Blog

Is Organic Sustainable?

I ​ran across this really interesting blog (via Tyler Cowen's blog) post on nitrogen use in agriculture by Adam Merberg, who says he is a "reformed food reformer."  

Merberg's main point is that, aside from a small handful of crops, nitrogen is a key limiting ingredient in growing more food.  ​Much of the nitrogen used in modern commercial agriculture comes from the air!  Well, it's taken out of the air by a "synthetic" process that prohibits its use in organic agriculture.

Organic agriculture, like all agriculture, requires nitrogen.  Soil (regardless of how you farm) looses fertility after a while and requires replenishment to continue productivity.  Organic seeks nitrogen in cover crops (like clover and soy) but mainly through use animal manure.  Merberg asks a reasonable question: where does the manure get it's nitrogen.  The answer is that it largely comes through conventional agriculture and the "synthetic" process invented by Haber.  The manure spread on many organic farms comes from cows/hogs/chickens that ate grains grown using "synthetic" fertilizer.  

When we read that organic can "feed the world" we need to ask where all the nitrogen will come from to make it happen.  ​

Here are a few snippets from Merber's article (the back-and-forth in the comments was interesting too):​

By identifying manure as a source of nitrogen, Vasilikiotis dodges the issue of nitrogen fixation entirely. However much nitrogen exists in manure today, much of it has been fixed industrially before being taken up by corn plants and laundered through the guts of conventionally-farmed animals. Vasilikiotis does not explain how that manure might come to be in an organic world. To do so would require demonstrating the potential for sufficient biological nitrogen fixation

​and

Natural processes, like atmospheric nitrogen deposition, can help replenish some nutrients, but the fact remains that the nutrient cycle remains open. Maintaining modern yields generally requires inputs of some kind to replace nutrients removed in crops. For instance, Joel Salatin’s Polyface Farm–which Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma identifies as a model for sustainable agriculture and describes as “completely self-sufficient in nitrogen”–actually brings in nitrogen in conventionally-grown grain, which is fed to chickens whose manure fertilizes the pasture.

and, interestingly . . .​

In recent years, the US government has begun allowing the recycling of human waste by authorizing the use of treated sewage sludge, called biosolids, as fertilizers. However, in 1998 organic advocates successfully protested proposed guidelines which would have allowed application of biosolids in organic agriculture. Whatever the merits of their objections, it is ironic that the movement for a more “natural” agriculture now opposes ending the waste of nutrients that Liebig once decried as “a sinful violation of the divine laws of Nature.”
​

For the record, I'm not against organics.  But, I am against the mis-truths that are often spread in their defense.  ​

​

The Making of the Obesitiy Epidemic

That was the title of this really interesting article by Helen Lee.

She starts with something I don't recall ever having previously read: ​researchers at meetings of the American Public Health Association hand-wringing over obesity - in 1952!

​Read the whole thing, but here is a bit that matches very closely with some of the major themes in my book The Food Police (coming out in only 2 weeks!)

. . . more than a few pundits, philanthropists, and advocates have homed in on the idea that the proliferation of fast, cheap, and unhealthy foods had a significant impact on the rise of obesity; that the industrialization and subsidization of agriculture had made foods artificially inexpensive, and food companies responded by supersizing and vastly expanding snack and beverage options. Like the tobacco industry before it, the food industry­­ was profiting by selling slickly marketed products that were dangerously addictive, particularly for the poor, who lacked grocery stores offering healthier food options. Much of the American public health and medical establishment came to believe that one of the most powerful ways to overcome the epidemic was to radically remake our school and neighborhood food environments­­, reducing­­ access to unhealthy foods and increasing access to healthy ones.
But in their rush to condemn corporate agribusiness, food marketers, and neighborhood food environments, public health advocates have too often allowed their policy and ideological preferences to race ahead of the science. This has fostered a reductive story about obesity that appeals to liberal audiences but doesn’t comport particularly well with much of what we know about why people choose to eat unhealthy foods, what the health consequences of being overweight or obese actually are, or why health outcomes associated with obesity are so much worse among some populations than others.
Against the current popular discourse, obesity is better understood as an unintended consequence of affluence than as a disease epidemic.

​

Do Scientists Mislead?

"Yes" seems to be the unfortunate conclusion that stems from this paper by Mark Cope and David Allison published in the International Journal of Obesity.  ​Scientists may not (or may) distort their own research findings, but Cope and Allison show, pretty convulsively, that there is a general pattern of distorting the findings of others.   

