Talk:Pesticide/Archive 1

Biopesticides

A biopesticide is different from pesticides because instead of depending on chemical substances to control undesired species, it uses other orgamisms to control them, for example: a mushroom spore that if eaten by an insect it affects it's digestive system, leading to it's death. Later on the developed mushrooms are either easy to remove or non-harmful to humans.

This reduces the human health risk, but doesn't reduce the damage to the ecosystem, since it still kills an species and adds another one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japoniano (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Plant Growth Regulators?

Removed : "* Plant Growth Regulators [1] for the modification of plant growth (examples: prevention of lodging in wheat, earlier initiation of flowering, production of larger table grapes and stimulation of root growth of cuttings)"

because these agents are not directed against a specific "pest". Ekem 23:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

Added a link to pesticideinfo.org. I would like to acknowledge that linking to pesticideinfo.org is self-promotion. I am a maintainer of that site. However, to verify that it is a significant resource, try web searches for specific pesticides, such as chlorpyrifos, methyl isothiocyanate, or chloropicrin, for example, and note pesticideinfo.org's ranking. Also, I removed the badly formatted and incorrectly placed croplifeamerica.org link from the external links to regulatory agencies. I will add a well-formatted link to croplifeamerica.org. Brian Hill 06:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge with article "Protectant"

Under "Types of pesticides" I propose the content in "Protectant" be merged with "Pesticides". Tmchk 19:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with the proposal, the subject of natural protectants deserves its own page. sbandrews 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a section in Pesticides, that briefly describes protectants and then says something like, "see main article on protectants". Tmchk 03:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Either way, I think the section "Types of pesticides" could be improved. I'll try to add an introduction to the section so it isn't just a list, or if it is a list, it's purpose relates better to the overall subject. Tmchk 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Globalise?

Would it be possible to get a definition that isn't specific to the USA? The article seems to be centred around pesticides in America (the diagram is of America as well) Does anyone else think I should add a {{globalise}} tag? (or is it jus me being... um... me) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is US specific, though I do not think it needs a globalize tag. We could add something about DDT being banned in Africa. Tmchk 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it "banned" in Africa? It might be banned for agricultural use, but the WHO is very specific on its availability for use in public health. See the malaria page. Reports about DDT and banning should be handled with care - there's a lot of misinformation out there. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

This page is a good start but needs a lot of expansion considering it is such an important topic. We should really try to check the POV on the large chunk of (well written) text added by an anonymous ip who is most likely from the pesticide industry. We dont want this page to be a propaganda party. We need more on the environmental effects of pesicides, and we should consider merging some info from other articles. Fred, see the definition of pest which i added to the beginning of the article.Bonus Onus 04:27, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Could it be possible to isolate american policy from general discussion over pesticide consideration ? Anthère

It is a pleasure to contribute to what was already a good start as noted by Bonus Onus. I have tried to improve the text on pesticide dangers by modifying material that direct experience with the US regulatory process tells me is controversial or POV. For some specific examples, I changed "prove" to "indicate" where it was said that the US regulatory process requires that pesticides must be proven to be safe, and "scientifically sound risk assessments" to "scientifically based risk assessments." The latter change is due to the fact that the science that goes into these risk assessments is often marginal, and the final conclusions of US EPA risk assessments have been documented to be affected by political pressure. But to bash the science and conclusions that hard would have been to unnecessarily bias the discussion towards my opinion, so I have tried to use neutral terms. Interested readers should be given links to some case studies so they can form their own opinions, but I don't have those at hand.

I also tried to make the text less consumer-centric. For example, the dangers of pesticides section didn't include dangers to workers, and that is a big omission, because although not very well off and small in numbers relative to consumers, they are often badly impacted. I didn't touch much of the text on pesticide residues except to change the term "residual pesticides" to its more common arrangement, "pesticide residues." I have to do some homework on pesticide residues first, but after I do, I will be able to provide a bit more text on that subject fairly easily.

Finally, Anthère's request that the US-centricness woven into the article should be isolated seems completely fair, and I would be willing to tackle the separation at some point. My thought is that the section on pesticide regulation should have most of this material, and it should have subsections for various countries or blocks that regulate pesticides. On the other hand, the US has traditionally been a leader both in the use and regulation of pesticides, and many other countries have followed the US regulatory model and specific decisions, so the US-centricness is more generally applicable than it might seem. Brian Hill 01:37 Nov 13, 2005 (UTC)

At the moment the article seems to be biased against the use of pesticides with little on either the benefits of their use or the regulatory controls in place to control their use and ensure their safety. To start of saying 'Pesticides are usually, but not always, poisonous to humans' is emotive and misleading. Many pesticides have remarkably low acute toxicity and are no more toxic than a wide range of other chemicals we use. Cases of poisoning attributed to pesticides in the developed world are extremely rare these days. The section on regulation seems to concentrate on illegal use and the banning of particularly hazardous pesticides. I would like to see more on the systems in place to ensure safety to opertors, consumers and the environment (I work for a regulatory authority btw). A more balanced view (I believe) is to minimise the use of pesticides but to recognise their benefits. I have added links to the US and UK regulatory authorities and the European Commission plant health pages, all of which contain large amounts of information, and there are many other simialr websites.

Regarding Brian Hill's assertation that the "US-centricness" is more generally applicable I would urge caution. There are some substantial differences between the US and European systems. I believe the US system does not require a pesticide to be effective only to meet safety standards. In Europe pesticides can only be approved if there is an overall benefit to their use. This is a large area If I can find the time I will try and add an overview of the current European system. Maccheek 10:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion...I must admit I was dissapointed by this page. I stumbled upon this page looking for information about pesticides and discovered that there was scant little information in this article about pesticides themselves. What are the specific pesticides that are currently used? What are their chemical structures? How do they work? How are they used? Why are they used? This information is almost completely lacking. I'm not sure if the article names a single modern pesticide aside from DDT. Organophosphate pesticides and organochlorine pesticides are mentioned, but not explained. The sections about regulation, dangers, etc, are quite good but the lack of anything else makes the whole article appear unbalanced.

I read this article and learned almost nothing about pesticides, except for the fact that the authors of this article don't like pesticides. And statements like "Pesticides are tools of convenience" and "Reducing the use of pesticides and replacing high risk pesticides is the ultimate solution to reducing risks placed on our society from pesticide use." don't appear very neutral to me, it's a policy suggestion. Pmw2cc.

Follow the links in the 'Types of pesticide' section of the page, most have long lists of specific pesticides.sbandrews 23:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Editoral Errors

The sentence using source 5 as a reference was wrong - someone had misread the source. The quote is "Organophosphates have gained popularity worldwide in preference to organochlorines, which are persistent and more damaging to the environment."

I have changed the sentence to reflect this error. source is reproduced below for convience!

http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1020-49892003000800004&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.0.133 (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies & misleading slants

This article is filled with many facts that are ripped out of their wider context; it is extremely biased against pesticide use.

