Health/Medical
See other Health/Medical Articles
Title: The Colossal Hoax Of Organic Agriculture
Source:
Forbes
URL Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymi ... griculture-is-a-colossal-hoax/
Published: Jul 29, 2015
Author: Henry I. Miller and Drew L. Kershen
Post Date: 2015-07-29 15:08:17 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 7237
Comments: 46
Consumers of organic foods are getting both more and less than they bargained for. On both counts, it’s not good. Many people who pay the huge premium—often more than a hundred percent–for organic foods do so because they’re afraid of pesticides. If that’s their rationale, they misunderstand the nuances of organic agriculture. Although it’s 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) plan–a plan that an organic certifying agent must approve before granting the farmer organic status–the unintentional presence of GMOs (or, for that matter, prohibited synthetic pesticides) in any amount does not affect the organic status of the farmer’s 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, USDA’s 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 USDA’s 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 farmer’s 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-organic—for 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 government’s organic regulations and that “the findings suggest that some of the samples in violation were mislabeled conventional products, while others were organic products that hadn’t 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 agents–entities accredited by USDA to inspect and certify organic farms and suppliers—“failed 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 faith—or lack thereof–in 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 doesn’t 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 University’s 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 # 35.
#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.
It would really be cost prohibitive to test all produce on the market for GMO . I know this because the company I work for pays the lab fees for the right to put non-GMO on our labels . Going non-GMO is silly if you ask me. The whole anti-GMO movement is based on junk science . Every independent scientific body that has ever evaluated the safety of GMO crops has deemed them safe for human beings to eat. This includes the Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and many more. Here is what the American Association for the Advancement of Science says : "The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf I have nothing against organics . I grow my own veggies this time of year and do not use any chemical fertilizers or pesticides . I use only hybrid organic seeds . But the issue is how to feed the world .The potential of GMO is to increase crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing chemical and land use . It's a win -win situation if we refuse to be Luddites. btw ;those apple size strawberries ? They are not GMO . They were developed with traditional hybridization methods. In fact there are very few GMO products on the market...mostly grain like corn and soy.
At AoS today, I saw a link to this medieval tidbit relevant to this discussion about how man modifies his foods through breeding. Or as AoS calls it, the Poor Man's GMO (selective breeding). A painting of fruit done by Giovanni Stanchi sometime in the mid 1600s shows that the watermelon has changed somewhat in the intervening 350 years. That's because over time, we've bred watermelons to have the bright red color we recognize today. That fleshy interior is actually the watermelon's placenta, which holds the seeds. Before it was fully domesticated, that placenta lacked the high amounts of lycopene that give it the red color. Through hundreds of years of domestication, we've modified smaller watermelons with a white interior into the larger, lycopene-loaded versions we know today. More on food breeding over many centuries: Vox: Here's what 9,000 years of breeding has done to corn, peaches, and other crops And the scourge of the modern apple: TheAtlantic: The Awful Reign of the Red Delicious
There is a difference in hybridization and inserting DNA from different species like say a fly into a fruit DNA helix.
Obviously. Yet we don't discriminate so vehemently against natural mutations, like the one that allows modern tomatoes to go red. Nor do we eliminate mutants (now the majority of the human race) who are lactose-tolerant because of a mutation about 10,000 years ago allowed us to start drinking milk (and move from being nomadic hunter-gatherers to farmers and city builders). The same may be observed of the alcohol-tolerant human. About 20% of Asians are still alcohol-intolerant because the mutation has not spread widely enough yet. Alcohol is metabolized principally in the liver, where it is converted first to acetaldehyde by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase. Acetaldehyde is then converted to acetate by the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase. Acetaldehyde produces unpleasant physiological reactions even at low concentration, so the presence or absence of the gene mutation affecting aldehyde dehydrogenase in turn affects drinking behaviors. When acetaldehyde is not rapidly converted to acetate the results are dramatic: a rapid increase in blood flow to the skin of the face, neck, and chest, rapid heartbeat, headache, nausea, and extreme drowsiness occur. "As expected, this aversive reaction affects drinking behavior," Li says, "and the mutant gene therefore serves as a protection against heavy drinking and alcoholism. " Li's current research is investigating the occurrence of mutations involving alcohol dehydrogenase. Variant forms of alcohol dehydrogenase can provide some protection against heavy drinking, though not as effectively as the specific aldehyde dehydrogenase mutation identified thus far. Our standards for these matters involving foods and even human traits of large populations are a little arbitrary, when taken in the context of a long timeline. Which was the gist of why I posted the above about the changes in familiar produce over the centuries. Are natural mutations so much safer than GMO designer species? In the long run, who knows? Natural mutations also produce very profound changes and there is little we can do to stop them over the long run. I'd better stop now before Vic gets fired up with his beloved sea-apes. See Steller's sea lion (extant species), Steller's sea cow (extinct), and Steller's sea ape (the only animal Steller described for which no proof has yet been discovered) : ) Time is long and we have been here only a moment. We overestimate our knowledge considerably. We flatter ourselves.