They attribute this to a "white hat bias":​

which we define to be bias leading to distortion of research-based information in the service of what may be perceived as righteous ends.

Cope and Allison found two studies related to soda consumption that:

had both statistically and non-statistically significant results on body-weight, body mass index (BMI) or overweight/obesity status which allowed future writers to potentially choose which results to cite, and were also widely cited, permitting quantitative analysis of citations.

​Then, they looked at how other scientists subsequently cited the findings in their published papers.  Did they focus on the negative findings (that soda doesn't affect weight, etc.) or the positive findings (that soda does affect weight, etc.): ​

The majority, 84.3% for [2] and 66.7% for [3], described results in a misleadingly positive way to varying degrees (i.e., exaggerating the strength of the evidence that [nutritively-sweetened beverage] reduction showed beneficial effects on obesity outcomes). Some were blatantly factually incorrect in their misleading statements, describing the result as showing an effect for a continuous obesity outcome whereas no statistically significant effect for continuous obesity outcomes was observed. In contrast, only four papers (3.5%) were negatively misleading (i.e., underplayed the strength of evidence) for [2] and none were negatively misleading for [3]. Only 12.7% and 33% of the papers accurately described complete overall findings related to obesity outcomes from [2] and [3], respectively.
​

They went on to document a similar pattern for studies on the effects of breastfeeding. They ​conclude:

Evidence presented herein suggests that at least one thing has been demonized ([nutritively-sweetened beverage] consumption) and another sanctified (Breastfeeding), leading to bias in the presentation of research literature to other scientists and to the public at large, a bias sufficient to misguide readers. Interestingly, while many papers point out what appear to be biases resulting from industry funding, we have identified here, perhaps for the first time, clear evidence that white-hat biases can also exist in opposition to industry interests.

​

Assorted Links

​

Monsanto Protection Act

There seems to be quite a fervor on the "foodie" web sites about ​a provision included in the continuing resolution bill that was recently signed by the President.  It has been dubbed the "Monsanto Protection Act."  For just a couple examples - see here or here - or Food Democracy Now, which seems to be among the most upset.

I wanted to see what the provision actually said, so I looked it up.  If I'm not mistaken, here (or here) is the text of the provision (see section 735)​:

Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.
​

I'm going to have to go to law school to figure out exactly what that means.  Here is an interpretation, according to one source, by those against biotechnology:​

According to Dave Murphy, Founder and Executive Director of FoodDemocracyNow.com, the twisted language of Section 735, “authorizes the Secretary to basically allow plantings of new GMO at anytime when a court case is taking place.” 

Perhaps, although it does seem that the Secretary is required to "complete any required analysis or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status."  Some in the ag press seem to indicate that the provision is designed to protect farmers because it:

requires that USDA allow farmers to continue growing biotech crops that USDA deregulated, but a judge later invalidated.

Honestly, I don't understand the language of the provision (or the consequences of it) well enough to offer any intelligible thoughts.  ​

I did think what Darren Hudson, an agricultural economics professor at Texas Tech University and anything but an anti-biotech crusader, had to say about the issue was interesting.  

Do I think bio-tech firms are angelic do-gooders?  No.  Do I believe they are purposely misleading consumers about health risks?  I have seen no evidence that they are (not that there are no risks; I have just seen no compelling evidence that those risks outweigh any benefits).  But, the problem is that by preemptively exempting Monsanto from any future litigation, you have effectively given them a blank pass, which could lead them to act more recklessly than they otherwise would.  Will they?  I don't know.  But, as an economist, all I can do is look at the incentives and in this case, I am not sure the benefits to society outweigh the potential costs.  This, in my opinion, was simply bad policy.

​Addendum:

I just ran across this very sensible article by David Bier which puts a lot of the paranoia over the provision in perspective.  Here is one small bit:​

The so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” actually does nothing to protect Monsanto. Rather, it protects the farmers that bought Monsanto seeds and planted them under the belief that it was legal to do so by granting them temporary permits for the existing crops in the ground, which have already been subjected to extensive USDA scrutiny. It does not allow them to keep planting even if there are proven health risks or to keep planting at all in fact. In other words, it has nothing to do with “consumer health concerns” or “stripping federal courts of the authority to halt the planting or sale of GMO seed crop” as the RT story claims. In fact, the sale of GE seeds would still be prohibited after a court finding.
The Monsanto Protection Act has nothing to do with consumer safety, limited liability, or as this ridiculous Salon.com article puts it, “protecting the biotech giant from litigation.” If GMOs actually injure your health, you are still entitled to sue. This effort is minor regulatory reform that was long overdue.

​