The Economist don’t much seem to like it. I haven’t read the article, but I’ve read about it in the newspaper, and the arguement was quite compelling. Basically, I think what they were saying was that modern agriculture is so effective that in comparison the harm caused by pesticides and such are really neglible.
But, I’m really quite blank, so it would be interresting to hear if anyone has read the article, has access to the economist online, or has anything interresting to say at all. Straight dope, please.
I’ve heard that organic farming can be quite nasty for the environment, because in many cases they replace artificial pesticide with “natural” replacements, like strychnine ( derived from a tree ). Result : lots of dead birds and deer and so forth. Also, they tend to choose breeds of plants that produce plenty of their own pesticide, much of which hasn’t been tested for safety. I wouldn’t touch the stuff.
There is a problem, too, in that organic foods take up more space to grow. Convential farming allows more crops to be grown on less land, thereby freeing up land for either a return to nature or other businesses or houses (which means that these other businesses or houses do not have to take up undeveloped land). Conventional farming is good for the environment in this sense in that it reduces (or slows the growth of) man’s footprint on the environment.
A local tv station tested locally-grown produce a few years ago. They went to a bunch of different stores and bought organic and inorganic versions of produce and had it all tested. They interviewed the growers ahead of time and the organic ones were swearing up one side and down the other that the inorganic stuff would be chock full of nasty chemicals. The inorganic growers were saying, “no, our stuff’s clean, but I bet the organic guys are going to find something else to whine about when that’s proven.”
Test results: negative across the board. No chemicals.
Organic growers, post test: “Well, but, the pesticides the inorganic guys used are hard on the environment, so, even if it doesn’t show up on the test, there’s pesticide out there somewhere…”
Inorganic growers: “Told ya.”
This doesn’t surprise me at all.
I choose organic or non-organic produce based on what looks like better produce, assuming the organic produce isn’t hugely more expensive.
Could you feed the population of the Earth with just organic foods? I am guessing no. Does that make the organic-heads a better-than-thou group?
The problem that these debates always run into is that almost nobody involved, including organic proponents, understands what “organic” actually means and what it encompasses.
What everyone in this debate needs to do before they post is to sit down for a second and consider the vast scope of both “organic” and “inorganic” agriculture. It will never be true to say that organic or inorganic always does X, and anyone making such a statement will be talking crap. Sometimes organic production requires more land, often it requires less land. Sometime standard agriculture is more environmentally damaging, often it is less. It is perfectly possible to have organic soybeans grown on newly cleared rainforest or organic cattle feedlots. It is possible to have inorganic produce grown with zero pesticides or zero fertiliser. It is possible for an organic hydroponics or feedlot system that is a total ecological wasteland, and it is possible to produce inorganic beef or honey in an ecosystem that is totally indistinguishable from its pristine state.
I suspect that this debate is really about the organic industry, rather than organic practices. These are two very different things. The organic industry is just that, it is an entire industrial base that relies for it s existence on people who believe its marketing claims. The industry does not consist of small hippy commune farms but consists primarily of multinational conglomerates and advertising firms. To lay my cards on the table, I am no fan of the current organic industry. It is counter productive to sustainable agricultural practices and is environmentally damaging. Worse yet it relies on half-truths and reducing complex issues down to false dichotomies in order to make money for its members. As such I can’t help but be opposed to it on all grounds. Having said that organic detractors are no better. They too reduce the argument down to false dichotomies such as Renob’s “organic foods take up more space to grow” (not a particular objection Renob, just grabbing an obvious example).
Claims that you couldn’t feed the world organically are clearly untrue. We could easily feed the world organically. What we could not do is feed the world organically using anything like our current system. You could can feed the entire population of the earth with a single multi-level hydroponic farm about 100 miles on a side. Totally organic, and using only modern technology.
But…
The problem becomes one of intensity. Standard modern agriculture is extensive, meaning that it needs vast areas of land which isn’t a good thing. In contrast to get the same productivity organically you need to either become even more extensive, which means land clearing, fewer wilderness reserves and so forth, or you have to become more intensive.
Currently hydroponics are extremely intensive. They are land intensive, meaning that the land has no conservation value whatsoever. We have to accept that any and all species on that land will be exterminated. It is extremely energy intensive. You need vast amounts of electricity to power the pumps, manufacture the growth media, remove the waste and so forth. It is also require large amounts of water. You then need to move vast amounts of material to and from your intensive hydroponics setup rather than having production and supply more evenly dispersed. These are all bad things from an environmental and social perspective.
