The insect glue, produced from edible oils, was inspired by plants such as sundews that use the strategy to capture their prey. A key advantage of physical pesticides over toxic pesticides is that pests are highly unlikely to evolve resistance, as this would require them to develop much larger and stronger bodies, while bigger beneficial insects, like bees, are not trapped by the drops.
The drops were tested on the western flower thrip, which are known to attack more than 500 species of vegetable, fruit and ornamental crops. More than 60% of the thrips were captured within the two days of the test, and the drops remained sticky for weeks.
Work on the sticky pesticide is continuing, but Dr Thomas Kodger at Wageningen University & Research, in the Netherlands, who is part of the self defence project doing the work, said: “We hope it will have not nearly as disastrous side-effects on the local environment or on accidental poisonings of humans. And the alternatives are much worse, which are potential starvation due to crop loss or the overuse of chemical pesticides, which are a known hazard.”
97% of all insects are beneficials, meaning they are completely harmless or predate on the insects that eat your crops.
But sure, kill them all because bugs ewww.
It’s not because they’re gross, it’s because they eat our food. And we grow monocultures so it’s a perfect breeding ground for pests. Also if you read the article the new pesticide is a physical office and doesn’t harm large predatory insects.
they help create your food.
No pesticide that physically traps insects is specific to one kind. It’s not really possible. It may not capture bees, but it will capture other smaller insects than thrips that do no harm. For example green lacewing larva.
I’m not fighting you. It’s just you’re acting as if the reason we research pesticides isn’t because we need it to protect our food source.
I’m not even saying that there isn’t some possible alternative, I’m just saying monoculture grains is how humanity gets most of its calories right now. It’s how we currently survive. That requires pesticides. These pesticides are far less damaging to the world than the current ones in use right now. It’s in the research phase too, so it’s not like we’re committing to this specific idea. Everyone knows there are pros and cons, the scientists doing the research do too. You’re not the first person to realise that this will trap all small insects. Just a reminder that our current solution kills all insects and this one is better. The fact it doesn’t harm bees is already a massive improvement.
Everyone should be welcome and encouraged to research any idea that’s better than our current ideas in any way. Any knowledge is good knowledge.
As for your preferred ideas? There are lots of ways to help be part of a future that includes what you feel is the best solution. That being said, none of them include being disingenuous about why we use pesticides in the first place. I don’t know why that was contentious to you. We don’t kill bugs because they’re gross, we kill them because they eat our food.
Fundamentally you misinterpreted what I said. I’m not being disingenuous about why we use pesticides, I’m simply saying we are doing it wrong and should not use any. The whole premise of “we must use pesticides or we’ll starve” is, to put it simply, a fallacy. Because we are no longer producing food so we don’t starve but so that huge corporations can profit more.
The big problems with the “well this is slightly better than the alternative” are: First, the alternatives don’t necessarily kill all insects - they can be highly targeted too. Secondly, killing any beneficials is treading backwards. The more beneficials you kill the more you need things to kill the pests. In other words, it’s pushing “solutions” in completely the wrong direction. And industrial ag pursues this with such fervor it’s accelerating the process to the point where we may have no functional insect populations left. This is an existential threat.
We don’t kill bugs because they’re gross, we kill them because they eat our food.
In fact they don’t in the large scheme of things. Or as the joke goes, they only eat a little.
I think this sums up your misinterpretation of what I’m saying and I concede it’s understandable because I was a little obscure in my jest. The “eww gross” line comes from a basic prejudice that people have about insects - that they are always pests and don’t serve an important purpose. And so our approach to pest control has always been one of “insect bad! kill them all!”. Even the fact that if someone finds a bug in their store-bought produce - and I’ve seen this with my own eyes - they are inclined to take it back. That’s the level of ridiculous over-reaction we have when in reality we should be enlisting the help of the insect world.
And I can personally attest this works on a commercial scale.
Using sustainable practices “they only eat a little” is totally valid. The way we farm now… A pest outbreak will ravage a monoculture crop.
I know there are great alternatives, but they all have higher labour requirements. Modern capitalism can’t tolerate that. If we can find a better solution now we can mitigate the damage before we end capitalism. After that we can definitely switch to more labour intensive sustainable practices. I’m not an accelerationist so I’m not rushing to end the current world order before trying to make all the improvements we can.
I know there are great alternatives, but they all have higher labour requirements.
