Does Recent Criticism of Sustainably Produced Food Mean We’re Winning?
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.
Why is this happening now? For many years, organic food was a marginal market and the big players were content to let it either exist on the sidelines or hedge their bets and buy into it themselves.
But due to the excellent work by many writers and activists like Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser, Marion Nestle, Robert Kenner and others too numerous to mention, more of us are starting to pay attention to where our food comes from and how it is produced. This market is now a force for change. And individuals and companies that benefit from the status quo don’t want change.
Let’s take a closer look at the people and ideology behind some of the more recent high profile examples of the attacks against sustainable food.
The aforementioned study by London’s School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine on the nutrient values of organic foods looked at various studies on the subject and compiled them to reach its conclusions. No new study was conducted. The meta review ignored some recent studies on nutrients, including one focused on antioxidants.
Not only that, the conductors of the survey only looked a narrow set of very specific nutrients. They did not consider factors of taste, environmental impact, or pesticide residues in the food – all factors that most consumers I know consider when buying organic foods.
Beyond the obvious limitations of the subject matter, it’s instructive to take a closer look at how the study was covered in the media, who conducted the study and who funded it.
So let’s pull back the curtain, shall we?
Media Coverage: Though the study looked at only 8 different nutrients and concluded there was no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically- and conventionally-produced foodstuffs, it went on to say that there were other reasons to buy organic food. Headline writers like tension so all the headlines were some variation on “organic foods not really better for you” or worse yet, “the organic foods hoax”.
What is the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine? The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine is a respected college within the University of London, so all would seem to be on the up and up. But, this is the same school that published a hateful and not at all scientifically-rigorous study blaming fat people for global warming. I’d love to get into the problems with this study but that’s another post.
Who Funded the Study? The study was commissioned by the UK’s Food Standards Agency. The agency is an independent part of government set up by Parliament in response to food contamination issues and the resulting lack of consumer confidence.
The FSA is supposed to serve consumers, and it does in many cases, but like our very own USDA and FDA, the agency can be influenced by the food industry. Their slogan says it all: “safer food, better business”. And a quick look at the profiles of FSA staffers reveals more than a few food industry folk.
And then there’s Missouri farmer, Blake Hurst, in his article for The American Enterprise Institute. He attacks Pollan and other “agri-intellectuals” and city folk in general for making all kinds of assumptions about farmers and for presuming that they know the “messy, dirty” business of farming much better than farmers.
Throughout the piece Hurst erodes his credibility by making his own unfounded assumptions about his opponents, including the guy on the plane behind him, with whom he opens the story. He also says that he won’t change until the consumer forces his hand, ignoring the real lack of consumer power inherent in a food system that uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize the production of commodity crops that are then used to produce the unhealthy foods that fill the shelves of our grocery stores.
Foods (or food products) whose sheer volume and variety of brightly-colored packaging, flavors, colors and sizes are supposed to convince us of the abundance of our choices as consumers, when in fact all we’re really buying is agricultural surplus dressed up with chemicals, technology and marketing.
Then he brilliantly skewers his own argument by using a false urban (or rural?) legend about a flock of turkeys so stupid they drowned themselves in a rainstorm to make his point that conventional farmers who pack the sentient beings we raise for food into crowded, filthy sheds are really protecting the animals from their own stupidity.
Oh, and by the way, what is this American Enterprise Institute that published Hurst’s article?
I’m glad you asked. The AEI is a neoconservative think tank devoted to free enterprise capitalism. According to Sourcewatch, AEI has funded studies that debunk climate change research, refutes studies showing the social costs of tobacco use, and has even worked to promote the Iraq war. The AEI staff listing includes Lynne Cheney, Newt Gingrich and Richard Perle.
As for Monsanto’s advertisements attempting to influence the very people who are most likely to read writers like Michael Pollan and publications like EcoSalon, don’t be fooled. We’ve done enough work here, here, and here that gets to the truth about Monsanto. And here’s an excellent piece from Grist detailing exactly why those specific ads are so bogus.
According to a recent survey, consumers are confused about and skeptical of green marketing claims, and misinformed about terms like natural and organic. That’s exactly how some would like it to be.
But there’s another side to this story: The status-quoers will eventually have to acknowledge that the system as it stands now will not serve anyone’s needs much longer, even theirs. As global warming accelerates and fuel costs rise, we need to figure out how to produce food differently. Maybe consumer power won’t ever be enough to force farmers like Blake Hurst to start to look at farming differently but the limiting characteristics of our unsustainable system will.
Until then, I won’t allow myself to be swayed by the propaganda of the resisters; I’ll put my money where the facts are – with the visionary, hopeful, innovative farmers who are doing things differently. Because, even though small-scale organic farming may not be the only answer, it can be part of a whole systemic change toward feeding ourselves without ruining the planet. And it tastes a lot better!
Image: lepiaf.geo
Editor’s note: This is Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column on the cultural, social, and political issues related to the food system.
(5 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Oldways: Where Slow Food Meets Science
XHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic. If you’re worried about how
The 13 Most Dynamic Minds in Food Politics You Should Know
XHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic. If you’re reading this blog,
Corn: It's What's for Dinner (and Lunch, and Breakfast)
XHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic. I once met a woman
Can Fast Food Be Green?
XHello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic. Call me a cynic, but
|
Bookmark |
10 Comments
August 18th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Your material was superbly written and presented…very helpful. I think part of the recent playing down of organics is due to the fact that most like to take the path of least resistance. It’s always easier to roll a rock downhill. Sure it’s more work to grow better food, but that’s not a problem if you value a better outcome.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Thanks for breaking this down, Vanessa. Great job.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
It may be a sign of growth, but it means we only have to fight harder now. We haven’t had the full effect of enormous funds thrown at us until now, but it is not something to underestimate. And we were hurt very badly by the stupid CEO of Whole Foods coming out with a pathetic op-ed regarding health care reform. I started seeing a whole bunch of “I never really cared for Whole Foods, anyway.” remarks. And like the previous commenter pointed out, most people take the path of least resistance.
It’s gonna be a tough uphill battle from here, even more so than it has been up until now. If you need further evidence, look at how the drug industry has ravaged the tobacco industry. It wasn’t the complaints of non-smokers that brought about a change in attitude all over the world. It was Big Drugs peddling their Quit Smoking solutions. They managed to succeed in spite of the number of smoking addicts, which is considerably higher than the number of healthy food devotees.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:19 am
What are Vanessa’s farming qualifications?
Does she have experience in either conventional or organic farming?
Her article shows the lack of perspective and real world experience of one who practices her farming with a keyboard.
Organic has proven to be unsustainable. Modern conventional farming has replaced the antiquated methods of organic farming. Today, over 95% of our farming is no longer organic. This is due to the tremendous waste of natural resources and low yields of organic farming. The pesticides used by organic farmers such as copper and sulfur are often more harmful to the environment compared to safer modern methods of conventional farming.
August 19th, 2009 at 9:05 am
A really thoughtful piece and good recapping. But why frame the whole issue as a war? To really make profound changes in our food system, we need *all* the stakeholders to work together, from the micro level to the macro level—that’s how all-encompassing food and Ag are. Everyone eats, and everyone is impacted by how food is grown and processed. Casting either side as evil, with nefarious intent, undermines the huge, ongoing attempt to shift the paradigm to a better model for everyone. This is one area where true “bipartisanship” is essential. Health care reform may have to be achieved with only Dems on board, but changing food and Ag really does require the participation of all parties.
Of Note: the White House Kitchen Garden is not officially organic, which the White House has repeatedly announced. And the best thing about that is–it in no way undermines the fact that the garden has inspired a national conversation on everything from nutrition awareness to local food production to better school lunches. Major industrialized Ag groups have spoken glowingly of the garden, as have those who believe in a strict organic model. The garden is something of a symbol for theoretically competing interests “working together” on a common goal.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Thanks everyone for stopping by and commenting.
David, I never pretended to be a farmer. But as a consumer, I am still part of the food system. and as such, I have a right to encourage others to seek out information and decide for themselves. Today’s article in Time Magazine by Brian Walsh lays out the problems with conventional agriculture very well, for those who care to read it. http://www.time.com/time/healt.....58,00.html. Brian is not a farmer either, but a journalist and he’s done an excellent job in my opinion.
And Eddie. First of all I’m a huge fan. Partially because of the always positive tone you strike on your blog. I agree that all stakeholders need to be engaged in the system. An thanks for the clarification on the organic garden. A good example of the fact that an untruth is repeated often enough people start to believe it.
Which leads me to the reason I framed this piece in this particular way. There has been a spate of articles and reporting on studies that seem to be intent on undermining organic, sustainable agriculture. Ecosalon has a wide range of readers, many of whom may not immerse themselves in the world of the food system, like you and I do. Since we’re all overloaded with information all the time and many people just skim headlines and pick up information incidentally on the internet while reading other stories, I wanted to dig a little deeper into some of the recent stories to prevent Ecosalon readers from getting the idea that spending extra money on organic/sustainable foods isn’t worth it, as so many recent articles suggest. I want people to keep supporting more human-scale, less harmful agriculture rather than getting discouraged and giving up. Perhaps I was being sensationalistic in framing the whole issue as a war (something I criticized headline writers for above) but some of the recent examples of undermining sure make it feel like a war sometimes.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Anything we can do to make the world a little more sustainable will make it a better place for all of us. There will always be criticisms to sustainable growing practices because if threatens to upset the existing dysfunctional conventional food production practices but ultimately is superior to it. There will be a cohesion of practices in the future where technology, industry and sustainability will exist harmoniously but we have a ways to go. It is interesting to see how large industrial agricultural entities have quietly embraced the organics movement look at this flow chart. I think it will surprise some of you. http://livesmartbook.blogspot......-your.html
August 28th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
You claim that “quick look at the profiles of FSA staffers reveals more than a few food industry folk”. Unlike you, I followed your link and actually looked at the profiles, and turns out I have no idea what “more than a few” means.
Here’s the list of people and whether they have an industry connection or not.
Tim Smith, Chief Executive: Yes
Steve Wearne: No
Dr Andrew Wadge: No
Gill Fine: Maybe (range of roles in both the public and private sectors)
Vivienne Collett: No
Terrence Collis: No
Charles Milne: No
Gerry McCurdy: No
Steve McGrath: No
So, is 1.5 “more than a few”? I am guessing not.
Also, it is interesting how you trash meta-analysis. Unless you are seeing a problem in their methodology, I hope you know there is nothing scientifically wrong with meta-analysis. Or did you not know about meta-analysis?
Finally, just because scientifically unsound paper (according to you) was published from the same school, you seem to decide that this study is also scientifically unsound even though this was done by a completely different group of individuals. I hope you realize that labs and the papers they publish are independent of the School.
September 12th, 2009 at 11:31 am
I’m with David. I found that your article was very poorly written. You have no facts to back your statements up with. You’re just spewing out random statements that you hear in the media, which are nothing but lies, like global warming for instance, nothing but nonesense. It’s sad really because there are so many people like this in today’s society. THey just listen to what they hear in the media and take it for absolute truth without doing any real research on it. When people like this are confronted with why they believe this or proof they come up with nothing because they have no clue. Conventional food is practical, it has a much higher crop yield, it’s affordable, and it contains just as much nutrients if not more than organic foods.
Who Linked To This Post?
Welcome! The comment box is all yours to say what you like. Just make sure you use a real name, not a site or company, so you don't get sent to the spam bin. (That makes us sad.)