Today is World Water Day, which makes me feel like I should be writing something about water.  Here’s a bit about water that I wrote while fasting in solidarity with the Climate Justice Fasters before COP15 (and more about it here as part of the same effort).  But I honestly don’t have anything new to say about water at the moment.  Water is crucially important.  As far as climate change is concerned, water – in all its various forms – may be the issue of this century.  The end.

Instead, I thought I’d write about the naturalistic fallacy, because that’s always fun stuff.  Right?  Right. 

What Is The Naturalistic Fallacy?

You are probably familiar with the naturalistic fallacy, even if you didn’t know the term.  It is the source of no small amount of conflict in discussions about environmentalism and sustainability, particularly when it comes to the dialogue between scientists and non-scientists.

Naturalistic fallacy is the assumption that something is “good” because it is so.  It assigns a normative value judgment – an assumption of how something ought or ought not to be – based on how something is “in fact.” Because something is this way, that is how it should be.

One example of a conversation in which the naturalistic fallacy often provides fuel for conflict is the “real food”-driven discussions about genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  The debate about GMOs is complex and multifaceted, with many legitimate arguments on both sides. But the naturalistic fallacy frequently pops up, much to the frustration of scientists involved with the issue. The naturalistic fallacy argues that GMOs are bad because they are not “natural.”  Food crops occur in nature without other species genes chemically inserted into their genomes.  Therefore, that is how it ought to be.  Artificial = bad.  Natural = good.  Naturalistic fallacy.

This drives the scientists crazy, and understandably so.  It is fundamentally unscientific.  And it would drive the non-scientists crazy if we applied it to other things, such as human casualties of natural disasters.  While natural, few people would be willing to say, “it is, and so it ought to be” about the victims of a flood or an earthquake.

So What?

I mean, honestly, why do we even care about this?  Who cares if there are a bunch of people running around saying something is good because it’s “natural?”  And a bunch of scientists saying that they’re idiots because their arguments are unscientific (but using really big words). 

We care because the naturalistic fallacy dilutes the dialogue.  With an issue as huge and complex as sustainability and systems design, the dialogue is already pretty confusing.  And the naturalistic fallacy further confuses and distracts scientists and non-scientists alike.

Sustainability encompasses well… everything.  Every field, every market area, every culture, every social and governmental system.  So what we really do not need is to muddy the waters with arguments that are fundamentally incapable of furthering the dialogue, particularly when there are so many valid and vitally important conversations going on all around us.

No related posts.

Week 2 of the Real Food Challenge was way easier than Week 1.  Much less bitterness.  Many more pancakes.  Correlation?  Yes.  Causal relationship?  Also maybe yes.

Day 8 – Fats for High Heat

If we are what we eat, I am becoming a sourdough pancake.  Cold, hot, plain, sweet, savory – good no matter how you eat them!  High heat fats task today, but no coconut or palm oil at the standard grocery store – surprise, surprise.  Why is the co-op so out of my way?  Will have to continue using butter and being careful not to let it get too hot.  Set out dough for tomorrow: noodle day.

Day 9 – Fight Against GMOs

First, please go check out Nourished Kitchen’s Action Alert: Genetically Engineered Alfalfa.  The USDA public commenting period on GE alfalfa ends tomorrow.

Not pretty, but very noodley.

Made sourdough noodles.  Took forever and couldn’t possibly be worth it.  Was. Ate with homemade alfredo.  Never realized noodles were actually a food, not just a vehicle for sauce or an inexpensive filler.  Sauce was weird, but who needs it with these noodles.  Recommendation:  Watch The End of Suburbia while making noodles to decrease whining about how hard it is to make noodles.

Day 10 – Fats to Eat Raw

Attempt #2 at wet sprouted rye bread-food.  Different method, equally inedible result.  Looked like a loathsome little heap of oatmeal, tasted like… not food.  Discouraged.  Nothing resembling bread in my house for a week now.  No end in sight.  I can feel the sprouted rye staring at me from the fridge.  Pathetic.

Day 11 – Sourdough (!)

