Churchville, VA—I lost a debate on organic food last week—to the city of New York.

Intelligence Squared, a philanthropic foundation, which brings Oxford-style debating to American issues, invited me to be part of a debate on whether the organic food movement is a scam. The invitation was a big deal, with the audio carried nationwide by National Public Radio and the TV shown repeatedly on Bloomberg TV.

Each of us six debaters got seven minutes to present our best arguments.

Lord Krebs was formerly head of Britain’s Food Standards Authority.. He quietly pointed out that the UK bars its organic farmers from making any claims of greater food safety or better nutrition—because in 80 years they’ve never documented any such benefits.

The elite New York audience yawned.

Blake Hurst, a farmer from Missouri, noted that most of America’s organic food is produced on giant farms in California, where they avoid using pesticides by having Mexican immigrants pull the weeds by hand. With the subtraction from organic of every “unnatural” additive, the fungi, molds and bugs increase, Hurst said. His biggest environmental sin had been letting too much nitrogen run off his fields and down the Mississippi River—until he adopted no-till, the soil-safest farming system ever. With no-till, there is virtually no runoff from the fields.  Organic farmers still commit “bare earth farming,” he warned, because they refuse to use herbicides. Their plowing and mechanical cultivation encourage erosion.

The New Yorkers didn’t care.

I pointed out that high-yield farming has saved millions of acres of wildlands from being plowed for low-yield organic crops.  We’re farming 37 percent of the land area now, and we’ll need twice as much food when human populations peak about 2050.  To prevent mass starvation and wildlands destruction we’ll need to double yields again—with nitrogen fertilizer, pesticides and biotechnology.

The New Yorkers barely restrained themselves from booing.

On the other side were Jeff Steingarten,  the Vogue food critic; a cheerful frequent traveler on the organic talk circuit  named Chuck Benbrook; and Urvashi Rangan of Consumer Reports.

Benbrook professed to be puzzled why nobody cares about the tiny and intermittent differences in nutrient levels between organic and conventional foods.

Ms. Rangan starred, drawing cheers and applause as she complained about “pools of pig poo the size of the Great Lakes” and “chickens that didn’t have room to turn around in their cages.” Apparently animal welfare arguments are resonating louder than pesticide scares in New York this season.

On our side, Hust remembered when the mother pig rolled over and crushed his 4-H piglets; gestation crates prevent that. His neighbor’s free-range turkeys often got their throats slit by weasels.

I said the best argument for confinement livestock was human disease risks. I quoted physiologist Jared Diamond, best-selling author of Guns, Germs and Steel, that most of humanity’s epidemic diseases came from microbes shuttling between humans and their domestic critters. They mutated into cholera, yellow fever, and smallpox, among other deadly risks. Today, Asian flu mutates every year in Asia’s outdoor village poultry flocks, and wild birds spread it worldwide.

Urvashi said she’d never heard of such a thing. But then, she didn’t really want to concede another valid, scientifically documented reality.

When the debate opened, 21 percent of the audience had agreed organic was “marketing hype,” 45 percent said no, with 34 percent undecided. At the end, our side still had 21 percent for “marketing hype”—but all the “un-decideds” had swung against us.

New York may be hopeless. Will the rest of the country continue to back organic food if it takes 80 percent of the earth’s land area to produce our basic food supplies organically?

DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. He is an environmental economist and was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421 or email to cgfi@hughes.net

CHURCHVILLE, VA—Vegetable growers in the Philippines are finding that no-till farming not only saves their topsoil but may even lessen the danger of landslides!

Four years of experiments in the Cordillera—the “salad bowl” of the Philippine highlands—show a 50–70 percent reduction in soil erosion because the farmers neither plow nor hand-weed. The region specializes in vegetables because its 6,000-foot elevation keeps the soil cooler and less humid than at sea level hear Manila. However, the steep slopes also mean high risks for both soil erosion and landslides.

Gil Magsino, of the University of the Philippines at Los Banos, says that even hand-weeding breaks up and loosens the soil structure. Then heavy tropic rains come to wash away the soil, its nutrients, and any fertilizer the farmers have been able to afford.

During 2009, in fact, Typhoon Pepeng caused landslides that killed some 200 people in the Cordillera region and U.S. military helicopters were sent in to help rush rescued landslide victims from the cut-off city of Baguio to regional hospitals.

A similar mudslide phenomenon hit southern Minnesota and Wisconsin in 2007, after a 12-inch rain. Four people were killed, small towns had to be evacuated, and soil sloughed off any unprotected hillsides. As it happens, that sand-hill region holds the second-largest concentration of organic farms in the U.S.—and organic farmers don’t allow no-till because it needs herbicides.