At the moment it usually does. This is especially true since a sizeable amount of the Amazon is being cleared to grow organic soybeans which command higher prices for less input than beef. Truly ironic.
However it isn’t an absolute across all organic products and all time. Some organic produce is no different to standard produce in terms of production efficiency. Indeed much of the world’s wheat is “organic” insofar as it is grown with no fertiliser or pesticide input. A lot of free range beef is also “organic”. Note above however that organic =/= ecologically friendly just because it is just as efficient.
I’ll answer this in a local sense, since that’s what I have good experience in. I’d love to hear Blake’s comments, since he has a more encompassing view.
The area I live in, Piedmont North Carolina, has an exemplary bunch of committed small farmers who have worked hard to develop sustainable, and organic, farms, for 20 years, and it’s working well here. As a result, an excellent local Farmer’s Market network , starting with one, now the model is working for four large local markets, and is flourishing. The three large groceries with a focus on organic produce also have a good business, focusing on the local organic growers. And, the farmers now teach at the local community college, which has one of the only Sustainable Ag degree programs in the country. Local restaurants also buy from these producers, and advertise the use of local organic produce.
It’s not only organic vegetables, but sustainably, and as organic as possible, meats that get attention here. I have two friends, both well-honed PhD’s in Agriculture, and previous professors at NC State University, who have devoted their time to developing a well-thought out organic production schedule on their farm: each piece of the farm, from eggs, to meat chicken, to meat goats, to vegetables, with no pesticides, works well, with a great deal of work, to be sure.
The OP asked if organic foods are any good. I don’t have comparison chem studies to show a concrete result, but, on the small farm scale of production, there is less abuse of land, and less chemical exposure for workers. To people here in NC, this is worth the effort, and , in a state that certainly has a high chem residue from tobacco farming, it’s been quite a groundswell of support for small organic farms. With the network described above, it’s worked very well here, and thrives.
Are they any “good”?
Exactly right that “organic” is a phrase used in such a way as to have little meaning. My seasonal veggies and fruits bought via a CSA and supplanted by stuff bought at a local farmer’s market are quite good … tasting that is. Often I am trying varieties of produce that I’ve not had before, heirlooms, etc. They are grown more locally and therefore are fresher. I buy them because I am foodie and a little more for interesting tasty foods at home still undercuts the cost ordering in. They are not always “organic” however, and one local CSA just plain refused to pony up for the organic certification even thought they still use “organic” techniques.
I suspect that buying local helps the environment just because of decreased transportation costs. Pollan, in Botany of Desire, also well makes the point that our current consumption habits have resulted in agricultural practices that approach monoculture for many plants and explains the risks this sort of practice poses. These risks become even more cogent as we inexorably approach a period of increasingly rapid climate change - a bank of diverse food plants will be needed to meet the needs of a changing ecology. Not directly to bear on the organic question but an oft-related practice.
As to production output and the meme that organic production methods automatically mean decreased outputs, well, I’d love to see some hard evidence of that. The anecdotes I’ve heard from farmers who have switched to more organic methods is that production has not gone down, and I have read studies that show that pesticide use may kill the pests but it also kills the natural enemies - less pesticides, more natural enemies, little end effect.
I’ve also read articles that claim that the historic boon of production attributed to pesticide and fertilizer use may actually have more to do with coincidental climate changes than with the changes in techniques.
Consumer Reports did study organics and did find fewer traces of pesticides in organics. Sure the conventionally grown stuff usually was below federal limits, but yes I’d like to limit my family’s pesticide load if I can do so easily, at a reasonable pricepoint, and eat well to boot. Am I worried about the safety of my non-organic food? Not much. I’ll only pay a little bit more. But it does often taste better to me and that justifies the price in my personal budget.
My parents were early adopters of organic cultivation, in the early 1960’s they were considered cranks. I suspect one of the reasons they got into it was because my father had worked for Proctor and Gamble.
As a result I was brought up on home grown vegetables.
I’ve seen a number of cases where people claim that organic farming is not (significantly) more expensive than conventional farming, one was in an article of an interview with Malcolm Walker who set up the UK Iceland chain (got kicked out and bought it back).
