How the Government Got in Your Backyard

by Jeff Gillman

  Our system works to the benefit of those who want to block change, regardless of who the protector of the status quo might be.

  Businesses compete with each other for market share, however, and often have different agendas. The genesis of many local pollution laws, for example, was business leaders deciding that their city needed to clean up its image to attract new investments. Companies that manufacture green technologies will lobby on the side of environmentalists for laws that encourage (or force) other businesses to use green technologies. Despite the powerful image of corporate interests, business often loses in politics because consumer, labor, and/or environmental groups mobilize against them or because other businesses have differing views of sound public policy. Our system works to the benefit of those who want to block change, regardless of who the protector of the status quo might be.

  Conclusion

  Politics is about making tough choices that require a difficult balancing of competing interests, and science can’t tell us when the right balance has been achieved. Politics is about making value judgments. Value judgments are outside the realm of science. Sure, science may help policymakers understand that if you do X, the result will be Y, but policymakers are still left having to decide whether Y is a desirable outcome and whether it is worth the necessary costs to attain it.

  CHAPTER 2

  Organic Food:

  Safer, Friendlier, Better?

  UNITED STATES LAW includes 340 words devoted to the definition of ketchup (along with its aliases, catsup and catchup). The law then continues for an additional 194 words specifying how to label ketchup, before spending 482 words regulating its appropriate thickness. And you thought you knew ketchup!

  Most of us are quite familiar and comfortable with our understanding of ketchup (both the condiment and the word for it). When we go to the grocery store to get another bottle, we have a pretty good idea about what we’re purchasing—allowing, of course, for slight variations in taste and thickness. More importantly, we are confident that the ketchup we’ll be eating is safe for us and for our kids.

  Generally, we don’t doubt that the food we buy is what it says it is, and that it is safe and (relatively) healthy for us to eat. We don’t think about what it takes to produce that food at consistent levels of quality and safety. We have no interest in watching ketchup or sausage or other processed foods being made, and we’re not aware or concerned that it takes 1016 words in government policy to regulate ketchup. Unless there is some well-publicized outbreak of a food-borne disease or toxin, the role of government policy is almost an invisible backdrop: we know the government is doing something to keep us safe, but it is out of sight and, hence, out of mind.

  Some people, however, are concerned about the practices that our government allows in the production of our nation’s food. They worry that our conventional food system is not as safe as our government tells us it is. Organic food is their solution.

  Since the 1940s, various groups have warned us that our agricultural systems are bad for the environment and unhealthy for us. They point out that the pesticides and fertilizers that farmers are allowed to use today produce unhealthy and even dangerous food compared with what our ancestors ate. As more people have become concerned that we’re poisoning ourselves with chemicals used on the foods we eat, the organic movement has grown.

  Organic approaches are meant to grow and process foods using natural methods that promote ecological balance and avoid the use of synthetic fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, and other growth aids. Instead, organic farmers might use techniques such as planting rows closer together to increase shade, making it difficult for understory weeds to grow; rotating crops frequently and in combinations that help subsequent crops yield more abundantly; planting cover crops as habitat for beneficial insects that eat pests; releasing beneficial insects such as ladybugs or lacewings; or spraying organic chemicals instead of synthetic ones. For livestock, the organic approach does not allow the use of growth hormones or antibiotics. The animals must have access to the outdoors and be fed food that was itself organically produced.

  More broadly, organic is a philosophical approach to farming centered on doing what is perceived as the right thing for the environment and human health. Unfortunately, sometimes the fervor for this philosophical ideal outstrips the ability of organic methodologies to deliver on their promises.

  For many consumers, organically grown food has become the ideal. Buying organic products gives them the ability to live out their commitment to healthy and environmentally sustainable lifestyles. Organic products have moved from niche health food stores to retail grocery chains over the past decade because we are willing to pay extra for them. In turn, as organics have demonstrated their economic viability, more farmers have turned to organic approaches out of both philosophical commitment and the higher prices they can demand. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that sales of organic foods rose from $6 billion in 2000 to $23 billion in 2009 and the annual rate of market growth since 1990 has remained steady at around 20 percent.

  Since organic products sell for more and earn farmers more money, there was an incentive during the 1980s and 1990s to label more and more items as organic, regardless of how the food was actually produced and processed. During that time, reputable agencies would certify a food as organic, but these agencies were not uniform in their requirements. Different agencies had different lists of acceptable fertilizers and pesticides, so an organic label from one agency would not necessarily mean the same thing as an organic label from another. This created a demand for a standardized definition of organic, and a process to certify which products met that definition. The result—a USDA-backed organic label—is intended to assure consumers that they are, in fact, buying foods grown without synthetic chemicals and to protect those farmers who use the more-costly organic methods from conventional producers who might attempt to invade their market niche under the cover of misleading labeling.

