Richard Morrison and Marc Scribner welcome very special guest Katherine Mangu-Ward to Episode 103 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We discuss the Pentagon’s brownie recipe, the organic food police, the war on online classrooms and Katherine’s chapter in the recently released book from Templeton Press, New Threats to Freedom.
organic food
Michael Specter, a journalist who’s also an excellent speaker, appeared at the last TED conference. Specter is technologically optimistic but has accepted many of the eco-catastrophe myths. He favors GMOs, worries about micro-nutrients, says nothing about perfumes or clothes or other status items, makes fun of the organic food movement (sort of) and so on. Like many modern intellectuals Specter likes technology (or, at least, the right type of technology – the Bright rather than Dark Side of the Force). And here is the problem – he fails to discuss the institutional framework most appropriate to guide technology in human- friendly directions. Should innovation be “guided” by markets or by politics? His condemnation of nutritional supplements would suggest that he’d favor laws banning or taxing the “wrong” consumer choices.
Specter does not seem to recognize that institutions-not science per se- is the key factor. He says (in this clip, at least) nothing about the critical link between R and D (he doesn’t really discuss D in any meaningful sense). No allusion to markets and profits as ways of stimulating innovation. And, of course, ignores the reality that absent property rights, markets are a grand illusion.
Congratulations to Pamela Ronald, a UC Davis plant pathology professor, on winning one of this year’s Science in Society Journalism Awards, sponsored by the National Association of Science Writers. The award is for a column Ronald wrote for the Boston Globe last year, and which was based in part on her wonderful book, Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetic and the Future of Food, co-authored with her husband Raoul Adamchak.
Ronald and Adamchak, who is an organic farmer, reject the dogma that only a narrow-minded organic approach to agriculture can be sustainable. Instead, they suggest that “a judicious blend” of the best “organic” attitudes regarding soil health and respect for biodiversity on one hand and the best of new technologies and methods such as biotechnology and integrated pest management on the other, is the “key to helping feed the world’s growing population in an ecologically balanced manner.”
Read the Boston Globe column for a quick summary. But, I very highly recommend the book as well.
On Saturday, The Times of London published a news article under the headline “Organic food is a waste of money”. The hard-copy print edition of Saturday’s Times also, I’m told, featured two pages of price and quality comparisons showing that, in a blind tasting, consumers generally preferred the taste of conventionally produced foods to that of organic foods.
“The most striking finding of our survey was that the organic ranges scored worst, or joint worst, at three out of the four supermarkets tested — being rated less tasty and satisfying than even the budget ranges at Waitrose, Tesco and Asda at about twice the price. At Sainsbury’s, organic goods came a poor third to Taste the Difference and standard.”
None of this is news to regulars at this site, who’ve read us discuss various comprehensive scientific studies — like this one, this one, and this one — concluding that organic food offers neither greater nutrition nor greater safety than conventionally produced food does. Although much of the recent press attention to organic foods has centered around the repeated findings that organic foods don’t have any nutritional benefits, it is just as significant that, as I’ve written here before, it is simply not true that buying organic food gets you less exposure to pesticides. While organic farmers do not use “synthetic” pesticides, they do use a variety of chemicals to control insects and plant diseases — including such potentially dangerous substances as copper sulfate, rotenone, pyrethrum, ryania, and sabadilla. These “organic” pesticides are derived from minerals or plants, are lightly processed, and thus are considered to be “natural” for the purposes of organic agriculture. Yet, ounce for ounce, most are at least as toxic or carcinogenic as many of the newest synthetic chemical pesticides.
Still, it is great to see articles such as this one in major mainstream papers like The Times — no matter how sketchy its taste test methodology may have been. To be sure, The Times and other influential European newspapers and magazines have published opinion articles discussing the same point. But, as a British colleague of mine wrote to me:
“The article suffered from all the faults of superficial comparison, in this case of taste as determined ‘blind’ (they said) by just a few people. It does not stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny.
What is more to the point is not the information per se but the fact that The Times saw fit to publish three pages under that headline – and for once the headline does really reflect the tenor of the article’s content. The mood appears to be changing quite significantly in the UK.”
Pace Bob Dylan, The Times, it sure is a changin’.
The irreverent and hilarious comedians Penn and Teller have produced another episode of their television show Bullshit about organic foods. Friends of CEI, Ron Bailey and Alex Avery, make appearances. The episode, titled “The Organicsons” blows the proverbial whistle on the alleged “local-ness” or organics:
“Some people eat organic foods because they want to support small local farms – but eating organically might mean you’re getting your food from giant corporations or China.”