I don't know why Asian genetics are mentioned here. I am just saying there is a difference between tweaking the inherit genetic code of plants and animals and inserting DNA into same that was never meant to be there to create some sort of super veggie that can produce mass quantities. And I am not saying it is a good or bad thing. It may be a needed thing because we have huge human populations that need feeding every day, day by day. We are in new territory - there has never been so many humans on earth and so many that don't produce their own food. And even less humans who are farmers. I am against what is turning out to be vanity foods - foods we don't or are exist for comfort rather than comfort food.
I'll say it then: using technology to insert the genes of different species into other species will end up being a calamitous disaster. It is necessary for nothing. The world is not starving, and will not starve, if we use the land we have and the plethora of species. We've created a myth of incipient starvation because of rising populations. It's true that we've turned away from farming. It's also true that everybody who has a back yard could turn back to it, if we turned away from video games. Small-plot gardening could massively increase the food supply. What I wrote up=thread is the truth: there is a desire to hold onto the present economic model, with its concentration of activity and profit. And THAT is what is killing us, not "running out of land" or running out of food. There is PLENTY of land, and sea, and plenty of food. But we cannot access it or harness it under our current economic model. Which means that we need to redesign our economic model and change ITS "DNA", not start messing around with the plants in ways we don't understand and eventually bringing down a descolada down on our heads.
Look at the wasted yet rich farmlands of Africa, of tropical southern Russia, etc. Zimbabwe is a prime example. Due to mismanagement by their pols, their ag output has plummeted. Yet Zimbabwe is largely composed of black volcanic soil that averages 28 feet in depth, the finest farmland on earth. So, yes, we could do a lot more with what we have. Time, 7/2015: Under the suggested policy, the leaders of the country’s 10 provinces will draft a list of farms in their respective districts that they deem to be “of strategic economic importance,” the Zimbabwe Mail reports. The government will also establish a European Union–backed commission to evaluate the landgrab practices commenced in 2000, which were frequently violent. The property-seizure policy, which sent the country into economic crisis and left a number of civilian landowners dead, was both an exercise in kleptocracy and an attempt to wrest the country from its fraught colonial legacy. Many of the 4,000 white-owned farms taken by Mugabe’s government had been operated by the same families for decades — families that had come to the British colony of Rhodesia to make their fortunes in a system built on racial hierarchy. At present, only 300 white farmers remain on their original properties; meanwhile, a number of the farms seized in the past 15 years have ceased operations, requiring Zimbabwe — the erstwhile “Breadbasket of Africa” — to import food to stave off a hunger crisis. America subsidizes a lot of food exports to appease its ag giants and their lobbyists. This drives food costs down around the world and makes native farming unprofitable, leaving many countries dependent on foreign foods rather than raising their own.
