Organic foods, Harvey Young's crusade
Ever heard of John Maddox? Dr. Maddox authored the book, "The Doomsday Syndrome" back in the early 70's. Now you may ask why bring up a book that was written over 25 years ago with such a dreadful title. Is it fiction? No. John Maddox was the editor of Nature, one of our more prestigious scientific journals that to its credit did and does cover all the science that is fit to print. As a British weekly, it enjoys worldwide circulation and is considered one of the foremost places to publish new scientific findings (eg., Dolly, the ewe that has advanced our understanding of cloning). So as you might expect, Maddox wrote a book that addressed the environmental and science issues that had the world (and especially the United States) in a whir in 1972.
In particular he took the unpopular stand of countering the pseudo-science that was rampant. Barry Commoner, Rachel Carson, Ehrlich and others were learning to take data out of context, and improperly obtained and represent it as factual information. In Maddox's arguments, there is always a strong defense of the environment and the concept of "do no wrong", but he point-by-point castigated those that use emotion rather than logic to advance science.
Now perhaps this would be irrelevant if the bodies lay buried, but no, there are always those that after the dust has settled, once again attempt to sway public opinion by revisiting what should be discredited data. Such is the case as the Ehrlichs have come forth with a new book and it has been given favorable reviews by their followers (is this surprising ?).
The following three letters were published in Chemical and Engineering News as a rebuttal of a review that appeared earlier in the magazine that was entitled; "Betrayal of Science?
When Ralph J. Cicerone reviewed Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich's book "Betrayal of Science and Reason; How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future," he missed the point altogether (C&EN, April 7, page 53).
Cicerone need only look in the same issue of C&EN to find reasons why many non-activist are calling for us to go slow on laws, regulations, and public policy that have to do with the environmental soup in which we all live. Take, for instance, the excellent article by Mitch Jacoby on page 51 about a combination of research efforts that has led to a "New Reactor [that] Boost Yield, Reduces Waste," Here's an example of how industry (the bread and butter of most C&EN readers), with its own money and with the profit motive in mind, has done more to alleviate waste than all the claptrap the Ehrlichs propose!
That's the upside. Now, examine the downside reported in the same issue.
"EPA last week admitted that it had overestimated the number of premature deaths that could be prevented as the result of its proposed air quality standard for particulate matter," reads a government concentrate on page 42. Yet EPA Administrator, Carol Browner is calling for more environmental regulations, another concentrate on the same page says, that would require an increase in spending of more than $2.00 per U.S. citizen to meet the fuzzy goals related to Superfund.
If that's not enough, consider "EPA in trouble over inventory expansion" (page 12). EPA wants to expand reporting of so-called toxic substances. Never mind the adverse impact that implementation would have on small businesses, since the cost of compliance would essentially equal the net income of half our country's small firms, and breach several laws as well.
Regardless, EPA is standing firmly by its proposed regulations, according to the article, because that position "is a major priority of the Clinton Administration and is supported by many citizens organizations."
Perhaps reviewers need to take a walk through a chemical plant, a landfill, any of a number of small businesses, or a farmers's fields to be objective in reviewing a book such as the Ehrlichs'. Yes, there is an antienvironmental backlash, but it's the result of environmental activist pushing their own agendas.
When the environmental crowd stops data dredging, cherry-picking information, and practicing learned ignorance (a term used by James E. Tingstad in the March issue of Pharmaceutical Technology to describe the purposeful rejection of valid and useful information for self-serving purposes), I'll more readily listen to their arguments.
Joe Wortham
Vermillion, SD
***
Cicerone's review of the Ehrlichs' book begins, "media stories that are
skeptical about environmental problems are cropping up everywhere." He
could have begun with, "Skepticism should greet anything written by Paul
Ehrlich."
In 1969, Paul Ehrlich produced a scenario for 1975 that included "famines of unbelievable proportions," and things were to get worse because "Other experts ... think the ultimate food population collision will not occur until ... the 1980s." He predicted that by 1979, DDT would poison life in the oceans, air pollution would block sunlight, and crops would die. World War III would begin on Oct. 13, 1979, he said, and a year later, insecticide-caused cancer would cut U.S. life expectancy to 42 years. Ehrlich's 1970 scenario for the famines of 1980 through 1989 included the deaths of 65 million Americans and 4 billion people worldwide.
