Organic farming methods offer several benefits for the environment and human health as a whole, but unfortunately, there are many misconceptions and falsehoods being spread regarding organic food and farming methods. Both proponents and detractors have been guilty of spreading false information and there are many widespread misunderstandings. The goal of this article is to present the facts so that we can reach a better understanding of how organic methods can be properly used to benefit the environment.
Nutrition
First, let's dispense with the issue of nutrition. Many studies, including one based on 50 years of research have shown no difference in the nutritional value of regular food as compared to organic food. This means that the consumption of organic foods will not make an individual any healthier. It is possible for organic farming methods to improve health indirectly, however, by being used to improve the environment, as we will see below. A healthier environment, obviously, leads to healthier humans.
A major problem with regular farming methods is the use of pesticides. However, before going into the environmental damage caused by pesticides, I need to address the issue of pesticides in food. As the above studies show, there are no detectable differences in the healthiness of regular food and organic food. However, studies have also shown that organic food does have substantially less pesticide residue. How do we reconcile this difference? The short answer is we need more studies. It's possible that the benefits of lower pesticides in organic food is offset by something else, such as natural biotoxins. But really, we just don't know right now. The point is that no nutritional advantage of organic food has been demonstrated, and it is not useful as a rational argument in favour of organic food.
Pesticides
Pesticide use in farming, however, has clearly been shown to be damaging to the environment, and to farm workers. According to a study (PDF) by the World Health Organization (WHO), there are 1 million unintentional poisonings each year and 2 million intentional ones (suicide attempts) requiring hospitalization. Since this only counts reported cases, others have estimated the total number could be as high as 25 million. That's a lot of people, and it indicates a serious global problem.
The effects of pesticides on the environment are also very significant.
Over 98% of sprayed insecticides and 95% of herbicides reach a destination other than their target species, including nontarget species, air, water, bottom sediments, and food.
The above link provides a summary of the environmental impact of pesticides and provides links to various studies. They can result in increased air pollution, water pollution and soil contamination. They can also result in the disruption or death of non-target plants, insects, birds and other animals, and aquatic life in lakes, streams and oceans. Pesticides can also accumulate and become more concentrated as they cycle through the food chain. Runoff of pesticides and fertilizers are also contributing to large dead zones in the oceans.
Sustainability
One of the major criticisms of organic farming methods is that they cannot produce enough food to feed the entire population of the planet. Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution, is famous for making this argument. He also argues that if all farming were organic, much greater amounts of land would be required, and this could lead to deforestation. This is a valid argument, and it is a very good reason why we should not try to switch all agricultural production around the world to organic methods over the short term. It is also a powerful reminder that we have overshot the carrying capacity of the Earth, and that we must immediately cease paving over farmland, and indeed must consider reclaiming this land in many areas.
At the same time, however, while conventional industrial farming methods, using fossil fuel based fertilizer and mass mechanization, may dramatically increase crop yields, they are unsustainable. They can produce much larger yields today, at the expense of the future productivity of the land. These intense farming methods degrade the land by eroding the soil and increasing soil salinity. Over time, the land becomes infertile.
Conventional farming methods are largely dependant on fossil fuels, which are needed for fertilizer and for running the machinery. As peak oil approaches, we will soon be faced with a yearly decline in the availability of oil. Oil won't run out, but there will simply be a bit less available every year than the year before. For the past hundred years, our economy (and agriculture) has depended on the yearly growth of oil production. This decline will raise prices and could potentially make it much harder to obtain supplies. Conventional methods will then become either too expensive, or simply starved of supply.
Organic farming methods, then, become a critical tool for revitalizing land that is becoming damaged and less fertile. Since the remaining productive life of this land has already been curtailed, there is little point in continuing conventional methods in these areas. The use of organic methods, which includes intermixing crops, rotating crops, and allowing the land to remain fallow for periods, can slowly begin to replenish the land. Eventually a stable and sustainable level of production can be reached.
