Secular green ideas waste foolishly

Posted on February 20, 2009 by Heather Mac Donald

Chez Panisse founder Alice Waters argues that the federal school lunch program should be revamped to give children locally-grown, organic produce.   She’s right about the scandal of federally-subsidized junk food being served to children; it’s a tragedy that Americans have lost any awareness of the stately march of fruits and vegetables throughout the year, as well as of the joy of cooking and eating them.  But the organic imperative is just loony, it seems to me, a replacement of religious food taboos with secular ones.  Pesticides are our friends. There is no evidence that we are being harmed by the chemicals used to keep produce from being eaten alive by insects and fungus.  By insisting that schools seek out pricey organic food, Waters is rendering a valid crusade virtually unrealizable.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Secular green ideas waste foolishly

  1. kurt9 says:
    February 20, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    The Gaia worship of the liberal-left is as much of a dogmatic religion as anything promulgated by the Christian-right.

  2. Donna B. says:
    February 20, 2009 at 6:55 pm

    I have found it quite easy to maximize my use of organic products. I use an organic plastic can to store organic fuel for my lawnmower, which admittedly is made of some inorganic materials. I’m not perfect, ya know?

  3. Caledonian says:
    February 21, 2009 at 10:23 am

    Actually, the higher rates of Parkinsonian syndromes among farmers and vegetable harvesters strongly suggests that long-term exposure to low levels of pesticides causes brain damage of a particular type.

    Many of them are nerve agents, after all, just ones that aren’t as harmful to mammals as they are to insects.

    There are other reasons to approve of organic farming methods besides not using pesticides (and other reasons not to want to use pesticides). Your position is both foolish and ignorant.

  4. gene berman says:
    February 22, 2009 at 8:32 am

    Donna:

    You could use a wholly-organic goat with which to replace the offending
    lawnmower. That’d free up the container and organic fuel for other uses.

  5. Dan says:
    February 23, 2009 at 8:48 am

    Caldonian: Your position is also foolish and ignorant. If you were to study biochemistry, the chemical makeup of pesticides, and the FDA’s laws relating to pesticide application, harvest intervals, etc. you would see that pesticide use is perfectly safe for the consumer. Pesticides are by nature and design fragile chemicals which break down quickly in the presence of water and sunlight – two things that are in abundant supply on any farm.

    Whether farmers always abide by the requirements of the FDA in terms of their own workers is another question.

  6. Grant Canyon says:
    February 23, 2009 at 9:18 am

    Your position is also foolish and ignorant…
    Whether farmers always abide by the requirements of the FDA in terms of their own workers is another question.

    Dan,
    If these chemicals are only safe when particularized handling is utilized (handling which you seem to freely recognize may not in fact be followed by the farming corporations) and farmhands are being turned into Parkinson’s patients as a result of them, then it is hardly foolish or ignorant to be concerned that these chemicals aren’t safe at all, let alone “perfectly safe.”

    At the very least, the public should have full disclosure about everything to do with these products and their usage in order to decide how many farmhand’s deaths are worth increasing Monsanto’s stock by a point or saving Archer Daniels Midland a few pennies for their raw stock.

  7. Polichinello says:
    February 23, 2009 at 9:37 am

    There’s a bit more involved than Monsanto and ADM’s stock. If we switch to organic farming, what would be the trade-off in food production? Would we be able to produce as much affordable food? Would we need more land to make up for any shortfall? Would it be better to adopt better HSE protocols for agricultural workers, or, better, encourage more mechanization to reduce contact?

  9. Caledonian says:
    February 23, 2009 at 11:11 am

    If remnants of ‘degradable’ pesticides cause damage that’s undetectable over the short term, that’s still potentially very dangerous.

    Many parkinsonian conditions are the end result of a long process of damage which isn’t immediately detectable.

  10. Grant Canyon says:
    February 23, 2009 at 2:08 pm

    There’s a bit more involved than Monsanto and ADM’s stock.

    Yes, that is true. But it would be foolish to ignore the fact that to the Monsantos and ADM’s of the world, (not to mention their cheerleaders in congress), their profits and stock prices are the key consideration and highest priority. Everything else, from the environment to the health of their workers and customers, is secondary. Because what is good for them may not be good for America and Americans (and is often bad or America and Americans), their influence and motives cannot be overlooked.

    If we switch to organic farming, what would be the trade-off in food production?

    You could rotate the land, as they do in Argentina, between raising beef cattle and rotating in crops every few years. It reduces the need for pesticides and artificial fertilizers, and produces some of the best beef in the world (as anyone who has compared Argentine beef to the hormone- and antibiotic-laced dog crap that is passed of as beef in the USA can attest.)

    The big agribusinesses might not make out as well, so we all suffer for their profits.

    Would we be able to produce as much affordable food? Would we need more land to make up for any shortfall?

    Our biggest food problems today are over abundance and monoculture. It would rather see us modify what passes as a food culture in the country and not worry about turning massive quantities of unhealthy food products.

    Would it be better to adopt better HSE protocols for agricultural workers, or, better, encourage more mechanization to reduce contact?

    If we’re not going to be smart, then better protocols would be a start. But the problem is that they cost money, so it is unlikely that the businesses affected will comply with those safety protocols without a fight.

    Further, I kind of disagree about more mechanization (save as a last straw). We eat too much fossil fuel already. With a little bit of thought, planning and management of the land and the resources, we can cut the fossil fuels and rely on more sunlight and nature to produce our food.

Comments are closed.