Recipe for Disaster
On election day tomorrow, the food movement will learn if it has curdled before living up to its hype.
That would be a shame, for its future holds much promise. The growing popularity of farmers’ markets, the ballooning consumer appetite for organic everything, and the increasing attention paid to healthy diets (thanks Michelle Obama!) have fomented a legitimate social movement. People have come to care deeply about they eat and how it’s made. That’s a good thing.
What’s not such a good thing is the food movement betting its rising stock on anti-GMO zealotry. I have a new piece at Slate laying out why. Here’s a short excerpt to whet your taste:
Managing our global food supply in a sustainable, efficient manner necessarily involves allowing for both organic and conventional agriculture. But a simplistic, down-with-industrial-farming chant rings loudly throughout the food movement. Sure, there are legitimate grievances about the corporate conduct of multinational food and agricultural companies. But since when is that unique to big business of any nature? For example, there are compelling social justice issues related to the making of cell phones and sneakers, but I don’t see people demonizing Apple’s or Nike’s technological innovations.
So why is Big Ag different from Big Smartphone or Big Sneaker? And why has concern over how the world’s food is grown become so strongly identified with concern over genetically modified crops?
Have a read and let me know what you think.
Gonna spruce up my comment from Slate a bit. Not that you’ll like it any more here than there. (I’m sure that my CaS fanboyz will enjoy it immensely, however):
The problems of world hunger are not singularly (or perhaps even primarily?) contingent on the use (or lack of use) of GMOs. This seems disingenuous here. The primary issues include problems with disparities in wealth, infrastructure, and distribution.
And seriously:
First – an unsupported accusation. Environmentalism is not as prominent in today’s political context for a number of reasons: one is the economy and another is the simple fact that many targets of environmental advocacy have essentially been incorporated into the fabric of society. But your characterization of “irrelevant” is simply not true. Environmental lobbies do in today’s political world impact policy development in a real way, and the ongoing relevance of environmentalists is seen the environmental protections that are maintained in the here and now.
Second, your association of cause-and-effect is purely speculative. If you’re going to argue for well-reasoned scientific analysis to take precedence
over alarmist rhetoric, I think you should avoid that kind of rhetoric.
Big Ag should be treated differently than Big Sneaker or Big iPad.
Potential risk puts them in a different category. Mothers give the products of Big Ag to their children to eat.
That means issues around agriculture cannot be discussed dispassionately with normal expressions of risk/reward or cost/benefit, even if those calculations do take place.
This raises the safety bar (and probably rightly so). It will make life difficult for GMO companies and advocates until they find a way to use plain language to explain the benefits and get ironclad recommendations and references from people outside the GMO circle as to its safety and utility.
Once upon a time, the word “industry” referred to something noble:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/industry
The word has about the same transformation in French.
The success bar for the organic movement used to be that ‘once organics get into the supermarkets, we’ll have won’. But just like professional athletes, the Greens are always wanting more (that’s a Simpson’s reference btw). Anyway, I appreciate Kieth’s ‘and and’ stance on the importance of both organics and conventional/GMO agriculture.
Huh. I guess more people have died from texting-while-driving than from any GMO. And there’s no label on the phone. Fair point.
I know it would be wiser for GMO opponents to have better grounding in facts. But they might be harder to dismiss then. I swear, when I was looking through the comments submitted to the feds for that Arctic Apple, it was like reading YouTube comments. Caps + conspiracy theory + completely unsound pseudo-facts. Kinda sad really. And this only inflames their paranoia when they feel like they weren’t heard.
The further irony is this fixation on big-M and kicking them in the shins is that academic and non-profit projects get no oxygen. Further feeding the cycles of misunderstanding about the technology.
Well, we’ll have to see. I have no idea how it will play out. But I’ll bet it involves more conspiracy and hair-afire claims. And lawsuits. Such a waste of time and resources.
Nice article.For the people who are against Big Food and who are against GMO, I would really like proforma calculations for the planet showing how locally raised food will feed 7,000,000,000 people well and how these people will be able to pay for this food. Having the government of the U.S. buy food for the planet and put it on a credit card for my daughter and my grandchildren to pay, to me, does not count as paying for it. Nor does letting lots of people in far off (or not so far off, like Oakland or East LA) places die for lack of food.Let me know when you have this balance sheet worked out. I would love to see it.I agree with the sentiment of local food, I just can’t get the payment parts to make sense nor can I figure out how to make lots of small farmers profitable at prices people can afford.
