Nitrogen fertilizer is well known agriculture chemical and with huge negative environmental impact. To produce one kilogram of pesticide requires 10 times more energy usage than 1 Kg of nitrogen fertilizer. This energy is produced from either nuclear energy, or the so called non-renewable sources as such as wind turbine and water movement.
According to Grist article, sulfuryl fluoride, a fumigant, a very toxic gas, used to control a wide variety of pests, including termites, powder post beetles, old house borers, bedbugs, carpet beetles, moths, cockroaches, rats and mice are themselves greenhouse gases: emitting one ton of sulfuryl fluoride is the equivalent of emitting nearly 5,000 tons of CO2, let alone all the other gases emitted in the atmosphere such as NOx, CO, Polycyclic aromatic Hydrocarbons, and the toxic solid left from its production. 

California uses nearly 20 percent of the pesticides applied annually across the United States. 

According PAN UK: ''The harmful effects of pesticides on soil organisms ranged from molecular to community levels, including impacts on mortality, reproductive function, richness and diversity, abundance, behaviours like feeding, burrowing, and decomposition, growth, biochemical biomarkers, and body structure.'' (*5)
What does China use? 

''China has just 7% of the world's arable land, but uses up to one  third of global consumption of chemical fertiliser. And this usage per unit is 2.7 times higher than the world average (China Energy News)*1

''About 1.77 million tonnes of agricultural pesticides were applied in China, constituting about 42% of the total use globally in 2019'' (*4)
​
''High levels of chemical pesticides and fertilisers are used to produce crops on China's small, heavily-exploited plots, but overuse can degrade the soil and pollute water, while improper use can cause contamination and hurt biodiversity'' 1 

''It has been reported that more than 150 million miles of China’s farmland are contaminated. Since the discovery of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) and hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC), their excessive and persistent application has led to severe environmental pollution and human health risks'' *3 

Below a few pesticides are quoted for the serious health effects on humans (*3): 
 -Cyfluthrin is in a group of man-made insecticides and is widely used in homes, outdoors, and in agriculture to effectively control phytophagous insect pests. β-Cyfluthrin induces acute arrhythmic cardiotoxicity through interaction with NaV1.5, and ranolazine reverses the phenotype.

- Fomesafen is an organic compound used as a herbicide. Water-solubility of fomesafen leads to a potential risk to groundwater, and it has been reported that the death of fish is related to fomesafen.

- Pyraclostrobin is an agricultural pesticide product used to kill most fungi, including blights, mildews, molds, and rusts, and has characterized lethal toxicity 

Source:
1 https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-eyes-10-cut-pesticide-use-fruit-vegetables-by-2025-2022-12-01
2 https://grist.org/agriculture/a-new-report-says-pesticides-intensify-climate-change/
3 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.942117/full
4 ​https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-022-00202-0
5 https://www.pan-uk.org/the-impacts-of-pesticides-on-soil-invertebrates

We have warned the public before with an article from Indepedent Media Institute with the title
Can Eating Organic Help Prevent Parkinson’s Disease?
Now we see the matter coming back again from the mainstream published Media:

For decades, Swiss chemical giant Syngenta has manufactured and marketed a widely used weed-killing chemical called paraquat, and for much of that time the company has been dealing with external concerns that long-term exposure to the chemical may be a cause of the incurable brain ailment known as Parkinson’s disease.Syngenta has repeatedly told customers and regulators that scientific research does not prove a connection between its weedkiller and the disease, insisting that the chemical does not readily cross the blood-brain barrier, and does not affect brain cells in ways that cause Parkinson’s.

But a cache of internal corporate documents dating back to the 1950s reviewed by the Guardian suggests that the public narrative put forward by Syngenta and the corporate entities that preceded it has at times contradicted the company’s own research and knowledge.

