Organic food and the meaning of life

by F. Bailey Norwood Essay: 7,387 words Rough draft last updated June 25, 2012 _____________________________

If the male Hindu of the past had the fortune of reaching an old age and was particularly pious, he would become a wandering theologian and philosopher, something akin to a mendicant priest, except that instead of saving souls and reciting scripture the wanderer (a sannyasin) would contemplate the nature of reality and the meaning of his life. With his sons established and mature, able to thrive without him, he would become a pilgrim, begging for food along the way, consulting with temple deities, guided by a religiousbut no geographicaldestination. One did not have to wait until an old age to become a sannyasin. One man by the name of Siddhartha Gautama embarked on this journey at the young age of 30he eventually became known as the Buddha. This was a solitary journey. The sannyasin was not memorizing scripture but forming personal solutions to the metaphysical questions of reality and the attributes of a good life. Through a persistent, individual will the sannyasin sought enlightenment. It was not something to be believed as a member of a congregation, but something to be discovered in isolation. If successful, before death the sannyasin would have developed a robust theory of human values: the objects necessary for personal thriving; something the Greeks would call axiology.1 Personal values were considered too sacrosanct by the Hindu to simply be taken from society, and this road to enlightenment was not reserved for Hindus alone. The classical view of axiology certainly resembles the sannyasins journey. Aristotle noted that many values are desired for the sake of some other value, like victory in battle is desired for peace, but there is oneand only one terminal value desired for its own sake, and that is to engage in rational thought. Note the isolation when he states, we know there is no virtuous activity so pleasant as the activity of wisdom or philosophic reflection.2 This view of human development suggests that values and beliefs evolve with age, but when the philosophizing is complete, unless new information enters the persons awareness, the enlightened display static values. The identity is complete, and is only altered in the presence of others to the extent that other people bring new information. While it may be true that sannyasins seek to discover their personal values independent of society, most people form their individual beliefs and valuestheir identityas part of a social process, and would not be able to rationalize how all their beliefs and values came to be. The Hindu and Aristotelian concept of personal development is novel because it is so different than normal human behavior. Not long ago, Wittgenstein argued there is no private language,3 making the likelihood of private values small. When psychologists speak of a persons identity they often separate identity into three self-explanatory terms (1) individual self (2) the relational self (3) and the collective self. Yet, even though one category is said to be the individual self, each self is inherently social.4 All human values are at least partially determined by society, especially those needs higher on Maslows hierarchy. Many social values will be simply taken as given by the individual, much as a farmer takes market prices as given. Because these values may have evolved from a complex history whose tracks are erased, they cannot be rationalized, which means human values will develop in ways unpredictable and unexplainable. 1

The claim that many human values are influenced by society should not be controversial. Even the Hindu believer and Aristotle are not the independent thinkers they claim to be. Were either to be born in modern America, the Hindu would believe in only one god, and Aristotle would no longer view slavery as a natural order of nature. The lives of both revolve around socially determined values. Everyday experience reveals the manner in which ethical behavior differs across cultures, and how sensitive our actions are to the adulations and admonishments of others. More importantly, these differences are not derived from simple, rational, understandable forces. Try and explain why the ancient Hindu burned widows alive but worshipped the cow, and why their western counterpart cared for the widows but slaughtered the cow, and you will remain perplexed. This article suggests that proponents of organic food have taken their values from the organic community without deliberating on whether those values have the food outcomes they desire. Some organic standards have more to do with establishing ones personal identity than they do encouraging safe, nutritious food friendly to the environment and farm animals. The organic community is encouraged to become organic sannyasins, at least for a little while, to make sure their values and desired food outcomes are consistent. Conflict provides esteem and actualization needs Most people are aware of Maslows Hierarchy of Needs, a theory stating that humans acquire their needs like rungs of a ladder, where certain basic needs must be obtained before one will aspire towards a higher rung. The Hierarchy receives little debate because most of its claims are selfevident. When a persons physiological needs (e.g., water, food, medicine) are not met they will focus solely on its acquisition, to the neglect of everything else. If you offer shelter to a starving man he will rudely ask for food instead, but once food and water are in his possession the idea of shelter becomes appealing. Maslows statement that, Freedom, love, community feeling, respect, philosophy, may all be waved aside as fripperies which are useless since they fail to fill the stomach. Such a man may fairly be said to live by bread alone,5 can be contradicted, though, by observing Barry Hornes hunger strike to protest experimentation on animals,6 and the Buddhists who recently set themselves on fire to protest Chinese oppression of Tibetans. These are self-motivated martyrs who deny their physiological needs for higher needs, and are mimicked in a less intense but more permanent fashion by the fasting monk, an occupation which refers to itself as a daily martyr.7 Foods main purpose is to fulfill these physiological needs, but as we shall see, it can fulfill higher needs also. Once physiological needs are met, the human is assumed to focuses on safety. This includes protection from violence and disease. For children, safety needs are expanded to include psychological safety. Here, too, a few individuals have denied themselves this basic need so that they can acquire higher needs. There have always been men who will fight wars without being conscripted; history is replete with nurses and doctors who expose themselves to disease out of altruism; and there has never been a shortage of missionaries willing to venture into unknown lands, not knowing whether they will be welcomed or cannibalized.

