8 votes

Nano Pesticides: NO Regulations & Already in Use... What?

Yep... and getting little if any attention.

►"The risk that nano-particles may pose to human and environment health is not yet fully understood."
►"Nano-pesticide research is emerging at high speed at the agrochemical labs, however, this topic has not reached public awareness or state authorities so far...
►"Nano-pesticides encompass a great variety of products, some of which are already on the market. The application of nano-pesticides would be the only intentional diffuse input of large quantities of engineered nano-particles into the environment."
►"The current level of knowledge does not allow a fair assessment of the advantages and disadvantages that will result from the use of nano-pesticides."
►"nano-pesticides may also create new kinds of contamination of soils and waterways due to enhanced transport, longer persistence and higher toxicity." Here
►MONTREAL, Oct. 14 (UPI) -- A Canadian study suggests current equipment designed to protect workers who handle nanomaterials might not offer adequate protection. Current regulations and standards testing for protective clothing and equipment are almost void of references to nanomaterials. Here

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Just say NO!

To the FDA, EPA, NSA, AMA, FED, WHO and a hundred more? We are being systematically poisoned and enslaved.

Should we just say No on an individual level, or as a group? This is a often debated question here oh the DP and elsewhere.

How can we just say NO? Just say no to breathing the chemtrail poisoned air? Just say no to eating the GMO food (if you can find out the difference)? Just say no to drinking, or bathing in the the fluoride water? Just say no to vaccines (unless you under the age of 8 and have no say)? Just say no to the expanding police state?

The idea of just saying No starts at the local level with personal choice, and local government banning larger intrusion on the rights of it's citizens. You can't change the world or the country from the top down (unless your God). The world and the country must be changed from the bottom up, one decision, one person at a time just saying NO.

Can we bring awareness to the masses? Yes. We can voice our opinions, and should continue to do so on the systematic poisoning of our world. My friends and family know know about, chemtrails, GMOs, fluoride, vaccines, the NSA, and more.

What is our next steps? One thing we know for sure is the "THEY" will continue to poison and and enslave until they are stopped? What should our next steps be?

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

That's the point...

as it stands... EPA simply allow it and ask the producers to just notify them if they are using nano materials.
a single EPA page (all I could find) explains this (2011) procedure:
Here all about what EPA 'intends' and 'it would be a good idea 'if' type stuff... not even implemented yet, it is simply a 'thought' that it 'would' be a good idea to 'start' fact finding... but the PRODUCTS are already out there in use, in mass.

This thread was birthed from an obscure post on another forum from some guy looking for another job. He was complaining of failing health, headaches, nausea etc. from working at a golf course for the last year in which he was tasked with handling/spraying this 'new' nano pesticide.
After the symptoms began accruing, he started looking into the 'product' and found that it contained nano materials. He also found that, (after calling mfr.s) that other producer/products he was using wouldn't 'admit' the presence of nanomaterials as a matter of company 'policy'.
Intrigued, I googled nano pesticides and found VERY little.
go ahead... google it yourselves... nada!

How is it possible the EPA, USDA, and FDA allow this?

How is it possible the EPA, USDA, and FDA allow this?

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Ha, that was good.

Maybe we just need another organization to handle this one. Maybe the Nano Sprayers Association.

This is where I split with the Libertarian ideology.

The thinking that regulation is bad that is. The supposed Free Market does nothing to protect nor compensate against these types of activities. This along with GMO and other bio technologies that covertly effect everyone should be regulated with an err to safety first and monetary gain last.

please government help!!!!

Laws already protect people, their property, etc. If someone or a company pollutes or contaminates my property or my person then it is a criminal act and can be taken to court. The problem is that people ask the government to help with everything and guess who has the upper hand when the government is involved? The corporations that are in bed with the government will mak3 laws to benifit them only. It is what has led to abuse by gmos and other industries. Be careful what you ask for.

Ask these people how that idea is working for them.


It is not regulation that is bad. Corrupt government is what you rail against and rightfully so but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Undying corporations and corruption are the problem.

Do you think that suing a corporation hurts the individuals behind their destructive activities?

I am careful what I wish for. I wish for a non corrupt government that doesn't get it's influence from corporate money or individual sob stories. But we won't get that until we get rid of this corporate democracy and live in a righteous kingdom. ;-)

Regulation creates Corruption

First, to answer your question about those Chinese; well they live in a dictatorship where you have no rights, including your life. The citizens there have given the government total authority over their lives, allowing them to regulate everything; number of children, where they can live, traveling, how much pollution they suck in, etc.

As for your second question: Do you think that suing a corporation hurts the individuals behind their destructive activities?

Somewhat. The risk is diminished for the individual since the company will be held reliable. In cases of fraud the individual is still held responsible.

Regulation is a form of corruption or a means of one group or person obtaining specialized privileges. For example, for you or I to open up a bank is filled with regulations so we must hire lawyers, very expensive ones, fill out piles upon piles of forms and a whole series of other steps to fulfill all of the regulations required by the government. Well that is very expensive and difficult to do, thus you and I do not open up the bank. You see, the big banks are happy with all of the regulations because it is a barrier to entry into "their" market.