And though the documents reviewed do not show that Syngenta’s scientists and executives accepted and believed that paraquat can cause Parkinson’s, they do show a corporate focus on strategies to protect product sales, refute external scientific research and influence regulators.
In one defensive tactic, the documents indicate that the company worked behind the scenes to try to keep a highly regarded scientist from sitting on an advisory panel for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agency is the chief US regulator for paraquat and other pesticides. Company officials wanted to make sure the efforts could not be traced back to Syngenta, the documents show.

And the documents show that insiders feared they could face legal liability for long-term, chronic effects of paraquat as long ago as 1975. One company scientist called the situation “a quite terrible problem” for which “some plan could be made … ”
That prediction of legal consequences has come to pass. Thousands of people who allege they developed Parkinson’s because of long-term chronic effects of paraquat exposure are now suing Syngenta. Along with Syngenta, they are also suing Chevron USA, the successor to a company that distributed paraquat in the US until 1986. Both companies deny any liability and maintain that scientific evidence does not support a causal link between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease.

“Recent thorough reviews performed by the most advanced and science-based regulatory authorities, including the United States and Australia, continue to support the view that paraquat is safe,” Syngenta said in a statement to the Guardian.
During the years Chevron USA’s predecessor sold paraquat, “it regularly reviewed and considered scientific studies regarding the safety of its products, including paraquat,” Chevron USA said in a statement to the Guardian, adding that none of the studies reviewed “showed a causal link between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease”.
Chevron USA said the company “does not believe that [its former subsidiary that sold paraquat] had any role in causing the plaintiffs’ illnesses and will vigorously defend against the allegations in the lawsuits”.
As part of a court-ordered disclosure in the litigation, the companies provided plaintiffs’ lawyers with decades of internal records, including hand-written and typed memos, internal presentations, and emails to and from scientists, lawyers and company officials around the world. And though the files have not yet been made public through the court system, the Guardian has reviewed hundreds of pages of these documents in a reporting collaboration with the New Lede.
Among the revelations from the documents: scientists with Syngenta predecessor Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) and Chevron Chemical were aware in the 1960s and 70s of mounting evidence showing paraquat could accumulate in the human brain.
When Syngenta’s own internal research showed adverse effects of paraquat on brain tissue, the company withheld that information from regulators while downplaying the validity of similar findings being reported by independent scientists.

In addition, the records show company scientists were aware of evidence that exposure to paraquat could impair the central nervous system (CNS), triggering tremors and other symptoms in experimental animals similar to those suffered by people with Parkinson’s. A 1975 Chevron communication speaks of concerns about allegations of “permanent CNS effects from paraquat”.

And as independent researchers continued to find more and more evidence that paraquat may cause Parkinson’s, the documents describe what Syngenta called an “influencing” strategy “that proactively diffuses [sic] the potential threats that we face” and seeks to “maintain and safeguard paraquat registrations”, referring to their regulatory approvals. The strategy “must consider how best to influence academia, and regulatory and NGO environments”.
A Syngenta “regulatory strategy” document from 2003 refers to paraquat as a “‘blockbuster’ product” that must be “vigorously” defended to protect more than $400m in projected annual global sales. Ensuring what Syngenta called its “freedom to sell” paraquat was a top priority, the internal records show.
Syngenta also created a website the company used to publicly dismiss concerns about links between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease and provide positive product messaging. On that website, the company asserted that paraquat did not readily cross the blood-brain barrier, even when the company had evidence from animal and human data that paraquat accumulated in brain tissue. The company no longer uses that language on its website.
“It is highly unethical for a company not to reveal data they have that could indicate that their product is more toxic than had been believed,” said Bruce Blumberg, professor of developmental and cell biology at the University of California, Irvine, speaking generally about corporate conduct. “[These companies are] trying to maximize profits and they jeopardize public health, and it shouldn’t be allowed. That is the scandal.”
‘A unique herbicide’Paraquat is one of the most widely used weed killing chemicals in the world, competing with herbicides such as glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup brand for use in agriculture. Farmers use it to control weeds before planting their crops and to dry out crops for harvest. In the United States, the chemical is used in orchards, wheat fields, pastures where livestock graze, cotton fields and elsewhere. As weeds have become more resistant to glyphosate, paraquat popularity has surged.
AdvertisementIt is used on approximately 15m acres of US farmland. US government data shows that the amount of paraquat used in the United States has more than tripled between 1992 and 2018.

