alan haigh
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    This forum is about growing fruit in home orchard situations. There are other places one can go to discuss commercial food production and chemical inputs in commercial agriculture. For those interested, please go there.

  • olpea
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Well, I think I've crossed over from homeowner to commercial (although I still enjoy some of the homeowner aspects of fruit production). But I hope there are things I can learn, as well contribute. Really Hman, in strict terms, you're a commercial guy and contribute experience from that perspective. Frankly, I'm glad you do. It's benefited me.

    In terms of organic vs. conventional, I share Hman's frustration. It's the same arguments going round and round. There's lots of misinformation perpetuated or arguments exaggerated.

    For example, the idea that some pesticide degradates are at some level, toxic, is true. However, the idea that the EPA doesn't know this is completely false. I have personally discussed with a Bayer crop science chemist about the testing required to register a pesticide. He indicated in some cases they have to test 100 different degradates in the process.

    Fruithack, I can't comment on on the fruit orchards you've been involved with, but I can say that spraying every four days is not the norm in the Midwest.

    Midwest spray guides suggest every 10 days to two weeks depending on rain for cover sprays. This will give pristine fruit in the Midwest, which should have heavier pest pressure than CA.

    If there is a documentary showing pesticides being applied every four days, I'm sorry but I don't think it will be representative of the industry.

    This tends to be a religious topic, so I'll sign off on this thread.

  • alan haigh
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Yeah, it was the unreality of a 4-day spray schedule for grapes that made my teeth hurt. Here in the northeast the majority of sprays from summer on are fungicides that aren't even usually necessary in west coast conditions and labels never call for more than an application a week. What is sprayed repeatedly here is Captan by some growers because it washes off so easily.

    What I do has no more to do with commercial fruit production than any home orchardist. I just manage a lot more trees at a lot more sites. Only one site where I prune and do some consultation produces fruit for sale.

    Most of my customers don't want the sprays necessary for pristine fruit and I have more trouble with mammals and birds than insects or fungus (thanks largely to modern chemistry).

    Interestingly, one motive for my customers to do the extra sprays for pristine is that the food banks won't accept fruit that doesn't look like the stuff in the grocery store. So if they don't want to throw their usual surpluses away they have to make the fruit look perfect to give it away. I'm talking about literally tons of apples so it's hard to give them away to friends.

  • fruithack
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The practices in commercial orchards relate to home orchards in that they are often the motivation for the home orchardist. As far as exagerating "four days", objectively never more than seven days and as little as two days. There are obviously degrees of chemical use, and I described what I have seen in "commodity" orchards. Hman, I think you would be shocked if you could see what I have seen. I asked the farmers in question about the materials being used. It went something like this: What we're spraying today makes the blossoms open 3-4 days earlier, so we can get to market earlier. Spraying for mites. Herbicide. Fungicide. Growth hormone. Mildewcide. More pesticide... I'm not sure the tractors ever cool down. And the equipment used... Huge blowers that look like jet engines that throw the material up into the air 40-50' that then settles back down on the orchard (no atmospheric pollution there). Twin "U" shaped spray rigs with high pressure nozzles about every 10-12" for overlapping coverage that encircle two rows of grapes at a time- no surface of any leaf or fruit goes uncovered. Heck, I know it's not a perfect world, but it's gone so far past pest control ... the operating mindset seems to be "if in doubt, spray."

  • alabamanicole
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "Interestingly, one motive for my customers to do the extra sprays for pristine is that the food banks won't accept fruit that doesn't look like the stuff in the grocery store. "

    ... and this is why I no longer donate to food banks. I have seen them accept my donations in the front and walk out back and throw it in the trash. (Without, of course, telling the person who continues to take time to drive into town to drop off food -- in this case, ME.) Not just blemishes, but any cucumber which isn't exactly 8" long and perfectly oval is "damaged."

    The American obsession with plastic-looking produce borders on insanity. Especially since it also often tastes like plastic.

    Back to the OP's original question: if you want to know more about your food and the specific methods used when growing it, I suggest subscribing to a CSA. Alternately (or in addition to), form relationships with specific farmers who use methods that you feel comfortable with. One place to start looking is localharvest.org.

    You may also want to consider growing some of your own. It is quite possible to grow many berries organically on fairly small amounts of land. And since berries are high-priced crops, they can pay you back very quickly.