I regret not having time to correct all these errors (nor do I even know how to edit these pages, despite having tried & failed) but I will give one example:

Reference is made to, "However, in the 1960s, it was discovered that DDT was preventing many fish-eating birds from reproducing which was a huge threat to biodiversity." That is a perfect example of misleading info.

What is not said here is that the original scientists who conducted this early experiment later discovered that their experiment contain major flaws -- they had accidentally given the birds an unnatural and calcium-deficient diet, in addition to the DDT, and had included deildrin, a known softener of egg shells. They redid the study and then reversed their conclusion and stated that DDT has no negative effect on birdlife.

Numerous studies over many years have thoroughly refuted the initial claim that DDT has any negative effect on wildlife or birdlife or on bird egg shells -- but this is not mentioned in this article. Typical of the anti-pesticide crowd, the "fact" that a study once "proved" that DDT threatened birdlife is often repeated on all the anti-pesticide sites and is never corrected; it is thoroughly believed (and perpetuated) by the public, aided by inaccurate articles such as this one. But scientists all agree that the wealth of studies showing no negative effects from DDT are irrefutable.

More on this inaccuracy, and on the reversal of the initial (inaccurate) conclusion by the scientists who conducted this study can be found at: Anderson DW, Hickey JJ, Risebrough RW, Hughes DF, Christensen RE. Significance of chlorinated hydrocarbon residues to breeding pelicans and cormorants. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 1969; 83:91–112.

Numerous further studies that set the record straight on the safety of DDT can be found at:

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

It's my hope someone else will be able to set the DDT-bird record straight. I am not versed in wiki editing. Also, I would hope others may be able to follow some of the links at the immediately above site and discover the many other inaccuracies in this article.

Another area of concern: Numerous "risks" are pointed out in the article without mentioning that most risks -- aside from being unproven and theoretical -- are related only to farmers who spray pesticides and have no relevance whatever to the minuscule residues on food ingested by consumers. As much as 99 percent of all residue is removed before eaten by consumers and the amounts are a few harmless molecules to begin with.

Also not mentioned is any relevance for such statements as "A higher risk of Parkinson's disease from pesticides"; these epidemiological studies prove nothing and further, a "70 percent higher risk" is considered insignificant in epidemiological studies (which never prove cause and effect in any cae). Because of the variables in epidemiology, anything less than a 300 percent greater risk is considered to be due to chance or confounding factors. But it sounds serious doesn't it? This is bad science.

The problem with this article is that it has been written by biased persons who have zero grasp of the fundamentals of scientific evidence.

209.161.228.166 18:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

209.161.228.166 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

== Inaccuracies & misleading slants ==

This article is filled with many facts that are ripped out of their wider context; it is extremely biased against pesticide use.

I regret not having time to correct all these errors (nor do I even know how to edit these pages, despite having tried & failed) but I will give one example:

Reference is made to, "However, in the 1960s, it was discovered that DDT was preventing many fish-eating birds from reproducing which was a huge threat to biodiversity." That is a perfect example of misleading info.

What is not said here is that the original scientists who conducted this early experiment later discovered that their experiment contain major flaws -- they had accidentally given the birds an unnatural and calcium-deficient diet, in addition to the DDT, and had included deildrin, a known softener of egg shells. They redid the study and then reversed their conclusion and stated that DDT has no negative effect on birdlife.

Numerous studies over many years have thoroughly refuted the initial claim that DDT has any negative effect on wildlife or birdlife or on bird egg shells -- but this is not mentioned in this article. Typical of the anti-pesticide crowd, the "fact" that a study once "proved" that DDT threatened birdlife is often repeated on all the anti-pesticide sites and is never corrected; it is thoroughly believed (and perpetuated) by the public, aided by inaccurate articles such as this one. But scientists all agree that the wealth of studies showing no negative effects from DDT are irrefutable.

More on this inaccuracy, and on the reversal of the initial (inaccurate) conclusion by the scientists who conducted this study can be found at: Anderson DW, Hickey JJ, Risebrough RW, Hughes DF, Christensen RE. Significance of chlorinated hydrocarbon residues to breeding pelicans and cormorants. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 1969; 83:91–112.

Numerous further studies that set the record straight on the safety of DDT can be found at:

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

It's my hope someone else will be able to set the DDT-bird record straight. I am not versed in wiki editing. Also, I would hope others may be able to follow some of the links at the immediately above site and discover the many other inaccuracies in this article.

Another area of concern: Numerous "risks" are pointed out in the article without mentioning that most risks -- aside from being unproven and theoretical -- are related only to farmers who spray pesticides and have no relevance whatever to the minuscule residues on food ingested by consumers. As much as 99 percent of all residue is removed before eaten by consumers and the amounts are a few harmless molecules to begin with.

Also not mentioned is any relevance for such statements as "A higher risk of Parkinson's disease from pesticides"; these epidemiological studies prove nothing and further, a "70 percent higher risk" is considered insignificant in epidemiological studies (which never prove cause and effect in any cae). Because of the variables in epidemiology, anything less than a 300 percent greater risk is considered to be due to chance or confounding factors. But it sounds serious doesn't it? This is bad science.

The problem with this article is that it has been written by biased persons who have zero grasp of the fundamentals of scientific evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.161.228.166 (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Contact pesticides

Shouldn't these pesticides be included in the types of pesticides? --Yuenho 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Benefits of pesticides

I added a section of the benefits of pesticides since the article has such a negative slant. The section seriously needs to be expanded. Bugguyak 16:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I've just done a major copy edit, I hope no one minds my boldness. I would also like to suggest that we merge the two environmental effects sections, perhaps into a level 2 heading of its own. Also, I'd like to take out some of the detail from the pest resistance section and move it to pesticide resistance, a stub which is actually shorter than the section at this page. Any objections? I may go ahead and be bold if I don't hear any soon. delldot talk 18:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

K, well, I'd like to go ahead rather than waiting for a response, so I'll just go ahead, and if there are any problems with the edit we can undo the problematic part. So I'm going to put an {{inuse}} on the article for maybe 45 minutes. Hope this works for everyone. delldot talk 21:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Runoff" problem

I have a problem with the following statement in the article:

"Pesticide runoff has been found to be highly lethal to amphibians, according to a recent study by the University of Pittsburgh."