In the UK, land is not really a problem, we actually pay farmers not to use their land which I reckon is a lot smarter than paying them for producing stuff we don’t want.
To me the major problem is people pulling a con and mislabelling stuff, and I have no problem with firm controls on what farmers put on their crops and feed to their animals.
I’m not a fanatic, but I’m generally suspicious of what people get up to.
And then there are the smartasses like me who says that all food is organic (except for the stuff like salt which is inorganic) whenever someone starts going on about the benefits of organic food and the horrible dangers of conventional farming and GM.
I like the vast majority of my food to be made out of carbon!
Bah. A real man eats steel and broken glass. You are what you eat !
what are the advantages of being broken glass?
The biggest issue with organic methods, I think, is that they don’t scale as well as non-organic methods. If you’re talking about a backyard veggie garden, then it’s only a slight amount of extra work. Instead of going around on your hands and knees in the dirt with a spray bottle of Roundup to zap weeds, you go around on your hands and knees and pull up each weed you find. And you can use chemical fertilizers, or you can just save your kitchen scraps and compost them. So if you’re just growing a backyard garden, then it may well be worthwhile to go organic (especially considering that your backyard is also where your kids and pets play). Every garden I’ve had has been 100% organic, and I learned the techniques from my mom, who’s been doing organic gardening for over a half-century now.
But if you’ve got a commercial farm of thousands of acres, there’s a huge difference between laying down pesticides and fertilizers from a crop-duster, and sending an army of folks out into the fields with leather gloves to hand-pull weeds, and it’ll take an awful lot of kitchens to produce enough compost for your crops. Yes, this is somewhat of a false dichotomy (there are other organic options available, besides compost and hand-weeding), but the point is that many techniques which work well on an individual scale don’t work as well on an industrial scale.
It gives you an abrasive personality. And keeps you sharp ! 
I also love the part about “chemicals”. As opposed to what? Water and O2 are chemicals, should we avoid them?
I go to farmers markets and support local farms, not because of food from large farms but because I like fresh produce, picked ripe, and in season.
I also love the part about “chemicals”. As opposed to what? Water and O2 are chemicals, should we avoid them?
I go to farmers markets and support local farms, not because of food from large farms but because I like fresh produce, picked ripe, and in season.
I buy “organic” food on occasion for certain types of foods, but for produce, I generally try to find a farmer’s market instead of going to the produce section at the grocery store. I like supporting local farmers, I generally tend to prefer the taste of locally grown produce, and I know that everything I’m buying wasn’t shipped from somewhere far away that took a week to get here.
Now, I generally buy organic milk (or at least milk from cows that were not injected with hormones) when possible because 1. I like the taste better, and 2. it seems to help me with my own efforts at weight control to not drink the stuff from cows who’ve been injected with hormones. I’m not as picky with meat, but at the same time, I don’t find a large difference in the way my body reacts to meat from animals who’ve been treated with hormones vs. meat from ones that haven’t.
Personally, there need to be better controls on what makes a product organic, and, well, the public needs to be better informed on how this works. In the future, I may grow my own produce. However, it’s for a preference for home-grown/locally grown foods over any sort of notion of it being “organic.”
I am dubious about many of the proclaimed benefits for organic foods. What I can accept is that there is less environmental damage in a well-run organic operation as compared to a non-organic mega-farm, and less potential for health problems in the farm workers. There may be some health benefit to consumers, but it has not convincingly been demonstrated yet. Claims that organic produce is more nutritious have not been substantiated in my opinion, despite a couple of studies that suggest some benefit for organic crops. More here from a skeptic.
I am surprised at some of the negative comments here, though.
Do you have any cites on the strychnine claim? I haven’t heard of that being a customary “organic” pesticide. And I don’t know what your latter comment refers to, unless it relates to so-called Roundup-ready strains of plants, which are bred through molecular genetic manipulation to resist glyphosate (a herbicide), thus making it possible for farmers to spray fields with it without damaging crops. Since Roundup is not acceptable for use in an organic operation, this wouldn’t be relevant to the discussion. Pest resistance is obviously a priority for farmers who don’t want to depend on synthetic chemical pesticides, but this does not mean that organic farmers are proponents of somehow inserting genes for toxic substances into the DNA of plants.