Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Let Them Eat Organic
Sure, they're keeping Manhattan's greenmarket well
stocked, but can organic farmers feed the world?
The question is hotly contested. Right now, about two percent of the world's farmland is organic, so there's long way to go. Still, some say it's do-able, citing stats about the high productivity of small organic farms. But the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, which has every PR and political motivation to agree with organic boosters, reluctantly declared that the world simply can't get by on organic farming alone in the near to mid-term.
“We should use organic agriculture and promote it,” [Dr. Jacques Diouf, FAO Director-General] said. “It produces wholesome, nutritious food and represents a growing source of income for developed and developing countries. But you cannot feed six billion people today and nine billion in 2050 without judicious use of chemical fertilizers.”
And the FAO isn't going it alone among world organizations:
In its annual World Development Report, the World Bank noted this year, that “low fertilizer use is one of the major constraints on increasing agricultural productivity in Sub-Sahara Africa”....Much of African soil suffers from constraints such as acidity and lowered fertility and is greatly in need of soil amendments and nutrients.
|12.18.07 @ 4:00PM|#
, but can organic farmers feed the world?
Are conventional farming methods currently feeding the whole world?
Has hunger been eradicated and I missed it?
|12.18.07 @ 4:00PM|#
I could live on oraganic food--if I wanted to double the amount I pay at the grocery store for basically the same damn thing, that is. Organic food is little more than status symbol.
|12.18.07 @ 4:05PM|#
The human race produces enough food to feed to whole human
population.
The problem is a distribution problem; generally governments that
interfere with their citizens' freedom to trade.
Episiarch|12.18.07 @ 4:06PM|#
Organic food is little more than status symbol.
Or an obsession. My aunt has gotten to the point that she won't
even eat her own mother's homemade food that she ate for her entire
fucking life if the ingredients aren't organic. It's not quite as
bad as it sounds as she only refuses the food when she is going to
go home and make her own organic food, but it's still insane.
|12.18.07 @ 4:06PM|#
"Are conventional farming methods currently feeding the whole
world? Has hunger been eradicated and I missed it?"
Yes because millions starving to death in places like Zimabwe or
say the Ukraine in the 1930s is completely the result of a world
food shortage and nothing to do with communism and horrible
governments. Come on Tom you are not that stupid are you?
ed|12.18.07 @ 4:08PM|#
Organic obsessions are a little like religious obsessions:
a little truth mixed in with a whole lot of bullshit.
VM|12.18.07 @ 4:08PM|#
"Organic food is little more than status symbol."
By status, of course, you mean it's the gastronomical equivalent to
the "oooh. pshaw. I never watch
television. In fact, I don't even own one."
:)
and the contemporary equivalent to the DODGE STRATUS, the Toyota
Pius.
grins.
|12.18.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Are conventional farming methods currently feeding the whole
world? Has hunger been eradicated and I missed it?
No and no. Let's ask a different set of questions.
Are conventional farming methods currently producing enough to feed
the whole world?
Yes.
Has the underdeveloped world created rational, economies that
facilitate food distribution?
No.
Fluffy|12.18.07 @ 4:10PM|#
I am not a food nazi, but I question the sense of trying to
remake African agriculture to produce essentially European products
that have been shoehorned into a milieu where they don't
belong.
There's a reason that Africa's "oil suffers from constraints such
as acidity and lowered fertility and is greatly in need of soil
amendments and nutrients" in order to grow European and Central
American food crops. It's Africa, not Europe or Central America.
Why create an African agriculture built around producing crops that
aren't suited to the continent? Why not try free-market agriculture
based on the local crops first? Because free market agriculture has
not really existed in Africa - in most cases a colonial system was
replaced by a statist system [not necessarily collectivist, but
definitely not free]. Private land ownership is still extremely
rare, as are free market pricing systems for local crops. How about
we try THAT, and see what happens?
|12.18.07 @ 4:17PM|#
"Because free market agriculture has not really existed in
Africa - in most cases a colonial system was replaced by a statist
system [not necessarily collectivist, but definitely not free].
Private land ownership is still extremely rare, as are free market
pricing systems for local crops."
Add to that the fact that the West keeps sending Africa food for
free and insuring that no one can make any money growing food
there. In addition, the industrialized world has terrible
protectionism of their agricultural sectors so African farmers
can't sell their crops in foreighn markets. Let them grow and sell
whatever crop the land is best suited for and they could buy their
own damn food. Who says Africa needs to grow its own food? New York
City sure doesn't and no one seems to have a problem with that. The
problem is not lack of food so much as it is lack of freedom to
make a living.
|12.18.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Lets not forget that one reason sub-Saharan African society
never got much beyond the neolithic stage is because the native
suite of plants and animals are not well suited to
domestication.
If you're going to feed as many Africans as we now have, I would
bet you're going to have to do it with non-native crops.
|12.18.07 @ 4:24PM|#
Yeah, those native African plants are tough to control. They'll stampede you if you're not careful.
|12.18.07 @ 4:25PM|#
Africans are better off starving than eating horrible, chemical-tainted, non-organic food.
|12.18.07 @ 4:29PM|#
Better to starve than have food at sold in irresponsible amounts at irresponsibly low prices and suffer the effects of obesity. The Africans just don't know how good they have it.
rho|12.18.07 @ 4:31PM|#
Organic obsessions are a little like religious obsessions: a
little truth mixed in with a whole lot of bullshit.
Kind of, I guess. To me "organic" is a convenient shorthand for
"farmed sustainably." Which may or may not be true, but is likely
more true than not. It also tends to stand for "not beholden to
Omnibus Farm Bill Subsidies." Which, again, may or may not be true,
but is likely more true than not. Finally, it tends to stand for
"locally produced," which may or may not be true, but is more
likely true than not. I don't mind quite so much paying 50-100%
more for a radish if I know it goes directly into the pocket of
Farmer Dan down the road.