Despair as he might about mankind, Ehrlich long ago washed his hands of the whole thing. "When you reach a point where you realize further efforts will be futile, you may as well look after yourself and your friends and enjoy what little time you have left. That point for me is 1972." Perhaps an additional 25 years of making predictions have provided the enjoyment he sought.
Cicerone congratulates the Ehrlichs for reserving "their strongest ire" for their critics who "misuse, distort, or ignore scientific process and data." The Ehrlichs should look in the mirror. In a book that purports to depend on science, the chapter about chemicals-caused death and disease contains 97 references. Fifteen of the references are from peer-reviewed journals. Two support the Ehrlichs' contentions, and Paul Ehrlich was the author on both. In contrast, the Ehrlichs rely on Consumer Reports and letters to the editors of Science to support their conclusions about Alar.
Everyone with an interest in the role of science in environmental policy and politics should read the Ehrlich's book. And everyone should compare what they've said in the past to what happened and compare their use of science to the use of science by their critics.
Michael Gough
Director of Science & Risk Studies
Cato Institute
Washington, D.C.
***
I agree with Cicerone and the Ehrlichs that objective science should not be ignored in dealing with environmental issues. I also agree with their positions on most of the specific issues mentioned, such as global warming, hydrochlorofluorocarbon, and so on. The bulk of scientific data has shown that these are indeed serious problems. However, I have a problem with Cicerone's statement that" The Ehrlichs are right when they reserve their strongest ire for brown-lashers who misuse, distort, or ignore scientific process and data" -- the term "brown-lashers" referring to people who take a contrary view to that of environmental activist. Environmental activist, the media, and politicians are guilty of many years' worth of sensationalism, one-sided arguments, and distortions of environmental issues. They systematically ignore the economic and environmental benefits of any product or process that they associate with "business," focusing only on the negative impacts.
For example, the public, guided by environmental activist, has a t times been led to believe that plastics are the major contributor to solid waste. This is not true, but the perception has led to legislative initiatives that were unrealistic and ultimately nonviable. Mention chemicals to a member of the public, even a well-educated nonscientist, and his or her reaction is that chemicals are harmful substances that should be eliminated. The public does not consider the benefits and does not have a realistic idea of the environmental cost of risk. I have met smokers who are frightened of food additives and drinkers who avoid being anywhere near lawn fertilizer. On a societal scale, this lack of balance leads to environmental policies and regulations that are based more on image and emotion than on science.
It's true that some people are now distorting or ignoring scientific data to further, at least in their own minds, a less government/more jobs political position. Given that the environmental activist and the media have been playing fast and loose with truth for many years, it's not surprising that a contrary movement with similar methods has arisen. Before singling out the environmental skeptics for criticism, scientist should examine their won motives.
The funding levels for environmental science vary with the level of public concern about the environment. If scientist overstate the seriousness of environmental problems, they rightly will be criticized for being self-serving. I hope that Cicerone and the Ehrlichs will give environmental skeptics a fair hearing and will not remain silent when environmentalist overstate environmental problems.
Alan Underdown
Nepean, Ontario"
***
So there you have it. As Yogi said, "It's deja vu, all over again." What is most troubling about this is that the "students" of the 70s, are now in positions of responsibility. And, unfortunately, many accepted the thesis of Ehrlich and others as a dogma to be repeated. While I dislike using a term used by John Maddox in his book, "unregenerate obscurantism", which is opposition to the increase and spread of knowledge while holding old ideas, is most applicable here. The environmentals would have us return to the horse and buggy days, foregoing our current-day standard of living as an acceptable trade off for imagined risk. Or perhaps, they will embrace statism, as a means of addressing our problems. Surely governmental agencies know what is best for us all. For more on this see For What It's Worth,
ABOUT Joe Wortham