  The Science

  The concept of organic as it is now generally understood was first introduced by Sir Albert Howard, an English scientist, in the first half of the twentieth century. He proposed using recycled organic materials, namely composted plants and animal poop, as the primary source of fertility for agricultural ground, rather than using what he called synthetic manures. He found support in the United States from J. I. Rodale, who aggressively promoted this idea of organic farming and gardening during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, and who is perhaps the person most responsible for our awareness of the term organic. Over time, the meaning of organic has shifted somewhat. While it started out as a term that meant preserving the soil through recycling organic materials, the publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962 did wonders to promote the idea of organic agriculture with an emphasis on reducing the use of synthetic pesticides.

  Today, crops that are grown organically—according to the guidelines set forth by the USDA—are supposed to be produced in such a way that they are safer and healthier for us and for the environment than foods produced through more conventional means, which usually involve synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. The government, however, does not actually claim that these foods are safer and healthier. Ultimately, we are left to our own devices to determine whether organic foods really are better. Though there have been—and will continue to be—changes in the requirements needed for a farm to produce any sort of food with the “USDA Organic” label, the basic tenet of organic production is that, with a few exceptions, only natural inputs can be used on an organic crop.

  Fertilizers and Pesticides

  The first thing that the typical consumer thinks of when thinking about organic foods is healthy, wholesome fruit harvested from a pristine country setting and grown without the use of pesticides or synthetic fertilizers. Indeed, many of the fertilizers used for organic production are renewable resources and are therefore healthier for the environment than synthetic fertilizers. Synthetics are based on nonrenewable nat
ural gas (the hydrogen from which reacts with nitrogen from the air to make most synthetic nitrogen fertilizers) and coal (which drives the reaction between the natural gas and air). Organic does not mean no pesticides, however. Organic producers are technically required to try to use cultural methods to control pests whenever possible, but they do have the freedom to use pesticides, as long as these pesticides are allowed by the organic standards list created by the USDA. Many of these pesticides are considered safer than conventional pesticides, especially since some of the most toxic natural pesticides—sabadilla, rotenone, sodium fluoroaluminate, and tobacco (nicotine)—are gone from the organic grower’s arsenal because companies have voluntarily withdrawn these products from shelves or because the USDA has banned their use on organic crops.

  For fruits or vegetables that require a lot of pesticides under normal growing conditions, growing them organically may be even more harmful to the environment than conventional systems.

  Unfortunately, not all organic practices are created equal, and organic growers still have a few nasty chemicals available to them. Copper sulfate, a fungicide, and pyrethrum, an insecticide, are both potentially dangerous chemicals for humans and for many beneficial organisms. After years of use, copper sulfate can build up in the soil to such an extent that it becomes toxic to certain plants. Pyrethrum is very toxic to good insects, such as honeybees and lady beetles.

  In addition, organic pesticides tend to protect plants for a shorter period of time and are often less effective than their synthetic counterparts, so they need to be reapplied more frequently. For fruits or vegetables that require a lot of pesticides under normal growing conditions, growing them organically may be even more harmful to the environment than conventional systems. Apples, particularly those produced in the eastern states, are a prime example of a crop that needs to be sprayed frequently to control damaging diseases and insects. Organic apples often receive more pesticide applications than conventionally grown ones, potentially leading to a greater environmental effect.

  Organic food is not tested for organic pesticide residues, so it could contain these toxins at some level. Theoretically, many organic pesticides break down quickly in the environment, but in the few cases where tests have been conducted on organic foods, residues of organic pesticides have been found. And residues of synthetic pesticides on organic produce, though usually lower than on conventionally grown produce, are far from rare, with as much as a quarter of produce samples testing positive for these chemicals. Though this research was conducted before USDA standards were implemented in 2002, we see no reason why the adoption of these standards would significantly alter this percentage.

  Like organic pesticides, organic fertilizers may also pose problems. Some of the fertilizers used by organic growers are mined, which means they are not sustainable. The most notorious of these include guano and rock phosphate. Guano is aged manure that comes from either seabirds or bats. Guano from seabirds living in Peru was once our primary source of nitrogen; unfortunately, this resource disappeared over time because of overuse. Today, the use of bat guano from caves similarly threatens the flora and fauna that live in this excrement where it is mined (Jamaica, among other places). Also, because bat caves filled with guano aren’t located in every neighborhood, there is an excellent possibility that the guano you purchase has traveled quite a distance, using a great deal of fossil fuel. Rock phosphate is extracted from strip mines (in Florida and elsewhere) in a process that is very damaging to the local environment. As with bat guano, a significant amount of fossil fuel is needed to transport rock phosphate to the farms that use it.