Then again, I don't obsess over it. I try to buy from the farmer's
market, which is usually not organically grown,
but it is at least local.
Fluffy|12.18.07 @ 4:33PM|#
I have to note that like rho, I like to buy organic produce and
meat and milk because when I do, I am reasonably sure that a
producer local to my state is getting the sale and not some
douchebag in Nebraska or Kansas. Screw you, Midwesterners!
I'm also not buying any California cheese! Hit the bricks, Happy
Cows!
|12.18.07 @ 4:34PM|#
To me "organic" is a convenient shorthand for "farmed
sustainably."
Farmed sustainably is an interesting term. My family has been
farming in Western Kansas for over a hundred years and generally
has used every agricultural technology available. It is interesting
how it is so unstainable.
|12.18.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Better to starve than have food at sold in irresponsible
amounts at irresponsibly low prices and suffer the effects of
obesity. The Africans just don't know how good they have
it.
Or the North Koreans. But Ted Turner
knows.
|12.18.07 @ 4:40PM|#
I try to buy from the farmer's market, which is usually not
organically grown, but it is at least local.
I know what you're saying. I mostly drink Michigan wines (when I
drink wine).
|12.18.07 @ 4:41PM|#
To me, "organic" is a throwaway term that food packagers put on their products to lure the gullible into paying more for it. The term is not regulated by USDA (not that it should be), so unless it actually says "chemical free" or "free range" or whatever the current concern is, the term is meaningless.
Episiarch|12.18.07 @ 4:49PM|#
crimethink wins the prize. I worked in a health food store as a
teenager and learned from the owners that "organic" didn't mean
jack shit, or at the very least it might mean something coming from
California because they actually have requirements for the use of
the term.
I also learned that incredibly dumb people liked to buy granola
(how stereotypical) because it was "healthy". I wanted to tell them
it was a carb load fried in shit oil--essentially french fries--but
didn't think that was a good idea.
|12.18.07 @ 4:54PM|#
To me, "organic" is a throwaway term that food packagers put
on their products to lure the gullible into paying more for it. The
term is not regulated by USDA (not that it should be), so unless it
actually says "chemical free" or "free range" or whatever the
current concern is, the term is meaningless.
Uhm, that's just not true.
See
Here
And here
Shannon Love|12.18.07 @ 4:55PM|#
Organic foods are just a means of status consumption.
Wealthy people have always consumed high quality produce raised on
boutique farms while the rest of us made do with lower quality mass
produced foodstuffs. The only difference today is that wealthy
people now claim they are more virtuous than the rest of us because
they spend more money on their elitist "organic" food
I don't mind that people with money choose to spend that money on
high quality ingredients. I do the same when I can. I do resent
being told that their wealth makes them morally superior because
they follow some fad.
Episiarch|12.18.07 @ 4:58PM|#
Uhm, that's just not true.
They must have started doing this around the turn of the millenium,
because it was definitely true some years ago.
|12.18.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Farmed sustainably is an interesting term. My family has
been farming in Western Kansas for over a hundred years and
generally has used every agricultural technology available. It is
interesting how it is so unstainable.
Traidionally, "sustainable" farming methods include doing things
like rotating crops or mixing crops in order to replenish the soil
naturally of its nutrients without having to use more and more
fertilizer. It also may include not using pesticides in order to
protect beneficial soil microorganisms.
It does not mean "doing whatever it takes" to keep crops growing on
a piece of land.
T|12.18.07 @ 5:05PM|#
From CT's link:
Products labeled "organic" must consist of at least 95 percent
organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt). Any
remaining product ingredients must consist of nonagricultural
substances approved on the National List or non-organically
produced agricultural products that are not commercially available
in organic form.
Anybody here raise their hand if they can't drive a truck of
agricultural pesticides through that loophole.
|12.18.07 @ 5:15PM|#
...unless it actually says "chemical free" or "free range" or whatever the current concern is, the term is meaningless.
I agree that the labels "organic" and, even moreso, "natural", are
nebulous, but that doesn't preclude comparing ingredients lists. It
is no coincidence that the natural & organic products
rarely contain high fructose corn syrup (subsidies,
anyone?), whereas the conventional products load up whenever
possible. Also, the higher-priced natural & organic foods
contain much less petroleum-derived preservatives and additives
(potassium benzoate (==>benzene), BHT, etc.) than conventional
products. Also, what's involved in the catch-all (by gov't labeling
regulations) "natural and artificial flavors" category? Ignore the
labels, but only pay (vote) for the ingredients you want to
ingest.
|12.18.07 @ 5:23PM|#
Chicago Tom-
No industrialized, capitalist nation has ever had a famine in peace
time. Not once.
Its the governments in African, not the amount of food
availible.
Neu Mejican|12.18.07 @ 5:25PM|#
I don't get the hate for organic among the libertarian
crowd...is it the petuli?
From the UN article:
Organically-grown products generally attract higher prices than
conventionally grown ones and therefore represent a good source of
income for farmers. However, they must meet certain farming and
quality standards and require capacity-building, large investments
and efficient organization along the production and marketing
chains, which puts them beyond the reach of most resource-poor
farmers of developing countries.
This seems to be talking more about organic as a business model
than actual tonnage of food produced, no?
From the pro-feed with orgainic article:
A comprehensive review of a large number of comparison studies
of grain and soybean production conduct by six Midwestern
universities since 1978 found that in all of these studies organic
production was equivalent to, and in many cases better than,
conventional (Welsh, 1999). Organic systems had higher yields than
conventional systems which featured continuous crop production (no
rotations) and equal or lower yields in conventional systems that
included crop rotations....They are also more likely to have
livestock on their farm, which provides a variety of animal
products to the local economy and manure for improving soil
fertility. In such farms, though the yield per acre of a single
crop might be lower than a large farm, total production per acre of
all the crops and various animal products is much higher than large
conventional farms (Rosset, 1999). Figure 1 shows the relationship
between total production per unit area to farm size in 15
countries. In all cases, the smaller farms are much more productive
per unit area- 200 to 1000 percent higher - than larger ones
(Rosset, 1999). Even in the United States, the smallest farms,
those 27 acres or less, have more than ten times greater dollar
output per acre than larger farms (US Agricultural Census, 1992).
