Denialism

New Yorker writer Michael Specter has a new book out titled Denialism that focuses heavily on food, among other topics. NPR has done a couple of segments and has some excerpts. The comments on the NPR site are a fun read.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =120139776

"The most blatant forms of denialism are rarely malevolent; they combine decency, a fear of change, and the misguided desire to do good — for our health, our families, and the world. That is why so many physicians dismiss the idea that a patient's race can, and often should, be used as a tool for better diagnoses and treatment. Similar motivations — in other words, wishful thinking — have helped drive the growing national obsession with organic food. We want our food to taste good, but also to be safe and healthy. That's natural. Food is more than a meal, it's about history, culture, and a common set of rituals. We put food in the mouths of our children; it is the glue that unites families and communities. And because we don't see our food until we eat it, any fear attached to it takes on greater resonance.

The corrosive implications of this obsession barely register in America or Europe, where calories are cheap and food is plentiful. But in Africa, where arable land is scarce, science offers the only hope of providing a solution to the growing problem of hunger. To suggest that organic vegetables, which cost far more than conventional produce, can feed billions of people in parts of the world without roads or proper irrigation may be a fantasy based on the finest intentions. But it is a cruel fantasy nonetheless.

Unfortunately, the comments section was closed, and so I couldn't look them over.

I did think one sentence from the article was rather curious:
"To suggest that organic vegetables, which cost far more than conventional produce, can feed billions of people in parts of the world without roads or proper irrigation may be a fantasy..."

To my thinking, billions of people without roads or proper irrigation have a much more immediate problem than choosing to use Round-up ready soy or not. So the author's accusation doesn't carry as much weight as it might. It would have been more to the point if he had said it was wrong to deny a farmer use of a drought resistant strain of corn just because the corn was developed in a lab.

However, I have trouble dealing with this whole issue because I have trouble finding the background specifics. For instance, at:

fora.tv/2009/05/05/Michael_Pollan_Deep_Agriculture#fullprogram

in section 14, the well-known Mr. Pollan says that GM foods do not have a history of increasing yields, contrary to the assertions that GM is necessary to feed an increasing population. He mentions that another speaker might have more details on the subject. Doing a quick search doesn't offer much in the way of substantiation.

Oh well, time to be more diligent in research. Wouldn't want to be a denier.

Hi Gdenby,

The comments that you can't read backed up what Specter said in his interview.....a bunch of over the top anti technology comments....and a share of very pro technology comments. Easy to argue that both sides have religious zeal.

I don't completely understand your first point about gm crops. Believe that Specter's point is that cultural-based attitudes in the developed world (versus science-based opinions) shouldn't be barriers to the third world accessing technologies that help them feed themselves. He uses combine harvesters as another example.

In regards to Mr. Pollan saying that gm foods don't have a history of increasing yields this is something I know a little bit about, it's a canard, and a strategy that I think is very clever on his part.

Organic foods are criticized primarily for their cost. They cost a lot because they are labor intensive and have lower yields than conventional food production. So, if you are being criticized for low yields, attack the other side for low yields and put them on the defensive.

In truth, yields for all of the row crops -- which is what Pollan is talking about -- have increased incrementally year over year for decades not because of gm technology, but because of really good plant breeding. gm traits are added that facilitate farmers not spraying really bad chemicals or switching from really bad chemicals to more benign chemicals.

The question for the farmer is, "does adding the gm trait reduce the value of the crop: do the input savings (less chemicals used, less fuel, less labor) offset any reduction in output value."

On this subject I think Pollan is more Pat Robertson saying that Haiti was destroyed because years ago they made a pact with the devil, than a well-informed analyst of complex food issues. Farmeres are too cheap to switch to a technology that costs them more money.

On research, Center For Science In The Public Interest issued a paper -- Failure To Yield. Surprise! It said that gm crops haven't increased yields. You can google it and criticisms of the science, or lack thereof, behind it.

And, black and white yield data is at the USDA's web site...including mystifying reports on this year's harvest.

And this exchange supports, I think, Specter's thesis.

Thank you for the reference to "Failure to Yield." I would like to read it over, and also review the pros and cons. Likewise, I will look at the USDA figures, although I don't know if I have the background to form a picture of whats going on from whatever stats are there.

My main problem with Specter's thesis is that it simply sets up a characterization. I often find it interesting to go through articles and simply cross out all characterizations, mentions of motive, extraneous modifiers, etc, and see what is left, if anything. Unfortunately, the brief excerpt at NPR did not have much I could pin down. I'll see if I can look into his writing a bit more, and see what his substantiation is.