Of cabbages and chemicals (An organic farming debate)

[paperbackwriter]

Call this a thread triggerred by colliding NPR stories. Recently, in one week, I listened to the Morning Edition story on Fritz Haber's discovery of nitrogen fertilizers and an interview with the head of the New York organic farmer's association.

A thought struck me: Until Fritz Haber's discovery, and the discovery of chemical pesticides, all farming was organic. Non-organic farming is only about a hundred to a hundred fifty years old. In that time, the world's population has increased from 1.6 billion in 1903 to 5.8 billion in 1996

I used to attend an institution where the assumption was always organic= good, non-organic = bad. There are actually a number of researchers working on organic farming research, some of whom I studied with. But listening to the Haber piece caused me to think about that assumption a little more.

Much of the debate in the organic farming movement in the last few years seems to be about who's "really" organic. Definitional issues like: using fish meal is organic, but sewerage sludge is not.

I'm beginning to think this is missing the point entirely. The real discussion should be: how do preserve the increased crop yields of modern agriculture while mitigating the harmful side effects?

So the debate question is this:
Is the organic farming movement a realistic way to save the environment, or just a way for mostly upper-income Westerners to feel like they are doing some good by buying at Bread & Circus?

[perspective]

Organic farming surely does it's part in soothing the troubled yuppie soul.
Can it save the world? I don't know. It is a valid question to try to figure out how we can feed everyone without poisoning the environment or losing our topsoil. I honestly don't know if strict organic farming can achieve this. I agree that organic farmers/consumers in the US largely aren't concerned about that.
I would guess that this has to do with the abundance of food and arable land here. We could produce substantially less on more land and still feed everyone. Therefore it's a back burner sort of issue.

Another problem is marketability: "sort of organic", would probably still cost a little more and not have all the warm fuzzy feelings that organic does.

I think it would either take a signifigant PR campaign to overcome these obstacles or perhaps legislation that required stricter control of erosion, fertilizers, and pesticides. To sum it up, even if the research was being done, it's hard for me to imagine who would implement it at present.

[Mangetout]

Organic gardening (at least in part) can often work quite well for the smallholder; using manure from your chickens and goats on your vegetable plots makes economic sense and is probably better for the soil natural fertilisers, because they are usually combined with rotted bulky organic material, improve soil texture and maintain it's ability to prevent nutrients from being washed away [Anecdote]I've consistently had measurably better results with my vegetables when I use natural compost and manure[/anecdote]

Likewise, it's hardly any more bother to pick sawfly larvae off your gooseberry bushes by hand (and feed them to the chickens), or wash blackfly off your broad(fava) beans with a strong jet of water as you are watering them anyway. Chemicals are often fiddly and hard to mix properly in small quantites and disposal of unused residue is a problem.

It doesn't always scale up very well though; the quality of natural fertilisers is inconsistent and transporting and applying them to a large area is not always as easy. Perhaps some of this is due to the idea of 'converting' to organic, rather than building procedures from scratch.

[Mangetout]

Oh and before this discussion goes any further, can we just say for the benefit of any pedantic chemists that 'organic' just has more than one meaning nowadays; deal with it.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by paperbackwriter


Much of the debate in the organic farming movement in the last few years seems to be about who's "really" organic. Definitional issues like: using fish meal is organic, but sewerage sludge is not.

For those who don't know I'd like to point out that they don't dump raw sewage on crops. The sewage sludge is treated first and I don't see how anyone could say it wasn't organic.

Is the organic farming movement a realistic way to save the environment, or just a way for mostly upper-income Westerners to feel like they are doing some good by buying at Bread & Circus?

Organic farming is not a realistic way to save the environment. I'm not even convinced that it is healthier or taste better then what you find on other farms. Farming organically ends up costing the farmer more which of course is passed on to the consumer. We'd be much better off with GMO foods that produce more nutritious foods, lower the need for pesticides, produce more robust crops, and to come up with better forms of fertlizer.