  Even renewable organic fertilizers can be problematic. One of the cornerstones of organic growing since the days of Sir Albert Howard has been the use of composted manures as fertilizer to enrich the soil. While these manures shouldn’t contain any dangerous bacteria if they are properly composted according to the National Organic Program’s standards, there is the possibility that they will not be properly composted, which could be dangerous. E. coli can live for twenty-one months in uncomposted manure, and surveys of farms utilizing organic rather than inorganic fertilizers had 9.7 percent of their produce test positive for E. coli as compared to 1.9 percent of produce from farms using only nutrients from nonorganic sources. In 2006, there was a huge recall of spinach that was potentially infected with a deadly strain of E. coli. Organic spinach was part of this recall. Three people died, and 276 people were reported ill. In 2009, there was a Salmonella outbreak from peanuts and peanut-related products that originated at processing plants in Georgia, leaving at least eight people dead and hundreds, perhaps thousands, sickened. These processing plants were certified organic. While it turned out that the foods that caused the sickness were not organic, in both of these cases organic foods were recalled. The organic label did not guarantee that the food was safe. Technically, organic certification has nothing to do with food safety, despite what many consumers infer.

  Nutrient Content of Organic Foods

  Those who favor current government regulation of organically produced foods emphasize that these foods tend to be higher in nutrients than their conventionally produced counterparts. There is some evidence to support that, particularly as it relates to vitamin C, which tends to be higher in organically produced foods, and to nitrates, which tend to be lower. Studies show that organically grown fruits and vegetables may have higher levels of antioxidants. Because organic producers usually can’t keep their produce as spotless as their conventional counterparts, the produce may have more damage. Damage signals the plant to defend itself with various defensive chemicals, which often include antioxidants. Consider that the next time you avoid a slightly blemished peach or pear.

  As with produce, the government makes no claim that there is any difference between organic and conventional milk and meat.

  But even those studies that show that there may be differences in the healthful chemicals in organically produced crops point out that this difference is not consistent, and there are just as many articles showing that growing a food organically does not provide any health benefits. In fact, differences in the nutritional content of foods are often related more to the cultivars of the plants grown and the soils in which they grew than to whether or not they are grown organically. Regardless of whether your ‘Golden Delicious’ apple is organic or not, it won’t have the same amount of vitamin C as a ‘Calville Blanc d’Hiver’ or a ‘Sturmer’ apple.

  As with produce, the government makes no claim that there is any difference between organic and conventional milk and meat. Science, too, doesn’t seem to be able to tell much difference between the organically and synthetically produced product, and differences in livestock breed have as much or more to do with the nutritional value of the food than whether the food was produced organically. What this all boils down to is that it is absolutely impossible to tell whether any given piece of organic meat, fruit, or bread is more nutrient rich than one produced using conventional methods.

  Organic Livestock

  For livestock, the elimination of the use of growth hormones and the drastic reduction in the use of antibiotics, as well as access to an outdoor environment, are the primary reasons why organically produced products are perceived as better than conventional. (Antibiotics can only be used on organic farms when an animal is sick, and even then the animal must be taken out of production for a given period of time.) The use of rBST, the growth hormone given to dairy cows to increase milk production, has been shown to significantly increase health problems in cattle. Additionally, the use of rBST increases the production of another hormone, IGF-1, which is then found in milk at higher levels than in milk from untreated cows, and which may be associated with some human cancers. The FDA, however, cites research that shows that rBST does not cause levels of IGF-1 to increase above normal, and that this hormone—like insulin, to which it is very similar—is digested if it finds its way to the stomach (which is why insulin needs to be injected rather than
taken orally). Still, this is an area of legitimate concern.

  Government Policy

  Congress first passed legislation on issues specifically related to organic farming in the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). This act created the National Organic Program (NOP) within the U.S. Department of Agriculture and assigned it the responsibility of creating federal standards for the labeling of organic foods. The act also created the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which then developed an official list of materials that can and cannot be used if a product is to qualify for USDA organic certification. These standards went into effect in 2002 and dictate that the use of synthetic pesticides, irradiation, or sewage-sludge-based fertilizers is not allowed in organically produced crops. Animals used to produce organic meats and other products must be fed organic feeds, be raised without antibiotics or growth hormones, and be given access to the outdoors. The standards cover farming methods for almost every type of farm product—fresh fruits and vegetables, grains, eggs, poultry, beef, dairy, cotton, wool, oils, flowers, and so on. Even the use of animal waste and compost as fertilizers is covered. One thing that the National Organic Program does not do is guarantee any superior health benefits from the product—contrary to the hopeful wishes and expectations of most consumers.

  According to the National Organic Program, a label with the words “100 percent organic” is reserved for organically produced ingredients and processing aids. Products labeled “organic” must have at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients. Either “organic” or “100 percent organic” products may use the USDA Organic seal in their packaging and advertising. Products that contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients may be labeled as “made with organic ingredients” and can list up to three principal organic ingredients but cannot use the official seal. Products that contain less than 70 percent organic ingredients may specially identify any organic ingredients but may not use the term organic anywhere in the main display area of the packaging. While the use of the word organic is tightly prescribed, other descriptions such as “no drugs or growth hormones used,” “free range,” or “sustainably harvested” are not similarly regulated. Use them at will! Miscreants who knowingly sell or label a product as organic when it has not, in fact, been produced and handled according to the standards of the National Organic Program are subject to fines of up to $11,000 and may be kicked out of the program for five years.