Surrogates of environmental protection. Column in ComputerreOnline #43
When consumers of “organic” products and other “bio‑food” convince themselves that they are saving the planet, they merely waste the soulful energy that could have led to some positive changes on empty toys.
Diet without phosphorus? Surrogates of nature protection Three syntheses in evolutionary biology
Diet without phosphorus? Surrogates of environmental protection Three syntheses in evolutionary biology
Column in ComputerreOnline #42 Column in ComputerreOnline #43 Column in ComputerreOnline #44
Who provides a secondary product, feeds excellently. Vladimir Voinovich I read Voinovich’s “Moscow 2042” a long time ago, when it was first published in the Soviet (or already post‑Soviet?) space. What remained in memory was the principle set in the epigraph of this column and the tangled recollections of a heap of nonsense. Can one invent a great piece of rubbish: in the role of the long‑lived Genius‑maximus heading Moskorepa (Moscow Communist Republic), Voinovich produced a KGB officer who carried out special assignments in Germany in the 1980s! Unfortunately, Voinovich’s dystopia confirms the thought of my previous column: attempts to imagine a society that does not deplete its habitat somehow turn out to be rarely attractive. Yet some ideas sound quite contemporary. What did the readers of the previous column, devoted to phosphorus depletion, suggest first? Use fish‑bone meal. Indeed, in Moscow‑2042 a “Delicious meat sausage made from fish meal” was also foreseen… I stop being sarcastic. Nowadays the ideology of so‑called “organic” agriculture is spreading more and more. In Russia people often speak and write not about “organic” products but about “bioproducts”, “ecoproducts” etc. The discussion concerns agricultural products produced without mineral fertilizers, pesticides, GMOs, hormones, stimulants and other “chemistry”. Such products must be produced by “traditional methods”. Animals are treated with herbs and homeopathic remedies, many processing methods (ultrasound, for example) are strictly prohibited, and only “organic” materials may be used for packaging. This includes fully organic paper, actually inorganic glass, and even (according to some sources) the mysterious “bioplastic”. The EU has adopted directives on organic production, Ukraine has just enacted a corresponding law, and for Russia this step apparently lies ahead. Sorry for the abundance of quotation marks in this text. For me the alternative to “organic” food would be “inorganic”, and this pair of terms is inseparably linked to organic and inorganic chemistry. Probably, eco‑glamour consumers have different circles of association. It is also interesting to read that one of the four pillars of “organic” product production is the “principle of ecology”, or to learn from advertising that some product “contains no chemicals”. You might say we should not cling to the vagueness of concepts among eco‑fashion supporters? It does not work: in my view the problem is not the words but a deep disregard for logical thinking. The “eco‑ist” buzzwords do not require understanding; they are aimed at imposing emotions. The share of “organic” products in the markets of the golden‑billion countries has already reached several percent. We are talking about relatively expensive goods. Their promotion uses a fashion‑formation mechanism. For example, this mechanism works as follows. People learn that they would like to consume “organic food”, perhaps more expensive, but health‑giving and planet‑saving. The fact that this question contains a dubious claim does not bother marketers, but the high share of positive answers allows them to claim that “organic” products are popular. Then they can promote “bio‑organic” through “Cosmopolitans” and collect quotations from environmentally concerned “stars” repeating the implanted nonsense. Are you surprised that the first eco‑supermarket in Russia (targeted at a “demanding audience”) opened on Rublyovskoye Highway? No, I am not saying that “organic” products are bad. Probably, in most cases they are no worse and often even better than mass‑produced foods. Analyses show that “bioproducts” often contain a few more vitamins and trace elements and a few fewer pesticides than ordinary food. Unfortunately, correct measurements usually do not confirm the dramatic differences advertised. Sometimes the characteristics of “bioproducts” turn out not improved but worsened. However, eco‑glamour consumers do not trust science much. Think: there is a direction of “organic” production that requires producers to speak kind words to “bioproducts”, feeding them with benevolent vibrations. You do not expect formalist scientists to register such subtle effects with their boring instruments, do you? “Organic” products try to cleanse themselves of GMO (genetically modified organism) and pesticide residues (poison chemicals: insecticides, herbicides, etc.). GMOs and pesticides are two big differences. One important distinction is that pesticide harm is quite real, whereas GMO harm is more virtual. Once I got a book about the harm of GMOs, published with funds from a foundation headed by Alexei Vladimirovich Yablokov, a well‑known biologist. I was struck: everything was used to fight genetic engineering—lies, illiteracy, intimidation, envy. I then wrote an open letter to Yablokov, which still circulates on the Net and is posted on my site. Yablokov afterwards sent me a book co‑authored with L.A. Fyodorov (“Pesticides – a toxic blow to the biosphere and humanity”), inviting me to critique it as well. You know, the difference was colossal. Pesticide harm is undeniably proven with proper scientific tools. Describing it does not require