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.”
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.
Goddammit, stop playing with fire, scientists!!
In the Jurassic period there were giant insects like dragonflies with 4ft wingspan. Turns out THIS is how we get to Jurassic park
Insect body size is dictated by oxygen levels, and since they absorb oxygen through their skin if they get too large with too little oxygen they suffocate.
Carboniferous period. Jurassic was about 100m years later.
Carboniferous Park
Shit was fire (30% atmospheric oxygen levels)
35%, even. It’s more like 20% today, for comparison.
Let’s make s movie!
It was a wild guess and I was hoping someone smarter than me would correct me ❤️
In my defense the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park came from wildly different eras so Carboniferous super bugs can still fit in!
I just asked ChatGPT because I knew something was off.
Yeah and human-sized scorpions
You are thinking of sea scorpions who for one werent scorpions and for two were aquatic in nature only going onto the pre carboniferous land as a shortcut since there was nothing on land.
Not unless the level of oxygen in the air goes up dramatically, that’s what allowed those big bodies when they had no lungs
Isn’t that Lamarckism? If I recall correctly, that’s an older model of evolution that is not commonly recognized anymore.
slightly stronger ones survive to pass their genes to their offspring, that’s the idea.
Natural selection is usually implied. So, in long form, smaller insects would have to be less reproductively successful, and that’s hard when you’re a pest that really benefits from being tiny, stealthy and energy-economical.
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.
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.
Because: “The dose makes the poison”.
In other words, any chemical—even water and oxygen—can be toxic if too much is ingested or absorbed into the body. The toxicity of a specific substance depends on a variety of factors, including how much of the substance a person is exposed to, how they are exposed, and for how long.
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.
Everything is chemicals.
Which is why it should be considered bad practice to use the word “chemicals” as a synonym for “poison.”
Yep. Cooking is a chemical reaction.
Beware of dihydrogen monoxide.
Oh, but I long for the days when this was a joke. ;-(
Not thermal?
You’re right, I should have said "causes chemical reactions.’
https://www.chefsresource.com/is-cooking-a-chemical-or-physical-change/
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.
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.
Inspired by chemical defenses used in nature by plants such as the sundew.
Is cocaine not a drug because it’s organic plant sourced?
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
M-mecr… ur… mercre…
I’ll have the lye, please.
You don’t understand, this new pesticide consists of tiny leaflets with stories so complelling the insects cannot stop reading them. They are literally (not literally) glued to the page.
edit: and yet the leaflets would be made of chemicals and in the long run would be harmful
I doubt any kind of glue can be free of harmful chemicals, especially in the long run.
“Without chemicals”
Okay, no need to take this seriously.
A new non-toxic pesticide can be valuable regardless of the journalist who wrote an article.
While I agree in principle, the people who write the headlines are very often not the writers of the article or the people who are actually working on the solutions to the problems.
Idk man. I’m extremely curious of this matter that isn’t made of chemicals. Maybe it’s lasers. Photons don’t count right?
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.
Sticky grapes that taste like orange peel.
And are covered in dead bugs.
Has science gone too far?
“We tried to play god…”
I guess we have apples that taste like grapes and grapes that taste like cotton candy, so what the hell.
You don’t think they could, you know, wash them before selling them?
You don’t think they could, you know, wash them before selling them?
When you wash produce you reduce it’s shelf life drastically, create more waste and add significant cost. Grapes in particular are very delicate.
Now that’s a valid argument. I appreciate that!
If it could just be washed off, it wouldn’t be especially economical as a pest killer. It would have to be reapplied every time it rained.
Water+a surfactant. It’s oxidized oil emulsified in soap and water already.
This is a really, really, bad idea.
The issue is that sticky traps are non-specific. Any insect the size of a trip can be trapped. Then when predators are attracted to all the free food, they are potentially stuck or damaged as well.
Thrips are also one of the easiest species to control using predatory species.
Article says larger bugs are ok
Article says larger bugs are ok
And all the smaller beneficials? A huge number are the same size or not much bigger than thrips. They will be caught by this spray.
Do you have examples?
I’ve mentioned some in posts here but among the smaller ones I’d include ladybugs, green lacewings, spiders, minute pirate bugs, spined soldier bugs, braconid wasps, trichogrammatid wasps, etc. Trichogrammatid wasps for example are only about 1mm in size! But they perform a vital function.
Well at least one person agrees with me.
Thrips are a pain in the ass but if you use pesticides you kill the beneficials that eat them, for example Minute Pirate Bugs (Orius insidious).
Swirski mites are my favorite in the greenhouse or nethouse. They work better than any pesticide I have ever seen.
They are if the stickiness is tuned so that larger, predatory insects are easily able to escape the glue.
They are if the stickiness is tuned so that larger, predatory insects are easily able to escape the glue.