Hi Eric. We can’t make lots of small farmers profitable at prices people can afford. We need Big Ag.
We need to keep an eye on it, too.
Ouch, that one is going to leave a mark.
It seems almost every “movement” succumbs to the inmates running the asylum eventually.
#1 Joshua, it is crystal clear you are so young that you never knew a time when people actually did starve to death in large numbers. There are many more people now, and yet less starvation. The US is the bread basket of the world. You do the math (but I know you won’t, because of, you know, the whole motivated reasoning thing).
That is true, Tom, but I am not sure exactly what your point is. The decline in % of the population that is starving is attributable to a number of factors, including advances in agricultural technology. Of course, the advances in calories per capita are disproportionately among the wealthy, and you should also know that the rate in decline in reducing starvation has been decreasing and here is evidence that the decline is “threatened by unsustainable use of resources.” .
link= online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20121011-902006.html?mod=crnewsNow certainly, GMOs and factory-farming technologies will be crucial for addressing those problems going forward, but obviously other aspects of the situation must be addressed also. I mean that is obvious, right?
link= worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
What do you think about this article?
link= .huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html
And have your read “Development as Freedom” yet? So what is your point?
Tom scarf at #8, it would be interesting to see what percent of the “food movement” and “environmental movement” is urban now compared to, say, the 70s.
That is a demographic most removed from actual food production or electricity production. You know, the type who when asked where his water comes from will tell you the source is the faucet. They also have an unhealthy and extravagant perception of what government can do.
Reading the comments at Slate, I got the distinct impression these folks believe they just need to bug their congressman more if they want locally grown, organic bananas in New York City in February for 24 cents a pound.
The further you get from understanding how it is that your lights come on, your subway runs, and your grocer has stocked shelves, the goofier your demands. Like looking to the UN to help hurry the pressing need to power Philadelphia with windmills.
Joshua:
You are right. The enviro-lobby keeps getting it’s vig and/or pound of flesh off of every public and private project.
The GMO/Monsanto fetish pales in comparison to the gross pollution of groundwater and surface water by soluble nitrate fertilizer. If it’s not a fat-tail scary doomsday scenario, then it’s off the enviro radar.
Meanwhile, the relentless, elusive “O” branch of the E.coli clan keeps inviting itself to the organic food party:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm326782.htm
Wasn’t it just a little over a year ago that another E.coli variant sickened over 4000 in Europe, killing over 50? Wouldn’t a rational “food movement” interested in food safety recognize E.coli from organic as a significant risk, currently much riskier based on actual experience than GMO’s?
Matt –
Do you have some data to support that statement? As I recall, the Stanford study showed no greater contamination in organic food,
You wouldn’t want Keith to be upset with you for promoting junk science, would you?
@Joshua 15: this is what the Stanford study showed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22944875
Mary –
So basically, we have one study that showed no statistically significant difference (not sure how to evaluate the statement about a different outcome with changing the dataset by removing the data that had a confounding effect. That seems like a pretty questionable analysis to add).
But if we’re considering statistically insignificant results, they also found more anti-biotic resistant contamination in conventional meat products .
The study did find a notably higher rate of contamination in pork (but not chicken – didn’t study beef).
At any rate – doesn’t seem to support Matt’s statement of “much riskier.” Do you have any other data?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16924919
Seems to me that if you’re concerned about contamination, the point is to have some awareness of where your food comes from, to know which foods are likely to be contaminated, and to be careful about preparation. Fear-mongering about organic food is probably not the optimal strategy.
Hello Joshua,
What does the Stanford study have to do with anything? My point is why do groups obsess over GMO’s, where there is no proof they are degrading public health, and show little interest in another food source (organic sprouts in Germany) that has proven to greatly harm 1000’s of people and where the problem continues to re-occur.
