Organic Farming Is a Load of--hmmm--Fertilizer
Ronald Bailey | September 14, 2007, 9:45am
A superb article in the Australian popular science magazine Cosmos debunks the organic food and farming craze. On claims that organic is more nutritious, the article notes:
A comprehensive review of some 400 scientific papers on the health impacts of organic foods, published by Faidon Magkos and colleagues in 2006 in the journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, concluded there was no evidence that eating organic food was healthier.
Even if it can't be proved that eating organic is healthier, advocates claim it is nutritionally superior. Some studies, especially those reported by the organic farming advocate group, the British Soil Association, show that organic produce has a higher content of vitamin C, minerals and anti-oxidants such as flavonols, polyphenols, lycopene and resveratrol.
However, some of the compounds present at higher levels in organic food are actually natural pesticides. According to Bruce Ames, a variety of insect-resistant celery had to be taken off the U.S. market in the late 1980s because its psoralen levels were eight times higher than normal and caused a rash in people who handled it. There was a similar story with a naturally pest-resistant potato variety that ended up being acutely toxic because of its high levels of solanine and chaconine – natural toxins that block nerve transmission and cause cancer in rats. Organic farmers who rely on 'naturally resistant' plant varieties may also be producing plants with high levels of 'natural' toxins. And in this case, 'natural' is not likely to mean better. Think of Abraham Lincoln's poor mother, who died after drinking the milk of a free-range cow that had grazed on a snakeroot plant.
Regardless of how it is grown, the nutritional content of fruit and vegetables is more likely to be affected by freshness or varietal differences. One study reported by Magkos tried to narrow things down by growing the same variety of plums in adjacent fields, with one using organic and the other conventional methods: the conventionally grown plums contained 38 per cent more of the potentially beneficial polyphenol compounds than the organically grown ones did.
What about claims for sustainability? With regard to preserving topsoil, no-till farming using genetically modified crops wins hands down. To wit:
An 11-year farming experiment by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Beltsville, Maryland, compared crops grown three ways: conventional tillage, organic methods, or no-till. Compared to the conventional tilled plot, the organic plot was likely to hang on to 30 per cent more soil. But compared to the organic plot, the no-till plot hung on to 80 per cent more soil.
What about the alleged health dangers of synthetic pesticides?
If chemical pesticides are hazardous to health, then farm workers should be most affected. The results of a 13-year study of nearly 90,000 farmers and their families in Iowa and North Carolina — the Agricultural Health Study – suggests we really don't have much to worry about. These people were exposed to higher doses of agricultural chemicals because of their proximity to spraying, and 65 per cent of them had personally spent more than 10 years applying pesticides. If any group of people were going to show a link between pesticide use and cancer, it would be them. They didn't.
A preliminary report published in 2004 showed that, compared to the normal population, their rates of cancer were actually lower. And they did not show any increased rate of brain-damaging diseases like Parkinson's. There was one exception: prostate cancer. This seemed to be linked to farmers using a particular fungicide called methyl bromide, which is now in the process of being phased out. According to James Felton, of the Biosciences Directorate of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, who also chairs the study, "The bottom line is the results are coming out surprisingly negative. It's telling us that most of the chemicals we use today are not causing cancer or other disease."
Health of the planet and protecting nature?
...many agricultural scientists estimate that if the world were to go completely organic, not only would the remaining forests have to be cleared to provide the organic manure needed for farming, the world's current population would likely starve.
Yields?
...the poor yield of organic farming means that food production would be a major problem. In Australia, for instance, organic farming yields 50 per cent or less per square kilometre because of pest problems and phosphate-depleted soils. (Phosphate is locked away in the ancient clays; conventional farmers help themselves to highly soluble chemically-made superphosphate. Organic farmers can't use a chemical, so they use poorly soluble rock phosphate.)
One critical point to note is that conventional farming using genetically modified crops has been reducing its effects on the natural world over time using the findings of science. Since organic is an ideology, its ability use of scientific findings to reduce its impact on the natural world is heavily constrained.