Now let's go back to Genesis 1. The first four commandments: Reproduce! Increase! Fill the land. And subdue her. Followed by the commandment to eat plants. Babel was destroyed because men preferred to clump into a city rather than to obey God's Prime Directive: spread out across the land, reproduce, fill it, subdue it, and eat plants. When man and woman were in Eden, what was their job? They had one. They didn't have to do it to eat, or to earn money. It was their assigned task, and they enjoyed it. What was it? Adam and Eve were gardeners. The assigned natural task of man is to be a GARDENER, subduing the land, tending it, and to be a watcher of flocks and tender of animals: to regulate the animals (not originally to eat them, but to lead them and care for them, just like with the plants of the garden). Man's purpose was to be the leader of the natural world, to tend it and shape it. And to fill it all up. And when God made and ruled a state, giving it ALL of its laws and regulations, and giving them a government which did not have so much as a town council to make any new laws, what was the economic pattern God set? Each family was to have a farm, a farm that could never be taken, for ANY reason. It could not be taken for taxes. It could not be taken for "eminent domain". It could not be taken to satisfy debts. If the king wanted or "needed" the garden, tough luck. He had to do without. If a creditor lost out, tough luck, the priority of the permanent family farm was established by God. And if taxes were owed? Then the state did not get paid. The family farm was primary, and the vested interest of the family in the farm superseded tax law, legal judgment, "needs of state" - everything. It was primary, and God gave no exception. A man executed for murder lost his life, but his heirs got the farm. If he had no direct heirs, then it went back up the family line until heirs were found. Creditors or the state never, ever got the farm. And God's promise, the actual convenant of Sinai, did not have a word in it about "salvation", or heaven, or life after death, or redemption. All of that is purely Christian revelation. The Sinai convenant was this: if you Hebrews follow this law and do all of these things, then I will grant your peace and prosperity on your farm in Israel. Your family line will not fail, and each man will live under his own vines. God's ideal for man is that every man be on his own plot of land tending it as a farmer. That was what man was designed to be at the beginning. It was Cain who made the first City, not Adam or Seth. God destroyed Babel and scattered men because they preferred to clump in a city rather than follow the commandment to fill the land and subdue her, ruling the animals. Today, the world is empty, men are clumped in cities pursuing frenetic activity. Even if they have a plot of land in their yard, they have no meaningful time to tend it. The suburbs are filled with green, rich land, land that used to be farmland. And what is it all turned into grass. Grass that is close cropped so that it never goes to seed, and is thus infertile. And why? Because English gentry and aristocrats of the 19th Century had greenswards around their country homes, for playing polo and lawn bowls and having garden parties - and everybody else imitated their fashion if they could. Men are stubborn, stupid and very arrogant. The first thing they do, if they can, is flee the land and clump in cities, like Cain, like men at Babel. And it has always been contrary to God's design. We are mandated by God to reproduce (not to cut off our reproduction so that we can "economically manage" our lives, so that we can earn our living at desk jobs (which are unhealthy for us), and live clumped in expensive cities without land to tend). We are mandated to fill up all the land and to subdue it, to tend the land and the animals. And if we do what we are designed to do, we don't have the health problems of sedentary urban dwellers. We don't have the economic struggle, because we've got our housing and we've got a substantial portion of our food provided directly by God through the growing thing in our garden. Of course if we insist on being urban dwellers, and we shun all agricultural labor as the FIRST thing to be walked away from - and we permit men with money to set up a legal system and a debt system that charges interest and imposes taxes on the necessities of life, and to repossess houses and family farmland from people who cannot pay these debts and taxes. (And when that doesn't work, they use eminent domain to drive people off the land, such as with the Enclosure Acts of old.) And most men will waver and express all sorts of doubts about God, but will be steely eyed, clear, and violent when it comes to their REAL personal god, which is money. That's how it is. It is not going to change on the macro-level. People are so far estranged from God that they don't even WANT to find the way back. The path is narrow and difficult. Few find it and fewer stick to it. But as individuals we CAN find it. We can start by remembering what we are and what we are designed to me. We can disembarrass ourselves from endless needs, shut off the TV, cut the cable, cut off the things that drain money from us. We can live more simply, and in so doing, free up time for ouraelves. We can change the way we eat, and thereby become much healthier. Before the Flood, people lived for 900 years. If we eat like them we may not live that long, but it's a cinch that if we don't we're not going to. We can discipline ourselves to stop "needing" these things which are bad for us, and living a simpler life, and find freedom in want.
While you love such debates, that probably would interest about 1% of the population. Of those interested, only 1% of that 1% would actually be willing to make any changes to realize those goals. You have a utopian streak, you know. : )
You have a utopian streak, you know. : ) Which is why I'll be the only one still around 400 years from now. And everybody will still be ignoring me then too.
The final victory of the Basque/Nordic wine-tippling sea-ape. LOL Of course, you may be right. As you observe, the future belongs to the most prolific breeders. Yet I've only see you mention one kid in your household so you can only overcome the perspiring masses with quality of offspring, not quantity.
#37. To: TooConservative (#35)
Not through want of trying. We lost three to miscarriages.