One can still accept Maslows hierarchy while allowing these unusual exceptions. Regardless, there is no denying the reverence humans pay towards the higher needs. These higher needs are more vague and varied, going by the names love, esteem, and self-actualization. The need for love may be obvious but esteem and self-actualization are not. Esteem refers to the need for a high evaluation of oneself by oneself and others; or, as Adam Smith eloquently wrote, Man naturally desires, not only to be loved, but to be lovely.8 The reader should note that while physiological and safety needs usually involve the provision of private and public goods, the higher needs are of an emotional sort and are decoupled from goods. This will be important later. To the earliest days of philosophywhen philosophy thought deeply about how one should live thinkers have recognized that personal thriving consists in fulfilling ones natural potential, to do what one is fitted for, and to display ones natural talents. This is especially the case for Greek and Roman stoics. They concentrated on the differences between humans and animals, and after identifying mans faculty of reason as the primary distinction between man and beast, they concluded that humans fulfilled their destinydisplayed a sense self-actualizationwhen they engaged in logical contemplation and discourse. To act natural might be interpreted in the modern age to mean deciding through intuition, sensations, and instinct, but to the ancient Romans and Greeks it meant thinking logically. When Aristotle urged us to engage in logic and Epictetus said to act naturally, they were saying the same thing. Maslow did not restrict human actualization to philosophy, but tailored it to the particulars of the person, saying, A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy. What a man can be, he must be. This need we many call self-actualization.9 Maslows hierarchy is well-known because its generality makes it seem complete, as if it is unnecessary to add more needs. That is indeed the case, but by exploring the methods in which people acquire live and actualization more insights can be found. Next, the concept of the life-story is used to show why conflict is essential to the fulfillment of esteem and actualization needs. Tell me your life-story Members of the developed world can satisfy most of our physiological needs easily. Most of us eat all we care to eat, as only so much food can be metabolized by the body. The perfect temperature is a precise number, to which the thermostat can be set. While we all still die, most deadly diseases are no longer a threat, and the modern person often forgets how well their safety needs are met. When a tragedy occurs counselors are rushed to the scene, caring for psychological-safety needs to an extent people one hundred years ago would have thought absurd. The needs of love, esteem, and actualization abide by different laws. There is no such thing as too much love, no thermostat for esteem, and there are always obstacles preventing us from acquiring greater actualization. Love, esteem, and self-actualization are psychological needs. There is no limit to the ways and reasons one can be loved, or the reasons one might respect the self or be respected by others, and our natural talents and desires can take infinite manifestations. Life is a game of kingof-the-hill, except the king always wants to build a higher hill.

Love, esteem, and self-actualization can be obtained in countless ways. No single word better describes human morality than reciprocity,10 and love can be earned by extending love to others. Each day presents countless opportunities to act morally, thereby earning the esteem of oneself and others. Actualization requires us to engage in activities consistent with our desires and talents, but that is what we desire to do anyway, so much of our life is active engagement with actualization. To demonstrate the infinite mechanisms for love-esteem-actualization achievement, consider psychologists recent interest in life-stories. It is not uncommon for people to describe their life as a story, like when Donald Trump reportedly spoke, Anyone who thinks my story is anywhere near over is sadly mistaken.11 Indeed, the concept of ones identity is better described by the story of their life than anything else, as a life-story researcher remarks, If you want to know me, then you must know my story, for my story defines who I am. And if I want to know myself, to gain insight into the meaning of my life, then I, too, must come to know my own story. I must come to see in all its particulars the narrative of the selfthe personal myththat I have tacitly, even unconsciously, composed over the course of my years. It is a story I continue to revise, and tell to myself (and sometimes to others) as I go on living.12 The desire for a life-story is not an act of self-delusion, intended to make sense of the past and justify ones own history. Lifestories are something tended to throughout life, in order to create a desirable flow of past and future events. Far more than making sense of the past, life-stories help determine our future.13 Few individuals would want a live where all their material needs are met, where they are loved unconditionally, held in high esteem regardless of what they do, and experience self-actualization in talents that required no obstacles to develop. An example might be a fashion-model who is given wealth, love, and admiration simply for allowing her photograph to be taken. The model did not need to work to become noticed nor does she need to apply makeup or attractive clothes. Her simple existence provides her with everything she needs, and at the same time, denies her everything that makes life meaningful. Her life is denied of meaning because her life-story contained no conflict. Conflict is essential for a desirable life-story. It directly provided esteem and actualization needs, and for this reason, conflict itself is desired. A former student of mine aspired to be an inspirational speaker, but she had one deficiency that gave her competitors an advantage: she was not physically disabled. Most of her competitors were disabled, she told me, and a severed limb or a debilitating condition is the most effective way to earn speaking engagements. Neither had she suffered from tragedy and lived to tell the tale. She was never lost at sea, attacked by a bear, or fought in a war. Talking to her, I seemed evident that her life-story was deficient because it lacked tragedy or conflict. Goods that emerge out of tragedy are referred to as Greater Goods.14 Those who experience constant pain are able to empathize better with others than they could have without their painas a sufferer of chronic pain, I can personally testify to this. Hearing a tornado blow away your house, but to emerge from your shelter alive, will cause a family to love each other more sincerely. These 4

Greater Goods are all positive developments that happen becausebut are not justified by tragedy. Less intense Greater Goods can be acquired without tragedy, simply by involving oneself in a conflict that entails little real loss, even in the worst-case scenario. Standing up for what is right, though it may jeopardize your job, can become the pivotal moment in a persons life. Losing ones job is not a tragedy, but the fear of unemployment involves a thrill much like a life-threatening event. Rather than experiencing a disability, one can fight on behalf of the disabled. In both instances the life-story casts the self as a hero who fights for truth and justice. The idea is to feel alive inside this story, and to feel alive requires conflict. It can be a football game, a court case, protesting, or even an argument. World War II has become such an essential feature of American society it would be difficult to imagine a twenty-first century America without it. Empire was all the rage in England during the latter half of the 19th Century. The public deified explorers and military Generals, and though it is not clear that England gained economically from empire, its public certainly acquired great entertainment value.15 Julius Caesar is perhaps the most widely known person, and it is not due to a magnificent personality nor do to his conquests (how many people know exactly what his conquests were?), but because his story is so engrossing, and the story would be sterile if you removed all the conflict. Conflicts do not have to be on the side of good. History is replete with men who desired to prove themselves in war, and were willing to kill hundreds of enemies and sacrifice their own men for the opportunity. To hear the cannons war, to gallop on the field, and to watch the enemy retreat is to once againfeel alive. To say, I was at the battle of establishes a life-story enviable to many young men. If you ask people what makes their life meaningful, they might say something about making the world a better place, serving their god, standing up for the down-trodden, care for their family, and the like. They will not say watching lots of television or staying out of other peoples way as essential elements of the good life. Conflict will always be part of their answer. This love of conflict and story is not sub-conscious nor is it masked. People volunteer to play even very minor roles in a play, and have no trouble playing a reprobate. Even more people will come to watch the play, despite the fact that everyone knows the play is fiction. Movies go beyond fiction to be unrealistic, yet they are loved anyway. If conflict can be real or fictitious, then it can be a combination of the two: something I call synthetic conflicts. Synthetic conflicts What I propose next may be slightly controversial. I suggest that if people cannot find an authentic conflict congruent with their talents, interests, and circumstances, they will engage in a synthetic conflict. This does not refer to video games, but conflicts lived in the real world as if they are real, where those participating show little interest in whether the conflicts source is legitimate.

