Fighting skeptical battles can be tough, but it does not always have to be that way, as demonstrated last week by comedian and writer Gemma Arrowsmith (@mmaarrow).
Gemma noticed that her local Hallmark shop was advertising an in-store psychic/healer – there was a neon sign, a poster in the window and sign on the pavement. “Psychic Reader (healer and medium), palm, card, crystal ball, past, present, future, 100% results”.
She tweeted her observation to @hallmarkUK, and my recollection is that the company replied within an hour or two asking for more details. By the end of the day, Hallmark stated that the psychic activity had been halted.
Unfortunately, when Gemma checked the next day, the signs and the healer were still in the store, so she tweeted Hallmark again. Hallmark was very apologetic. It turns out that this particular store carries the Hallmark brand, but it is not run by Hallmark, so Hallmark’s influence was not immediate. Nevertheless, Gemma checked again on Tuesday, and the healer has disappeared. The signage has also been removed, apart from the neon sign. It has been turned off, and it will require a technician to remove it.
What can we learn from this?
- Stopping a psychic taking cash from members of the public can be surprisingly simple.
- Even if this approach was effective only one time in ten, it would be worth the effort, in my opinion.
- Gemma was polite and patient (but not too patient) in her dealings with Hallmark.
- Dealing with big companies can be easy. They have systems and care about their brand. They are keen to avoid bad publicity.
- Gemma did not just complain, but she also checked that the complaint had been dealt with as promised. In short, she persisted until she was happy with the outcome.
I asked Hallmark about their attitude to such complaints: “Hallmark rigorously pursues any issue where we feel the brand’s reputation is at stake. We always endeavour to address any issues as swiftly as possible.” So, if you see a psychic hiding between the Justin Bieber calendars and the get well soon cards, then please let @HallmarkUK know. And if you see any other form of quackery in any other stores, then consider making a complaint. There is a reasonable chance that you will be successful if you approach the situation in the right manner and pick the right target. In this way, you can help protect customers from wasting their money, relying on false hope and putting their health at risk.
Good Luck,
Simon.
Ps. If you want some advice about complaining about a medical claim, then you could start by exploring the Nightingale Collaboration website.
First of all, apologies for the name of this project. Please help us by suggesting something better.
Second, Good Thinking has just launched a project to catalogue seriously poor health journalism in the national press. The goal is to identify which newspaper is the worst offender and to use a league table of bad journalism to help drive up standards. For example, the winning (?) editor might want to avoid topping the table in future, and readers of that particular newspaper might begin to have doubts about the accuracy of its health articles.
You can find out more about the project at the Good Thinking website, but I will reinforce and add a few points below.
- We will need your help to identify articles. You can find out how to submit articles by visiting the Good Thinking website.
- We will need your help to evaluate articles. If you are a PhD student, then please register to volunteer and you will receive articles within your sphere of expertise.
- Thanks to Professor Edzard Ernst, Dr Margaret McCartney and Dr Ben Goldacre for being on the judging panel for this project.
- The Science Media Centre does a great job of encouraging good journalism, and I hope the Good Thinking blog prizes in 2012 also supported good science journalism. I will take this opportunity to point out that the blog prizes will be part of the ABSW awards next year, and Good Thinking will continue to be involved. Both the Science Media Centre and the blog prizes are carrots, but the Health News Thermometer is much more of a stick.
- This is a pilot project and we will see how it develops over the course of the year. The goal is to learn lessons this year and to continue the project in future years, perhaps focusing on different areas of science journalism each year.
If you want to hear me talking about the project, then please tune into the Pod Delusion (4 July, 2013).
My new book is out in October, and you might be surprised by the subject. Everyone knows that The Simpsons is the most successful show in television history, but you might not realise that the team behind it consists of several mathematically gifted writers, who have degrees and PhDs from top universities, such as Princeton, Harvard and Berkeley. Moreover, they have expressed their love of mathematics by smuggling everything from calculus to geometry, from pi to game theory, and from infinitesimals to infinity into various episodes of The Simpsons. The book covers The Simpsons, the writers and the mathematics in the series. I also discuss how the writers of Futurama (the sister series to The Simpsons) have similarly made it their mission to insert deep mathematical ideas into the series.
I think it is a fairly light-hearted and hopefullly entertaining read, but it also contains some serious mathematics.
