Re: More on Organic tobacco

Nancy Grudens Schuck (ng13@cornell.edu)
Thu, 12 Oct 1995 08:40:49 -0500

Willy, I cannot disagree with you about the 'big picuture' on organic
tobacco (bad for health, a sacred cow that can now be slaughtered, thank
you). But in creating an future in which organic production methods and
values are the norm, must every road we take be internally consistent, e.g.
100% 'organic'? You must certainly be aware of how integral tobacco farming
is to farmers in some parts of the U.S. Mid-Atlantic, and South, and
southeastern Canada. I can view 'organic tobacco' from an educational
standpoint as a way to increase skills and understanding of organic
production methods and values - starting from where the farming system is
*right now* - in this case, for some farmers, growing tobacco. Some of
those skills are transferrable to other crops, etc. We will *also* benefit
from all that you and others have posted about the contradictions -- I am
not protesting your posts -- but I see value in providing support for
organic methods at the same time.

Thank, Nancy Grudens Schuck

>In response to my question about why an organic producer would produce
>tobacco, several people have said that it is an environmentally preferable
>way of producing tobacco, and that some producers feel that it was not up to
>them to dictate what consumers should or should not be consuming.
>
>This argument leaves out one important point: the health damage that the
>tobacco consumer imposes on other people through secondhand smoke. I venture
>that tobacco consumption is a far greater environmental health problem than
>all the environmental effects of tobacco production -- even conventional
>tobacco production -- put together.
>
>Assuming the organic producer is a environmentally responsible, can one
>justify growing a product as environmentally damaging as tobacco on the
>grounds that you are growing it in an environmentally preferable way?
>
>Moreover, the organic literature is filled with discussions of the need to
>"internalize" costs of production, that is, to make the producer pay for
>"external" costs such as pollution. But the external costs of tobacco
>consumption are far greater than those associated with pesticide use on
>tobacco, say: not just the health problems suffered by unwilling inhalers of
>second hand smoke, but the monetary costs of the smoker's own health problems
>-- only some of which are borne by the smoker, the rest by Medicare, other
>people in the smoker's health insurance pool, etc. The taxes collected on
>tobacco don't come close to covering these, making it a classic example of an
>"externality" that the rest of us pay for. In short, just the kind of thing
>the organic farming literature says we should try to eliminate. Or is that
>only when someone else is creating the externality?
>
>Finally, some people justified organic tobacco production on the grounds that
>tobacco is an important cash crop for small farmers, and that if there is a
>lucrative market out there, why shouldn't they go for it? (Similar to the
>argument on behalf of Columbian coca producers.)
>
>Still seeking a justification for organic tobacco production, I remain,
>
>William Lockeretz
>Tufts University

***************************
Nancy Grudens Schuck
Graduate Student
Department of Education
Kennedy Hall, Cornell University
Ithaca, Ny 14853
ng13@cornell.edu
***************************