Synthetic conflicts should exist, for they have so much to offer. Life does not offer everyone the opportunity to participate in real, meaningful conflicts, but everyone still needs a life-story. There are many conflicts which have no firm attachment to reality but also cannot be dismissed. Who is the real god: the Yahweh or Allah? One can adopt either answer, and fight for it without having to worry about being proven wrong. Should America have a more progressive or more limited government? Again, one can fight for either side, reassured that neither political philosophy can be proven inferior. The recent financial crisis proved that either markets (if a liberal) or government (if a conservatives) destroyed the economy. The Birther Movement leaves most of us bewildered, but it provided a few people a cause to champion, and they seem to be enjoying it. With a little imagination, one can delve into such conflicts and devise a life-story around their struggle, thereby acquiring esteem and actualization needs in the process. These are synthetic conflicts, and can bestow a person with a meaningful life, so long as they can convince themselves the synthetic conflict is a real one. Humans seem to have no trouble with this. It is my contention that synthetic conflicts have formed around the organic food movement (in addition to real conflicts), and the movements need for a clear life-story is impeding the achievements from the goals they purport to attain. Food conflicts Food has always been an instrument for synthetic conflicts, partly because the actual effects of food on human health are difficult to determine, even in the modern age. There is something about food that evokes mystic urges. Ancient Mayans believed the gods made man from ears of white and yellow maize (after the gods experimenting with different ingredients, such as mud and wood). Catholics [profess to] believe their god literally becomes bread and wine, to be drunk by the pious, and although Protestants dismiss such notions most denominations periodically hold communion. The biodynamic movement contends that vital forces from distant planets can only be instilled in plants by using manure as fertilizer, and doing weird things with the manure first, like burying it inside of a cow horn in the ground. It is a movement that still believes vitalism (the belief that only living things can make certain chemicals, like urea) to be true.1617 Movements are established around the promotion of diets, and although W. K. Kelloggs wild notions about food and health evoke chuckles today they were given serious considerations by many, and our age has its own food cultsfasting and detoxing are examples. Of course, some diets which seemed cult-like at the time were proven to be beneficial to many people, most notable being the Atkins Diet and its offspring, the South Beach Diet. The point is not that all such extreme diets are wrong, but that people adopt them with religious zeal even though they are not proven right. Belief is more important than outcomes. The relationship between food and society becomes more complex when the effect of farming on the environment and animal emotions is considered. What is the impact of pesticides on human health? One can certainly find many studies showing the potential for adverse health risks. Unregulated pesticide use is certainly dangerous, but the weight of the evidence today suggests pesticide use provides more benefits (e.g., lower food prices, including the price of fruits and vegetables whose consumption reduces cancer rates) than coststhat is why governments allow pesticide use. However, there is no one ultimate source to back or refute that claim. Any claim I provide remarking on the very few deaths from pesticide use, and the increase in deaths that may 6

arise from not using pesticides18 can be countered with studies suggesting the possibility of other risks.1920 And so, the argument over whether pesticides should or should not be used cannot be resolvedespecially when people do not wish it to be resolved, for their identity is derived from the conflict. Organic food is not a food variety but a movement. It reflects not different food production systems but different philosophies of food, and such philosophies become as personal as religion. One might defend such philosophies as a natural response to concerns about how the environment, human health, and livestock are affected by modern production systems. Certainly, pesticide use is frightening. Certainly, there is an enormous dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico caused by fertilizer runoff. Certainly, layers and sows in factory farmed systems are crammed into tight cages. And certainly, people are getting really fat, and obesity doesnt happen without food. To many people, something seems wrong with the American food system. In many ways the organic food movement is a noble cause, for it wishes to account for all the externalities involved in agriculture, thereby becoming one-hundred-percent responsible to society for the food it produces. What company can [honestly] say that? Organic farmers know farming can create pollution, and they attempt to mitigate it. They know animals can suffer and that most humans care about animals, so they raise happy animals. Members of the organic community have a unique identity and an established cause. They are the good guys, they say, and industrial agriculture is the bad guy, and their esteem and actualization needs are fulfilled as they refuse to surrender despite the financial reserves of their opponent. It is important to acknowledge that the self-identity of an organic food advocate is defined to oppose corporate-industrial agriculture, because this identity can interfere with the achievement of organic foods goals. When Wal-Mart began selling inexpensive organic food, the rise in consumption would presumably reduce pesticide use and improve animal welfarebut it angered portions of the organic movement21 because it threatened individuals identity. This is not an anomaly, as self-identity can influence actions independent of a persons beliefs and goals even in surveys.22 Wal-Mart could put the small organic farmer out-of-business, increasing organic food consumption while removing the small farmers participation in organic food production. Wal-Mart would give the movement what they say they want but take what is most precious to them, their identity. Synthetic conflicts about organic foods Many peoples identities have formed around organic food, an identity whose life-story is one of the good (organic food movement) battling the bad (corporate-industrial agriculture). The finality in which the good and the bad have been parsed is important, because without this separation of identities the life-story lacks a powerful plot. Few people say their meaning in life involves an increase in food varieties, but many do say their purpose in life is to promote safer, more nutritious food friendly to the environment and livestock. They even sometimes go so far as to say organic food can be just as cheap as non-organic food. Instead of promoting a produce with some advantages, they seek to wrap their food in a cloak of holiness.