Conversion to small organic farms therefore, would lead to sizeable
increases of food production worldwide.
This seems to be saying that distributed food production is more
efficient than a large centralized food production system.
As a bias, I like distributed solutions over centralized solutions.
But if a centralized partnership between big business and
government produces the best results...who could argue with the
logic of that model?
|12.18.07 @ 5:27PM|#
Organically-grown products generally attract higher prices
than conventionally grown ones and therefore represent a good
source of income for farmers.
Like farmers don't get enough of my money in the form of subsidies
and ethanol already.
Shannon Love|12.18.07 @ 5:41PM|#
ChicagoTom,
It also may include not using pesticides in order to protect
beneficial soil microorganisms.
You know absolutely nothing about farming or, apparently, biology.
Pesticides are neurotoxins targeted at insects. They don't effect
microorganisms in the least because they don't have nervous
systems.
The idea of "sustainability" is a big lie. Advocates have simply
declared ex nullo that modern farming techniques are
"unsustainable" despite the very readily apparent evidence that one
can farm the same land forever using such techniques. Traditional
farming techniques turned wide stretches of the earth into desert
or heath. Modern techniques leave the earth vibrant and alive. When
someone shuts down a modern farm, nature comes roaring back in a
matter of months.
Neu Mejican|12.18.07 @ 5:49PM|#
Shannon,
These guys have nervous systems...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Regenwurm1.jpg#file
http://www.walterreeves.com/tools_chemicals/article.phtml?cat=22&id=536
|12.18.07 @ 5:57PM|#
Its the governments in African, not the amount of food
availible.
Cesar, I don't disagree.
But traditional farming has also decreased the variety of foods /
agricultural products available. Traditional farming methods tend
to favor the fastest and most productive plants leading to a lower
variety of foods available.
Personally, I am not a zealot. I think that the market has a place
for both.
I just can't stand the people who are so fucking sure that organic
and sustainable farming is a crock of shit and nothing but a
"status" symbol or a scam.
Modern techniques leave the earth vibrant and alive
That is complete bullshit. Soil erosion is a real problem,
regardless of your saying it isn't. It requires higher amounts of
inputs (water, fertilizer, pesticides ) in order to maintain
tillage levels -- especially in cases where the same crop is
planted over and over and over.
|12.18.07 @ 6:09PM|#
Like farmers don't get enough of my money in the form of subsidies and ethanol already.
Cesar, I suspect you're joking.
But in case you're not it's worth noting that produce farmers
generally receive nothing in the way of subsidies, except possibly
some financing guarantees.
The exceptions are the growers in CA who get massively subsidized
water for irrigation.
As to the question of organic gardening it is likely that any
superiority that might exist does so because of the added care that
organic farmers put into there peoduce and its freshness in local
markets.
But for a person to buy a processed food product that has been
shipped across the country (or across the world) and think that it
is superior to conventional because it has "organic" stamped on it
is just absurd.
|12.18.07 @ 6:12PM|#
But traditional farming has also decreased the variety of
foods / agricultural products available. Traditional farming
methods tend to favor the fastest and most productive plants
leading to a lower variety of foods available.
that's not evident to me. i shop produce stands, farmers' markets,
and stores like berkeley bowl. the array of produce grown
conventionally is staggering, something i couldn't have imagined
ten years ago.
Ventifact|12.18.07 @ 6:19PM|#
rho and Fluffy --
Sorry. The organic label exists primarily as a marketing tool that
large "agribusiness" uses to 1) sell products at a premium price
and 2) EXCLUDE SMALL BUSINESSES FROM THE MARKET. There is much
debate over the value of organically labeled food vs. normal stuff
(and thus the validity of a higher price for organic food), but
I'll put that aside and focus on how the organic label is
specifically designed to favor large businesses.
• Pesticides may be used, but only on the perimeter of a field and
only with a buffer (~10 ft?) of space between the pesticide
application and the soil on which the food is growing. This buffer
space requirement means that a small plot will lose a large
proportion of its area to the buffer if the farmer wants to spray
the perimeter, but that a vast field will lose a much smaller
portion to the buffer. Interestingly, standard integrated pest
management (IPM) calls for maintenance of vegetation and arthropod
(insects, spiders, etc.) populations around the perimeter of a
field, not for blasting them with chemicals.
• Extensive paperwork is required to attain and maintain the
organic certification. For a small operation, the manpower required
to complete the paperwork represents a substantial increase in the
overall overhead of a farm, whereas for a large operation the cost
is easily absorbed.
• There is a multi-year time delay between using exclusively
"organic" practices and obtaining an organic certification. The
conversion to organic practices requires a sizable investment in
terms of learning new techniques, buying new equipment, buying new
seed, etc. It also entails an immediate drop off of harvest
quantities. Thus the conversion requires a big payout and a drop in
harvest, multiple years before a farm will be granted the organic
certification that enables it to charge enough to make up for its
lower yields. Family farmers do not have the resources to absorb
this cost, but large companies do.
There are a range of other reasons "organic" is largely bull. There
is no requirement for crop rotations, for example, and what many
people think of as a nice little farm growing a few squash and a
few radishes is in reality vast, 10,000-acre fields growing a
single plant. Furthermore, consumers have NO reason to expect
organic food travels a shorter distance "from farm to fork." For an
organic food producer/distributor, shipping is just another cost to
weigh against income as it is for any other company.
Vent|12.18.07 @ 6:20PM|#
I'll add that the three bullets I listed have ostensible validity for the organic agricultural ideals. Maybe. Just don't be fooled that organic food comes from small farms or local farms.
|12.18.07 @ 6:21PM|#
I just can't stand the people who are so fucking sure that
organic and sustainable farming is a crock of shit and nothing but
a "status" symbol or a scam.
When I have to pay twice the price and see no difference
at all in the taste, I'm going to call it a scam. People who think
theres something different about it are "eating the label", so to
speak.
Ventifact|12.18.07 @ 6:33PM|#
Shannon Love --
Pesticides are neurotoxins targeted at insects. They don't effect microorganisms in the least because they don't have nervous systems.
Gasoline is hydrocarbons used to explode in the cylinder of
internal combustion engines. You don't have an internal combustion
engine, therefore if you drink gasoline it won't interact with your
body in any way.
I mean, go ahead...
Also, "pesticides" are things that kills "pests."
Insecticides kill insects. Many other forms of pesticides
exist, mainly fungicides (some of the most noxious pesticides) and
herbicides. And if you think a toxin meant to kill a given organism
won't hurt other organisms, you know absolutely nothing
about biology.
|12.18.07 @ 6:33PM|#
Where I live they are a touch neurotic about "locally
grown".
Exactly how far away is still "local"?
If it's on this planet, it's local in my solar system, right?
As far as the poor rich people. I think I understand their pain.
Once, I had a few extra dollars coming in. I thought where should I
splurge? How about food? Let those poor farmers get to Aruba once
in a while, maybe they'll be nicer to the animals. So I bought more
expense cuts of meat. This became my "normal". Then I'd walk into a
supermarket that was more mainstream. I'd look at the prices and
think, OMG what happened to that item? Did that cow get hit my a
truck? Is it roadkill? How else could it be that inexpensive? You
really must beware of your sense of "normal" getting skewed.
|12.18.07 @ 6:34PM|#
When I have to pay twice the price and see no difference at
all in the taste, I'm going to call it a scam. People who think
theres something different about it are "eating the label", so to
speak.
You don't "HAVE" to do anything, do you?
Why do other people's choices bother you so much?
People who get so upset at other people's choices are (rational or
not) are busybodies.
I may think people who pay a premium for a Hummer H2 are suckers
too, but I am not gonna sit around and post disparaging messages
about it and telling owners of it that they are fools. I'm just not
gonna buy one.
It is my right as a consumer to choose to pay a premium so that I
could support a smaller farmer rather than ConAgra. (Voting with my
dollars) I also personally find the products superior in taste. And
you know what else, unless challenged, I don't really tell people
about it either. How's that for elitism.
|12.18.07 @ 6:50PM|#
I may think people who pay a premium for a Hummer H2 are
suckers too, but I am not gonna sit around and post disparaging
messages about it and telling owners of it that they are fools. I'm
just not gonna buy one.
Chicago Tom, As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, you
posted the above. ;-)
Neu Mejican|12.18.07 @ 6:53PM|#
Cesar,
When I have to pay twice the price and see no difference at all
in the taste, I'm going to call it a scam. People who think theres
something different about it are "eating the label", so to
speak.
Sometimes there is no difference in taste.
Sometimes there is...(think tomatoes).
Just because you don't notice the difference doesn't mean others
are being scammed.
|12.18.07 @ 7:00PM|#
Just because you don't notice the difference doesn't mean
others are being scammed.
Hey, if they think theres a difference thats great. Some people
swear brand name Cheerios taste different from Kroger brand
Cheerios.
Why do other people's choices bother you so much?
They don't. I'm just expressing the opinion I think "organic" is a
scam in my opinion. I also think its probably a fad we'll all be
making jokes about in 10 years. Its my opinion, feel free to keep
buying organic until your hearts content. Its your money, not
mine.
|12.18.07 @ 7:03PM|#
Modern techniques leave the earth vibrant and alive.
Right, and all the runoff from over-fertilizing ends up in the
Chesapeake Bay, causing toxic algae blooms from the hypernutrient
levels, decimating the marine ecosystem, along with the local crab,
oyster, and fish industry. Also, notice the progressively earlier
development of the busty Georgia farm girl? That couldn't be the
result of excess hormones applied in the dairy and poultry
industries ending up in the water table.
"But, goddammit, we've done been growin' corn on this here plot for
the last hundred-aught-four years! How's that fer
sustainable?!"
You fail to take into account the tragedy of the commons.
|12.18.07 @ 7:04PM|#
The only problem I have with the "orgos", as my Australian
farmer friend calls them, is with those who are seeking
mandates.
It is worth remembering that California had a ballot initiative to
ban the use of pesticides a few years ago. Given the ignorance of
many folks and the pure emotionalism that drives them, these things
have a good chance of passing. Luckily the ban didn't pass (or
maybe didn't even make it onto the ballot - can't remember
which).
|12.18.07 @ 7:06PM|#
I also think its probably a fad we'll all be making jokes about in 10 years.
It's already been around for ages. It started to become all the
rage in the 60s.
Don't count on it disappearing.
Poisoned Farmer|12.18.07 @ 7:14PM|#
I don't get the hate for organic among the libertarian
crowd
I, too find this puzzling.
|12.18.07 @ 7:29PM|#
You can't just tell libertarians that you know what is good for
them. Libertarians are notoriously hard to impress. You can't just
tell them something is good, you have to prove it.
If they can't taste that's it isn't improved: it's a no go.
If you can't show that they were somehow poisoned prior to
organics: it's a no go.
Your poisoned run-off in the commons: might have a shot but you're
going to have to provide links.
Paul|12.18.07 @ 7:42PM|#
Are conventional farming methods currently feeding the whole
world?
Uhm, geez, what a patently ignorant thing to say. Perhaps you're
being willfully ignorant of what's being said here.
"Conventional" farming: Feeds everyone who's being fed
currently.
"Organic" farming: Wouldn't come close to feeding the numbers we're
feeding now.
I don't get the hate for organic among the libertarian
crowd
We don't hate organic farming. We hate organic farming
hyperbole.