Of course, you may be right. As you observe, the future belongs to the most prolific breeders. Yet I've only see you mention one kid in your household so you can only overcome the perspiring masses with quality of offspring, not quantity. No. Merely a demonstrative non-miracle proving the literal truth of the portions of Scripture directly stated by God - the vindication of my visions and conversations with God, and proof that my way of looking at Scripture and religion are in truth in accord with God, and what he said. Live that certain way, and LIVE, just like he said. Only through longevity can one demonstrate the literal Truth, as the counterfeit truths offered as Truth tickle the ears more, are more entertaining, are easier in some fundamental (and deadly) way. I'm not a wine-tippler. I don't really like wine all that much, truth be told. I keep trying to like mead, but I don't, really. The African stuff is the best I've had, but not good enough for me to keep at it. Whiskey and Cognac are ok - I'll have one if offered, but I won't go spend money on it. The only thing I'll actually go spend money on, rarely, to bring home, is a bottle of Aalborg or Linie Akvavit from Danmark or Norway, which I then leave it in the freezer. Or a bottle of aged rum down in Guadeloupe. Alcohol doesn't really taste all that good, and it makes my head hurt and disrupts my sleep. So I don't drink much of it. Basque and Nordic are genetic types, I'd say, not cultural types for me. I have that round head, big ears and negative blood of the Basque, and the blondeness and paleness of the Lapplander Saami. And the blue eyes of the Western Celt. But I have the cultural sensitivity of a Michigan boy who prefers the woodlands and farm country over cities.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSome consumers think that the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) requires
#10. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#8)
Organic movement was created by grassroot, non government, non corporate actions.
#13. To: TooConservative, A Pole, Vicomte13 (#10)
#21. To: tomder55, A Pole, Vicomte13, Justified, Pericles, Chuck_Wagon (#13)
btw ;those apple size strawberries ? They are not GMO . They were developed with traditional hybridization methods.
Pericles mentioned the dominance of the red Florida winter tomato. But what about the older heirloom tomatoes? Renaissance painting shows how watermelons looked before selective breeding
JUL 29 2015
Those little yellow cherry tomatoes are likely what the Spaniards found in South American and brought to Europe. Heirloom tomatoes lack a genetic mutation that gives tomatoes an appealing uniform red color while sacrificing the fruit's sweet taste.[3] Varieties bearing this mutation, which have been favored by industry since the 1940s, feature fruits with lower levels of carotenoids and a decreased ability to make sugar within the fruit.[4] 
Organic heirloom tomatoes at Slow Food Nation 
Selection of heirlooms, plus one hybrid, the Early Girl (second largest red)
#22. To: TooConservative, tomder55, Vicomte13, Justified, Pericles, Chuck_Wagon (#21)
#23. To: Pericles, Vicomte13 (#22)
(Edited)
There is a difference in hybridization and inserting DNA from different species like say a fly into a fruit DNA helix.
Will the Japanese and Chinese eventually dominate world population because they have the anti-alcohol genetics? Check back in a thousand years to see if the future is Japanese/Chinese or if the bon vivant wine-sipping surrender monkeys of southern Europe will dominate the future. The quest for genes that influence alcohol abuse follows two paths. One goal is to locate genes that predispose a person to alcoholism. The other is to identify genes that help to prevent this from happening. Li and his coworkers have made important advances in this latter category. "We have identified two genes that protect against heavy drinking, and these are particularly prevalent among Asians," Li says. "We have shown that Native Americans, who have a high rate of alcoholism, do not have these protective genes. The one that is particularly effective is a mutation of the gene for the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase, which plays a major role in metabolizing alcohol. The mutation is found very frequently in Chinese and Japanese populations but is less common among other Asian groups, including Koreans, the Malayo-Polynesian group, and others native to the Pacific Rim. "We've also looked at Euro-Americans, Native Americans, and Eskimos, and they don't have that gene mutation," says Li. Thus, incidentally, the study of genetic mutations and alcoholism links native North-American populations to central Asian ancestors, not to those from China and Japan.
#25. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#23)
#27. To: Pericles (#25)
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
And THAT is what is killing us, not "running out of land" or running out of food. There is PLENTY of land, and sea, and plenty of food. But we cannot access it or harness it under our current economic model.
A decade and a half after the Zimbabwean government seized large swaths of land from white farmers in the country, President Robert Mugabe has tentatively declared that he will return certain properties to their original owners.
#30. To: TooConservative (#29)
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
Now let's go back to Genesis 1.
#34. To: TooConservative (#32)
While you love such debates, that probably would interest about 1% of the population. Of those interested, only 1% of that 1% would actually be willing to make any changes to realize those goals.
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#34)
Which is why I'll be the only one still around 400 years from now.
Replies to Comment # 35. Of course, you may be right. As you observe, the future belongs to the most prolific breeders. Yet I've only see you mention one kid in your household so you can only overcome the perspiring masses with quality of offspring, not quantity.
#38. To: TooConservative (#35)
The final victory of the Basque/Nordic wine-tippling sea-ape. LOL
End Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]