Excerpt of John Ikerds response to this article We are not searching for a conflict to give our lives purpose and meaning. We are searching for some means of protecting the health of ourselves and our families, restoring the vitality and integrity to our communities, and fulfilling our ethical and moral responsibility to the future of humanity. For us, fundamental change is not just an option; it is an absolute necessity. Dr. Norwood fails to recognize even the possibility of this most basic motivation in his marginalization of the organic movement as a group of misguided people searching for some sense of meaning in life by creating synthetic conflicts. (read more)

Supporters and opponents can quibble endlessly about the qualities of organic food, and they probably always will. I argue the inability to reconcile arguments has less to do with facts and more with how organic food adherents have solidified their self-identity around organic food, and this commitment to their own identity interferes with their ability to achieve their professed goals. Is organic food more nutritious? My reading of the literature says no,23 and supermarkets in England were banned by truth-in-advertising laws from saying they were more nutritious,24 but so long as bestselling author Michael Pollan can counter a meta-analysis of 162 studies by saying, Some intriguing recent research suggests otherwise,25 his one study can overwhelm 161 others for some people. Is organic equally productive? These claims are made, but it is a fact that every input and technology an organic farmer can employ is also available to conventional farmers, but conventional farmers have many more additional choices. More choices implies more ways of improving productivity. Moreover, if research finds that organic methods are more productive even without a price premiumas is true for some settings2627then the non-organic farmers would soon adopt these methods, and the two farming methods would be equivalent. Because it constrains input usage, organic farming is either equally productive or less productive than conventional agriculture. The empirical evidence concurs.28 Is organic fertilizer better? Once again, organic farmers have fewer choices than conventional farmers. If conventional fertilizers deplete the soil of needed organic matter, the conventional farmer can apply livestock manure just as easily as the organic farmer. It could be the case that chemical fertilizer creates more pollution. However, organic fertilizer can also cause nutrient runoff and carbon emissions, and no study has revealed organic fertilizer to generally display less or more pollution, per unit of food produced. If one must pick a single technology most responsible for preventing the disaster Malthus foretold, it is chemical fertilizers. Is genetically-modified (GM) seed dangerous? If so, no persuasive evidence has been found, and the benefits from GM seed are undeniable. Opposition to GM seed by organic food lobbyists do not seem motivated from a real risk to the environment or people.29 While it is true that the Monsanto corporation has acquired a near monopoly in soybean seed, this monopoly was earned, in that almost all soybean farmers want to buy Monsanto seed. The depiction of Monsanto in Food, Inc. seemed 8

to me, at leasta desperate attempt to find anything wrong with GM technologies. When Trait remarks, At a time when an increasing number of people are living in hunger and climate change threatens crops, the system that regulates GM food sources ought to become more based on evidence and less subject to the influence of politically motivated NGOs,30 she did not remark upon the source of this political motivation, and I contest it is largely derived from a desire to preserve self-identity and to oppose anything that makes corporate-industrial agriculture money. All of these assertions about the benefits of organic foods will undoubtedly be contested by some readers, and such dissent is welcome, because even the most devoted organic advocate will likely concur with the following statement. It is difficult to make a case for organic foods based on food safety, nutrition and environmental concerns without deliberating citing the research supporting organic foods and ignoring many other studies. However, convincing someone that animal welfare is higher on organic farms is a much easier task. There are some attributes of organic farming which reduce animal welfare. Allowing animals off concrete pads and onto pasture increases the chance of disease from worms and feces from wild animals. Without the ability to sell organic meat from animals given antibiotics, some farmers will deny medicine to sick animals. Without access to synthetic amino acids, the organic farmer has difficulty providing certain nutritional needs. However, from the viewpoint of both researchers and consumers, these drawbacks are overwhelmed by the positive aspects of organic farming. Organic farms provide almost every positive amenity available to the animal on a conventional farm without most of the negatives. Both researchers and consumers place a high priority to providing livestock with ample room to walk and turn around, display natural behaviors (such as rooting, for the pig), a comfortable, clean area to rest, and environmental enrichment, while also providing adequate health care, protection from other animals aggression, shelter, and nutrition. Virtually all amenities necessary for high animal welfare are available on an organic farm but not necessarily on a conventional farm.313233343536 Not all non-organic livestock industries are alike. Beef cattle have higher welfare than dairy cattle and broilers, who are much better off than layers and hogs. Yet each animal is elevated to a higher level of well-being when raised on the organic farm, even with the admission that the organic standards concerning animal treatment are vague.37 Why is it, then, that topics like pesticide use, food safety, nutrition, and the environment receive more attention than farm animal welfare (for example, in Food, Inc.)? It probably has to do with the fact that the average American places a higher value on food safety and the environment than farm animal welfare.3839 Organic enthusiasts who acquire their esteem and actualization needs through the organic food movement have found it easier to convince [some] consumers that organic food is safer, more nutritious, and better for the environment, than to convince people that organic food is better for livestock (a claim easily supported with evidence) and that they should care about livestock emotions. Essentially, consumers care more about themselves than farm animals, and many do not require much evidence to convince them that regular food is bad for them. The Organic Sannyasin

