Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
So this question comes from the June issue of Wired magazine, whose cover issue is dedicated for the need to rethink environmentalism.
Wired says "organics are not the answer." Now, I don't plan on giving you their reasons (nor do I paln on giving you EcoGeek's response). So what do you think? Are organics the answer? Or not?
And don't feel limited to just thinking about food, if you so choose.
I see. Well hmm, I suppose that more organic farming means smaller crop yields, since you have a tougher time mitigating insects and such without chemicals. Lower crop yields means more land is necessary to meet our food needs, and more land use change means less greenhouse gas absorption and thus more global warming. That's the only con I can think of, and I don't know how much of an impact it would have on global warming.
On the other side, you're putting a lot of chemicals into the food chain, which can cause bioaccumulation issues. You can also end up with situations like bugs that are resistant to pesticides, then you have to keep introducing new chemicals, which can have unexpected and adverse effects.
There's probably some ideal balance where a certain percentage of our farming were organic vs. non-organic. Generally speaking it seems to me like organic does more good than harm. I'd be interested to see the arguments to the opposite.
From everything I've studied I found that organic crops yield less in the beginning but allow for bigger more sustainable crops in the big picture. Chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides eventually lead to soil erosion which means no crop yield. I'm not sure if completely organic crops are the answer for everything (they do use way less water though) Nature takes care of carbon for us as long as nature is healthy....I think chemicals contribute to the demise of numerous eco-systems more than carbon....I could be wrong?
Also with all the disease prevelant in children and adults alike, I think eliminating as many chemicals from things that are directly absorbed through food is a wise decision.
If you think about it chemical farming is a fairly new venture so how was food grown before? I also agree that there needs to be less meat consumption so that there is less of a demand for grain, which means less forced farming.
It is definitely an interesting debate and I would also be interested in hearing how chemical crops benefit us (aside from short term quantity).
There's probably some ideal balance where a certain percentage of our farming were organic vs. non-organic. Generally speaking it seems to me like organic does more good than harm. I'd be interested to see the arguments to the opposite.
As far as "green"-ness is concerned, the only issue with organic is that is that its trendyness causes larger organic brands to end up shipping they're products all over the place, so as the Wired article stated, local is more important than organic.
What I thought was a bit over the top in the Wired article was the claim to just ignore everything that doesn't directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions...who knows how much cancer we've introduced into our population with toxic cleaning products, fertilizers, hormones, etc. Anyway, I just don't think it's as black and white as that, though I guess they're just stressing the need to prioritize...
From everything I've studied I found that organic crops yield less in the beginning but allow for bigger more sustainable crops in the big picture. Chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides eventually lead to soil erosion which means no crop yield.
I'm not sure I believe that. Why would those things cause soil erosion?
Plus farmers are businessmen. If pesticides etc. caused crop yields to decrease in the long-term, they wouldn't use them. Farmers are all about maximizing crop yields to maximize profits.
There are plenty of reasons not to use chemicals in agriculture, but I don't think crop yields is one.
Also, decreasing meat consumption would be a much more effective way to reduce our agricultural land use change than eliminating organic farming.
Soil is now being eroded 7 times faster than it can be produced. Soil structure is broken down by chemicals and most of the top soil ends up being washed away.
Farmers often have little choice if they want to make money. Conventional farming is usually subsidized by the Government and in Canada we pay for their subsidies in our taxes. If you choose to become and organic farmer you loose the security of a Goverment subsidy right away.
Often eroded soil is turned into organic farmland as it helps restore crops that have been damaged by overuse of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Conventional farming damages soil and therfore each yield requires more and more chemical usage to maintain or increase their yield.
This is what some organic farming associations and soil associations are claiming. I think it makes sense considering how much soil erosion there is and that new fields are being clear cut to use for agriculture.
Another interesting fact I learnt today is that conventional farming uses more crude oil than any other industry....crazy!
