Recently John Stossel of FOX Business Channel has aired a number of segments disparaging sustainable agriculture. His issues have included the use of herbicides and pesticides, grainfed vs. grassfed beef, genetically modified food and food safety. Is Stossel going out of his way to be outrageously provocative? To what end? And for whose benefit? Certainly we are not the only ones to condemn these reports as being inaccurate, unbalanced and biased, as the many comments to the reports attest.
Stossel would no doubt accuse me (as program director of Animal Welfare Approved) of being unrealistic and only supporting small scale farms. However, the reality is that to keep the planet healthy and fed we will need to employ a wide range of solutions. Sadly, the last 40 years of "big ag's" version of the solution has shown chronic failure in the form of antibiotic resistance, tainted water and some of the largest food recalls in history. Too bad Stossel doesn't recognize that we have to stop using the planet -- a finite resource -- as "big ag's" test tube.
Let's take a look at Stossel's grassfed versus grainfed beef segment. Determining which of these methods of production is "best" is a complicated matter involving animal welfare, human health and environmental outcomes. It is unfortunate that as with the other topics in his series, Stossel appears to have taken a rather close-minded and biased approach to a very complex subject.
In making the claim about grassfed meat that "there's no evidence it's better for the environment or better for you," Stossel relies heavily on the evidence of Dr. Jude Capper, Assistant Professor of Dairy Sciences in the Department of Animal Sciences at Washington State University. I have recently spent time with Dr. Capper and found her understanding of the greenhouse gas issue to be somewhat in harmony with my own. However, when it comes to solutions, our approaches are as different as night and day.
Dr. Capper states that a "whole-system approach" proves that intensive livestock systems -- in which meat or milk production is maximized per animal, per acre -- are less environmentally damaging than what she calls "inefficient" pasture or grass-based systems. Yet it is Dr. Capper who is not looking at the "whole system" -- or indeed the bigger picture we all face. In reality, the vast majority of scientists who are working on climate related issues contend that it is intensive agriculture -- with its heavy reliance on fossil fuels and other damaging environmental practices -- that is the real climate culprit. And in the face of the reality of climate change and ever-decreasing oil reserves, "business as usual" agriculture is just no longer an option.
One of the biggest problems is that any report which states that grassfed meat is less environmentally friendly than grainfed meat has ignored the environmental costs of all the inputs needed for the system. The true cost of feedlot beef has to consider the full environmental footprint caused by producing cattle feed -- all the way back to the destruction of vast tracts of rainforest in order to grow soy and corn fed to cattle confined to massive feedlots. This is before we start adding in the environmental pollution from feedlots and the greenhouse gas emissions from the stockpiled manure. On the side of grassfed beef, the positive influence of carbon sequestration that is specific to grazing grassfed animals must be considered.
Stossel sadly relied on only one source for his information on grassfed. He didn't take the time to understand both sides of the argument and, like a student with a poorly researched school paper, published his report without review or evidence. This lack of rigor appears to be the only way industrial agriculture and its mouthpieces can defend themselves.
Moving on to Stossel's report about herbicides and pesticides, here, too, he is off the mark. Atrazine is regularly found in water across the U.S. at levels above the designated "safe" maximum residue level. This pesticide has been banned in Europe for more than five years due to its toxicity and presence in water sources. I therefore wonder why Stossel feels we should subject America's children to this potentially dangerous chemical with no known antidote.
In 2002, two studies raised new concerns about the herbicide: one connecting extremely low levels of atrazine with sexual abnormalities in frogs, and another pointing to increased prostate cancer among workers at atrazine factories. Why do we have to keep using this when Syngenta (the manufacturer of atrazine) has an alternate product? Perhaps it's because atrazine is highly profitable so why worry that it makes people sick by polluting our water? As long as it has good shareholder return! Nice work, John, good to see you have the interests of the population at heart.