On the Syngenta-run Paraquat Information Center website, the chemical is described as “a unique herbicide” that “can deliver safe, effective weed control, generating social and economic benefits, while protecting the land for future generations”.

Paraquat has been the subject of more than 1,200 safety studies submitted to, and reviewed by, regulatory authorities around the world, according to Syngenta.
Though it is widely used, paraquat has long been known to be dangerous to ingest – a tiny swallow of the chemical can kill a person within days. Scores of people around the world have died from ingesting paraquat either intentionally or accidentally. The EPA restricts use only to people certified to apply it. It is not sold to consumers, and paraquat warning labels carry the symbol of death – a skull and crossbones.
Syngenta maintains on its website that if users follow directions and wear proper protective clothing, including gloves and boots, “there is no risk to human safety”. Paraquat is “not a neurotoxicity hazard,” and “does not cause Parkinson’s disease”, the company states.
Despite the company’s claims, dozens of countries have banned paraquat, both because of the acute dangers and mounting evidence of links to health risks such as Parkinson’s from chronic, long-term exposure. Syngenta currently sells paraquat products in more than two dozen countries, from Australia to Uruguay.
AdvertisementParaquat was banned in the European Union in 2007 after a court found that regulators did not thoroughly assess safety concerns, including scientific evidence connecting Parkinson’s to paraquat. It is also banned in the UK, although it is manufactured there. The chemical was banned in Switzerland, Syngenta’s home country, in 1989. And it is banned in China, the home base for ChemChina, which purchased Syngenta five years ago.
In the US, the EPA has largely agreed with Syngenta and other chemical companies that say paraquat can be safely used. Last year, the EPA said it would continue to allow farmers to use paraquat, including spraying it across fields from small airplanes.
A ‘Parkinson’s pandemic’Concerns about possible ties between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease have grown as the spread of Parkinson’s has accelerated; the disease is now considered one of the world’s fastest-growing neurological disorders. Prevalence of Parkinson’s more than doubled from 1990 to 2015 and is expected to continue to expand rapidly, impacting millions of people around the world. Along with paraquat, toxins in air pollution and other pesticides, and to a smaller extent genetic factors, also are considered by many researchers as risk factors for the disease.
Roughly 60,000 Americans are diagnosed each year with Parkinson’s, and in recent years it has been ranked among the top 15 causes of death in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moreover, the death rate from Parkinson’s has climbed more than 60% in the United States over the past two decades, according to research published last year. It is considered the fastest-growing neurological disease in the world.

As a disease of the central nervous system, common Parkinson’s symptoms include tremors, or a rhythmic shaking in arms and legs, stiffness and rigidity of the muscles, a loss of balance and coordination, and difficulty speaking. Parkinson’s symptoms develop when dopamine-producing neurons in a specific area of the brain called the substantia nigra are lost or otherwise degenerate. Without sufficient dopamine production, the brain is not capable of transmitting signals between cells to control movement and balance
“The Parkinson’s pandemic has exacted an enormous toll on tens of millions of individuals who bear the brunt of the disease,” Ray Dorsey, a neurologist at the University of Rochester Center for Health + Technology in New York, wrote in a 2020 book about the rise of the disease.
Dorsey is one of a number of leading scientists from around the world who say research clearly shows paraquat exposure can cause Parkinson’s disease.
“Paraquat is considered the most toxic herbicide ever created,” Dorsey said in an interview.
Syngenta said the weight of evidence actually shows that paraquat does not cause Parkinson’s and said a 2021 study co-authored by its chief medical office backs that position. The company also pointed to a 2020 update to the US Agricultural Health Study (AHS) as supporting its position. (The 2020 AHS looked at a much larger group of people than prior AHS research has linked paraquat to Parkinson’s, however.)
“There is no properly designed epidemiological study that shows a link between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease,” the company said in a statement.
“To this day, and despite hundreds of studies being conducted in the past 20 or so years, a causal link between Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease has not been established,” Chevron USA said in a statement to the Guardian.