Look folks, eat all the organic food you want. Just don't be fooled into thinking that you're doing something good for your health or for the health of the planet. You're not.
Whole Cosmos article here.
Some of my own reporting in 2002 on organic alchemy here.
Scop | September 14, 2007, 11:59am | #
Heated in here, isn't it?
I like the idea of organic (even though my high school chem teacher would point out that malathion, DDT, and dioxin are all organic, but I digress). I like the idea of a fmaily farm, where the inhabitants are "in tune" with nature. I like the idea of the village community where everyone does an honest day's work--you know, the blacksmith, the cooper, the miller, the farmer, the priest, the tailor, the barman, the taverner, the brewer, the thatcher, the carpenter, and so forth.
I love these ideas. I admit I love going to Renaissance fairs where I can live for a few hours in such a fantasy. But my fantasy never includes dead babies, tooth decay, plague, ricketts, mental retardation due to preventable illnesses, vitamin deficiencies, and food poisoning. (You know, one theory about the Salem witch trials is that the little girls who made most of the accusations were having seizures due to a Rye fungus.)
I, and many other people, long for the uncomplicated world of simple farmers, and small, happy communities. Of course, they never really existed. We can easily fantasize about the good touch-feely stuff, the organic farming, the life connected to the land; it's a little harder to remember the death and disease and the passionate hope of all those involved in tilling the soil to escape.
"Organic" feels good, emotionally. But synthetics--nasty chemicals!--feed people. Irradiation saves lives. Technology offers no appeal to the heart. But it will keep your teeth intact, your liver clean, your muscles disease-free, and your stomach full.
If I had a point, it would be this: let the fantasy of living off the "organic" land remain in fairy tales and Renaissance fairs, and feed your children food grown with synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, and irradiated after harvest. And thank God or human ingenuity that we no longer have to grow our food in piles of shit while praying for rain.
PBrazelton | September 14, 2007, 2:23pm | #
JW,
Whoa there! A little paranoia is good thing, so more must be better?
When it comes to the health of my family, yes. Though I call it common sense. See my whole post, not just that one graph. I have evolution on my side. You can have Monsanto.
Yet we continue to be healthier overall and live longer than our parents. Certain cancer rates are falling and years of remission lengthen. (psst, that might be because of [shudder] chemicals.) Funny that.
I have no issue with chemicals, nor did I indicate that in my post. I have a problem with taking a proven system and replacing it with a unproven (if more profitable) one. Using chemicals to treat disease, create novel substances and get really, really high are just fine with me.
As for cancer rates, longevity, etc, the US is hardly a leader. Want to live longer? Keep physically active, eat less, stay involved in your community. It's not a secret why some populations live longer than others. Having your food doused with chemicals really has little to do with it. National Geographic did a great article on this in the last year.
Check it out.
You can be happy for me all you like. I'm just giving you my take on things. I err on the side of caution, you don't. Whatev.
As a side note: I spend less on groceries now than when I consumed whatever was at the grocery store, as fresh fruits and vegetables are cheaper at my local farmer's market and local farms than anywhere else. But congrats on being wealthier and all.
Gilmore,
I agree with almost everything you wrote about industrial organic. I have a problem with your assertion that no harm (or marginal) harm has been done. Working under the assumption that there such a thing as toxic load for living organisms, proving such a thing for positive or negative would be very tricky. Regardless, many pesticides ARE banned, and usually for good reason. Perhaps you and yours were not harmed, but that's small comfort to those that were and will be.
As for the history of pesticides, it's much longer than you indicate. The current classes of pesticides and the intensity of their use is what's different. And no, we do not have 100 years of experience with the current scale and intensity. A handful of decades (1940/1950, perhaps) at most.
Humans tend to be awfully shortsighted about such things, and we create magnified effects due to our practices that we simply could not have predicted (Gulf dead zone, anyone?). My assertion isn't so much that I have iron-plated evidence y'all gonna die from pesticides, but rather I'll go with practices that we're well adapted to as biological organisms. Nature bats last, as they say.
