Some delicious, conventional Asian Pears
|
Originally Posted On Forbes 3/19
I
don’t buy organic foods. In fact I specifically avoid doing so. It’s not my
place to tell anyone else what to do, but I’d like to lay out three, seriously
considered factors that have shaped my personal stance on organic:
- Informed confidence that we are safe buying “conventional” foods
- Recognizing that some of the best farming
practices from an environmental perspective are not always
allowed or practical under the organic rules
- An ethical problem with the tactics
that some organic advocates and marketers employ which seriously
misrepresents their “conventional” competition
For
the last 40 years my wife and I have shared the shopping and cooking for our
mostly home-based meals. We have always gardened, but also buy much of our fruit-
and vegetable-rich diet from stores. When I say I don’t buy organic, that
involves frequent decisions.
By
all rights I should be an enthusiastic advocate and consumer of organic. I
was a child of the generation influenced by “Silent Spring.” I was a dues-paying
member of the Wilderness Society in high school. I grew up helping my beloved
grandfather in his organic garden in the 1960s. Some of our best friends
in the late 1970s were pioneers in the development of the commercial organic
industry. I’ve spent a significant proportion of my career developing
biological and natural product-based pesticides which are applicable to
organic. I fully appreciate the contribution that the organic movement made in
the early 20th century
when it highlighted the importance of fostering soil health. My problems with
institutional organic are not at all about its founding ideals or about organic
farmers, but rather about organic's self-imposed limitations and about the
ethics of a sub-set of its promoters.
Confidence in the Conventional Food Supply
The
USDA, which oversees the foods labeled as "Certified Organic", states quite clearly on its website about its role in organic, that "Our
regulations do not address food safety or nutrition." Foods labelled
"Certified Organic" must adhere to certain rules and regulations but
aren't endowed with any particular nutritional or safety features. However,
many consumers believe that the Organic label means the food has superior
nutrition and is safer, especially in regard to
pesticide residues. This is not true.
Studies have shown no appreciable difference in nutrition between crops grown either organically
or conventionally.
As
for the safety issue. When most people hear the word “pesticide,” they
imagine something scary in terms of toxicity to humans and the environment. The
reality is that modern agriculture employs an integrated suite of non-pesticidal
control measures, and the actual pesticides used today are
mostly relatively non-toxic to humans. Organic farmers also use
pesticides, and the products they are allowed to use are constrained with few exceptions by whether they can be considered “natural.” That is not a
safety standard since many of the most toxic chemicals known are “natural.”
Like all pesticides, these natural options are subject to EPA scrutiny, and so the pesticides that organic farmers are allowed to use are “safe when used according to the label requirements” which
is the same standard for synthetic pesticides allowed on conventional crops.
When it comes to pesticide residues on our food, there is a USDA testing program that demonstrates year after year that the pesticide residues on
both organic and conventional foods are at such low levels that we need not worry about them.
I confidently buy non-organic foods based on this public data that
demonstrates that our system is working and that we consumers are
well-protected.
My granddaughter enjoying "conventional" raspberries (yes, she did then eat them)
|
What
the USDA data demonstrates is that the environmental movement was not a failure - it effected real change over the past 5 decades! We don’t have
a two-tiered food supply in terms of safety in which only those who can afford
the premiums get safe food. I also believe the global scientific consensus that“GMO” foods are safe, and so I don’t need to buy organic to
avoid those.
This No-Till Field is good for the environment and the food supply |
Environmental Idealism
I
have always been concerned about the human impact on the environment, and
particularly about the impact of farming since that industry has the largest
“footprint” in terms of land area. I spend a lot of time reading the scientific
literature concerning agriculture and the environment. Some of the farming
practices that are commonly employed on organic farms are very positive from an
environmental perspective, but those practices are also used by progressive
“conventional” growers. There are also quite a few farming practices with
excellent environmental profiles which are difficult to implement under the organic farming rules (e.g. no-till farming,
spoon-feeding of nutrients via irrigation). Compost, which is
a major input for organic farms, has a shockingly high “carbon footprint” because of methane emissions. The carbon footprint of “synthetic” fertilizer is
much smaller.
From
an environmental perspective, the biggest issue for organic is that it requires significantly more land to achieve the same level of production. Were organic to
become more than a niche category, this yield gap would be highly problematic
from an environmental point of view. I would much rather buy food from "land-sparing" farmingsystems.
Organic yields are substantially lower for many major crops
|
Ethical Issues
My third
reason for not buying organic has to do with ethics. Organic exists as a sort
of “super brand” that transcends anyone marketing under that banner.
Unfortunately, within the organic realm there are certain major marketers (and
advocacy groups they fund) who employ fear-based and falsehood-based messages
to demonize “conventional” foods. They use these methods as a means to
promote organic. One of the most egregious examples is the “Old McDonald/New
McDonald” video funded by Only Organic – a consortium of very large organic marketers. This
bizarre publicity piece exploits children to depict a completely distorted
view of mainstream farming. I consider it to be "hate speech for profit."
Another
example is the organic-industry-funded Environmental Working Group which grossly distorts
that transparent, USDA, public database documenting the safety of the food
supply and turns it into a “dirty dozen list” designed to drive organic sales. These are extreme examples, but
the organic marketing community as a whole quietly benefits from this sort of
propaganda and does nothing to correct the “convenient fiction” that organic
means no pesticides. I realize that only part of the organic industry funds and
promotes the most vicious sort of disinformation, but I rarely see organic representatives standing up and objecting to the sort of fear-mongering that ultimately
benefits the sales for the entire super-brand.
The
fear-based messaging drives the intense social pressure, that parents in
particular feel, about whether they need to buy organic. I don’t want any part
in rewarding this sort of fear/shame-based marketing. In the absence of a
significant objection from more of the organic community, I don't want to
support the "super brand."
So,
these are my reasons for not buying organic products. I feel perfectly
comfortable buying the alternatives that align with my practical,
idealistic and ethical standards.
Please feel free to comment here and/or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com
Please feel free to comment here and/or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please send comments if you wish. Sorry about the word verification, but I'm getting tons of spam comments