And finally, in Stossel's segment on genetically modified food, he takes a swipe at one of his guest's reference to the 2006 recall of spinach contaminated with E.coli. While debating the fine point of whether the spinach was from a field in organic conversion, Stossel ignored the 800 pound gorilla in the room: Where did the deadly E.coli O157:H7 pathogens come from in the first place? Certainly not organic spinach. Studies report that confinement feeding of grain to cattle and low dose antibiotics are the main culprits in the evolution of the E.coli O157:H7 at the core of the explosion in food poisoning outbreaks.
As disturbing as Stossel's lack of balanced reporting is, there is a real positive here. Clearly, someone has put huge sums of money and effort into trying to distort the truth. This tells those of us working with alternatives to the industrial agricultural model that we are making a difference and that our message is getting through. In the parlance of bomber pilots, you know you are near the target when the flak really starts to fly. Stossel's biased attacks should be a rallying cry to all of us to redouble our efforts... there's no stopping us now! We are getting the message out there and we will continue our rallying cry against "business as usual" agriculture.
Richard Walden: 7 Ways to Make Your Turkey Taste Better & Do Good
John Perkins: 10 Ways to Be 'Thankfully Green' (PHOTOS)
Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup used on genetically manipulated (GM) Roundup Ready crops is linked to human cell death, birth defects, cancer and miscarriages, says a report released at the European Parliament by an international group of scientists.
http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2010/10/06/gm-soy-linked-to-birth-defects-cancer-new-study.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749
Oh and by the way don't forget the research published into the changes in digestive systems attributed to GM product consumption!
All in all I wouldn't want to be part of a syndicate insuring GM against law suites. Maybe you have more money than I?
In this recent study GM Soy has been linked to Birth defects and cancer.
"At the European Parliament in Brussels where the report was presented[ii], Prof Carrasco said childhood cancer had increased by 300% and babies with birth defects by 400% during the past decade in parts of Argentina. GM RR soy is grown there to supply European and Australian farmers with cheap GM animal feed: "I suspect the toxicity classification of glyphosate is too low… in some cases this can be a powerful poison," he said.
The report also refers to studies that found: the uterus and ovaries of female rats fed GM RR soy showed changes; rabbits' kidney and heart enzyme functions were disturbed. An intergenerational study of hamsters fed GM soy found slower growth rates and higher mortality among pups, and widespread infertility in the third generation[iii]."
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749
"The whole idea supposedly centers around methane production.
Cattle finished on grass live longer, grow slower, eat more
roughage, and the roughage produces more methane as a by
product of digestion. What nobody anywhere ever talks about is
the fact ruminants are nothing new, neither is eating grass,
why is it suddenly such a big issue? I suspect there is more
here related to a movement to get people to quit eating beef
period, regardless of how it is raised. You would have to be
a moron to think that animals grazing grass, often times native
grass that has been here forever, make a larger carbon
footprint than animals consuming feed that has been planted,
harvested, processed, and hauled to them."
Gunther, you are very biased yourself and go out of your way to proclaim everything in modern agriculture as bad.
And you dare complain about atarazine? ridculous. You try to prevent farmers from using a less harsh chemical called RoundUp that replaces atrazine. Round Up is safer than many pesticides used on ORGANIC farms. Ironic huh? It's even safer than ethyl aclohol (the stuff in beer). Look it up. Google the MSDSs of all these.
The obsolete, farm world you lefties promote would actually CONTRIBUTE MORE to global warming since more field work is needed by far compared to GM crops. The farm world you promote would create a 1930's dust bowl since you seem to love obsolete moldboard plows and cultivators. GM crops are helping to eliminate plowing thus much much less ersoion. Data has been presented on these posts many times, but you people do not have the open minds to admit modern methods may actually be good. Even the Amish now use GM crops.
And You fear GM crops? Why not transgenic medicines like GM insulin? Most insulin is GMO. Do you understand why farmers like me say people like you hypocrites?
I have never agreed with Stossel until this. Your biased antimodern ag stance makes defend him because you give him a gift. You people are just wrong about AgScience. Even Stossel can see it.