Source: Guardian and US news

This article mentions the difference between certified organic food and conventional food. It is important to mention that the organic food mentioned on www.soilandsun.co.uk is a certified organic food. Organic certification involves application of strict standards and an annual audit from an indepedent auditing on the application of these standards.  Failing to follow these standards, farmer or grower are not allowed to trade their product as organic in other words they lose their organic certification status which proves that the product made by them is not anymore organic.

A. Organic food are Heathy

Organic foods are free from:

1. Hormones,
2. Antiobiotics,
3. Toxic pesticides,
4. Insecticides,
5. Chemical preservatives,
6. Chemical flavour enhancers such as MSG monosodium glutamate, salts of guanylate, calcium inosinate, Sodium 5'- ribonucleotide, glycine
   
7. Artificial sweeteners such as sucralose, saccharine, aspartame, stevia  
8. Chemical fertilisers, and
9. Genetically modified organisms or ingredients, or components.                                          All there are known with the abbreviation GMO. That means their DNA has been changed by scientists in a lab, thus a human intervention in nature process.
10. Artificial food colourings
11. Herbicides
12. Artificial food flavourings

All the above are not allowed in the organic farming of raising animals, cultivating crops, and production or packing of organic food. The absence of these chemical toxic compounds render the organic food the healthiest option available for all consumers. Healthiest option means that the consumption of these foods will not cause any diseases as the conventional food causes, which can be from asthma to cancer. There are studies that pesticides even affect  the cognitive development of children (1).

Organic foods have different appearances

This difference mainly apply to fruits and vegetables. As a consumer you will see fruits with smaller size, cracks or blemishes on the surface. They do not look super shiny and do not have perfect shape but they look imperfect and real.

Due to absence of these toxic pesticides, heavy metals, GMO, herbicides, the organic farming practically conserves the quality of the soil and water. There are reports mentioning that there is a huge contamination of the rivers in Europe with pesticides and they had been used several years before their detection and remain there. The environmental pollution made by pesticides, heavy metals and GMO is non reversible. 
Organic farming practices are sustainable, as the farmers/growers will not push nature with all its elements animals and trees/plants to produce more especially when there is a bad harvest season.
Animal manure or compost are used to feed the soil and weeds are managed by rotating crops.

Many processor use various words such as Natural or Sustainable on the food label to make the consumers think that their products are organic. These foods are not certified organic foods and are full of ingredients from conventional farming which uses all these toxic chemicals starting pesticides i.e round -up to GMO and insecticides and heavy metals. We have an obligation to inform all the consumers about the huge benefits of organic foods to our health and our planet air, soil and water. 

Sources:
1. Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: a comprehensive review
Environmental Health volume 16, Article number: 111 (2017)
2. Livestock antibiotics and rising temperatures disrupt soil microbial communities, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
3. Food Preservatives and their harmful effects, Dr Sanjay Sharma, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 5, Issue 4, April 2015
4. Effects of Preservatives and Emulsifiers on the Gut Microbiome By: Angel Kaufman Spring 2021 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a baccalaureate degree in Biology in cursu honorum Reviewed and approved by Dr. Jill Callahan Professor, Biology 
5. Pesticides and antibiotics polluting streams across Europe, by Damian Carrington, found on https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/08

It is an relatively old articles but the damage to the environment remains there.