Bread!  Could there really be bread?  Yes.  Maybe.  Not for at least twelve hours.  Mix dough, knead, cover, wait.  *tap foot impatiently*  Also, discovered that the spiced butter used to cook many Ethiopian dishes is a type of ghee.  Score!  That has been on my To Do list for years, literally.  Bumping it up and adding plain ghee alongside it.

Sourdough bread (mine!)

Day 12 – Finding Real Milk

Found some real milk in my fridge – so there, Day #12!  Domestic goddess today: two loaves of whole wheat sourdough, sprouted lentil yum, red cabbage yum, sourdough started naan and puffed rutabaga gratin.  That’s a lot of food, people.

Day 13 – Get Your (good) Bacteria

Leftovers make me happy.  Not cooking anything makes me happy.  Real food with no prep makes me happy.  Also, still no old man smell.  A little disappointed, a little relieved.

This made my house smell like curry. But I like curry.

Day 14 – Valentine’s Day, yo

Finally made it to the co-op – raw milk, eggs, onion (local, woo), spices for niter kebbeh, corn meal and coconut oil (I know, days behind).  Trying wheat berries instead of rye, because all the best cooks know to blame the ingredients if something doesn’t come out right.  Treated myself to a tasty kombucha drink because Day 14 told me to!

Bring on Week 3!

Related Posts:

• Real Food Challenge Recap – Week 4
• Real Food Challenge Recap – Week 3
• Real Food Challenge Recap – Week 1
• One Small Change & 28 Day Real Food Challenge

Related posts:

1. Real Food Challenge Recap – Week 1
2. One Small Change & 28 Day Real Food Challenge
3. The Day My Sourdough Died

Last week (or maybe the week before by now – I am slow!), The Ten Reasons They Hate You So made the rounds in a couple of sustainable agriculture social networking circles.  I was astonished to learn that, as a liberal arts educated advocate of sustainable agriculture, I hate farmers.  In order to educate my adversary so that they can best combat people like me, Mike Smith lists the first five reasons that I (along with people like me) hate farmers and agricultural scientists.

I don’t often find an article so utterly compelling or appalling that I feel the need to respond to it.  Perhaps it was just having my supposed hatred of farmers spelled out so clearly for me that prompted this response.  I highly recommend reading, or at least skimming, Mike Smith’s post before reading this one.  It may get you as irritated as I am.  At the least, the list below will make more sense.

1.  They hate you because you trust in science.

I don’t hate you because you trust in science.  Actually, I’m a big fan of science.  But I don’t think you get to choose which science you listen to.  You can’t hope to feed the world while ignoring the scientifically documented consequences of unsustainable agricultural practices;  consequences that are intimately connected to feeding the world.

I don’t have “faith that farming can grow the food pie for everybody without draining the Earth of its resources.”  Rather, I am certain that we must find a way to do so, because when the Earth’s resources are gone, the result will be famine on a scale we can hardly imagine.

I am also certain that the solution will be scientific in nature.  But it can’t be science that is focused only on increasing production while ignoring the scientifically documented ramifications of unsustainable agricultural practices.

2.  They hate you because you’re messing with their kids.

I don’t hate you because you’re messing with my kids.  And actually, no offense to your kids, but I care a lot more about the food I put in my body than whether you’re feeding your kids organic or not.  But why is it wrong for me to care what I feed my own kids?  And to spend my money accordingly?

3.  They hate you in order to fight the power.

It’s not about fighting the power of an “imposed American cuisine of meat, potatoes, cooked vegetable and the ultimate WASP Jello-mold salad.”  It’s about obesity and diabetes.

It’s not a “post-structuralist” questioning of science.  It is science itself saying, “The way we eat isn’t healthy.”

And I am baffled by how me buying, with money, a share in a local CSA is advocating “local farming a la communist Cuba.”  Isn’t the whole point of capitalism purchasing (and thus creating demand for) products you find valuable?  Silly me – I thought small, local businesses were the heart of our economy.

4.  They hate you because you’re white.

Well, this is a hard one.  Because I’m white.  So I’m not really hating you because I’m white.

But as a white person, I do think the USDA might want to examine their recommendation on drinking milk, both because I’m lactose-intolerant and because scientific (there’s that thing I’m supposed to hate again) evidence indicates that in spite of consuming vast quantities of milk, our bones aren’t actually stronger (Sources: 1, 2, eat fish, the list could go on and on).

