Some truths about organics

Henry I. Miller writes at the Hoover Institue,

Are organic foods healthier? They have never been shown to have health (or, for that matter, environmental) benefits; some studies have shown higher levels of certain anti-oxidants, but the significance of that, if any, is unknown. It may even be undesirable; recent medical research has shown that the administration of anti-oxidants blunts the strength-enhancing effects of exercise.

...Moreover, a study published in 2012 in the Annals of Internal Medicine by researchers at Stanford University’s Center for Health Policy aggregated and analyzed data from 237 studies to determine whether organic foods are safer or healthier than non-organic foods. They concluded that fruits and vegetables that met the criteria for “organic” were on average no more nutritious than their far cheaper conventional counterparts, nor were those foods less likely to be contaminated by pathogenic bacteria like E. coli or Salmonella.

...And speaking of contamination: Organic foods are highly susceptible to it. According to Bruce Chassy, professor of food science at the University of Illinois, “organic foods are recalled 4 to 8 times more frequently than their conventional counterparts.” This is hardly surprising. Aside from the presence of pathogenic bacteria, organic grains are particularly susceptible to toxins from fungi. In 2003, the UK Food Safety Agency tested six organic corn meal products and 20 conventional (non-organic) corn meal products for contamination with the toxin fumonisin. All six organic corn meals had elevated levels—from nine to 40 times more than the recommended levels for human health—and they were voluntarily withdrawn from grocery stores. By contrast, the 20 conventional (i.e., non-organic) products averaged about a quarter of the recommended maximum levels.

...Among the greatest challenges to organic food production is the unrelenting progress of genetic engineering, the products of which are forbidden to organic farmers. For example, genetically engineered, drought-resistant crops have begun to emerge from the development pipeline. And recently, USDA and FDA approved genetically engineered potato varieties—called “Innate” by their developer, the J.R. Simplot Company—that are bruise-resistant and contain 50-70% less asparagine, a chemical that is converted to acrylamide, a probable carcinogen, when heated to high temperatures. And Simplot is performing advanced field testing of second-generation Innate potatoes that will contain an additional trait: resistance to a destructive fungus called “late blight,” which caused the Irish potato famine of the mid-nineteenth century and is still with us.

Researchers at the University of Göttingen in November published a comprehensive analysis of studies that have assessed the impact of genetically engineered crops. Echoing another study published last year, it found that the agronomic and economic benefits, not only in the United States but in the developing world, have been significant: “On average, [genetic engineering] technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%.”

Those unequivocal benefits, which have been demonstrated again and again, are the real motivation for the relentless opposition to modern agricultural practices—the fear in the organic industry that the current gap between organic and conventional agriculture will become a chasm, as technologies and products that are unavailable to organic farmers become ever more efficient and productive. Genetic engineering and new chemicals such as neonicotinoid pesticides—which are much less toxic to non-target species and to the human beings who apply them than the chemicals they replaced—are leading the charge. And synthetic biology will open up even more new vistas.

What, then, is the purpose of USDA-mandated organic standards and certification? “Let me be clear about one thing,” Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman said when organic certification was being considered: “The organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.”

But that marketing tool has been grossly abused. Organic agriculture’s dirty little secret is that it is kept afloat only by massive subsidies and nurtured by a whole panoply of USDA programs, by misleading advertising, and by “black marketing” that dishonestly disparages the competition.

It is hardly news that some industries systematically lie and cheat to further their interests—who can forget the decades of mendacity from the tobacco industry—but the organic industry’s nefarious actions are actively aided, abetted, and supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Organic Seal and the National Organic Standards Program (NOSP), in clear violation of the NOSP’s mission. Thus, American taxpayers are funding propaganda about organic products that misleads consumers with fraudulent health, safety and quality claims and fools them into supporting production methods that are an affront to the environment.

Here’s a tough question for the organic movement’s advocates, who have funded and spearheaded wrong-headed and futile state-by-state efforts to require labeling of genetically engineered foods, claiming a “right to know” what is in our food and how it’s made: Will they demand that potatoes—including those that are organically grown—that lack Innate’s benefits be labeled to inform consumers that “these potatoes are highly subject to bruising, and when cooked, may contain significant amounts of acrylamide, a probable carcinogen”? Unlike the “genetically engineered” label, a required label that informs consumers about lower levels of a carcinogen (and down the road, of naturally-occurring potato toxins solanine and chaconine) would both provide material information and be consistent with federal law.