The study cited was not a "runoff" (i.e. rainfall runoff, which is what the term is usually used to mean) study but a study in which glyphosate was added to ponds to simulate the concentrations which might occur from direct sprays of the chemical onto water or possibly worst-case spray drift. Thus the statement is incorrect and might be changed to something like "pesticide spray drift directly onto water bodies can be damaging to aquatic ecosystems: see.e.g. [url cited]. I say "can" here because some, but not all pesticides have this problem. This is my first foray into wiki editing so please tell me if I am doing the right thing here...DonWauchope 02:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty good proposal, Don. I'd say you should go ahead! Don't be afraid to be bold with your edits. Yilloslime 02:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good for that study, Don, go ahead. Just a nitpicky thing: I'd recommend just using the citation at the end of the sentence rather than saying "see". Like this. I think the claim that runoff is lethal to amphibians can be substantiated with other sources, so I'll look for some. delldot talk 02:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that delldot, make a claim then look for sources to substantiate it. Bugguyak 12:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There's this reference, about the toxicity of organophosphate oxons to amphibians at environmentally relevant concentrations. The link is a news story about the study, and I haven't had a chance to dig up the actual report. Yilloslime 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback--I'll make the change. I think I will try to add info to this site a little bit at a time but I will always stick it under "proposed changes" for comment first. DonWauchope 19:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Restricting pesticides could greatly reduce suicide rates worldwide"

"Restricting pesticides could greatly reduce suicide rates worldwide" --Emesee 06:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The headline is misleading, it says pesticide self poisoning, suicide by taking pesticides. Thats like banning handguns to prevent suicides, people find other methods. Bugguyak 00:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PROPOSED NEW BEGINNING FOR A NEW "REGULATION" SECTION

Here (below) is some text I propose [comments welcome!) to start the "Regulation" section and get us away from the EPA-centered current article. I am working on this a little at a time!

This Introduction will (or could!) be followed by (1) some of the testing that is done (including the fudge factors) to determine pesticide toxicity and environmental fate (2) How these data are used to determine when, where and if a pesticide may be used. I should say that I have done research in the "eco-fate" area and so my bias is that there is some good science involved in pesticide risk asessment! But I hope to be honest about our limitations and our failures to do, and to use, the science.

REGULATION OF PESTICIDES

Introduction Most environmental chemical pollution is typically a waste disposal problem. Harmful chemicals are added to the environment in waste streams from smokestacks, sewers, automobiles, factories and almost any other activity of modern industrial civilization. Regulation of such pollution involves attempting to minimize it.

Pesticides are different. They are deliberately added directly to the environment, at biologically-active concentrations and sometimes over large areas of human habitation or land or water, exposing humans and other biota. This deliberate introduction of these foreign chemicals often takes place with little ability to control the chemicals’ subsequent fate and behavior. Thus, pesticide regulation, at least as practiced in the most developed nations, strives to ensure that each specific use of each pesticide will be permitted only if it can first be predicted scientifically that the resultant risks to people and ecosystems are acceptable.

What are “acceptable risks”? That is ultimately a value judgement, and it is the task of risk managers at regulatory agencies to try to regulate pesticides in a politically acceptable manner that balances the values of the three interested parties involved:

• the pesticide users (predominantly agriculture, but there are many other users of pesticides), • the pesticide industry, • the public.

“Risk” is calculated using the basic risk paradigm used in a wide variety of fields, e.g., finance, engineering, and toxicology. In toxicology it is defined by the equation

Risk = (toxicity) x (exposure or dose)

This simple-appearing equation in fact describes a large variety of methods of risk calculation ranging in complexity from a simple comparison of some concentration known to be toxic to a likely environmental concentration, to extremely complex probabilistic estimates of organism population responses to concentrations, combined with probabilistic descriptions of "scenarios" of environmental exposure. A full description of all possibilities is generally beyond the capabilities of the current art, but studies of pesticides over the last 5 decades made major advances in the fields of ecotoxicology, human dietary exposure to chemicals, and chemical fate and behavior in the environment.

The final decision on which pesticides may be used and which uses are allowed are generally made by national governments. However, there are several supranational organizations and agencies which are active in promoting cooperation and harmonization of pesticide quality standards, risk assessments, ethical commercialization of pesticides, etc. These include the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Codex Alimentatius of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)....to be continued...DonWauchope (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks terrific so far! A couple suggestions: 1) Add lots of references. Definitely provide citations at least for statements of fact, like "studies of pesticides over the last 5 decades ..." See also WP:ATT for the policy on this. 2) Be as specific as possible about who's doing the regulating, providing examples where you can. This will not only clarify the section, it will also clear up some of the claims of US-centricness by giving international examples. But this one is minor point and may not apply to all of the section. Are you going to go ahead and add it in? I say get references and do it. Thanks for taking the time to do this, i think it will be a big improvement to the article. delldot talk 15:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving comment to talk page

Someone posted this in the body of the article, in #Uses and benefits:

[This section appears to violate the neutral point of view rule. It appears to make a case in favor of pesticide use, which is controversial.]

I think they're right that it kind of does, it did more before I changed the wording a bit. But I think the person who did it was trying to offset the largely anti-pesticide tone of the rest of the article, so maybe leaving it in would be better for NPOV overall. A way to NPOV it up a little more would be to change it strictly to "Uses", removing the "and benefits" and just explain what the uses are, trusting the reader to infer what the benefits are. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delldot (talk • contribs) 14:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a neutral article needs to indicate that there are benefits of pesicide use. Consider DDT (see the Wikipedia artcle): it's inventor received a Nobel prize for all the lives he saved, and at the same time it has turned out to be perhaps the dirtiest of pesticides with the longest-lasting and most insidious effects on wildlife. Now, if the Article mentioned the damage and didn't mention the Nobel, would that be neutral? Certainly not. Churchill called DDT "that miracle powder"; Carson called it "an elixir of death" (this is off the top of my head, I may not have either quote exactly right). You know what? Both were right. DonWauchope (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry not to reply sooner, must have missed this in my watchlist. I agree that the article should explain the benefits of pesticides, and I don't think it currently does that well. delldot talk 10:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Environmental effects of pesticides

I have inserted a link to a new page: pesticide application - and agree that it would be good to have an Environmental effects of pesticides page - we at IPARC would like to contribute - should we "start the ball rolling"?

I have also edited insecticides - to include neonicotinoids - and have modifed biological insecticides with a new link page. More needs to be done to include macrocyclic lactones, ryanodine analogues and other non-neurotoxic compounds, etc...

