Browse
Engage
Research
Well, that depends on the question.
Of all the things I write about -- energy, the greening of business, the politics and policy of climate change, geoengineering -- food is by far the most emotional. With near-religious fervor, people debate the merits or demerits of, broadly speaking, two ways to produce food.
The first can be described, depending upon who's talking, as big, fast, modern, conventional, industrial, intensive, chemical, genetically-modified, processed and global. It's the system that delivers most of the food that most Americans eat.
The second is described as organic, sustainable, local, small-scale, family-owned, natural, agro-ecological and slow. It's driving the growth of farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture, as well as Whole Foods, and it's increasingly being taken seriously by big companies like Walmart, Safeway and Kroger's.
As shoppers and as eaters, most of us partake from both worlds. But make no mistake about it -- the advocates of conventional food and those pushing reform are deeply polarized, as I've seen first-hand lately.
Earlier this month, I moderated a conference for CropLife America, a trade association of companies that make herbicides and pesticides. [Disclosure: They paid me to do so.] To their credit, the folks at CropLife -- corporate members include Bayer CropScience, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta -- brought in critics like Robby Kenner, director of the movie "Food Inc.," and Greg Jaffe of Center for Science in the Public Interest. The CropLife people and their allies say they have nothing against organic or alternative food systems, but they don't believe that organic ag can match modern agriculture (their term of choice) in terms of efficiency or yield. A reliable food supply on a large scale and at reasonable cost can only be guaranteed with the help of crop protection products, they say. Steve Savage, an industry consultant and blogger, made this argument articulately at the CropLife event; he's skeptical about the claims being made for organic ag, to say the least. See, for example, Organic Crops Alone Can't Feed the World, from Slate, or The Seven Most Dangerous Myths About Organic Farming.
Last week, at the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Cooking for Solutions powwow, organic advocates were out in full force, particularly at a scrumptious all-organic breakfast at Earthbound Farm, America's largest brand of organic produce. There we heard from Earthbound co-founder Myra Goodman, a passionate advocate for organic, and from Maria Rodale, chairman of Rodale Inc and author of Organic Manifesto: How Organic Food Can Heal Our Planet, Feed the World and Keep Us Safe. Her subtitle sums up the claims made on behalf of organics very well and in the book she goes a step farther, writing: "Organic agriculture is the key to our survival."
Frankly, I'm confused about much of this. I'm skeptical in particular of the claim that organic agriculture is as productive or more productive than farming methods that use synthetic chemicals and genetically-modified foods. Partly that's because most farmers have embraced modern ag. Less than 1 percent of US farmland is farmed organically. If farmers could improve their yields by giving up chemicals and genetically modified seeds, why wouldn't they?
I put that question to organic advocates in Monterey including the fine farm and food journalist Tom Philpott and author-activist Anna Lappe, as well as Rodale, and got some interesting answers. They identified strong cultural and institutional obstacles to organic.
Big seed companies, they said, dominate the market and push farmers towards GM crops. Agriculture schools and crop consultants who advise farmers are financed by and tilt toward chemical methods. Even the 4-H and Future Farmers of America are funded by the chemical companies.
I notice that the power of
I notice that the power of lobbying by big ag is left out of this article. Why is that important in trying to figure out why more farmers don't go organic? Well, big ag (like Monsanto) directly influence government policies with large donations and powerful lobbyists that affect every farmer's livelihood and even impact research conducted on the benefits of GMOs and pesticides (those results directly affect public--including farmers'--perceptions on crops). Furthermore, some of these corps are international businesses which means they use these same tactics overseas in developing countries which are ready and willing to perform for big ag in hopes of economic development or stability. So, if American farmers don't follow big ag and go organic, there are plenty of overseas countries waiting to take their place. Can our domestic farmers compete with international (and at that point, cheaper) products? I don't think they could. I could go on and on about the lobbying arm of big ag but it might be better just to read about it on your own.
PS - the following news just
PS - the following news just came out today. It's only a single data point, but relevant all the same.
Peruvian exports of organic bananas have been growing at about 23% a yr for 8 years.
http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=80979#SlideFrame_1
It's also relevant that its a policy of the Peruvian gov't to support organic certified exports.
Re: the Q. "If organic is so
Re: the Q. "If organic is so great why don't all farmers switch?"
I'd first point out that many in the U.S. are indeed switching, and they're doing so at a much faster rate than farmers are dropping organic. And in countries where gov't support and rules treat organic & conventional farming more equitably the conversion rate is even more rapid.