Here's data on traditional vs GM vs organic soybeans :http://www.soyconnection.com/pdf/9001_USB_CAST_V1r1May11.pdf
Note this study says organic soybeans CAN be done sucessfully. I present all sides as opposed to you.
RoundUp MSDS: http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/pdf/labels_msds/rounduppro_con_msds.pdf
An Organic farm pesticide MSDS:
http://www.cdms.net/LDat/mp6KB003.pdf
Look at the "hazard classifications" of both. Roundup is SAFER!
Anymore wishes I can grant? I am at your service.
Oh....and why are your articles not rants? They sound like rants to me.
And why do you always assume that anyone who opposes GM crops is 'anti-science' or 'backward'?! I oppose GM in agriculture, for various reasons. I'm also using a computer. I don’t want to go back to the Dark Ages! And what exactly do you mean by “even the Amish”?!
You're missing the bigger picture: the GM agricultural system is not sustainable. It relies massively on fossil fuel based inputs, with huge environmental costs - both known and unknown. Let’s research alternatives that don’t (yes, I like science, too). Fellow farmer Joel Salatin wrote a great piece in Acres USA (Sept 2010) on the illusion of industrialized agriculture. Proponents of industrialized agriculture have “spewed pseudo-science to the world in order to maintain an illusion of accomplishment.” I'd recommend you read it: http://bit.ly/9nIPJy
The Internet delivers many thoughtful and legitimate refutations of much of his work. For instance, in his myth busting book, he allows that climate change might be happening, but that sea level rise will not approach the predicted ruinous extreme, because melting ice does not raise the level of the water in which it floats. For him to assume that all the experts have forgotten what they learned in grade school science makes one doubt Stossel's basic intelligence, if not his nefarious motivations. Of course it is actually the melting of land based ice sheets that actually threatens us.
The bottom line for me is that John Stossel has chosen to take the side opposite to our best interests, sometimes opposite the truth, so often that I can no longer bring myself to bother parsing his latest stories for fault. As far as I am concerned, he has forfeited too much credibility.
Some great points, Ulla: every taxpayer indirectly helps “big ag” to spread its lies and deceit. “Big ag” has no controls and no boundaries, and causes untold damage to the planet from its feedlots and confinement operations. “Big ag” is responsible for devastating rainforests, polluting our water, and producing piles of manure that emit nitrous oxide – a GHG nearly 300 times more potent than CO2. Yet “big ag’s” is propped up around the globe by vast subsidies underwritten in various Agricultural Bills.
We must level the playing field and force those who are responsible to clean up the mess they’ve made. Then we’ll see the real cost of “cheap food”. Producing beef from marginal land presents the best opportunity for optimizing protein production, as well as locking atmospheric carbon in the soil. But for “big ag” that means losing control – something that will worry those executives with corporate jets and condos at risk. “Big ag” needs to recognize that feedlots and genetic engineering need massive maintenance to continue – possible, but not sustainable.
We need a seismic shift as has happened in other industries. We used to have lead in paint until we found out it was toxic. Ironically, it's our tax dollars that allow “big ag” to control politicians and block the immediate changes we need. Andrew
I can tell you there are very few farmers other than a few organic farmers and a few free range farmers who sell expensive meat who agree with your very antimodern agriculture/antiGM political agenda.
Keeps your thanks to yourself.
A number of whom are being given very short shrift by Big Ag. I fight to keep them farming and taking a larger slice of the pie. You seem to support the abusive system that is modern agriculture.
Why would you need GIPSA if the field was fair and level?
Each region has different characteristics so to paint a board brush makes little scientific sense to me. Agriculture is diverse and multi-faceted.
I agree, that this means we are having an impact if they are using so much effort to discredit grass-fed beef which only accounts for 1-2% of American beef.
Also, it is pretty ironic that John Stossel is advocating for feedlot beef being greener. Isn't he supposed to be a fiscal conservative? Grass-fed beef does not receive government subsidies like commodity beef!
They wouldn't be locally grown grass fed cattle if they are, correct?