I've written before about how the term "organic" can be used in misleading or inaccurate ways. There is real value to organic (meaning sustainable) farming methods, but there is also a lot of unwarranted hype and pseudo-science. The term is also being overused and applied to products in cases that don't really make a lot of sense. Today I got an ad in my inbox that took this to a new level.
The ad was for two video games, one an expansion to a Windows-only first person shooter called "Natural Selection 2". I don't really like first person shooter games, and I use a Mac, so this isn't of much use to me. Still, the name got my attention. There was also a second game available called "Overgrowth", which is advertised as the "best ninja rabbit game possible". I had not realized this was such a competitive category! In this game "rabbits, wolves and other animals" get to fight each other using their own natural weapons, or "medieval weaponry".
The cherry on top, though, is that there is a bundle discount if you get both games together. You guessed it, it is the "Organic Indie Preorder Pack". Now, I don't mean to come down too hard on this company, the name is obviously tongue-in-cheek, and no one could possibly mistake this for a product that has anything to do with the environment or sustainability. Frankly, this type of labelling is much more honest than that used by some companies who are deliberately subverting the term "organic" to sell products that are not environmentally friendly.
Still, this example does show the extent to which the term "organic" has pervaded our culture. It seems like "green" and "organic" have little real meaning anymore. I suppose "sustainable" is next. Once we start hearing about the Canadian tar sands being marketed as "sustainable" destruction, you'll know we're there.
Posts
4 comments:
I've been working at an "organic" farm for three years now. If they lost their "organic" certification tomorrow, I wouldn't care.
I work there for the following reasons:
1. It's local (5 miles away)
2. It's small (5 acres under cultivation)
3. It's diverse (they grow everything except grain crops)
4. It's low-tech (hand-labor over mechanical)
I'm the "tractor guy." I can testify to the fact that "organic" farming is fossil-fuel-intensive. You have to have tractors, tillers, mowers, etc. to grow crops. There is also a complete dependence on plastics--for implements, greenhousese, pots and mulch.
My biggest beef with the "organics" movement (which I'm not personally part of, by the way: I farm at home the way I see fit) is it's blanket prohibition of "synthetic" pesticides, totally ignoring their relative EIQ values, their innate qualities, or their DOSAGES.
There is absolutely no evidence that any consumer anywhere has been harmed by the residual amounts of pesticides on conventional store-bought produce.
All substances are "toxic" at certain high doses. In fact, there are more carcinogens in a single cup of coffee than in all the residual pesticides one consumes on produce in a whole year!
"Organic" pesticides can be just as harmful to humans and the environment at high doses. Witness the effects of Pyganic on beneficial insects, and the fate of "organic" Rotenone.
I think it's time we jettisoned the term "organic" altogether as a scam. We need to look at practical techniques for cultivation on a farm-by-farm basis and not get caught up in the "purity" laws of "organic" certification.
This following site has helped me immensely:
skepdic.com/organic.html
Hi Mike, thanks for the comments. I agree with much of your criticism of the "organic" movement, and I make similar points in the article I link to at the beginning. (For example, I mention that scientific studies don't show any difference in nutrition between organic and non-organic foods.)
When I talk about "organic" farming methods though, what I mean is sustainable farming methods, and that was the original intent before the term "organic" got misused. I think local farms that used mixed crops instead of monocrops, and more human labour instead of mechanical labour are absolutely great.
From a purely agricultural point of view, sustainability means we can continue to keep growing things in such a way that the soil is not degraded and this can be continued indefinitely into the future. For true sustainability, of course, we'll eventually need to remove the dependence on fossil fuels. Even if you ignore the carbon emissions, there's only a finite supply of these.
Thanks for answering, Chris.
I'm very much up on the peak oil movement, and understand the implications for farming.
I used to be in your camp--until I realized that "sustainability" is itself unattainable with any agricultural paradigm that only serves to INCREASE the population.
In fact, the discovery of farming techniques thousands of years ago might be seen as humans' tragic move toward "unsustainability."
I'm a big advocate of composting and soil-building (it's all I use here at home, where we keep a few cows), but having worked on a farm and read a lot about farming, I'm now under no illusions that humans can continue raising the carrying capacity of the earth to accomodate even more humans.
I'm afraid there's just going to have to be a die-back of the human population some day.
I've done a one-eighty on the issue of farming after peak oil: I used to think it would mean that humans would move toward "organics," but "organics" is a) a hoax and b) too expensive for most people. It will "die-off" as a commercial enterprise after peak oil.
There will be lots of people farming any way they see fit to survive.
AND: recreational uses of fuel could be requisitioned for agricultural uses for a long time before the agricultural sector began to feel the effects of decline.
I'm thinking industrial ag is ascendant for the foreseeable future, but that doesn't mean we small-time farmers won't have a place in the post-peak world.
Thanks.
Mike
Mike, I worry that people will continue to just think in the short term, and we won't move towards sustainability. If we don't, we could well see the future you describe. I'm not ready to give up yet, though!
Btw, I agree that fossil fuels are so precious, we should not be burning them in cars or power plants, but saving them for truly necessary things.
Post a Comment