Organic Food Controversy in the New Yorker -- Science Writing at its Worst

Mr. Specter is a staff writer for the New Yorker.  He tends to write about agriculture and genetic engineering, but on closer inspection his writing provides a dangerous combination of blind faith in science and a misunderstanding of what science is.

His bio of Vandana Shiva uses a source to give voice to the conclusion that Shiva is “a fraud…blinded by her ideology and her political beliefs."  She responded alleging Specter's article made “fraudulent assertions" and consisted largely of "deliberate attempts to skew reality.”  The New Yorker's editor, David Remnick, defended Specter's article against her list of complaints, item-by-item.

But both Shiva and Specter make ideological arguments.  They both use convenient scientific anecdotes to support their "ideology and ...political beliefs".  However, Specter works as a "journalist," and therefore implicitly claims at least some objectivity, whereas Shiva is a self-described advocate for her cause, and is at least honest about her agenda.

Specter criticizes Shiva for being unscientific, but how scientific is Specter?  Does he cite scholarly papers?  No.  Does he weigh the pros and cons of conflicting theories?  No.  Instead, he interviews a couple scientists who happen to already agree with his perspective.

Do you ever wish that complicated issues could be quickly and easily resolved by an impartial and all-knowing 3rd party?  Specter has found just such an infallible arbiter, but, unfortunately for the rest of us, it a biased version of science.

Apparently, Specter thinks science is a set of facts that should not be questioned.  But science is just the inverse: a way of questioning that is based on facts (ie empirical evidence).  Specter is totally amazed that anyone could doubt “science”.  Even worse, he thinks he knows what “science” is!

(I've already pointed out the impossibility of some of the scientific assertions Specter has made in a previous blog post.)

I wrote this post because I noticed a pattern, or agenda, behind Specter's use of science.  He wrote an entire book defending science, entitled  "Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives."  Specter's book claims to defend science and rationality from the assaults of organic food advocates, but he couldn't quite bring himself to evaluate the research that didn't support his conclusion. It's surprising how little actual scientific research he manages to cite; Tom Philpott had this to say about Denialism for Grist.org:

"Two major assumptions underlie [Specter's work]: organic agriculture delivers frightfully low yields, and GMO agriculture delivers reassuringly high yields. He doesn’t deliver data to back up either of those claims. Here are two studies, both of which came out in time for consideration in Denialism, that Specter really should have grappled with: 1) a 2009 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists showing that after decades of research, transgenic seeds have yet to deliver yield increases; and 2) a 2005 study in Bioscience (summary here) showing that yields of organically grown corn and soy match those of their conventional counterparts–with dramatically lower energy inputs."

For me, the real issue is a scientific question: can GMO crops sustainably out-produce other alternatives, particularly the organic small landholder polyculture that Shiva champions?  Shiva claims that local, diverse agricultural systems can produce more and healthier food per acre than green revolution mass monocultures, especially in the long run.  Unfortunately, while Specter's article questions some of Shiva's claims, it does little to fill this crucial knowledge gap.

Problems Modeling Soil Moisture: Calculating Rainfall

All attempts to model soil moisture or drought condition use observed NEXRAD precipitation as inputs, but the raw data must first be corrected.

East of the Continental Divide, radar imagery is compared to ground rain gauges and a correction factor is calculated. In mountainous areas West of the Continental Divide, a different method is used to derive the "observed precipitation".  Ground rain gauge data is compared to average precipitation data (PRISM) and departures from that average are interpolated between gauge locations.  The end result is 4km resolution rainfall totals.  

Once observed precipitation is calculated, accumulated precipitation can be viewed for any time period using NOAA's website.

Clearly, 4km by 4km grid cells hide a great deal of local variability.  For example, the Rainlog network of rain gauges in Tucson records highly variable rainfall at locations less than a kilometer apart during the monsoons (W Miracle Mile is about 2 km):

Methodological problems in the way PRISM fills gaps using modeled historical data may bias against extreme or unusual rainfall patterns.  Also, numerous sources of bias in both the radar and the rain gauges have to be accounted for manually.  For example, radar can be biased by hail, angle, and artifacts created by birds and insects.  Rain gauges can also malfunction in an endless variety of ways, including sensor error, human error, and when ice and snow block the gauge.  These uncertainties in observed precipitation can jeopardize efforts to model soil moisture such as the PDI.  Also, they call into question research that has revealed an increase in extreme precipitation events.

Existing large-scale methods of modelling soil moisture are unconstrained by field measurements, so the advent of satellites offering weekly global measurements of soil moisture are an important step forward.  These satellites (such as SMOS) can image vast swaths of the Earth’s surface to infer average soil moisture at the surface, but this imagery has an accuracy of +/- 4% soil moisture over pixels that are 35-50 km on a side.  A new satellite launched this year (SMAP) has better resolution, approximately 9 km, but still nowhere near field-scale resolution.  Local hill slope, vegetation land cover, and soil texture differences mean that county-level averages aren't accurate enough to apply on individual acres.

There are some companies that claim to be able to remotely monitor acre-by-acre soil moisture for farmers, but that is not possible without field measurements.   