This is an environmental contamination diagram we use for our MSc students:

Diagram of environmental movements of pesticides in relation to cocoa growing (RPB)

I agree that pesticides is a bit US orientated - but I am sure that ours are rather UK-Africa-Europe biased !!

best regards, Roy Bateman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Bateman (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed split

The section of environmental effects is a major part of the article. It should be split off into its own article. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 09:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd given the idea thought because I think you're right that it gets undue weight, but I'm concerned about the POV-ness of the fork—won't it come out a pretty anti-pesticide seeming article? I think another solution would be just to cut the environmental effects section down some, removing some info outright, and moving some info into existing articles (e.g. info on just herbicides into herbicide). I'm not flat-out against the split, but it seems like you'd have to be really careful not to make it POV. delldot talk 10:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Would the mean Category:Environmental issues and associated artices should be deleted? Should we delete the article on slavery or Hitler? (better stop here I might be invoking some fallacies!) -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 06:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to cut information out of a section that is of a concern to a growing segment of the population. Also, It is would be POV regardless of whether it is part of the main article or as its own article. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 07:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dangers of pesticides

I have deleted the sentence dealing with the Bhopal disaster. This calamity is very rightly, well covered in Wikipedia, but the topic does not belong in the Pesticides article. The Bhopal disaster was caused by the escape of a highly poisonous chemical intermediate used in the synthesis of a carbamate insecticide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RapidoII (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC) (89.240.90.102 (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)}

The picture of filling of a spray tank (pesticide application) would fit much better in the Section Health Effects, under "Farmers and Workers" rather than under Regulation. Yes, there is a link with regulation, because the regulatory authorities together with health and safety determine the personal protective equipment required to fill spayers and apply the product. This said, if my suggestion is accepted, it must be realised that the picture shows obsolete equipment and ought to be replaced. Modern spraying equipment (for spraying of fields that is) has a special filling device aimed at reducing exposure of the applicator to a minimum. Hand held sprayers are a different story. (RapidoII (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Anyone know of scientific studies (with verifiable sources) that can be added to support claims that pesticide use is harmful to humans (e.g. kids and pregnant women)? I've noticed that large studies in both the US (i.e. the Agricultural Health Study) and Canada (by the National Cancer Institute of Canada) have been done that failed to find any evidence of, at least cancer risk, and non are referenced in this article (yet).

What would also be useful would be a description of what tests a proposed pesticide would have to fail to be refused government (e.g. EPA) approval, and what they have to fail to be approved but only under close regulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

the link in the article is to a pesticides critical site and should probably replaced or balanced with something more neutral.

this link is in the organic food article, but is mostly concerned with effects of direct pesticide exposure. i would be also interested in studies that whether pesticide residues in food are dangerous, or better a summary of studies.

• Extensive Press Release on Pesticides from the Ontario College of Family Physicians

--trueblood 15:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Pesticides In the Environment seems not to apply to the statement it's used for. It is referenced with respect to controlling the population of mosquitoes, and killing the natural control factors. I couldn't find (in admittedly, a brief read) more than a brief mention of mosquitoes in Pesticides In the Environment though I suppose the inference could be made based on later statements about animals consuming insects that have been poisoned. In general, I think this may be a pretty weak reference. Opinions and/or more solid references appreciated. --24.12.15.52 01:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A pesticide definition by FAO is not very clear...

http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Code/Download/code.pdf

because there are no refs or further definitions of the terms of food and agricultural commodities --222.64.30.211 (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A topic of....

Pesticide control has been added based on the following http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=Pesticide+control&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en

which is analogue to

• Disease control--222.64.218.194 (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  

with the measure of drug control--222.64.218.194 (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+Disease+control&btnG=Search --222.64.218.194 (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Traffic control

Pesticide control by countries

• http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/--222.64.218.194 (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Pesticide+control+gov.au&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryAU

--222.64.218.194 (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Pesticide+control+gov&btnG=Search&meta=

--222.64.218.194 (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Pesticide+control+gov.ca&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryCA

--222.64.218.194 (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Pesticide list should be created...

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=dimefluthrin%20271241-14-6&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

has not been exclusively included by Google scholar, although the chemical is listed by WHO

• http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/fr/wo.jsp?WO=2007128756&IA=EP2007054265&DISPLAY=DESC
• http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2006/WHO_CDS_NTD_WHOPES_GCDPP_2006.1_eng.pdf

--222.64.213.114 (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
and

• http://www.who.int/whopes/en/

--222.64.213.114 (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Another definition is required to clarify the term...

for better understanding--222.64.213.114 (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Errors

In "Managing pesticides" the author is confused over the term "tankmixing". The word pesticides encompasses herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. The term does NOT mean the application of 2 different insecticides as this would be pointless and even illegal. If the insect is resistant to one insecticide you would not then apply it with another insecticide, you would simply use an effective product. No insecticide has a permit for application with another insecticide. "Tankmixing" means applying a herbicide (one or more), possibly with a fungicide (one or more), possibly with an insecticide. Mixes are carefully regulated.

In "Continuing development" the author is quick to point the finger at "agribusiness", implying that small farmers are everyone's friends and use fewer insecticides. This enables us to see the real reason for anti-pesticide sentiment - anti business / technology rather than because pesticides are dangerous. Tomcrisp7 11:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I was reading a farming magazine today and it showed that tankmixing can be used for mixing herbicides with which affect different plants. 89.240.2.15 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Outrageous

The information in this article is almost completely falsified.

Numerous statements are made without factual basis (such as the untrue assertion that pesticides accumulate in the environment or in our bodies; in fact, today's pesticides are biodegradable and break down in the fields and in our bodies into harmless metabolites -- every single molecule can be tracked radiographically and we know where every molecule ends up).

Numerous risks are cited without the context that proves these are not valid risks at all (such as implying that an association between ingestion of huge amounts of pesticides by farmers equates to any risk whatsoever to consumers who eat microscopic molecular amounts of pesticide residue on their foods).

Numerous studies are cited without any grasp of scientific proof levels (such as the constant citation of epidemiological studies, commonly accepted by scientists to be unable to prove any cause and effect; also omitted from the "70% greater risk" statements in this article, is the fact that only a 300% greater risk is considered to be meaningful to scientists in epidemiological studies).

This is bad science at its worst.

This article is beyond repair because the numerous assertions that have serious inaccuracies and unscientific slants are in every paragraph. Obviously written by environmentalists and anti-pesticide activists, it stirs suspicion of all wiki material on the site.

...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.161.228.166 (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

It certainly appears that way doesnt it? But no one ever said that wikipedia is a good source of unbiased information.Bugguyak 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You think this one is bad? This is one of the less biased ones. If you want to see biased, check out Factory Farming. Kwagoner (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Need verification in section "Environmental effects"

This sentence fragment "...pesticide use also reduces biodiversity and results in lower soil quality,..." needs verification in that the AE Johnston reference given does not appear from the paper's abstract to support such a statement. I can't access the entire paper to be sure, but the abstract seems to be discussing soil organic matter content in relation to nitrogen nutrient studies -- a far cry from a statement of "lower soil quality" as a result of pesticide use. Would the author of this section be able to give us some verification from the paper to support this statement, or perhaps provide a new one? Thanks! Kwagoner (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC) I forgot to add that I've made a similar comment on the "Environmental Effects of Pesticides" talk page. Kwagoner (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Since it's now been over a week, with no comments by others, I'm going to change the sentence slightly to remove the "offending" phrase. If somebody has a comment later on, I'll be occasionally checking back in here. Kwagoner (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Would like to know about groundwater contamination

