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: 7244
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 # 36.
#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.
I keep a garden in the summer as a hobby . I use organic methods and organic hybrid seeds .What I grow could not feed me or my family over the course of a year . Most of my neighbors do not want to do that.They see it as a lot of work for little reward . Most of the world feels that way about farming .Technology gave humanity the option to leave the farm ;and to get higher productivity from less land . That is a good thing IMHO.
Most of my neighbors do not want to do that.They see it as a lot of work for little reward . Most of the world feels that way about farming .Technology gave humanity the option to leave the farm ;and to get higher productivity from less land . That is a good thing IMHO. If you applied French intensive techniques you could feed yourself on 1/8 acre, using hand-tools. Jeavons has a practical book to tell you how ("How to Grow More Vegetables"). You're right: your neighbors don't want to, and most of the world feels that way. Which is why we do what we do. I say, however, that just because "the world" doesn't WANT to do something they should do, does not mean that we should permit anybody in a lab to create chimerae in the lab. There is plenty of land, and plenty of food on it and to be gained from it, by techniques that do not risk opening Pandora's box. Lots of people don't want to farm. And lots of people don't want GMOs. Somebody loses. I say that the losers should be those who don't want to farm, and that we should outlaw GMOs. It is not good to improve productivity by inserting genes. We do not know what we are doing. We're playing "sorcerer's apprentice". There is a better, more practical way: use more land, and grow more food. People are fat and have Vitamin D deficiencies. Encourage them to get out of the gym and to garden their plot. If they won't, then they can bear the higher cost of food. The avenue of messing around with the genome should be closed by law, just as human cloning should be outlawed. Growing more food on more land less efficiently will employ more people and make food cheaper, reducing the need for unemployment and welfare, and reducing medical costs. And all of those tangible benefits are more important than pleasing people because they don't "want to" be involved in farming and gardening. Somebody wins and somebody loses. More people win if the door is blocked to GMOs and the need for food forces back open land and labor to expanding the agricultural sector. Oh, and government subdidizes GMOs, and pays welfare and Medicaid and food stamps. Cut the subsidies for GMOs and put that money into French intensive, and make French intensive a condition of welfare and Medicaid, for those able to do that. MAKE that "the job" and watch food production rise, health problems plummet, neighborhood blight end, and things start to look better across the board. Let people do "what they want", and you will have abortion, rampant STDs, obesity, crime, and bankruptcy. Like we do. Since people are not going to be saved from themselves, grosso modo - most men die because they cannot be kept from killing themselves - macro-policy is a fool's errand. It is time to start thinking very little picture, very micro.
I'm for cutting all subsidies . They distort the market and promote cronyism .
There are no replies to Comment # 36. End Trace Mode for Comment # 36.
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)
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
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.
#33. To: tomder55 (#31)
I keep a garden in the summer as a hobby . I use organic methods and organic hybrid seeds .What I grow could not feed me or my family over the course of a year .
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#33)
Oh, and government subdidizes GMOs, and pays welfare and Medicaid and food stamps. Cut the subsidies for GMOs
Replies to Comment # 36.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]