I specifically posted the Stanford piece without comment to see how it would be interpreted. Heh. I think the larger point it makes is that Matt B is quite correct: actual food risks are elsewhere. GMOs are a complete misdirection.
There’s a current recall on this product: “˜Wegmans Food You Feel Good About Organic Spinach & Spring Mix’ on Thursday due to possible E. coli contamination.
You Feel Good. Yeah.
Another food that gets large support from the foodies is raw milk, which has been shown to be 150x riskier than conventional.
Hi Matt –
My point was whether or not you have any evidence to support your statement that organic food is much riskier. If you, (or Mary) have any, I’d like to read about it. I sometimes pick up some organic food (produce in particular if it looks tastier than the conventional stuff) and would like to know if I’m putting myself at a greater risk.
Mary –
Actually, I don’t see how that was his point. What he said is that organic food is much riskier (at least w/r/t e. coli).
And Matt –
Recognizing that it is hard to prove a negative – I’m wondering if you have any actual evidence that “groups [who] obsess over GMO’s” show “little interest” in e. coli in organic produce.
Joshua, the * point * is that the environmental movement and food movement are both virulently anti Big Ag. Yet Big Ag and its technological progress in many areas are primarily responsible for eliminating the vast amount of world wide starvation over the last 50 years. They have saved documented real lives and prevented actual suffering on a large scale. Some people view this as a good thing.
The scientists, engineers, and farmers working in Big Ag are the heroes here, not the villains. The oh so righteous movements who want to demonize them can’t even see this. Big Ag is addressing large scale difficult problems and SUCCEEDING. What suffering have the these anti Big Ag groups prevented? Let me give you a hint: Almost nothing in comparison. It’s not even close.
Grown up people have to make trade offs, and if a few snails die in the name of feeding the world, well that is a good thing overall.
You show ZERO respect for people who do all the really hard and effective work in the world, to the point of assuming they have evil intentions, ignore obvious dangers to society, etc. and yet freely give any hippie with a cause the benefit of the doubt that his facts are accurate. You bury your head in theoretical future dangers without ever acknowledging actual past and current large scale benefits.
And in your mind, you are the hero as you sneer down on the evils of Big Ag. Meanwhile they quietly go on feeding the world.
Tom S –
Have you read “Development as Freedom?” I highly recommend it. Maybe if you do read it, you’d like to come back and we can discuss the quote you just made?
And Tom – your conclusions about what I do or don’t think are fantasies. Prove otherwise by showing one statement, one, that support your assertions about what I do or don’t believe.
@ 23 Joshua,OK, I’ll play one time…..try these guys out:</p?
http://www.gmeducation.org/Nary a word on their site interested in E.coli contamination from organic. And given their mission in life, why should they? They are a GMO-bashing outfit, not a food safety outfit, so why should they spend other time on other food dangers?
Mary is right, my point is you have many people interested in GM dangers that are either unaware or ignoring tangible health risks from other food sources. And it is correct that it isn’t just organic that has tangible risks from “natural” organisms, there are many other sources of risk. Hell if anyone is serious about making food supply safer & irradiating meat isn’t near the top of their list, then they are grinding an axe.
Matt B –
I fail to see the logic in people who want to eat organic food having “little interest” in whether organic food is dangerous. Seems unlikely to me. Reminds me of when Republicans claims that Dems and libs wanted the US to get attacked by terrorists so it would make Bush look bad. In my experience, most people consider the lives and health of their friends and families to be a fairly important concern.
Now back to some evidence for your claim. Do you have any? Should I assume that after repeated requests – the fact that you haven’t provided any means that you don’t have any?
Which then leads to the question of why you made that claim. Do you think that junk science fear-mongering about organic foods will accomplish something positive?
Ah well one more time into the breech with the Joshmeister….
You ask to have your “repeated requests” answered. I thought I answered your #23 question in #26 (I mean it may have been a crappy answer but hey! I put something on the paper!)…….but in #27 you clearly feel another “repeated request” has been ignored. I will guess that it is the “Wouldn’t a rational “food movement” interested in food safety recognize
E.coli from organic as a significant risk, currently much riskier based
on actual experience than GMO’s?” from my post #14; you asked for citations to support that statement, correct? I will assume (see now we both get to assume but you know what happens when you assume……) that that’s the case. I’ll use the World Health Organization both times.
