EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Local and Organic Food and Farming: The Gold Standard
More and more consumers and corporations are touting the benefits of “local” foods, often described as “sustainable,” “healthy,” or “natural.” According to the trade publication, Sustainable Food News, local as a marketing claim has grown by 15 percent from 2009 to 2010, and it’s likely that number will increase in the coming year.1 Even supermarket giant and junk food purveyor Wal-Mart, with total sales in 2009 of $405 billion, has jumped on the bandwagon. It has pledged to reduce food miles and increase its purchase of “local” fruits and vegetables to include 9% of its produce by 2015. 2
Those who espouse local food are now called “locavores.” But, beyond the greenwashing and co-opting of the term by Wal-Mart, the supermarket chains, and factory farms and feedlots, what does “local” food and farming really mean? What is the impact of non-organic local food and farming on public health, nutrition, soil, water, marine life, biodiversity, and climate?
Jessica Prentice coined the term locavore for World Environment Day in 2005 to promote local eating, and local consumption in general. Her goal was to challenge people to obtain as much food as possible from within a one hundred mile radius. Her success was more than she imagined. In 2007 the New Oxford American Dictionary selected “locavore” as its word of the year. Local had arrived!
Then, the highly respected author Barbara Kingsolver published Animal, Vegetable, Miracle emphasizing the value of eating locally, and the concept spread like wildfire. 3 While the eat local/buy local concept is increasingly popular, looking beyond the label or the marketing claims, it is obvious that “local” is a rather fuzzy concept, lacking in most cases a concrete definition or a set of principles and guidelines.
By contrast, the organic system of food production has legal definitions, a handbook of rules, permitted and prohibited substances, acceptable practices, an inspection process, and labels to guide the consumers. Local has none of these guidelines, rules, inspections or protections. It has the cachet of popularity without any guarantee of safety or sustainability.
Some chemical farmers, and even poultry, egg, pork, dairy, or beef operators feeding their animals genetically modified (GMO) grains, claim that local is better than organic, because it stimulates the local economy and reduces the distance (food miles) that food travels between the farm or feedlot and your table. But does so-called local farming, utilizing toxic pesticides, GMO seeds and feed, chemical fertilizers, and animal drugs mean that the food is safe and sustainable? Obviously not. We believe that there shouldn’t have to be a choice between local and safe organic; but rather that consumers should look for food that is not only local or regionally produced, but food that is also organic and therefore safe and sustainable. Local and chemical, or local using GMO seeds and feed, is nothing more than greenwashing. Organic and local is the new gold standard!
The locavore phenomenon brings up several important concerns including: food miles, chemically grown food, greenhouse gas emissions, factory farming, genetically engineered animal feed, and the value of organic labeling. All of these crucial issues relate to the central question: what should be in your market basket?
Does Local Mean Safe?
Despite the increasing popularity of the eat-local movement, many people do not understand that “local” does not necessarily mean that food is organic or even safe. Chemically grown foods produced locally may be cheaper than organic and may aid the local economy. But they pollute the ground water, kill the soil food web, and decrease the soil’s ability to sequester climate-destabilizing greenhouse gasses, broadcast pesticides into the air, poison farmworkers, and incrementally poison consumers with toxic residues on their foods. “Local” pesticides, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and chemical fertilizers are just as poisonous as those used in California, Mexico, Chile, or China.
Frequently, local chemical farmers claim that they only use “less toxic” pesticides or herbicides such as Monsanto’s Roundup. Unfortunately, “less toxic” is a dangerously relative term! Roundup is a powerful weed-killer, and is now sprayed so heavily on the nation’s 150 million acres of genetically engineered crops that it is poisoning our water supplies, killing the soil, and creating superweeds that can only be killed with super-toxic herbicides such as 2,4 D, arsenic and paraquat. Farmers in the U.S. have used everything from arsenic, lead, cyanide, fluorine, DDT, and nerve poisons since the 1860s, and they still use massive amounts. More than 80% of all the pesticides currently used in vegetable, fruit, and flower production are nerve poisons that were used on insects and also on concentration camp victims during the first and second World Wars.
Organophosphate pesticides or nerve poisons have been linked to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children. Organophosphate nerve poisons were found in the urine and saliva of Seattle preschool children who were eating conventional (chemical) and local food from off the shelf. When the kids stopped eating chemical food and ate organic food the organophosphates disappeared from their saliva and urine. When the children returned to the chemical diet, the nerve poisons showed up in their urine and saliva again.4 Nerve poisons, whether they are used on foods that are locally, nationally, or internationally produced and distributed are dangerous hazards, especially for growing children and at-risk populations. They need to be driven off the market, as soon as possible.
Does “Pesticide Free” Mean Safe or Sustainable?
Often, growers at farmers markets will say, “ I don’t use pesticides, I only use chemical fertilizers.” Sadly, what many people do not realize is that chemical fertilizers are extremely hazardous. A high percentage of these fertilizers seep into our wells and municipal drinking water, or else run off into our streams, rivers, and finally end up in the ocean. Two-thirds of the nation’s drinking water is contaminated with hazardous levels of nitrogen fertilizer. Non-organic farmers and feedlot operators are literally poisoning us and our children with the collateral damage of chemical fertilizers. High nitrogen and phosphorous levels in rivers and oceans kill fish and other marine wildlife. When this enormous amount of excess nitrogen enters the ocean it causes dead zones and oceanic acidification.
Some “pesticide free” growers will argue that since they only use chemical fertilizers, their produce is cleaner. Their food may not have high pesticide residues. But, remind them that cleaner isn’t clean! And inform your local chemical farmer that their toxic fertilizer is polluting our drinking water, trashing the oceans, killing the soil’s ability to sequester greenhouse gases, destabilizing the nitrogen cycle of plants, and emitting billions of pounds of deadly greenhouse gasses every year. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is perhaps the most potent greenhouse gas emitter in the U.S. To produce each pound of fertilizer, 6.6 pounds of nitrous oxide (N2O) are emitted. Nitrous oxide accounts for a full ten percent of all climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases.
Nitrous oxide is extremely hazardous. It depletes the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere (thereby increasing skin cancer for humans). It increases ozone pollution levels at the ground level (fueling the current epidemic of asthma and respiratory diseases.) Poisonous nitrate fertilizers leaching into our rural wells and municipal drinking water supplies (where it combines into a super-toxic brew with pesticides) are a biological time bomb, a major cause of cancer, infertility, hormone disruption, and birth defects.
Perhaps most deadly of all, nitrate fertilizer kills our living soils and soil microorganisms, decreasing their ability to sequester (through plant photosynthesis) excess greenhouse gasses in the soil. Even after a century of industrial farmers dumping hundreds of billions of pounds of chemical fertilizers on farmlands, our living soils still contain two to three times as much carbon as the atmosphere, with the practical capacity to clean and safely sequester a considerable amount of greenhouse gases over the next 40 years. In other words, our living soils can save us—but only if we stop the widespread use of nitrate fertilizers, GMO crops, and pesticides and replace these deadly chemicals and mutant organisms with organic compost, compost tea, and cover crops, augmented by the biological power and fertility generated by organic, carefully planned, high-density rotational grazing of animals.
The energy-intensive manufacturing of nitrate fertilizers requires the use of massive amounts of natural gas, a resource in short supply, that will increasingly be needed to take us through the transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy. We can no longer afford to waste natural gas in order to uphold the profits of Cargill, Monsanto, and Food Inc. We can no longer afford to have chemical-intensive food and farming greenwashed as “local.”
U.S. non-organic farmers used an average of 24 billion, 661 million pounds of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer per year from 1998 to 2007. That means that more than one hundred sixty-two billion, seven hundred sixty-two million pounds of nitrous oxide (N2O) are released each year in the process of manufacturing that fertilizer. 5 Also released is the CO2 from transporting the fertilizer. Since 70% of synthetic nitrogen is imported, the transportation cost is increasingly higher each year. Beyond production and transportation emissions, enormous quantities of N2O get released when the 24.66 billion pounds of synthetic nitrogen is applied to farmland every year. Nitrous oxide is 310 times more damaging as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Every year, U.S. farmers use enough synthetic nitrogen to fill more than 12,330, railroad boxcars with a capacity of 200,000 pounds each.
Consequently, farmers and supermarkets that tout their products as local and pesticide-free, while still using synthetic fertilizers, are engaged in greenwashing. Non-organic farms poisoning the environment with chemical fertilizers are a far cry from safe or environmentally friendly, even though they promote themselves as pesticide-free and local.
“Local” Factory Farms and CAFOs: Destroying Public Health and Climate Stability
According to Wal-Mart and Food Inc.’s definition of local (anything produced within a 400-mile radius), meat, dairy, and eggs, reared on a diet of GMO grains, slaughterhouse waste, and antibiotics, qualify as “local.” According to the USDA, the majority of the nation’s non-organic meat, dairy and eggs are now produced on massive factory farms, euphemistically called Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). 6 CAFOs are typically overcrowded, filthy, disease ridden, and inhumane, not only for the hapless animals imprisoned inside their walls, but also for the typically non-union, exploited, immigrant workers who toil in these hellish facilities. According to the EPA, the legal definition of a CAFO is a farm or a feedlot where large numbers of animals are confined and reared, beef – 1000 head; dairy – 700 head; swine – 2500 pigs weighing more than 55 lbs; poultry – 125,000 broilers or 82,000 laying hens or pullets. http://www.answers.com/topic/afo-cafo#ixzz19jX45FZM
Unfortunately meat, dairy, or eggs coming from CAFOs in North America are not required by law to be labeled as such. Greenwashing CAFO products as “natural” or “local” is a major source of profits for Wal-Mart, Cargill, Conagra, Perdue, Land O’ Lakes, Kraft, McDonald’s, KFC, Monsanto and chemica/GMOl farmers and ranchers. Organic consumers, farmers, and retailers need to educate the public about the hazards and inhumanity of factory farms and CAFOs. These animal factories, where GMO feed and drugs are force-fed to most of the nation's livestock and poultry, are not only poisoning consumers, but are also generating massive amounts of climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases, especially methane, which is 72 times more destructive per ton than CO2. Methane (CH4) pollution is responsible for approximately 14% of human-induced global warming.
Where does methane pollution come from? Methane pollution mainly comes from factory farms and the overproduction of non-organic meat, dairy, and eggs, from throwing hundreds of millions of tons of rotting food, paper, and lawn wastes into landfills (instead of composting them for use on farms, ranches, and gardens), and the destruction of wetlands for shrimp and fish farms, industrial agriculture, chemical-intensive rice farming, and urban development or sprawl.
How do we get rid of excess, climate-destabilizing methane? By purchasing organic foods, especially those produced by family farmers and ranchers in our regions, and by increasing consumer awareness that it is unhealthy and inhumane to purchase factory farm foods. It is becoming increasingly clear that buying or consuming meat, dairy, or eggs that come from a factory farm or CAFO is an ethical abomination and a climate crime. While calling for a boycott of factory-farmed products we must deliver the positive message that the organic, humane, healthy, food producing small farms and ranches of North America are actually greenhouse gas sequestration centers, arguably our most important allies in cooling off the planet.
Millions of consumers are still "in the dark" about how "conventional" foods--especially the cheaper brands of animal products, processed, fast, and fake foods--are produced. We must educate the public about the need to fight for Truth-in-Labeling so that CAFO products, derived in great measure from Monsanto’s GMO crops, are no longer greenwashed as “local” or “natural.”
