Example collocations logo

Pesticides in sentence

137 examples of Pesticides in a sentence

Because it persists after spraying, DDT works far better than many pesticides now in use, some of which are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
As pesticides are assumed to have adverse effects on natural capital they are inconsistent with sustainable development.
He will ease environmental restrictions on the use of pesticides and on licensing for infrastructure development.
In July, the full Codex membership approved various procedures and requirements that are more appropriate to potentially dangerous prescription drugs or pesticides than to GM tomatoes, potatoes, and strawberries.
Increases in agricultural productivity, owing to improvements in seeds, new fertilizers and pesticides, improved credit access, and technological breakthroughs, have been a key driver in reducing hunger.
The only water that leaves a PPU does so in fruits and vegetables; there is no evaporation into the air, no runoff into the ground, and no pesticides or weeds.
In 2015, Deere & Company reported $29 billion in sales, surpassing the $25 billion that Monsanto and Bayer made selling seeds and pesticides.
Soon enough, drones will take over the task of spraying pesticides; livestock will be equipped with sensors to track milk quantities, movement patterns, and feed rations; tractors will be controlled by GPS; and app-controlled sowing machines will assess soil quality to determine the optimal distance between rows and plants.
This is how it works: In exchange for being paid a guaranteed price and meeting “agreed labor and environmental standards” (minimum wages, no pesticides), poor-country farming cooperatives receive a FAIRTRADE mark for their products, issued by the FAIRTRADE Labeling Organization.
Such farming systems have many environmental advantages, particularly with respect to limiting erosion and the runoff of fertilizers and pesticides.
They enable farmers to produce higher yields with fewer inputs (such as pesticides), so that more food can be produced from existing farmland.
And eliminating pests’ attraction to our crops, without diminishing their capacity to fulfill their other ecological roles, would remove the need for toxic pesticides.
Through irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides, and plant breeding, the Green Revolution increased world grain production by an astonishing 250% between 1950 and 1984, raising the calorie intake of the world’s poorest people and averting severe famines.
In the West, we worry about the use of pesticides in crop creation.
By replenishing depleted soils with these beneficial organisms, farm productivity can be increased, without reliance on costly inputs like fertilizers and pesticides, thereby helping to meet the daunting challenges of feeding a growing population while protecting the environment.
And, while pesticides and other pollutants were seen to kill off perhaps half of humanity, well-regulated pesticides cause about 20 deaths each year in the US, whereas they have significant upsides in creating cheaper and more plentiful food.
Companies, investors, governments, and communities confront a series of critical barriers to increasing the food availability that the world needs: Local populations’ insecure land ownership; receding water tables, owing to unsustainable extraction rates; inefficient use of pollution-causing inputs like fertilizers and pesticides; the loss of vital ecosystems, affecting the resilience of food production; and certain areas’ inability to cope with extreme weather.
LONDON – In the 1960’s, the Green Revolution – which included the development of high-yielding crop varieties, the expansion of irrigation infrastructure, and the distribution of modern fertilizers and pesticides to developing-country farmers – bolstered agricultural production worldwide.
In the 12 years since their commercial introduction, insect-resistant GM crops have increased yields while significantly decreasing the use of toxic pesticides.
Modern cancer-causing agents like diesel exhaust, pesticides, and other air pollutants are not systematically studied.
Many people purchase organic foods in order to avoid exposure to harmful levels of pesticides.
The biochemist Bruce Ames and his colleagues have found that “99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves.
Only 52 natural pesticides have been tested in high-dose animal cancer tests, and about half (27) are rodent carcinogens; these 27 are shown to be present in many common foods.”
In other words, consumers who buy expensive organic foods in order to avoid pesticide exposure are focusing their attention on 0.01% of the pesticides that they consume.
It prohibits the use of synthetic chemical pesticides, with some pragmatic exceptions.
But most “natural” pesticides – as well as pathogen-laden animal excreta, for use as fertilizer – are permitted.
American farmer Blake Hurst offers this reminder: “Weeds continue to grow, even in polycultures with holistic farming methods, and, without pesticides, hand weeding is the only way to protect a crop.”
At a time when the need for food assistance is particularly high, some governments have withdrawn food subsidies and others have scaled back subsidies for agricultural inputs like seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides, hindering local food production.
It means more pesticides, detergents, antibiotics, glues, lubricants, preservatives, and plastics, many of which contain compounds that mimic mammalian hormones.
Consider the European Union’s politically motivated decision to ban, beginning in 2013, the state-of-the-art pesticides called neonicotinoids.
Back