Organic Food Myths Debunked
Ronald Bailey | May 1, 2008, 10:24am
I am not against organic foods per se. In fact, I buy organic foods at our local farmer's market all the time--usually because I think they taste better, especially the heirloom tomatoes. That being said, I am strongly against over-hyped sustainability and nutritional claims for organic foods.
The Independent is running a good article on "The great organic myths." I highly recommend reading the whole article, but below are some highlights:
Myth one: Organic farming is good for the environment
The study of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) for the UK, sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, should concern anyone who buys organic. It shows that milk and dairy production is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). A litre of organic milk requires 80 per cent more land than conventional milk to produce, has 20 per cent greater global warming potential, releases 60 per cent more nutrients to water sources, and contributes 70 per cent more to acid rain....
Myth two: Organic farming is more sustainable
Organic potatoes use less energy in terms of fertiliser production, but need more fossil fuel for ploughing. A hectare of conventionally farmed land produces 2.5 times more potatoes than an organic one.
Heated greenhouse tomatoes in Britain use up to 100 times more energy than those grown in fields in Africa. Organic yield is 75 per cent of conventional tomato crops but takes twice the energy – so the climate consequences of home-grown organic tomatoes exceed those of Kenyan imports...
Myth four: Pesticide levels in conventional food are dangerous
The proponents of organic food – particularly celebrities, such as Gwyneth Paltrow, who have jumped on the organic bandwagon – say there is a "cocktail effect" of pesticides. Some point to an "epidemic of cancer". In fact, there is no epidemic of cancer. When age-standardised, cancer rates are falling dramatically and have been doing so for 50 years...
Myth five: Organic food is healthier
To quote Hohenheim University: "No clear conclusions about the quality of organic food can be reached using the results of present literature and research results." What research there is does not support the claims made for organic food.
Large studies in Holland, Denmark and Austria found the food-poisoning bacterium Campylobacter in 100 per cent of organic chicken flocks but only a third of conventional flocks; equal rates of contamination with Salmonella (despite many organic flocks being vaccinated against it); and 72 per cent of organic chickens infected with parasites...
The Independent article concludes:
In a serious age, we should talk about the future seriously and not use food scares and misinformation as a tactic to increase sales.
Amen to that. Go ahead and buy organic foods, but just don't do so under the illusion that you are somehow helping to save the planet.
My own deconstruction of one overhyped study on the alleged sustainability of organic farming here.
You can ferret out the remaining myths by going to the Independent here.
Disclosure: I wish I still owned those 50 shares of Monsanto considering that they have more than doubled in value in the last year.
Add a comment ↓
Michael Seebeck | May 1, 2008, 5:38pm | #
You need to get some education on the subject.
For starters, "USDA Organic", well, isn't. Their certification is a the biggest running joke in the industry. QAI leads the charge on real certification, as does most Tilth orgnaizations.
Second, I would investigate certain web pages with lots more information than Bailey has. Dr. Mercola is a place to start that I'd recommend.
Third, conventional mass monocrop agriculture is a major contributor to greenhouse gases and soil depletion, which leads to the nutritional deficiencies that are found in modern conventional crops. The greenhouse gases come from the leaching of pertochemical fertilizers into the soil emitting the gas. BTW, those chemicals also make their way into the runoff and ground water and tend to kill things downstream, so they screw with ecosystems. (See Dead Zone comments above)
Fourth, conventional madd monocrop agirculture is becoming unsustainable due to the war. The increase in oil prices affects these farmers in many ways, the biggest of which is the increased cost of diesel for their equipment, and the increased cost of the petrochemical fertilizers to try to make up for the badly managed soil's lack of nutrients to help the plants grow better. I grew up with farm family and I married an agronomist. I see this firsthand.
Fifth, recent studies readily available online indicate that organic priactices can reach a 90-100% yield of a comparable conventional crop. Inefficient is a non-factor.
Sixth, what is not mentioned in complaining about orgnaics is the sustainability factor. Sustainable agriculture includes composting, vermiculture, crop rotation and cover crops, seed saving, companion planting, beneficial insects and nematodes, natural fertilizers, and soil nutrient complementation. Conventional farming can but rarely does these things, and the result is that they get stuck in the Monsanto-petrochemical rut that does nothing except cause soil decline and eventually failure.
Besides all of that, decentralization is the future. Plant your own garden, raise your own fruits, vegetables, herbs, and spices. It's cheaper and better than store-bought, gets you out in the air and exercising, and benefits you much more than drivign a shopping cart. You don't even need a home or a yard--you apratmetn-dwellers just need a balcony, or window, and a planter, soil, seed, and watering pitcher or can to get started.
