The Assault on Organics, Ignoring science to make the case for chemical farming

[G_j]

http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=r8jYOqsGSL3QYgA2a3OT5KuU6mOt2KBH

By Kari Hamerschlag and Stacy Malkan

The New York Post loves a good villain, but you’d think it would be hard to cast a bad light on the group of people profiled in an April 19 story: moms who feed their kids organic food.

Naomi Schaefer Riley took on the challenge in “The Tyranny of the Organic Mommy Mafia,” and built a case against “the arrogance and class snobbery” of people who buy and eat food that’s been grown without artificial chemicals.

“Organic food does not necessarily mean better. It’s a term that’s been co-opted and manipulated into a billion-dollar industry by some of the biggest food companies in America,” Riley wrote.
The anti–organic food narrative is a recurring theme in the media of late. What’s going on with these stories?

In January, Slate (1/28/14) served up “Organic Schmorganic” by Melinda Wenner Moyer—shared 45,000 times on Facebook. The story concluded that it’s not worth feeding your kids organic fruits and vegetables because there is no documented harm from conventional produce treated with chemicals, especially when the residues are below levels deemed safe by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The story assumes that EPA exposure levels for pesticides are health-protective and ignores ample evidence about the health concerns of long-term exposures and combined effects of pesticides (Environmental Health Perspectives, 11/12; International Journal of Andrology, 4/08), as well as data that pesticides are building up in children’s bodies (Environmental Health Perspectives, 2/06).

In short, the article was based largely on spin, as pointed out in detailed rebuttals by the Organic Center (1/30/14), Environmental Working Group (2/10/14) and Civil Eats (2/4/14).

...much more..

[villager]

1. Those same science-ignorers are vociferous posters here, always alighting on the corporate side

...of any dispute, actual science be damned...

[Orrex]

2. They dovetail nicely with the science-ignorers who always alight on the anti-corporate side

Ladies and gentlemen, I present another sad case of

[villager]

3. Except of course, we're not talking about ignoring science

Kudos for sneaking in your mandated use of "woo" in a colorful graphic, however!

[Orrex]

5. Not my graphic--I don't mean to take credit for it

But I agree with the sentiment: in any discussion of the science of food or medicine, it is exceedingly likely that someone will invoke the specter of "big agra" or "big pharma" within three posts.

There's ignoring science, and there's ignoring science.

I am aware of studies that have shown no clear benefit from so-called* organic foods, and I am aware of studies that claim to show a benefit. Which ones are we to ignore? And on what basis?

Also, I would say that this is an almost self-evidently true statement:

“Organic food does not necessarily mean better. It’s a term that’s been co-opted and manipulated into a billion-dollar industry by some of the biggest food companies in America,”

*I use the phrase "so-called" deliberately, because "organic" is a term lionized for use by a specific agenda, in much the same way that "artificial" is demonized as inherently inferior or evil.

[villager]

7. I would agree that with the way the definition of "organic" has been allowed to change

...it has, in some aspects, becoming a marketing tool (quite often, by the way, by those same corporations whose very mention seems to shut down credibility in a discussion thread, in your eyes -- as if these economic entities have no interest in how the public perceives their products, or the safety of them, and as if they don't already have vastly more suasion in the "marketplace" than the rest of us.)

On the other hand, as a parent, any possible way I can keep more questionable chemicals out of my babies' bodies, the better.

Of course, in my case, those once-babies are grown and growing, so they're busy taking on all the "market" has to offer on their own, now...

[Orrex]

8. To an extent, I see two different points there

I agree with you, in that "organic" is a marketing tool. It's very similar to "fat free" and "gluten free" when used for products that weren't all that fatty or gluten-y to begin with. The marketing trumps the relevant science.

[div clas="excerpt"]On the other hand, as a parent, any possible way I can keep more questionable chemicals out of my babies' bodies, the better.I don't begrudge anyone that decision, because we do much the same thing. To the extent that we're able, we try to be conscious of ingredients, and we buy with our eyes open.

I have become cynical regarding claims about the horrors of GMOs or the addition of "artificial chemicals" to our food, because in many (most?) cases these are poorly backed by evidence, even when they're asserted as unassailable fact. And I confess that I bristle when someone pre-emptively suggests that any critique of "organic" must necessarily indicate that the critic is a Monsanto shill.

[villager]

9. Well, the last paragraph is where we diverge, I reckon

I think mostly these products, techniques, chemicals, etc., are all rushed to market, relatively speaking, with very little oversight, as it turns out.

In other words, it will be decades until we learn the true extent of potential GMO damage to insects, neighboring co-aligned crops, et al.

By then, of course, it will be too late.

so where I bristle is at suggestions that we must always defer to the vested-interest conclusions of the corporate sector...

[Orrex]

12. You are articulating a reasonable position very different from the internet norm

I have never once seen an anti-Monsanto meme that called for a longitudinal study of the longterm effects of this or that GMO food (many of which have already been studied for decades, in fact). Instead, I see lots of horror-movie claims about the toxic effects of GMO foods, along with scolding implications that these foods are only marketed successfully because whole governments are bullied and bought and sold.