Hi folks. I came here looking for information on groundwater contamination by pesticides. Most importantly, is it okay to spray the yard with commercial synthetic pesticides if we get our drinking water from a local well? ('local' as in backyard, probably; i dont know the specifics but it's hooked up to the house's plumbing). I understand that a proper answer would need more specifics, perhaps. But I was surprised to see that this article doesn't even mention the term 'groundwater.' I'll keep looking for info and possibly post it here as a suggestion for something to add. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: simply searching for the term "groundwater contamination" brings up the article water pollution. A quick skim doesn't begin to answer my question, so I'll keep looking. By the way I'm also posting the question at that page since I believe other readers/editors might like to know, too. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Classmates

Hi Classmates, your article looks great. I have noticed that many of the above comments mention potential biases that may exist in the article. It may be a good idea to expand the "uses" section to explain in more detail the benefits that have come from pesticide use. Clearly, there are arguments for and against pesticide use, and an optimal level of pesticide use certainly exists. Also, as we talked about in class, it would be nice to hear more about the specific mechanisms by which these pesticides are regulated. Maybe mention a few more of the particular policy instruments that are used to regulate pesticides, or perhaps, mention some mechanisms that could be more effective than current policies. Other than that, I think the article is looking quite good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnvEcon11 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Good article. I could find a lot of information connecting with pesticide in the U.S. and in the world. I also noticed that many historial comments talked about the arguments on this topic. From my perspective of view, firstly, as a MSES student, I'd like to see more environmental impacts and health impacts derived from pesticides, the environment content is too limited information. Secondly, if we could find environmental damage information we could estimate the abatement benefit, then with abatement cost, we could figure out good estimation of benefit-cost analysis. I know it's hard to measure that data through the dimention of whole society. I guess if it's possile to focus on one historical used but now banned pesticide in the U.S. market like DDT, and give it's benefit-cost analysis, it will be pretty provable. Good luck guys! Rocky.liu (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Classmates, the article has a great outline as well as capacity to keep the reader engaged in reading it. As the article is to be focused on US policy, one possible way to do this is by expanding the regulation section. As present length of article seems to be pretty fine, I would suggest that you should avoid just to keep expanding it. Instead looking for possible tradeoffs will be a good approach in order to take the article to its final form from its current state. The 'Regulation' section can be placed before 'Alternatives'. I hope that these comments will be useful. Great job, guys! --Swgarg (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You guys have done a great job so far! There is lots of great information in here and it all feels relevant as I read it. You've done a good job in getting the point across without trying to flood the reader with information. You've also done a great job in adding links to other wikipedia pages. Because your page is titled "pesticides" you definitely need all of your science information. However, you might want to add more about regulations just because the pages are supposed to have a strong policy emphasis. You talked about a cost benefit analysis in your presentation but I don't know if that would fit well in the page. I also think that you might want to touch up your regulations section so that is looks like the rest of the page. The history section also feels a little out of place so you might want to move it closer to the beginning.Enveconmatt (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the general sentiments of my fellow classmates--there is a plethora of information on your page. I especially like the extensive cross-references to other Wiki pages (e.g. for each of the subsets of pesticides). I also like the section on "further reading." I'm not sure how much material the page had before you started, but they certainly is a lot now! I would make a few suggestions: (1) the "Use" section seems disorganized--I would suggest adding subheadings to make it more easy to read, (2) the section on Regulation could similarly be broken into sections; I would recommend separating the U.S. section from any other countries, (3) the History section seems a bit out of place; maybe it could be moved forward? Estraub1985 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Split of some content

As this article is just a general overview I have split off much of the content to a subarticle dealing with specifically regulations regarding pesticides in the United States. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

pesticide is a chemical that kills pests. Farmers use it on there plants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.201.99 (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition of pesticide

The inclusion of herbicides within the concept pesticide is troublesome to an English speaker because pest = bug. Fred Bauder 19:24, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is standard language among manufactuers, farmers, acadamia, and government regulators. Herbicides and insecticides are considered subsets of pesticides... -Nydigoveth

Do insect repellents (DEET, etc) count as pesticides? Bonus Onus 15:33, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

The definition of "pesticide" is as something that kills, not as something that attracts or repels or does anything but kill. This is the definition in use for Category:Insecticides and Insecticide I'm wondering if a similar "killing only" definition would be appropriate here and in Category:Pesticides. With regard to the question about DEET, there is an obscure term, "insectifuge" which means "insect repellent" and I'm considering creating Category:Insect repellents Category:Insectifuges. I recently created (please don't laugh ... even though I did when I made it) Category:Human-animal conflict into which I could put Category:Insecticides but not Category:Pesticides, which leaves things like DEET out in the cold, having to be added to the "conflict" category article-by-article, which I don't find savory. Courtland 02:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I got rid of "control, attract or repel" in the definition of pesticide. According to standard definitions (e.g., [http://www.dictionary.com/), it is indeed something that kills pests, as already noted by Courtland. Also, "-cide" is a Latin suffix meaning "kill." There is already a broader term that covers other ways of dealing with pests: "integrated pest management." Brian Hill 03:00, Nov 13, 2005 (UTC)

I replaced existing definition with EPA's definition because they are the lead US agency and pesticides do more than just kill. Ozdog 22:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The European regulatory system uses the term 'Plant Protection Product' to include products such as fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, repellants, bio-control agents and plant growth regulators. Maccheek 10:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What is meant in the definition of a pesticide with a device? Does this make a mouse trap a pesticide? (RapidoII (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Include insect-killing crops as pesticides?

Judging simple-mindedly from the definition, it would appear that Bt corn and other things that kill insects should be classified as insecticides and thus pesticides. Any objections? Lfstevens (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

different countries do it differently, but generally the Bt itself is the insecticide; tests are done to ensure that the plant does not become "weedy" and that the resulting food is safe to eat. Please see Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms. Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Amounts used

Looking over the Amounts used section, I'm wondering what we're really trying to address there. Amounts will change each year, so I'm not too sure what picking specific years really tells us (i.e., 2006 and 2007). Amount is going to depend on a myriad of factors such as if something even gets used, the type of pesticide, etc, so I also don't see what describing everything in pounds is trying to accomplish either. Maybe we should be avoiding listing numbers so much in some cases and maybe stick to describing general trends such as % insecticide vs. fungicide, decreases of organophosphates due to Bt, etc.? If there's a specific direction folks think we should go in this section we can probably tailor content much better, but right now it seems a little incoherent, so I'd be interested to here any thoughts from others. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the content keeps getting reinserted without any discussion by U rob me with the Pesticide sales section. The key issue with the original research here is as described in my comment above. Kg/ha of pesticide is not a meaningful measure of total sales of pesticides in general. It's basically an apples to oranges comparison (or rather addition). For an individual pesticide this can be done, but even with one group, say insecticides, some insecticides require orders of magnitude less than others depending on the active ingredient. This can change more drastically when you start adding very different groups of pesticides together such as insecticides, herbicides, etc. That gets further compounded by having different pests in different countries where different pesticides are used. If actual amounts in kg/ha are going to be discussed in such a manner, they need to be put into context by other sources, similar to how the last sentences in the second paragraph of the Amounts used section are set up. It's very difficult to get that context in most examples, so that's why referring to kg/ha tends to be meaningless in most cases.