Pesticides and antibiotics are polluting streams across Europe, a study has found. Scientists say the contamination is dangerous for wildlife and may increase the development of drug-resistant microbes.
More than 100 pesticides and 21 drugs were detected in the 29 waterways analysed in 10 European nations, including the UK. A quarter of the chemicals identified are banned, while half of the streams analysed had at least one pesticide above permitted levels.
The researchers said the high number of pesticides and drugs they found meant complex mixtures were present, the impact of which was unknown. Pesticides are acknowledged as one factor in plummeting populations of many insects and the birds that rely on them for food. Insecticides were revealed to be polluting English rivers in 2017.

“The importance of our new work is demonstrating the prevalence of biologically active chemicals in waterways all over Europe,” said Paul Johnston, at the Greenpeace research laboratories at the University of Exeter. “There is the potential for ecosystemic effects.”
The research, published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, found herbicides, fungicides and insecticides, as well as antimicrobial drugs used in livestock. The risk to people of antimicrobial drug resistance is well known, but Johnston highlighted resistance to fungicides too. “There are some pretty nasty fungal infections that are taking off in hospitals,” he said.
One of the world’s biggest pesticide makers, Syngenta, announced a “major shift in global strategy” on Monday, to take on board society’s concerns and reduce residues in the environment.
“There is an undeniable demand for a shift in our industry,” said Alexandra Brand, the chief sustainability officer of Syngenta. “We will put our innovation more strongly in the service of helping farms become resilient to changing climates and better able to adapt to consumer requirements, including reducing carbon emissions and reversing soil erosion and biodiversity decline.”
Another major pesticide manufacturer, Bayer, said on Monday it was making public all 107 studies submitted to European regulators on the safety of its controversial herbicide glyphosate.
“Transparency is a catalyst for trust, so more transparency is a good thing for consumers, policymakers and businesses,” said Liam Condon, the president of Bayer Crop Science. In March, a federal jury in the US found that the herbicide, known as Roundup, was a substantial factor in causing the cancer of a California man.

The testing techniques used in the new research meant only a subset of pesticides could be detected. Two very common pesticides – glyphosate and chlorothalonil – were not included in the study, meaning the findings represent a minimum level of contamination. The research focused on streams, as these harbour a large proportion of aquatic wildlife.
The detection of many pesticides that have long been banned was not necessarily due to continued illegal use, the scientists said, but could be the result of leaching of persistent chemicals that linger in soils. The study took place before the most widely used insecticides were banned by the EU for all outdoor uses.
Irish Water said on Monday that EU pesticide levels were being breached in public water supplies across Ireland. In Switzerland, another new study found that soils in 93% of organic farms were contaminated with insecticides, as were 80% of the areas farmers set aside for wildlife.
Research revealed in 2013 that insecticides were devastating dragonflies, snails and other water-based species in the Netherlands. The pollution was so severe in places that the ditchwater itself could have been used as a pesticide. A study in France in 2017 found that virtually all farms could slash their pesticide use while still producing as much food.
Johnston said: “Farmers don’t want to pollute rivers, and water companies don’t want to have to remove all that pollution, so we have to work to reduce reliance on pesticides and veterinary drugs through more sustainable agriculture. This is not a case of us versus farmers or water companies.”

Source: The Guardian

Here in FOS Squared we believe that there is no climate change as this is defined by politicians to serve interests of global funds instead there is serious enviromental pollution and contamination including underground waters, sea, soil, mountains, tree, animals literally everything caused by the interests of corporate companies supported by corrupted politicians across the globe