"Significant yield increases, economic savings for growers and consumers, and reduced soil erosion have been attributed to the widespread use of herbicides"
"For most crops, yields without herbicide use would be reduced significantly. Substantial reductions in cropland erosion have been accomplished through the use of conservation tillage, which usually relies on herbicide applications. Without herbicide use, reduced tillage would become difficult or impossible, leading to more than 150 million tons of increased soil erosion annually."
Excessive fertilizer use I would believe could cause increased erosion, but not herbicides and pesticides.
Yes, I think you are right. Chemical fertilizers are more the problem. So maybe they need to eliminate the chemical fertilizers and regulate the use of pesticides and herbicides.
Organic cotton has been known to grow stronger better crops without the use of pesticides and herbicides and that industry uses a large percentage of the world's supply. Maybe we need to limit the crops that use pesticides and herbicides to the one's that yield substantial crops just due to their use?
I don't think there will be a clear answer on either side of the fence and there will always be a cash cow involved.
I was recently listening to an interview on the podcast "More Hip Than Hippie". They talked to Chico State's "Dr. Sustainability", a professor of Environmental Studies. At the end of the interview they asked him, "Organic or Local?"
His answer was Locan then Organic. Both if possible.
However, another article I read recently pointed out that organic farmers are not well regulated. Basically you pass a test and do paperwork to become "Certified Organic" and then no one necessarily comes back to check and see if you kept the standards. Now I wonder, how much of my organic food is actually organic?
Worrisome, really.
However, another article I read recently pointed out that organic farmers are not well regulated. Basically you pass a test and do paperwork to become "Certified Organic" and then no one necessarily comes back to check and see if you kept the standards. Now I wonder, how much of my organic food is actually organic?
Worrisome, really.
This wiki is definitely not comprehensive but at least it's a start for demystifying the various "certified organic" stickers and what not. And of course, it can always be added to. ;-)
For the amount of paperwork involved to get certified, I'm SURE that they are honest in keeping their crops organic.
I know I've worked with a few of the local farmers here and they just do not have the time nor the resources to become certified organic as there are sooo many hoops to jump through so they grow organic but are not certified as such.
I don't believe they would go through all the trouble to become certified and then cheat the system afterwards. I could be wrong though and I'm sure there would be some out there that don't maintain it just to get higher yields, but there are probably few at that.
A good book that discusses this issue on which is better, organic or local, is To Buy or Not to Buy Organic: What You Need to Know to Choose the Healthiest, Safest, Most Earth-Friendly Food by Cindy Burke. She discusses the poor regulations for the certified organic seal.
I would say that organic isn't the whole answer to our problems. Sustainibility means finding a balance that is best for the environment and us. If we buy organic but that organic product is coming from China (like so much of it does now) then think about the expense of shipping it over here. Buying local and organic is the best way to go I believe, however, often times this just isn't possible. Certain items can safely be bought locally without having to be organic since they contain little or no pesticide residue.
I can see how organic can lead to more farmland being cultivated to produce the needed supply, however, we survived for most of human existence without the use of pesticides and herbicides. Also, nature has a way of keeping the population in check for the benefit of man and the environment.
Also, there are a lot of local farmers out there that don't have the money or time to become certified organic. However, there are many big farms that are, and still try to push the system. They have continually tried to lobby Congress to lower the standards for organic produce. Many big companies now are in the organics industry because they see people want these products and the consumer is willing to pay more for them. They import a lot of these "organic products" from China and elsewhere where there is no set regulations on what is deemed organic. So it is good to check where the products are coming from before shelling out the extra cash for a product that may or may not in fact be organic.
...Well hmm, I suppose that more organic farming means smaller crop yields, since you have a tougher time mitigating insects and such without chemicals...
