[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Hudson, Yes but...



Dear fellow Saneteers,
Just when I think I have to unsubscribe because it take too much time to
plow through everything coming from SANET, something like the Hudson Paper
comes along and inspires a fascinating discussion. I really appreciate all
the comments made so far, including the ones I disagree with. Many weak
points of the Hudson paper have been clearly exposed by Ikerd, Benbrook,
Leonard, Conners and others. Someone should really put this all together and
publish it.
It is admirable that "obsuring issues" such as right/left have been put to
rest and even time wasted on "defining sustainability" has been kept to a
minimum.  There is one aspect that I think has not been totally addressed;
it came to mind with the laments over the lack of a "middle ground" in some
discussions.
Debate between two positions is fruitful if certain conditions are met.
Clearly an attitude of mutual respect is essential. This respect is based on
good faith, i.e. that the adversaries are both committed to finding "Truth"
or at least getting a little closer to it, rather than to furthering their
own personal interests. This, in turn, assumes that each recognizes that the
other has part of the truth--debate is really a kind of cooperation in which
the two positions try to illuminate each other.
This means that I can respect the Avery's ideological position--"right" if
you will, pro corporation and all the values that position implies--though I
don't agree and may even have doubts about their motives for representing
that position.
However, intellectual dishonesty is not something that can be respected.
There is no middle ground here and it must be denounced for what it is. The
Hudson report is rife with examples of intellectual dishonesty that can only
be interpreted as self-serving manipulation designed deliberately to confuse
the issues.  In general, the Averys' arguments are characterized by
misrepresenting the criticisms of high-input agriculture, stereotyping and
trivializing the arguments of their adversaries and then, along with a good
dose of out and out fallacy,  dismissing the objections without ever dealing
with the real issues.  It is noteworthy that not one of the "commie
environmentalists" (my term) they criticize is ever mentioned by name or
cited formally.
Just a couple of examples spring to one's attention:  the entire discussion
of pesticides simply ignores the wealth of documentation of  environmental
and health effects, selectively citing a few studies whose interpretations
have been widely questioned.. The statements that "Agrichemicals are not a
documented threat to the survival of a single species." is simply false.
(Homework: name one example) The Averys back up this statement by
ingeniously declaring that "We aren't seriously threatening even the species
we are deliberately trying to eradicate, like the cotton boll weevil." It's
really difficult to understand how anyone vaguely familiar with pest control
and its problems can take such gibberish seriously, or even accord it the
status of something worthy of debating in good faith. For those unfamiliar
with the issues such statements are maliciously confusing.
Insect pesticide resistance is characterized as "natural" (true) and
therefore nothing to worry about! In a statement typical of what can only be
called the Avery's black humor they write: "There is every reason to believe
that we can continue to stay ahead of pest and disease organisms..." (!) We
are "staying ahead" of pests, indeed,  when between 1940 and 1984, crop
losses to insects increased from 7% to 13% even though there
was a 12-fold increase in use of insecticides during the period. Corn losses
to insects more than tripled from 3.4% to 12% between 1945 and 1985 despite
a thousand-fold increase in insecticides used on corn crops ( G. Tyler
Miller, Jr.,  ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE. Third Edition(belmont, Ca: Wadsworth,
1991), pgs. 313-317.) These facts are brushed aside (without being cited) by
claiming that "the real question is how high crop losses would have mounted
without pesticides..." I agree, that is a very good question that the Averys
answer only by implication. How high would crop losses to insects on corn be
today without pesticides? Would they be down to their 1940 levels? I suspect
there are different ways of answering the "real" question.  The increasing
cost and decreasing effectiveness of insecticides, as well as the widely
documented water pollution to which they contribute are simply brushed
aside. Even the USDA is more cautious in their assessments.  
In another humorous affirmation the Avery's state that "Health risks from
agrichemicals have been proven negligible" (nice trick) Many others have
expressed a different opinion such as two government scientists who write:
"Numerous and myriad adverse health effects in humans, livestock, and
wildlife have been documented as being associated with pesticide exposure.
Typically, they involve both acute and delayed manifestations of toxicity to
the nervous and
reproductive systems. Because pesticides are designed and selected for their
biologic--that is toxicologic--activity, exposure and toxicity to non-target
species are inevitable and remain significant problems. Pesticides have been
shown capable
of disrupting virtually every major organ system. These adverse effects
include altered immune system function, mutagenic and teratogenic responses,
embryo toxicity and reproductive failure, and an array of neurologic
effects." James Huff and Joseph K. Haseman, "Exposure to Certain Pesticides
May Pose Real Carcinogenic Risk," JOURNAL OF PESTICIDE REFORM Vol. 11, No. 2
(Summer, 1991), pgs. 10-14; this is a reprint of an article that first
appeared in CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS (Jan. 7, 1991). (many other
citations in a similar vein are possible) Other fallacies,
misrepresentations and avoidance and confusion of real issues surround the
discussion of pesticides in the Hudson Paper.
But to mention briefly a second example.  The Averys reduce the entire issue
of genetic erosion--the rapid current loss of  crop and wild relative
genetic diversity due to the adoption of "improved" varieties--to the notion
that corn hybrids in Canada have been bred for increased "stress tolerance"
and so are superior to older vaireites. No attention is given to the
question of where the germplasm for creating new "stress tolerant" varieties
is going to come from if we continue to lose our crop genetic base. In the
section on Monocropping the danger of genetic uniformity is recognized, but
we are assured that "in today's corn breeding careful and deliberate
shuffling of the genetic base, multiple pollen sterility factores (?) and
hand detasseling (!) are all used to maintain genetic diversity" I'd love to
hear the reaction of Nebraska (or Mexican) corn farmers to this absurd
statement. But, "We can maintain adequate genetic breadth in our crops
without turning our fields into low-yield gene museums"  How? By hand
detasseling? No, "one of the biggest culprits in continuous monocropping
(is) the Federal Government".  In a wonderful New Conservative denouement we
discover the long sought solution to our narrow crop genetic base: eliminate
government subsidies! 
The Hudson Paper is a delight to read. Almost every page bubbles with
similar humorous affirmations and, along with Ikerd I can only recommend
that it behooves us all to read it with great care.
Ronald Nigh
Dana Association
Mexico
danamex@mail.internet.com.mx