Marc

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Mangetout

It doesn't always scale up very well though; the quality of natural fertilisers is inconsistent and transporting and applying them to a large area is not always as easy. Perhaps some of this is due to the idea of 'converting' to organic, rather than building procedures from scratch.

It doesn't scale up well at all. These days farmers try to do almost everything by machine. A lot of people just don't think of everything being picked by machine rather then hand. Rice, potatos, soybeans, corn, tomatos, cotton, and plenty of other crops I can't even think of are machine picked because it is more cost effective. Can you imagine how labor intensive it would be to send hired hands out to 40 acres of corn to search for pests by hand? The cost of corn would skyrocket.

I know many don't like it but the future of large scale farming belongs to genetically modified food products. Organic farming will only fullfill a niche market.

Marc

[Mangetout]

Sewage sludge (apparently) contains heavy metals.

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by Mangetout
Sewage sludge (apparently) contains heavy metals.

Generally speaking it isn't used for food crops for that very reason ( well among others ). When I was involved in processing the stuff it mostly went to cotton fields and the like.

- Tamerlane

[perspective]

Argh...must resist...GMO debate... can't hold out...much longer...

Originally posted by MGibson
We'd be much better off with GMO foods that produce more nutritious foods, lower the need for pesticides, produce more robust crops, and to come up with better forms of fertlizer.

In theory perhaps. What we get though are products like "Roundup Ready" soybeans that increase the use of pesticides/herbicides. Also it does nothing to address soil erosion. I'd like to see the more nutritious part supported. I've never heard that before, even from GMO proponents.
Let me see if I can try to steer this back without short shrifting the GMO argument. Is the food situation today such that we need GMO products to increase efficiency? Will we not be able to feed everyone with conventional agriculture? Or is it simply more profitable for some?

[Odesio]

Originally posted by perspective

In theory perhaps. What we get though are products like "Roundup Ready" soybeans that increase the use of pesticides/herbicides.

What about YieldGuard Corn Borer corn? This GMO corn is suppose to protect against corn borers year round which would require less pesticide to be used.

Also it does nothing to address soil erosion.

The use of Roundup Ready single trait cotton and Roundup Ready single trait soybeans results in greater conservation tillage which does help with soil erosion.

I'd like to see the more nutritious part supported. I've never heard that before, even from GMO proponents.

This is really more of a future probability then anything that will happen soon. The idea is that you might be able to have fruits or veggies with a higher vitamine content or perhaps rice or potatos with vitamines they never had before.

Let me see if I can try to steer this back without short shrifting the GMO argument. Is the food situation today such that we need GMO products to increase efficiency? Will we not be able to feed everyone with conventional agriculture? Or is it simply more profitable for some?

It seems to be more profitable for the majority of farmers who switch over to GMO crops. You use the word "simply" but let me tell you that farming can be a rough business and new technology that lower expenses are good for farmers and consumers. You'd be surprised how much corn out there is GMO. As I said GMO is the future of farming so I think people better get used to it.


Marc

[perspective]

[i]originally posted by MGibson[i]What about YieldGuard Corn Borer corn? This GMO corn is suppose to protect against corn borers year round which would require less pesticide to be used.

YeildGaurd Corn is corn that creates it's own pesticide: Bt. So it isn't really clear to me whether less is being used.

The use of Roundup Ready single trait cotton and Roundup Ready single trait soybeans results in greater conservation tillage which does help with soil erosion.

If less erosion is achieved through dumping more pesticides, I question it's usefulness. Also I wonder how this improvement measures up to typical organic farming practices.

It seems to be more profitable for the majority of farmers who switch over to GMO crops. You use the word "simply" but let me tell you that farming can be a rough business and new technology that lower expenses are good for farmers and consumers.

I'm sure farming has become as competitive as any business. With the increase in factory farming, it has become especially hard for the small farmer. If anything though, organic foods have become a refuge for the small farmer, since its consumers want to buy local and aren't as concerned with the bottom line.

As I said GMO is the future of farming so I think people better get used to it.

With that logic I suppose you could say I should just get used to smog or corporate fraud. I'm sure that pesticides were once thought to be the future of farming, yet organic agriculture has reappeared despite it's financial shortcomings.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by perspective

If less erosion is achieved through dumping more pesticides, I question it's usefulness. Also I wonder how this improvement measures up to typical organic farming practices.

If. According to the American Soybean Association conservative tillage saved 247 million tons of topsoil and 234 million gallons of fuel in 2000.

Also I would like to know why you think all GM foods will result in more presticides being dumped.

If anything though, organic foods have become a refuge for the small farmer, since its consumers want to buy local and aren't as concerned with the bottom line.

I'm not against organic farming as I see that it fills a niche. I just find it laughable that people advocate it for the mass production of crops.

With that logic I suppose you could say I should just get used to smog or corporate fraud.

May I ask why you equate GM crops with negatives like smog and fraud?

I'm sure that pesticides were once thought to be the future of farming, yet organic agriculture has reappeared despite it's financial shortcomings.

Pesticides were once the future of farming just like tractors, the steel plow, and crop rotation were. Farming is an industry that welcomes changes that results in better crops and a higher yield. I suppose if you want to go along with your analogy we could say that automobiles were once thought to be the future of transportation, yet there are still saddlemakers and ferriers around.

I was mistaken when I said that GM crops were the future. GM crops are the reality of today.

Roundup Ready Soybeans accounted for 54,000,000 acres in the United States in 2001.

Yieldguard corn accounted for 18,500,000 acres in the United States in 2001.

Roundup Ready canola accounted for 4,600,000 acres in North America in 2001.

I should have said that GM crops will play a more important role in the future of farming because clearly it is already here.

Marc

[partly_warmer]

There's another connotation of "organic", which is that the farmer has avoided intentionally adding chemicals to his soil and plants.

In a way, this is the real focus of the OP. Has the food been adulterated, or not? Historically, farmers just duplicated the things their ancestors did. Non-organic often means trying wild things whose results no one can be sure about.

[perspective]

Originally posted by MGibson
Also I would like to know why you think all GM foods will result in more presticides being dumped.

I didn't say that. I was responding to your example of two Roundup Ready crops. Roundup Ready means that the plants have been designed to live through a higher dosage of Roundup herbicide.

I'm not against organic farming as I see that it fills a niche. I just find it laughable that people advocate it for the mass production of crops.

Maybe, but how far off is it? Organic farming methods have improved over the last twenty years. It's not like we have to farm like we're in the 19th century. Organic farming techniques can continue to evolve and improve yeild without using chemicals or genetic modification.

What technologies would we have to use to make it feasible? Can you provide any solid numbers on this? Or do you just think that it's laughable?

May I ask why you equate GM crops with negatives like smog and fraud?

It was not an equation but more of a reductio ad absurdium. The current prevalence of or likelihood of it being adopted is not an argument for it.
Current farming practices lead to significant soil erosion, does that mean we have to accept it?

My main issue with GMO's is cross-pollination. If it get's out of hand it could take away the consumer's choice. And furthermore, should we in the future decide that it isn't safe (DDT was once thought to be harmless), we won't have any recourse.

Farming is an industry that welcomes changes that results in better crops and a higher yield.

Is a crop that makes that poisons itself really better? Given a choice between spraying my corn with pesticide or injecting it, I would choose the former.
Also short term increases are not necessarily sustainable.

[paperbackwriter]

...this is the real focus of the OP...

Actually, partly_warmer it's not. The original focus of the OP was not about "adulteration", because corn grown on a farm using nitrogen fertilizers is the same as corn grown on a farm using manure. It's not adulterated in any way. Although your post brings up one of the points of my original question, the point that "organic" produce is inherently "purer" on some level. I think this is true only on an emotional or psychological level. And if by "wild things" you are referring to fertilizers or long-in-use pesticides, I think that we are sure of those results. If you mean new classes of pesticides, I might agree.

