I recently came across ‘Unnatural Causes’ a 7 part documentary about racial and economic inequalities in public health. On the surface, this does not seem so bad, but many of the policies they recommend in doing this show a lack of understanding of economic science and modern agriculture. ' /> UNNATURAL CAUSES: WHY OMIT BIOTECH? | AGWEB.com

 
Aug 27, 2014
Home| Tools| Events| Blogs| Discussions Sign UpLogin


Economic Sense

RSS By: Matt Bogard, AgWeb.com

Matt's primary interest is in the biotech industry and ag policy.

UNNATURAL CAUSES: WHY OMIT BIOTECH?

Jul 16, 2008

I recently came across ‘Unnatural Causes’ a 7 part documentary about racial and economic inequalities in public health. I have not watched it, but I did download the policy guide :

 

The main theme seems to be (that) ‘Building a social movement that can advocate effectively for more equitable social policies is critical to changing our economic, physical, and social environments so they can promote rather than threaten our health.’

 

On the surface, this does not seem so bad, but many of the policies they recommend in doing this show a lack of understanding of economic science and modern agriculture. Since economics is the study of our choices and how they are made compatible in a world of scarce resources, their neglect of economics leads them to adopt many policy recommendations that are incompatible with their stated goals.

 

Policy recommendation #9 : Improve Food Security and Quality, recommends among other things that we support ‘sustainable agriculture and local food production, especially organics.’

 

Now I don’t have a specific problem with organic food as long as it is not promoted at the expense of modern science and agriculture. Agriculture is a competitive industry and I believe that there is a niche for everyone including local/organic producers, but their explicit mention of organic and their failure to mention biotech options implies the exclusion of biotech.

 

This is not consistent with their goal of sustainability, considering the environmental, safety, and health benefits of biotech foods that organics could never provide such as the elimination or decreased use of toxic chemicals ( organics use harmful ‘natural’ chemicals like  copper sulfate and mercuric), decreased tillage ( which organics depend upon heavily) and improved biodiversity ( tillage and use of broadcast Bt in organic production is detrimental to non-target pests and ecosystems).

 

One example is Bt corn ( a biotech crop). Not only does it eliminate the use of millions of pounds of insecticide and save millions of gallons of fuel and water per year, but it also is safer for food consumption.  The use of Bt corn decreases fumonisin ( a fungal parasite) infestation by 80% compared to conventional and organic corn. Fumonisin is responsible for esphogeal cancer and neural disorders in infants.

 

Another example is Roundup Ready technology. Roundup Ready technology has allowed for glyphosate herbicide to substitute for 7.2 million pounds of other chemicals that are more toxic and persistent in the environment.

 

They also talk about reforming the ‘subsidy program’ that regards the producers of processed foods. They must be talking about nonrecourse loans. If they assume that these ‘subsidies’ lead to an increase in supply and result in cheap input prices for large processors, then they should wake up to see current commodity prices. 

 

Given that they also mention multiple times throughout the policy guide that they support increased taxes, I assume they would support doing away with non-recourse loan programs and instead increase the income and inheritance taxes on grain farmers. In place I’m sure they would like to implement actual subsidies for local and organic growers.

 

Let’s just hope this propaganda does not make it on the local news or into school curriculums.

 

REFERENCES:

 

Abelson, P.H. (1990) ‘‘Hybrid Corn.’’ Science 249 (August 24): 837.

 

Enterprise and Biodiversity: Do Market Forces Yield Diversity of Life?

David Schap and Andrew T. Young Cato Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 1999)

 

A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Cotton and Maize on Nontarget Invertebrates

Michelle Marvier, Chanel McCreedy, James Regetz, Peter Kareiva

Science 8 June 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5830, pp. 1475 - 1477

 

Smith, J.S.C.; Smith, O.S.; Wright, S.; Wall, S.J.; and Walton, M. (1992)

‘‘Diversity of United States Hybrid Maize Germplasm as Revealed by

Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms.’’ Crop Science 32: 598–604

 

Munkvold, G.P. et al . Plant Disease 83, 130-138 1999.

 

Dowd, p.J. Economic Entomology. 93  1669-1679 2000.

 

Miller, Henry I, Conko, Gregory, & Drew L. Kershe. Nature Biotechnology Volume 24 Number 9 September 2006.

 

Agricultural Outlook ERS/USDA Aug 2006.

Log In or Sign Up to comment

COMMENTS (1 Comments)

James Doud
Not having seen this documentary, or reading the policy, but having an understanding of permaculture, I find it difficult to agree completely with the author of this article. The trouble with organics, especially grain is that on the scale that we as a society understand grain production it is out scaled from the reality that could be useful and non-detrimental to the environment. There is no way to correct that with any commercial operations such as we know in the agribusiness industry. There are not supplements or genetic substitutes that can provide the replacement or benefit that is already available in the natural world. The world has operated for 10,000 years or so give or take a few million without humans, I think it would do fine without us, that is the consideration that should be considered. To suggest that some modified products would provide adequate replacement or enhance service to the economy or society is insanity in its simplest form. However I do not agree with the idea of organic substitutes as are defined by any agency, for it is yet another chemical alteration, all of which either in their commercial sense or their organic sense are not "natural" to the balance of the natural order. Maybe what we need is population control instead of propagation control.
6:28 AM Jul 17th
 
 
 
The Home Page of Agriculture
© 2014 Farm Journal, Inc. All Rights Reserved|Web site design and development by AmericanEagle.com|Site Map|Privacy Policy|Terms & Conditions