Before presenting arguments against organic production (below), I would like to stress my opinion on the best route to sustainable food production. In order to attain nutritious crops with adequate yields to sustain the world's population, while reducing both ecological impacts and resistance of crop pests to pesticides, food production needs to incorporate Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies. IPM is the wave of the future. I am not a "nozzle head" who loves pesticides, but I really do believe they have their rightful place within IPM strategies. Genetically Modified (GM) foods are a useful tool as well, as long as they do not lead to problems such as "super weeds" (we'll discuss these at a later date).
| ||
 | ||
Organic food is certainly a lifestyle choice, but there is no conclusive evidence that it's better for you and that it's worth the money. It definitely is not sustainable in this world with ever-increasing populations. Organics are only four per cent of total farm produce, and one can not argue that 96 per cent of farm produce is inferior because it’s not organic.’ (1)
On main argument is that organic production is better for the environment. (2) But how much better is it really? And you have to ask yourself what is more valuable: production that is capable of feeding the world, or production that can feed only a small portion of the world's people but will cut pesticide use?It is assumed by most people that organic food is more ‘natural’ and therefore by definition healthier and better for the environment – but is it true?
The author of The Truth About Organic Foods, Alex Avery, a plant physiologist and biologist, concludes that organic food is no healthier than ‘conventional’ food, and argues that the claim of organic food to be better for the environment is suspect.
Pesticide Residues
According to Avery, the fact is most of our food does not contain residues of toxic chemicals and pesticides, and the minority of food items that do have traces in the infinitesimal parts per millions range. A host of different chemicals can cause cancer in rodents when researchers feed them to the animals in very large quantities, but the minute quantities involved in pesticide residues mean the same chemicals are harmless in food. There is no evidence of anybody ever dying or falling seriously ill from eating food carrying traces of man-made pesticides.
The over-reaction to the dangers from manmade pesticides is in sharp contrast to the complete ignorance shown towards naturally-occurring poisons. Everyday foods are full of natural pesticides. The world-famous biochemist Bruce Ames makes the point clear: ‘The natural chemicals that are known rodent carcinogens in a single cup of coffee are about equal in weight to a year’s worth of ingested synthetic pesticide residues that are rodent carcinogens.’ (3) He is not arguing that coffee is dangerous, rather, he’s pointing out that the tiny risk from manmade chemicals is actually smaller than other small risks we accept as a normal part of life.
As it happens, as Avery points out, organic produce is not entirely free from chemicals – it is simply that a much narrower range of such chemicals is allowed for food to qualify as ‘organic’, and they tend to be used less frequently. Given that some of the things that pesticides are designed to eliminate – like poisonous fungal growths – are pretty dangerous, that is not necessarily beneficial in any event.
Nutritional Value
Another assertion often made about organic food is that it is more nutritious. It is not clear, in principle, why this might be. However, some studies suggest it might be the case. Avery looks at these studies in detail and finds many of them deeply flawed. The best review of the evidence, a paper by Woese et al in 1997, concludes that it is very difficult to conclude anything at all. ‘Conventional’ foods contain more pesticide residues and more nitrates – hardly surprising given their greater use in conventional agriculture. But overall, the authors note: ‘With regard to all other desirable nutritional values, it was either the case that no major differences were observed in physico-chemical analyses between the products from different production forms, or contradictory findings did not permit any clear statements. (4)’
In fact, not only do better quality studies in peer-reviewed journals show no consistent difference between the two types of food, Avery notes that even some organic advocates admit it. As William Lockeretz of Tufts University told an organic food conference in 1997: ‘I wish I could tell you that there is a clear, consistent nutritional difference between organic and conventional foods. Even better, I wish I could tell you that the difference is in favour of organic. Unfortunately, though, from my reading of the scientific literature, I do not believe such a claim can be responsibly made. (5)’
Even if there were nutritional differences between organic and conventional food, any benefit one way or the other is likely to be much smaller than variation based on the variety of a crop used, other growing conditions, freshness, cooking method - even which foods are consumed together.
Environmental concerns
The environmental case for organic mainly rests upon the pollution caused by producing agricultural chemicals and cleaning up after them. It is certainly true that producing fertilizers in particular uses energy and this inevitably means fossil fuels. But the production of chemicals is only one part of the energy used in putting food on our plates. As a recent article in the Economist notes, many of the assumptions made about what is the most ‘green’ way to supply food are simply wrong. It suggests that big supermarkets, with highly efficient logistics, are arguably ‘greener’ than trying to feed the nation through local farmers’ markets.
Citing research from the UK Department of Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the article says: ‘[A] shift towards a local food system, and away from a supermarket-based food system with its central distribution depots, lean supply chains and big, full trucks, might actually increase the number of food-vehicle miles being travelled locally, because things would move around in a larger number of smaller, less efficiently packed vehicles. (6)’
To maintain the same overall level of food production using organic methods today would require far more land to be used for farming. In developed countries such as the UK, where the efficiency of industrial farming methods has left many small farms redundant, there might be space to indulge a small land-hungry organic sector. But if we truly pursued the idea of an organic-only economy, the effect on land usage would be dramatic. At a time when environmentalists complain about how wildernesses are being cleared to produce food, the need to clear more land is organic farming’s dirty little secret.
The other alternative is to grow less food. There is no way, using organic methods, that the world’s current population could be sustained on the 37 per cent of land currently used in agriculture. The solution for some, it would appear, is not more food but fewer people. In the words of one organic farmer quoted by Avery, ‘I want to argue that production is not the problem. The problem is the imbalance of humans relative to the millions of other species with whom we co-evolved. (7)’
Don’t mess with nature
The precise arguments organic food groups are actually neither here nor there because no-one is really holding them to account. The underlying temper of our times is that anything processed or industrialised can be seen as adulterated and harmful, while anything that appears to be natural or close to nature can be regarded as pure and uncorrupted. The precise facts about residues, nutrition or environmental impact are rarely discussed.
The ‘don’t mess with nature’ approach is illustrated by the organic movement’s attitude to genetic modification. Rather than embracing GM as opening up the possibility of greater control over the properties of plants, it is rejected as dangerous interference in nature with all sorts of unknown potential problems. GM crops have the potential to allow greater productivity, reduced use of pesticides and increased nutrition. The organic movement prefers to smear GM crops as the work of malevolent agribusiness trying to create monopolies.
Even if it is found that a particular GM crop did not live up to expectations or caused unexpected problems, that would not be a cause to dismiss the whole technology out of hand. Any process involving experimentation and new techniques will have problems along the way. The most logical approach would be to learn from our mistakes in order to continue improvements. If the entire world was well-fed and food was as cheap as it could be, the discussion might be academic. But when a large proportion of the world’s population is still undernourished, society must constantly explore ways to grow more, better, food.
Sources:(1) Organic farmers hit back at Miliband’s food verdict, Independent, 8 January 2007
(2) Organic farmers hit back at Miliband’s food verdict, Independent, 8 January 2007
(3) Risk, cancer and manmade chemicals, by Bruce Ames and Lois Swirsky Gold(4) Woese K., D. Lange, C. Boess & K. Werner Böel (1997). ‘A comparison of organically and conventionally grown foods: results of a review of the relevant literature’. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 74: 281-293
(5) Quoted by Avery, The Truth About Organic Foods, p 32
(6) Voting with your trolley, Economist, 9 December 2006
(7) Fred Kirschenmann, quoted in Avery, p212
No comments:
Post a Comment