Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]
What started as a countercultural farming movement has now become big business: organic food sales topped $24 billion last year.
So food grown without conventional chemical pesticides, fertilizers and lacking additives is popular despite the fact that it costs as much as 50 percent more.
But is it really better for you and the planet?
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: yes, at least as far as pesticide residues and energy use goes. Quote: "Organic agriculture already uses less fossil fuel based on inputs and has a better carbon footprint than standard agricultural practices," the FAO said in a 2007 report (link is to a PDF.)
That's why the Obama administration is offering some $50 million in funding for farmers to go organic.
But it doesn't seem that organic food is any more nutritious. And scientific studies have split on whether organic practices, if applied globally, could produce enough food to feed 6.7 billion people and counting.
Remember, the organic label applies to how the food was grown. Organic certification doesn't mean your food is any safer from, say, salmonella contamination when it's packaged. Nor does it mean the food hasn't traveled halfway around the world to reach your dinner plate—another environmental no-no.
—David Biello
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentOne serious issue with organics is lack of regulation. Current regulatory structures are inadequate for large, concentrated industrial farming operations. What happens when we have thousands of smaller farms to regulate? IF you think we have issues today with Salmonella contamination, just wait!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisD Zacek, Maine USA
Issues with salmonella contamination are a result of the way the industrial system produces food, not an inherent risk in natural produce production. Small farms raising produce and, more importantly, livestock using responsible, ecological, and sustainable practices almost completely avoid the contamination problems facing the food supply today. When was the last time anyone got salmonella poisoning from spinach grown in their backyard? Government regulation combined with agricultural subsidies are the forces inhibiting the expansion of small diversified farms, which are the key to low-emission, safe food production. Organic is better, but industrial organic is little better for the environment than industrial because it still necessitates massive amounts of fuel for both production and packing, and the products are usually processed in the same plants as the conventional crops, which is why [industrial] organic products are at risk of contamination too. So don't regulate the small farms; most small farmers would be unspeakably happy to be rid of useless and damaging USDA regulations, and the consumers will do a fine job of withdrawing their funding from any farms that provide them with tomatoes that are contaminated with chicken excrement. Just wait for all the health ramifications of growing produce (and livestock) in soil that provides no micro-nutrients or minerals, other than NPK. The statement that food grown in full mineralized soils isn't any healthier is preposterous. Who paid for the study--Monsanto or a land grant university funded by agribusiness??????????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNobody thinks organic foods are more nutritious. Nobody claims organic foods are more nutritious. Same with food safety. The main point of organics is to decrease use of fossil fuel-based chemical fertilizers and harmful pesticides. Secondarily organic ag practices slow topsoil erosion. Why are you pretending to debunk claims that aren't being made by organic advocates?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimilarly, nobody claims organics didn't come from halfway 'round the world. That's an apples-oranges comparison. An organic that came from halfway round the world is far less fossil-fuel intensive than a chemically-fertilized product from the same place, just as a local organic is less fossil-fuel intensive than a locally farmed non-organic. Comparing a local non-organic to a distantly-farmed organic is anybody's guess, but it's possible that a given organic would still be less energy intensive. Depends on the product and where it was farmed and how.
Chuck- you are wrong that nobody thinks/claims that organic foods are more nutritious. NPK fertilizer helps plants go but doesn't give them the same nutrients as healthy soil. Do a quick Google search-- you'll come up with plenty of info on this subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the distinction between local diversified farms and industrial organic is an important one, especially as the "Organic" label becomes increasingly watered down and commercial (a process the $50 million will only accellerate). To ensure your own peace of mind, look for local farmers willing to let you see their operation for youself. Then you can make your own decision responsibly, recieve fresher produce, and also be supporting your local community. Farms provide great learning opportunities for children, especially when they can experience what real veggies taste like!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no comparison as to taste; when you compare organic vs in-organic in actual lab testing for actual nutrients perhaps they are comparable. I would rather eat something that had prettier/uglier color, better flavor, nicer texture and in all likelihood actually more nutrients.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile it is unlikely the current population would be sustained by strictly organic gardening, making organics "industrial" has potential, if proper methods were utilized. Defining "industrial" is very important as there are operating models like Growing Power, Inc. in Illinois and Wisconsin operating on a fairly large scale yet compact way providing good, safe, affordable food.
