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.”

Link to the study

  • MicrowavedTea
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is good news but I love that our current standard is at “not nearly as disastrous side-effects”

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      We gotta start somewhere. Remember that food security is a big part of the issue as well. We can’t just stop spraying the toxic stuff without an alternative because global food systems could collapse. I don’t like that we were using the toxic stuff in the first place but it has become a cornerstone of our food production.

      • enbyecho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        We can’t just stop spraying the toxic stuff without an alternative because global food systems could collapse.

        1. Food security isn’t an issue of production but rather distribution and specifically equitable distribution; 2. It’s estimated that 40% of all food produced in America is wasted;

        So given #2, what is the reduction in yield that would result from not “spraying toxic stuff” and is it more or less than 40%? The answer is very like no, not even close and further, this is that a “collapse” of food systems or a collapse of corporate profits?

        • jack@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          Food security isn’t an issue of production but rather distribution

          Having done work on the distributor side of food security, this is absolutely correct. I wish this was common knowledge.

          • enbyecho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            I wish this was common knowledge.

            Looking at the marketing of big ag and big food, it’s not surprising. The first lie of industrialized agriculture was that it was necessary to feed the world and “free people from slavery to the land”. It’s absolutely true that technology has massively improved agriculture and a great deal of that technology is hugely beneficial… but it also created an industry that, in essence, produces too much. It is driven to lower costs, and thus margins for producers while increasing profits for large corporations. The longer the food chain the more hands needing profit, thus spreading out value and increasing the need to add value through processed food, clever packaging and increased consumption.

            By decentralizing agriculture we can shorten the chain - reducing excess production, leaving more value for the producers, reducing the impact of monocultures by spreading them out and reducing their size and ultimately bringing better and more equitable distribution of nutrition to consumers.

            • jack@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              I wish there were fewer hurdles to that as well. Where I live, we only recently lifted a ban on collecting rainwater, though we’re still severely limited. That the water is “spoken for” by downstream desert alfalfa farms makes it even harder to swallow.

              Decentralizing agriculture to local gardens is part of how we solve this mess. Actively promoting replacement of ornamental monoculture lawns with native, low-water, pollinator-friendly plants would also be a positive step. Golf courses, big ag, corporate and individual property owners… there’s a long list of entities that need to reevaluate their relationship with and responsibility to the land they ostensibly maintain.

          • enbyecho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            How do you stop consumers from wasting food from the production side?

            I’m glad you asked. More diversified and de-centralized production that shortens the food chain. That actually solves more problems than it may appear, key among them consumer understanding of what “good” is when it comes to produce, which pulls demand. A lot of produce is wasted simply because it’s not the right size or blemished in some way - sorting to meet consumer demand for perfect produce is that very first layer of waste. And because consumers don’t really know what fresh is they assume that 2-4 week old corn you buy wrapped in plastic is just perfectly fine. Yet, because it’s 2-4 weeks old it isn’t going to last much longer. Long food chains also mean increased handling which means increased risk of contamination which means increased washing and treatment, leading to degradation and waste. Bagged salad is a great example of that. When I sold salad at the farmer’s market it was picked that morning or the night before and easily lasted 2-3 weeks refrigerated.

            When you shorten the food chain more “imperfect” produce gets used, it’s in the hands of consumers sooner and thus lasts longer and, crucially, is more nutritious both because it doesn’t need to be optimized for shelf life and because it’s fresher. (if you search for something like “loss of nutrition in produce over time” you’ll get lots of resources on this - tl;dr this got studied a ton during WWII and it’s very much a thing.

            There’s a ton more detail I could add here - it’s a complex subject. But the bottom line is a lot of waste happens because of decentralization and our own, as consumers, distance from production.