Desperate Food Industry Tries to Tar Michael Pollan and Organic Produce

[marmar]

via AlterNet:



Desperate Food Industry Tries to Tar Michael Pollan and Organic Produce

By Vanessa Barrington, EcoSalon. Posted August 24, 2009.

With growing numbers of food-conscious consumers, big corporations are trying to sully the reputation of alternatives to their style of agriculture.



What do you get when you cross a grassroots movement with a food industry fearful of losing its influence? Bogus studies, campaigns of misinformation and opinion pieces filled with myth and vitriol.

You may have noticed an uptick this year in news reporting that organic food isn’t really better for you, opinion pieces by conventional farmers saying that they are tired of being demonized by “agri-intellectuals”, and guilt-inducing ads by Monsanto in highbrow publications like the New Yorker touting the company’s ability to feed the world through technology.

Though all of this could be disturbing to those of us committed to sustainable agriculture and food that is fair to eaters, animals, workers and farmers, I’m choosing to see this as a good sign. I think it means we might be winning.

The turning point was when First Lady Michelle Obama planted an organic garden on the White House lawn only to receive a letter from The American CropLife Association telling her that they hoped she recognized the value of conventional agriculture in American life. The letter can be read here. Then, there were false allegations that the garden was contaminated with lead. In the face of all this, the first lady stuck with her commitment to keeping the garden organic. ........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/142145/desperate_food_industry_tries_to_tar_michael_pollan_and_organic_produce/

[CoffeeCat]

1. What does Big Ag mean when they say...

...that they wanted Michelle Obama to "recognize the value of conventional agriculture in the American Life".

Do they not want us planting gardens?

Or are we supposed to spray our gardens with pesticides and other chemicals, like they do?

Do they object to the food being poison free or are they just against gardening all together?

Just trying to keep up.

[Javaman]

2. They just want you to buy their crap and call it healthy. nt

[paulsby]

3. show me the evidence

show me a peer reviewed study that DOES say organic produce has superior nutritive value.

sorry, but i have yet to see any remotely convincing evidence.

many organic proponents sound like frigging creationists when it comes to their pet cause

fwiw, i grow a lot of my own organic produce. and i seek out quality produce, but i'm not paying the ridiculous prices many organics are priced at for something that SOUNDS better.

[Nihil]

4. You're providing it yourself (in case you didn't realise).

> show me the evidence
> show me a peer reviewed study that DOES say organic produce
> has superior nutritive value.

This is the evidence for the classic strawman attack as being
applied to organic food (with similar bait & switch tactics in
other areas).

Organic producers and the vast majority of their supporters are
*not* claiming that organic produce has "superior nutritive value".
This is bullshit proposed, supported and funded by the mainstream
agricultural industry. They take a closely related fact (that the
*SOIL* nutrition on an organic farm is higher) and create a tissue
of lies around it specifically to fool consumers who are buzzword
oriented.

The pro-organic people ARE however stating that
1) Pesticides are severely restricted.
2) Artificial chemical fertilisers are prohibited.
3) Animal cruelty is prohibited - true free-range farm animals guaranteed.
4) The routine use of drugs, antibiotics and wormers is disallowed.
5) The production and use of GM in animal feed is banned.

Any of the above five points would justify purchasing organic food.

Points 1, 2, 4 & 5 each make the organic food healthier for human
consumption than the industrial equivalent.

Point 3 "only" matters if you are a non-vegan who has a moral interest
in your food production (including me FWIW).

Point 1 (and debatably point 3) has benefits for the farm workers
and the public who live nearby.

Points 1 & 2 have definite benefits for the people, plants and animals
who rely on runoff water from farms.

Yes, there will always be a trade-off between "doing the right thing"
and "paying an acceptable price penalty for doing it" and I will not
deny that some organic stuff is truly ridiculously priced. Nor will I
deny that some stuff sold as "organic" (in the US certainly) is nothing
of the sort - that's part of the price you pay for not having laws to
control labeling - so I am not defending fraud like that.

I will continue to defend genuine organic produce as being the best
option available where "best" equates to "healthiest overall by far".

:hi:

(FWIW: If you want info on organic produce, you could do far worse than
check out the Soil Association - the highest standard UK certification
body for organic produce.)

(PS: I was not intending to have a go at you specifically, just at the
attitudes that are being deliberately fostered by the multinational
agricultural industry!)

