Organic Farming Harms the World

[Rolfe]

Organic Farming Harms the World, or so it is argued in this article from today's Daily Telegraph.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA), set up to examine evidence about the safety of food and to protect the interests of consumers, has persistently refused to uphold claims for the superiority of organic food, much to the chagrin of the Soil Association, the voice of organic farming in Britain. In January 2004 the FSA stated: "On the basis of current evidence, the Agency's assessment is that organic food is not significantly different in terms of food safety and nutrition from food produced conventionally." When a complaint was made to the Advertising Standards Authority that recruiting leaflets published by the Soil Association made misleading statements, claiming that organic food tastes better, is healthier, and is better for the environment, the Authority found no convincing evidence to support the claims and the leaflets had to be withdrawn.

Pesticides keep down the cost of fruit and vegetables and if the organic lobby prevails they will become more expensive. People in the lower-income groups will buy less; this is all the more important since they are now exhorted to eat more of them to help control obesity. Moreover, the more pervasive the propaganda that more expensive organic food is "safer and healthier", the greater the pressures on poorer families to buy food they can ill afford. Their diet will suffer and they will lose the protection against cancer that a healthy diet provides. More will die younger.

As the Indian biotechnologist, C S Prakash, has correctly observed: "The only thing sustainable about organic farming in the developing world is that it sustains poverty and malnutrition."

Well, it must be at least a week since we had this argument, so why not revive it?

Rolfe.

 

[Steven Howard]

I don't know what things are like in the UK, but here in the United States, this bit:

Pesticides keep down the cost of fruit and vegetables and if the organic lobby prevails they will become more expensive. People in the lower-income groups will buy less; this is all the more important since they are now exhorted to eat more of them to help control obesity. Moreover, the more pervasive the propaganda that more expensive organic food is "safer and healthier", the greater the pressures on poorer families to buy food they can ill afford. Their diet will suffer and they will lose the protection against cancer that a healthy diet provides. More will die younger.

would be completely laughable. Maybe poor British families listen dutifully to government nutrition information and are more easily swayed by "propaganda" from organic food advocates than by fast food advertising. And maybe they sit down every week to plan their grocery shopping and say, "Well, the government says we ought to eat more fresh fruit, and the organic food people say organic fruit is better for you than the other kind. But organic pears cost about 50p* each, so we'll only be able to buy enough for the two oldest boys."

Over here, though, poor people (like the rest of us) mostly ignore the government nutrition guidelines and spend a lot more on things like Twinkies and Big Macs than fresh produce.

(*Completely made up example. My local store has organic pears at $1.29/lb, but I have no idea what they'd cost in the UK.)

 

[Jorghnassen]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dick_Taverne

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Jorghnassen:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dick_Taverne

Your point is?

 

[Drooper]

Seems like an interesting guy with substantial experience and a genuine personal interest in helping people in developing countries. Where the tie in with this thread is still unclear though.

Back ot the thread though. I was under the impression that "organic" methods use pesticides as well, but only "organic" ones. IIRC, there are some approved compounds used for pest control in organic farming that are potentially dangerous to humans.

 

[richardm]

"Well, the government says we ought to eat more fresh fruit, and the organic food people say organic fruit is better for you than the other kind. But organic pears cost about 50p* each, so we'll only be able to buy enough for the two oldest boys."

What does tend to happen is that parents hear the propaganda and say "Organic pears cost about 50p each. So we can't afford them. But ordinary pears, while only 10p each, are full of pesticides and poisons and BSE* and stuff. And I don't want to fill my kids with pesticides. So I'll buy some rubbish junk food that is (a) cheap (b) not full of poisons* and (c) the kids will probably prefer anyway". Hence the effect on poor peoples' diets.

* Reasoning may not include accurate statements

A few years ago a major frozen food chain store in Britain announced that it was going to sell only organic produce. This was seen as a Good Thing because it was a pretty cheap shop that especially appealed to the poorer end of the market, and getting poor people to eat Organic food could only be a good thing. They chain would cut into their profits to sell the normally more expensive Organic food at the same price as the non-organic stuff they used to sell. Pretty noble, really.

But it was a disaster. Trouble was, poor people automatically assumed that organic food was expensive, so started shopping elsewhere. Richer people who could afford the organic food wouldn't be seen dead in a shop that was perceived as a "cheap shop". Within a year the CEO of the company had left, and the whole thing came perilously close to collapse. They've since been bought out (twice, I think), and are now back to selling their old style of stuff.

Quite sad, really, organic bunkum notwithstanding.

