Organic Food
by Tom Laskawy
21 Jul 2011 5:14 PM
As Grist readers know, "mythbusting" Scientific
American blogger Christie Wilcox took on organic agriculture recently
in "Mythbusting
101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture." Now, I do agree
that there should be no sacred cows -- we should examine everything with a
critical, if not jaundiced, eye. And indeed Wilcox brings up issues surrounding
organic ag about which many people may not be aware. But sadly, her analysis
goes quickly and seriously off the rails.
First the good points: Organic ag
does use pesticides, sometimes in large quantities. This is not a new
revelation: There are a set of pesticides approved for organic use, including
copper and sulfur anti-fumigants and the naturally occurring Bt toxin. Copper
and sulfur in particular are often overused, especially among fruit growers.
While these chemicals can be used by any scale of farmer, it's a particular
problem among so-called "industrial organic" farmers.
As the organic industry has taken
off, many large-scale farmers have in essence adapted the industrial
agriculture mindset -- with its monocropping, its focus on inputs and outputs
and maximizing productivity -- if not all its techniques. Tom Philpott has written about the problematic nature of this
phenomenon; for a deep dive on the subject, I recommend Sam
Fromartz's excellent Organic, Inc.
Wilcox should also be commended for
her point that the main criteria for allowed organic pesticides are simply that
they be "naturally occurring" rather than synthetic. As she says,
"just because something is natural doesn't make it non-toxic or
safe." Too true.
So far so good. Next up, she knocks
down health claims about organic food; this is where the problems start. While
this issue is actually very much in flux, Wilcox doesn't treat it as such.
Instead, she cites a 2010 review paper that concludes "any
consumers who buy organic food because they believe that it contains more
healthful nutrients than conventional food are wasting their money." Wow
-- pretty clear cut, right?
But science isn't nearly at a place
where anyone can definitively make that claim. Some evidence shows conventionally
grown food is decreasing in nutritional quality, and we've collected
credible data showing organic food is more nutritious. Wilcox might have
mentioned a
recent study from Washington State University that examined conventional
vs. organic strawberries. As
Grist reported, "organic methods resulted in strawberries with
increased antioxidants, vitamin C, and total phenolics ... The study emphasized
the importance of vitamin C and antioxidants in relation to human health."
There was also a
recent study in the Journal of Dairy Science that showed clear
evidence that organic milk was more nutritious than conventionally produced
milk.
It's simply going too far to suggest
the science on the matter is settled, and thus unfair to call the health
evidence "mythical."
But Wilcox's worst offense came with
an attempt to bust the "myth" that "Organic Farming Is Better
For The Environment." Her bizarre claim defies even a cursory
understanding of how agriculture (conventional or organic) works, but rather
than attempt to defend it, Wilcox immediately declares that the
"solution" to all our problems lies with GMOs:
GMOs have the potential to up crop
yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices
while reducing synthetic chemical use ...
And with that, Wilcox moves from
science to science fiction. Grist has
documented the hype and the risks of GMOs before, and it pains me to have
to do it again. But here goes.
None of the fabulous features she
claims for GMOs exist commercially -- and most don't even exist in the lab. In
fact, strong evidence demonstrates that, despite Wilcox's claims, even GMOs'
basic productivity lags
behind non-GMO crops. She does not observe (or perhaps know) that
conventional, advanced breeding techniques can achieve similar or better
increases in yield and even nutritional quality than GMOs. Moreover, she
doesn't even acknowledge the debate surrounding one of her key examples of
GMOs' promise: "golden rice" -- rice genetically modified to contain
Vitamin A. This BBC
report from 2003 does just that, suggesting that its benefits are a
"mirage." It quotes Richard Horton, editor of the British medical
journal The Lancet, who says, "Seeking a technological food fix for
world hunger may be ... the most commercially malevolent wild goose chase of
the new century."
And her embrace of
"therapeutic" food is chilling. In her vision, genetic modification
is all benefit and no risk. And if recent history has taught us anything, it's
that there is no such thing as the elimination of risk. It's crucial we fully
understand the implications of futzing with animal and plant genes before we
introduce them into the environment, much less feed them to people. And we
simply don't know as much as industry and government want us to think we know.
In fact, the reason that the science
behind GMOs is shockingly thin is that it's almost entirely performed by the
biotechnology industry or by industry-funded scientists. Independent scientists
are either not
allowed access to the patented technology behind GMOs or are restricted in what
they can study, e.g. they can't get access to the seeds unless they promise
not to look at the human health effects of these seeds.
And even the things that GMOs can do
-- like produce pesticides or resist herbicides -- are beginning to fail. This report
from India shows that the country's cotton crop is being devastated by
insects -- even genetically engineered Bt cotton, which produces its own
pesticide. (So much for the "magic" of a GMO seed that needs no
additional chemicals.) Even scarier: The pesticide produced by these kind of
crops is turning
up in the blood of women, despite biotech industry promises that such a
thing simply could not happen.
While we're at it, check out the latest issue of Weed
Science, which researches the rise of superweeds -- a phenomenon
resulting in large part from the broad planting of GMO crops resistant to
Monsanto's herbicide glyphosate. Their "success" in the marketplace
has led to a massive increase in the application of glyphosate and, as
evolution dictates, the weeds that survived the chemical have taken over farm
fields across America. If this is the future of agriculture, we're all in deep
doo-doo.
Don't get me started on her
"feeding the world" argument, given that conventional ag, which has
already almost entirely made the transition to GMOs (especially where grains
are concerned) has utterly failed to do so. In fact, that BBC report on
golden rice contained this brutal quote from Steve Smith, a Syngenta
biotechnology scientist who died in 2003. "If anyone tells you that GM is
going to feed the world, tell them that it is not ... To feed the world takes
political and financial will -- it's not about production and
distribution."
I am not one to argue that the
future lies solely with "organic" ag as we practice it here, and in
that way I agree with Wilcox's point that it's not "all or nothing."
That said, the true experts in the field would argue that the future lies in
"agro-ecological" techniques, not in high-tech, patented technology
with unknown risks. (The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization's new Save and Grow program
forcefully advocates this.) Agro-ecology does allow some use of pesticides but
fundamentally relies on natural, ecological systems that enhance productivity
and combat pests. Evidence
is strong that these practices represent our best way forward.
Perhaps that's the ultimate
agricultural myth to be busted: that the true future of food production lies
along any other path.
Tom covers food and agricultural
policy for Grist. Follow him on Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment