Enough Already With Elitist Anti-Corn Propaganda
Posted: August 4, 2010
If Grist claims to be “a beacon in the smog”, they are luring readers into choppy waters with their August 2 article, “More Corn for Meat and Ethanol, Less Habitat for Gulf Fish.” Using false assumptions with no reference to the data’s source and presenting personal opinions as fact, the author crafts a clever argument in an attempt to convince readers that the Gulf of Mexico’s hypoxia zone is caused strictly by corn, mainly that used for ethanol and livestock feed. Readers who know the facts about agriculture and understand the natural sciences won’t be deceived.
Every river has a hypoxia zone. Even the Amazon, which flows through wild rainforest, has a hypoxia zone. Therefore, the base assumption that the hypoxia zone in the Gulf of Mexico is solely caused by the synthetic nitrogen used in industrial agriculture must be completely incorrect to any logical person.
Furthermore, sources other than farming contribute to the nitrogen found in the Mississippi River. Urban areas contribute a large amount of nitrogen. Golf courses lay out copious amounts of chemicals to stay a lush green even in areas where they may be the only green grass for miles. City streets, even apartment buildings contribute as the rain washes away the chemicals that make modern urban life possible in cities along the river like Memphis and St. Louis and across the country. Targeting only the corn industry makes no sense.
In the anti-corn tirade that follows, mischaracterizations and skewed views abound. The “ethanol mandates” and “surging demand from China” that supposedly lead to mass production of this plentiful, useful resource are a myth. The “ethanol mandate” is actually a renewable fuels mandate that guarantees our country lowers the greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change and increases energy independence. As for surging demand, a single buy from China is not a trend. It is one buy. Anyone can see how twisting and distorting information to produce anti-corn propaganda is part of a personal or political agenda, not the work of a concerned citizen speaking up.
Would farmers put down something as expensive as nitrogen if 60 percent washed off? Of course not, they are sensible people who cannot afford to waste money. Farmers are also good stewards of the land. Between 1987 and 2007, incredible advances in ag technology helped farmers reduce land use 37 percent, soil loss 69 percent, irrigation 27 percent, energy use 37 percent and the greenhouse gas emissions that come from producing a bushel of corn 30 percent. Portraying them as irresponsible polluters disrespects the hard work that goes into farming and the tradition of respecting the earth that they will hand down to future generations.
Saying that corn is worthless and only produces “cheap low-quality meat” and “low-quality fuel”? How can anyone take that seriously? First, “low quality” is an opinion. People across the country would agree that a deliciously marbled grain-fed steak is a high-quality protein source. Some of the finest steak houses actually advertise that they serve grain-fed beef. During these lean times, people view cheap as a plus; frugal is as trendy now as opulence was in the 1980s.
Ethanol is a carbon monoxide reducing oxygenate and a cleaner burning fuel than today’s ubiquitous oil. During periods of high oil prices, ethanol helps keep fuel affordable. These stabs are not only untrue, but snobbish and completely out of touch with the majority of hard working Americans.
So are we really “behaving not unlike a rich kid who blows his trust fund on Scotch, cocaine and casino chips?” No way. Corn production helps make everyday life possible and affordable. Maybe this analogy sounds funny to a snob who saved their trust fund and hung out with a bunch of degenerate rich kids, but it sounds ludicrous, pompous and pretentious to the down-to-earth people who work hard to provide the best life that they can for their families.
So take Grist’s point of view for what it is, the rantings of an elitist with an anti-corn agenda. See how it skews facts that someone like that might assume most people might not know. Show that Americans are intelligent enough to see through this ridiculous propaganda and tell him to go back to his Scotch, because he isn’t selling his lies.
Kum Dollison Said,
August 4, 2010 @ 9:14 pm
Excellent, Cathryn.
Just Excellent.
DonEWG Said,
August 5, 2010 @ 10:50 am
“Furthermore, sources other than farming contribute to the nitrogen found in the Mississippi River. Urban areas contribute a large amount of nitrogen. Golf courses lay out copious amounts of chemicals to stay a lush green even in areas where they may be the only green grass for miles. City streets, even apartment buildings contribute as the rain washes away the chemicals that make modern urban life possible in cities along the river like Memphis and St. Louis and across the country. Targeting only the corn industry makes no sense.”
USGS says that 52% of the nitrogen and 25% of the phosphorous pouring into the Gulf are from corn and soybean fields while the “large” amount from urban areas is 9% and 12% respectively.
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/gulf_findings/primary_sources.html
Jeff C. Said,
August 9, 2010 @ 7:39 am
According to the U.S.G.S., “66 percent of nitrogen originates from cultivated crops, mostly corn and soybean, with animal grazing and manure contributing about 5 percent.” Break that figure down and it’s 52 percent for corn and soybean, 14 percent for other crops.