If you are talking about genetically-modified organisms, I'll let MGibson and perspective handle that debate, as they are both more knowledgable on the subject than I.

originally posted by MGibson
For those who don't know I'd like to point out that they don't dump raw sewage on crops. The sewage sludge is treated first and I don't see how anyone could say it wasn't organic.

Yes, thank you for clarifying that. I should have made clear that I was talking about the end result of the treatment process. And, yes, it is organic. It is, after all, the equivalent of human manure, if treated correctly.

originally posted by Mangetout
Organic gardening (at least in part) can often work quite well for the smallholder.........It doesn't always scale up very well though;

Yes, and that's the crux, isn't it? I garden organically myself¹. But to try to feed the world is a difficult task. I don't see the organic farming movement as any kind of real solution to issues like non-point-source water pollution, much less providing sustainable food supplies. I think that the organic farming research may be able to reduce the pesticide and fertilizer use, but many methods aren't feasible for, say, the enormous wheatfields of Iowa.

originally posted by perspective
Organic farming surely does it's part in soothing the troubled yuppie soul.

I was trying to avoid saying that, but that's was exactly what I was getting at. Fun game: count the number of late-model SUV's in the parking lot of the next "whole foods" supermarket you drive past, and compare it to the number of Hondas or Toyotas.

¹Except for poison ivy. I've had life-threatening reactions to that weed, I immediately nuke any sprig of it I see.

[perspective]

Originally posted by paperbackwriter
Although your post brings up one of the points of my original question, the point that "organic" produce is inherently "purer" on some level. I think this is true only on an emotional or psychological level.

If I told you that you could get all of nutrients from taking a multi-vitamin, would you forego a reasonable well balanced diet? I think the same goes for plants. Nitrogen will make plants grow faster and bigger, but I'm not sure that makes them more nutritious by itself.

I don't see the organic farming movement as any kind of real solution to issues like non-point-source water pollution,

I wonder why, since a signifigant portion of this is excess herbicides and pesticides.

If organic farming can't support everyone's needs, how much can it support? I think this answer is continually changing and will change even faster now that larger companies like Dole have gotten into the organic market. I've seen plenty of skepticism and some common sense appeals but no hard numbers here. My guess is that since this hasn't been a priority to the organic food movement, the research hasn't been done.

The best part of your point is that ideological purity will not necessarily meet our needs even though it's marketable to those with disposable income. However, I still think the wisest approach is one that is based on long term sustainability. I think some pesticides can be used safely, but almost any can be overused. Concentration on net yield could result in the poor use of resources needed for the future such as topsoil. It is in our best interest to understand how we can make food without making poisons and adopt an agricultural policy that uses them only when necessary. Unfortunately, minimal pesticide use, is something people haven't figured out how to market to consumers yet. "Sustainably farmed" might make it soon, although this is an even more nebulous concept than "organic."

[Odesio]

Originally posted by perspective
I didn't say that. I was responding to your example of two Roundup Ready crops. Roundup Ready means that the plants have been designed to live through a higher dosage of Roundup herbicide.

I'd like to see a cite showing that Roundup Ready crops have resulted in more herbicide being dropped. I wouldn't doubt if it has resulted in more Roundup being used but I doubt more herbicide in general is being used on those crops.

The neat thing about Roundup, and the reason it is so popular, is that it kills a wide variety of unwanted plants. So a single spray of Roundup takes care of most of the weeds and unwanted grass that I have to deal with in my cotton field. Without Roundup I'd have to spray multiple types of herbicide to keep things under control. From personal experience I can tell you that we spray less because of Roundup Ready soybeans and cotton.

Maybe, but how far off is it? Organic farming methods have improved over the last twenty years. It's not like we have to farm like we're in the 19th century. Organic farming techniques can continue to evolve and improve yeild without using chemicals or genetic modification.

It might be possible to completely switch over to organic farming today. However the quality, quantity, and price of our food will not be to the current standards we as a society enjoy. To get as much food we'd have to plant more of it. That means more tilling, more topsoil erosion, more fuel consumption, and more crops lost to insects and weeds.

Current farming practices lead to significant soil erosion, does that mean we have to accept it?

We're working on it. Do you even know what conservative tillage is? Do you understand how GM crops help with conservative tillage?

My main issue with GMO's is cross-pollination. If it get's out of hand it could take away the consumer's choice. And furthermore, should we in the future decide that it isn't safe (DDT was once thought to be harmless), we won't have any recourse.

Cross pollination is a legitimate concern. Not enough of a concern to villify GM crops though.

Is a crop that makes that poisons itself really better? Given a choice between spraying my corn with pesticide or injecting it, I would choose the former.

If that crop results in the need for less spraying (less pollution)and results in more crop per acre (saved topsoil), then yes.

Marc

[Odesio]

Originally posted by perspective

Unfortunately, minimal pesticide use, is something people haven't figured out how to market to consumers yet.

Believe it or not but most farmers would love to eliminate the need for pesticides and herbicides. These things cost money and lower the margin of profit.

Marc

[Patty O'Furniture]

Originally posted by paperbackwriter:

Until Fritz Haber's discovery, and the discovery of chemical pesticides, all farming was organic. Non-organic farming is only about a hundred to a hundred fifty years old. In that time, the world's population has increased from 1.6 billion in 1903 to 5.8 billion in 1996

But over the same period of time, the federal income tax rates have gone up over 1500%! Damned non-organic farming.

[perspective]

Originally posted by MGibson
I'd like to see a cite showing that Roundup Ready crops have resulted in more herbicide being dropped. I wouldn't doubt if it has resulted in more Roundup being used but I doubt more herbicide in general is being used on those crops.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefo...ansfailing.cfm
This is an obviously biased site, but they cite an article from a bio-tech site that usually touts the benefits of biotechnology

It might be possible to completely switch over to organic farming today. However the quality, quantity, and price of our food will not be to the current standards we as a society enjoy. To get as much food we'd have to plant more of it. That means more tilling, more topsoil erosion, more fuel consumption, and more crops lost to insects and weeds.

Probably less quantity, but I doubt less quality. Organic farming stresses creating healthy plants and preserving topsoil. A healthy plant is more resistant to pests and also more nutritional. Since organic farming is based on preserving and improving topsoil, I don't know why it would increase erosion.

Also are current farming methods sustainable? It would be nice if gas was as cheap as it was in the 50's but we can't live in that world forever. If we can't continue farming as we are today, we'll have to face up to price raises at some point.

Cross pollination is a legitimate concern. Not enough of a concern to villify GM crops though.

That's a judgement call. The current market share of GM crops is probably increasing. If the trend continues so that organic farmers are surrounded by GMO's, it may become difficult for them to maintain their crop's non-GMO status. I personally would like to see crops with no chance of cross pollination. Then we would have some sort of control on these experiments we're conducting on the environment.

If that crop results in the need for less spraying (less pollution)and results in more crop per acre (saved topsoil), then yes.

So you'd rather eat the poison than release it in the wild? How noble.

[paperbackwriter]

Attrayant: Huh? I don't know what this comment has to do with the question at hand. The global population is, on the other hand, directly related to how much food can be produced. Without modern farming methods, there can be no doubt that the Earth could not feed 5.8 billion people.

Originally posted by perspective
So you'd rather eat the poison than release it in the wild? How noble.

Remember, though, that not all herbicides and fertilizers are poisonous, especially once the produce is washed and gets to the table. I think it is inaccurate of you to continue to call all chemicals "poisons".

If I told you that you could get all of nutrients from taking a multi-vitamin, would you forego a reasonable well balanced diet?

You bring up a good point, but I don't think you can demonstrate that there's any evidence that an ear of corn from an organic farmer's field has any different nutrient content than any other ear of corn. The reason that health authorities prefer vitamins from food to synthetic vitamins relates more to absorption and efficacy of use. Vitamins are better absorbed and used by the body when consumed with food.