Second, I give Marc credit for admitting that he went into thinking that it should be a relatively simple yes/no decision - If doing X increases someone's net income then they'll do it.
But as Maria Rodale and others pointed out this decision (like so many business decisions) has MANY more layers to it, and some of them are intangible, or hard to calculate or predict (like "will there still be a price premium for organic pears or hops 3 years from now?"), and there is one's personal appetitite/tolerance for risk and the unknown. With such variables people cannot be cold, ROI calculating machines. Therefore emotions, prejudices, and fears all come to play. Not to mention that when you have doubts its pretty normal behavior to stick with what you know, and do what your parents did, and what your peers do, even when it might not be working so well.
And let's not forget that farmers already face alot of risks, and so making a big change (even when the data looks promising) has to feel like yet another risk. The pt is that there are alot of dynamics - independent of likely ROI or profitability - that perpertuate the same-old practices.
Here's another facet of this - if you were a farmer, and saw the encouraging data on organics, BUT YOU DID NOT ACTUALLY KNOW ANY ORGANIC FARMERS, would you make the switch? I bet anyone 10lbs of Fair Trade coffee that those conventional farmers who have an organic farmer neighbor are much more likely themselves to convert to organic. It'll seem much more do-able, it'll be less scary. You know your neighbor can help you avoid some of the pitfalls. You can avoid the mistakes they made, and so on.
And one last point - a large % of the US food supply is imported, and much of that is grown by small-scale farmers. At Equal Exchange we work with about 40 co-ops of small-scale organic farmers in 20+ countries in 6 different crop categories and we see that the "decision calculus" is really complex.
One extra layer for these growers is that the organic decision often has to be made by GROUPS of farmers. For example it's impractical for one grower with just 5 acres in rural Peru to get organic certified, but there are reasonable options for, say, 200 or 300 small-farmers to get certified together. And getting the necessary technical assistance to switch to organic is also feasible for a co-op of farmers, but less so for a single farmer. So there is the extra layer of group decision making.
Despite the claims made in
Despite the claims made in this article the 4-H, FFA, and ag programs in schools are not held hostage by the sponsorships of chemical companies. We greatly appreciate their support as much as we appreciate the support of any ag business including those with organic ties. In fact, I have to wonder why more organic businesses do not donate to programs who are there to teach and advocate for all of agriculture. As an ag instructor and FFA Advisor I can tell you I teach the whole picture. I do not shy away from any topic and I pull no punches when it comes to giving my students all of the information they need to be part of the ag community. The same can not be said of some of the organizations that work with specific agendas in ag.
You forgot to realize that
You forgot to realize that there are far more ways to produce food than conventional and organic. Organic farming and sustainable farming are completely different things. I am not for organic farming because of the specific guidelines, loopholes, etc. Sustainable farming does not regularly use pesticides but only when they need to. The farm over time becomes more productive. Animals are used in conjunction with the crops to become sustainable. This is the way to go over organic. Synthetic fertilizers may be used, but are usually used sparsely; as they are expensive. Sustainable agriculture helps the environment and usually local economy, as the farms tend to be small scale. You should have included the difference in the article, unless you just wanted to bash on organic farming.
As an organic farmer and
As an organic farmer and someone who has looked at the economics of sustainable farming, it is the only way to go. We are mining our topsoil and we won't have enough fertility left in many parts of the world in just another generation if we keep going the way we are going. GM/Petrochem crops will and do have lower per acre yields than organic. The 'research' in this article is false and and a shill. I'm sad it made the front page of Digg.
And this is a report from a
And this is a report from a so called green magazine! More like a disinformation expert on behalf for the GM companies, no wonder he was asked to moderate the conferece, they knew what a chocolate soldier he is. 'Harm from pesticides not proved' rubbish, there is extensive evidence of the harm that pesticides do to us and the enviroment. What a shrill.
Thanks for the informative
Thanks for the informative article. Organic food is far from a black and white value proposition. People need to invest time, energy, and research into making this important health impacting decision for themselves and their families. We've made our small contribution by publishing a sustainable food directory at http://www.localfoody.net. It's a work in progress but we hope it will become a valuable resource.
Seems to me that this is a
Seems to me that this is a short- vs long-term view problem that affects the stock market, food production, and infrastructure investments alike. But the solutions all seem to point back to putting a value on externalities, such as pollution, which are only occassionally taken into account.
Like it or not, our capitalistic society must put a dollar value on the long-term availability of clean air, drinkable water, biodiversity and arable land, if we are to truly be investing for the future. Without it, we are subjected to the whims of a "get mine now" economy in which we all suffer, whether we know it or not.