lol外围

Pesticides-的信息文章的风险业务

农药危险的行业。

这是很容易为农民理由申请农药,以自己的领域。“利润微薄,和农药是太便宜不适用。”“那家伙在路上,去年失去了整场粘虫。”“合作社将会把它给我,让我不必对此担心。”lol外围“只要把一些杀虫剂在坦克的时候,你喷杀菌剂;这将是反对任何坏事发生的保险“。

IMG_3978.jpg

这个第一个问题是,有没有感觉到后果使用农药。如果农民(或蜂农或业主等)可以购买的产品,它拥有所有的对壶的侧面的安全性信息,那么通常认为有人正在监视和化学是安全的。无论是对环境和人类安全。

The second problem is scale.Outcomes of decisions made on individual farms spillover to neighbors, begin to aggregate and swell across landscapes and regions as farming communities unify in their decision to apply an agrichemical, be it fertilizer, insecticide, herbicide, fungicide, etc. The amplification of these decisions substantially heightens the degree of risk posed by an agrichemical.

The unforeseen risk of pesticides

我开始了我的职业生涯,作为一名研究生对转基因Bt玉米的风险评估工作。这是一个新的技术,它改变了我们管理的害虫。从昆虫疾病的基因称为苏云金芽孢杆菌(Bt) is inserted into corn plants, defending it from key pests like European corn borer and corn rootworm. It was my PhD dissertation to assess the risk of beetle-specific Bt corn events against beneficial beetles; predatory lady beetles, specifically.

任凭我们可能会,我们真的很难找到一个类型的商业Bt玉米对我的瓢虫产生不利影响。我们公布的,有Bt玉米对瓢虫无不良影响。

However, since Bt corn was first commercialized, insect populations and diversity have plummeted in many places on earth, while insecticide use continues to rise in North America. Farmer profitability has diminished. And pollution continues to rise.

因此,我认为,通过Bt玉米所带来的真正的环境风险是从来没有的毒理学(虽然转基因作物品种可能有一些生理上的变化,使他们从常规品种不同)。相反,通过Bt玉米所带来的最大的风险是,它在支持景观的简化方面改变了农业。允许农民以玉米连年增长(通常害虫帮助推动作物轮作)。这种简化的生物多样性丧失和农场的弹性的影响,现在是相当明显的。

但是我们怎么能预言这种风险,这项技术的发布前评估呢?

风险评估是完全由一个很窄的一系列问题的制约。因此,一个产品可以被认为是安全的,直到我们问正确的问题或技术可用于实际感知所带来的风险。很多时候,风险造成它被释放到环境后,几十年来没有完全理解(例如,DDT被认为在当天的最好的技术是安全的)。

IMG_1588.jpg

上下文事项进行风险评估

The scale of an environmental exposure affects the degree of risk that is posed. It is easy for a farmer to think that the decisions on their farm are siloed. That the consequences of decisions made on a farm are somehow contained. But when decisions made over a watershed or region are examined in aggregate, it is easy to see how our food production system can influence bigger things like climate change, or society-wide human health issues, or pollutants in the Ogallala aquifer or the Gulf of Mexico.

风险评估通常基于在培养皿中产生的数据作出。但是,当一个生物体是在现实世界中,风险的情况显着改变。有迹象表明,影响其易感性农药各种其他压力的生物面临的环境。首先,生物不会暴露只是活性成分的毒性(活性成分)。该活性成分总是在制剂中,从而改变它的毒性组合。但毒性试验是对活性成分几乎总是做单独。在现场,一个蜜蜂可能是饿了,或太热或太冷,也可能刚被杀菌剂钉,或飞行里程耗尽。在实验室中产生的数据经常是一个生物体的田间种群的不熟练的表示。

风险科学可以被操纵

Some pesticide companies do not play fair, and there is a strong motivation for them to preserve their technologies. When you consider the sheer acreage that corn represents, the potential profits that are generated are staggering. For general purposes, let’s assume that a genetically modified bag of corn is $100 more than a conventional hybrid (this is probably an underestimate), and it takes 1 bag of corn to plant 2 acres. 92% of corn acres were genetically modified in 2018, and we planted 89 million acres. That means that revenues from genetically modified corn seeds could conservatively be estimated at around $4.1 billion annually, just for corn. Neonicotinoid seed treatments were initially assessed as $10 per acre for corn; this accumulates $410 million dollars revenues annually from corn, since nearly all of the nation’s acres of this crop are treated with this insecticide (unnecessarily, in almost all cases).

因此,如何将一个公司的影响有关农药的科学对话?

There is no such thing as a perfect research study, and when a study comes out that provides inconvenient data regarding a product or agenda, then it isn’t hard to discredit a study by pointing out its deficiencies.

如果有与每一项研究的问题,那么如何是科学决策有用吗?决策者依靠的证据占优势;重复研究多次,并且寻求在数据所得到的图案。但科学是出售,而当公司基金研究该建议替代的解释可能会导致实际从杀虫剂暴露所造成的问题的讨论会受到影响。

IMG_58311.jpg

最后,当在进行争议性问题的研究坚持科学家公开销毁任何有很多原因的科学对话被控制。没有激励进行有争议的研究;科学家们获得报酬同他们是否算瓢虫斑点或调查农药的风险。但他们和很多他们所关心的,如果他们专注于安全的东西,就像lol外围数着瓢虫点可能保住他们的工作更长的时间。

以股权为高,相对的investment in preserving the life of a product for even one more year is often incentivized and justifiable to a company. For example, a $2 million center that points out all of the ways apart from pesticides that bees are dying is a small investment for a company generating these sorts of profits. Or annual gifts of $20,000 to key scientists at universities across the country as a good will gesture or to generate data that distorts the discussion on agrichemicals is a good business decision.

The final word

When I began my career, I foolishly believed that we could predict the risk of pesticides. After conducting risk assessments for 20 years, I can attest to two truths. First, we cannot predict the environmental effects of a pesticide in complex natural systems. And second, nobody is watching the safety of agrichemicals. I am not saying that we should ban pesticides. But I encourage farmers to recognize there are consequences of pesticides that extend beyond the fence lines of their farms and we cannot see all ends in a risk assessment scenario. Respect these chemicals, and only use them as a last resort. It is an expense, after all.

乔纳森·格伦博士

在蜕皮基金会主任(一501.c.3)

蓝黛蛇农场的主人电竞菠菜下载

埃斯特莱恩,SD,美国,57234

Jgl.entomology@gmail.com