Debating whether organic foods should exist is futile, for it has an established market. It is then more prudent to debate how the organic food movement should pursue its goal of safe, nutritious food that is friendly to the environment and livestock. Because organic enthusiasts acquire esteem and actualization need through the organic movement, and because these needs are better satisfied in the presence of conflict, a synthetic conflict has been invented where the organic movement seeks responsible food production in opposition to a corporate-industrial agriculture, that seeks to externalize as many of its costs onto society. They (organic food) are the good guys battling the bad guys. Great effort has been made to sharpen their identity to intensify their acquisition of esteem and actualization needs, and in the process the organic movement has rejected any technology produced by corporate-industrial agriculture, such as chemical fertilizer and GM seed. However, their rejection of these technologies may very well interfere with the goals of the organic food movement, and the problem is that they do not recognize this. We have come to a point where many of the organic communitys values are taken from their community without question. They have rejected chemical fertilizer and GM seed because their community has rejected it, and the need for a clear identity and community bonds has discouraged them from second-guessing their values. What is needed are organic sannyasins, who are willing to set off by themselves and ponder their effectiveness in providing safe, nutritious food friendly to the environment and livestock. And as they ponder they should incorporate the following economic considerations. There is good reason to believe chemical fertilizer and GM seed are actually good for people and the environment. The evidence may not convince everyone, but convincing everyone is an unfair standard. Moreover, there is no denying the ability of both chemical fertilizer and GM seed to lower organic crop prices, which makes for cheaper organic feed for livestock, which in turn lowers the price consumers pay for organic meat, milk, and eggs. Given that animals are undeniably better off on organic farms, these lower prices will provide animal welfare benefits to more animals, thereby achieving one goal of the organic movement. With the ability to feed less expensive grain to livestock, their time till slaughter would be shortened, decreasing the larger carbon footprint currently associated with organic meat production.40 This chain of logic warrants repeating, because it argues that if the organic community can accept two technologies produced by corporate-industrial agriculturechemical fertilizer and GM seed there is no compelling reason to believe food will become less safe, less nutritious, or less environmentally-friendly (in fact, the opposite is a serious possibility). There is evincing evidence that it will increase animal welfare. In short, the organic movement will come closer to achieving its goals. Resistance to this claim is expected, as embracing technologies produced by large corporations will cause organic food disciples to question their self-identity. The synthetic conflict which provided their esteem and actualization needs will weaken. Perhaps they will become less happy people even though they are achieving more of their goals. That is the price one pays for logic. Industry and its Discontents Chemical fertilizer and GM seeds are not the only issues the organic sannyasin should consider. If consumers begin to acquire most of their organic foods from supermarkets like Wal-Mart there will 10

be two effects. One, those in the organic community will feel tainted at counting Wal-Mart as one of them. Two, the low Wal-Mart prices will increase consumption of organic foods, presumably achieving more of the goals to which the organic movement aspires. The organic enthusiast embracing industrial fertilizers may seem as likely as Karl Marx embracing the Industrial Revolution, but perhaps he should have. While Marx wrote his treatise against the Industrial Revolution he faced a problem: he contended that the Revolution was a curse to humanity, yet when he investigated matters he discovered that living conditions had improved during the Revolution. Yet, he was Marx: how could he tout these benefits when it was the capitalists who helped make them happen? He couldnt. Marx chose to wait until a financial crisis before he published his work, for it was only then that his self-identity was consistent with reality.41 I challenge the organic industry to shape their beliefs according to reality, instead of waiting for reality to conform to their beliefs. Good things can come from big factories, like medicine, and the tractors organic farmers drive. The reason many technologies tend to be produced by corporate-industries is that they require economies-of-scale, which means the production unit must become very large before the average cost is low. That refers to the industry part; now for the corporate part. Industries could be owned by individuals, but because they require large capital investments they tend to be built by the one organization designed specifically for raising large investments: corporations. While not everything a corporate-industry does is consistent with the objectives of organic food, some are. If one is serious about ensuring safe, nutritious food which does not harm the environment or cause animal suffering, one must take advantage of what corporate-industry has to offer, knowing ones self-identity can still be preserved by opposing corporate-industry agriculture when they behave irresponsibly. I therefore urge the organic community to view large corporations with more nuance, yet I also realize that this articles depiction of the organic community warrants more nuance. Throughout, self-identity and synthetic conflict was exposed as a hindrance to responsible food; both were depicted as the folly of a well-intentioned group, but what I failed to acknowledge was that the role identity and conflict play in motivating people. Responsible food production requires a society that seeks to identify any externality caused by food producers and address the problem through social pressure and public policybut there is a problem. In many ways, it is irrational for the individual to assume this role. One person can have only a small effect on politics or a corporation. It is even irrational for the individual to vote, as they stand a higher probability of dying in a wreck driving to the poll than they do influencing the outcome. At the same time, our society only functions if people do vote, and responsible food production will only occur if there are food activists. Fortunately, many citizens do what is individually irrational, for the benefit of society. What motivates them? They manage to take what most see as a costresearching how pesticides are applied, giving money to interest groups, protesting companies who polluteand turn it into a personal benefit. It reminds one of the monk who makes their denial of pleasure, a pleasure. All the effort and money expelled on behave of society is returned to them in the form of esteem and actualization. The food activist receives the adulations of their community, and employs their interests and skills for a worthy cause, providing their life with meaning and purpose. 11