______________________________|12.18.07 @ 7:48PM|#
Also, notice the progressively earlier development of the
busty Georgia farm girl?
Kind of hard not to but in this age of child abuse hysteria it is
best not to let on.
|12.18.07 @ 7:57PM|#
It's already been around for ages. It started to become all
the rage in the 60s.
Funny, I didn't notice it in my neck of the woods until about
2002.
BakedPenguin|12.18.07 @ 8:22PM|#
One comment - if it's really organic, in the sense those who like organic mean it, it's almost certainly local. Without preservatives, organic food tends to spoil quicker.
|12.18.07 @ 9:03PM|#
But if a centralized partnership between big business and
government produces the best results...who could argue with the
logic of that model?
IF only we could get the right people in office ...
IF only all those socialist countries didn't have weather-related
crop failures, year after year, starting right after they went
socialist ...
Big IF in that assumption, Neu Mejican.
|12.18.07 @ 9:07PM|#
I don't get the hate for organic among the libertarian
crowd
I don't hate organic. Some organic food is noticeably tastier, and
IMO worth the extra price. Some tastes the same as the regular
food.
I think the hate is more towards the statist, socialist tendencies
of the people who gravitate toward organic, rather than the food
itself. Kinda like people who hate Hollywood stars, but still watch
their movies.
|12.18.07 @ 9:18PM|#
Yeah, the hate for the organic is about the fact that the "wrong
sort" of people buy it.
There can't possibly be any value in organic methods - they can't
possibly have environmental or economic benefits - because the
people who buy organic food think they're better'n you.
|12.18.07 @ 9:50PM|#
One comment - if it's really organic, in the sense those who like organic mean it, it's almost certainly local. Without preservatives, organic food tends to spoil quicker.
No, sorry again. First of all, whether food is labeled and sold as
"organic" has [as] little [as monetarily possible] to do with "the
sense those who like organic mean it." That is, the whole point
here is that people think they're buying something when they
purchase organically labeled food, but in fact they're not buying
that at all.
Specifically on the issues of transport, spoilage, and local-ness
-- Nope again, and sorry again, but nope, again. Remember that an
organic product must have only 95% organic ingredients. Most
preservatives exist at much lower levels, more like around 1/2
percent. This includes all those weird metal complexes like EDT.
Also, the 95% mark does not include SALT, a major preservative in
most preserved foods. Moreover, if we're talking about produce
instead of prepared foods, distributors have a huge arsenal at
their disposal for transporting and storing food over long
distances and long time scales. Refrigerator rooms the size of a
concert hall, with oxygen levels down to almost zero, for example.
Produce is often harvested before it's ripe, kept in storage for
months (up to almost a year for once-a-year domestic crops like
apples), and then artificially ripened by exposing it to various
gasses. None of this violates organic rules, and all of it allows
an industrial-scale operation in which the food you eat originated
nowhere near your dinnertable in the space-time continuum.
Or did you think those organic bananas you can buy in Illinois in
February came from somewhere close by?
|12.18.07 @ 9:50PM|#
It's a good thing no one who partakes of the niche, boutique ideology of libertarianism ever claims moral superiority for having done so.
|12.18.07 @ 9:52PM|#
I should add, I guess, that lots of organic food (e.g. cereal) is separately labeled as being preservative-free. But keep in mind that this still doesn't include salt -- or being dried, sugared, etc., which are nothing more than preservation methods (dating back thousands of years) with taste components so we don't always think of them as preservatives.
|12.18.07 @ 9:52PM|#
Ventifact,
If there wasn't so much hostility to organic foods among
libertarians, they might notice that the private sector has done an
excellent job of creating reliable, understood certification
groups, whose icons are used on organic-labeled food in order to
address exactly the problem you describe.
Ventifact|12.18.07 @ 9:55PM|#
Well, we do have this board to argue about
libertarianism...
I think for me personally, I'm willing to say that some organic
products have value (better taste, nutrition, or environmental
impact). Pesticide-free cotton, for example, is probably worth
paying for. But there is such a relatively small value for most
organic stuff and organic enthusiasts are so in love with it, it's
hard not to be a little eager to pick that phenomenon apart.
I suppose everything I said still applies to
libertarians...
Ventifact|12.18.07 @ 9:57PM|#
Most of what I've said in this thread has been specifically about the fact that most organic enthusiasts misunderstand what the label means. I do recognize that the market has responded, but it is not giving people what they want, it is letting them think they are getting what they want (e.g. local food) without doing any such thing.
Vent|12.18.07 @ 10:03PM|#
Thus libertarians observe that the market has responded to a
yuppie desire for moral superiority, not for anything
concrete.
I mean, who could fail to realize that bananas probably are not
coming from just down the road in the dead of a Midwestern
winter?
But, still, I will say that libertarians are HUGELY into moral
superiority also. Hmm.
|12.18.07 @ 10:09PM|#
You can't simultaneously make the argument that organic-food buyers are delusionally thinking that their purchases are promoting better agricultural practices AND claim that they are only interested in moral superiority.
|12.18.07 @ 10:10PM|#
The desire is for something concrete. You even acknowledge that yourself, when you imply that people buying products which, you claim, aren't actually produced in a more sustainable manner, are being fooled.
Vent|12.18.07 @ 10:14PM|#
"delusionally"
Thanks for that word. Done.
They don't use any critical thinking or research to evaluate
whether what they can observe of the organic industry actually does
indicate that it is helping the environment (etc.). Thus they
delude themselves that organic stuff is better for the world,
because their real goal is moral superiority.
Now, that's a blanket statement and I only think it's true as a
trend, not a black-and-white absolute.
Bush and other neocons often strive for what seem to observers to
be contradictory goals. E.g., many people say it's impossible to
fight violence through warfare. Just because an observer sees
someone's various actions/attitudes as contradictory, doesn't mean
a given person won't be that way.