We also need to reclaim land that has been paved over. This can be done by introducing more efficient transportation methods such as electrified rail in order to reduce the need for some roads and long distance highways. We can also restructure our cities to be more dense and efficient and eliminate some suburb or exurb areas. In many parts of the US the housing crisis and unemployment have already left many of these areas virtually abandoned. By pulling up the pavement and using organic farming methods this land can be returned to agricultural use and can generate a stable level of sustainable food production.
In Africa, a recent study by the UN has suggested that small-scale organic farming methods in Africa can more than double current yields. This can produce a significant increase in production, yet still remain sustainable. Also, many farmers in Africa cannot afford the fossil fuels or machinery needed for large scale industrial farming. Even better, the study suggests that organic practices would result in crops more resistant to drought, an important advantage as global warming increases.
Still, with an increasing population and decreasing arable land, organic farming probably can't deliver enough food for everyone. In some areas it may be necessary to use intense industrial methods over the short term in order to produce enough food. However, these practices should be limited to a certain number of years and then rotated to other areas while the original areas are then converted to organic production. A difficult balancing act will be needed in order to maximize total production without completely destroying the productivity of large areas, which would just make the problem worse in the future.
Conclusion
There is no room for extreme positions on either side of the organic debate. Organic food is not a magic product that will solve all our problems. But it is also absolutely necessary in the long term for stable and sustainable food production, which industrial methods cannot provide. As we deplete the supply of fossil fuels (or hopefully voluntarily reduce their use) organic methods will become essential. We must expand the use of organic farming where appropriate, reclaim and restore land where we can, and use conventional methods in some areas to fill the gaps. We need a comprehensive long term approach based on science and foresight.
Posts
10 comments:
Well said Canada Guy. I came here after you posted a comment on my blog (thanks!). I have just read a few of your blogposts and I must say you write well and make the points very clearly. The "Good German" comparison is a bit polemic but it is right and a very good way to make people see the point. Also the Carrying Capacity post. I just happened to end up on this organic post so I can tell you I agree with every word. I touch on various topics on my blog some just fun, some serious, some political so I never really focus but the lack of water, lack of food etc in the world always crops up every once in a while in what I write; by coincidence in October I also mentioned Norman Borlaug, who had only passed away in Setember this year, he was "the man who fed the world"...
Unfortunately for organic agriculture they have been, up to now, hoist by their own petard; that is, they have made the incorrect claims (albeit based on the truth!) and so have prejudiced their market: organic produce is already seen as either trendy greeny food or rich people's food; only about 5% of the population buy any significant amount (I mean more than a few items) and the cost of it tends to restrict all but the top earning brackets of society. Also, most farmers get into organic agriculture not because of any altruistic wish to make the world better or safer but to earn the premium prices that they can get; this immediately restricts the number of farmers who convert to organic agriculture because already the supermarkets are saying that these premiums will be reduced as more produce becomes available (as you would expect) so we are trapped in the 5 to 10% of farms who are /will be organic producers. Until this changes organic consumption will remain minimal. There needs to be a guaranteed way of prodcuing more and keeping the price down so that more farmers convert and more consumers can benefit (I think polls say nearly everyone would buy organic if it was cheaper!) One way is having slightly less rigorous regulations from those that run the organic associations, another is things like revamping LISA (low input sustainable agriculture) etc...anyway, that's enough for now! I shall keep your blog in mind, may even add a link on my blog. Keep it up.
Thanks for your comments Span! I think you make some good points. "Organic" has become a marketing term by those who sell products, and for those who purchase, it is sometimes considered an "elite" item to buy. Of course, the same companies selling regular food are now selling "organic".
What is lost in much of this is the idea of sustainability, which is what really matters in the end.
If you think organic farming isn't loaded with fossil fuels you are kidding yourself. If you are buying it in a grocery store and you are cooking it, then it is loaded just as much with fossil fuels as conventional foods. True sustainability can only be achieved through edible forest gardens and producing foods that need no cooking and eating them right away or fermenting them.
Anon, true, transportation to the grocery store can use fossil fuels, and cooking often can as well. Still, at least this has removed the massive amounts of fossil fuel used for fertilizer and running all the industrial farm machinery. Also, organic methods and things like permaculture can at least ensure we stop degrading the land, and might even let us reclaim some of it.