Food activists are only able to transform costs into benefits by interpreting their activism as a story, a struggle of the ethical against the unethical. Perhaps it should be not surprising that alongside these conflicts emerge synthetic conflicts, and perhaps that is a small price to pay for active citizens. There is also a benefit to a society where synthetic conflicts can easily arise. A society needs active citizens in pursuit of the common good. Fortunately, no action needs to be taken to ensure these citizens exist. Every person seeks some place in life where they can participate in a conflict to acquire esteem and actualization needs, and they will actively seek such conflicts. This means there are people like Rachel Carson who wondered about the effects of DDT. In search of a purpose for living, people Ruth Harrison questioned the morality of cramming animals into a small cage throughout their lives. Also included is a mother too busy to volunteer their time but donates to interest groups like Environmental Defense instead. Activists in favor of corporate-industrial agriculture are also needed, to keep everyone honest. This includes individuals like Derrell White (from The Truth About Agriculture facebook group) and the farmer/spokesperson Trent Loos (who will travel anywhere to promote agriculture) who actively counter the food activists, making sure people understand that growth hormones are not given to broilers and that most beef cattle is a relatively humane industry. There is even the unusual person who acquires meaning in life from writing about food issues, hoping to influence the organic movement closer towards its goals, and in the process acquires his esteem and actualization needs. That person, of course, is the author, and I hope that my life-story unites with the life-story of the organic movement and corporate-industrial agriculture to create cheaper, safer, more nutritious food that is good for the environment and farm animals. Norwood is an associate professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University. He may be reached at bailey.norwood@okstate.edu. Garfield, Jay L. 2011. The Meaning of Life: Perspectives from the Worlds Great Intellectual Traditions. Lecture 17: The Teachings of Buddha. 2 Aristotle (384-322 BC). 1943. Nicomachean Ethics. Gramercy Books: NY, NY. 3 Schroeder, Severin. 2006. Wittgenstein. Polity Press: Cambridge, UK. 4 Gaertner, Lowell, Constantine Sekikides, Michelle Luks, Erin M. OMara, Jonathan Luzzini, Lydia Eckstein Jackson, Huajian Cai, and Quiping Wu. 2012. A motivational hierarchy within: Primacy of the individual self, relational self, or collective self? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.009. 5 Maslow, Abraham H. 1943(a). Hierarchy of Needs: A Theory of Human Motivation. www.all-aboutpsychology.com. Location 70 of 405. 6 Hills, Alison. 2005. Do Animals Have Rights? Icon Books: Cambridge, UK. 7 Maslow, Abraham H. 1943. Hierarchy of Needs: A Theory of Human Motivation. www.all-aboutpsychology.com. Kindle edition. 8 Smith, Adam. 1759. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Part III. Chapter II. 9 Maslow, Abraham H. 1943(b). Hierarchy of Needs: A Theory of Human Motivation. www.all-aboutpsychology.com. Location 186 of 405 in Kindle edition. 10 Haidt, Jonathan. 2006. The Happiness Hypothesis. Basic Books: NY, NY. 11 BrainyQuote.com. Donald Trump Quotes. Accessed on May 1, 2012 at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/donaldtrum173285.html.
1

