Comment by gravelc
15 hours ago
Pesticides form the backbone of crop protection. Without them, we're looking at at least a 40% reduction in global yield, and much greater uncertainty in food supply chains (the oil shocks show how bad that can be). Pesticides per se are not the problem; synthetic broad-spectrum pesticides with many unintended effects are. They're often toxic to people and ecosystems, and resistance among pests and pathogens is increasing anyway, so their days are numbered to a degree. Biopesticides, which are generally safer and much more sustainable, offer a real solution to at least the safety issue.
I work on RNAi-based biopesticides (sprayed dsRNA) - non-GM, doesn't impact beneficial species, doesn't hang around in the environment, etc. Already ubiquitous in nature (and part of our diet). Peptide-based biopesticides are another approach that is going well. Both approaches are now commercialised by smaller players (e.g. for varroa mite control in bee hives by GreenLight), and not by the Bayer, Syngenta types.
Pesticides form the backbone of crop protection. Without them, we're looking at at least a 40% reduction in global yield
Such numbers might be ballpark correct, but I think the "without them" here literally means "if we take current industrial agriculture and simply drop pesticides" i.e. without any other change. Pretty obvious that yes, doing so will easily get you to numbers of that magnitude.
So it's a bit strange not considering the various root causes of what requires those pesticieds in the first place: monocultures on dead soil and nothing which even begins to resemble a normal ecosystem in sight. Those causes happen to be exactly among the causes of the massive insect/more general biodiversity decline we're witnessing. Along with pesticides, sure, but habitat loss is likely an even bigger factor.
So while those biopesticides are probably a net win over what is used now, it's rather unclear if they'll have a meaningful impact on that decline. Which is why reports on solutions for the decline also always include adressing at least part of the root causes, like partial shifts back to landscapes which are a mix of nature and agriculture. Where there's at least a bush/tree line between fields, for instance. Which also helps keeping certain pests in control.
We throw away half of our food and waste it. If humans had less agricultural yield due to decrease in use of pesticides, we'd start to be more efficient with what we grow, and choose agricultural crops that are more efficient for generating calories and micronutrients per acre and per precipitation/sunlight/whatever.
We send rockets to the moon and every person is getting phones. We would survive without pesticides.
When you say it's part of our diet, does that mean it's safe to consume?
That's the problem. It appears companies are allowed to use consumers as guinea pigs for substances with unknown or possibly bad outcomes. All this "stuff" should be on warning labels.
If these substances slowly cause cancer (making it harder to trace) or other health problems, like birth defects or fertility problems, it can take a generation to figure out. The money has long been took and the getaway car long gone. Just lots of damaged and sick people wondering what happened, who will likely not even get a "sorry".