Not quite sure how relevant this story is to the thread, but I wanted to tell it, dammit!

 

[Jorghnassen]

Your point is?

The article is an opinion piece by some guy from the GM lobby, which gives it about as much value as an article deriding GM crops by someone from the organic lobby. What would be more interesting is actual peer-reviewed scientific studies.

 

[Rob Lister]

The article is an opinion piece by some guy from the GM lobby, which gives it about as much value as an article deriding GM crops by someone from the organic lobby. What would be more interesting is actual peer-reviewed scientific studies.

I knew that because I read the first paragraph of the linked article. I kept it to myself, though, so you could chime in. I'm nice that way. Still, absent a peer-reviewed article, opinion is all we have. Please link to a peer reviewed article if you have one. I will say that the opinion seems to be a reasonable one, and logically deduced. I think it is important to look at the source of opinion but it is only one factor, not the only factor.

 

[Phaycops]

I knew that because I read the first paragraph of the linked article. I kept it to myself, though, so you could chime in. I'm nice that way. Still, absent a peer-reviewed article, opinion is all we have. Please link to a peer reviewed article if you have one. I will say that the opinion seems to be a reasonable one, and logically deduced. I think it is important to look at the source of opinion but it is only one factor, not the only factor.

Although the article may itself be an opinion piece, I'm under the impression that this statement by the FSA is not a matter of opinion:

In January 2004 the FSA stated: "On the basis of current evidence, the Agency's assessment is that organic food is not significantly different in terms of food safety and nutrition from food produced conventionally."

It would seem that the FSA is basing their conclusion on some sort of evidence, right? So then the whole thing isn't just a matter of opinion. Please do link to the peer-reviewed studies, if available. (Certainly, I could go look for them, but I have real work I can do.)

 

[Jorghnassen]

I knew that because I read the first paragraph of the linked article. I kept it to myself, though, so you could chime in. I'm nice that way. Still, absent a peer-reviewed article, opinion is all we have. Please link to a peer reviewed article if you have one. I will say that the opinion seems to be a reasonable one, and logically deduced. I think it is important to look at the source of opinion but it is only one factor, not the only factor.

Well, in a previous thread about some Danish study on the matter I posted this link:

http://www.consumersunion.org/food/organicsumm.htm

Which points out a few things, among which, "organic" food is not pesticide free but has less pesticide residue than "conventional" food, and that there should be more studies on the "natural" pesticides used in organic farming.

We can also go back to that previous thread and debate the Danish study itself, like why did they only consider three types of culture (the "organic" low input nutrients, no pesticide, the "conventional" high input nutrients, lots of pesticides and the mix of low input nutrients and a lot of pesticide, whatever happened to high input nutrients and no/little pesticides)?

 

[Rob Lister]

Well, in a previous thread about some Danish study on the matter I posted this link:

http://www.consumersunion.org/food/organicsumm.htm

Which points out a few things, among which, "organic" food is not pesticide free but has less pesticide residue than "conventional" food, and that there should be more studies on the "natural" pesticides used in organic farming.

We can also go back to that previous thread and debate the Danish study itself, like why did they only consider three types of culture (the "organic" low input nutrients, no pesticide, the "conventional" high input nutrients, lots of pesticides and the mix of low input nutrients and a lot of pesticide, whatever happened to high input nutrients and no/little pesticides)?

Check out page two of that thread -- about half-way down -- where I responded (my second response I think). The main point Taverne is the same as the point I made; even if organic is ever-so-slightly better for you in terms of health (which has yet to be conclusively demonstrated), it is also more than ever-so-slightly bad for your pocketbook, should you choose to select it. It also is not sustainable in terms of mass-production and logicstics, but that's probably a different thread.

 

[Darat]

...snip... even if organic is ever-so-slightly better for you in terms of health

...snip...

And even if organic is slightly "better for you" it would have to balanced against the perhaps ever so slightly "worse for you" aspects of other "organic nasties” lurking in the "organic" food that wouldn't be in the "inorganic" stuff, e.g. certain moulds, fungi bacteria and so on.

 

[Jorghnassen]

Check out page two of that thread -- about half-way down -- where I responded (my second response I think). The main point Taverne is the same as the point I made; even if organic is ever-so-slightly better for you in terms of health (which has yet to be conclusively demonstrated), it is also more than ever-so-slightly bad for your pocketbook, should you choose to select it. It also is not sustainable in terms of mass-production and logicstics, but that's probably a different thread.

Well, those are a bunch of different debates really.

1-The health issue

Though it depends on what is meant by "healthier", apparently, from a nutritional point of view, from studies alluded to but which I have yet to see, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference.

2-The price issue.

Most of the time, organic food is pricier. But then this begs the questions: who buys organic food? How much of ones budget is spent on organic food? What proportion of the diet of those who buy organic food is organic?

Let me give you a related example: some people buy fair-trade coffee (is it really fair-trade?). The only difference between fair-trade coffee and regular coffee, from a material point of view, is the price. Yet some people are prepared to pay more because they believe there was less human exploitation in producing the coffee. So if some people are prepared to pay more to have less "regular" pesticide residues (I'm giving here a measurable reason, as per article posted above, but of course one's reason for choosing organic food do not have to be measurable or objective), well they can buy organic food.

3-The whole environmental issue, which in itself has a lot of different aspects and creates a bunch of different debates.

 

[Rob Lister]

Well, those are a bunch of different debates really.

1-The health issue

Though it depends on what is meant by "healthier", apparently, from a nutritional point of view, from studies alluded to but which I have yet to see, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference.

2-The price issue.

Most of the time, organic food is pricier. But then this begs the questions: who buys organic food? How much of ones budget is spent on organic food? What proportion of the diet of those who buy organic food is organic?

Let me give you a related example: some people buy fair-trade coffee (is it really fair-trade?). The only difference between fair-trade coffee and regular coffee, from a material point of view, is the price. Yet some people are prepared to pay more because they believe there was less human exploitation in producing the coffee. So if some people are prepared to pay more to have less "regular" pesticide residues (I'm giving here a measurable reason, as per article posted above, but of course one's reason for choosing organic food do not have to be measurable or objective), well they can buy organic food.

3-The whole environmental issue, which in itself has a lot of different aspects and creates a bunch of different debates.

I've got not problem with anything you wrote. I've got no problem with people wanting to buy organic products for [what I consider to be] irrational reasons. I do have a problem when the level of marketing wooism reaches legislative proportions in favor of the wooism.

 

[Jorghnassen]

I've got not problem with anything you wrote. I've got no problem with people wanting to buy organic products for [what I consider to be] irrational reasons. I do have a problem when the level of marketing wooism reaches legislative proportions in favor of the wooism.

Well, then I guess we both agree. What I really want to see though, is more science and less rhetoric. When I see sentences such as "Organic/conventional farming harms the world" or "organic/conventional farming is healthier", I want the details, the numbers, without words trying to "spin" the results positively/negatively.

 

[Quasi]

Well, then I guess we both agree. What I really want to see though, is more science and less rhetoric. When I see sentences such as "Organic/conventional farming harms the world" or "organic/conventional farming is healthier", I want the details, the numbers, without words trying to "spin" the results positively/negatively.

That is going to be tough, because organic farming really does not exist in the US. If you read the rules that the USDA put out, they allow an exemption to virtually everything with only a handful of exceptions. You can use synthetic pesticides (ivermectin) you can use synthetic fertilizers, and if you sell less than 5000.00 USD of stuff a year, there are no rules or restrictions. Just call it organic and that is it. So how can you study something which has no hard rules as it is practiced in society? This is the same problem as homeopathy. Everyone has heard of it, and knows some generalities, but there are no real rules or facts. A good question is, what is organic? Whatever the answer, someone will burn you in effegy and call you a heretic. It is really a lose lose scenario (again, just like homeopathy.)

 

[Dylab]

Does anyone here have any idea how much carcinogens plants naturally have?

 

[Steven Howard]

Does anyone here have any idea how much carcinogens plants naturally have?

Depends on which plant. Tobacco plants have a lot. Broccoli plants, not so much.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Dylab:
Does anyone here have any idea how much carcinogens plants naturally have?

Here

99.9% of dietary pesticides ingested by humans are naturally occuring rather than synthetic. Source.

Your intake of natural pesticides in a single cup of coffee exceeds that of synthetic pesticides in a whole year's worth of eating. Whether or not organic food contains less synthetic pesticide residue than conventional produce is therefore moot.

 

[Jorghnassen]

Here

99.9% of dietary pesticides ingested by humans are naturally occuring rather than synthetic. Source.

Your intake of natural pesticides in a single cup of coffee exceeds that of synthetic pesticides in a whole year's worth of eating. Whether or not organic food contains less synthetic pesticide residue than conventional produce is therefore moot.

Care to find a source that's not one of them "foundations for free market solutions to public policy problems" ?