Sediment expert Stanley Trimble of UCLA had long studied the region’s Coon Creek watershed, and returned after the 2007 storm to view the impacts. “It was amazing,” Trimble reported. “I saw a narrow valley with no-till corn on one shoulder, no-till soybeans on the other shoulder, and in the valley was a sediment basin that had collected no sediment at all. The no-till had done a fabulous job.”

While U.S. no-tillers rely heavily on Roundup, Gil Magsino has been recommending that Filipino farmers spray between their crop rows with a mild solution of the herbicide paraquat. He says using strong herbicide solutions would kill the weeds and also their roots. The mild herbicide solution suppresses the weeds long enough to give the crops a head start—while keeping the weed roots intact below-ground. That helps hold the soil and its nutrients so the crops can benefit from them.

The farmers also gain from no-till’s low input costs. The herbicide costs far less than the diesel fuel otherwise needed to plow the fields. American farmers invented no-till during the first OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s for exactly the same initial reason—to cut fuel costs. Green manure crops, planted to cover the soil surface when no crops are growing, cut down on the need for commercial fertilizer. Then the herbicides kill the cover crops when the grain or vegetables are planted; otherwise the cover crops become weeds themselves.

No-till is currently being used on more than 100 million acres of crops world-wide. Among the biggest users are the U.S., Canada, Argentina, Brazil, and Indonesia. In Canada, no-till has replaced the old clean-fallow system on the semi-arid prairies. The fallow system left the soils open to wind and water erosion most of the time. With no-till, yields are higher and soil losses have been radically reduced.

Soil erosion is man’s most ancient and implacable enemy; no-till practically eliminates it.  No-till often doubles soil moisture in the fields; water sinks in rather than running off, and the crop residue on the surface keeps soil temperatures cooler. And no-till achieves all this while keeping crop yields high.  It is the most sustainable farming system that will sustain both the people and the wildlife in the 21^st century.

DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. He is an environmental economist and was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421 or email to cgfi@hughes.net

The Environmental Protection Agency, in a George Orwellian move, has just announced that it has suddenly decided to put the herbicide atrazine through yet another regulatory wringer, despite having just completed a comprehensive, multi-year regulatory review of the safety of atrazine begun in 1994. Only three months ago the EPA announced that after reviewing hundreds of scientific studies, atrazine “is not likely to cause cancer in humans” and does not affect the reproductive development of frogs and other amphibians. Atrazine has been used safely for more than 50 years in the U.S. and has been upheld as safe by the World Health Organization and the governments of Canada, France, the UK and others.

Â

The timing suggests that politics is the overriding concern. Atrazine was already slated for a 2010 human health review, but no such headline impact has ever been found. The new team didn’t dare bet on finding a human health flaw now. Instead, they decided to re-do the just-completed review process, betting that they can produce enough new smoke to deregister atrazine on some lesser charge. Since the review process still requires a series of expert review panels, EPA needed to start immediately or risk losing their Obama chance.

Â

Atrazine is one of the most widely used herbicides, helping farmers control weeds while protecting topsoil from erosion via no-plow and other conservation cropping methods. Without herbicides, farmers must use plows and other bare-earth weed control methods that lead to far greater soil erosion and far more fossil fuel use. Atrazine is a critical tool in the no-plow revolution: it helps combat resistance to other weed killers, maintain high soil organic carbon levels in our fields (supposedly something the EPA promotes) and protects rivers and streams from sediment pollution (another environmental good). Economic studies show atrazine provides more than $2 billion in direct economic benefits to our nation, even beyond the benefits in soil sustainability and stream pollution prevention.

Â

So why should you care if farmers lose atrazine? Because it will mean higher food costs, more soil erosion, less sustainable farming, and more environmental degradation. It’ll mean putting more of our farming eggs in fewer baskets. As we’ve learned with the unwelcome but inevitable return of bed bugs to our major cities, needlessly eliminating pesticides from society’s toolbox leaves us more vulnerable to the scourges of nature.

Â

With world population still growing and overall food demand set to double over the next 40 years, we need all the farming tools we have (and more) just to keep our heads above the rising tide of farm product demand. We’re all in this struggle together and the farmer’s loss hits our environment and pocketbooks.

Â

The atrazine witch hunt is being driven primarily by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a powerful eco-activist group that simply won’t take no for an answer. Review after review by the EPA, starting in the 1980s, has found that atrazine poses no health risk to humans or other risk to wildlife. Yet the NRDC knows that actual evidence is simply unnecessary; all they need is enough concocted public fear to cow the EPA into reacting to the politics.