Ventifact|12.18.07 @ 10:18PM|#
Honestly I'm not sure what claim you are making. All moral activities must exist in some concrete form. Organic enthusiasts link sustainability, local food, etc. with morality, duh. But they're not getting those things. Most people tend to strive for a moral life. What strikes me as funny is the utter lack of critical thinking applied to the organic food world. Most people, when they learn how different a reality is from a perception, enjoy pointing out the discrepancy, so why should I be any different about food? Bush talks about limiting spending, but he does no such thing, and Dems rightly criticize him for that and try to point it out to Repubs.
rho|12.18.07 @ 10:34PM|#
Farmed sustainably is an interesting term. My family has
been farming in Western Kansas for over a hundred years and
generally has used every agricultural technology available. It is
interesting how it is so unstainable.
"We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Pesticides end up somewhere. Artificial fertilizers end up
somewhere. Whether these things are harmful is certainly debatable.
That they don't solely end up in your family's drinking water is
not.
Sorry. The organic label exists primarily as a marketing tool
that large "agribusiness" uses to 1) sell products at a premium
price and 2) EXCLUDE SMALL BUSINESSES FROM THE MARKET.
I'm sorry, was I unclear? I was careful to say that "organic" is
not always an assurance that the food is what it purports to be.
Your bets tend to be better, though, among the organic brands,
especially if they come from local co-ops or similar
organizations.
"Organic" is not a magic incantation, and I do not utter it to save
my soul or my health. But it's usually a good place to start.
Oh, and people who say "Sorry, blah blah blah" are also usually
full of shit. On the one hand, John says his family farm hasn't
imploded as proof that he farms sustainably. On the other hand, you
insist that the "organic" label is completely worthless. Neither of
you follow that the past is not necessarily an indicator for the
future.
"Organic" now may not always mean what people think it does. Free
people will eventually figure this out, and push the "organic"
farmers to either relabel or change their practices. My local
co-op, however, does a good job vetting this for me. Again, this is
how the market works. You simply do not understand it. Or, perhaps,
you're a fool. I'm not prejudiced--I allow for the fact that fools
must be tolerated.
Ventifact|12.18.07 @ 11:06PM|#
rho-
As I'm becoming self-conscious about posting so much on this
thread, I'll try to end it after this post for now. First of all,
you are right about sustainability. Mainstream modern techniques
are not sustainable. The carbon and nitrogen content of U.S. soils
has, for example, been continuously declining since those soils
were put to agricultural use. Many people don't realize it, but the
carbon lost from natural soils after the soils became agricultural
has contributed a major chunk of the overall anthropogenic
atmospheric carbon spike that is getting us into global warming
right now.
As sustainability goes though, I maintain that the value of organic
food is debatable. Other practices such as no-till agriculture show
more promise, at least to my knowledge.
Also, as what most would consider a very moderate libertarian in
favor of public lands etc., I agree with what you say about
pesticides and fertilizers ending up somewhere. Honestly I believe
that this and similar issues with analogous atmospheric phenomena
(coal smoke, e.g.) make it clear that an absolute notion of private
property is untenable, and furthermore that a more moderate notion
of private property requires recognition that one person's runoff
hurts another person and his property, thus requiring appropriate
regulation by the government. I can't stand on my own land and
shoot my rifle randomly, and then bear no responsibility if a
bullet happens to leave my property and kill a neighbor -- so with
pollution.
As for the value of "organic" labeling with regards to local-ness,
from what you are saying I would suggest that the real benefit you
are deriving is from paying the premium to have co-op members vet
products for you, not to simply find items labeled as organic. If
the organic label went away, co-op managers would still go through
the same process of receiving/finding info about food products from
vendors who specialize in that kind of food. If your co-op is
buying items specifically because of the "organic" label, it's off
the mark, and if it isn't, then at best the label is as you say a
good place to start. For the majority of folks getting groceries
from supermarkets, they really are just buying
something for the organic label without investigating
further.
(Also, I apologize (I'm sorry?) if the word "sorry" came off snide.
I meant it. I always feel guilty about breaking people's organic
bliss when I tell them the reality about organic labels. But now I
feel pompous, like I'm some grand messenger of truth... By the way,
when I refer to "organic bliss" I don't mean to suggest you in
particular are enthralled by the organic label, but many people
are; they speak of organic food with a face of rapturous
satisfaction, and I feel obligated to explain that it's not so
appropriate to feel that way.)
Also, I never 'insist[ed] that the "organic" label is completely
worthless.' I commented, for example, that I consider organic
cotton to be worth buying. I suspect you think I disagree with you
much more than I actually do. I happen to consider myself somewhat
more knowledgeable about these and similar issues than the average
consumer so I try to point things out that others might not know or
think of. This is a message board for basically that purpose, I
thought.
Finally, I'm not sure why you make certain claims about my
understanding of the market. For the many consumers mindlessly
buying organic food under the assumption it is better but without
knowing that fact in any reliable way, the market has finished
responding: it is giving them their bliss, and little more. It
would be difficult to imagine the organic label improving in
meaningfulness while it is being enthusiastically patronized by so
many people. Maybe you don't understand the market?
It is good to know, by the way, that you are not prejudiced, and
that you are willing to tolerate fools such as me. Also, it's good
to know you would get so indignant about me saying "sorry" and then
call me names. It makes me glad to be a fool, considering the
apparent alternative.
|12.19.07 @ 12:27AM|#
There can't possibly be any value in organic methods - they can't possibly have environmental or economic benefits - because the people who buy organic food think they're better'n you.
joe, there's so much bullshit in that paragraph that it could
fertilize about a million acres of organic crops.
rho|12.19.07 @ 12:32AM|#
You wrote WAY too much for me to even bother reading.
Not to say that a pithy quip completely makes any argument, but a
total lack thereof reeks of self-justification. I suspect you're
trying to validate your entire socio/political philosophy, whereas
I simply like to buy tomatoes that don't suck.
ted|12.19.07 @ 12:35AM|#
no, hunger hasn't been solved with chemical fertilizers either. it just makes people more money and is easier to stadardize
|12.19.07 @ 12:37AM|#
Pesticide-free cotton, for example, is probably worth paying for.