Combined stressors could impair soils’ ability to cycle nutrients and trap carbon
Source:
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Summary:
Community ecologists investigated the interactive effects of rising temperatures and a common livestock antibiotic on soil microbes. The research team found that heat and antibiotics disrupt soil microbial communities -- degrading soil microbe efficiency, resilience to future stress, and ability to trap carbon. Soils are home to diverse microbial communities that cycle nutrients, support agriculture, and trap carbon -- an important service for climate mitigation. Globally, around 80% of Earth's terrestrial carbon stores are found in soils. Due to climate warming and other human activities that affect soil microorganisms, this important carbon sink is at risk.
A new study led by Jane Lucas, a community ecologist at Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, investigated the interactive effects of rising temperatures and a common livestock antibiotic on soil microbes. The research team found that heat and antibiotics disrupt soil microbial communities -- degrading soil microbe efficiency, resilience to future stress, and ability to trap carbon. The work, now available online, will appear in the December issue of Soil Biology and Biochemistry.
Lucas, says, "Most studies of soil health examine only one stressor at a time. Here, we wanted to explore the effects of warming temperatures and antibiotics simultaneously, to get a sense of how two increasing stressors impact soils."
Monensin was selected because it is a common antibiotic whose use is expanding on cattle farms. Monensin is inexpensive, easy to administer, does not require a veterinary feed directive, and is not used in human medications. Like many antibiotics, Monensin is poorly metabolised; much of the antibiotic is still biologically active when it enters the environment through animal waste.

The team collected samples of prairie soil from preserved land in northern Idaho that was free of grazing livestock. Vegetation cover at the collection site, primarily tallgrass prairie, represents typical livestock pasture -- without inputs from cattle waste.

Soil samples were treated with either a high dose, low dose, or no dose of the antibiotic; these were heated at three different temperatures and left to incubate for 21 days. Temperatures tested (15, 20, and 30°C) represented seasonal variation plus a future warming projection. For each treatment, the team monitored soil respiration, acidity, microbial community composition and function, carbon and nitrogen cycling, and interactions among microbes.

They found that with rising heat and antibiotic additions, bacteria collapsed, allowing fungi to dominate and homogenize -- resulting in fewer total microbes and less microbial diversity overall. Antibiotics alone increased bioavailable carbon and reduced microbial efficiency. Rising temperatures alone increased soil respiration and dissolved organic carbon. Increases in these labile carbon pools can lead to a reduction in long-term carbon storage capacity.
Lucas says, "We saw real changes in soil microbe communities in both the low and high-dose additions. Rising temperature exacerbated these antibiotic effects, with distinct microbial communities emerging at each temperature tested. Within these assemblages, we saw reduced diversity and fewer microorganisms overall. These changes could diminish soils' resilience to future stress.
We also found that heat and antibiotics increased microbial respiration, decreasing efficiency. Essentially, microbes have to work harder to survive when they are in a hot, antibiotic laden environment. This is similar to how it is easier to walk a mile when it is 70 degrees than it is to run a mile when it is 95 degrees. Decreased microbial efficiency can cause soils to store less carbon in the long term."
As soil microbes are working harder (and inefficiently) to process carbon, less is converted into a stable organic form, which would become trapped in the soil. Instead, more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere as a gas. This effect could turn an important carbon sink into a carbon source, exacerbating climate change effects.
Senior author Michael Strickland, an Associate Professor at the University of Idaho's Soil and Water Systems Department, says, "Forces of environmental change do not play out in isolation. Our results show that heat alone, antibiotics alone, and heat and antibiotics together all have different effects on soil microbial communities. These findings highlight the importance of testing multiple stressors simultaneously to more fully understand how our soils, and the essential functions they perform, are changing."
Lucas concludes, "This work aligns with the 'One Health' approach. Agriculture, the environment, and public health are inextricably linked. Understanding how multiple stressors shape soil microbes is critical to supporting soil health in the face of global change. If we do not manage for interactive effects, things like soil carbon storage capacity and crop production could be jeopardized. In addition to broader climate mitigation efforts, limiting antibiotic inputs to the environment could help protect soils."
Article Source: Science Daily
Photo Source: Andrea Lightfoot-Unsplash (Code: GX6be6LLIR4)