Food Miles and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Food miles are the average miles that food travels from the farm to the consumer. Since more than 80% of the U.S. grocery purchases are now processed foods, a huge percentage of the carbon or fossil fuel footprint of industrial agriculture comes from transporting factory farm crops or animals to the processing plant or slaughterhouse and then transporting these processed foods from the processing plant to the dinner table via the supermarket. By reducing the processed foods in our diet we can greatly reduce the food miles or carbon footprint for which our households are responsible, since the shorter the distance food travels, the lower the greenhouse gas emissions.
Part of the locavore ethic is to get people to eat from their own food shed, to save energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulate the local economy. But, real “local” is also about stimulating a return to in-home food preparation, an appreciation for taste, and the joy in cooking—and eating. As folks begin to appreciate the taste of locally grown fresh organic foods, their dependence on processed foods from afar usually dwindles.
The 20% of the U.S. diet that is not processed food includes fresh fruits and vegetables, dairy products, farm raised meats, eggs, whole grains, cold pressed oils, raw honey, syrup, natural sugars, etc. Though only 20% of the total food budget, the sales of non-processed food are huge! Unfortunately, production of non-processed foods is largely regional with production concentrated on the southern half of both coasts and the southwest. So, even a majority of the fresh foods come from afar. This requires lots of trucking and refrigeration to get the food to local markets the across the country.
“Fresh food miles” indeed contribute to the high CO2 emissions from the U.S. food system, but these whole foods are certainly not the major greenhouse gas contributor in our food system. That dubious honor belongs to factory-farmed meat, eggs, and milk, which generate 30 to 50% of all of the U.S. greenhouse gasses, more than industry and fossil fuels combined. 7
Fortunately, locally and nationally, farmers have worked out strategies of how to grow fresh foods in the middle of the winter with better technology and a minimum of heat, even in extremely cold places like Maine, Vermont, Minnesota, and Montana. Consequently, farmers and consumers are growing and storing food throughout the year so that they are not responsible for so many food miles on their tables.
Our thesis is that a majority of our food miles could be chopped off if we prepare more of our food from local ingredients. But, that begs another question. What kind of local ingredients?
Chemical and Local versus Organic and Local
Some growers and brokers argue that local, chemically grown is better than fresh organic, because so much that is organic travels long distances from the two coasts. If they are talking about comparing supermarket fresh organic with fresh chemically grown local, we should still choose supermarket organic, because, whether they are used locally or nationally, pesticides and fertilizers are more dangerous and deadly to your health and the health of the environment than chemically-free organic foods transported from outside your local region.
Chemical farmers are not inspected or reprimanded by the federal or state governments as to their use or abuse of pesticides or fertilizers unless there is an accident, whether they are local farmers or factory farmers from California, Florida, or China. The only way the abusers are caught is when there is a fish kill, a labor poisoning, a recall after multiple poisonings, or some other notable injury as a result of a spill, overuse, or carelessness.
By contrast, organic growers are inspected every year and can be inspected at any time the certifying agency or the federal government (USDA) deems it appropriate. These are the rules in California, Vermont, Chile, and all countries that grow and market certified organic products. Because organic farms are inspected (at least once a year), and their soil and water checked for toxins, consumers can be secure that the organic products are the safest on the market. Consumers can be confident that organic food does not contain poisonous pesticide residues, did not poison farmworkers, and was not grown with a fertilizer that trashed the soil, the water, the atmosphere, and the oceans.
Organic farming is a set of techniques and strategies that encourage the life to come back into the soil and into our food. Chemical fertilizers kill soil life and inhibit the accumulation of organic matter (plant residues in the soil). Chemical food has less life force because chemicals kill soil microorganisms and earthworms. Organic matter is critical to organic farmers because nutrients cling to organic matter, so the plant roots can efficiently find and mine nutrients and water at those spots.
Organic farmers add nutrients such as lime, rock phosphate, potash, and sulfur in an effort to get the soil balanced so that the maximum amount of all nutrients and water are available to foraging plant roots. This soil-balancing act is a constant process. On light and sandy soils, organic matter must be replaced every year by growing a fertilizer crop and by adding small amounts of compost, which has billions of soil microorganisms. These critters go to work breaking down the organic matter and making it available to plant roots while constantly adding to the fertility by defecating the digested organic matter (and they work 24-7, not 9 to 5).
To control pests, organic farmers rotate their crops, so that pests do not build up from continuous monocropping. Instead of toxic pesticides, organic growers use beneficial insects as predators and parasites on pests. They use bacterial sprays for certain worms and beetles. They spray clay on their apples and other fruits. They use insect traps and lures. And, they use trap crops that the insects like better than the main crop. They use disease resistant crops that are immune or less prone to disease. And, they monitor their fields often so that they can spot problems early.
The Gold Standard: Local and Organic
Local organic food and farming are the gold standard. Organic farmers gladly adhere to a set of regulations, use non-toxic products, and accept the need to be scrutinized by an independent third party inspector. Why? Because, regulation of food safety is essential to guaranteeing consumers that the farmer has their health and well being at the center of his or her business plan. The organic regulatory process is neither easy nor happily anticipated by the farmer. But it is necessary! It is our covenant with our customers.
There are no regulations governing “local” chemically grown or GMO-derived food. Anything goes! Nobody is inspecting the farm! Nobody is watching the store! As customer, you must also be the regulator of non-organic food. Instead of depending on a regulator, you as customer should ask the “local” growers what they used as a fertilizer source, how they controlled pests and diseases, and what chemicals they used to stimulate yield.
When the local chemical grower tells you that local is better than organic, tell them that they should switch to organic so that you can trust their food to be safe, clean, inspected, and environmentally friendly. Local food is not the gold standard, and may not even be safe. Local-organic is the gold standard.
Citations:
1. Sustainable Food News, November 12, 2010 <http://www.sustainablefoodnews.com>
2. Hightower, Jim, Other Words, Dec. 8, 2010, “Meet Your New Neighborhood Food Market”
<http://www.otherwords.org/articles/meet_your_new_neighborhood_food_market>
3. Kingsolver, Barbara, et. al 2007 Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life. Harper-Collins, May 2007
4. Curl, Cynthia L., Fenske, Richard A., Elgethun, Kai. 2010 Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure of Urban and Suburban Preschool Children with Organic and Conventional Diets. Department of Environmental Health, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
5. Fertilizer Use Statistics, 1998-2007 . National Agricultural Statistical Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
6.“Factory Farm Nation,” Food and Water Watch, 2010, http://www.factoryfarmmap.org
7. Goodland, Robert and Anhang, Jeffery, 2009 Livestock and Climate Change. World Watch Magazine. November 1.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
33 Comments so far
Show AllBeyond what is mentioned in the article, there are other reasons that industrial farming is a danger.
The modern agribusiness model requires huge inputs that effectively turn farmers into serfs for international corporations. This is a human rights issue, as millions of women (most farmers are women) and men suffer the consequences of unregulated capitalism. Of course we are all supposed to be little rational consumer-capitalists in the neoliberal view of humanity, but is this really freedom? What happens to humanity when we lose contact with the land?
Our ignorance of our environment grows as we divorce ourselves from its rhythms. And trapped in cities, depending on electronica for our worldview, we become culturally and intellectually destitute.
Also, it removes a safety net for societies. Without a healthy rural economy and population, when industrial economies crash, there is nowhere to turn. Food security becomes a major issue-- does anyone think that we are more food secure with commodities being corraled by corporations and manipulated by speculators?
It may impact the mental health of societies as well, as genuine self-reliance is more difficult to attain. When esteem is judged by how well one succeeds in a flawed, pathological hyper-reality, where does one run to?
It is a biodiversity issue-- industrial farming chews huge tracts of land and degrades them, while decreasing the number and variety of species present.
Finally, when the oil runs out, we will have to use lower-energy agriculture. If we want to succeed at that, we should probably maintain contact with our agricultural knowledge base.
Oil is not going to "run out" in our lifetimes. It is going to max out, or peak.
Conventional agriculture featuring newer technologies and crops genetically modified to survive greater stresses will be much more helpful than organic panaceas.
Organic food is currently more expensive even in a regime of cheap oil. You think organic prices are going to go DOWN when oil prices go UP?
Think again.
So, are you going to be the first in line to feed yourself and your family ONLY conventionally raised food, since its so safe... in fact SAFER than organic, as you state?
And how do you feel about genetically modified humans? Keep embracing your GMO foods, and factory raised, chemically 'enhanced' nutrition and it won't be long until some company owns the patents on your own genetically 'enhanced' body.
re: "Conventional agriculture featuring newer technologies and crops genetically modified to survive greater stresses will be much more helpful than organic panaceas."
Much more helpful at undermining our own delicate chemical balance, and disrupting our immune systems just when we'll be needing them most. Great.
Actually, we grow most of our own food here. As I've stated, I'm a former "organic" farmer, and my methods have changed very little: it's the CLAIMS I no longer have any patience for.
This is a small farm, and we have livestock, so why shouldn't we use composted manure? The point is you cannot conduct large-scale agriculture that way. You cannot feed 307 million people in the US with traditional techniques, much as even I like them.
Your comment:
"And how do you feel about genetically modified humans? Keep embracing your GMO foods, and factory raised, chemically 'enhanced' nutrition and it won't be long until some company owns the patents on your own genetically 'enhanced' body."
1. Insulin from genetically-modified bacteria keeps my partner alive.
2. It's the "slippery slope" fallacy to suggest that GMO plants will lead inevitably to "genetically modified humans," as you call it.
3. To fight corporate malfeasance is one thing; to suggest that this means the absurd claims of the "organics" movement are true is quite another.
Your claim:
"Much more helpful at undermining our own delicate chemical balance, and disrupting our immune systems just when we'll be needing them most. Great."
Where's your data?
Great article! This should put to rest any controversy about organic vs. local. The footnotes are also appreciated. Thanks OCA and co-authors for all your great work!
I hope everyone who reads this will visit the OCA website and sign the Truth-in-Labeling petitions.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/
With 90% of American consumers favoring GMO food labels, we can persuade grocery retailers and state/local governments to implement GMO food labeling. Namely: "May Contain GMOs" and "CAFO" on grocery products and/or shelves.
Giving people the knowledge to make informed choices is one of the pillars of democracy.
I hate to burst your bubble, but all food has been genetically modified. Modern foods bear little or no resemblance to their wild forebears.
Carrots and brussels sprouts didn't even exist at one time.
Nowadays, scientists have much more control over how and to what extent to alter the genetic structure of plants, instead of just waiting around for random gamma rays to do the job.
Hi Monsanto! Don't worry, your pain will be gone soon.
I worked at an organic farm for four summers and investigated getting organic certification for a new farm venture I am involved in. Little did I know what a scam the organic movement is. It's full of half-truths, propaganda, nonsensical claims, and outright lies.
From the article:
"consumers should look for food that is not only local or regionally produced, but food that is also organic and therefore safe and sustainable."
This is question-begging. Organic food is no more "safe" than conventional food. Conventional food is not "dangerous," as is implied by the article. "Sustainability" is a myth: farming is by definition the usurpation of land by humans for their own sustenance. The result of farming--conventional, "organic"--is population growth. This is also by definition unsustainable.
From the article:
"But they pollute the ground water, kill the soil food web, and decrease the soil’s ability to sequester climate-destabilizing greenhouse gasses, broadcast pesticides into the air, poison farmworkers, and incrementally poison consumers with toxic residues on their foods."