In short, we really need sources to put amounts of pesticide into context. It's not something we can leave up to limited things we can do under original research. If someone wants to edit this area being discussed, please start some discussion here rather than reinserting content so a consensus can be reached. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I will try to argue for my approach. If a research topic is complicated and too detailed for an reasonable analysis as a first meaningful step we step back and get an overview. Considering the integral of all pesticides sold and dividing it by the available arable land in that country gives an upper limit of the average use of pesticides in kg/ha per country. As I decided not to go into details (I have no funding for that research) this is the only but realistic way to gain a minimum of handy information to directly compare national agricultures. It doesn't make sense to analyze if a pesticide is more dangerous than some other. I am sure it has been done in many studies where the results of which differ strongly. They usually depend on the funding client. And, it doesn't make sense to compare the dangerousness of specific "national" pests because this is a matter of national "taste". It is a job for physicians and physicians already set the upper limits for the use of each pesticide. Maybe it is better to compare the percentage of the upper limit used. Anybody who wants to do that is welcome to inform us about the results. However, that will not effect the integral comparison of countries which is important for me. And I hope also for many of you.

Setting the benchmark to maximum from the beginning is capable to prevent any up-coming study or discussion. Who really wants that? First we generalize then we specify, unless we are scientists in the respective field. Only then we could go directly to a detailed scientific dispute. But then we would not discuss in Wikipedia. U rob me (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Kingofaces - to me just providing kg/Ha of total pesticide/herbicide treatment for some random year is just a "scare" number, and one that has no meaning... unless you have chemophobia or are otherwise an advocate for organic farming in which case the bigger number, the worse the situation and the louder you scream. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC) (strike. was using "you" in the global sense of "a person" and did not mean U rob me. The point was that the raw numbers have no context; we rely on secondary sources to provide context and this OR provides none. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC))

U rob me, I'm not sure what your scientific background is here, but if one pesticide is more dangerous than another (although we're not discussing health in that section), that is extremely important and is based in one of the fundamentals of toxicology: the dose makes the poison depending on which poison you are talking about. That is why it's an apples and oranges comparison because there are too many factors confounded to make the comparison easily. As explained above, that's why just adding numbers together isn't appropriate. This case you're bringing up goes well beyond WP:CALC because the topic is much more complicated than ones where simple addition, etc. is fine and is no longer a meaningful reflection of the source. It takes a lot of work to legitimately compare just two pesticides even by amount, and no Wikipedia editor is qualified to do that. That's why we let other sources describe the more complicated things for us first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

My scientific background is not in the field we discuss. But for you statistics fetishists I have now separated almost all reasonable pesticide categories defined by EUROSTAT. Hope you enjoy them in my new diagram :) U rob me (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you missed the point above, but the issue was that you can't make such measurements meaningful even separating them out that much. You would pretty much need to list each pesticide individually and somehow account for how much is used in application (i.e. differences between those that use a lot of active ingredient vs. those with only a small amount). That's getting too far into original research territory, which we cannot do as Wikipedia editors. It's complicated enough for those of us who do research in the field through complicated risk analysis, so I don't find it likely content this broad is going to make it in the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

U rob me just added another gob of WP:OR to the article, sliced a different way, which I deleted, as we have done with the past efforts that had the same flaw. U rob me, you are not listening to Kingofaces and me. Is this issue that you think what you are doing is OK under WP's policies and guidelines, or that you don't know anything but them but you just want the content in the article? Please do answer - we need to get this resolved, and your edit-warring this into the article is not the way to go. We need to talk this though. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Right, we need to discuss. I read all your comments carefully and got the impression that you did not get my point. Yes, I believe that I am right. Therefore I tried to restructure my contribution adapting your demands for details. I hoped that you accept at least part of my text and discuss about the rest in order to help me bring it in an acceptable form. But your reaction does not really help a beginner like me.

The argument that we should not mix apples and oranges is not acceptable if you want to list the fruit consumption per capita in countries. It does not make sense to discuss whether an orange has more Vitamin C than an apple or Granny Smith is more healthy than Golden Delicious. That would need real research to do. This is not my intention. Of course WP does compare countries that way as it is done for wines.

No discussion about red or white or about cabernet sauvignon grown in France or Italy. Nobody cares if alcohol is more detrimental to Germans or Chinese or makes them happy or cry. You just want to know how much they consume.

Comparing only same pesticides is not helpful and even misleading as chemicals which are prepared by different producers differ. You will never find identical products to compare different countries unless everybody buys from the same producer. On the other hand the effects of any chemicals on agriculture (hence on the quality of food) depend on geological and climatic conditions much stronger than you might have considered. Therefore, my considerations do not refer e.g. to the dangerousness of pesticides in food. It is a job of physicians to decide which of the two either protected plants or unprotected plants are more dangerous for consumers.

However, only if you know the amount of pesticides used in each country you might then ask why this varies so much and maybe it is better to increase the use of chemicals in my country in order to improve the quality of my food and my health.

Your argument "original research" might be partially right, you decide. But it would be misleading to use EUROSTAT's data on national pesticide sales without taking in account the respective available arable land. You would have argued that the resulting ranking is false. And dividing pesticide sales by arable land areas is just "taking in account" not "research". U rob me (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. It is your judgement that the ratio of pesticide to arable land is significant. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt answer. No, it is not MY judgement that the ratio of pesticide to arable land is significant. It is the pesticide producers' themselves displayed in the "instructions for use" of their products. Moreover it is general knowledge that absolute numbers are misleading if they don't refer to same conditions (here: area of use). I can't believe that somebody who is not in a conflict of interest would deny that. Then I would dispute the whole "Pesticide" article. Jytdog, please tell me that my discussion partners, here, are not involved in any lobbying. My interest in the field is not professional. As a physicist I do not belong to any of the two rival lobbies industry and ecologists. U rob me (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Right, you just gave me a bunch of your opinions. We don't edit WP based on editor's opinions. That you have not (cannot?) bring sources that have already done the ratios, but had to do it yourself, is a clear sign that this is WP:OR. That you personalize the discussion by making COI accusations is a sign that you really do not understand WP, at all. Please discuss content, not contributors. See WP:TPG and WP:NPA. If you continue making personal attacks you will be blocked. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you're still running into the same issues that haven't been resolved previously in this conversation. In even determining a ratio, you're still comparing apples to oranges as the rates are going to very significantly even between classes of insecticide much less for pesticides as a whole. This is going beyond what we would typically use WP:CALC for. It's really a dead-end at this point and no variation on this data you are pulling from is really going to be appropriate from a WP:WEIGHT perspective. Generally, routine calculations are for very simple almost one-liner items. We cross into original research when we start creating entire sections based on such content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not apples and oranges. It's watermelons and lingonberries. Adding unlike things is misleading. The meaningful comparison is trends over time within a single pesticide class (per unit area and total). It also makes sense to compare the "old way vs the new way". We used to use this much of an old pesticide on this crop. Now we use this other amount of a new pesticide (per unit area) on that crop. Lfstevens (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Lfstevens. From the scientific point of view it is better to differentiate and study even time dependent trends of specific pesticide classes. However, that will not give a rough overview for those who are not specialists. In such cases you consider the integral over all (or groups of) active substances, that gives you a limited but correct hint. If you publish data on fruit consumption in kg per capita you don't care for the price, sort, its degree of ripeness or if it is consumed as juice. This frugal information is enough just because you decide it, unless you study affects on public health or producers income or the greenhouse effect. Only then it would make sense to discuss e.g. whether watermelons or lingonberries generate more greenhouse gases. Therefore, it is no good argument to demand full information or no information.