Anyway… my reason for this short blog is that I will be talking about the book when it is published in the autumn, and already have events scheduled for Greenwich SitP (Dec 4) and Birmingham SitP (Nov 27). I am not sure of the format yet, but I will probably talk about the mathematics of The Simpsons and Futurama in the first half and then have a more general skeptical Q&A in the second half.
I am keen to speak at other SitP venues. I am not yet sure of my schedule between Nov 11 and Christmas, but I will start pencilling in talks if organisers would like to suggest some dates.
Please use my personal email address if you have it or contact me via my website. It would help if the subject line was “SImpsons SitP ‘venue'”. Please suggest specific dates and also let me know if you might have some flexibility beyond your normal SitP night. I will then try to confirm dates in late July or early August.
It is Halloween, so time for a quick Psychic Sally update.
Back in January, Psychic Sally sued the Daily Mail for libel, after questions were raised about how she gives the impression of being a medium.
The case is still moving ahead, and we can look forward to a trial in 2013. In the meantime, I have collected some of the relevant legal documents from the High Court.
The opening of Sally’s claim and the opening of the Daily Mail’s defence have been scanned and are at the bottom of this page.
I do not think there is any legal reason not to put the full version of both documents online. I will try to scan them and upload them in the next few days.
UPDATE 8 Nov 2012: The complete legal documents have been uploaded to Pinterest in two parts (Part 1 & Part 2) and to Scribd. The documents include Claim Form, Particulars of Claim, Order, Amended Defence and Reply to Amended Defence. David Allen Green will be posting an analysis soon.
I have:
1 paperback German translation of The Code Book (Geheime Botschaften)
1 paperback German translation of the Code Book for teenagers “Codes”
5 Basque translations of The Code Book (Codeen Libura)
2 Italian translations of Fermat’s Last Theorem.
2 Polish translations of Trick or Treatment?
7 Simplified Chinese translation of The Code Book
1 Simplified Chinese translation of Fermat’s Last Theorem
To get a signed copy, just email me your address (UK only) via http://www.simonsingh.net/contact/
Then, after the book has safely arrived, please donate £15 to https://www.justgiving.com/alltrials – a campaign lobbying for more open data in medical research.
Simon.
BBC Radio Surrey and Sussex broadcast a programme with a lunchtime expert slot. In the past, this slot has included a homeopath offering medical advice to callers.
When I heard about this, I was shocked and contacted the programme’s producer. I was delighted that Sara David, the station manager, responded firmly: “We will not be giving advice based on homeopathy on BBC Sussex and BBC Surrey in the future.”
The homeopathic community is unhappy about my complaint and the BBC’s sensible response. One homeopathic website has now started a campaign to lobby the BBC to change its position. The site encourages people to write to the BBC, complain to MPs and contact the press.
To balance and hopefully overwhelm the homeopathy campaign, I think it is important that the BBC realises that there are lots of people opposed to pseudoscience and who support BBC Radio Surrey & Sussex’s decision not to promote pseudoscientists as experts.
Rather than bombarding the BBC with emails and letters, please scroll to the bottom of this page and leave a comment. Even a single sentence will be helpful. I will forward the list of comments to the station manager at the end of the week.
7.32am 31st July 2012
NOTE: After 24 hours and over 100 comments, I am now sending the comments to tbe BBC. Thanks for the brilliant, polite and large show of support.
If you want to read more about what happaned, then you can read an account of my original complaint to the BBC here and you can visit the homeopathy campaign page opposed to my complaint here.
Good to see lots of comments after my blog “ Why I hate Lab in a Lorry & the Einstein Ballet“.
Perhaps I should start by making two further points.
1. My main criticism is with funders, not with those who actually conduct the projects. Lab in a Lorry might be conducted with enthusiasm and skill by highly motivated and knowledgeable people (including volunteers), but if the running costs of the project are astronomical then it remains a poor project. The problem resides not with those running the project on the ground, but those who commissioned it and who continue to fund it from on high. Similarly, I am not blaming sponsors, who are trying to support science with hard cash or resources. I am blaming those who spend that money and use those resources. As I have said before, I might be wrong, in which case I am keen to see the analysis, formal or informal.
2. There are good science engagement projects. Richard Wiseman’s videos cost virtually nothing, yet they are witty and thought-provoking. Take a look at Top Ten Quirky Science Tricks for Parties, which has over 5 million hits. Or listen to the Pod Delusion, which reaches 10,000 people every week. The audience includes many non-scientists, because of the podcast’s mix of content. It’s run on a shoestring budget and would probably benefit from some support. I helped start the Undergraduate Ambassadors Scheme, a credited undergraduate degree module that currently operates in over 100 departments around the UK and which sends over 1,000 undergraduates into schools each year. At the moment, as far as I know, it runs on about £5,000 per year. It does require lecturers to devote time to it, but they are involved because the module helps them achieve an important goal, namely graduates with transferable skills. I am also closely involved in the Enigma Project, which takes my Enigma to schools in order to explore maths and its links with history, technology and, of course, codes. It ran over 100 events last year, half of which were full day workshops, and it reached 12,000 students … and it operates at a profit, including the loan fee for the Enigma. I am also impressed with the various activities at the maths and computing departments at Queen Mary, University of London. Anything involving Matt Parker seems to be priceless, yet relatively cheap. Maths Inspirations is also worth a mention. It lacks anything innovative, flashy or stylish, but it delivers inspiring maths lectures to students in large numbers. It mimics the sixth form study day format, which is known to be profitable and appreciated by teachers, but it makes the format more affordable and transportable, so that the lectures range from Kent to Durham. It baffles me why learned institutions have not jumped on this idea and created Physics Inspirations or Chemistry Inspirations or Science Inspirations.
I am still hoping for a response from the people behind Lab in a Lorry or the Institute of Physics. I would be delighted to receive a robust defence of the project, which showed that is actually excellent value for money. I am often grumpy and critical, but I prefer being happy and impressed.
In the meantime, here is my best effort at addressing as many as possible of the existing comments on the blog in 30 minutes.
(Apologies in advance for typos, errors, omissions, etc. I am trying to answer every point quickly and briefly, rather than provide a long, structured response to one particular point.)
Rolandjackson (Chief Executive of the British Science Association)
You criticise my use of the word ‘hate’.
Happy to change it. I have put in a holding phrase. Let me know the most appropriate word or phrase and I will update it.
The word was partly put there to generate interest, and it was partly put there because it is not far from how I feel.
Physics education in the UK is in a terrible state (is the word ‘terrible’ ok? Probably not. Sorry) and it makes me sad and angry when I think money is being wasted when it could be spent on trying to fix the problem.
You raise the problem of metrics
I agree that it is hard to measure the impact of a project and even to assess its real cost. However, if the goal is clear (e.g., improve take up of A level by A and A* GCSE students or increase positive attitudes towards science among parents), then it should be possible to assess projects.
In particular, if £1 million (fair guess?) has been spent on Lab in a Lorry, then the organisers ought to be able to give some idea of the impact, particularly if it is being run year after year after year.
I have sat in meetings where we have discussed the assessment of Lab in a Lorry and other engagement projects, and my recollection is that the level of scrutiny is poor. There seems to be an understanding that nobody is allowed to say anything too critical, because after all people are doing their best.
If absolute measurement is hard, then organisations should at least be able to rank their projects in relative terms, so that top projects can be expanded and bottom projects abandoned or revamped.
One approach would be to have an independent panel assess science engagement projects. Experienced and successful science communicators have a good nose for what works and what does not. This is far from ideal, but I think it would filter out the worst projects sooner rather than later.
By the way, I don’t think I am arguing just that some projects are a bit below par, but rather that some projects are far below par, inasmuch as they are hugely expensive and not having nearly the proportionate impact.
You support innovation
So do I. My point is that I often see innovation for innovation’s sake. “Let’s make it interactive”. “Let’s give the audience buttons to press”. “Let’s do it through mime”. “Let’s pre
sent it in Esperanto”. “Let’s turn it into a ballet”.
You enjoyed the Einstein Ballet and say it should be judged in comparison with Swan Lake, not as a piece of science education
It was commissioned by the Institute of Physics. I don’t know how much was required in terms of IoP money or sponsorship, but I am arguing that the money could have been better spent. Perhaps I am wrong. Ultimately it is up to the members of the IoP to judge if their money is being well spent. Lots of people are bored by physics and lots of people are bored by ballet, so IMHO this project merely allowed people to be bored more efficiently.
(Apologies to ballet lovers. Ballet has no meaning for me, but I realise many others (more cultured than me) do appreciate it. Ballet has its place and I am not saying that we should cut funding to ballet or the arts. However, IMHO physicists should not be spending its money on ballet projects. BTW I also don’t recommend that the Ballet Rambert commits funding to the Isis muon and neutron source at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.)