    But remember, not all "sprays" that fruit farmers use are pesticides or are toxic. If you are buying fruits with high pest pressure like peaches and apples, though, you will be hard pressed to find 100% organic providers. While it can be done, it usually isn't cost effective to someone trying to run a business.

  • alan haigh
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Organic apples and peaches are readily available but they are almost always grown in the west. If you're concerned about the environment there is the issue of trucking produce thousands of miles. Home growers have non toxic options that can make organic or very low-spray fruit possible anywhere in the country. For organic you've got to have the time for the extra work and not mind losing a sizable %age of your crop.

    Fruitback, I apologize for my grumpy response- I assumed you were a true believer spouting out pure exageration (not that I don't enjoy getting on the soapbox). Sounds like you're speaking from experience. The pressure on commercial producers to produce absolutely as much pristine fruit per acre as possible must be harrowing. Profit margins are small and competition fierce.

    Judging from what I'm getting from Cornell, and info sources like Good Fruit Magazine, blanket spray programs are well on their way out and larger growers at least are switching to some form of IPM which at the very least involves monitoring and identifying pests before spraying. Also determining if pest pressure has passed a certain threshold before doing so.

    There is a lot of pressure to get growers away from OP's and using the so called reduced risk pesticides. As far as I can tell the definition is almost entirely about materials that do the job at much lower concentrations of chemical. If Olpea hasn't tuned out of this discussion maybe he can explain to me how this necessarily would make a material more desirable.

    I think the main health dangers to this heavily intrusive agriculture are to the field workers and ground water and not so much the consumer. Of course others will disagree.

  • olpea
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hman,

    According to the EPA, they look at the following criteria before granting reduced risk status in descending order:

    *human health effects

    - very low mammalian toxicity
    - toxicity generally lower than alternatives (10-100X)
    - displaces chemicals that pose potential human health
    concerns [e.g., organophosphates (OPs), probable
    carcinogens (B2s)]
    - reduces exposure to mixers, loaders, applicators and reentry
    workers

    *non-target organism effects (birds)

    - very low toxicity to birds
    - very low toxicity to honeybees
    - significantly less toxicity/risk to birds than alternatives
    - not harmful to beneficial insects, highly selective pest
    impacts

    *non-target organism effects (fish)

    - very low toxicity to fish
    - less toxicity/risk to fish than alternatives
    - potential toxicity/risk to fish mitigatable
    - similar toxicity to fish as alternatives but significantly
    less exposure

    *groundwater (GW)

    - low potential for GW contamination
    - low drift, runoff potential
    - runoff mitigatable

    *lower use rates than alternatives, fewer applications

    *low pest resistance potential (i.e., new mode of action)

    *highly compatible with IPM

    *efficacy.

    Reduced risk products are gaining usage for the obvious reasons. That's one thing frequently omitted from discussions like these. The point is frequently made that organic methods will become more effective as their technology advances. However, advances in synthetics also continue to make them safer and more targeted. For example, I use an insecticide called Intrepid. It is so targeted that crops in full bloom (like blueberries) can be sprayed without fear of killing bees (Yes, I know about the theories of pesticide load in colony collapse disorder. I'm sure some are aghast after reading this, thinking Intrepid could be playing a role, but all I'm saying is that from the extensive testing done so far, Intrepid appears harmless to bees, while very lethal to OFM and CM larva.)

    As technology has advanced the EPA continues to phase out older more risky chemicals in favor of newer ones that have a much higher margin of safety, But the argument is always made, we may find out in 20 years these newer chemicals are unsafe. Granted, but as a society, we test with the best technological methods available. Yes, there are horror stories, but they are not limited to just agriculture (using white phosphorus in matches, mercury in the manufacture of hats, Paris Green to paint with, poorly designed cribs that choke babies, poorly designed accelerators that cause people to crash, Thalidomide-the most horrific) but we don't get rid of matches, hats, art, cribs, cars, or pharmaceuticals. We use the best technology of the time to assess risk, and keep moving forward.

    Fruithack,

    I really don't know that much about grapes (I've got one vine-Himrod) and even less about California grapes. Let me just say I'm surprised at your experience. Peaches are near the top of the list of the dirty dozen. I know something about peaches, and they are not sprayed anywhere near every 4 days.

    Hman,

    I'll make one more argument that commercial practices can have a place in home orchard situations. I'll use your words from another recent thread:

    "I don't think there's a single commercial orchard that uses disinfectant as part of normal pruning regimen except maybe for pruning out fire blight and black-knot. I never use it and have never regretted it."