If the plants grow bigger, they are more nutritious. The amount (not percentage) of carbohydrates, fiber, proteins, etc. are all going to be higher if the ear of corn is bigger. Increase the size of the pie and all the slices are larger. That's why we can feed more people with less land in cultivation -- the land is more productive.

However, I still think the wisest approach is one that is based on long term sustainability. I think some pesticides can be used safely, but almost any can be overused.

I don't disagree. In fact, I think anyone who is not an idealogue would agree. But this is not organic farming as the proponents of that movement define it. I think we also agree that organic farming is not going to feed the world. It seems you would like to see "almost organic" or "organic lite" become acceptable. I think some fusion of modern and organic agriculture might be feasible for some crops. I don't see a lot of difference in those two positions, even if reached from different paths.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by perspective
A healthy plant is more resistant to pests and also more nutritional.

I'm not sure that the second part of this statement is necessarily true; a healthy plant is more capable of looking after its own needs, but it doesn't necessarily follow that those needs will translate into a greater nutritional benefit for the human consumer. I'm trying to think of an example and the best I can do is Chicory and Endives; these plants are deliberately rendered unhealthy (by preventing their access to sunlight) in order to make them more palatable (I'm not sure if the bitter compounds that they produce under full light are actually harmful, but perhaps you get the idea).
Tomatoes produce more flavoursome fruit if you stress them (although the total yield will be smaller), cucumbers are prevented from pollinating (which, arguably, from the point of view of the plant is not 'healthy') because pollination results in distorted bitter fruits.

[Patty O'Furniture]

I don't know what this comment has to do with the question at hand. The global population is, on the other hand, directly related to how much food can be produced. Without modern farming methods, there can be no doubt that the Earth could not feed 5.8 billion people.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The population increase was a direct result of increased food production? How do you know that it wasn't due to (e.g.) medical advancements? People live longer then ever now, and what do you suppose is the infant mortality rate is now compared to 100+years ago? I'm just saying that

Non-organic farming is only about a hundred to a hundred fifty years old. In that time, the world's population has increased

is making an extremely hasty conclusion.

Without modern farming methods, there can be no doubt that the Earth could not feed 5.8 billion people.

Just because there are 5.8 billion people
does not mean we are feeding all of them.

[Mangetout]

But (max)Global population is related to food production; if the food were not available, the people would not live and the population would decline (or at least not have grown); to say that X is supported by Y is not an assertion that Y causes X.

[Patty O'Furniture]

I wasn't suggesting that it's totally unrelated, just that it's sloppy to say that result Y was explicitly due from cause X. In this case, Y resulted from X along with A, B, C and D, and possibly all the way to Z.

[Mangetout]

My reading of paperbackwriter's post doesn't recognise it as an assertion of explicit cause.

[perspective]

Originally posted by paperbackwriter
Remember, though, that not all herbicides and fertilizers are poisonous, especially once the produce is washed and gets to the table. I think it is inaccurate of you to continue to call all chemicals "poisons".

Does
insecticide sound all that more tasty than poison? The corn I was talking
about makes its own insectide which cannot be washed off.

Bt supposedly breaks down on contact with digestive acids in the human body, but we've made mistakes before with chemicals. Sometimes not realizing the dangers until after years of use.

You bring up a good point, but I don't think you can demonstrate that there's any evidence that an ear of corn from an organic farmer's field has any different nutrient content than any other ear of corn....If the plants grow bigger, they are more nutritious. The amount (not percentage) of carbohydrates, fiber, proteins, etc. are all going to be higher if the ear of corn is bigger. Increase the size of the pie and all the slices are larger. That's why we can feed more people with less land in cultivation -- the land is more productive.

The mere fact that you didn't use synthetic fertilizers will not guarantee a more nutritious ear of corn. However, organic farming practices typically provide a very healthy topsoil with a high concentration of trace minerals that are not necessary to grow a larger ear of corn.

The reason that health authorities prefer vitamins from food to synthetic vitamins relates more to absorption and efficacy of use. Vitamins are better absorbed and used by the body when consumed with food.

Well yes, but what if you consumed your vitamins with corn chips and soda? Most doctors would probably reccomend getting your vitamins from natural sources. If you have a deficiency, they might reccomend supplements for a while, but ulimately if you can get what you need from actual food you're probably better off. The analogue is, if we throw nitrogen in poor soil we might get a larger plant, but not necessarily all of the minerals we need.

I think we also agree that organic farming is not going to feed the world.

I wouldn't say that, I just don't have the evidence to back up the assertion that it can. If someone can present conclusive evidence that it won't I'd like to see it too.

Interestingly enough, third world people who produce their own food in what is already a labor intensive fashion, and cannot always afford synthetic products, could actually benefit from advances in organic farming. So in short, I don't think it's just for yuppies.

Feeding the world is a much more difficult question. China for instance, might be hard pressed to rely entirely on organic agriculture, due to it's high population density.

I'm interested in having an adequate food supply for the world, but not just for today, I want something that is sustainable and reliably safe. This may involve synthetic technology, but if we don't need it, I'd like to do without it.

[partly_warmer]

The original focus of the OP was not about "adulteration", because corn grown on a farm using nitrogen fertilizers is the same as corn grown on a farm using manure. It's not adulterated in any way. Although your post brings up one of the points of my original question, the point that "organic" produce is inherently "purer" on some level. I think this is true only on an emotional or psychological level. And if by "wild things" you are referring to fertilizers or long-in-use pesticides, I think that we are sure of those results. If you mean new classes of pesticides, I might agree.

This definition comes from

http://www.gks.com/library/transition.html. As the page notes, this is the more legally-binding sense of the definition:

"An organic product is that which is raised, grown, stored, and/or processed without the use of synthetically-produced chemicals or fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, or any other pesticides, growth hormones or growth regulators."

I don't want to wrangle too much about this, but my issue with this definition lies in the word "synthetically". To my mind any chemicals man puts together which do not occur in nature are synthetic. That means for example the processes of smoking or curing with salt are synthetic.

That's why I felt at the heart of the intent of "organic" farming is to avoid doing "wild things", and stick with tried and true methods.

MGibson, its quite correct that farmers would like to eliminate the cost of pesticides. I have a balance sheet to hand that I have to review showing the cost of Nitrogen Fertilizer, Topnotch, Crop Oil, Anhydrous Ammonia, and Mixed Fertilizer as taking (roughly) 20% of the profit. Fan of eating unadulterated food that I am, I can't figure out any way to stop them from putting (some of) this garbage on. I know the farm manager, he's an experienced, honest businessman, and he wouldn't do this if it didn't improve the profit.

But perspective's right when he says that a bigger plant isn't necessarily more nutritious. The first thing that comes to mind is additional water content. If a bigger plant just has more water, it makes no nutritional difference. No doubt there are other ways a plant could be "bulked" without increasing its food value.

[partly_warmer]

The original focus of the OP was not about "adulteration", because corn grown on a farm using nitrogen fertilizers is the same as corn grown on a farm using manure. It's not adulterated in any way. Although your post brings up one of the points of my original question, the point that "organic" produce is inherently "purer" on some level. I think this is true only on an emotional or psychological level. And if by "wild things" you are referring to fertilizers or long-in-use pesticides, I think that we are sure of those results. If you mean new classes of pesticides, I might agree.

This definition comes from

http://www.gks.com/library/transition.html. As the page notes, this is the more legally-binding sense of the definition:

"An organic product is that which is raised, grown, stored, and/or processed without the use of synthetically-produced chemicals or fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, or any other pesticides, growth hormones or growth regulators."

I don't want to wrangle too much about this, but my issue with this definition lies in the word "synthetically". To my mind any chemicals man puts together which do not occur in nature are synthetic. That means for example the processes of smoking or curing with salt are synthetic.