And Kingofaces43, if it is true that giving correct national comparison instead of publishing absolute numbers is going beyond WP's limits then I will try to find some proper website from pesticide industry or ecologists in order to place it. Then I will come back to WP to cite it. Is that OK?

Hi Jytdog, you react unexpectedly strict. It is no need to block me. I do not attack you if I ask about lobbying in WP. Our whole continent works like that. I know that is no excuse in these times. Therefore, I apologize if I was misunderstood. I will be more clear in future. And, I'm sure that you also didn't mean it: "...'scare' number...that has no meaning ... you have chemophobia ... are...an advocate for organic farming ... the bigger number...the louder you scream." Deal? U rob me (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Lfstevens for joining. It is not clear to me what the most relevant kinds of ratios to look at are, but is is clear to me whatever ratios are generated should have foundation in the literature so that it is clear that they are meaningful; without that making the ratio is OR to me. Ditto the subsequent step of comparing ratios and saying anything about the comparison; needs to come from reliable sources and not any one of us. That's my view. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I should stop opining. I must enjoy it... Lfstevens (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I do like your reasoning and I appreciate you helping deal with this new editor. thanks for both. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

U rob me, I am not an admin and cannot block - that's why I used the passive voice. But I can bring an action against you at ANI, and I will do if you persist. Discuss content, not contributor. Thanks. i struck my comment above. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment on pest definition

I think the article on PESTICIDES is nonsense and misleading.

1. Anything ending in "-cide" means it is designed to kill its target, not mitigate it or whatever.

2. A pesticide is a product to kill pests. If you look at the definition of Pest in any authoritative English dictionary (e.g. Oxford English Dictionary) you will get Plague or Rodent or Insect. Even then plague is an archaic use. You will not find plants or weeds listed as a "pest" and I find it utterly incorrect to to include herbicide under the category of pesticide. I CANNOT BELIEVE FOR A MOMENT THAT A NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER WOULD ACCEPT THAT PESTICIDE CAN BE USED TO DESCRIBE KILLERS OF VIRUSES, EITHER. I do not think something that kills birds should be under the heading pesticide either (even if there are products designed to chemically kill birds, which sounds rather disgusting). Maybe American usage is different but it should then be made clear that the author is writing in American English, not in English. The article badly needs correction. Peter Demetriadi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.199.133 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done no source provided. This posting is not appropriate for an article Talk page - please read the talk page guidelines - Talk pages are not forums for expressing opinions. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have also checked Merriam Webster the standard dictionary for US American usage. They define Pesticide as : a chemical that is used to kill animals or insects that damage plants or crops". Therefore I believe it is incorrect to classify herbicides under pesticides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.199.133 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 July 2015‎ (UTC)

Working in extension, we actually have to correct people on this a lot where they think pesticide someone only pertains to insects, excludes plants, etc. Any organism that competes with us in terms of directly harming us or harming resources is considered a pest. That applies regardless of which English you're using. Dictionaries aren't always reliable when it comes to science topics. I suggest reading our article on Pest (organism). It needs a little work with sourcing, but the content that is there is pretty sound for a decent explanation of where your confusion might be coming up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Suggested change is not an improvement. Please read the sources provided in the article. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect choice of picture.

I think this might be nit picking but this picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hazardous-pesticide.jpg

Is incorrect. The worker is pouring "Lasso" into that tank and that is a Herbicide. I really don't think it is that serious but it is not really accurate. If someone has a better picture for it I think it would be a good idea if it were changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.104.7 (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In what way do you consider the picture "incorrect" or "not really accurate"? Though the picture is old, since the trade name Lasso is no longer in use (at least not in the US), it is still a valid picture of a pesticide being used. What kind of picture would you use? Adv4Ag (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to know why the picture caption says "hazardous herbicide". Just because the worker pictured is using more protective gear than required doesn't necessarily qualify the material as hazardous. I could just as easily wear the same gear to wash my dishes. Does that mean my dish soap is hazardous? I'm just saying. Kwagoner (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

So much for NPOV

Wow. This article has turned into a real disaster. I hadn't looked at it for a while, and I see that in the meantime it has been loaded with all manner of garbage. Even the lead sentence is a mess -- it no longer reflects the source given.

Putting the NPOV template on it. Kwagoner (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You have not mentioned the issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Question

Any body please tell me that pesticides are organic or inorganic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizan shahbaz mughal (talk • contribs) 14:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

When pesticides are used the crop cannot be considered organic. David notMD (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The word "organic" has multiple meanings. In some systems such as "organic chemistry" many would count as organic. In the environmental sense they generally do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, pesticides are used in organic farming (what you just said is a common myth). The only stipulation for organic programs is that the pesticide is "naturally" produced by other organisms, use of metals, minerals, etc. Some pesticides used in organic farming are also more toxic than conventional pesticides too. When I see organic vs. inorganic though, that usually relates to what Doc James mentioned where organic pesticides are chemicals that would fall under Organic chemistry, whereas the latter would be inorganic chemistry. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I prefaced it with generally. But yes depends on the organic farmer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Pesticide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609205608/http://www.btny.purdue.edu/Pubs/PPP/PPP-70.pdf to http://www.btny.purdue.edu/Pubs/PPP/PPP-70.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305060503/http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/waterquality/420-013/420-013.html to http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/waterquality/420-013/420-013.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://magazine.panna.org/summer2006/inDepthDDT.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afronets.org/files/malaria.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020618151910/http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/land/pubs/eip_pap.html to http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/land/pubs/eip_pap.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170315065236/http://www.pops.int/documents/guidance/beg_guide.pdf to http://www.pops.int/documents/guidance/beg_guide.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131216235945/http://www.ijcdi.com/FILEPath/82.pdf to http://www.ijcdi.com/FILEPath/82.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617060044/http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/willson.htm to http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/willson.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011073056/http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/code/PM_Code.htm to http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Code/PM_Code.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013135858/http://omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/hort/news/grower/2005/12gn05a2.htm to http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/hort/news/grower/2005/12gn05a2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060106072111/http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/ to http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