Why? (seriously, why?) Given that the boll weevil will wipe out a
crop and hence the grower's livelihood for at least a year,
why?
But there is such a relatively small value for most organic stuff and organic enthusiasts are so in love with it, it's hard not to be a little eager to pick that phenomenon apart.
You've summed it up perfectly.
Neu Mejican|12.19.07 @ 12:37AM|#
prolefeed,
Big IF in that assumption, Neu Mejican.
I guess you forgot your sarcasm decoder ring today.
Vent|12.19.07 @ 12:49AM|#
Another quick comment (I'm so full of shit):
We should also bear in mind that the world produces much more food
than is necessary to feed its population. However, because much of
the vegetable food we produce is fed to animals which are in turn
eaten, we end up (through
the second law of thermodynamics) with much less food
available, at higher prices, than could be available on the world
market if people ate no or less meat. After all, a given ecosystem
will sustain fewer lions than gazelles.
Ventifact is apparently not go|12.19.07 @ 1:01AM|#
I always like the point in an exchange where someone declares
another person has made too much of an argument to bother
considering it. Less is apparently way more.
You can suspect all you want about what I wrote. Apparently you
haven't read it. You seem to be validating my claims about
ignorance on the part of organic consumers...
By the way, I thought I did put a few nice quips in my post. My
favorite was:
It would be difficult to imagine the organic label improving in meaningfulness while it is being enthusiastically patronized by so many people. Maybe you don't understand the market?
Ventifact on cotton|12.19.07 @ 1:17AM|#
Organic cotton is feasible, a claim I base on the fact that
non-coerced producers are selling it for prices that are barely
higher than regular cotton. Conventional cotton production involves
massive pesticide and fertilizer application levels, well beyond
even the industrial scale of chemical application typical for other
crops. To sound a little dorky about it, it's not good for the
earth. Also, it is a dangerous positive feedback that will not be
sustainable ("implosion").
Low-pesticide (or pesticide-free) crop production has certain
benefits even in the realm of pest control itself. Did you know the
proportion of yields lost to pests (~1/3rd) has remained
essentially constant since before the Green Revolution (the
modernization of agriculture as we see it) until today? Still, of
course, absolute yields are many-fold higher, so it's not a simple
comparison.
Pests evolve rapidly in response to pesticides, rendering the
pesticides increasingly ineffective. At the same time,
slower-evolving organisms such as predators of pest organisms are
being wiped out by pesticides, leaving fields even more susceptible
to infestation. With a functional ecosystem non-existent because of
the chemicals constantly dumped onto the fields, the only organisms
that can exist are precisely pest organisms which can feed on the
cotton. Maintaining vegetated perimeters on a field is one way of
maintaining pesticide activity in the form of parasitoids and
predators that keep pest populations in check (they must have this
unfarmed perimeter so they can live on when the field is fallow and
when the pests are not in season) but this practice is not used in
conjunction with heavy chemical application. Conventional cotton
production also relies heavily on chemical fertilizers as soils
become increasingly depleted, and this too must be turned
around.
I mentioned cotton because it is a particularly grievous example
and in balance it is probably worthwhile going in for the organic
variety. I am a moderate libertarian and am fully willing to ignore
the ostensible fact that farmers have their own interests available
as incentive to maintain the health of their land. (They have no
such incentive, also, to consider what happens to the polluted
runoff from their farms.) Also, organic cotton functions as less of
a status symbol than organic apples (for example); it is, you might
say, easier to keep your intentions clean by participating in that
particular part of the industry. Ooh, now I'm in trouble: I've
strayed back to commentary on the pretentiousness of buying
organic. Most libertarians are pretentious too...
Neu Mejican|12.19.07 @ 2:00AM|#
Ventifact,
Paying for vetting of products...
Are you saying those hippy co-ops are actually libertarian
free-market solutions?
egad
I take issue with the premium everyone talks about.
I spend less by shopping at farmer's markets, my local coop, and,
occasionally, Trader Joes than going to the local supermarket. But
I also cook rather than buying prepared foods...maybe that's the
difference.
Anthroprogenic Toasting|12.19.07 @ 2:05AM|#
Ventifact,
Many people don't realize it, but the carbon lost from natural soils after the soils became agricultural has contributed a major chunk of the overall anthropogenic atmospheric carbon spike that is getting us into global warming right now.
Assuming that it drives somehow instead of lags warming, how does
it go: ground (farm plot) -> corn -> gut (me) -> ground
(septic tank) -> atmosphere?
However, because much of the vegetable food we produce is fed to animals which are in turn eaten, we end up (through the second law of thermodynamics) with much less food available, at higher prices, than could be available on the world market if people ate no or less meat.
Ruminants can digest things that humans can't, and much of those
things grow better than human food crop in the same place with the
same effort. Buffaloes love them grasslands. Similarly, a form of
sugar cane that doesn't make much sugar makes better fuel than
other canes. Animals may be currently fed too much human food crop
than is optimal, but does that mean that we couldn't feed the same
amount of cattle as now with other means? Not automatically, it
seems to me.
What strikes me as funny is the utter lack of critical thinking applied to the organic food world.
I feel like that lack is very pervasive today, and I can't explain
or get away from it. Thank God for H&R. I seriously love you
guys.
bill|12.19.07 @ 2:13AM|#
For me I'd much rather eat something sprayed with a nice sterile chemical fertilizer than something smeared with cow shit.
Ventifact|12.19.07 @ 5:11AM|#
Neu Mejican--
Yes, I am definitely saying that: hippy co-ops are actually
libertarian free-market solutions. I am just not so willing to
say that organic certification is also a free-market solution
success story. As I said, any co-op buying its stuff just because
of an organic label is not doing its job, at least not the way its
customers (members) expect.
