You have to hand it to the greens. They really know how to push the buttons that generate unnecessary public alarm. Their latest triumph of misinformation has been with genetically modified crops, or "Frankenfoods" as they cunningly call them.
Last month an AC Nielson poll revealed that two thirds of Australians would not buy genetically modified food, and the Tasmanian government declared genetically modified organisms "forbidden pests", preventing field trials of GM crops for twelve months.
And last week, Australian and New Zealand health ministers decided to introduce what is said to be the world's strictest labelling laws for GM foods. While consumers have every right to make an educated choice about their purchases, the push for labelling by environment groups has been driven far more by the desire to demonise GM foods than the urge to provide the public with accurate information.
But what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. If it is okay for greens to exaggerate the dangers and ignore the potential benefits of things they dislike, it should be just as legitimate for their opponents to take an unkind look at things that environmentalists cherish. So in the interests of creating a level playing field, let us consider organically grown foods.
For starters, given the power of language in influencing public perceptions, perhaps we should introduce a new name, one that could do as much to discredit organic produce as "Franken-foods" has done to genetically modified foods. In recognition of the major role of animal excrement as a fertiliser for organically grown crops, "poo-foods" seems a good choice. People with more profane inclinations might prefer a stronger word.
The term "poo-foods" will also help to draw attention to one of the health risks associated with organic crops, the danger that vegetables grown using animal wastes will be contaminated with the deadly E. coli O157 bacteria.
While "poo-food" advocates will probably counter that their industry standards require excrement to be composted before being applied to crops, they can give no firm guarantees that the composting process kills all the dangerous micro-organisms, nor that all growers scrupulously follow the standards.
No doubt most "poo-food" farmers are responsible people, but they are not running charitable enterprises. In their desire to make a quick profit, it is a fair bet that some are cutting corners and putting public health at risk. After all, greens always claim that this is what large corporations are doing.
Certainly, in both America and Europe, serious outbreaks of E. coli infection have been traced to organic produce. And American data analysed by the agricultural scientist Dennis Avery showed that consumers of "poo-foods" were eight times more likely to be attacked by the most virulent form of E. coli than people who only consumed mainstream food.
But a heightened risk of bacterial attack is not the only potential health hazard posed by organically grown crops. Although the word "goodness" almost inevitably follows the word "natural" in marketing campaigns, real nature -- as opposed to the Disneyfied versions favoured by advertising agencies and greens -- is far from benign.
Most edible plants contain natural substances which have been shown to be carcinogenic or otherwise dangerous in sufficiently large doses. These toxic substances help to protect the plants against attacks from insects and other pests.
Indeed, the biochemist Professor Bruce Ames -- who became an environmentalists' hero when he developed the "Ames test" for identifying carcinogens -- has pointed out that the levels of natural pesticides in typical Western diets are about 10,000 times higher than the levels of "man-made" pesticide residues. (Greens did not thank him for this observation, and he is now one of their hate objects).
Organic farmers tend to favour varieties which contain high concentrations of these natural pesticides. In one unfortunate instance, a new insect-resistant strain of celery, bred with the organic market in mind, caused people who handled it to develop skin rashes. This variety turned out to contain nearly eight times the amount of the skin cancer-causing substance psoralen than is found in ordinary celery.
That is not all. Refusing to use synthetic chemicals to fight pests, organic farmers usually tolerate a greater degree of damage to their crops from insects and animals, which also makes them more vulnerable to fungal attack. And of course, they can't use chemical fungicides either. Not surprisingly, many organic crops have higher rates of infestation by moulds which produce aflatoxin, which is one of the most potent carcinogens known.
But if they don't do much for humans, surely organic crops are better for the environment, preventing the misuse and accumulation of various chemicals that pollute the our lands and waters and threaten biodiversity? Yet even here, the score card is mixed.
The yields from organic agriculture are substantially lower than those obtainable from conventional methods -- let alone the yields that may eventually result from genetically modified crops. A really significant shift towards organic farming would mean the clearing of considerable amounts of extra land, which could otherwise be preserved for wildlife.
Please don't misunderstand me. If people are willing to pay higher prices for organic produce because they believe it is good for them, that is fine. I think they are wrong, but it is their money. And if our struggling farmers can make greater profits by meeting the increasing local and overseas demand for "natural" and organic foods, that is even better.
Just as long as no-one pretends that organic agriculture could ever make a greater contribution to human health, prosperity and environmental management than a dynamic and properly regulated GM technology industry.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment