http://archives.foodsafety.ksu.edu/agnet/2002/5-2002/agnet_may_9.htm#CALL%20TO%20ACTION

 

 

CALL TO ACTION ON ORGANIC LOW PESTICIDE CLAIMS
May 9, 2002

This call to action from Tom DeGregori talks about the error in not
recognizing organic pesticides as pesticides and the studies that, as a
consequence, find lower levels of pesticides on organic foods.
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2002 6:57 a.m.
From: Tom DeGregori
Dear Prakash
This note is primarily to C.S. Prakash since AgBioView has been so effective
in organizing petitions of scientists but I am sending copies to others in
case they are interested in acting.
By now, you and everyone receiving this have seen multiple press versions of
the study purporting to show lower levels of pesticide residue on "organic"
produce. The New York Times piece by Marion Burros (an "organic" agriculture
enthusiast) neglected to mention that the study used data that did not
include the use of various organic pesticides (sulfur compounds etc.).
Similarly, the press release (out of Eugene, Oregon) for the study,
repeatedly refers to lower pesticide use. Surely those who did the study
should know that their findings excluded pesticides used in organic
agriculture.
By now, you and everyone receiving this have seen multiple press versions of
the study purporting to show lower levels of pesticide residue on "organic"
produce. The New York Times piece by Marion Burros (an "organic" agriculture
enthusiast) neglected to mention that the study used data that did not
include the use of various organic pesticides (sulfur compounds etc.).
Similarly, the press release (out of Eugene, Oregon) for the study,
repeatedly refers to lower pesticide use. Surely those who did the study
should know that their findings excluded pesticides used in organic
agriculture.
Anything put on the plant to protect against pests, be it paprika, an herbal
mixture, cooked oatmeal (to state the absurd) or a compound of arsenic,
copper or sulfur, is a pesticide. This is not a question of science or
whether or not the pesticide is or is not benign but of the basic and honest
use of the English language.
To ignore "organic" pesticides and make claims of "lower" use is dishonest
if not a blatant lie and ought to be so designated. The zealots have so
demonized the word pesticide that they have to avoid using it even if it
means being dishonest. The AP newswire story by Philip Brasher did note the
fact that "organic" pesticides were not included in the study but then
added: "Those products are generally considered less toxic than pesticides
used by
conventional farms, and government inspectors do not test for them." I love
the use of the "passive" voice as in the very frequent use of the term
"known carcinogens." This relieves the user of saying who knows it or who
considers it to be so and on what scientific or other basis this knowledge
is derived. As readers of AgBioView or of my 1981 book, Agriculture and
Modern Technology (Pages 85-86) know, I had an exchange of letters with
Consumers Union over precisely the point of excluding "organic" pesticides
and their
assumptions that they are benign and can not and need not be considered in
testing. It was and remains patently dishonest for Consumers Union (Consumer
Reports) to continue this charade.
Prakash - I propose that the entire report be obtained along with the press
release and the major news stories on it. Toxicologist, agricultural
scientist or someone or group with the technical qualifications (other than
an economist - I would have no credibility on this topic) on our list could
do an analysis and draw up a petition that we all could sign. This petition
would be drawn up protesting the misleading information that is now being
propagated and which we can expect to be seeing for years to come as proven
fact unless we act to counter it. Possibly, some of the others to whom I am
sending a copy of this could volunteer to help. Of the many misleading and
erroneous statements that I have seen on "organic" agriculture over the
years, this ranks among the most blatantly dishonest and should not be
allowed to go unchallenged.
Tom DeGregori
P.S. - There was a letter critical of Articles of mine posted on ACSH
webpage. My response can be found as follows for those who might be
interested:
A response to & defense of "Zero Risk Fiction" & Anti-technology Rhetoric
Won't Feed World
http://www.acsh.org/forum/features/antitechnology.html#responses
Thomas R. DeGregori, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Houston