Sustainable farming methods won't solve everything of course, but it's a big step forward (and a necessary one, I think). Some of your concerns could be alleviated by have more local food, and using more efficient cooking methods. This is probably something worth doing anyway.
The idea that Organically grown food is nutritionally equivalent to "synthetically" grown food is probably not correct and "50 years of research" is certainly in error since over the span of 50 years, research techniques, methods & resources have changed dramatically!
And if the research was in any way government supported, why would anyone not question it's validity?
Windchaser
Hi Windchaser. This is an issue of consistency. Scientific studies have not demonstrated that organic food is more nutritious. That doesn't mean that it isn't, but as rational people we need to withhold judgement until the evidence is in. In the meantime, we probably need new studies. I certainly support more research in this area.
Keep in mind that climate change deniers make the same argument. They say all the studies showing global warming are really part of a government conspiracy. Science is not on anyone's side, it is a methodology for finding the truth. If organic food is better for us, let's gather the evidence and prove it unequivocally. Until then it is irresponsable to making sweeping claims.
In the US we produce way too much food now. It's something like 5,000 calories a person. You can tell by looking at our population.
Plus we burn corn in cars.
So we could drop production of food by quite a bit and still have enough calories to feed everyone.
Just not deep fried corn fed animals 4 times a day.
Personally, I abhor the cruelty of factory farms and industrial animal slaughter and will be glad when it is no longer profitable.
Canada Guy,
Have you heard of John Jeavons? He's the godfather.
The idea that organic farming actually takes up more land to produce crops than does industrial grown food is itself a misconception. Some organic farming practices may lead to that result, but not with Jeavon's technique, which is actually taken from the Chinese 4,000 years ago and the Greeks 1,000 years ago. It's called Biointensive Gardening. If performed correctly, one's yield from a 100-square foot gardening bed is equivalent to a yield from a 400-square foot area of crop grown using industrial methods.
"How To Grow More Vegetables"
(and Fruits, Nuts, Berries, Grains, and Other Crops Than You Ever Thought Possible On Less Land Than You Can Imagine)
Quite a title but well worth a read.
John Jeavons
Grow Biointensive
Bountiful Gardens
How can you PRACTICALLY compare the nutrition of organic and conventional produce?
Many fruits high in antioxidants cannot be marketed at all because they don't survive transport.
(if this is a different argument than this post, apologies)
Uncle Yarra.
Great post and interesting comments here! A freakishly common or widely purported misconception about organic food here in Australia is that it tastes better, which they reason explains the higher price. My jaw drops everytime I hear someone say this. This certainly can sometimes be true, but it is not an argument, let alone a fact-based argument, in support of organic foods. It makes me realize that there is a gross lack of understanding of what organic food is.
A couple of points:
--the study tested for only nutrient content. It did not test for pesticide levels, the presence of which would surely reduce the overall safety and healthfulness of the food. This is the key, which I believe you were getting at, Canada Guy. For example, who would argue that a piece of meat with residue of poop on it is nutritionally the same as a clean piece of meat? Further, I'm interested to know if any of the studies reviewed for this journal article paid attention to whether the manufactured plant and foodstuffs (how ambiguous is that?!) had been injected with vitamin and mineral supplementation to make up for what was lost through processing and convential growing methods.
--The more-land-required-for-organic-farming argument seems weird to me for several related reasons: meat production, wasting food, and obesity trends.
1) We already know that one of the greatest causes of deforestation is meat production - even if crops, not cattle, are produced on the deforested land, the crops are often devoted to producing feedstocks (corn and soy) for beef, and now things like ethanol -- but not for direct human consumption as grain or vegetable. Without so much consumption of meat, would we be using as much land as we are now?
2) Industrialized nations are outrageously wasteful with food - I read estimates of 14 million tonnes per year in Canada, 48 in US, 3 in Australia are thrown out simply because they were purchased by spoiled before being used, even with refrigeration to estend life. Without so much waste...
3) Australia and the US are the fattest countries in the world. Without so much gluttony...(ok, this last one is partially humor, but partially related and true).
Post a Comment