12

McAdams, Dan P. 2001. The Psychology of Life Stories. Review of General Psychology. 5(2):100122. Page 11. 13 McLean, Kate C., Monisha Pasupathi, and Jennifer L. Pals. 2007. Selves Creating Stories Creating Selves: A Process Model of Self-Development. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 11(3):262-278. 14 Grim, Patrick. 2005. Questions of Value. Lecture 16: Lifes Horrors. The Teaching Company. 15 Morris, Jan. 2002. Heavens Command: An Imperial Progress. Mariner Books: NY, NY. 16 Avery, Alex. 2006. The Truth About Organic Foods. Henderson Communications, LLC.: Chesterfield, MO. 17 DeGregori, Thomas R. 2004. Origins of the Organic Agriculture Debate. Iowa State Press: Ames, Iowa. 18 Lomborg, Bjorn. 2001. The Skeptical Environmentalist. Cambridge University Press. 19 Baldi, I. A. Gruber, V. Rondeau, P. Lebailly, P. Brochard, C. Fabrigoule. 2010. Neurobehavioral effects of long-term exposure to pesticides: results from the 4-year followup of the PHYTONER Study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. DOI:10.1136/oem.2009.047811. 20 Hayes, Tyrone B., Lloyd L. Anderson, Val R. Beasley, Shane R. de Solla, Taisen Iguchi, Holly Ingraham, Patrick Kestemont, Jasna Kniewald, Zlatko Kniewald, Valerie S. Langlois, Enrique H. Luque, Krista A. McCoy, Mnica Muoz-de-Toro, Tomohiro Oka, Cleida A. Oliveira, Frances Orton, Sylvia Ruby, Miyuki Suzawa, Luz E. Tavera-Mendoza, Vance L. Trudeau, Anna Bolivar Victor-Costa, Emily Willingham. 2011. Demasculinization and feminization of male gonads by atrazine: Consistent effects across vertebrate classes. The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 127(1-2):64 DOI:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2011.03.015. 21 Frazier, Mya. October 15, 2006. Critics Blast Wal-Mart for Low-Priced Organic Foods. Advertising Age. Accessed May 17, 2012 at http://adage.com/article/news/critics-blast-wal-martlow-priced-organic-foods/112484/. 22 Sparks, Paul and Richard Shepherd. 1992. Self-Identity and the Theory of Planned Behavior: Assessing the Role of Identification with Green Consumerism. Social Psychological Quarterly. 23 Dangour, Alan D., Sakhi Dodhia, Arabella Hayter, Elizabeth Allen, Karen Lock, Ricardo Uauy. 2009. Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28041 2 24 Krebs, John. April 13, 2010. Debate: Organic Food is Marketing Hype. Intelligence Debates. 25 Pollan, Michael. 2006. The Omnivores Dilemma. Page 178-9. The Penguin Press: NY, NY. 26 Leopold Center. November, 2011. The Long-Term Agroecological (LTAR) Experiment. Iowa State University Neely-Kinyon Research and Demonstration Farm. Accessed May 23, 2012 at http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/pubs-and-papers/2011-11-long-termagroecological-research-ltar-experiment.pdf. 27 Rodale Institute. The Farming Systems Trial. Accessed May 23, 2012 at http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/FSTbookletFINAL.pdf. 28 Seufert, V., N. Ramankutty, and J. A. Foley. 2012. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature. 485:229-232. doi:10.1038/nature11069. 29 Tait, Joyce and Guy Barker. 2011. Global food security and the governance of modern biotechnologies. EMBO Reports. 12(8):763. doi:1038/embor.2011.135.
12

13

30 University

of Edinburgh. September 23, 2011. GM food solutions at risk from lobbyists, experts say. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 30, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110923194736.htm. 31 Bracke, M.B.M, B.M. Spruijt, J.H.M. Metz, W.G.P. Schouten, Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows a: model structure and weighting procedure, J. Anim. Sci. 80 (2002) 18191834. 32 De Mol, R.M., W.G.P. Schouten, E. Evers, H. Drost, H.W.J. Houwers, A.C. Smits, A computer model for welfare assessment of poultry production systems for laying hens, Ned. J. Agr. Sci. 54 (2006) 157168. 33 (FAWC) Farm Animal Welfare Council. December 5, 1979. Press Statement. London. 34 Prickett, Rob, F. Bailey Norwood, and Jayson L. Lusk. 2010. Consumer Preferences for Farm Animal Welfare: Results From a Telephone Survey of U.S. Households. Animal Welfare. 19:335-347. 35 Norwood, F. Bailey and Jayson L. Lusk. 2011. Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare. Oxford University Press: NY, NY. 36 Ursinus,W.W., F. Schepers, R. M. de Mol, M. B. M. Bracke, J. H. M. Metz, and P.W. G. Groot Koerkamp. 2009. COWEL: A Decision Support System to Assess Welfare of Husbandry Systems for Dairy Cattle. Animal Welfare. 18:54552.
37 (OFPA) Organic Foods Production Act. 2010. 7 C.F.R. 205.239. E 38 Center for Food Integrity. 2008. Consumer Trust in the Food System. Center for Food Integrity: Kansas City, MO, USA. 39 Prickett, Norwood and Lusk (2010). 40 Peters, Gregory M., Hazel V. Rowley, Stephen Wiedemann, Robyn Turcker, Michael D. Short, and Matthias Schulz. 2010. Red Meat Production in Australia: Life Cycle Assessment and Comparison with Overseas Studies. Environmental Science & Technology. 44(4):1327-1332. 41 Nasar, Sylvia. 2011. Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius. Simon & Schuster: NY, NY.

14