JW | May 1, 2008, 6:11pm | #
Another thing to consider to your "better ways not being tried" complaint, there is always research going on in agricutlture, usually by the state Ag. dept and colleges. It's not like the average farmer just sits around and waits for the tractor to rust out. They are aware of this research.
You want them to try an "alternative?" OK, then put your money up and show them. Establish a working farm of alternative farming methods and record the yield data. I'm sure this has already been done.
If this is the case, and it's not being adopted, then it's a safe bet that there isn't anything in it for them to warrant the change of or the investment required is too high to merit the risk.
So, yeah, if there were a "better" way, it'd already be done on a larger scale. According to the post below yours, the data is out there. Maybe it is being done, just not on a scale to be noticed; it may be too soon. Just the same, neither of us is in a position to make the judgement of whether or not alternative farming methods are being used in large enough numbers for your sake.
Besides all of that, decentralization is the future. Plant your own garden, raise your own fruits, vegetables, herbs, and spices. It's cheaper and better than store-bought, gets you out in the air and exercising, and benefits you much more than drivign a shopping cart.
There's this new theory out there, called "the division of labor." It turns out I can pay someone to grow my food for me, saving me the labor and expense to do it myself. They tend to do a better job than I can.
Same goes for fixing my car and curing my illnesses. I hear you can pay someone to build a home for you too, which is good, since I don't want to have to learn another craft. I can better use my time to do other productive things.
Keep an eye out. It may catch on.
Kevin Carson | May 3, 2008, 2:32pm | #
I've seen Johnson's article linked around the libertarian blogosphere, the general attitude displayed (especially by Bailey) being "Aha! I knew it all along!" I've seen plenty of that reaction in this thread who "always knew" organic was a crock, and welcome confirmation that the dirty fucking hippies were wrong--despite making it clear by their comments that they never knew jack shit about organic farming aside from what they were spoon fed in puff pieces like Johnson's.
Unfortunately for them, Johnson's article is a very weak reed to lean on. For one thing, he repeatedly contrasts "conventional farming" with "organic farming," with absolutely no acknowledgement of the diverse array of farming methods and scales of operation falling under the "organic" umbrella.
Since he quotes a wide range of studies without any detailed bibliographic information, there's no way of knowing the methodology actually used. But the generalizations in this article itself are essentially meaningless unless we control for scale and method. In general, small-scale intensive methods of farming, both organic and chemical, are more efficient in terms of output per acre than is large-scale commercial production. So there is an inverse relationship between size and efficiency of land use that most likely cuts across the organic-"conventional" distinction, rendering Johnson's generalizations absolutely meaningless.
To repeat, there is a wide range of operating scales and methods that all fall within the technical definition of "organic," but differ greatly in the inputs required and the intensiveness with which the inputs are used.
At one end of the spectrum, we have enormous, mechanized cash crop operations that use essentially the same methods as conventional agribusiness--with the sole exception of substituting organic for synthetic fertilizers and pest control. A good example is the giant California "organic" operations that produced the tainted spinach scare in the U.S. two years ago.
At the other end is raised-bed horticulture, the most efficient being the Biointensive technique developed by John Jeavons. This technique maximizes output per square foot and intensively returns all organic materials to the soil through composting, and is intended primarily for household use. Jeavons' techniques can, if utilized to full efficiency, feed one person on 4000 sq. ft. (about 1/10 acre).
Johnson refers to organic pesticides like rotenone as if they were universally used, when in fact many organic growers shy away from such potent neurotoxins. And a variety of other techniques exists, like companion planting, insecticidal soap, Bt, etc.
The issue is further complicated by scale, in the sense that the most efficient form of farming in terms of use of labor inputs is household subsistence production. Ralph Borsodi showed in the 1930s that the total cost (the labor of growing and canning, electricity inputs, amortization cost of equipment, etc.) of growing and canning vegetables at home was about a third less than the grocery store price. The reason was that, even though unit costs of production were slightly lower for plantation farms and commercial canneries, this was more than offset by the zero distribution costs of producing at the point of consumption. The average person can not only get superior quality produce, but reduce his total work week, by growing vegetables at home and reducing his wage labor by the amount he previously worked to pay for them at the supermarket.
Johnson's article has the air of an intellectually lazy person just looking for confirmation of what he knew all along.