An unsupported claim designed by the authors to scare people into buying organic. Why not talk about the pesticides organic farmers use? I know, I had to be certified as a pesticides applicator to work at an organic farm. The substances go by the names Pyganic, Neem, Spinosad, Rotenone.
A person who consumes a single cup of coffee ingests more "toxins" than what he would consume by eating a whole year's worth of conventional produce.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1514/
Organic farmers use copper sulfate which builds up in the soil. It can also cause organ damage:
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-dicrotophos/copper-sulfate-ext.html
From the article:
"Organophosphate pesticides or nerve poisons have been linked to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children"
The word "link" is a weasel word. This single study means exactly nothing by itself. Even if we grant the claim, it is about a single pesticide and has nothing to do with other classes of pesticides, such as the ones organic farmers use.
Like most organic propagandists, the authors ignore the issue of DOSE, which is the key concept in toxicology.
Organic farming is a gas and diesel hog. Mulch must be grown, harvested, baled, and transported to the farm. Materials for compost must also be grown, collected, transported, and repeatedly turned with tractors to reach the correct temperatures, then is has to be spread with tractors. The "ghost acreage" of compost and mulch are phenomenal.
From the article:
"Food miles are the average miles that food travels from the farm to the consumer."
The "food miles" argument has been thoroughly debunked--with math. Conventionally-grown food in large shipments is much more economical than everyone jumping in their cars to pick up their individual heads of lettuce from an organic farm:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4162
The writers are "chemophobes" and throw around the word "chemical" to scare you. EVERYTHING is a chemical. Pyrethrum is a chemical. Copper sulfate is a chemical. The acres of plastic that organic farmers use for mulch and for greenhouses are chemicals. The diesel fuel organic farmers burn to lay mulch, intensively cultivate crops, and rototill is a chemical.
From the article:
"Organic farmers add nutrients such as lime, rock phosphate, potash, and sulfur."
And where do these CHEMICALS come from? From mines, and they are transported thousands of miles to organic farms.
Organic farmers prefer homeopathic "remedies" over conventional veterinary medicines.
Organic farming is a scandal. But that doesn't matter: As oil prices rise, organic food will simply price itself out of existence, and good riddance.
Organic farming is no panacea for the world's woes, which all goes back to overpopulation.
Good debunkings below:
http://www.skepdic.com/organic.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/organic.html
http://nutritionwonderland.com/2009/12/the-truth-about-organic-farming/
Thanks Monsanto! We know your PR machine is cranking out gibberish and smears on overtime. But, people just aren't buying your crap anymore.
Thanks for this reply, as it is further evidence that we're dealing with ideologues when it comes to "organic" foods.
Every criticism is viewed as a conspiracy by Monsanto. Every reply by the true believers becomes an instance of the either/or fallacy: "Those who are not with us are against us." "You're either with us or with the terrorists."
Good luck with that.
Yeah, we're ideologues, and no longer interested in your 'convincing' BS.
Take it away, and leave us to our crazy 'organic' lifestyle! Have all the chemically enhanced, cheap, corporate profit making garbage food you want : )
Just stay the hell away from my grocery store, and my land!
Dear Will, Ronnie and Kate,
Great Article!
In addition to organic and local there is something else you can add, that will enhance both. Farmers and researchers around the world have been exploring the benefits of adding small amounts of certain sea minerals to enhance agricultural productivity and grow soil. A farmer in Vermont has grown eight inches of new soil in one year with the use of these minerals:
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/topsoil.htm
A couple of limitations on growing more food locally are drought and early freezes. A back yard gardener in Holland harvested some great tasting grapes in mid winter:
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/grapes.htm
A gardener in Bend, Oregon brought his potted Brussels sprout and broccoli plants inside on December 29, 2007 after they had been frozen for almost two months:
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/freezetolerance.htm
In October and November of 2008 I did a tour of Australia after they had endured several years of drought. I received several reports from local farmers, while I was there. Most of these farmers reported increased drought tolerance after applying these minerals:
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/drought.htm
We have also seen phenomenal increases in plant growth and nutrition through the use of these minerals. You can find links to controlled scientific studies and anecdotal reports at:
http://www.subtleenergies.com/plant-lynx.htm
On the basis of these reports, I am confident that we can double plant production in two or three years, through the use of these minerals.
These minerals can be concentrated from sea water, fresh water, rocks and even from the air using cheap, simple, open-source methods. One of the simplest of these methods is described at the bottom of the plant-lynx page.
Some of the people, in the reports linked above, concentrated these minerals for themselves. How's that for local! Some used a commercial product that is made from Pacific Ocean water. This product has organic certification.
I figure that if everyone can make it, no one can stop it.
With kindest regards,
Barry Carter
bcarter at igc dot org
Thank you for posting this junk. It fits right in with the "organics" woo. A quote from your precious website:
"Since ancient Egyptian times, alchemists have worked in secret to produce something called the Philosopher's Stone, or the Elixir of Life. The materials that Hudson and other researchers have found are believed to be related to the Philosopher's Stone. The materials have been called ORMEs, monoatomic gold, white gold, white powder gold, ORMUS, m-state, AuM, microclusters, and manna."
A shill like you should not use the name of Christ. You're trying to denigrate the FACTS in this article and cloud the issues.
If anything smacks of a mis-use of the "philosopher's stone" it's the hubris that animates a for-profit WAR PROFITEERING corporation like Monsanto in undermining the genetic labyrinths by putting together what Mother Nature never intended to meld... like fish genes with tomatoes, or chicken with potatoes.
What kind of human being tries to reinforce a meme that eating pesticides is the way to go by intending to mock organic food. SICK!
The idea that every criticism of "organic" farming is somehow an endorsement of Monsanto is patently absurd. If you want to fight corporate irresponsibility, then fight that. It doesn't make the ridiculous claims of "organics" true.