Nigelbrown & David McGloin & Andy Lloyd
You seem to support Lab in a Lorry in the Highlands
Maybe Lab in a Lorry is cost-effective in that area of the UK. I certainly would not want the money to be spent elsewhere. I just think the money could be spent more effectively and efficiently, even in the Highlands.
David M Pyle
You support Time Truck in Cambridge
I am sure that it achieves great things, but could those great things be achieved in cheaper ways? Perhaps the project could then be run twice a year. How about trying to work out the full cost of the project?
Sarah Martin
You say “expensive and not cost-effective” are the same thing.
No. Sorry if it was not clear. I don’t mind if projects are expensive as long as they have a huge positive impact, which then makes the projects cost-effective.
You say “Comparing them on cost and attendance alone is simplistic”
I agree. WRT Lab in a Lorry I mentioned “any wider impact”. Impact is not just numbers of people, but the difference made per person. Wider impact could include, for example, positive local press that might influence parents to be more supportive of science. I agree with the approach suggested by @amyplatypus at Wellcome: “We also look at the type and depth of engagement, whether we reached people we wouldn’t otherwise…”
David McGloin & Suzie Sheehy
You point out the good things that result from Lab in a Lorry (eg hands on experience for pupils & science communication experience for undergraduates)
As with Time Truck, I am sure that it achieves great things, but could those great things be achieved in cheaper ways? Lab in a suitcase?
Andy Lloyd
You suggest Skeptics in the Pub is not real science engagement
Having spoken at maybe 20 pubs, I think one third of the audience is made up of non-scientists, eg. partners, friends, curious folk. But it would be interesting to do a survey. Perhaps all the pubs could pick a month (October?) and ask how many people in the audience have a degree in science or engineering or maths?
In any case, it does not really matter. Skeptics in the Pub does not take money from anyone, so it can do whatever it wants.
My concern is with projects funded by research councils or other public bodies. There is a limited (but not insignificant) pot of money for UK science engagement, and I am asking if it is being well spent.
Jensen Warwick
You say assessment is hard
Fair point and I talk a bit about this in response to Roland Jackson. However, the problem starts even before assessment. I sometimes wonder how some of these projects get funded in the first place.
Andrew Holding
You ask for help running Cambridge Skeptics in the Pub.
Someone help, please.
Brady
Correction – Periodic Table videos have 23.6 million viewings, not 11 million.
Sorry, I was thinking of the copycat project for physics, namely Sixty Symbols, also out of Nottingham University. Copycat is meant as compliment, because good ideas are hard to find, so once you have a good idea then make the most of it and replicate it.
Okay, hate is a strong word. But they do annoy me. More in a moment.
Earlier today @BenGoldacre tweeted: “i have a real problem with most state funded science engagement stuff in general. huge expense, small audiences, wrong approach. they all try to do commercial stuff, but without commercial success. can’t help noticing that outside state funded sci eng world there is (a) people like me and @robinince who make it (with hard ideas) work commercially and (b) blogs that get big audiences without state funding. i’ll stop now. but srsly, give me one thousandth of the cash that’s spent on science engagement and i would make shit happen.” [N.B. I have merged the tweets.]
I retweeted Ben and added that: “Institute of Physics: 2 mentions for least cost-effective science engagement ideas labinalorry.org.uk & the Einstein Ballet 2005. I’d be v interested to read blogs championing either of these bad ideas. In terms of wonderful science engagement, look at www.periodicvideos.com & Chemistry Top Trumps (chemists seem to do it better).”
So, please add comments below. In particular, how would you defend Lab in a Lorry and the Einstein Ballet?
Before you comment, here are a few thoughts:
1. Why did I pick on Lab in a Lorry and the Einstein ballet?
They involve massive costs. If you want to defend either of these please include a note of the total running cost. For example, for Lab in a Lorry, this might include IOP staff time back at base, lorry running costs, lorry lab staff time, PR cost, contributions from sponsors, money from regional development agencies and money from schools. There is also the initial cost of the lorry and kitting it out. Remember, even if most of the money came from sponsors, this is money that did not go to other science engagement projects. Also, in your defence of Lab in a Lorry, you will need to estimate the number of schools visited, the number of pupils engaged and for how long, and any wider impact. Also, I am not sure how a lab in a lorry is different from a lab in a school, except it is more cramped.