That's why I felt at the heart of the intent of "organic" farming is to avoid doing "wild things", and stick with tried and true methods.

MGibson, its quite correct that farmers would like to eliminate the cost of pesticides. I have a balance sheet to hand that I have to review showing the cost of Nitrogen Fertilizer, Topnotch, Crop Oil, Anhydrous Ammonia, and Mixed Fertilizer as taking (roughly) 20% of the profit. Fan of eating unadulterated food that I am, I can't figure out any way to stop them from putting (some of) this garbage on. I know the farm manager, he's an experienced, honest businessman, and he wouldn't do this if it didn't improve the profit.

But perspective's right when he says that a bigger plant isn't necessarily more nutritious. The first thing that comes to mind is additional water content. If a bigger plant just has more water, it makes no nutritional difference. No doubt there are other ways a plant could be "bulked" without increasing its food value.

[paperbackwriter]

Whew, a lot to reply to. Feel at something of a connection speed disadvantage.

Attrayant, if you follow some of the links I have posted in my previous arguments, I think you will find that they support my position. I acknowledged the current famines by posting a link to the UN World Food Program, but more importantly my first link will lead to support for the proposition that nitrogen fertilizers are one of the most important advances of the "agricultural revolution," and that authorities generally accept that Haber's advances allowed the world population to increase. As Mangetout points out (_thanks), I did not mean to imply that the sole reason for increased global population is increased food supplies, but it is an important one. And it is also a reinforcing factor in other reasons for increased population. For instance, increasing maternal nutrition results in higher birth-weight babies, which gives the children a greater chance of reaching adulthood and thereby having more children of their own. Not a direct cause, but a contributory factor.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by perspective

Bt supposedly breaks down on contact with digestive acids in the human body, but we've made mistakes before with chemicals. Sometimes not realizing the dangers until after years of use.

I see no reason to be paralyzed with fear because mistakes have been made in the past.

I wouldn't say that, I just don't have the evidence to back up the assertion that it can. If someone can present conclusive evidence that it won't I'd like to see it too.

There is no conclusive evidence that it won't. Organic farming is just more labor intensive, requires more land for the same amount of crop, and ultimately cost more.

Farming isn't as easy as people think it is and crop conditions can vary greatly from county to county let alone from state to state. For example they've been catching bollweevils in my fields like they're going out of style. So to protect my crops from being eaten I have to spray insecticide. Sometimes we look at a field and decide that while it has weeds it wouldn't be cost effective to spray this year. There are a lot of decisions that go into how to handle the crops and it can change from year to year depending on conditions.

Interestingly enough, third world people who produce their own food in what is already a labor intensive fashion, and cannot always afford synthetic products, could actually benefit from advances in organic farming. So in short, I don't think it's just for yuppies.

GM crops are slowly making their way into 3rd world nations. Currently about 2% of the population of the United States is directly engaged in farming. I don't want to condemn 3rd world nations to intensive laboring for food otherwise they'll never have the opportunity to really improve things.

Feeding the world is a much more difficult question. China for instance, might be hard pressed to rely entirely on organic agriculture, due to it's high population density.

Feeding the world these days is largely a matter of distribution rather then actual growing ability.

[/b]
I'm interested in having an adequate food supply for the world, but not just for today, I want something that is sustainable and reliably safe. This may involve synthetic technology, but if we don't need it, I'd like to do without it. [/b]

Hence we have organic filling a niche market for people who prefer it. I can't make a profit most years on soybeans or cotton organically.

Marc

[Odesio]

Sorry I haven't been around more for the discussion. I'm currently moving and most of my farm reports are packed away in some mysterious box.

Marc

[perspective]

Originally posted by MGibson
I see no reason to be paralyzed with fear because mistakes have been made in the past.

There is a difference between being paralyzed and always looking for chemicals to solve our problems. A slower more careful approach could be much more beneficial in the long run.