distortion or lies. The harm of GMO technologies in general is not proven, and the propaganda campaign against this technology is characterized by manipulation and disinformation. Does this mean that all GMOs are safe? No. GMOs are a powerful and potentially dangerous technology; its consequences must be studied and controlled carefully. Some GMOs entail massive use of pesticides, antibiotics, and create opportunities for the spread of genetic vectors. Such technologies should be limited and banned. Other GMOs can reduce pesticide use, increase the nutritional value of plant products, boost crop resilience, and yield valuable substances. With proper control, these technologies deserve support and dissemination. And what to do with pesticides—simply abandon them forever? That would create artificial famine. What to do? Not to reject them all at once, switch to less hazardous ones, minimize their use… Returning to “organic” food. The probable absence of GMOs in it is important more for soothing fears induced by propaganda. Well, that is not bad either. If a person eats completely ordinary food, sincerely believing it has healing properties, he may actually improve his health! I know a sensible person who insists that the currently advertised absurd methods of miraculous healing are actually beneficial. Idlers with nothing to occupy their minds spend their energy on them instead of, say, fighting nearby wars. I disagree with him: I am upset that the price to pay for such “healing” is the abandonment of critical thinking. What would you prefer: joyfully performing some rituals, shifting responsibility for your actions onto an external entity, or preserving mental clarity and honesty with yourself even in an unenviable situation? To each his own… I think that if a person pays extra for “organic” products, at least he does not harm his health. Of course, there are more rational ways to spend money, but imposing on others how to spend their own surplus resources is a futile activity. I feel much more hostile toward propagandists spreading prejudices. Of course, advertising’s sell‑out is a parable in the vernacular. But note: an advertiser promoting luxury items probably knows he acts selfishly, and a PR‑person praising “ecologically clean” products does almost the same, yet probably sees himself as a highly moral person. The myth I want to discuss is this. We are told that “organic farms help restore and preserve a healthy Earth ecology”. Is this true or not? Obviously the phrase “Earth ecology” is one of the markers of territories where dragons live. But does “organic” agriculture actually contribute to humanity’s transition to a non‑depleting (or sustainable development – however you call it) state? It does not. No matter how agriculture is organized, biogens must be extracted from agro‑systems, and their losses must be compensated. How can this be done? First of all, by returning what has been taken. Voinovich envisaged donors who give blood, a secondary product (waste of life activity, which according to the doctrine of Genius‑maximus is a primary product), hair and genetic material. Old and sick people were moved to the First Ring. After careful reflection we must conclude that this borders on wasteful resource use. Closing the cycle, we must return even our own corpses to the fields. Does that sound unappetizing? What can be done. For me it is more important that our society becomes more resilient when we see the neighbor as a unique individual, not as a source of fertilizer or other resources. Another problem is that both our bodies and the waste taken from our cities carry a whole bouquet of pollutants—from heavy metals to disease‑causing agents. Trying to compensate biogen losses in this way is both unpleasant and simply impossible. Perhaps we thought wrongly about it: eco‑glamour will not want to use human waste—it would be unfashionable. Therefore, organic mass with biogens must be taken from other ecosystems. I will not discuss the complexities that any organic fertilizer contains complex mixtures of biogens: some are deficient, others are excessive. To deliver everything needed to the field in the right balance, mixtures of different organics must be used. For me a more interesting question is: where to obtain this organic matter? It is clear that it must not be city leaf litter with everything accumulated in it. It must not be product of natural ecosystems: extracting it would degrade those ecosystems. So… Yes, waste from other fields: plant mass, animal life‑activity waste, remains of those animals (but only without “non‑ecological” processing). And how to replenish biogen loss on the auxiliary fields? By “chemistry”? That would eventually seep into “organic” food! That is what happens. It seeps. “Organic” standards describe requirements for productions that support the main ones, but inevitably impose softer requirements on them. Even three‑storey or more complex structures can arise. A “regular” field provides fertilizer for an “auxiliary” one; from there waste goes to the “organic” field, and through it – either to environmentally concerned Europeans or to Rublyovka. Do these tricks reduce the load on the biosphere? No, they only increase it, lowering the productivity of the best agricultural lands. And when consumers of “organic” products and other “bio‑food” convince themselves that they are saving the planet, they merely waste spiritual energy that could bring real improvements on empty toys. At least it is not very harmful.
← Dmytro Shabanov →
Diet without phosphorus? Surrogates of environmental protection Three syntheses in evolutionary biology
Column in KompyuterraOnline #42 Column in KompyuterraOnline #43 Column in KompyuterraOnline #44