[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: meadows column 5/30/96
TO: Donella Meadows
FROM: Patrick Madden, World Sustainable Agriculture Association
June 15, 1996
Thanks for your thoughtful, perceptive, and articulate commentary
on the logic of the attacks on the authors of "Our Stolen
Future."
Your observations regarding denial and devious lines of attack
remind me of the early years of the organic, then the alternative,
then the "sustainable" agriculture movement. I received many of
these same attacks, as did all of my colleagues and comrades in
arms, who sought to re-direct the "scientific" community away from
denial and into constructive work to improve the alternatives to
synthetic chemical pesticides. Ultimately the Sustainable
Aagriculture Research and Education grants program has become
firmly established in the USDA and land grant universities. I was
the original director, when the program was ccalled LISA.
The attacks from the pesticide companies and their lackies in "the
system" were essentially the same intellectual quality (or lack
thereof) as we no see in the contoversy over endocrine disruptors.
And I predict a similar outcome. After extensive and widespread
denial and abuse of the messengers, the sccientific community will
gradually get the message and get on with the agenda of developing
alternatives. The only question is how soon? In our lifetimes?
In the lifetimes of the children now being born with preventable
birth defects?
It's hard to avoid getting discouraged, or angry, or both. But I
have lived to see enough evidence of potential for reform to keep
plugging away. And plug away we must. The need is urgent, as
well as chronic. And the opportunities to make a major
contribution to alleviating unnecessary human suffering and
ecological disasters hold a great incentive to press on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Fri May 31 06:23:12
1996
> Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 02:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> X-Sender: mritchie@pop.igc.apc.org
> To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu, sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
> From: "Donella H. Meadows" <Donella.H.Meadows@DARTMOUTH.EDU>
(by way of
> mritchie@iatp.org (Mark Ritchie))
> Subject: meadows column 5/30/96
>
> The Global Citizen
> May 30, 1996
> Donella H. Meadows
> P.O. Box 58
> Plainfield NH 03781
> 603-675-2230 (home -- answering machine)
> 603-646-2838 (work -- secretary)
> 603-646-1682 or 6305 (FAX)
>
> THE SPERM OF NEW YORK MEN IS NOT THE ISSUE
>
> It's fascinating to watch the reaction to "Our Stolen Future,"
the book about
> endocrine disruptors, which is rapidly coming to be known as
the book about
> sperm.
>
> If you've heard of "Our Stolen Future" at all, you've likely
heard that it
> blames modern chemicals for the declining sperm count of human
males. You may
> have heard denials too, especially from the New York Times,
which has heralded
> a new study showing that the sperm counts of New York men not
only are
> undiminished, but are twice as high as the sperm counts of Los
Angeles men.
>
> So there!
>
> I guess it was predictable that the complex message of "Our
Stolen Future"
> would be reduced to simple masculine one-upmanship. The book
is only
> marginally about sperm. It is mainly about the many ways in
which some
> human-made chemicals act like hormones. Within the bodies of
all higher forms
> of life, these chemicals mess up subtle signals that control
sexual behavior,
> sperm and egg production, fertilization, cell division, the
unfolding of
> embryos, immune system function. The possible effects include
reproductive
> failures of birds, birth defects in whales, die-offs of seals,
breast cancer in
> women and -- maybe -- declining sperm production in men.
>
> Public discussion has zoomed right in on the sperm. The book's
authors,
> seriously worried people, two of them scientists, have gone
along to a certain
> extent, because they know that sperm are the key to media
attention. So a
> profound issue is trivialized and swept away. Don't worry
about chemicals,
> folks, especially if you live in New York. (In L.A. maybe the
low sperm count
> is connected to smog or O.J. or immigrants.)
>
> We have many ways to fend off ideas we don't like. We can
pretend we've
> dismissed the evidence by dismissing the messengers.
(According to various
> reviewers, the authors of "Our Stolen Future" aren't "regular
scientists." One
> is a "grandmotherly zoologist" and a "technophobe." Another is
a "crusading
> journalist" and the third a mere "philanthropist.")
>
> We can deride them for writing a popular book. ("It's a very
unscientific
> presentation." Of course it was intended to be, in the belief
that the public
> ought to know what scientists are talking about. For those who
want the
> science there are footnotes to hundreds of journal articles.)
>
> We can sneer at the fact that the publisher hired a publicity
firm -- "Fenton
> Communications, the same PR firm that brought us Meryl Streep
and the Alar
> scare." (By this criterion we should never listen to a
politician or
> corporation, all of whom speak to us through publicists. This
accusation also
> assumes that the Alar scare was false, which is by no means a
certainty.)
>
> We can call into question one small corner of the argument and
then claim to
> have disproved the whole thing. That's what the sperm business
is about. The
> book quotes 61 studies of falling sperm counts in 20 countries.
The New York
> Times cites two studies showing stable sperm counts in Seattle,
New York,
> Minnesota, and Los Angeles. (The men in these studies were
volunteers for
> vasectomy, not typical of the whole population.) So we veer
off to argue about
> sperm, forgetting the larger issue of endocrine disruptors,
which would not be
> disproved even if human virility were booming everywhere.
> Some reviewers dismiss the endocrine disruptor hypothesis
because there are
> natural hormone-mimicking chemicals in soybeans and broccoli.
("Our Stolen
> Future" discusses the difference -- vegetable hormones are not
fat-soluble, not
> stored in the body or concentrated up the food chain. And of
course the
> presence of toxins in nature is no license to release still
more toxins.)
> They have said the book is obsolete because levels of two of
the worst
> chemicals, DDT and PCBs, are dropping. (They are dropping
because these
> chemicals have been banned. Many other suspect chemicals are
still in use.)
>
> They have put ridiculous arguments into the mouths of the
authors, accusing
> them of wanting to ban chlorine, to stop treating drinking
water and thereby to
> expose the world to a cholera epidemic. It's impossible to
stomp out false
> accusations like these. As Mark Twain said, a rumor can go
three times around
> the world while the truth is still getting its boots on.
>
> Most maddening is the old tobacco company ploy: "it's not
proven." A half
> dozen scientists are found to express doubts. Those doubts
allow us, somehow,
> to ignore the dozens of scientists quoted in the book, who also
have doubts
> (doubts are intrinsic to science), but who are saying, "Hey,
we're seeing
> something here. Of course it's not proven, nothing in science
is ever proven,
> but this is troubling evidence."
>
> Ask any scientist "Is it proved that some chemicals cause
endocrine
> disruption?" and the only possible answer is "No." Ask "Is it
proved that the
> quantities and mixes of chemicals we release into the
environment are
> harmless?" and again there's only one answer: "No." Ask "Which
is more likely
> on scientific grounds, that the tens of thousands of chemicals
we dump into
> nature in enormous quantities are, or are not, harmful to life,
including human
> life?"
>
> It would be amazing if those chemicals, individually or acting
together, do no
> harm. Therefore the important questions are not about
scientific doubt but
> about risk and ethics. Given some sobering evidence here,
while we do more
> studies, while we argue about sperm, while we malign the
authors of "Our Stolen
> Future," should we, or should we not, go on releasing
hormone-mimicking
> chemicals with abandon into our environment? How many of these
chemicals are
> actually needed? Who profits from them? Who bears the risk?
Who should
> decide?
>
> (Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental
studies at
> Dartmouth College.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------