By the way, I think doing real experiments in schools is brilliant, but I think there are smarter, cheaper ways to deliver this than sticking a lab in the back of an HGV.
2. One way to think about this is to treat the “teacher” as the SI unit of science engagement. The science engagement activity (£ for £) should achieve more than a single teacher, who works with 100 students across a day for roughly 150 days a year.
3. Also, you could compare Lab in a Lorry with other methods of science engagement. I think some of the 6th form lecture days are cost-effective. 1,000 students hear 5 speakers in a large venue. However, I can see that this reaches only a specific audience (i.e., already semi-committed to science and willing to pay £10), but on the other hand I think that the events deliver something worthwhile. In any case, all engagement activities are specific in one way or another, so the key question is whether that specific audience gets something out of it at a reasonable cost.
4. For me, cost-effectiveness is the key thing, and innovation counts for very little. I would rather have a cheap, tried and tested idea that really delivers, rather than a contemporary dance production that costs £100k and which reaches very few and has very little impact.
5. Why did I pick periodicvideos.com as something to admire? Currently at 184 videos, which have been watched on YouTube over 20 million times. I don’t know the cost, but I am confident that it is a fraction of Lab in a Lorry. Even if the cost was on par with Lab in a Lorry, Periodic Videos wins on reach and longevity.
6. Why did I pick Top Trump chemistry cards? I was in a rush. However, at first sight it looked clever, geeky and cheap. And the product was being sold. If people are willing to pay for your product then it probably means that it is good (homeopathy excluded). And if it does not cost much in the first place, then that is good too. By contrast, I don’t think schools pay or are allowed to pay for Lab in the Lorry. If they did, it would be interesting to see how much they would pay.
Please add your thoughts below. In particular, let’s have an analysis of Lab in a Lorry. If it turns out to be brilliant and cost-effective, then I will be very happy.
On the other hand, if it turns out to be expensive and not cost-effective, then the funders need to think seriously about how they spend their money. I am sorry to have picked on Lab in a Lorry, because it is just one of dozens of such wasteful projects. On the other hand, lots of other wasteful projects is not an excuse for the Institute of Physics to be wasteful. Physics education is in crisis and throwing away money on big lorries is not helping.
Ps. Just about to dash to get a train to Coventry for Skeptics in the Pub. SitP is arguably one of the most cost-effective science engagement projects in the UK. Well done to Sid Rodrigues and everyone else who helped start and grow this network. The Institute of Physics could spend a small amount of money encouraging half a dozen physicists to speak at Skeptics in the Pub or it could offer some seed money to establish SitP in towns that don’t have them. On the other hand, SitP seems to do very well without any interference, so I am not sure if this is a good or bad idea.
Normal 0 false false false
I published a blog on 15 July, 2012: Two Questions for Monty Don About Organic Farming.
If you visit the blog, then you will see that the 15th comment is a response from Monty Don. I have also pasted it below.
Unfortunately, he has chosen to ignore all of my points and questions. If I was a member of the Soil Association, then I think I would be disappointed that my President decided not to engage in discussion. Instead, he suggests that I am incapable of understanding the issues surrounding organic farming because I am not “temperamentally and intellectually suited”.
I have heard similar comments from homeopaths, who feel that I am not qualified to write about or criticise homeopathy. Indeed, homeopaths and organic farmers seem to have lot in common. Remember, the Soil Association supports homeopathy and many organic dairies use homeopathy.
So, where do we go from here? Well, here is my invitation to Monty.
Monty, I am disappointed by your lack of a serious response to my blog. This dialogue was initiated by you. You tweeted me, not vice versa. You tweeted and accused me of being “pathetic”, “mischievous, ridiculous, truly unhelpful”, “plain silly” and “silly” again. I offered to talk on the phone, as yet no response. I wrote a blog in order have a more mature discussion, but you have not addressed any of the points that I have raised.
I am still keen and willing to discuss organic farming with you. In the spirit of positive dialogue, please let me take you out to dinner one evening in West or Central London. By all means bring along a friendly expert and I will also ask an expert to join us, so you will have a chance to engage with someone who is both critical of and knowledgeable about organic farming. If possible, Wednesday evening’s are best, as we can then make the most of the Pizza Express Orange Wednesday offer. The rules are simple:
1. We all turn up with an open mind.
2. We all argue our points, discuss the issues and ask/answer questions.
3. We all leave as friends.
4. I will pick up the bill (dough balls and desserts included)
You can contact me via http://simonsingh.net/contact/ to arrange a date.