Penn and Teller note that they have nothing against giant corporations – indeed, they have some good things to say about big businesses. But they do skewer yet another free range sacred cow, and that always makes their show fun to watch.
The episode first aired last night on the Showtime pay-cable network, but you can watch the trailer and get scheduling information here.
There is a great piece in Today’s Financial Times authored by Michael S. Kapinker, which is related to an issue raised in my post last week. It addresses the organic food issue, pointing out that, during a recession, it makes good sense to buy conventional. He notes, its probably a good idea at any time based on the science. It’s worth taking a look.
Photo: courtesy of Rick Audet.
Whole Foods profit has fallen 32 percent, reflecting changes in consumer demand during economic hard times. It appears that organic food becomes a luxury item that must be dispensed with when times get hard. Despite the fact that organic food isn’t necessarily any healthier or better for the environment than conventional food, many people view it as environmentally superior and are willing to pay more for it—but only up to a point. There is a lesson for environmentalists to learn here. Wealth creates the will and the ability to pay for environmental amenities.
For example, when people have more spare change, they donate more to conservation groups that can privately manage lands to help save species. Wealth creation also means demand for better, cleaner energy sources. Despite what many greens seem to think, modern fossil fuels used in wealthy nations represent an environmental improvement over burning wood or things like animal dung as is done in developing nations. In fact, rudimentary fuel sources create serious air pollution problems that have made respiratory illnesses a major cause of death in poor countries. Wealth also means the development of technologies that enhance our ability and will to control emissions, provide proper disposal of wastes, and purify drinking water. (For more on how poverty is bad for health and the environment see here)
Ironically, most environmental activist groups seem to think that wealth creation—and profits—are the cause of environmental decline. Hence they fight these forces, opposing things like privatization of water because someone might make a profit. But their policies leave the world poor and lacking in things like clean water. And they also fight a main engine of growth: free trade. The failure of genuine environmentalists to understand this fundamental reality about wealth undermines their own cause because wealth depleting policies harm the environment.
Unfortunately, environmentalists not only misguided ones. Environmentalists fight wealth in the name of the environment, and lawmakers fight wealth in the name of the economy, as our stimulus policies reveal.
See CEI’s Environmental Source for more information on environmental quality issues.
Ask people who buy organic food what they like about it, and chances are, most will say “they’re grown without pesticides.” As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that’s not actually true. While organic farmers do not use synthetic pesticides, they do use a variety of chemicals to control insects and plant diseases — including such potentially dangerous substances as copper sulfate, rotenone, pyrethrum, ryania, and sabadilla. These “organic” pesticides are derived from minerals or plants, are lightly processed, and thus are considered to be “natural” for the purposes of organic agriculture. Yet, ounce for ounce, most are at least as toxic or carcinogenic as many of the newest synthetic chemical pesticides.
Now comes news from the UK’s Farmer’s Guardian newspaper that “[n]early half of the pesticides specially approved for use in organic farming [in the European Union] have failed EU safety tests and more could follow as the rules are tightened.” Conclusions of the risk assessments conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) under EU Plant Protection Products regulations first implemented in 1996 can be found here.
According to the Farmer’s Guardian, EFSA “has approved just 14 of the 27 organic pesticides put before it … although many have received a derogation for continued use.” Still, because more stringent rules are due to be promulgated next year, the European crop protection (i.e. pesticide) industry expects that more of the organic pesticides will be found unsafe.
According to an industry spokesperson, “Organic farmers already have limited options for crop protection and if more products are removed productivity could fall and prices could increase.” Of course, since the organic industry has been touting itself as a “pesticide free” alternative to conventional agriculture, this would just mean that what they’re producing conforms more closely to the hype.
In recent days I’ve been heavily exposed to commercials featuring the Nickelodeon network’s teen stars advocating The Big Green Help, including, Lord help us, a game where you can play Spongebob Squarepants combating CO2 monsters (portrayed as anthropomorphic smoking trucks, perhaps a dig at competitor Cartoon Network’s Transformers). The photogenic young stars place their hands over their hearts when they say that they will pledge to reform their behavior and be Green.
However, when you look at the list of “the four elements of the big green help,” it’s less objectionable than the initial impression would suggest. Of the four elements, only one is really bad, including as it does the pernicious ideas that recycling toilet paper is a good thing and that tap water is better than bottled water. There’s also the confused idea that local/organic food might be better than “normal” food.
http://www.openmarket.org/wp-admin/post-new.php
The rest of it, however, is completely compatible with a no-regrets approach to global warming:
Of course, this doesn’t excuse the preachy, quasi-religious tone of the adverts, but if this is the extent of what children do (and nag their parents about) as a result, then I can live with it.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 