- Not necessarily - I’d argue any higher labor requirements are more than offset by the increased value the producer (ie higher margins); 2. So what. Modern capitalism can’t tolerate that - this is very true. Because we have these very long complex food production chains that demand the lowest possible input costs in order to survive. But there is a way out and it doesn’t require re-inventing capitalism: decentralization of production and promotion of smaller more diversified farms. This absolutely can be done and we know because we have been doing it, just not quite enough to offset the corporate forces of centralization. Small farms and farmer’s markets need help and part of that is up to consumers to make the choice. Part of it is regulatory capture by big food corporations who have shaped our food chain to make sure that small farms are at a huge disadvantage.
On #1 - a diversified farm growing “speciality crops” (USDA speak for food we consume directly instead of commodities) will typically have margins >20% and can easily net $25k or more an acre. In commodities, even the highest net for almonds and pistachios might only get you $1.2-1.5k per acre. Many commodities like corn can have a negative margin and only survive through subsidies.
All this matters because farmers have literally been digging their own graves and become little more than share croppers. It’s so hard to be viable direct to consumer there is little choice - a really classic example being chicken production where it’s virtually impossible to be an independent producer because companies like Tyson have made sure all the regulations favor them. So now they’ll loan you the money for facilities you’ll never pay off and you have no choice but to sell to them at whatever price they set.
I like what you’re saying and I agree with it fundamentally. I wish it is possible to have the majority of crops be direct to consumer. I KNOW everyone is happier when they have a real personal relationship with the products they consume. That’s even part of what marketing abuses when it anthropomorphises brands.
I’m personally pessimistic on that front though, I think it can’t happen in modern capitalism for two major reasons. Number one, I don’t think the majority of the population of Western nations, let alone the world, can tolerate even a moderate increase in food prices without creating massive instability. I know what the “middle men” jack up prices considerably on almost everything, but the staples: wheat and meat in my part of the world, simply cannot be sold cheaper by smaller operations than grocery store prices (in part due to the regulatory capture so prevalent in modern capitalism). Number two, of the people that CAN tolerate the increase, I don’t think modern capitalism would allow their profits to be undercut by a significant shift towards small producers selling direct to customers. They have a few tools that I just don’t think most people are prepared to live without like comfort and consistency. I can get plums, cauliflower, tomatoes, broccoli ANYTIME OF YEAR at reasonably consistent prices. The idea that people will have to pay more AND change to seasonal eating habits where they just can’t get certain things most of the year? I think we’re too far into the comfort of bourgeois decadence, excuse my communist language, to tolerate the change.
I will say I have enjoyed this discussion and I certainly agree that I mischaracterised you by initially latching onto a throwaway “ew bugs” comment.
It will harm any insect the same size as the target ones. Insects have so so many ecological benefits, as pollinators, as part of the food chain, as unique and amazing creatures in and of themselves, they may contain chemicals and biological systems we don’t yet understand but that future generations will benefit from the knowledge of. We need to protect our biodiversity.
Thrips aren’t beneficial.
Thrips aren’t beneficial.
Um. No kidding. Did you read the article? (Edit: that I linked to)
This year again, we released green lacewing larva in the Public Garden, the Boston Common, and Commonwealth Avenue Mall. As generalist predators, the tiny larvae (Chrysoperla rufilabris) provide a vital service by eating aphids, small caterpillars, beetles, thrips, mites, whiteflies, mealybugs, and even insect eggs.
Edit: My point, which seems to be completely lost on most people here is that no physical means of trapping insects is going to only target the problem insects. You will always capture more of the insects you didn’t mean to harm. Source: me, having tried sticky traps and various oils in commercial farming settings.
Most of us totally got your point 🙂
Most of us totally got your point
Who is “most of us” and which point?
Did you read the article?
I’m left wondering if you read it. It doesn’t make the assertion you do:
no physical means of trapping insects is going to only target the problem insects
This seems self-evident, but I have to ask why you didn’t cite a source that backs that up before slapping me with an “Um.No kidding.”
Maybe your communication skills are less developed than you realize?
Is this your standard mode of discussion? You are very unclear.
Ecologist here … you’re absolutely right. We can have less efficient agriculture that doesn’t require indiscriminate killing of species.
Not surprised you got downvoted here, the literal grass-touching prevalence on this site is extremely low.
We can have less efficient agriculture that doesn’t require indiscriminate killing of species.
Thank you!
One of the big lies of modern industrialized agriculture is that we have a production problem. We don’t! We have a “profit problem” in the sense that industrialized food producers demand ever greater profits which means they have to continually find ways to get people to eat more “value”, in volume and/or value-added processes.
In reality we have a distribution problem that is caused by industrialization and centralization. The real solution is decentralization and diversification.