New Yorker article fails to fact-check

A recent article in the New Yorker magazine features a profile of a the Climate Company, which offers individualized weather prediction services to farmers.  Unfortunately, the article makes a number of unfounded or vague assertions, and in some places is so boosterish of the new company that it veers into puff piece journalism.

A balanced review of the company's claims would better serve readers, and a more in-depth review of the science might help explain why.

For example, the article by Michael Specter, claims that

"If you are trying to decide whether to take an umbrella to work, the National Weather Service provides the kind of information you need. But the data, often taken from readings at local airports, are nearly useless for anyone who needs to gauge constantly changing conditions in the soil and the atmosphere."

But the NWS does offer zip-code specific weather readings and predictions.   While it would be great to have even better location-specific data, such a monitoring system is yet to be implemented.

"One of the company’s principal sources is Nexrad, or Next Generation Radar, a network of a hundred and fifty-nine Doppler radar stations operated by the National Weather Service. Using data from the system, the Climate Corporation creates moisture and precipitation maps so precise that in some cases a farmer can determine whether the field on one side of a road is wetter than the field on the other side. "

All private companies use NWS radar and satellite information, and are limited by the resolution of this data.  The highest resolution data available is 4 km grid boxes.  

According to local meteorologists, it is not possible to distinguish accumulating precipitation at smaller scales without installing individual weather stations on either side of the road.

"Soil type and quality can vary widely within a county, and even within a single farm field."

This quote is used to imply that the Climate Company has such intra-field soil data, but Climate.com cannot account for every possible difference in soil texture.  It uses NRCS soil survey data compiled in the 1960's and 1970's for every county in the U.S.  

On their webpage, Climate.com requests farmers fill in their specific soil type.  There is no high-tech substitute for good old-fashioned soil testing.  

The article also features such gee-whiz promotional quotes as "the algorithm divides the country into nearly half a million plots, then generates ten thousand daily weather scenarios for each of them... It matched that information with reports from two million locations that the National Weather Service scans regularly with Doppler radar."

Again, I spoke to several practicing meteorologists who were not sure how these absurdly large and contradictory numbers were computed.  Their best guess was that Climate.com is counting the same location more than once, for each radar beam, or that they are counting different layers in the atmosphere as different "locations."  

Alternately, these discrepancies may be misquotes on the part of the author that were not picked up by New Yorker fact checkers.   

Air Ions and Indoor Air Quality

     Having researched air ions before, I can attest that the subject is extremely technical and, worse, often prone to contradiction and obscurity depending on who is writing (and who is selling) various ideas.  It is another of those interdisciplinary areas with different and competing claims, in this case, from fields as divergent as air chemistry, ecology, and human health.  The following article, from Townsend Letters, does an admirable job of introducing most of the major competing health claims and sifting the evidence:

Static Electricity and Respiratory Infections
More times than not, shaking out a blanket on a cold night generates the crackle and sting of static electricity and a flurry of sparks. Synthetic materials, low humidity, and ungrounded electrical equipment are producing an unprecedented amount of electrostatic charge indoors, and these electrical fields may be contributing to increased risk of respiratory illness and other infections, according to a 2007 article in Atmospheric Environment. Indoors, most particles, including microbes and allergens, are so small (less than 1 microgram) that they could float in the air indefinitely; but electrical charges cause these miniscule particles to settle on surfaces and stick. These surfaces include skin and lungs. High electrostatic levels and increased deposition of airborne particles on skin have been linked to facial rashes, especially when humidity is low. Charged particles in the lungs increase the risk of infection and asthma. 

Keith S. Jamieson, H. M. ApSimon, and J. N. B. Bell advocate several ways to decrease indoor static electricity and the accompanying health effects. One recommendation is to reduce electrical charges by grounding laptop computers and other electrical equipment. They also recommend unplugging equipment when it's not in use. 

Another option is bipolar air ionization. (Long-term unipolar air ionization with negative ions has shortened lifespan of laboratory animals.) Air ionizers produce varying amounts of ozone, which damages the lungs, according to the EPA. Jamieson et al. urge people to use passive air ionization measures, such as grounding electrical equipment and choosing materials and furniture finishes that do not conduct electrical charges.

Another way to combat electrostatic is to use humidifiers. Indoor heating and cooling systems often reduce humidity levels. Low humidity encourages high electrostatic levels and decreases beneficial small air ion levels. (Small air ions kill microbes and reduce employee fatigue in the office workplace.) Humidifiers are often used to make breathing easier during respiratory infections; but humidifying indoor air, especially in winter months when furnaces are running, may prevent illness as well. 

Jamieson KS, ApSimon HM, Bell JNB. Electrostatics in the environment: how they may affect health and productivity. Electrostatics 2007 Journal of Physics: Conference Series. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/142/1/012052. Available athttp://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/142/1/012052. Accessed September 18, 2012.
Jamieson KS, ApSimon HM, Jamieson SS, Bell JNB, Yost MG. The effects of electric fields on charged molecules and particles in individual microenvironments [abstract]. Atmosph Environ. August 2007;41(25):5224–5235. Available at www.sciencedirect.com. Accessed April 27, 2011.
Reeves D. Electrical fields from everyday equipment and materials could increase infection risk [press release]. Imperial College London. July 20, 2007. Available atwww3.imperial.ac.uk. Accessed September 18, 2012.