The Blurred Vision of ABC'S 20/20 on ORGANICS !

[Guest guest]

ORGANICS: THE BLURRED VISION OF ABC'S 20/20

 

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

 

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 Director 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.)

 

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.

 

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

--------------------------------

 

The referenced source of the above article is from :

 

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

---------

 

Note: Again , please send a copy of the above article

to all of your Local Media Contacts. Thanks.