You are entitled to your opinions, but not your facts.
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/gulf_findings/index.html
Derek R. Said,
August 9, 2010 @ 1:54 pm
Cathryn,
Do you have a response to Tom Philpott’s new post? After reading both I feel he definitely is writing towards his Regulars that follow his writing on Grist. For example, his reference to China was vague and bogey-mannish and apparently in referenced to another work of his… Which makes reading his work less valuable for us Irregular Joes. But in his second article in which he responded to your article, I thought all together, that he did well providing more sources and did a better job of explaining the reasoning and assumptions he based the arguments.
PCB Said,
August 9, 2010 @ 2:21 pm
Caty,
I appreciate your opinions above, and would love to hear your repartee to the following. Corn industry fights back over my depiction of corn’s role in the Gulf dead zone – http://www.grist.org/article/food-corn-industry-fights-back-over-my-depiction-of-corns-role-in-the-Gul/
Thanks.
Karen Rocks Said,
August 9, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
Cathryn,
I agree with Derek and would enjoy a response. From your post, it sounds as though your are bashing the person with name calling as well as attacking his facts/thoughts. Arguing an issue is fine, but your harsh overstated tone is not appropriate (in my mind) for a blog. To me it belittles your points and makes you look more defensive, which (to me) is a sign of insecurity.
Matt SF Said,
August 10, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
I’m not sure I follow your logic here:
“Targeting only the corn industry makes no sense.”
According to 2008 USGS numbers, corn and soybeans are the predominant sources of 52% of nitrogen in the Gulf of Mexico.
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/gulf_findings/primary_sources.html
With these facts, can you give a justifiable reason why the general public shouldn’t demand further investigation on the causality of environmental damage and push for additional changes (if necessary) since the corn industry is among the top, if not the top, contributors of nitrogen runoff in the Gulf of Mexico?
Ken Said,
August 10, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
Matt SF, your question does not contradict the statement you quote from Cathryn’s post but actually backs it up. We’re not opposed to further investigation on the causality of the nitrogen flowing down-river. We need to focus on all sources, not just agriculture.
Jay Banks Said,
August 11, 2010 @ 7:43 am
Well, I assume that to blame corn that can cause a hypoxia zone is slightly far – fetched. Reasonable person doesn’t need to know all numerical facts to understand the truth. This could be just some misinterpreting or just a political back-up…
Kim Said,
August 11, 2010 @ 10:31 am
The urban vs. rural class game is getting old. Instead of being petty and calling someone names, please give facts. I’ve read both posts, and his response and have to say he’s pretty much owned you factually. If you give another response, try to leave out the snark and stick with actual data.
Much thanks.
Kim Said,
August 11, 2010 @ 10:34 am
@Ken I agree that all sources need to be considered. But given that corn is the biggest single source to the Guld dead zone, what is the corn industry doing to address this problem?
Cindy Said,
August 11, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
Way to go, Cathryn! You got the “snarky” label – Congrats!
ThinkLife Said,
November 28, 2011 @ 6:45 pm
Cathryn,
I have not read the original post, but it’s yours that presents “personal opinions as fact.” The USGS confirms it, and you’ve cited no credible resources for your opinions…which you present as fact.
I have read Tom Philpott’s later article, Your Chicken Nuggets Are Killing Your Crab Cakes, (http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/07/chesapeake-dead-zone-agriculture). It refutes parts of your blog post as “…pure industry hucksterism. In the Gulf, according to the US Geological Survey, “agricultural sources contribute more than 70 percent of the nitrogen and phosphorus…versus only 9 to 12 percent from urban sources.”
Why no reply to the fact-based refutations above? It suggests a lack of credibility on your part, and a fear of taking on the facts. This is the trouble with interactive blogging when you don’t know the facts: it backfires. Anyone with basic computer and research skills can fire holes into many of your statements above.
I’m wondering if “Cathryn” was fired by the association for writing such a weak post? Are you hoping the issue will simply wither away due to inattention? NOTE: WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION!
More of Philpott’s grist for the ever-grinding corn mill:
“In a sense, the Gulf and Chesapeake dead zones are linked. In the Midwest, farmers grow huge amounts of corn using annual cascades of synthetic nitrogen and mined phosphorus. The corn crop only takes up so much of these fertilizers (about 40 percent, in the case of nitrogen), leaving the rest available to runoff into the Mississippi. Then some portion of that very corn goes to the feed the millions of birds in Delmarva’s poultry factories—some of which exits them in the form of nutrient-rich manure prone to leaching into the bay. Growing a massive corn crop and feeding about 40 percent of it to confined animals essentially gives us two dead zones for the price of one.
“And in doing so, we’re sacrificing what could be robust, self-sustaining wild fisheries for resource-intensive factory farms churning out dodgy meat. In the end, only shareholders in the big agribusiness firms benefit from this bargain.”