Â

They’ve done it before. Nearly twenty years ago, the NRDC perpetrated one of the biggest scams ever on the American public, claiming that a product called alar, used in growing apples, was the “most potent cancer-causing agent in our food supply.” NRDC ranted that alar was a “cancer-causing agent used on food that the EPA knows is going to cause cancer for thousands of children.” Alar, it turns out, was far less a cancer risk than tap water or peanut butter, as the EPA’s own Scientific Advisory Panel finally ruled.

Â

Why did NRDC perpetrate the fraud? According to boasts from the NRDC’s public relations firm, it was all an elaborate (and highly successful) fundraising scheme. When their lies were exposed—sadly too late to save mass parental anguish over supposedly poisonous apple juice or to save apple farmers tens of millions in market losses—the NRDC equivocated. “We never said there was an immediate danger,” they said as they laid blame on journalists who “muddled” their report and the public who “overreacted.”

Â

The NRDC is now trying to do to atrazine what they did to alar. Make no mistake, the NRDC (and current political operators within the EPA) will continue to go back to the scientific wishing well until they “frighten” the EPA into banning atrazine.  This time around, the herbicides makers and corn farmers aren’t backing down. Will we stand up with them for sound science, or allow the further politicization of our regulatory agencies?

Â

Â

DENNIS T. AVERY is an environmental economist and senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. Alex Avery is director of research and education at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Global Food Issues. Readers may email them at cgfi@hughes.net

Â

Â

CHURCHVILLE, VA—I learned last week how to live longer.

 

Four of us had wrangled through 90 minutes of public debate in New York City about food regulation. In a forum sponsored by the Smith Family Foundation, we were essentially arguing about organic versus conventional farming.  

 

• Michael Hansen of Consumers Union continued his decades-long contention that farm chemicals make our foods dangerous and unsustainable. (Never mind the century of lengthening life spans and no age-adjusted cancer increase—except among smokers.)

 

• Curtis Ellis, producer of the movie King Corn, claimed most of our corn goes to produce meat and canned sodas that “help make us fatter.”

 

• Will Vogt, of Progressive Farmer, said the farmers will produce whatever kind of food we demand—if we can just agree on what type of food that is

 

• Dennis Avery, lonely advocate for higher-yield farming, said it’s the only way to feed 9 billion affluent people in 2050—without plowing down millions more acres of forest to get more cropland.

 

After Hansen condemned pesticides, I noted that conservation tillage is the most sustainable farming system in history;  it cuts soil erosion—the farmers’ arch-enemy—by up to 95 percent!  But no-till depends on herbicides to control weeds instead of plowing.  Organic farmers refuse to use the herbicides, so must suffer the continuing erosion,.

 

I also said the world’s farmers are facing their biggest challenge in history:  providing more than twice as much food and feed by 2050. This means tripling the world’s crop yields per acre, again, and quickly. Organic farming has lower yields, and there’s a crucial worldwide shortage of organic nitrogen.

 

My fellow panelists weren’t willing to give up their food safety and obesity scares just to save wildlife. They went back to minutia, such as one farm wife whose non-Hodgkins lymphoma the doctors said “might have been caused by pesticides.” Except there’s no consistent evidence linking pesticides to this cancer, despite reams of studies.

 

I also pointed to Dr. Bruce Ames of Cal-Berkeley, who found that 99.99 percent of all the carcinogens we swallow are natural pesticides that Nature put in the fruits and vegetables to fend off diseases, insects and herbivores. Hansen grumbled, “That’s been disputed.”  Disputed by whom? Ames recently won the National Medal of Science, largely for that work.

 

After the debate, we went out to dinner with the Smith family and friends—but were still sniping across the table.

 

Two of the New York guests finally resolved the debate. One was a breast cancer surgeon, the other an epidemiologist at Columbia University. The two women asked, “Do you really want to know how to live longer in the modern world?”

 

Of course we did. Everybody does.

 

“First,” they said, “don’t smoke. Second, wear your seatbelt. Third, choose your parents carefully, because many diseases—including several types of cancer—have a hereditary link. Fourth, get plenty of exercise. Fifth, women increase their breast cancer risk when they delay childbearing.” 

 

The final known factor in reducing cancer is eating more fruits and vegetables—no matter whether they’re organic or not. The one-fourth of our population that eats the most fruits and eatables gets only half as much cancer as the one-fourth who eat the fewest fruits and vegetables.   . 

 

Those are the secrets of a long life. The rest is trivial, unsubstantiated, or combat-related.

 

DENNIS T. AVERY is an environmental economist, and a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC.  He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421 or email to cgfi@hughes.net