I think you mentioned you were buying "organic" foods, John. Better check this out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Hypocrisy
September 19, 2003
By Alex Avery - AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH
Organic farmers' way of using manure — combined with their avoidance of most chemical pesticides and fertilizers — increases risks of E. coli contamination. Yes, non-organic farmers apply far more manure than organic farmers. But the use of animal manure by non-organic farmers is almost entirely on feed/non-food crops (i.e., feed corn, cotton, etc.) where the risks to the consumer from the manure pathogens is zero. (Just try to get E. coli poisoning from a bowlful of milled or processed field corn. People don't eat raw field corn, they eat only the processed and/or baked end product, so the E. coli and other nasty pathogens are long destroyed.)
Very few non-organic vegetable growers use animal manure on their crops, whereas organic farmers (who produce more food crops than feed crops) are far more likely to use manure on crops eaten raw such as vegetables, in which case the product could come into contact with the manure and pose a pathogen risk to consumers.
Because of this undeniable reality, the USDA National Organic Program revised its manure handling regulations to require specific carbon-to-nitrogen ratios and specific time/temperature requirements for manure composting by organic farmers in order to kill manure-borne pathogens.
This revision was in direct response to widespread criticism (by us at the Center for Global Food Issues and by many other science-based groups, such as the American Phytopathological Society and Institute of Food Technologists) of the proposed organic manure handling standards because they were not science-based. Now they are science-based. And we'd be happy to see those regulations extended to all farming, not just organic, as long as an appropriate distinction is made between food crops and feed/non-food crops in applying such manure-handling regulations.
Organic Chemical Use
Despite their apparent willingness to tolerate higher levels of pathogens, organic farmers still use chemical pesticides — though they strive to downplay such chemical use in order to maintain their reputation for being distinct from mainstream agriculture. Some organic activists claim, for instance, that organic farmers only use pesticides, such as the blight-fighting fungicide copper sulfate, after obtaining a special waiver for a specific problem and crop at risk. But in reality, copper sulfate cannot effectively treat fungal diseases (including blight-causing Phytophthora infestans) post-infestation. Copper sulfate must be applied before the onset of crop disease for it to be effective and thus organic farmers routinely use copper sulfate as a preventative on susceptible crops such as potato. Even then, Mader, et al have demonstrated that despite the use of copper sulfate, organic potato yields were only 60% of the yields of non-organic potatoes over a period of years (copper sulfate used from 1978-1991), mainly because of late blight.
But copper sulfate has relatively large health and environmental risks. Copper sulfate doesn't break down and is an indefinite soil contaminant, causes liver disease, and poses significant risks to aquatic organisms. Europe was slated to ban copper sulfate in 2002 — however the ban was postponed because organic farmers have no effective alternatives. In contrast, non-organic farmers have a wide array of safe and biodegradable synthetic fungicides to choose from.
We all know darn well that if the shoe were on the other foot, and non-organic farmers were using copper sulfate, proponents of organic agriculture would be screaming to high heaven about the eco-sins of copper sulfate and would be demanding that it be banned and that only safer, biodegradible synthetic fungicides be allowed. As it is, organic proponents are left defending the use of an inferior, enviro-riskier chemical on the basis that "non-organic farmers use it too!" It must make the organic crowd uncomfortable at best.
What If Biotech Were Organic?
Furthermore, imagine if organic farmers had somehow developed the new biotech blight-proof potatoes (through more traditional, older breeding techniques). They'd be decrying any farmer who didn't plant those as well after they came onto the market. But instead, the organic farmers are the ones dependent on a nineteenth-century pest control chemical that has far higher environmental risk than synthetic fungicides — though even copper sulfate can be used reasonably responsibly by conscientious farmers. But then, if that's the case, why can't organic farmers accept that pesticide use by non-organic farmers can be responsible too?
Blight-proof biotech potatoes should emerge from labs into farmers' fields within five to six years, alleviating the need for some current chemical use. Too bad the organic movement came out so adamantly against biotech. When biotech farmers are planting these varieties and have reduced their fungicide spraying by 90+%, organic farmers will still be looking for that magical cultural technique or natural poison to replace copper sulfate. Happy searching. If a replacement comes, I bet it'll be via research conducted by a for-profit chemical corporation — as happened in the case of Spinosad, the new eco-friendly bacterial-biochemical organic insecticide now used widely by both organic and non-organic farmers. (Perhaps organic farmers won't be so keen to see chemical firms go out of business now that they've benefited from the research and products developed by one of those firms.)
In the meantime: the Food Standards Agency recently recalled two organic corn meal products because they exceeded the proposed European Commission's fungal mycotoxin levels by 1,000-2,000%. (unfortunately, processing does not destroy carcinogenic fungal toxins the way it destroys pathogenic bacteria). No non-organic products were recalled because of overly high fungal toxin levels. Just another chink in the organic claim of superior food safety.
Alex Avery is Director of Research and Education of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute.
healthfactsandfears.com |