I think what we need is a paradigm shift away from monoculture faming altogether. I submit to you that organic polyculture farming, in an urban or rural setting can be DRAMATICALLY more productive than conventional factory monoculture farming. The quote above may be accurate when viewed in context of simply taking current herb/pesticide using farms and removing the chemicals. But it is in no way absolutely true. There is an article from Natural Home magazine which, unfortunatley, is returning a link error when I try to access it right now, titled:
I am going to write them Monday to see why I can't link to it and if I can get a pdf. This describes an organic urban farm where maximum yield was the goal and they employed polyculture (used over 300 food plant species on 1/5th acre of land). The yield for a conventional factory farm is about $39/acre. The yield from this farm was about $1400/acre!! No joke. The average consumer needs over an acre of land to satisfy thier annual food needs. These folks were feeding a family of 4 or 5 (I don't recall exactly) on 1/5th of an acre with enough left over to sell to local restaurants. I submit to you that within this humble little article lies the secret to establishing food security, creating clean, pesticide-free and herbicide-free waterways, and....wait for it.....ending world frikin' hunger. What we need is a paradigm shift from large distant monoculture farms to local (the closer the better, your organic backyard garden is best) polyculture organic farms. I don't care what order you put them in, all three are part of the equation.
O = Organic L = Local P = Polyculture
O + L + P = L + P + O = L + O + P
It doesn't matter what order or which is more important. No, O alone is not the answer but it is an essential part of the equation and it's importance should never be minimized. The labor implications of this paradigm shift are very interesting and I think a dramatic increase in the number of ' Organic Farming/Harvesting Specialist' positions (yeah, I just made that up) would help ease the unemployment rate. These would be healthy jobs where people reconnect to the earth in a non-toxic environment. This article explores the current labor situtation and how a transition to local is effecting the labor market.
Ok, I needed to get that out. BTW, I have a Mathematics / Economics degree and I'm a human resources financial analyst with an MBA in Finance & Computer Information Systems, if that helps lend credence to my argument and explain my wierd equation relapse. I'll see if I can get that article linked in in the next few days. Thanks for reading! =) - E
Edited by happyorganics - Mon, 26 May 2008 03:30:08 GMT
Edited by happyorganics - Mon, 26 May 2008 03:33:30 GMT
Edited by happyorganics - Sat, 31 May 2008 04:15:39 GMT
Edited by happyorganics - Sat, 31 May 2008 04:18:52 GMT
Something that hasn't been brought up- the resources needed and pollution created to make the chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and the carbon footprint of shipping these things.
Ideally, someday food waste will be collected in curbside recycling, along with the glass, plastics, and paper. This could then be distributed to local farmers to use in place of commercial fertilizer.
But to get back to the question- I prefer organic because I don't want to ingest pesticides and fertilizers, I don't want those things added to the environment, or to eventually end up in our water supply. I realize buying local is also important, but that doesn't factor into the question of "Is organics the answer?" Hopefully you can often get local and organic.
I also try to get organic for non-food items when possible, because again, your skin will absorb whatever is placed on it, and I believe organic is important to the environment. It's not very common that you can buy local shampoo or lotion anyway.
So a few days ago, Tom Philpott over at Grist posted an article titled "Organically killed." Here is a snippet:
How are proponents of regenerative agriculture supposed to respond to news like this?
| Green pesticide and herbicide developer Marrone Organic Innovations is nearly done raising $7 million in a second round of funding, CEO Pamela Marrone said Wednesday. |
Wow, somebody's investing in organic agriculture -- millions, no less. That's news. But does it have to involve pesticides?
Pesticides aren't just problematic because they're derived synthetically. They're also troubling because what's toxic to plants and insects also harms people. Plant-based substances, in concentrated form, can of course be quite toxic.
Moreover, using them usually means entering a "pesticide treadmill." Say a certain pest is eating your tomato plants. You could hit them with a dose of Sevin Dust, a popular home poison. The Sevin will kill most of your pests and save the crop. But the few that survive will reproduce -- and pass on the traits that made them resistant to Sevin.
[Head over to Grist to read the rest]
Seems a little bit like an oxymoron to me..."green pesticide and herbicide." I'd never even heard of Marrone Organic Innovations before. They call themselves "natural product innovation for pest management." Any thoughts?