If the first dinner goes well, then we could continue with homeopathy and then GM as separate dinner topics. Or, if you want to change the order, we could start with homeopathy or GM.
Monty Don responded on 17 July, 2012:
It is helping no one by reducing this to itemised point-scoring. Surely the idea is to understand what is happening rather than prove things right or wrong? Suggest you inform yourself a lot more before taking this any further. If you are genuinely interested in understanding what it is all about start by reading Michael Pollan, Colin Tudge and Rob Hopkins. No specific scientific work so you may not feel comfortable with it but very good cross section of the field.
Importantly it is not a contest or case of anything being right or wrong. It is all about everyone concerned joining thoughts, practices and concepts to nurturing and sustaining all forms of life – and humans not least – as successfully as possible. That begs a thousand questions rather than trying to pick holes in one or two issues.
If that looks as though I am dodging your questions then so be it – and in a way I am because they are not sensible out of the context of the much bigger picture and I hate the idea of point scoring on something as important as this.
Having known you for nigh on 20 years – albeit with great gaps – I suspect that you are as temperamentally and intellectually suited to immersing yourself in organic, holistic agriculture as I am in particle physics. Your mind just doesnt work that way. That does not make you wrong or me right. Well,OK, I am just being polite but it doesn’t make you bad for being wrong…
with very best wishes
Monty
I should start by stressing that organic farming is not an area of particular interest. I only have a superficial understanding and knowledge of the subject, but I think it is clear that:
- In relation to fruit and veg, one of the main reasons for the growth in the market for organic products is that the public believes the produce is healthier, safer and more nutritious. However, according to the Food Standards Agency (2009) and the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland (2009), the overall balance of evidence does not support this view.
- Another reason for the growth in the organic fruit and veg market is that the public believes that organic is good for the environment, and that the UK would be a better place if crop production shifted from modern intensive farming to organic.
I will return to point (2) later and challenge it, but, first, this is what happened a couple of days ago to trigger this blog.
On Wednesday 11 July, @mark_lynas tweeted about a proposition in California (funded by Big Quacka) to demand labelling of genetically engineered foods. I shared the view that this was just an attempt to scaremonger, as there is no significant risk associated with such products according to the Royal Society of Medicine (2008). Also, the US National Academies of Sciences (2004), stated: “To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.”
Mark Lynas, who is an environmentalist activist who takes a scientific and balanced view, went on to tweet: “It’s unnecessary. Organic lobby trying to get a skull and crossbones on competitors’ produce.”
Then Mark Lynas tweeted: “How about a label on organic foods: ‘Warning, land-inefficient product, may cause damage to the environment’”
This tweet challenges point (2), which I stated earlier, which is that organic farmers claim their way of growing crops is better for the environment. Mark’s counterargument is that organic must be bad for the environment if crops require, let’s say, 25% more land to generate the same yield.
Unfortunately Mark’s tweet and my retweeting upset Monty Don, President of the Soil Association. Monty tweeted in response:
@TheMontyDon come on Simon, you can do better than that. That is just pathetic.
That struck me as somewhat harsh and rather lacking in a sense of humour, so I tried to engage with Monty. We worked together on “Tomorrow’s World” back in 1994/1995 and even went on a filming trip to Australia, and I know he is a decent chap. Here is the twitter exchange that followed.
|
@TheMontyDon come on Simon, you can do better than that. |
|
@SLSingh Hello Monty, good to hear from you. What exactly are you objecting too? Very happy to chat on the phone if that is easier. |
|
@TheMontyDon Objecting to mischeivous, ridiculous, truly unhelpful remark Simon. Adds nothing to any debate. And I know you as a very bloke. |
|
@SLSingh Which tweet? I had a busy tweeting day today. genuinely keen to understand your concern. |
|
@TheMontyDon the one about labelling organic products ‘land inefficient’ Simon. Just plain silly. |
|
@SLSingh Semi-joke but based on evidence http://bit.ly/JsELwF “overall, organic yields are significantly lower than conventional yields” |
|
@TheMontyDon yields in relationship to inputs? to health? to ecology? to diversity? No. Picking at a corner of this subject is silly |
The exchange was a bit more complicated than the slightly edited version above, but these are the main and interesting points.