Sam-Hec | September 14, 2007, 2:24pm | #
"An 11-year farming experiment by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Beltsville, Maryland, compared crops grown three ways: conventional tillage, organic methods, or no-till. Compared to the conventional tilled plot, the organic plot was likely to hang on to 30 per cent more soil. But compared to the organic plot, the no-till plot hung on to 80 per cent more soil. "
was there a No-till+Organic plot? it's not like they are mutually exclusive.
Neither Ron B., nor the 'study' seems to make a distinction between 'otherwise conventional organic farming', and 'permaculture (orsimilar up to date tech) organic farming'. It's kinda like ya know important.
I am still waiting for Ron to comment on a recent U. Michigan study on Organic sustainability. It might be junk, but I would like Ron to comment on it.
Here's the popular science magazine link to combat his:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
As far as my opinon. Organic foods make claims of tatste, health and environmental rightness.
The first is true for fresh foods which haven't gone moldy (those strawberries were expensive dammit!!); dry grains do not seem to benefit in this regard.
When properly grown with natural external pesticides, multi-variety fields, and with healthy predator populations (permaculture) the internal poisons of plants do not develop and are thus not a problem. Otherwise Conventionally grown 'organic' crops however are prone to developing poisins when stressed by unchecked pests.
Organic envirnomental 'rightness' has a lot to do with reducing demand for artificial fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides; avoiding runoff of the same (which does awkward things to streams, lakes and coasts.). Organic permaculture farming wastes less water, and reduces soil loss, especially with no-till methods(already mentioned) Another environmental beny is improved biodiversity...not crisply sure how that is a beny, but it sounds like it would make for a more stable environment, making plagues of pests less likely.
I don't know much about the rightness or wrongness of 'organic' meats and dairies. I do think 'organic' dairy tastes better. I also like the thought that an animal I am about to consume was on a regular basis able to get some excercise outdoors, eat real food, and genreally not like in pain and misery of food-factory conditions. Maybe I should go hunting...for WABBITS!
brettdl | September 16, 2007, 9:28am | #
I took a look at the Farmer study mentioned in this post. Lower cancer rates were possibly linked to lower smoking rates and increased physical activity.
But let's say for arguments sake that these pesticides are not causing cancer. They've got plenty of other problems to worry about. Here's straight from the study's most recent
report:
"Previous studies by other researchers have found that high-level exposure to pesticides
affects the nervous system, causing symptoms like those in the box on the next page.
"These symptoms may persist long after the initial reaction to the pesticide exposure gets
better. It is important to realize that these symptoms may have many causes besides pesticide
exposure. Other exposures or illnesses may be related to these same symptoms. ...
"By studying the information provided at enrollment, we found that farmers who had used pesticides longer and more often said they
had more neurological symptoms than those who had not used pesticides or who had used them less frequently and for fewer years. This was particularly true for insecticides and fumigants. ...
"Farmers who had a history of pesticide poisoning, pesticide-related medical visits, and accidental high-exposure events also had more neurological symptoms than those who had never had an acute pesticide exposure event. In fact, we found that participants who had experienced a high personal exposure event, such as a spill, said they had more symptoms, even if they had never been diagnosed with pesticide poisoning.
"Neurological symptoms that may sometimes be related to pesticide exposure:
• absentmindedness
• blurred or double vision
• changes in smell or taste
• depression
• difficulty concentrating
• difficulty speaking
• dizziness
• excessive sweating
• fast heart rate
• fatigue
• headache
• insomnia
• irritability
• loss of appetite
• loss of consciousness
• nausea
• numbness in hands or feet
• poor balance
• poor night vision
• tension
• tremor in hands
• twitches in arms or legs
• weakness in arms or legs"
Who cares about cancer when your face is twitching, your head is spinning and you get take a deep breath?
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