You eat pesticides every time you eat food. 99.9% of pesticides ingested by humans are natural pesticides created by plants:
http://potency.berkeley.edu/pdfs/Paracelsus.pdf
Here's an irony for you: I STILL cart that manure from the stables! Why shouldn't I, I have it. Small farms can do things like that.
Funny thing about DDT: it's harmless to humans and has saved literally hundreds of millions of lives from insect-borne diseases.
Let that sockpuppet have it, Siouxrose! The lack of shame in crazy posts, after a well-researched and presented argument always amazes me.
Just wanted to thank the author for including a critique of CAFOs.
I would add food that is production that abuses neither labor nor animals is vital to a Gold Standard of food.
"Well researched?"
That's funny, as I only see seven citations.
What you have is selective "research": cite only those sources that agree with you.
Ronnie Cummins' website features homeopathy, "biodynamics," and herbal "remedies."
"The light of the sun, moon, planets and stars reaches the plants in regular rhythms. Each contributes to the life, growth and form of the plant. By understanding the gesture and effect of each rhythm, we can time our ground preparation, sowing, cultivating and harvesting to the advantage of the crops we are raising. The Stella Natura calendar which is featured in this catalog offers an introduction to this new study."
http://www.organicconsumers.org/biodynamics.cfm
More junk science and frauds.
Here's the "antidote" to the poisonous thinking represented by the Allen, Cummins, Desterberg article:
http://potency.berkeley.edu/pdfs/Paracelsus.pdf
Christ on a crust writes in two posting on this thread:
"Organic food is currently more expensive even in a regime of cheap oil. You think organic prices are going to go DOWN when oil prices go UP?"
"The diesel fuel organic farmers burn to lay mulch, intensively cultivate crops, and rototill is a chemical."
"Organic farming is a scandal. But that doesn't matter: As oil prices rise, organic food will simply price itself out of existence, and good riddance."
I love educated idiots. They can be so transparent. Organic agriculture is far less dependent on oil-and-gas-based inputs than is "conventional" agriculture, which is one reason why in the era of "cheap oil," organic food costs more. Thus as the price of oil/gas rises, the cost of conventional food will rise faster than the cost of organic food. Essentially the opposite of Crustie's Sophistry.
Crustie also seems to have a sadistic streak. Whatever the limitations of organic agriculture, the scientific literature has long demonstrated that toxin-laden food is more harmful, so why would Crustie say "good riddance" to more healthful organic foods?
Crustie obviously has no real experience with farming, despite claims to be a certified chemical applicator on an organic farm. Prior to WWII and the rise of the Big Pharma and Big-Ag chemical companies (Monsanto et al), most farming in the U.S. had been mostly organic. My paternal grandfather was a third-generation farmer in southern Iowa. Even after WWII, he avoided soybeans and grew alfalfa as a rotational crop with corn instead of soy. He raised milk cows and egg chickens.
Crustie writes:
"Organic farming is a gas and diesel hog. Mulch must be grown, harvested, baled, and transported to the farm. Materials for compost must also be grown, collected, transported, and repeatedly turned with tractors to reach the correct temperatures, then is has to be spread with tractors. The "ghost acreage" of compost and mulch are phenomenal."
Crustie has obviously never heard of SILAGE.
"Naturally" correctly (for all practical purposes) names Crustie "Monsanto."
Since the early 19th century, midwestern farmers succeeded when they balanced livestock production with crop production. (Meanwhile, there is no question historically that soil mineral depletion was and remains a serious issue, regardless of conventional or organic. One difference, however, is that conventional nitrogen/phosphorus/pesticide production produces mineral deficient hollow plant calories. This goes far to explain American obesity: we eat hollow calories that do not provide homeostatis, so we eat more hollow calories, etc. in a vicious cycle of Want, Want, Want.This artificial stimulus of appettie is quite profitable. Diabetes and heart disease contribute to the GROSS National Product!)
A caveat: I am an organic gardener, but because my yard is lower than the surrounding farmland, local rainfall causes the migration of their pesticides onto my land, somewhat like Monsanto's GM crops pollute the gene-pool of non-GM crops.
Meanwhile, "Hey Crustie, when you are told you have terminal pancreatic cancer, drink a cup of 2-4,D. That'll cure what ails your corporate-addled persona. And I hear you won't even feel it."
With college-educated biz-grads like Crustie dominating biz transactions these days, God help us all. Too many variables, too little time, and computers and their fancy algorithms won't solve the problem because the data must be ANALYZED.
Crustie doesn't need the data. He already has the answers.
And, finally, Sioux Rose is correct to attack his moniker as some sort of Christ. I am an atheist, but I reserve a special place in my heart for those who seek to practice the teachings of Christ. Thus my choice to repudiate Crustie by name.
I choose NOT to list Web citations of questionable validity. My own words are sufficient. I seek not to talk with Forked Tongue. If others disagree, they are free to say so. I will not be offended, but that I might be is ultimately irrelevant. What IS IMPORTANT is the destruction of our ecosystem by well-paid sociopaths who make a living by killing.
-30-
Thank you for responding.
Once again, the name-calling and hysteria of this response confirm my suspicions that "organic" farming is an ideology.
From your response:
"Organic agriculture is far less dependent on oil-and-gas-based inputs than is 'conventional' agriculture, which is one reason why in the era of 'cheap oil,' organic food costs more. Thus as the price of oil/gas rises, the cost of conventional food will rise faster than the cost of organic food."
This is logically inconsistent to the point of nonsensical. IF organic agriculture is "less dependent" on oil and gas, then by definition the production of organic food would be cheaper. Neither do you bother to say which organic type of farming, under which conditions, versus which type of conventional farming, under which conditions. Each and every farm must be evaluated on its own terms.
From the response:
"the scientific literature has long demonstrated that toxin-laden food is more harmful."