Here in Oregon is located one of the preeminent certifiers of organics, Oregon Tilth. They are recognized and respected world wide. If you want to be organic and sell your product they are the certification to have in your hand!
Another problem with the strictly NPK farmers is that all of the N they get is atmospheric and hence actually artificial and actually reducing atmospheric Nitrogen. The Haber-Bosch process is why we have as much N ferts available and the massive population being "almost" supported by it. Meanwhile it and the methods of use and rate of application are and have been killing the soil ecosystem and the actual ability for the soil to feed us.
Whatever goes on in the world, my plan is to be on soil I can either farm myself or share with a cooperative of like minded folks to create a good, safe, local supply with as little extra impact on the environment around me.
If a person can garden/farm for themselves it is best, next is to start or join a farm/garden co-op for the best, safest and most economical method of guaranteeing a sure source of food. It's out there, so let's not get caught up in irrational propaganda trying to scare us into AgroIndustrio farming monopolies hands any more than we already are!
The Organic Trade Association (OTA) would like to offer its perspectives on some of the questions you raise in this post. First is that of nutrition. There is mounting evidence that organically grown fruits, vegetables and grains may offer more of some nutrients, including vitamin C, iron, magnesium and phosphorus, and less exposure to nitrates and pesticide residues than their counterparts grown using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. See http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html for a list of studies affirming these findings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNext is the issue of organic feeding the world. In fact, several studies have shown that organic production is on par with, and sometimes superior to, conventional production levels, and that it offers a compelling and sustainable alternative to conventional approaches toward addressing the worlds hunger problems.
Finally, OTA would like to address the issue of organic and food safety. The way organic foods are grown and processed is more closely monitored than other types of food production. Organic foods must meet or exceed all federal organic regulations as well as all applicable food safety regulations.
In light of these facts, as well as the many personal health and environmental benefits that organic agriculture has to offer, the message is clear: Organic. Its worth it.
www.organicitsworthit.com
Actually yes Organic is better for you and the environment. How can anyone still pretend that pesticide coated and genetically engineered food is equivalent? There was a study recently done about the nutritional quality of organic vs conventional agriculture and they found that these newer high yield varieties and crops treated with quick release fertilizers actually contained less nutrients. We have been emphasizing quantity over quality and now we gotta go back to the heirloom varieties. Also they found that way more greenhouse gases are produced in conventional agriculture because not enough attention is placed on soil quality and also the ratio of animals to acreage is much higher on conventional farms which ups the ante of water use and pollution. Considering that conventional agriculture seems to reduce access to quality agricultural products and destroys the environment I'd say lets ditch it. We can have health and food even in "developing" countries and the ghetto.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOriginally (correct me if I am wrong), the main goal of organic food was to avoid the involuntary ingestion of toxic chemical substances that managed to find their way to our tables. Then, the additional benefit of reducing the amounts of pesticides used to produce such food were hailed. But as far as the first goal is fulfilled, organic food production will always find a niche in our global economy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, given that the U.S. are the largest food-consuming nation of the planet, it would only make good sense to increase its domestic organic food production to avoid excesive transportation from abroad.
Yes, these are good points, but organic food certainly has much better flavour and color. The key to consuming any produce is to eat it when it is fresh. Local farmers markets are a great way to enjoy fresh organic food.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe organic food I have tried made me feel slightly ill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"could produce enough food to feed 6.7 billion people and counting. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the current issue of Scientific American, Monsanto has an ad promoting this same idea (fear).. have you been influenced in your opinion by this company's advertising dollars? personally I was appalled by their attempt in their full page ad to make themselves look like a company that cares about anything besides corporate greed and control of our food supply and even more disappointed to see the ad in your magazine, I had hoped that the scientifically minded among us would eventually be what saved this planet from the gullibility that is destroying us.. if you think that organic food is not better for humans, then YOU are not considering or maybe don't know all the facts.