  • franktank232
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Here is the pest list for peach growing in California.

    {{gwi:121794}}

    I'd post the pest list for the east coast, but it won't fit :)! j/k

  • myk1
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "I really don't know that much about grapes (I've got one vine-Himrod) and even less about California grapes. Let me just say I'm surprised at your experience. Peaches are near the top of the list of the dirty dozen. I know something about peaches, and they are not sprayed anywhere near every 4 days."

    If you read the second time he mentions that he's including everything at a worst case scenario without consideration as to what's being sprayed.

    You go out on Monday and spray oil. Wednesday you go out and spray sulfur. Friday you spray insecticide. Sunday you spray fungicide. Tuesday you spray growth hormone. Thursday you spray bee attractant.
    You're spraying on a 2 day schedule.

  • alan haigh
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Olpea, in this study of reduced risk pesticides, only the relative reduction of materials by weight is trumpeted as the virtue of reduced risk pesticides. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/esa/ae/2009/00000055/00000003/art00011 Thought you might find it interesting. I assume your definition is more complete.

    Also, of course commercial production research and techniques have important ramifications to and applications in home orchards. That's the main reason I try to stay on top of what is going on there. I was just saying that what I do for a living is essentially home production for other people. It is much different than growing fruit for sale.

  • Monyet
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    As long as we have politiciens that live of hand-out from the chemical industry, you would never find-out all there is to know about chemicals. company's do not have to share every thing about there product make-up(theyr trade secret). They are allowed to leave-out some of the crap! Are there any decent politiciens around? No, not in my books. The money that they make on the side, which is more than their regular salaries is what drives these guys.Take a look at the stuff from China. As long as our national debt is finance by them, look the other way. Foreign made and used chemicals are even worse, so if you elimanate that stuff, you are going in the right direction. I am an american and i buy strictly american and i live by it. I keep thinking about the earlier days and the working conditions our parents were expose to, much more dangeres to say the least. I am 71 years old and always have a small orchard and i spray 2,3,4 times a year whenever i feel like,and all i go to the doctor is for check-ups. By the way i still work with lead-came to do my traditional stainedglass,that is 30 years later. Talking-about cancer, now that is a great topic to start with.The way it was explained to me was, that the benefits of eating fruits far more benefits than eating Mcdonalds etc...

  • alan haigh
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    OK Persbob, yours is purely a political rant not really related to fruit growing, but I'll bite.

    Of course our politicians behave like the rest of us and are concerned first and formost about their own financial well being. They are professionals as are politicians in every industrialized country- the days of volunteer govt are long gone and unless you want volunteer billionaires running the country they aren't coming back.

    If you think the country would be better with campaigns that are run on taxpayer money, which is the only logical alternative I can think of, your going to have to live with politicians whose survival depends on bending to the desires of corporations. It looks like more and more corporate money will be going to influence elections and the idiot but ultimately decisive swing vote.

    I'm for taxpayer funding of elections myself, but it aint happening any time soon. Villifying politicians may be satisfying but they're not very different than the rest of us IMO. What country would you use as a model for a better form of democracy?

    On the bright side, the corporate moguls complain about the govt. also, probably none more than those in the chemical industry. I think most of them find the government excessively restrictive out of exaggerated concern about the safety of the environment and the citizenry.

  • Kevin Reilly
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I think some problems are:

    - The studies done for pesticides are financed by the companies who want to sell them.

    This is a huge conflict of interest. This can result in studies being omitted and/or biased so that the chemical can be sold.

    - There is know way to know the long term effects of pesticide use without using them long term. So any damage will have been done by the time it's deemed unsafe.

    How can we say that all pesticides/herbicides/fungicides are safe? Chemical runoff is causing male fish to bear eggs in some places. It's just intuitive to eat what we were made to eat. We evolved to eat things like peaches and apples, not "2,4-D low volatile ester" or "captan + thiophanate methyl".

  • fruithack
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hman- no offense taken. You've forgotten more than I'll ever know. I'm no idealist, but I know what I've seen. Ground water pollution is a major problem in central Cal where municipal wells are shut down regularly due to pesticide contamination.

  • alan haigh
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Fruitback, I've forgotten more than I know.

Sponsored
Grow Landscapes
Average rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars8 Reviews
Planning Your Outdoor Space in Loundon County?