[paulsby]

5. nice- non response

i have yet to see a peer reviewed study, nor did you provide one.

the evidence is not there. i grow MY produce organically. i will continue to buy produce at the store based on quality, and not pay extra for the cachet of "ooh, it's organic".

i metnion, for example, you mention drugs.

this is a meat thang, not a organic produce thing, but show me SCIENTIFICALLY how trenbolone, bovine growth hormone, progesterone (all used cattle implants) can have any negative affect on ANIMAL flesh.

where's the scientific evidence.

i understand how cattle implants work. and the science is there.

and we aren't talking organics here, anyways. let's get back to the topic.

show me peer reviewed studies.

[Nihil]

6. It must be catching.

> i have yet to see a peer reviewed study, nor did you provide one.

You asked for a strawman:

>> show me a peer reviewed study that DOES say organic produce
>> has superior nutritive value.

I clarified that you were asking for something nonsensical
(i.e., something that would defend an argument that was not made)
and now you come back with the same crap as last time.

:shrug:


> this is a meat thang, not a organic produce thing

Ummm ... "meat" can be "organic" or didn't you realise?

As you are in the US, perhaps it's better that you don't follow the
links below as it makes for some unpleasant reading in places.
(e.g., I didn't realise that you could legally feed your animals on
so much shit - literally! - table 1 in the first ref is nasty ...)

Anyway, the following points may be of interest with regards to your
concern that I mentioned "drugs" amongst the other types of animal "feeds"
that organic farms don't put into their produce:

"In the present review we focus on feed ingredients listed in Table 1
that raise specific concerns for public health, including rendered animal
products, animal waste, plant- and animal-based fats, antibiotics, and
metals."
...
"Currently, the use of animal feed ingredients, including rendered animal
products, animal waste, antibiotics, metals, and fats, could result in
higher levels of bacteria, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions, arsenic,
and dioxin-like compounds in animals and resulting animal-based food
products intended for human consumption. Subsequent human health effects
among consumers could include increases in bacterial infections
(antibiotic-resistant and nonresistant) and increases in the risk of
developing chronic (often fatal) diseases such as vCJD."
...
"For example, prior to 1985 there were little or no fluoroquinolone-
resistant Campylobacter jejuni isolated from either poultry or humans
in the United States (Smith et al. 1999). However, after the FDA approved
the use of fluoroquinolones in poultry production in 1995, fluoroquinolone-
resistant C. jejuni were detected in both poultry and human isolates.
The Minnesota Department of Health completed an analysis of C. jejuni
isolates from humans and retail poultry products and found that the
proportion of fluoroquinolone-resistant C. jejuni isolated from humans
increased from 1.3% in 1992 to 10.2% in 1998 (following the 1995
fluoroquinolone approval) (Smith et al. 1999). In contrast, in Australia,
where fluoroquinolones have never been approved for use in animal
agriculture, no fluoroquinolone resistance has been detected in C. jejuni
isolated from domestically acquired human infections (Unicomb et al. 2003)."
...
"In addition, almost no biological or chemical testing is conducted on
complete U.S. animal feeds; insufficient testing is performed on retail
meat products; and human health effects data are not appropriately linked
to this information."

(http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1867957)


"It was shown that under good production conditions it is possible to reach
good and competitive production results for the rearing of poultry without
the continuous use of antibiotics in feeds (Wierup, 2001; Engster et al.,
2002; World Health Organization, 2002)."
...
"However, the wider use of antibiotics as feed additives in the long run
can contribute to the development of resistant bacteria to drugs used to
treat infections. These microbials with resistant genes poses a potential
risk for humans if they are transferred to persons. For this reason, the
World Health Organization (1997) and the Economic and Social Committee of
the European Union (1998) concluded that the use of antimicrobials in food
animals is a public health issue."
...
"Finally, the ban of antibiotics in animal feeds will have consequences in
the international trade of poultry meat because the European Union only
imports foods obtained from animals that were not fed with antibiotics,
in application of the precaution principle allowed by the World Trade
Organization."

(http://ps.fass.org/cgi/content/full/86/11/2466)


> i will continue to buy produce at the store based on quality, and not
> pay extra for the cachet of "ooh, it's organic".

I don't "pay extra for the cachet" but the UK5 mark is a damn sight
better indication of quality than some agribusiness label that uses
pretty fonts ...


Again, I would like to point out that my previous post was to counteract
your strawman about "superior nutritive value", not to start up a brand
new argument about organic vs factory farming.

:hi: