By Henry I. Miller & Julie Kelly
Monday, November 2, 2015
The organic-products industry, which has been on a tear
for the past decade, is running scared. Challenged by progress in modern
genetic engineering and state-of-the-art pesticides — which are denied to
organic farmers — the organic movement is ratcheting up its rhetoric and
bolstering its anti-innovation agenda while trying to expand a consumer base
that shows signs of hitting the wall.
Genetic-engineering-labeling referendums funded by the
organic industry failed last year in Colorado and Oregon, following similar
defeats in California and Washington. Even worse for the industry, a recent
Supreme Court decision appears to proscribe on First Amendment grounds the kind
of labeling they want. A June 2015 Supreme Court decision has cleared a
judicial path to challenge the constitutionality of special labeling —
“compelled commercial speech” — to identify foods that contain genetically
engineered (sometimes called “genetically modified”) ingredients. The essence
of the decision is the expansion of the range of regulations subject to “strict
scrutiny,” the most rigorous standard of review for constitutionality, to
include special labeling laws.
The industry has suffered more defeats. Chipotle’s
“G-M-Over It” marketing blitz was roundly excoriated by editorial boards and
publications across the political spectrum for promoting pseudoscience. And
Chipotle is now being sued in California for false advertising, because its
soft drinks and cheese contain ingredients from genetically engineered
organisms, and the meat they serve is from animals fed genetically engineered
grains. None of these products would pass muster if the company were to seek
USDA organic certification or quasi-official “non-GMO” (genetically modified
organism) status.
But Chipotle is far from the only disingenuous basher of
genetic engineering. Academics Review, a nonprofit organization of academic
experts, performed an extensive review last year of hundreds of published
reports about consumers’ views on organic products. It also examined more than
1,500 news reports, marketing materials, advocacy propaganda, speeches, etc.,
generated between 1988 and 2014 about organic foods. The report concluded that
“consumers have spent hundreds of billion dollars purchasing premium-priced
organic food products based on false or misleading perceptions about
comparative product food safety, nutrition and health attributes,” and that
this is due to “a widespread organic and natural products industry pattern of
research-informed and intentionally deceptive marketing and paid advocacy.”
Consumers might be catching on. Even as retailers
scramble to offer more organic choices, a wide-ranging study conducted this
year by the consumer research firm Mintel Group shows that organic sales “have
hit something of a plateau” and that about half of consumers think an organic
label is just an excuse to charge more money. The image of organic food has not
been helped by revelations that Whole Foods’ supposedly organic house brand for
produce, “California Blend,” was imported from China.
Organic agriculture has become a kind of Dr.
Frankenstein’s monster, a far cry from what was intended: “Let me be clear
about one thing, the organic label is a marketing tool,” said then secretary of
agriculture Dan Glickman when organic certification was being considered. “It
is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about
nutrition or quality.” That quote from Secretary Glickman should have to be
displayed prominently in every establishment that sells organic products.
The backstory here is that in spite of its “good vibes,”
organic farming is an affront to the environment — hugely wasteful of arable
land and water because of its low yields. Plant pathologist Dr. Steve Savage
recently analyzed the data from USDA’s 2014 Organic Survey, which reports
various measures of productivity from most of the certified-organic farms in
the nation, and compared them to those at conventional farms, crop by crop,
state by state. His findings are extraordinary. Of the 68 crops surveyed, there
was a “yield gap” — poorer performance of organic farms — in 59. And many of
those gaps, or shortfalls, were impressive: strawberries, 61 percent less than
conventional; fresh tomatoes, 61 percent less; tangerines, 58 percent less;
carrots, 49 percent less; cotton, 45 percent less; rice, 39 percent less;
peanuts, 37 percent less.
These findings are important. As Savage observed: “To
have raised all U.S. crops as organic in 2014 would have required farming of
109 million more acres of land. That is an area equivalent to all the parkland
and wildland areas in the lower 48 states or 1.8 times as much as all the urban
land in the nation.” Organic agriculture wastes not only land but water, an
important consideration for much of the drought-plagued western United States.
As superior genetically engineered varieties become more
and more prevalent, the yield shortfalls of organic farming will increase.
Genetic engineering is providing consumer-friendly as
well as agronomically important traits. Recently, the USDA and FDA approved
genetically engineered potato varieties that are bruise-resistant, reducing the
high percentage of waste for those crops. The potatoes also contain much less
asparagine, a chemical that is converted to acrylamide, a probable carcinogen,
when heated to high temperatures. The Arctic Apple variety is also resistant to
bruising, music to the ears of parents who know that the slightest brown spot
on the cut surface of an apple will elicit a “yuk” from most children.
Genetically engineered papaya varieties have saved
Hawaii’s papaya industry from devastation by the papaya ringspot virus, and the
technology is being used to develop citrus varieties resistant to the “citrus
greening” disease that is crippling the citrus industry in Florida, Texas, and
California. We’d like to see farmers try to produce organic papayas and citrus
under those environmental stresses. (Fifty-dollar glass of organic O.J.,
anyone?)
Like the buggy-whip manufacturers who ridiculed and
reviled the horseless carriage, the organic industry is on the wrong side of
history.
No comments:
Post a Comment