[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Health/Medical Title: The Colossal Hoax Of Organic Agriculture Consumers of organic foods are getting both more and less than they bargained for. On both counts, its not good. Many people who pay the huge premiumoften more than a hundred percentfor organic foods do so because theyre afraid of pesticides. If thats their rationale, they misunderstand the nuances of organic agriculture. Although its true that synthetic chemical pesticides are generally prohibited, there is a lengthy list of exceptions listed in the Organic Foods Production Act, while most natural ones are permitted. However, organic pesticides can be toxic. As evolutionary biologist Christie Wilcox explained in a 2012 Scientific American article (Are lower pesticide residues a good reason to buy organic? Probably not.): Organic pesticides pose the same health risks as non-organic ones. Another poorly recognized aspect of this issue is that the vast majority of pesticidal substances that we consume are in our diets naturally and are present in organic foods as well as non-organic ones. In a classic study, UC Berkeley biochemist Bruce Ames and his colleagues found that 99.99 percent (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves. Moreover, natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal cancer tests. Thus, consumers who buy organic to avoid pesticide exposure are focusing their attention on just one-hundredth of one percent of the pesticides they consume. Some consumers think that the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) requires certified organic products to be free of ingredients from GMOs, organisms crafted with molecular techniques of genetic engineering. Wrong again. USDA does not require organic products to be GMO-free. (In any case, the methods used to create so-called GMOs are an extension, or refinement, of older techniques for genetic modification that have been used for a century or more.) As USDA officials have said repeatedly: Organic certification is process-based. That is, certifying agents attest to the ability of organic operations to follow a set of production standards and practices which meet the requirements of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and the [National Organic Program] regulations . . . If all aspects of the organic production or handling process were followed correctly, then the presence of detectable residue from a genetically modified organism alone does not constitute a violation of this regulation. [emphasis added] Putting it another way, so long as an organic farmer abides by his organic system (production) plana plan that an organic certifying agent must approve before granting the farmer organic statusthe unintentional presence of GMOs (or, for that matter, prohibited synthetic pesticides) in any amount does not affect the organic status of the farmers products or farm. Under only two circumstances does USDA sanction the testing of organic products for prohibited residues (such as pesticides, synthetic fertilizers or antibiotics) or excluded substances (e.g., genetically engineered organisms). First, USDAs National Organic Production Standards support the testing of products if an organic-certifying agent believes that the farmer is intentionally using prohibited substances or practices. And second, USDA requires that certifying agents test five percent of their certified operations each year. The certifying agents themselves determine which operations will be subjected to testing. The organic community, including the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), supports the USDAs lenient testing protocols and opposes more frequent mandatory testing of organic products for prohibited and excluded substances. The organic community and USDA offer two explanations for such minimal testing. First, they emphasize that organic farming is process-based, not product-based, meaning that what counts for organic certification are the approved organic system (production) plan and the farmers intention to comply with that plan as reflected through record-keeping obligations. Second, widespread testing would impose substantial costs on organic farmers, thereby increasing production costs beyond the already greater expenses that organic farmers incur. Organic farmers offset these higher productions costs by earning large premiums for organic products, but there is always a price point beyond which consumers will shift to cheaper non-organic. Few organic consumers are aware that organic agriculture is a trust-based or faith-based system. With every purchase, they are at risk of the moral hazard that an organic farmer will represent cheaper-to-produce non-organic products as the premium-priced organic product. For the vast majority of products, no tests can distinguish organic from non-organicfor example, whether milk labeled organic came from a cow within the organic production system or from a cow across the fence from a conventional dairy farm. The higher the organic premium, the stronger the economic incentive to cheat. Think such nefarious behavior is purely theoretical? Think again. USDA reported in 2012 that 43 percent of the 571 samples of organic produce tested violated the governments organic regulations and that the findings suggest that some of the samples in violation were mislabeled conventional products, while others were organic products that hadnt been adequately protected from prohibited pesticides. How do organic farmers get away with such chicanery? A 2014 investigation by the Wall Street Journal of USDA inspection records from 2005 on found that 38 of the 81 certifying agentsentities accredited by USDA to inspect and certify organic farms and suppliersfailed on at least one occasion to uphold basic Agriculture Department standards. More specifically, 40% of these 81 certifiers have been flagged by the USDA for conducting incomplete inspections; 16% of certifiers failed to cite organic farms potential use of banned pesticides and antibiotics; and 5% failed to prevent potential commingling of organic and non-organic products. Speaking of trust and faithor lack thereofin organic foods, there was the example of holier-than-thou Whole Foods importing large amounts of its supposedly organic produce from China, of all places. Those imports even included Whole Foods house brand, California Blend. (Yes, you read that correctly.) Organic agriculture is an unscientific, heavily subsidized marketing gimmick that misleads and rips off consumers, both because of the nature of the regulations and cheating. The old saying that you get what you pay for doesnt apply when you buy overpriced organic products. Henry I. Miller, a physician, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford Universitys Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology at the FDA. Drew L. Kershen is the Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law (Emeritus), University of Oklahoma College of Law. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
#8. To: TooConservative (#0)
To the extent to which state and corporations get involved the term "organic" might lose its meaning. Organic movement was created by grassroot, non government, non corporate actions.
True enough. As the article points out, using natural pesticides on organic is still a lot of chemistry in foods. Vic also made some very good points about the less desirable cosmetics and size of organic produce. The article is a little biased in its estimates that organic contains 99.99% of the pesticides found in non-organic produce. While it is largely truthful, the non-organic pesticides contain chemicals found nowhere in nature so our bodies are likely far more vulnerable to the modern pesticides than to natural pesticides/fertilizers. I thought that the info about organic produce being allowed to contain GMO species is valuable. Most people blithely assume that their organic produce doesn't have GMOs in it and that is incorrect.
GMO's maybe all we can do to stave off hunger but it can also be a two edged sword. See this excellent VICE report. Genetically modified seeds have been planted around the world and hailed as a solution to global hungerbut these crops, called GMOs for "genetically modified organisms," have also sparked heated protest around the world. Isobel Yeung traces the path of these super-crops from the headquarters of American agribusiness titan Monsanto to the soy fields of Paraguay, and visits the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, high in the Arctic, to see what's truly at stake when humans try to improve on nature.
Interesting GMO food tidbit today from Chinese researchers working for a Swedish university:
It's like cars vs buggies. You go faster but it kills more people. Really, if you think about it cars are as dangerous as smoking. There is a good and bad. I am not one of those that freaks out over this. And funny thing is it may all be cultural. In Europe, irradiated food is common. In the USA we are freaked at the idea. Yet, Europe is very anti nuclear energy while in the USA many favor nuclear energy, weapons, etc.
#17. To: Pericles (#16)
at the same time that we freak out over micro-contamination like e-coli and salmonella in the veggies we buy .
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|