Anthro--
The carbon in plants comes from the air (where it exists as CO2),
not from soil. The carbon that is in soil originated as plant
debris -- roots, leaves, etc. that died and decayed. When this
debris is in the soil, it is decaying and soil organisms are
turning this debris back into CO2, as humans and cars turn their
own food into CO2. Here is an overview:
air-->plants-->soil-->air
(Note that some
of the carbon that goes into plants also gets eaten by bigger
animals and goes elsewhere, possibly eventually into the soil as
poop or dead animals etc.)
Now, the carbon-bearing compounds in soils are in a state of slow,
perpetual decay, as they are consumed by soil organisms and
eventually converted to CO2, at which point the energy contained in
those compounds is exhausted and the CO2 escapes through pores into
the soil, entering the atmosphere. The decaying carbonaceous soil
matter is replenished by continual additions of dead tissue as
organisms die and return to the soil.
So the overall amount of carbon in soil is a result of a balance of
inputs and losses. (A common term for this is a "carbon budget.")
This equilibrium can be shifted toward increasing carbon "storage"
in a soil if conditions change to increase carbon additions to
soil, e.g. by increasing the amount of dead plant matter that goes
into the soil, or by decreasing the rate of
decomposition of carbon-containing (ORGANIC*) compounds in the
soil.
Conversion of a soil from a natural state to agricultural use
shifts the equilibrium point of carbon storage way down; in other
words, it favors an overall decrease in soil carbon levels,
resulting in a net emission of CO2 from soil, until a new, lower
equilibrium point is reached. Agriculture does this by both
decreasing the amount of plant debris that goes to the soil, and by
increasing the rate of decomposition. Harvesting crops is the
reason less plant material goes to the soil -- in a natural state,
no one comes along right at the end of the growing season and
removes almost all above-ground vegetation (at least not without
shitting most of it back out nearby) as is common for major crops
like alfalfa, wheat, and corn.** The reason carbon also decomposes
faster in farmed soil is mainly because of tillage, which stirs up
soil and in so doing exposes buried organic matter, which
decomposes very slowly underground where there is little available
oxygen, and exposes that material to surface air, allowing
decomposers to break it down much faster.
As for the question of meat vs. vegetable production -- you are
right that herbivores can digest plant matter that we can't eat
(cellulose, specifically). However, the current meat industry is
not at all based on a practice of grazing animals sustainably on
non-arable land. It is mostly about using land that could feed 10
people to produce enough animal feed to raise livestock that can
feed 2 people, in the process tightening the overall food supply
and raising international food prices. Very little meat is produced
in a way that makes the greatest use of our planet's food-producing
capacity, rather than in a way that diminishes it. Also, much of
the cellulosic feed (the stuff humans couldn't eat) that is used is
leftover plant matter from crops harvested for human consumption;
e.g. pea vines, wheat straw, corn silage. This goes back to the
earlier issue of carbon loss from agricultural soil systems. The
overall dynamic to note here is that the predominant methods of
meat production squander Earth's food production capacity.
Now, all that is not to say I consider eating meat to be robbing
poor people of food. Everyone from above has been more to the point
in addressing economic problems in countries that lack food. This
is just another facet of the problem to keep in mind, even if it's
not the main one.
* Hah! This is what the word "really" means...
** Also, although plants do not get carbon from soil, they get
everything else from the soil. So they take up other nutrients like
nitrogen from the soil, but those nutrients are trucked off every
year at harvest instead of being returned to the soil as plants die
or are eaten. Thus soils become depleted.
Cheers.
|12.19.07 @ 10:26AM|#
Katherine Mangu-Ward,
Why are you choosing to use an 8 year old article to represent the
pro-organic side, when a recent Univ. Michigan peer-reviewed
article is available?
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936
"Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in
developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and
conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could
double or triple using organic methods, said Ivette Perfecto,
professor at U-M's School of Natural Resources and Environment, and
one the study's principal investigators."
Ventifact|12.19.07 @ 6:50PM|#
That is cool. But keep in mind that at the end of the article
the researcher is said to have defined "organic" on his own terms,
not in commercial terms by which the label is currently
administered and sold. Also, from the article and the linked
abstract it is not clear he is comparing otherwise-identical farms
that differ only in a choice of organic vs. non-organic. E.g. farms
run organically in the third world might tend to be administered by
large companies selling to the first world which can efficiently
use the newest advances and efficiently manage harvest and
distribution over larger scales.
Also note that what the study implies is that organic farming makes
better use of the chief capital used on undeveloped countries'
farms: human and animal capital. As those countries attain
affluence and urbanize, food production will be forced to
accommodate a much smaller farming population supporting a larger
overall population. Then and there, as for now here in the first
world, production will specialize and mechanize, rendering such
practices as use of animal poop for fertilizer less appealing
relative to the industrial alternative.
Nitrogen fertilizer is actually an important contributor to global
warming, both because of the significant chunk of energy used in
its manufacture and because as much as a third of the nitrogenous
fertilizer applied to soil will decompose chemically and escape
into the atmosphere as greenhouse gasses such as N2O, which is much
more potent than carbon dioxide over the long term (interesting
overview of agriculture's contribution to worldwide emissions).
The other major contribution of farming to emissions is machinery
operation, which can be cut more than in half by adopting no-till
agriculture (it takes a lot of energy to drag a giant metal
anchor/net combo through every inch of thousands of acres of land).
No-till is not addressed by organic (as a commercial label) but is
being independently adopted by many otherwise conventional
farmers.
Venti|12.19.07 @ 7:00PM|#
Also (fun with the net!) here is another look at what I said about the use of resources to produce meat. You'll have to scroll up a few lines to see the relevant caption (poor web design): the (US) food system consumes ten times more energy than it provides to society in food energy. It's not clear, but I don't think they mean "energy" to include inedible energy like that from diesel. The source material that website cites describes the western diet as "extraordinarily meaty."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245