Let 'em eat (organic) cake

New at Reason: Why do environmental anti-globalists want to go back to famine-inducing agricultural techniques? From his hazardous post in war-torn Cancun, Rob Bailey investigates.

Comments

[Jason Ligon]

I'm not a farmer.

I know that if I try to buy organic in the store, the increase in price is considerable, but that is about the extent of my knowledge.

Anyone have an idea of cost per acre of organic crop A compared with cost per acre of non organic crop A? How about acreage used for indentical outputs of the same crop?

[Larry]

There's really no doubt that "organic" farming is a religion and not a science. s.m. agrees with this when indicating that some chemical fertilizers should be permitted. Which is it? Do you support the organic farming religion or do you support high-yield low-cost farming, whatever it may be called?

Many so-called organic techniques are being adopted by mainstream farmers. Fyodor has it right when he says tax the externalities because the market could then decide whether organic, "traditional", or (most likely) some mixture of techniques should be used.

However, the key point is that farm subsidies are hurting millions of people and they need to be stopped. Now.

[xray]

Is Rob Bailey a GM substitute for Ronald Bailey?

[joe]

Tax externalities. Sounds good. But at this point, I'd be happy to stop subisidizing them.

Larry, only the "true believers" think it's either/or. You are clearly on of them. Who else shouts "aha!" so gleefully at reasonable compromise?

[Kevin Carson]

Jason,

One reason for the higher price of organic produce in the store is that demand is increasing so fast--the last I read, about 20% per year. So there will be some quasi-rent for people already in the market until demand stabilizes and supply adjusts to it. At the same time, demand is not high enough in most areas to reach economy of scale in distribution costs. When a truck-load of organic produce can deliver to a single supermarket, instead of to co-ops spread out over an entire county, costs will go down considerably. Right now, we've got the worst of both worlds.

When I sold organic produce, I wasn't too concerned with recouping costs, since I grew mainly for my own consumption and only sold the sporadic surplus left over when I'd dried or canned everything I could use. So I just priced it for roadside sale by matching grocery store prices, and putting up a big "organic" sign by my table. (Illegal, but I'll be damned if I get a license from the State).

As far as figuring costs goes: I never tried to figure out any imputed labor cost, since I was producing mainly for myself. But Ralph Borsodi once figured the number of hours it took to grow and can produce, valued it at the average wage, and calculated it was still cheaper than what you buy at the store. In terms of materials, I picked up a lot of grass clippings in my car for sheet composting/mulch, and generally used maybe $50-100 worth of granite dust, rock phosphate, blood meal, etc. I spent a fair amount on plants and seed, but that would be the same with any technique.

[s.m. koppelman]

Mr. Larry:

You mistake me for the Official Voice of Organic Farming. I'm not. I'm not even a vegetarian. I'm just someone arguing what I believe. I respect organic farmers' decisions to reject use of chemical fertilizers. I just happen to think that if they're used sparingly and proper safeguards are in place to scrub runoff, they're not necessarily out-and-out horrible in the way hormone-spiked animal feed, monoculture crops, and many other hallmarks of large-scale conventional farming are. But I just speak for myself, and make no claim to adhering to a reductive ideology.

Has it occured to you that there might be more than one way to run a farm profitably and productively?

People are complex. The world is complex. It might come as a surprise to you and the boys at the Objectivist Red Meat Quilting Circle, but I'm of the belief that there are issues in this world that aren't best addressed in an all-or-nothing way. And you're free to see the world as rigidly as you like. Isn't America sometimes neat?

[Kevin Carson]

s.m. koppelman,

As a matter of fact, it never occurred to me that organic farming might be casually associated with vegetarianism. I'm as red meat as they come.

I tend to agree with you on some deviations from organic practice being relatively harmless. I take a negative attitude toward chemical fertilizers, for example, because they're usually a shortcut to avoid necessary things like building up soil with organic matter. And the fillers in them have all kinds of bad effects on the soil's osmotic quality. But supplementing natural fertilizers and mulch with a few handfuls of N-P-K from the co-op isn't the end of the world, if done within reason. And I have to admit, grudgingly, that Miracle-Gro contains a pretty good balance of trace minerals, for a chemical fertilizer. I also use blossom set spray for my tomatoes and peppers, although it's not strictly organic, because there is no serious harm and a great deal of benefit.