And my taste for “brown” foods has nothing to do with a counter-cultural fight against dominant white culture.  It has a lot to do with nutritional science.  And with the fact that I think brown rice tastes better than white rice.  So there, White Power!  Your rice doesn’t taste as good!

5.  They hate you because you’re male.

I am a woman, so clearly I’m a big man-hater.  Except as a wife (of a man), I am grateful that my family has the economic flexibility for me to be “consigned to the kitchen and the garden” when I have children.  I actually really like my kitchen and my garden!  I look forward to being home and raising my kids.

I’m still not really clear on why being pro-sustainably farmed, healthy food means I’m anti-male.  Gender equality has a long way to go in this country.  But that is certainly not specific to agriculture.  My criticism of unsustainable agriculture has nothing to do with the anatomy of the farm owner and operator.  Maybe I should go ask some of the male advocates of sustainable agriculture what I’m missing here.  Surely they know why I should be hating their farming counterparts.

Reasons six through ten.

I honestly can’t decide whether I’m looking forward to or dreading the release of reasons six through ten: Norman Rockwell through Ronald Reagan.  But I do hope that any farmers who read Smith’s post are smart enough to recognize utter nonsense (and blatant sexism) when they see it.

No related posts.

I spent a couple hours on Saturday morning watching The Future of Food, a documentary about genetically engineered foods.* I generally consider myself fairly educated about environmental and health issues. I try to be an engaged citizen and consumer. And I like to rant about things to my skeptical family, which means I have to be pretty careful about my facts. But this movie got me. I didn’t know all of this. I barely knew any of it. Which makes me think that most people probably don’t know about it at all.

Just a partial list of some new-to-me facts:

• 97% of vegetables that were grown at the beginning of the century are now extinct. That’s just scary. What would be saying if it were 97% of animal species lost in a century?
• The right to patent living things was deliberately left out of the Constitution. Maybe they had a good reason?
• Monsanto vs. Schmeiser. This is just unbelievable.
• Transgenic corn has been genetically engineered to have BT, a bacterial toxin, in each cell. This kills not just harmful insects, but beneficials as well.
• BT corn is not FDA tested, but is GRAS – “generally recognized as safe.”
• 25 countries require labeling of GMOs. We are not one of them. We could be, if the bill ever makes it out of committee. (It will need to be reintroduced this Congress.)
• In ten years, all of the food in the world could be controlled by six companies, one of which will be American. Any guess as to which company? Walmart.

This film reminded me again that politics is in everything. “The personal is political.” And the political is personal. We wouldn’t allow companies to patent our bodies, would we? Why are we allowing them to patent other living things? When they patent our food, it is personal.

Patents do not protect traditional knowledge. Rather, they limit the process of passing on traditional knowledge. Traditional knowledge is key to building resilient communities over generations. How much has been lost in the last two generations? There is a whole community forming today around relearning and revitalizing skills that we could have learned from our grandparents – growing and preserving food, and even basic cooking. The more we allow companies to limit access to things no one person should own, the more we risk losing these fundamental skills.

Now let me clarify that I am a capitalist. I really do believe in capitalism. But I do not trust a corporation to self-regulate food safety and nutrition. Corporations are designed to maximize profit, not nutrition. The FDA exists for a good reason.

In order for corporations to continue doing what they do best (providing what consumers want), consumers need to be able to choose what to buy. And in order to exercise choice, we must have access to information. If genetically engineered foods aren’t labeled, we cannot choose.

We also need to start paying attention to who is running our government. In The Future of Food, they narrated a long list of Monsanto-government crossovers throughout the last decade. Just one – Michael Taylor, who was responsible for GMOs bypassing FDA testing in the early 90’s, previously represented Monsanto as Senior Counsel at King & Spalding. In the best of worlds, there would be no such thing as a conflict of interest. But Washington is not and has never been the best of worlds.

Do you take your children personally? Do you take their food personally? If so, now is the time to start taking politics personally.

* The Future of Food website does not appear to include the Hulu link. If there is not a screening near you, or if you are lazy like me, you can watch the film online.

No related posts.