Most beneficials that go after thrips are not that much bigger than them. The study doesn’t seem to mention this (tho I’m still looking for the full text).
Yes but can they dislodge the glue from their mouth parts? Very unlikely if it’s strong enough to hold the smaller insects.
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.
Edit: Apparently this isn’t so obvious to people. Ok, let me explain:
No pesticide can be precisely targeted. You will always capture or kill more insects that are beneficial than are not. In the article it mentions that the sticky spray doesn’t capture bigger insects like bees. That’s certainly progress over other types of physical traps, but not all insects are very big. Key beneficials like lady bugs, green lacewings, various spiders, pirate bugs, etc are very small. They will be trapped by this spray. If it traps a thrip, it will trap those bugs (and the study abstract says this - “small anthropods”). This isn’t mentioned in the article but I can speak to this from personal experience farming. I’ve tried various options and the results are always the same - you may get rid of some thrips (and boy do I have thrips) but you also wipe out the insects that will eat the thrips and you end up in a kind of arms race. The more beneficials you kill the more pesticides you need.
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.
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 physical and doesn’t harm large predatory insects.
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.
they help create your food.
It’s literally in the post. Not even in the article, it’s in the synopsis. Why didn’t you read that before commenting?
It’s literally in the post. Not even in the article, it’s in the synopsis. Why didn’t you read that before commenting?
Can you be more precise? When you say “it” is “literally in the post” what exactly is “it”? Serious question because yes I read the article.
I would surmise that you are referring to the line “while bigger beneficial insects, like bees, are not trapped by the drops”.
The problem here is the word “bigger”. So great, it doesn’t trap bees, that’s something of a step forward. But it will trap other non-targeted smaller insects.
“boy do I have thrips” triggered a funny memory.
When I worked in Ag. Research we had a big international field day. People from 50+ countries visiting in. I got the wonderful job of doing presentations in the field all day long. This was in late summer on a bad thrip year.
Well, one of the office goons decided that they would order all the staff polo shirts for the three day event. We were all supposed to wear the same color on the specified day.
They ordered in a light blue, yellow, and green polos. The first day was to be light blue. I “accidentally” wore the green one instead and had a few very irate office goons on my back first off that morning. Strangely enough all of the experienced outdoor staff “accidently” wore the green shirt as well.
For those that don’t know, thrips are highly attracted to light blue and they bite. I laughed my ass off most of the day.
The following two days everyone wore green. Except for the one determined office goon who wore the yellow shirt. In a field full of honeybee hives…
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.
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.
Most of us totally got your point 🙂
Most of us totally got your point
Who is “most of us” and which point?
You end up looking at economic thresholds and add on some of the beneficial as part of that equation. If the bad bug destroys the crop entirely, then there’s nothing there for the beneficial to benefit.
And yah, yah, its not all about the crops, but in the end, it’s all about the crop or people are starving.
This is good news but I love that our current standard is at “not nearly as disastrous side-effects”
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.
We can’t just stop spraying the toxic stuff without an alternative because global food systems could collapse.
- 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?
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.
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.
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.
How do you stop consumers from wasting food from the production side?
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.
It’s still a chemical.
Literally everything is
I think plasma isn’t a chemical since the elements can’t form molecules. So the sun and lightning aren’t chemicals.
The sun is made up of hydrogen and helium. Those are chemicals. Lightning is made up of charged electrons. But those electrons come from the atmosphere, which has a chemical composition, and the lightning wouldn’t exist without the atmosphere.
Hydrogen and Helium are elements, I guess it depends on what your definition of a chemical is.
The reason I’m saying plasma is not a chemical is because it is too energetic to make atom to atom bonds which I feel is the basis for chemistry. If something cannot interact chemically I feel we should not consider it a chemical.
Please note that I did not look up any formal definitions, just expressing my reasoning for my argument. (Aka I’m probably wrong).
I would indeed define chemical elements as chemicals. Hence the name.
The argument I’m making is that we should not call them chemicals when they don’t have the capacity to make chemical reactions.
An analogy could be how we use the word weed. We call unwanted plants weeds. If there is mint growing in your yard and you don’t want it, it’s a weed. If you sell your house and the next owner likes it that mint is not a weed anymore. It’s still mint (element) but no longer a weed (chemical).
I agree chemical elements are chemicals per the information on that page and the pages that it links to, but I’d be cautious about justifying it by the name. E.g., car parts aren’t cars.
Plasma is not a chemical in the same way that liquid is not a chemical. It’s one of the states of matter.
You make a good point. I should have said “things in the plasma state” should not be considered chemicals.
plasma is not a chemical because it’s a condition where typically no chemical bonds can form, it’s too hot for that
Yes that headline is extremely moronic, 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 them in the form of glue, which is also a strong chemical device, and remains potentially harmful.
How many oil plants to you have to mill up in order to have enough oil to coat a plant?