I'd even go so far as to admit that, although Roundup is pretty horrible, farmers do a lot less harm with it than the average suburban lawn freak who uses it by the 40-gallon drum. Same goes for abuse of pesticides by a lot of home gardeners. My dad spread Malathion on our garden back in the 60s and 70s, and I probably breathed in a pound of that shit.

[Jesse (not Walker)]

I can't understand why the anti-globalists would make such arguments. Ron, can you figure it out for your next column? It's depressing (in the way Feymann finds humanity depressing).

[Ray Eckhart]

I believe the reasoned position between the religion of organic farming and corporate chemical agribusiness, is called Integrated Pest Management, or IPM. Google it and follow any link with a .edu suffix. Much of Organic Farming is a marketing concept to increase profit margins. (See Jason's post above). And, to my cynical eyes, another way to empower another Government Agency with regulators and inspectors to "certify" organic farms, and ensure that the cuttings from a lavender plant were not propagated in a pot that (horrors!) had not waited the necessary three years since a non-organic pesticide had been used within 3.2 feet of it. Watch for all the subsequent lobbying efforts to justify exceptions, changes, and re-definitions in order to maintain the qualification, or prevent competition from newer entree's to the market.

Back to the original point - Anne Applebaum's piece today in the WaPo spots an encouraging counter counter-revolutionary trend, that addresses some of my cynicism with a touch of optimism.

"Although there will be anti-globalizers in Cancun, the cutting edge has shifted -- and not a moment too soon. In a perverse way, the movement has in recent years provided a cushion for those politicians -- European, American, Japanese and developing world alike -- who drag their feet about opening markets. Maybe now, if the young, the hip and the free-thinking start pushing the other way, the ministers in their suits will be forced to listen too."

[s.m. koppelman]

I like the way the article ambles along for the first two thirds with perfectly fine and detailed, if oft-repeated, arguments against farm subsidies, and then jumps off the rails with the statement that organic farming is also ruinous, and is what leads to deforestation.

This would come as a surprise to the developed world's organic farmers, many of whom are just as mechanized, computerized and modern as their mid-sized non-organic counterparts. All that really distinguishes them is that they don't use concentrated artificial fertilizers, inorganic pesticides, prophylactic antibiotics and hormone injections, or raise genetically modified crops.

While these decisions lead to lower yield per acre and higher production costs in the short run, they also reduce long-term costs and risks. By eschewing non-curative antibiotic use and preventing bacterial transmission by not packing birds and livestock together, they reduce future reliance on antibiotics and reduce the development of antibiotic resistant organisms. By not growing tens of thousands of acres at a time of a single strain of a crop, they reduce suceptibility to disease and in turn reliance on pesticides, fungicides, and so on. By using less fertilizer--even though I'll readily grant that it makes sense to be open to some "chemical" ones--impact on water quality (and in turn, the need for expensive water treatment) is greatly reduced and fewer resources need to go into recovering or sustaining the arability of a patch of land. In doing so, they avoid "lock-in" to the intensive farming methods themselves.

And by rejecting these and other "advances" (like terminator seed stocks), nearly all of which are produced by companies based in the developed world under patent, developing-world farmers sidestep paying annual "user fees" to Western agribusiness, making local and regional farming economies less suceptible to suppliers' whims and fortunes.

Should we be working to drastically reduce farm subsidies in the developed world? Absolutely. Should we be helping third world farmers mechanize and modernize, and help them obtain GPS, GIS and all the other technological tools that enable more intelligent farming? Heavens yes. But stop using the Luddite minority as a straw man. Organic farming does not generally mean scythes, draft animals and offerings of pottery to a rain god among those who actually do it. And stop playing down the damaging effects and risks inherent in intensive "non-organic" farming when that's what's more often being protested and debated.

[Keith]

Bravo S.M.!

[joe]

"Lower productivity means more food insecurity and more natural lands like forests chopped down to create farm fields."

There is not a food shortage in the world today. In fact, there is massive overproduction, and a great deal of wastage. Even with a drop in productivity on the most intensively, soil-depletingly farmed land, there would still be plenty of food to go aroud. The reason there is still widespread hunger can be traced to political causes, not technological or agricultural shortcomings. If Mali, for example were only producing enough food to feed itself, then why would enhancing its ability to export that food be important?

s.m. nails it: you wrecked a very good attack on ag subsidies, based on irrefutable empirical evidence, by concluding with an ideological, dishonest attack on organic farming.

[steve "s.m." koppelman]

[Small correction: instead of "hormone injections" I should have said "hormone-enriched feed". Which, incidentally, puts measurable amounts of these hormones in both the water supply and consumers' diets. Which only adds to my case.]

[Kevin Carson]

Ray Eckhart,

Organic agriculture does not, by any means, require federal inspectors and certifiers. I am adamantly opposed to all government certification or standards. Since it's relatively low risk, I advertise my surplus as "organic" without any certification. But if there was a serious likelihood of legal harassment, I'd use some alternative description like "free of chemical pesticides and fertilizers." I'd sooner wear a dress and sing Liza Minelli tunes than apply for a license from the friggin' government.

One excellent model for voluntary and private certification is that used to certify kosher foods. Depending on the strictness of one's sect of Judaism, one looks for a seal of approval from a particular certification agency. If enough people want it, somebody will provide it.

[Zoop]

Yes, I can see how lower per-acre yields are good for the environment. There is nothing tastier than formerly-old-growth-forest cabbage!

[Stich]

Excuse me, but could we get to the most important aspect of reporting on the Cancun protests of the anti-globalists. That would be the publishing of high quality photos of young, nubile nude protesters on the beach. Initial offerings were not adequate.

Am I wrong about this being the only thing of value down there? Mmmmm nope.

[Muness Alrubaie]

The problem that baffles me is who environment activists who blame free trade for the state of developing nation's farmers. They're much like those who blamed deregulation for last year's California black/brown outs. For example, take today's New York Times "Op Ad" placed by TomPaine.com, available at http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opads2.cfm/ID8834 . These people have the nerve to blame free trade for the troubles much of the world's poor suffer from, instead of blaming the anti-globalization protectionist measures which they support.

[Russ D]

While I typically find problems with much of what s.m. koppelman posts, I have to pretty much agree with everything he states here.

The problem with subsidies, and indeed every welfare scheme, is that the participants who take advantage of the system also try to take advantage by skirting the system as well. This is human nature, and a testament to man's logical capacity.

Farm subsidies, at least in the US, are often based on acreage; cut down your acreage by 10 percent, and we'll pay you. Naturally, the farmer takes the deal AND tries to find ways to increase the productivity of the remaining acreage by 10 percent. This has probably just as much to do with the advancements in genetic engineering as anything else.

It is probably the protectionist tariffs that have more to do with deforestation. By severely limiting demand, the foreign producer faces a lower world price. The only way to make up the difference (if he isn't subsidized), is to produce more. Since said farmer likely can't produce genetically modified products, the best he can do is use up more land to produce more.

I'd be curious to know what kind of subsidies American "organic" farmers get.

[joe]

RTFA, Muness. They aren't complaining about free trade. They're complaining about agricultural subsidies.

"Free Trade, Inc." is not the same thing as free trade.

[Kevin Carson]

I expected s.m. koppelman to weigh in on this, and I'm glad I wasn't disappointed.

"Famine-inducing agricultural techniques" is indeed a straw-man. To compare the techniques of modern Western organic farmers to traditional Third World methods, is like comparing a Ferrari to an oxcart. Many, if not most, organic farmers are well versed in current agricultural research, and take advantage of what fits in with a non-chemical philosophy. The use of Bt, and of legume inocculant and mycorrhizae, are modern developments that have greatly increased the productivity of organic agriculture.