In short, Monty (supported by some tweets from @suebeesley) was arguing that the yield per acre point in isolation is not significant, and that it is only possible to discuss organic farming in a holistic manner. For example, @suebeesley seemed to argue that organic crops may require more land to generate the same yield, but this did not matter in the bigger pictures because: “So, once you add in the land ‘cost’ of externalities for non-organic, and reduce meat consumption in organic, the gap is bridged?”
So part of the organic argument seems to be that we should eat less meat to free up land currently occupied by cows in order to be able to grow more organic crops. This would mean that we could feed ourselves organically without having to turn more of the countryside into farmland.
That’s a fair point, but it relies on a major change in eating habits. A start would be for the organic movement to stop selling meat, but I think many supporters of organic are not vegetarians.
In any c
ase, even if we all eat less meat, then I would argue that we should continue with intensive farming of crops and that any land that is recouped from cows, sheep, pigs and chickens could be used for more intensive farming for export or GM biofuel crops or wind turbines or house-building or returned to nature. Basically, I would argue that the land could be used for anything except inefficient organic crops.
I accept that the argument is more complicated than I could convey in a handful of tweets, but I think that my core point (copied from Mark Lynas) is still valid, which is that the public do not realise that if we were to increase our consumption of organic crops, then it would mean turning more of the countryside into fields.
I think it is fair to say that we could say goodbye to between 5% and 10% of the countryside if we were to hand over crop production to the organic industry.
In conclusion, I don’t think my tweet was “pathetic”, “mischievous, ridiculous, truly unhelpful”, “plain silly” and “silly” again,
Finally, Monty, can I ask you two questions?
- Do you agree with the conclusions of the meta-analysis in Nature (2012), which reviewed 66 studies comparing the yields of 34 different crop species, and which concluded that the yield per acre for organic farming is 3% less for fruit, 11% less for legumes, 26% less for cereals and 33% less for vegetables. So, while organic fruit production is fairly efficient, everything else performs poorly to very poorly. By all means say that there are other factors to be considered when considering organic farming, but was this a good piece of research on the issue of yield per acre? If not, why not?
- While I have the ear of the President of the Soil, Monty, what is all the nonsense about supporting homeopathy for farm animals? Really? No, seriously, really? Chris Atkinson, your Head of Standards, wrote in 2011: “Encouraging healthy farm animals can be supported by using complementary therapies – which include homeopathy – where these can be shown to be effective.” Please tell me the conditions for which homeopathy is appropriate and the evidence that means it has been “shown to be effective”.
You can leave a comment of any length below. By all means add additional detail, but please answer the questions above in (1) and (2).
7am 16 July, 2012
Ps. I can’t reply to all comments, but I will reply to Sue Beesley, as her tweeets were part of the original exchange. I accept that peak phosphorus is an important issue, and there are several issues to be addressed in the years ahead. However, my understanding is that we might have enough phosphorus for “between 300 and 400 years”, according to the World Phosphate Rock Reserves and Resources study, and most experts seem to agree that supplies are sufficient until the end of the century. By that stage, GM or better utilisation of phosphorus or recovery of phosophorus or more deposits of phsopshorus will have changed our assessment of this issue.
Sue, I am disappointed that you have completely ignored the two questions I posed to Monty and ignored the statements that were backed with references, and instead you focused on the only statement in my blog that was clearly marked as a personal view. As that sentence appears to be a distraction, I have removed it. My main point was that organic is not safer or healthier, according to two major reports.
Thanks for the kind words.
As you and I both recognise, I am not an expert, but my main point is that even with my level of very limited knowledge I can see some issues that the organic movement fudges, and hence consumers are largely unaware of these issuess (e.g., lack of health benefit, lack of safety benefit, inefficient land use).
My initial tweet was somewhat slammed by Monty, so I am trying to move the debate forward by airing ideas at more length. It would be a shame if Monty was willing to respond to a tweet on several occasions, but not willing to reply to a more serious blog. Unlike you, I am optimistic that he will respond, and that he will address the specific questions.
2pm 16 July, 2012
PPs. And you should also read this related post by Mark Lynas, triggered by the same twitter conversation.
http://www.marklynas.org/2012/07/how-land-inefficient-is-organic-agriculture/
simonsinghblog 