• “Pesticide free.” Unlike stating that your product is organic, saying it’s pesticide-free is a claim not subject to any kind of third-party oversight. So it may be a lie. “People concerned about pesticide residues should look for certified organic produce,” says Cummins.

Organic, as regulated, does not mean pesticide free.  The law permits the use of “botanical pesticides”  (.pdf). Colorado State has a list of pesticides that are acceptable in Organic farming, and as you will see on the list some of them are labeled as very dangerous and are indeed known carcinogens. New pesticides are reviewed by the National Organic Standards Board to see if the compound is acceptable for use in organic farming.  Although these compounds are said to break down more quickly and therefore their residue is less likely to make it to the supermarket- there is an important nuance here that is being overlooked. To equate “organic” with the words “pesticide free” is a fallacy. It’s simply not true, and consumers, community and family members are being misled.

I am not denying the body of research that claims that organic produce will reduce the risk of exposure to pesticides. An article published in Food Additives and Contaminants points out:

While the risks to health associated with dietary pesticide residues are still uncertain and subject to debate, risk is relative, and lower exposure undoubtedly translates into lower risk. Consumers who wish to minimize their dietary pesticide exposure can do so with confidence by buying organically grown foods.

So yes, organic produces a “lower risk” of pesticide exposure, but it does not eliminate it. The real issue with the advice given by Cummins to avoid the word “pesticide free” in favor of the strongly regulated term “organic” is that it advises consumers to distrust the two words that actually mean what they are looking for.  The want pesticide free in many cases, and  the words “pesticide free” can actually mean pesticide free whereas the word organic never means pesticide free. She’s right, they’re not regulated so they could mean anything, but unlike Whole Foods, Wegman’s, or some other anonymous supermarket, the Farmer’s market is the one place where you can actually interact and talk to the farmer and find out what they use on the crops. Most farmers aren’t keen marketers and will be honest and up front with you. If you can find a farmer that you trust, you might actually be able to obtain food that is pesticide free with no quotes around it. We’re not talking a regulated term. We mean in honest words that mean what they should mean.

Organics are big business, and they rely on the misconception that they’re pesticide free to sell their goods. They’re not going to change their approach, but consumer advocates, community organizations, and those genuinely concerned with ordinary people not being fooled at the farmer’s market should be more upfront about what organic actually means. and what it doesn’t mean.

Jamie Oliver came to Huntington, WV from England with his full cadre of ideas. Often times he says “this worked well over there, why doesn’t it work here,” and his language is full of the word “my.” My Plan, My ideas. My revolution. I need to get people on board with my plan.

The modern planner isn’t out there pushing his or her ideas or telling people how to live. I see a strong Jane Jacobs critique of the show that finds similarities between urban renewal and top down planning and less in common with the community based, people oriented planning that is generally practiced. Would Jamie have encountered less resistance if he sat down with the community and found out what they wanted and took their ideas into account? He claims that the people of Huntington need to open their mind to his ideas; I think the opposite is true. Jamie needs to listen to the people of Huntington to find out what they want.

I also see this thread of the top-down planner in other reality shows such as Extreme Home Makeover. Scale and values aren’t coming from the individual families or individual communities; it seems to be more about imposing a normative set of middle class values on struggling families and neighborhoods.

Its not that entertainment has to be true or even fair. Its TV, I do not deny its an escapist fantasy for millions of Americans every evening; however, I think its important for us planners who have very vested interests in issues such as housing, food and community planning to take note about how our profession is being misrepresented by people taking the language of “revolution,” “change,” and “plans” to impose their own values on people. Do those who watch these shows think differently about planners because of this? I don’t know for sure. It would be a compelling topic to research, as in many communities where planners are working behind the scenes Jamie Oliver and Ty Pennington might be the most visible representations of people who are influencing housing and food policy in our communities.

Please note that the permissions of this entry differ from the rest of the blog.
Food Revolution by Aaron Knoll is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License;Based on a work at aaronknoll.com. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://aaronknoll.com/?p=85.

What can we learn from the IRT construction 100 years ago and apply to the new 7 line construction today? Or the decision to not build express tracks on the 2nd Avenue subway? Originally, the plans were for a stop to be constructed at 41st Street and 10th Avenue, but that stop has since been cancelled. Is the MTA missing an opportunity that they will regret in 100 years?  Or are putting the chicken before the egg and ignoring the examples of Columbus Circle and the 7 Line to Flushing where the subways helped fuel development rather than serve existing development?

Subways and other mass transit options have been shown to be powerful tools that the city can use to influence development patterns long out into the future. Perhaps subways and express stops can be used to alter development patterns. Whereas express stops have been shown to increase rental values when compared to local subway stops, an express line on Second avenue could evenly distribute higher end residential areas with more affordable real estate in between; rather than simply reducing the price of real estate linearly as you move up Second Avenue away from midtown and downtown? Perhaps New York City is missing an opportunity to define the next century of development along two of its corridors by not attempting to match the vision August Belmont…

But despite the economic benefits of subway construction which include increased property values near Rail Stations (see Dr. Hess’s work in Buffalo, NY, or more a New York City oriented answer, check Craigslist and look at the rentals section). Additionally, subway transit is not elastic to cost, as many riders do not have another option for getting to work, but transit is elastic to frequency of service. So here’s an idea on how to make more money for the MTA.

Increase service. Develop additional light rail. It sounds radical, but perhaps its time for a new way of looking at the MTA fiscal crisis?