And it is questionable that corporate agribusiness is "more productive"; in fact, it's meaningless unless you specify exactly what input it's more efficient in the use of.

Intensive organic farming techniques, like the raised bed techniques used in NW Europe and Japan, are more efficient in the use of land area than mechanized row cropping when it comes to horticulture. American-style, mechanized farming is only more "efficient" in a country like America, where it makes some sense to trade off wastage of space against increased productivity of labor through mechanization.

But labor is one thing the Third World has plenty of; in fact, a major cause of the starvation in the Third World is the fact that peasants formerly engaged in subsistence family farming were evicted by quasi-feudal landlords, and are now sitting in the streets of Calcutta or the shantytowns of Mexico City. Family subsistence farming, integrating the best of small-scale modern organic techniques, is ideal for much of the Third World.

I once spoke to a retired agronomy farmer who started out mindlessly parroting the ADM party line that "organic farming would mean most of the world starving." But when I specifically mentioned intensive, raised bed techniques, he immediately backtracked: "Oh, well, if you use the land as efficiently as the Japanese, that's different..."

Most of the people who criticize organic farming have only the vaguest idea of what it entails. To those who mindlessly spout the "famine-inducing" rhetoric: next time you hear a liberal mocking the idea that private gun ownership reduces crime, or that private mail service would be more efficient, that kind of self-confident ignorance is what you sound like to us.

[fyodor]

I say tax the externalities and let the market figure out the rest!

[Kevin Carson]

P.S.

IMO, there's a close parallel between the "modern" techniques of agribusiness and primitive slash-and-burn agriculture. Thanks to developments like pesticides killing off insects' natural enemies up the food chain, insect resistance, the vulnerability of large monocrops to pests and disease, and the stripping of trace elements and organic matter from the soil, the amount of chemical pesticide and fertilizer needed to do the same job has increased exponentially over the past few decades. But the chemical corporate "farmer" blythely destroys the productivity of his resources in this way, in the confidence that genetic tinkering will produce some way either to increase pest resistance and reduce the need for chemicals, or increase plant resistance so you can baste on Roundup with a brush. This is much like the Brazilian peasant's confidence that there will always be another tract of jungle to slash and burn when he ruins the tract he's farming. And most of these deus ex machina technologies that agribusiness relies on to keep appearing wouldn't come about in a free market. So they're really counting on a handout from Uncle Sugar to save them from their irresponsibility. Reminds me of some people I've seen in eastern Oklahoma who systematically demolish a house because they know the BIA will completely remodel it for them every few years.

[nm156]

Except that Kosher certification is a bit of a scam on the part of the COR's. Every month (or is it quarter? Sorry it's been a few years since I worked in the food industry) the rabbis would show up, inspect nothing, collect their check, and issue their certification. Easy money, no?

[Steven Crane]

What about organic solutions to non-agricultural problems? I've got a decent length of railroad right-of-way to keep free of weeds and underbrush, and Roundup does a hell of a job.. in fact, it's the best thing for the job, short of some kerosene and a match. One of my green-ish friends still clamors that I'm committing a hideous crime against the environment, but can't provide any reasonable solution to the problem.

[nm156]

SC: Lee Valley says a tool called a Weed-burner which, supposedly burns the flower portion of a weed/plant while cauterizing the root at ground level, preventing regrowth. Not as much fun as pissing off the greenies, but a friend of mine swears by his.

[nm156]

That should read sells.

[s.m. koppelman]

Unless the problem is thorny or poisonous weeds, a goat or two might do the trick. They're organic, aren't they?

[Kevin Carson]

Stephen Crane,

You can get organic herbicides based on potassium soap that are quite effective at withering most grass and weeds in a few hours.

[nm156]

What? Fires not organic? Burn 'em Steve.

[Steven Crane]

We're talking about a ROW that is in places 50ft wide.. in other words, not something that can always be hand applicated, and uses industrial amounts of herbicide.

[joe]

Burned weeds = great fertilizer = more weeds.

[Levy Rachel]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://preteen-models.biz
DATE: 01/22/2004 01:47:50
The Tao's principle is spontaneity.