Regulation thus is the cause of this "corporate democracy" as you so call it. The free market can destroy those companies in no time, replacing them with much more competitive businesses.

I take issue with some of your base assertions.

First I don't know that you can say that "they GAVE government authority over their lives" any more than you can say that YOU gave our government authority over your life.

Second is your assumption that "regulation is a form of corruption."
and your analogy to try and back it up. We are not talking about opening a business.

Lastly regulation is NOT the cause of this corporate democracy. Corruption is. And the elimination of rules would only further make us susceptible to corporate influence. The best thing we could do is eliminate the corporate veil that corruptness hides behind.

In the end we would still just be treating symptoms of the underlying cause which is mans appetite for mass produced junk.

There is no need for "regulation" only definitions of our rights

It is illegal, by law, to damage another's life (includes property). So it is already illegal for a person to pollute my life or property. The law has already defined the limits of our rights. So there is no need for any regulation because a law already prohibits the act of polluting my land/property/life with harmful nano pesticides, or anything for that matter.

Look at it this way...if there was no regulation, then when a person or company spray nano pesticides on my land and causes damage, I can sue them. But with regulation, the company or person can spray up to a certain amount of nano pesticides on my land and it is okay, because the regulation says so. Who decides on that regulation? How are the acceptable levels of pollution determined? What amount of my rights are allowed to be violated? Well these questions are answered by lobbyists, or the companies help the legislators make up their mind. BAM!! you got corruption.

So you are telling me

that laws are not regulations? I think you are picking nits.

Murder is against the law but people still murder. Some people get away with murder because of corruptness but that doesn't make the law against murder wrong or corrupt. The convoluted enforcement of the law is what's at fault.

I still hold that regulation/law is not bad but corruptness leads to bad law/regulation. You use the points of corruption in the law making process to argue against regulation, or that's what I am understanding from your position. If not for corruption then there wouldn't be so much regulation. On this I think we can agree.

I think we are both against BAD regulation. We seem to be at odds as to where bad regulation comes from.

Good day.

What is your recourse

for radiation from Japan?

Very Simple

Privatize the oceans. If you pollute my piece of ocean, well then you will have to pay me. Understand how it works? There isn't a problem with Libertarianism, especially when it comes to pollution, the problem is that we don't have libertarianism.

Regulation doesn't work and will never work simply because government is involved. There should be no regulation, only laws that protect ones life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's the problem. It's rather ambiguous

what laws do protect "life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness." Ingesting and breathing in pesticides certainly has a negative effect on my life. I guess you'd recommend I sue all the companies involved?

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Recommend nothing.

Unfortunately the system is so corrupt that it is difficult to believe that you will be able to obtain justice. In the case of you ingesting food that has been contaminated, that is your problem. The food was never yours until you purchased it. Now if at that point some dude with a crop duster comes by and sprays your food, yeah he should be held accountable. But if you purchased it already contaminated that is something between you and the seller, no one else.

As for breathing in pesticides, I do agree with you. The current system doesn't protect you. It doesn't protect you because the government has become so powerful and controlling that it decides what is right or wrong. Just as the government has decided that it can take your property, put you in jail for putting something in your own body, put you on a kill list without a trial, etc., it has also decided that some company can pollute your air. The government shouldn't have the power to make such decisions; it should be protecting your life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

If your goal is to prevent people from polluting your property, then the current system will never work. A libertarian one, I believe, will.

Neither gov't *nor* corporations of the size they are

is any answer. But if I had to choose? I'd choose big gov't over big corporations. For one, it sure looks to me that corporations rule the U.S. gov't and not the other way around. And corporations don't even pretend to operate other than what maximizes their profit (for even the barest of profit increase) even if it would mean the demise of the very U.S. itself. There's always some other market. That's all people are to a corporation, a potential market, i.e., money.

Whereas, the government does at least pretend - and is sometimes legally bound - to acknowledge that people are creations of God with unalienable rights. "Private" solutions might work better outside of this Twilight Zone environment where corporations are treated with the same regard. In the past, "the people" could revoke the charter of a corporation deemed to no longer be operating in the public interest, virtually impossible these days.

Also, the concept of "property" - what's yours, what's mine, our rights concerning protection of property, etc. - is a man-made construct *not* acknowledged by Nature. Do you really believe that if you put pesticides on "your" property, they'll leach into the soil and water and be gradually carried downhill until - STOP! - they reach your property line? It's not just air pollution. It's all of it.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

The size of both are caused by Government

A powerful government leads to a large government because people will use the government instead of the free market to achieve their goals. By removing the power of government, companies are forced to compete in a free market, thus they must satisfy the demands of the people, their customers, or cease to exist.

Big government on the other hand allows companies to have a comparitave advantage from others within their industry or from another comapany entering their industry. Big government also gives these corporations protection from risk such as the concept of "too big to fail" attitude. So as you can see the big government creates the big corporation.

As for my pesticides leaking into the groundwater, I should be held responsible. But the big government has given big corporations the green card to do as they please with their products. Thus you and others cannot win a case against me contaminated the groundwater.

