Corporate Front Group Attacks OCA as "Organic Thugs"

Note that he cites reduced manure production as a benefit (which makes sense
if instead of applying it to farmland it ends up as runoff)

Organized Organic Crime
Friday, March 23, 2001 Column by Steven Milloy

Starbucks surrendered this week to extortion by some of the very same
anti-technology extremists who supported the multi-million dollar vandalism
of the gourmet coffee retailer's hometown and several of its storefronts
during the 1999 Seattle WTO riots.

You might call it "Battered Socially Responsible Company Syndrome."
Starbucks brags about its record of "environmental leadership," yet is now a
punching bag for the groups it tries to appease.

But something more sinister is occurring.

The Organic Consumers Association threatened to damage Starbucks' "worldwide
reputation and profitability" unless the company stopped using milk from
cows supplemented with synthetic bovine growth hormone.

The action is part of OCA's campaign to drive off the market non-organic
foods and beverages, especially those produced through genetic engineering
and other modern technologies.

OCA claims that hormone supplementation damages the health of dairy cows and
that milk from supplemented cows increases cancer risk in humans. According
to experts, both claims are untrue.

CEO Orin Smith said he was more concerned about public perception than
health concerns, and announced Starbucks would stop serving milk from
supplemented cows five days ahead of OCA's scheduled attack.

OCA launched its scheduled attack against "Frankenbucks" anyway, staging
protests in more than 100 cities where Starbucks has retail outlets.

Not only does Starbucks' cave-in encourage the organic thugs to strong-arm
other businesses, but also it harms consumers and the environment.

Bovine growth hormones are present in all cows, even those on organic farms.
Milk from supplemented cows is chemically indistinguishable from milk
produced by non-supplemented cows, according to the Food and Drug
Administration. This is no surprise. Supplementation only helps cows produce
more, not different milk.

Recent research indicated supplemented cows are as healthy as
non-supplemented cows.

Dairy producers who use these supplements produce as much as 15 percent more
milk with the same number of cows. In addition to higher productivity for
dairy farmers, use of bovine growth hormone means less water, land and fuel
will be used.

The dairy industry estimates that producing 10 percent more milk with the
same number of cows (based on the 1996 milk supply of 19 billion gallons)
saves: 180 billion gallons per year of water, the annual usage of 700,000
U.S. homes; 1.7 million acres of land, an area one-third the size of new
Jersey; and 150 million gallons per year of fuel, the annual consumption of
240,000 U.S. homes.

The same increase in milk productivity also reduces: annual manure
production by 0.9 million metric tons; soil loss by 5.3 million tons per
year, one percent of U.S. soil loss, and (for global warming worrywarts)
greenhouse gas emissions by 4.9 million tons per year, about 0.2 percent of
total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Milk production isn't the only area where organic farming comes up short
against new technology.

Modern high-yielding farming is the subject of an article titled "Urban
myths of organic farming," published in this week's edition of the science
journal Nature. University of Edinburgh biologist Anthony Trewavas points
out, for example, that organic farmers' frequent mechanical weeding of their
fields damages nesting birds, worms and invertebrates and increases
pollution through added fossil-fuel use.

In contrast, Trewavas points out, "A single treatment with innocuous
herbicide, coupled with no-till conventional farming avoids this damage and
retains organic material in the soil surface." Trewavas concludes "organic
agriculture was originally formulated as an ideology" but for today's global
problems we "need agricultural pragmatism and flexibility, not ideology."

Adding insult to injury, organic foods cost an average of 57 percent more
than conventional foods, according to Consumer Reports. These higher costs
could amount to $4,000 annually for a family of four, according to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.

The organic agriculture industry can't make a compelling case. Organic
farming is an ecological, agricultural and economic bust. It's no wonder the
organic industry relies on extortion and terrorism.

The bad news for Starbucks is that organized organic crime isn't through
yet.

The OCA is also after Starbucks to pledge never to use genetically modified
coffee or other GM ingredients in its products and to more heavily promote
organic coffee. "One hundred percent organic" is OCA's goal.

The OCA is affiliated with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy,
another anti-technology group. Mark Ritchie, the president of IATP, operates
Peace Coffee, an organic coffee company.

Should Starbucks not cave-in to OCA's demands, Starbucks might reasonably
worry about a visit from yet another group that shares facilities with
IATP - Earth First!, The eco-sabotage group is under investigation by the
FBI for acts property destruction costing tens of millions of dollars.

Starbucks should wake up and smell its own coffee before it gets an offer it
can't refuse.

- Steven Milloy is a biostatistician, lawyer and adjunct scholar at the Cato
Institute and publisher of Junkscience.com.