An Unbiased Expert? Organics: The Blurred Vision of ABC's 20/20

[Guest guest]

An Unbiased Expert?

Organics: The Blurred Vision of ABC's 20/20

by J. Robert Hatherill, Ph.D, and Jeff Nelson

http://www.vegsource.com/articles/organics.2020.htm

 

A recent segment of ABC's 20/20, entitled " How Good is Organic Food? " grossly

misrepresented the safety and value of organically grown food crops.

According to the 20/20 show that aired on February 4, 2000, commercially grown

food is

superior to organically grown produce because organic food has higher

concentrations of bacteria and is " dangerous, " and because organic farmers waste

land

and resources compared to commercial growers.

 

An Unbiased Expert?

 

The organic food critic, Dennis Avery, was identified on the 20/20 show as a

former researcher for the USDA and as a leading critic of organic produce.

20/20 failed to disclose Mr. Avery's full credentials. He is presently the of the Center for Global Food Issues for the Hudson Institute, and the

author of such books as Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The

Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming.

 

Mr. Avery's employer, the Hudson Institute, is a duplicitous, non-profit

" watch dog " group that serves as a mouthpiece for big business. Hudson

identifies

many of its corporate sponsors on its website, including AgrEvo, Dow

AgroSciences, Monsanto Company, Novartis Crop Protection, and Zeneca - the very

companies whose bottom lines are most threatened by organic agriculture.

 

Mr. Avery is also a member of the American Counsel on Science and Health

(ACSH), another chemical, pharmaceutical and food industry-funded PR

organization,

which specializes in orchestrating media assaults on scientists and activists

who take positions contrary to the interests of ACHS funders. ACSH asserts,

for example, that trans-fatty acids pose no health risks, and they champion

everything from red meat to pesticides and genetically modified foods (GMOs) -

even Ritalin and junk food for kids. They try to debunk the link between the

standard American diet and cancer, and claim that global warming doesn't exist

or

is of no real concern.

 

In short, 20/20 failed to reveal that the anti-organic " expert " they

presented has strong ties to business interests in the organic debate, and a

vested

interest in promoting the use of herbicides, pesticides and GMOs.

 

In his 1996 book, The Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental

Rhetoric Threatens Our Future, celebrated scientist Paul Ehrlich, Bing

Professor of Population Studies and Professor of Biological Studies at Stanford

University, details the current scheme whereby industry-paid pitchmen promote

highly questionable, discredited - or sometimes non-existent - studies to try to

minimize the seriousness of environmental problems. Ehrlich cites ACHS and

specifically Avery as purveyors of what he terms " brownlash " - the practice of

" distorting or misstating research findings " in an attempt to " fuel a backlash

against 'green' policies. "

 

Individuals like Avery, " aided by allies in the media, have been surprisingly

effective in getting brownlash messages across to the public, " Ehrlich

writes. " In some cases, the messages simply confuse the issues; in others, they

offer a seemingly credible (though generally unfounded) rationale for relaxing

or

eliminating environmental regulations or forestalling development of new

policies to address serious global problems.... [using science in this way] is

anti-science. It sounds authoritative, but it is well known among scientists as

a

totally incorrect conclusion. " i

 

20/20's Hack Job

 

The 20/20 show is a perfect illustration of how groups such as Hudson and

ACHS help ensure the media does not present a balanced account of the facts

concerning organic food. The show spotlighted a rather meaningless and flawed

study

undertaken by ABC reporter and 20/20 host John Stossel, intended to create

the impression that organic produce is " dangerous. " Stossel implied that the

unscientific study showed organic produce contained higher levels of pathogenic

(disease-producing) bacteria than commercially grown produce. In truth,

pathogenic bacteria was not measured specifically; to term what 20/20 did a

" study "

is anti-science at its best.

 

Why would a reporter like John Stossel permit himself to be used in this way?

An article in the March, 2000, edition of the magazine Brill's Content

provides some insight. ii Entitled Laissez-Faire TV, the article exposes

Stossel's

ties to a number of the same pro-business organizations that Professor Ehrlich

cites in his book. According to the article, Stossel is the only correspondent

in 20/20's history to get his own weekly segment, and he has the power at ABC

to produce prime-time specials on any topics he chooses. How does he use that

power? According to Brill's Content, he often uses it to promote pro-business

positions and rail against government regulation. " Once a consumer reporter

who rallied against corporations, Stossel has become a friend of big business.

He has suggested shrinking the Environmental Protection Agency and boarding up

the Food and Drug Administration. Stossel is described as " enemy No. 1 " to

Jeff Cohen, who runs Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). " He's clearly

one of the most openly and proudly biased reporters in the business, " says

Cohen.