This is a fertile area

for education of progressives. Check out this NY Times editorial on Madison on this subject.

Madison’s Privacy Blind Spot

reedr3v's picture

It's just that

libertarians think we billions of rational individuals can come up with solutions better than elite super-bureaucrats who are ignorant and paid off by the unscrupulous.


"Billions of rational individuals"? What planet do you live on? I can't stop laughing. I can't help but think of the saying "out of the frying pan and into the fire."

Don't get me wrong. I understand your sentiment and agree with it but in the real world "rational individuals" are few and far between and that is why we are in the shape we are in.

I agree with the thinking

but I don't see restraint or testing of potentially harmful technologies outside of state and federal agencies. What free market solutions are you aware of that would evaluate nano pesticides before they are released? Does free market mean no mechanism but courts? How many fukushima type disasters happen in nanotech and genetic engineering without regulations?

What would a free market solution look like for companies pouring billions into engineering insects? Oxitec wants to own segments of insect populations. These are systems we rely on for survival. What are the standards by which free market profits in fundamental biological processes are understood? Would companies be held liable? Like TEPCO?

Rapid advances and corruption certainly seem to have exceeded the agencies' ability to cope, if they ever did, and they have always been a patchwork, biologically speaking, because they're based on political boundaries. We certainly need to think differently about both markets and regulations. Our current understanding of markets ignores ecosystems, which are a given, until they fail.

The problem isn't Libertarianism

You seem to think that if Libertarian principles were applied to this issue then it would become completely unrestrained and the ecosystem and people would suffer. What you seem to not realize is that applying a piece of libertarianism won't solve the problem and yes it will have the results you speak of, but if the entire system were a libertarian one, then the issue would be already solved. Today we have corporations that protect individuals from the responsibility of the decisions made. Well in a Libertarian society, someone is always responsible for every decision. So if damage is done, someone is held responsible. But the way it works today is that the company declares bankruptcy and moves on to something else. The government has removed the risk. No different than bailing out banks, or car companies, the risk has been eliminated thus bad decisions can be made with no worry of the repercussions.

Consider the owner or CEO of this company of Nano Pesticides. If he decides to spray his product and it causes damage, he should be held responsible. If it were like so, he would be very careful about what he does. He would most likely confirm that the product is safe or else it is his ass.

That's all well and good

but she doesn't necessarily have the resources to make it right, if by some magic wand of libertarianism she's held responsible.

Who would hold her responsible? The courts?

It's admirable thinking, and it's important that we argue these things out, but it's fantasy.

I'm not saying the problem is libertarianism. Where do you get that? I'm saying the current notion of free markets doesn't include ecosystem services in it's pricing model.

I'm saying we need get creative to solve this. The current paradigms, even on this wacky sight, are not up to the problem.

You're not offering a solution to nano pesticides, you're just saying hold the sprayer accountable.

Your solution certainly isn't the problem, but it's still not good enough. TEPCO says as much. There is no reliable mechanism to hold them accountable, and no guarantee they have the resources to set it right.

Look at it this way.

I consider that the government should protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those our the foundation of libertarianism. Today if a person murders another they have taken a life and thus go to jail, if convicted. Now I consider life to also include my property, because it took part of my life to obtain it. So if another person destroys my property with pollution, nano pesticides, gmo cross pollination, etc., then they have created one of the gravest incursions in my rights and should be punished. However they are not. The company that this person works for is the one that gets sued and well you already know the result. So if a person has the risk of going to jail, being held responsible for their decisions, then they will think very hard about their decisions.

Obviously bad decisions will be made and there will be repercussions that cannot be undone, but at least those that make such stupid decision will be getting locked up instead of being allowed to repeat such mistakes. The current system clearly doesn't work and I believe it clearly is a result of the responsibility having been transferred from the person to the company.

It's not that I don't understand

the arguments, it's that the free market paradigm, based on property supporting individual liberty, also doesn't protect against the threats the biome faces.

What's the remedy to the pacific ocean for fukushima? If nano pesticides were to disrupt the soil food web that feeds plants from microorganisms, who could fix that?

Whether or not libertarian free markets is better than the current paradigm, and I think it is, neither is enough. We will continue the trend of ecosystem degradation, affecting health and fertility, until there is some new thinking that addresses these problems. Until then, we're fighting corruption, while looking for higher ground (places that are not radioactive, or food that has not been genetically modified), while the less fortunate suffer unspeakably. It's not good enough.

I guess we're talking about managing overpopulation plus stupidity in wielding new technologies.

No. The problem isn't regulation.

The problem is corruption. Libertarianism doesn't address that either.

Isn't that the truth

We need a revolution in libertarian thinking.

We also need prosecutors looking in the right places. How do we put our politicians in jail when the majority are guilty, and we rely on them to put each other in jail?

The delegate strategy in the last cycle might have worked, if rules were followed.

Anarchists, tell us how we regain control in the absence of rules.


Is it just that we're so far down the corporate-fascism hole, that there's no chance for the free market to work?