The scientific literature says no such thing. The scientific literature is incomplete, inconclusive, and at times contradictory. The concept of "toxic-laden food" is simply false. "Toxic" is directly dependent upon DOSE. Even salt is "toxic" at a certain dose. The amounts of residual synthetic pesticides on produce are well below regulated tolerances. If you didn't read Ames' article, do so now: There is more harmful material in a single cup of coffee than in all the "pesticides" you will ingest from eating conventional foods in a whole year. This is a plain fact. Why do organic farmers ignore plain facts?
http://potency.berkeley.edu/pdfs/Paracelsus.pdf
"Crustie has obviously never heard of SILAGE. "
You shouldn't assume such things. You also shouldn't assume I'm not a one-time organic farmer, and that I'm some Monsanto agent. How much silage is there? Is there enough to go around? We have 300 million people to feed in the US. There is not anywhere near enough organic material to convert conventional farms to organic farms. This is what William Catton calls "The Tragic Story of Human Success": The better we get at manipulating nature, the more people there are. The idea that the strains of population increase are going to be remedied by archaic farming methods is just comical. Such methods are perfectly fine for one's own garden, but the reason they were abandoned on a commercial level is that they stopped working under a regime of such high demand.
"Hey Crustie, when you are told you have terminal pancreatic cancer, drink a cup of 2-4,D. That'll cure what ails your corporate-addled persona. And I hear you won't even feel it."
Now you're just being silly. Why don't you have a Pyganic-Rotenone cocktail and calm down? It's a naturally organic pesticide, after all.
Hi Christ,
You may not work for Monsanto, but your asinine, but well crafted hack-job on organic foods and farming shows you to be at best an semi-pro agent of ignorance, at worst, a slimy corporate conman.
"Once again, the name-calling and hysteria of this response confirm my suspicions that "organic" farming is an ideology."
It may be becoming a weakly enforced standard, but the idea behind it is inherently, and completely sound, unlike any of your pseudo-scientific blather.
'Conventional' farming (what a wild misnomer) is not as the planet, nature, the soil, or our bodies intended. Organic is. Conventional farming, and the mentality promoting it, pursuing it, and passing on propaganda for it is killing us, and the planet. Period.
Call me an ideologue. But I'm right, and you're just full of toxic-hormone-laden-GM BS.
Your comment: "'Conventional' farming (what a wild misnomer) is not as the planet, nature, the soil, or our bodies intended. Organic is."
Organic farming is not "as nature intended," because nature "intends" nothing. That's called the "pathetic fallacy." If nature "intended" anything, it's that humans be hunter-gatherers, but I'm sorry those days are gone.
ALL farming is "unnatural," if you will, which means all farming is patently unsustainable. Farming by definition usurps wild land for human purposes. "Organic" is just ruining the earth with good taste. You're living in a romanticized fantasy world.
We humans have worked ourselves into a box: with each success in getting more food from the land, regardless of technique or ideology, we have only grown our numbers more. I suspect it won't end pretty.
OleManRiver,
Your reasoned and patient response won't make a dent with Monsanto PR hacks (they're paid to ignore facts and invent new ones), but I appreciated it very much. Good information, good humor, and even better that it comes from someone with first-hand experience.
"Your reasoned and patient response won't make a dent with Monsanto PR hacks."
Once again, thanks for proving my point: In the absence of argument, ideologues resort to conspiracy theories and personal attacks.
You are welcome, Monsanto. Post as often as you want. We enjoy your Sarah Palinesque "information."
I post here to prevent the above comment from being edited or deleted.
Dear Crustie, et al---
Crustie challenges my longer post thusly:
"From your response:
"Organic agriculture is far less dependent on oil-and-gas-based inputs than is 'conventional' agriculture, which is one reason why in the era of 'cheap oil,' organic food costs more. Thus as the price of oil/gas rises, the cost of conventional food will rise faster than the cost of organic food."
This is logically inconsistent to the point of nonsensical. IF organic agriculture is "less dependent" on oil and gas, then by definition the production of organic food would be cheaper."
*****
You would probably be correct if the energy inputs to non-organic agriculture were not so highly subsidized by the taxpayers and the people who end up living with the externalized pollution costs of energy extraction that don't show up on the ledger books.
Also, while I tend to agree with your (perceived) argument that overpopulation tends to drive corporate/chemical solutions to produce "food" for political/RELIGEOUS reasons, I doubt your allegation that the capacity to produce food is directly related to overpopulation, In your paradigm there is no solution to that issue because you would just continue to produce more bad food. In that paradigm the medical costs alone will force creation of "death panels."
Meanwhile, historically, the more secure the populace of democratic nation-states feel, the fewer progeny they create. That this creates other demographic issues (such as a dwindling supply of workers to feed Social Security) is another debate.
*****
Crustie writes:
"From the response:
"the scientific literature has long demonstrated that toxin-laden food is more harmful."
"The scientific literature says no such thing. The concept of "toxic-laden food" is simply false. "Toxic" is directly dependent upon DOSE. Even salt is "toxic" at a certain dose. The amounts of residual synthetic pesticides on produce are well below regulated tolerances."
Okay. The "preponderance" of the scientific literature... I come from a family of doctors and researchers who were motivated by classical empiricism and the scientific method.
Thus, where you write: "The scientific literature is incomplete, inconclusive, and at times contradictory," I would agree. But the preponderance of the evidence is that pollution is harmful, specifically, entropic. And, here, you are using the now-classic tactic of the chemical companies: sow doubt. Cigarettes are good for you.
Crustie:
"The amounts of residual synthetic pesticides on produce are well below regulated tolerances."