The advocates of organic agriculture are reminiscent of the buggy manufacturers of a century ago, trying desperately to stay alive by trashing the horseless carriage. But like the Luddites of old, the organic lobby is on the wrong side of history.

Read more here.

Politics invariably gets way ahead of the science

Robert Tracinski writes at The Federalist,

I wrote recently about seven big failed environmentalist predictions, from global cooling to the population bomb (which the New York Times, always on the cutting edge, has just noticed was a complete bust). But it’s not only the big scientific theories they’ve gotten wrong. When science gets harnessed for a political cause, it tends to produce a running series of oversold theories that don’t bear up under further examination.

Here are five examples that recently crossed my desk.

1) Electric cars aren’t all that “green.” ...if the electric cars ever actually become convenient and affordable for the masses—which is still a very long way off—environmentalists will suddenly discover all of the hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy metals that are being stripped out of the Earth to build them, then combined with various chemical concoctions and distributed carelessly on our roadways.

2) Global warming isn’t killing the bees. ...Recently, scientists serendipitously discovered what looks like the actual cause of colony collapse: the spread of a parasitic fly that attacks the bees and uses them to grow its own larvae. ...The fly is not spread, as far as anyone can tell, by warmer weather. (And even if it were, global temperatures have been flat for the past 15 to 20 years.) Instead, it seems to be spread by the increased transportation of honeybees across the country by beekeepers.

3) It’s not killing the frogs, either. Global warming was also supposed to be killing frogs. But again, new studies indicate that the frogs are being killed by a natural pathogen, the chytrid fungus, and that its spread has been accelerated by the natural weather pattern known as El Niño, and not by some anomalous global warming.

Nature is always roiled by competition between species, which includes the spread of natural pathogens that evolve to prey on a particular species, which in turn evolves to avoid the pathogens. This has been going on since the beginning of life on Earth, and those who seek some extraordinary cause for every new pathogen are the ones who are denying science.

But the temptation is understandable, if not entirely forgivable. It’s driven by something scientists refer to, when talking amongst themselves, as “grantsmanship”: the skill of writing a grant proposal in a way that is more likely to win funding, particularly from government agencies. So if you just want to study frogs, for God’s sake don’t say that. How much money can there possibly be for studying frogs? Instead, say that you want to study the effect of climate change on frogs. Now you’re tapping into a much larger fund, the money set aside for studying “climate change.” So you’re more likely to get your grant, while some other poor sucker who just wants to study frogs gets left out.

4) “Organic” food is grown with pesticides.

Tracinski links to an article by Andrew Porterfield in Genetic Literacy Project:

The USDA National List of allowed pesticides for organic growers is quite long. The list includes some substances that one would assume would be relatively harmless, such as mulch, dairy cultures or vitamin B. But others on the list should raise eyebrows: Copper sulfate, elemental sulfur, borax and borates are all known to cause some harm to humans and are approved members of the organic list. Among “synthetic” pesticides, pyrethrums are still allowed, and Vitamin C that is chemically derived (and therefore synthetic) is allowed, as are various forms of alcohol.

Read more here.
Tracinski continues,

5) Genetically modified organisms are natural.

Tracinski links to this news report from May 22 at Reuters:

All human beings, two Cambridge University scientists have established, are genetically modified, including Chipotle’s customers. Over the years, hundreds of foreign genes have jumped into human DNA through a natural phenomenon called “gene flow.” As a result, all humans carry genes that originated in algae, bacteria and fungi. If humans can safely accept alien genes without mishap, why not food, too?

When fears about genetically modified foods first arose, little was known about gene flow, also called horizontal gene transfer. The idea that genes could jump across species violated then-conventional wisdom. But scientific research has established that natural gene transfers regularly occur. So genetic transfers are not a human invention—just a belated human effort to imitate what nature has been doing all along.

Tracinski concludes,

These are just a few more reminders that we should be skeptical when science is dragooned for a fashionable political cause. Because the politics invariably gets way ahead of the science.