 

During the 1995 annual national conference of the Society of Environmental

Journalists, Stossel was pressed by a reporter about whether he still considered

himself a journalist in view of the tens of thousands of dollars he receives

in speaking fees from chemical companies and other business groups. Stossel

replied, " Industry likes to hire me because they like what I have to say. " He

then added that he supposed he was no longer a journalist in the traditional

sense but rather a reporter with a perspective.iii

 

In his 20/20 piece smearing organics, Stossel also featured an interview with

Katherine DiMatteo, the Executive Director of the Organic Trade Association.

Before the show was aired, Ms. DiMatteo wrote to 20/20: " Based on our further

in-depth research, we feel Mr. Stossel is misrepresenting the facts from a

study 20/20 conducted. Mr. Stossel asked several times if 'organic food will

kill

you.' Numerous questions along these lines were posed to me during the

interview, many of which were citing non-existent data or incorrect information.

20/20's own consumer poll showed that consumers purchase organic products first

and foremost because of benefits to the environment. Organic food production is

an agricultural system that helps reduce environmental damage. Organic food

is not deadly, and to cause consumer alarm based on the results of one small

study would be irresponsible. "

 

As for Mr. Avery, he has repeatedly gone on the record as he did in the

broadcast stating that " people who eat organic and natural foods are eight times

as

likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by the deadly new strain

of E.coli bacteria (0157:H7). " Mr. Avery claims " recent data " compiled by the

U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as the source for this inaccurate

statement. The Organic Trade Association, in its mission to protect the organic

label and to educate consumers, investigated these claims by contacting the CDC

directly. According to Robert Tauxe, M.D., chief of the food-borne and

diarrheal diseases branch of the CDC, there is no such data on organic food

production

in existence at their centers. In fact, Tauxe stated that Avery's claims were

" absolutely not true. "

 

According to Tauxe, " The goal of the CDC is to ensure food is produced using

safe and hygienic methods, and that consumers also practice safe and hygienic

methods in food preparation, regardless of the source, be it organic,

commercial, imported or otherwise. " It would appear that Mr. Avery's remarks,

all

premised on CDC data, have no foundation.

 

Piling It Higher and Deeper

 

Mr. Avery further states that " organic food is more dangerous than

commercially grown produce because organic farmers use manure... " Let the record

show

that manure use is a common agricultural practice for both commercial and

organic food production. Certified organic farmers, however, must adhere to

additional and more strict limitations on the application of manure as mandated

by the

Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990. The OFPA prohibits the harvest

of organic crops for human consumption for at least 60 days after the

application of raw manure. Furthermore, organic certification agencies and OFPA

require

longer intervals between manure application and harvest if soil or other

conditions warrant it.

 

Mr. Avery claims organic farmers " compound the contamination problem through

their reluctance to use antimicrobial preservatives, chemical washes,

pasteurization or even chlorinated water to rid their products of dangerous

bacteria. "

We question how Mr. Avery measures " reluctance " among organic growers. Any

organic grower that uses the certified organic label must abide by safe food

production standards, and, as with all food producers, must be in compliance

with

their local and state health standards.

 

The 20/20 segment also falsely claimed that organic farmers waste land and

resources. The fact is, organic farming is not low-yield farming. The Rodale

Institute of Kutztown, PA, recently completed a 15-year study comparing organic

farming methods to commercial agricultural methods. Its findings, published in

the November 11,1998, issue of the journal Nature, showed that organic yields

equaled commercial agricultural yields after only four years. The study also

demonstrated that, in organic farming, the quality of the soil continues to

improve; carbon dioxide emissions are reduced; and in periods of drought,

organic

fields are more resilient and can actually out-perform the yield of

commercial farm plots. (Although 20/20 shot interviews at the Rodale Institute

regarding these issues, they were not included in the broadcast.)

 

Experts have also shown that pesticide application does not guarantee

increased crop yields. According to David Pimentel, Professor of Insect Ecology

and

Agricultural Sciences at Cornell University, " Although pesticides are generally

profitable, their use does not always decrease crop losses. For example, even

with the 10-fold increase in insecticide use in the United States from 1945

to 1989, total crop losses from insect damage have nearly doubled from 7

percent to 13 percent. "

 

Furthermore, in 1998, the EPA reported that agriculture is the single largest

nonpoint polluter of our rivers and streams, fouling more than 173,000 miles

of waterways with chemicals, erosion and animal waste runoff from livestock

production. iv As we can see from the USDA land use figures above, aside from

the waste runoff, a good share of this chemical pollution is also the result of

growing livestock feed using chemically dependant agriculture.

 

Of Pesticides & Sewage Sludge

 

As media megamergers continue to swallow up smaller news agencies, unbiased

news may become a thing of the past. Yet consumers should not be left in the

dark while bought-and-paid industry scientists obscure the essential truth of

the issue - organically grown food has many benefits that make it safer than

commercial produce.