Actually, we don't really know that to be the case, since there are so few inspectors and so few lab tests and so many ways to get around the regulations (I am esp. interested in food labeling). In addition, most research into the effects of pesticides have involved fairly small studies on individual pesticides rather than the real chemical soup in which we now live, as most of the researchers will attest. In fact, our environment is now so polluted by synthetic chemicals that it is nearly impossible to conduct genuine comparative biological research because the putative "Control" really no longer exists. This is not so in physics, by the way, else no landing on the moon.
Crustie:
""Toxic" is directly dependent upon DOSE."
No.
Indirectly.
Otherwise the concept of "tolerance" means nothing. An experienced heavy drinker can sometimes outperform most sober drivers on the highway. All Evolution involves risk. Much of Western Lit speaks to this.
The problem here is the chemical soup. Ultimately we probably lack the means to analyze analyze analyze but we know now that these synthetic chemicals are doing immense harm. Back in the day, discovering that some 20,000 new chemicals had been "grandfathered in," even The Congress sought to include the Precautionary Principle in environmental legislation, with many Republicans then agreeing.
I don't deny the issues posed by Climate Change, but we are being poisoned by something far worse, something more immediate, with evident impunity. If you do not think that "pollution" is impacting health and "health care costs," then you are in corporate denial.
How dare they.
-30-
Dear Crustie, et al---
Crustie challenges my longer post thusly:
"From your response:
"Organic agriculture is far less dependent on oil-and-gas-based inputs than is 'conventional' agriculture, which is one reason why in the era of 'cheap oil,' organic food costs more. Thus as the price of oil/gas rises, the cost of conventional food will rise faster than the cost of organic food."
This is logically inconsistent to the point of nonsensical. IF organic agriculture is "less dependent" on oil and gas, then by definition the production of organic food would be cheaper."
*****
You would probably be correct if the energy inputs to non-organic agriculture were not so highly subsidized by the taxpayers and the people who end up living with the externalized pollution costs of energy extraction that don't show up on the ledger books.
Also, while I tend to agree with your (perceived) argument that overpopulation tends to drive corporate/chemical solutions to produce "food" for political/RELIGEOUS reasons, I doubt your allegation that the capacity to produce food is directly related to overpopulation, In your paradigm there is no solution to that issue because you would just continue to produce more bad food. In that paradigm the medical costs alone will force creation of "death panels."
Meanwhile, historically, the more secure the populace of democratic nation-states feel, the fewer progeny they create. That this creates other demographic issues (such as a dwindling supply of workers to feed Social Security) is another debate.
*****
Crustie writes:
"From the response:
"the scientific literature has long demonstrated that toxin-laden food is more harmful."
"The scientific literature says no such thing. The concept of "toxic-laden food" is simply false. "Toxic" is directly dependent upon DOSE. Even salt is "toxic" at a certain dose. The amounts of residual synthetic pesticides on produce are well below regulated tolerances."
Okay. The "preponderance" of the scientific literature... I come from a family of doctors and researchers who were motivated by classical empiricism and the scientific method.
Thus, where you write: "The scientific literature is incomplete, inconclusive, and at times contradictory," I would agree. But the preponderance of the evidence is that pollution is harmful, specifically, entropic. And, here, you are using the now-classic tactic of the chemical companies: sow doubt. Cigarettes are good for you.
Crustie:
"The amounts of residual synthetic pesticides on produce are well below regulated tolerances."
Actually, we don't really know that to be the case, since there are so few inspectors and so few lab tests and so many ways to get around the regulations (I am esp. interested in food labeling). In addition, most research into the effects of pesticides have involved fairly small studies on individual pesticides rather than the real chemical soup in which we now live, as most of the researchers will attest. In fact, our environment is now so polluted by synthetic chemicals that it is nearly impossible to conduct genuine comparative biological research because the putative "Control" really no longer exists. This is not so in physics, by the way, else no landing on the moon.
Crustie:
""Toxic" is directly dependent upon DOSE."
No.
Indirectly.
Otherwise the concept of "tolerance" means nothing. An experienced heavy drinker can sometimes outperform most sober drivers on the highway. All Evolution involves risk. Much of Western Lit speaks to this.
The problem here is the chemical soup. Ultimately we probably lack the means to analyze analyze analyze but we know now that these synthetic chemicals are doing immense harm. Back in the day, discovering that some 20,000 new chemicals had been "grandfathered in," even The Congress sought to include the Precautionary Principle in environmental legislation, with many Republicans then agreeing.
I don't deny the issues posed by Climate Change, but we are being poisoned by something far worse, something more immediate, with evident impunity. If you do not think that "pollution" is impacting health and "health care costs," then you are in corporate denial.
How dare they.
-30-
This is a very important article. Thanks for writing it. I went down to New Pioneer food co-op in Iowa City looking for organic pastries, and and the main emphasis was on local, not organic.
If a vender shows "beyond organic," I turn away.
Joel Salatin is weak on the points made here, and has spread misinformation. He also doesn't understand the farm bill, where his libertarianism supports corporate ag. Otherwise, on his production systems, he's one of the best speakers in the world.
I don't trust nonorganic. I've seen some of what can be done under natural and other non organic substitutes.
We also have a problem of a lack of food sovereignty in local food, as Family Farm Defenders has argued. They won the Food Sovereignty prize. Prices often aren't high enough to meet the standards of food justice. Organic has been a label that has brought better prices. Recently however, some organic premiums have crashed. It's no longer 100% or 50% for corn, it's 25% or less. So we might need some policy help there.
Raising conventional farm prices makes all grassfed more competitive relative to CAFOs. Organic farmers and the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition have assumed that a free markets work. And they have worked until recently for organics, but they have never worked conventionally. It's good to get more land in hay, alfalfa, clover, pasture, which higher commodity prices help to do. Now's a time of higher conventional grain prices, which are good for grassfed farmers and organic farmers, and bad for CAFOs, transfats, and fructose.
All should support the Food from Family Farms Act of the National Family Farm Coalition.