For the safety of GM food: GM foods currently available on the international market have
passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human
health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a
result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the
countries where they have been approved.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/
For the danger of organic sprouts: Germany has been the epicenter of the world’s deadliest known E. coli
outbreak. The Koch Institute raised the toll Friday to 31 dead – 30 in
Germany and one in Sweden – with 2,988 people sickened, 759 of whom are
suffering from a serious complication that can cause kidney failure. The
World Health Organization says 97 others have fallen sick in 12 other
European countries, as well as three in the United States.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/10/sprouts-caused-e-coli-outbreak-germany_n_874689.html
So, GM food = “no effects on human health”, organic spouts = 31 dead plus 3000 sickened in just 1 event. I contend that these citations support my position that compared to GM food, organic sprouts are currently much riskier based
on actual experience than GMO’s”.
Matt B,
I just searched for “organic sprout risks” and stumbled upon your links and this other one:
http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2011/06/07/are-bean-sprouts-the-end-of-or/
Have you read that one too?
Hello Willard,I did not see this before but it makes sense. It was written before the outbreak source was confirmed………….but the last part where he notes that sprouts of all forms (organic, non-organic etc) carry a measurable risk of E.coli – absolutely true! There are many dangerous elements in the food chain and while organic has some risks, it has plenty of company, with the meat industry pretty much worse than all. Irradiation would certainly help………”Naturally Dangerous” by Collman, great book…….
Hello Willard,
I did not see this before but it makes sense. It was written before the outbreak source was confirmed………….but the last part where he notes that sprouts of all forms (organic, non-organic etc) carry a measurable risk of E.coli – absolutely true! There are many dangerous elements in the food chain and while organic has some risks, it has plenty of company, with the meat industry pretty much worse than all. Irradiation would certainly help………”Naturally Dangerous” by Collman, great book…….
An old story, but I’m not sure it got much ice time on your side of the longest unprotected frontier:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2008/08/quebec-legalizes-raw-milk-cheeses-canada.html
How can we reconcile health care with raw cheese? Inquiring minds want to know.
(Cue in some lips service to Kahan.)
Matt –
First please notice how you’ve narrowed what you said.
From what I can tell, you not only didn’t provide evidence to support your contention that organic food is “much riskier,” you haven’t even provided evidence to support your narrowed claim: that organic sprouts are risker (as a generality) than non-organic sprouts, or that organic sprouts are [currently] much riskier than GM food (which is a non-parallel comparison).
Please keep in mind the rules behind how to differentiate between correlation and causation.
Alright Joshua I really have tried to be polite but here’s where I call you an idiot………..I made statements that organic in general (and sprouts in particular) are currently much riskier than GMO’s based on actual experience. You ask proof, I give you the WHO saying about GMO’s that no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods. I then document that organic sprouts have caused illness & death in at least 1 case. How does that not provide “evidence” or “citations please” or whatever your new jerk-off phrase is to get people scurrying around to do your thinking (but of course it is clear by now that you no intention of doing any thinking) for you? How can a food source that has caused deaths not be much riskier than foods that have shown no efects on human health?
Your response is I’ve “narrowed” what I said. What are you possibly talking about? Then you blather on about organic vs non-organic sprouts, non-parallel comparison to GMO’s, etc; who cares? That was never in any of my posts, these discussions only took place within the confines of the itty-bitty Josh hamster brain. If you want to talk about that these topics then compose a post about that, you dope.
Anyways, glad this is done, it’s been real, Joshy baby! Keep that hamster running!
Matt –
No need to hold back on calling me an idiot. Feel free to jump in with that at any point in any exchange with me.
I have asked you for evidence that organic food is “much riskier.” When I asked you for evidence, you spoke about a specific case of contaminated organic food, but did not provide evidence for the statement you made. You then went on to narrow the discussion to refer to a specific organic food, and you also went on to compare a specific organic food against unspecified other types of foods.
I get that you think that you have provided evidence for your statement. I think that you are confusing causality. An example of one specific incident of one type of organic food being contaminated does not make your case.
Anyway – see you on another thread sometime.