In other words, it will be decades until we learn the true extent of potential GMO damage to insects, neighboring co-aligned crops, et al.

Does it seem likely to you that such GMOs could ever be vindicated, even if they are in fact 100% harmless? History suggests that a certain contingent will object to them even if no evidence of risk is ever demonstrated.

[villager]

13. You can get back to me once they are deemed to be 100% harmless

Though I will happily wager now that won't be the case.

Do you really think Monsanto doesn't have its ways of bullying government regulatory agencies?

[Orrex]

14. Even pure distilled water isn't 100% harmless.

Neither are organic carrots. To hold out for 100% safety is to set an impossible goal. A more reasonable goal IMO would be to require GMO foods to be no less safe than the non-GMO versions of those foods. Early results suggest that in many cases this has already been achieved. Not talking about external pesticides, of course, but rather the foods themselves.

Do you really think Monsanto doesn't have its ways of bullying government regulatory agencies?

Sure they do. Do you think that the organic food industry does not?

[villager]

15. No, I do not think the organic food industry has the same bullying power that Monsanto does

I think that is, in fact, a naive talking point.

And seizing on the "100% safety" may also be a bit of sophistry. Sure, you can drown in water. Or get poisoned by drinking a vast amount of it.

Doesn't mean I want industrial waste in it, too boot. Doesn't I mean I want the industries doing the dumping telling me what a "safe" amount it.

[Orrex]

18. That was not my claim.

You asked:

Do you really think Monsanto doesn't have its ways of bullying government regulatory agencies?

to which I responded:

Sure they do. Do you think that the organic food industry does not?

There was no mention of scope or extent or specific methods. So I will ask again: do you think that the organic food industry does not have its ways of bullying government regulatory agencies?

And seizing on the "100% safety" may also be a bit of sophistry.

I agree, which makes me wonder why you posted this:

You can get back to me once they are deemed to be 100% harmless.

That didn't come across as sarcasm, if sarcasm was intended.

Doesn't mean I want industrial waste in it, too boot. Doesn't I mean I want the industries doing the dumping telling me what a "safe" amount it.

I made neither of those points, so I don't need to defend them.

[villager]

20. All right. Well, you are perhaps more defensive that you need to be, then

My "100% safe" was kind of a figure of speech, but you seized on it as being literal, in order to compare distilled water to GMOs.

I don't think it's helpful to compare the presumed lobbying power of the mighty organics lobby to that of Monsanto, with a straight face. If you weren't, then all the better.

I'm glad we agree that the fox shouldn't be making the rules about henhouse protection (my general sympathies for wildlife, and wild predators, over factory farming, notwithstanding...)

[Orrex]

21. Not defensive at all, really.

I asked you for the threshold that would satisfy you of GMOs' safety, and you responded with "100% safe." Perhaps you can see why I interpreted that as a straightforward answer, since you didn't offer another standard.

I also wasn't comparing the relative lobbying power of one versus the other, but rather that lobbying is, ultimately, the name of the game. I find it distasteful, yes, but it's either wrong or it's not, unless we can establish reasonably clear criteria by which one lobbying effort is allowed and another rejected.

[G_j]

16. NOBODY has the leverage Monsanto has

I would think you should know that...

[Orrex]

19. Who has claimed otherwise? Not me.

So why are you suggesting that I did?

[G_j]

22. not directly

but suggesting the Organic food industry has any sort of bullying power that could hold the slightest candle to Monsanto, might sound that way.

[wisechoice]

17. People are anti monsanto

It is because Monsanto is a bully. It has a history of being wrong when it comes to food safety. You want to welcome the company that has been playing with food safety for decades?
Whether organics is turning into a marketing tool or not, it does serve one purpose. It sends message to the corporations to use less chemicals and be careful with what you put into food. I am happy to have "organics" market.

[djean111]

4. It seems willfully stupid to be all upset and shit about mommies who feed their kids

organic food. Afraid it will catch on? Why care?
That's the bizarre part - why care about what mommies feed their kids, unless they are feeding them Cheetos and Pepsi. Are the kids eating nutritious food? Yeah? Then mind your own damned beeswax. While there is beeswax to be had.
Oh, yeah - that would be okey dokey, processed crap and sugary drinks.

[Crowquette]

11. Willfully Stupid or Perversely Corporate Puppetish

?219

[Crowquette]

6. GMO Chemical corps are waging a War on Clean Food

So their corporate chemicalized crap won't be clearly seen as the dangerous crap it is. The reason this corporate war gets mentioned in discussions about organics is because it's true -- ugly but true.

[Marrah_G]

10. I try to support local organic farmers because I care about the future

Personally I think it tastes better too.

Chemical fertilizers and companies like Monsanto and big agra companies are hurting the ecosystem. Eventually it's going to come back to kick us in a serious way.