See interwiki

Anyone speak Indonesian? I'm pretty sure id:Pestisida is about pesticides but I want to be sure before adding the link. delldot talk 23:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The article in the Indonesian Wikipedia is now linked to this one under "Other languages". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.204.140 (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Definition in lead

Here's a "global" definition of pesticide that might replace the EPA definition and help rid us of the "US-centric" complaint. The definition has been vetted by an international committee ogf experts and constitutes an affirmation of the same definition given in an earlier IUPAC report (J. H. Duffus, Pure Appl. Chem. 65:2003 (1993)). I would start the article as follows (and give the refs. as soon as I figure out how to fomat them!).

The IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) "Glossary of Terms Relating to Pesticides", Pure and Applied Chemistry vol. 78 2075-2154 (2006) gives the follwing definition of "pesticide":

"Substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying or controlling any pest, including vectors of human or animal disease, unwanted species of plants or animals causing harm or otherwise interfering with the production, processing, storage, transport, or marketing of food, agricultural commodities, wood, wood products or animal feedstuffs, or which may be administered to animals for the control of insects, mites/spider mites or other pests in or on their bodies. The term includes substances intended for use as a plant growth regulator, defoliant, desiccant, or agent for thinning fruit or preventing the premature fall of fruit, and substances applied to crops either before or after harvest to protect the commodity from deterioration during storage or transport."

The same publication gives a list of 20 different kinds of pesticides, e.g., "acaricide" for ticks, "slimicide" for slime molds, etc. Shall I add these to the article as well??? DonWauchope 04:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

PS you can find the "Glossary by doing "IUPAC, pesticide, glossary" on Google Scholar...DonWauchope 04:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding the list of types of pesticides, maybe in a bulleted list under #types. I think the definition is good, but a little wordy for the lead. I recommend boiling both definitions down into a concise, easy-to-understand lead sentence, and then we can follow up with the more detail and lists of stuff you might want to kill in subsequent sentences. ;) delldot talk 04:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that IUPAC reference; I've just created the article Slimicide, and used that as one of the cites, along with adding slimicide to the pesticide type tables in this article, to {{Pesticides}}, and wikilinking the instances of "slimicide" I found in other articles to the new one. --Dan Harkless (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

DonWauchope (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)==Rm US-centered tag?== What do folks think about taking off the US-centered tag? I think substantial work has been done since the tag was added. I just altered the lead to remove the US EPA and integrate the international definition suggested by DonWauchope.

By section, it's like this:

• Lead - no countries mentioned
• Types - no countries mentioned (edit: but section contains an image of the US)
• Uses and benefits - mostly generic, two US statistics, one Third World fact
• History - mostly generic, Sumeria mentioned, worldwide statistics and threats discussed. US not explicitly mentioned
• Regulation - Still problematic: all specific facts are about the US, and some seem generic but probably only apply to the US.
• Environmental effects - all generic
  • Air - all generic except one mention of The Netherlands
  • Water - two US facts, two UK facts, one European Union fact, the rest generic
  • Soil - generic
  • Plants - mostly generic, one sentence dealing with US statistics
  • POPs - generic
  • Animals - mostly generic and worldwide, one sentence dealing with the US
    • Birds - one Britain fact, one Europe fact, one US fact, the rest generic
    • Aquatic life - one Canada fact, one US fact, the rest generic
    • Amphibians - a little generic, with 5 facts about studies that took place in the US
  • Pest resistance - generic
  • Pest rebound and secondary pest outbreaks - mostly generic, one US fact
• Health effects - generic
  • Farmers and workers - one developing world fact, one Bangladesh fact, the rest generic
  • Consumers - some generic, but mostly US-related facts
  • The public - some generic (but with fact from the US EPA and a US-based environmental group), one India fact, one EPA finding.
• Continuing development - mostly generic, includes a list of countries.
• Alternatives - mostly generic, one US fact, one Sweden fact, one Indonesia fact.

So maybe a little more work needs to be done, but I think most sections are OK enough that they don't need the tag. Some of the studies may have taken place in the US, but I don't see that as particularly problematic as long as the facts are applicable everywhere. Some of the facts that seem generic may really only pertain to the US, which is a problem. I'd say in those cases we should deal with the individual problems rather than leaving the tag on the whole article.

For now I'd recommend moving the tag from the top of the article to the regulation section, the amphibians section, and the consumers section, which are the only ones with problems in my opinion. I can work on those sections and hopefully later we can remove those tags too. I think tagging the specific sections rather than the whole article will help get the problems fixed quicker. Any objections? delldot talk 08:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly an overwhelming response, so I'm going to go ahead. We can discuss this more if need be. delldot talk 06:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi delldot--sorry I have been out of pocket and delighted that you incorporated the IUPAC definition. I will try to start visiting more often. I agree with removing the tag and will work some on the "regulation" section. DonWauchope —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonWauchope (talk • contribs) 03:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Colloquial use : In some European countries, "E number ... is a synonym for the chemical component"

A bit of ... gram'l tendention, maybe: chem. comp't is way too broad, & here is grammatically ambig. Does editor use ch'l as adjective, or noun? As a phys. scie'st, chem. describes focus of study, not ontogony. Is this abt role as a chem'l compound? Or does editor split hairs between chem/phys effects? The real point is about compounds appearing as result of human introduction of substances in the course of manufacturing, vs. (often) in the course of plant breeding. Arguably, editor is quibbling over virtues of wild vs domesticated foods, rather than what the biochemistry is. JerzyA (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Disposal

We need some information on disposable costs and methods for unused pesticides, in the past nearly 1 percent of the cost of pesticides related to disposal costs but I imagine it is more now.Hardyplants (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

Remove the "citation needed" after "along with these benefits" in the lead. Both the benefits and costs of pesticides are clearly stated and cited in the following sections. 2601:640:4000:3170:2DC1:AE39:32C4:8C72 (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Run n Fly (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: A source must still be provided - you can’t use the sources for the rest of the sections in the article as a source. Let me know if you find a source within the article to use Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 15:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shadowrvn728, Run n Fly, and Tom.Reding: Huh? See WP:CITELEAD. No source is needed. What is the thing that needs to be cited? I can't even tell if they meant that it was unclear if pesticides had benefits or it was unclear if pesticides had costs. 2601:640:4000:3170:4C5:8BB:168D:5768 (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2020 and 15 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Egh 1991.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VenusL (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by VenusL (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Indiana University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by Primefac (talk) on 15:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)