Commentary Magazine


Fracking and Food Security: Eco-Leftists Lose Again

In a recent article on genetically modified organisms (GMO) in food crops, the New Yorker quotes an Indian farmer pushing back at Western crusaders against GMOs: “Why do rich people tell us to plant crops that will ruin our farms?” Indeed such “rich people,” usually eco-leftists, tend to fall into one of two categories. They are either conspiracy theorists who rail against lifesaving agricultural advancements and wonder drugs/vaccines as capitalist plots, or they push false environmental “science” intended to stop progress on energy development that lowers the cost of living while improving air quality.

These activists are, in other words, often exceedingly harmful to the planet. But GMOs aren’t the only aspect of feeding children eco-leftists oppose; sometimes their anti-science environmentalism and their anti-medical-advancement conspiracy theorism combine to form a potent enemy of genuine progress. Such is the case with fracking. As a result, more liberal-leaning states and politicians have restrained oil and gas extraction. More conservative, reality-based states and politicians have not. The results are clear: as Bloomberg reports, North Dakota is showing that fracking is not just about energy companies’ bottom line or the price at the pump. It’s about food security:

North Dakota’s oil and gas production boom has boosted incomes and, according to a government report today, left the state with the lowest percentage of households struggling to afford food.

An estimated 8.7 percent of North Dakota households were at risk of hunger in 2013, compared with 14.3 percent of U.S. households, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in an annual report. Virginia was second lowest, at 9.5 percent, the USDA reported, and Arkansas was highest at 21.2 percent.

“The prevalence of food insecurity varied considerably from state to state,” according to the report’s authors.

North Dakota, which has become the nation’s No. 2 oil producer after Texas as drillers use hydraulic fracturing to extract trapped oil and gas, had the nation’s lowest unemployment rate in July at 2.8 percent.

The state’s economic health index — which measures indicators such as employment, income, tax revenue and home prices — was up 2.7 percent in first quarter from the same period last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That put it among the top-performing states in the nation.

There are two caveats. The first is that this isn’t exactly earthshattering news. If you enable an economy to thrive, people will have jobs. If they have jobs, they can buy food. If they can buy food, they can feed their children. It’s not rocket science, it’s just a bit beyond the grasp of the average eco-leftist.

The second caveat is partially mitigated by the first, but is worth discussing. There are real problems with the way the government measures food insecurity. This is an annual report, and thus it is an annual argument, so much of this is repetitive. Nonetheless, the federal government seems to go out of its way to exaggerate Americans’ lack of access to food.

As James Bovard notes in today’s Wall Street Journal, the USDA, at the behest of the National Academy of Sciences, dropped its reference to “hunger”–the food insecurity it warned of was not the same thing as a lack of access to food. Bovard points out what it does mean:

Is being “food insecure” the same as going hungry? Not necessarily. The USDA defines a “food insecure” household in the U.S. as one that is “uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food” at times during the year. The USDA notes: “For most food-insecure households, the inadequacies were in the form of reduced quality and variety rather than insufficient quantity.”

Reduced quality and variety is not starvation. Of course, it certainly can mean a less healthy diet. Bovard says that low-income children, according to studies, consume more calories than others. But in raising this objection he might actually be falling prey to the kind of pro-government-regulation arguments that have been used here and in developing countries, which put too much emphasis on total calories consumed and thus often work at cross-purposes with those trying to improve health outcomes in poor populations.

On the other hand, Bovard is certainly right that the government tends to inflate such statistics, at times, in order to justify more government intervention, such as food stamps, which the data show do not improve overall food security. What does improve food security, however defined, is a serious energy policy like North Dakota’s, which shows the kind of prosperity that is possible when the government doesn’t let eco-leftists hijack policy.

Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »

2 Responses to “Fracking and Food Security: Eco-Leftists Lose Again”

  1. MARK MANDELL says:

    Meanwhile, New York states bans all fracking as business, industry, jobs and people disappear in upstate New York.

  2. JOEL TRACY says:

    You sound as bad as the man made global warming groups. Many of them claim the science is settled, and disagreeing with their science makes you anti-science. It’s a cheap political trick. It’s revealing for its ignorance in understanding how science works.

    I personally am not all that familiar with the GMO issue. I know some become highly fired up over the topic. For me I’ve found my health is best when avoiding grains, eating lower carb. From what I understand, grains tends to be where most of the GMO foods are found. Thankfully for those that eat grains and are concerned, foods on store shelves are becoming more frequently labeled as GMO or not from what I’ve read.

    From what I’ve come to learn, the vaccine issue is interesting and troubling in several respects. It’s a long topic to discuss, but in short, the anti-vaccine movement has been around for a long time, nearly as long as when Jenner heard the old wives tale that cow pox would provide protection from small pox. The anti-vaccine movement began back then, as it does today, due to be belief the vaccine were causing harm, more harm than was being officially reported. Additionally a belief that vaccines provided poor protection from diseases. Many disease outbreaks have occurred in the past, despite wide spread vaccination efforts.

    Historically, a famous protest of the past occurred in Leicester, UK in the 1870s. There, despite penalties of jail time, and steep fines, a majority of the population in the large manufacturing city stopped vaccinating. Warnings from news paper writers around the world were issued that the rebels of Leicester would cause wide spread disease out breaks. The opposite occurred. Leicester had one of the lowest rates of disease out breaks in the UK, lasting 60 plus years.

    What made this happen is Leicester’s approach to fighting disease. Instead of relying on vaccines, the city instituted improved wide spread sanitation efforts, improved nutritional efforts, and quarantine of individuals when illness occurred.

    When looking at history and science, what happened in Leicester isn’t unique. When cities and countries implemented improved sanitation, saw greater access to quality foods, developed pest control, and improved work conditions, disease incidents fell dramatically, sometimes 99% in lower disease incidents some cases. This miracle happened long before most vaccines were developed for diseases, or antibiotics were created.

    In summary, I doubt vaccines are going away anytime soon. Possible in the future if enough people become concerned that vaccines are causing more harm than doing good, we’ll see another Leicester. If that happens, personally I’m not worried. I’m convinced the main heroes in seeing the old killer diseases go away and stay away are sanitation workers, plumbers, farms, grocery stores, pest control officers, etc. This mention isn’t much different from what we’ve heard before. Sanitation and quality nutrition are important at preventing and fighting disease.

    There are several books on this topic, but one that I enjoyed reading was called Dissolving Illusions. The books web sight is at:

    On the sight is many informative charts, showing when the drops in disease incidence occurred and the year when vaccines came out.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share This

Share this post with your friends!

Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
for full access to
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
Don't have a log in?
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.