🫰🏻🫰🏻Yes! We don’t need to all eat the same things everywhere. I don’t need avocados shipped in from Chile. Local foods is a great way to increase efficiency as well, there is less loss from transportation. But it does mean that you can’t eat the same things everywhere you go. If we want to live in a sustainable way, there are big policy changes that need to happen, but those policy changes would lead to changes in our everyday lifestyle. The party’s over, we see the results happening right before our eyes and being able to eat the same McDonald’s cheeseburger in every country is not worth the cost of mass extinction.
The sticky drops will biodegrade but the team is investigating how long this takes.
They probably should have waited to write such a glowing article until after we find this out.
Because I’m thinking people aren’t going to be all that into trying to pull apart grapes that have been glued together.
How many oil plants to you have to mill up in order to have enough oil to coat a plant?
It’s still a chemical.
Yes that headline is extremely moronic, you can’t even water your plants without chemicals, because water is also a chemical!
I don’t get how you are downvoted for pointing out the headline is factually wrong??Just because the insects aren’t killed by the toxicity of chemicals, they are captured by glue, which remains a strong chemical device, and remains potentially harmful.
“Without chemicals”
Okay, no need to take this seriously.
All jokes aside, this is another great example of a trend towards bio-inspired engineering.
There are plenty of ways we shorten a specific phrase that renders it general but still understand it as the specific version.
The word “chemicals” is rarely misunderstood when used this way. Colloquially, many/most people mean “harmful chemicals” when they say it.
Is there room for misunderstanding? Yes. Is that a problem? Not any bigger than most problems with using spoken/written language to communicate.
You don’t come off as wise when you point this inaccuracy out, and It doesn’t invalidate the whole article.
It just really feels weird to me to describe something as GLUE, but then also say that it doesn’t use chemicals. One thing I take into consideration most times I’m using glue, is whether the item I’m gluing will be melted by the glue.
I get what they’re trying to say, but glue is a description of a chemical compound in my mind.
Because it’s oxidized plant oil, info that is right in the article.
Is cocaine not a drug because it’s organic plant sourced?
Inspired by chemical defenses used in nature by plants such as the sundew.
You are correct, but having spent 7 years of my life learning general chemistry, biochemistry, and organic chemistry… I will fight with my last breath that chemicals exist.
To play devils advocate, lets say we “agree” that “no chemicals” means no harmful chemicals… now we have given corporations the weasel defense to say anything has “no chemicals” because they will define away any measure of harm.
Pointing out the incorrectness of the article doesn’t mean it has no merit, but now the critical reader must be extra cautious because the author has demonstrated very poor domain knowledge, and their conclusions are suspect.
Well “technically correct” is the best kind of correct, so I’ll agree.
Why not just say “no toxins”?
“Toxin” is somewhat subjective.
Raisins aren’t a toxin… for us. But they are for cats and dogs.
And not all harmful chemicals are toxic, per se.
Sodium hydroxide does not produce systemic toxicity, but is very corrosive and can cause severe burns in all tissues that it comes in contact with.
I’ve watched chunks of society freak out over everything from basic food ingredients to vaccines because they contained polysyllabic words that people decried as “chemicals”.
And I’ve spent my whole damn life listening to people abuse the word “theory” until the the Christofascists and neo-nazis managed to become mainstream.
People abuse technical words with a purpose. Don’t play apologetics for them because you believe their understanding of words is more nuanced than they are.
I don’t ingest anything with ingredients I can’t pronounce.
Drinks mercury
But that does spare them from the ravages of guacamole and nopales
You don’t serve the greater good by misusing words. A new sticky substance as an alternative to chemicals? If you want to educate people through your reporting, then you try to make it accurate and choose words carefully.
It doesn’t invalidate the whole article, fair enough. But it does make a “wise” person question what else they got wrong.
But it does make a “wise” person question what else they got wrong.
No, because a wise person would understand that the journalist understood the audience they were speaking to, ie: the general public, and used the proper verbiage.
An unwise person would argue language semantics.
Exactly. Intelligence is knowing what the right words are. Wisdom is knowing what words to use to get your point across to people who aren’t as intelligent as you.
Hard disagree. Science reporting has to summarize and simplify, but it should strive to remain accurate and not “dumb down.” By making “chemicals” the Boogeyman it misleads people. Certain chemicals are dangerous and others are just fine. Natural chemicals, oxidized or not, can be very toxic. Lab made chemicals can be mostly inert.
Everything is chemicals.
Yep. Cooking is a chemical reaction.
Beware of dihydrogen monoxide.
Oh, but I long for the days when this was a joke. ;-(
Which is why it should be considered bad practice to use the word “chemicals” as a synonym for “poison.”