 

One major difference lies in the use of pesticides and commercial

fertilizers. Commercially grown fruits and vegetables will often have multiple

pesticide

residues. Commercially grown strawberries alone, for example, can contain up

to 64 different pesticides. While washing your hands and your veggies is a

simple and effective defense against manure, pesticides are harder to wash off,

especially when plants are genetically engineered to produce them in every cell.

 

 

Recent studies show that trace levels of multiple pesticides cause increased

aggression. It is noteworthy that aggression was triggered with trace

combinations of pesticides, but not with exposure to a single pesticide.

Specifically,

trace pesticide mixtures have induced abnormal thyroid hormone levels.

Irritability, aggression and multiple chemical sensitivity are all associated

with

thyroid hormone levels. v

 

Also, compounds such as nitrates (which can be converted into cancer

producing chemicals) are more prevalent in commercially grown produce because of

the

overuse of nitrogen-containing fertilizers. vi

 

The 20/20 segment mentioned how a young girl became ill after she ingested

lettuce that was contaminated from sewage. Because of the order of presentation

the viewer was falsely led to believe the lettuce was organically grown. The

truth is, however, certified organic growers cannot use sewage sludge to amend

the soil - but commercial operations can and do.

 

Unlike organic produce, which is grown using careful stewardship of the soil

and age old farming techniques, commercially grown crops are often not rotated

in different plots, and therefore tend to deplete the nutrient content of the

soil. This is why extensive use of commercial fertilizers is required for the

growth of these crops. In fact, many water supplies have been contaminated

with nitrates because of the over use of commercial fertilizers. Although manure

used in organic farming also contains nitrates, it does not migrate to the

ground water as quickly as does commercial grade fertilizer.

 

It is widely known that organic farms have higher concentrations of organic

matter in the soils. A soil high in organic matter has improved water-holding

capacity and therefore is more drought tolerant and reduces the activity and

migration of pesticides. Further, organic matter in soil serves as a repository

for select nutrients and assists in keeping these nutrients available. vii

 

While there have been conflicting studies on the superior nutritional value

of organic produce - with some studies showing organic food to be far more

nutritious than commercially grown, while others showing it to be the same - the

jury is still out. Far more research has been directed to aid mechanized,

commercial agriculture in producing foods of uniform size and uniform dates of

ripening. Commercial agriculture with its focus on mechanical harvesting and

large-scale storage, transport and processing also consumes vast quantities of

energy in the form of oil, gas and electricity. viii

 

Organic farming does not rely on the intensive use of inputs such as chemical

fertilizers and pesticides. Instead it relies on natural soil builders and

biological control of pests. Organic farming uses much less energy than

commercial farming, and therefore generates fewer greenhouse gases, such as

carbon

dioxide. ix

 

Just about any consumer can note the difference between an organically grown

tomato and a commercially grown tomato. The organic tomato has rich, deep red

color that is indicative of the red pigment lycopene, which is has been shown

to have health-protective properties. Commercial grown tomatoes are often

picked green and put in a chamber with sulfur dioxide to force the ripening of

the

tomato. Tomatoes treated in this manner will often have much lower amounts of

health-protecting lycopene. Studies also show that health protective plant

chemicals called phytochemicals are higher in organic produce. Many of these

phytochemicals such as lycopene (tomatoes) and resveratrol (grapes) have been

linked to reduced heart disease and cancer risk. And let's not forget that

organically grown produce just tastes better!

 

John Stossel, Dennis Avery, 20/20 - and the corporations behind them, which

profit from the sale of pesticides, fertilizers and genetically modified

substances - seem to hope we will all forget that the human species has been

eating

organic food for all but the last 50 years of life on this planet. It is

commercial food, the product of chemical farming, that is the real experiment on

the health of the public.

 

Sixteen Healthy Reasons to Eat Organic:

 

1) Less herbicide residue

2) Less insecticide residue

3) Less fungicide residue

4) Less toxic metal contamination

5) Less toxic nitrate contamination

6) More essential and trace minerals

7) No hormones

8) No antibiotics

9) More healthy agents

10) Tastes much better and you can eat the skin

11) Better for children. Children receive four times more exposure than an

adult to at least eight widely used cancer-causing pesticides in food.

12) Better for farm workers. A Natural Cancer Institute study found that

farmers exposed to herbicides had a greater risk, by a factor of six, than

non-farmers of contracting cancer.

13) Prevent soil erosion

14) Protect water quality

15) Help small farmers

16) Promote biodiversity

 

Dr. Hatherill is a research toxicologist at the Environmental Studies Program

at University of California at Santa Barbara. He is the Chief Scientific

Advisor to EarthSave International and the author of " Eat to Beat Cancer. " (Also

see Dr. Hatherill's related article, Myths of Chemical Farming

http://www.vegsource.com/articles/chemical.farming.htm )

Jeff Nelson is President of VegSource Interactive and Chair-Elect of the

Board of EarthSave International.

 

This article was written for the EarthSave newsletter.

For subscription details, please visit http://www.earthsave.org .

 

Excellent related article:

Organic Vegetables are Safe (despite what 20/20 says) By Marty Root, Ph.D.

http://www.nutritionadvocate.com/story/organic_vegetables.html

 

 

Another fantastic expose documenting Denis Avery's penchant to invent

statistics and attribute them to others.

 

End Notes

 

i Ehrlich, Paul and Anne, " Betray of Science and Reason; How

Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future " Island Press, 1996 p. 38

 

ii Brill's Content Magazine, " Laissez-Faire TV " by Ted Rose, March, 2000

 

iii S E Journal, 1995, p. 16.

 

iv US Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Report to Congress: Nonpoint

Source Pollution in the US Office of Water Program Operations, Water Planning

Division. Washington, D.C. Chesters G. an LJ Schierow. 1985. A Primer on

Non-Point Pollution. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40:14-18.

 

v C.A. Boyd, M.H. Weiler and W.P. Porter, " Behavioral and neurochemical

changes associated with chronic exposure to low-level concentration of pesticide

mixtures, " JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Vol. 30, No. 3

(July1990), pgs. 209-221. W. P. Porter et al., " Groundwater pesticides:

interactive

effects of low concentrations of carbamates aldicarb and methamyl and the

triazine metribuzin on thyroxine and somatotropin levels in white rats, " JOURNAL

OF

TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Vol. 40, No. 1(September 1993), pgs.

15-34.

 

vi Brown & Smith, Agron J. 58, 1966

 

iv Harris, RS., Nutritional Evaluation of Food Processing, Wiley & Sons, NY

1960

 

vii Harris, R.S., Nutritional Evaluation of Food Processing, Wiley & Sons,

NY, 1960

 

viii Science, Vol 189, No.4205, 9/5/75 p. 777

 

ix Brown & Smith, Agron J. 58, 1966

 

 

 

CCOF defends organic agriculture

 

http://organicresearcher.wordpress.com/2006/09/27/ccof-defends-organic-agricultu\

re/

27 09 2006 The CCOF have sent out the clarification below, it is redolent of

the attacks of Denis Avery and centres around this continual slippage between

organic and natural in how food is discussed in the US. CCOF Defends Organic

Agriculture Against Attacks

September 25th, 2006

 

CCOF hopes to clear up some of the consumer and media confusion surrounding

the recent E. coli outbreak and spinach recall, as well as the wrongful attacks

on organic agriculture, with the following message.

 

“The tragic outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in spinach that has killed one person

and sickened nearly 200 others in 25 states, is being mistakenly linked to

organic farming practices,†said CCOF Executive Director Peggy Miars. “Our

sympathy goes out to the individuals and families affected by the outbreak.

I’m

concerned that misinformation is being spread about the source of the

contamination and that organic is being unjustly blamed.â€

 

On Friday, news of an “organic milk recall†added to the confusion. Three

Southern California children were allegedly sickened with E. coli from raw milk

sold by Organic Pastures of Fresno, California, which issued a recall of its

products. “The facts are still being released. But, one important distinction

that needs to be made is that the suspected milk is raw (unpasteurized). All

other name-brand and private-label organic milk meets all the same regulatory

standards as non-organic milk,†said Miars.

 

According to the FDA, at this time, the only two confirmed sources of E. coli

from spinach were traced back by the New Mexico Department of Health and the

Utah Department of Health to packages of non-organic (conventional) Dole baby

spinach packaged by Natural Selection Foods. Natural Selection Foods’ website

states that all of the production codes taken from spinach packages retained

by patients are from packages of non-organic spinach. However, the

investigation is still underway.

The FDA and the California Department of Health Services have advised Natural

Selection Foods that test results from their California processing facility

were clean.

 

The FDA has determined that the spinach implicated in the outbreak could

only have been grown in three California counties (Monterey, San Benito and

Santa

Clara). Spinach grown in the rest of the United States is not implicated, and

other produce grown in the three counties is not implicated. Processed

spinach (e.g., frozen and canned spinach) is also not implicated.

 

Farm investigations are in progress, focusing on fields associated with the

production lots and brands implicated in illnesses as identified from available

epidemiological data. Numerous samples have been collected to date including

water, soil, sediment and other materials of environmental interest.

 

Organic food producers must meet all federal, state, and local food safety

regulations and requirements in addition to the stringent federal standards for

organic growing and processing. “Food safety is the number one priority for

all food producers, whether organic or non-organic,†said Miars. “I suggest

that consumers and food producers stay informed by monitoring the the FDA’s

website, which is updated regularly and includes a current list of the

voluntarily

recalled spinach brands.â€