The Real Dirt on Organic Food August 5, 2009
Posted by Graham in : Environment, Food, General, Health, Peak Oil, Science and Rationaltiy , trackbackUpdate Aug 10th: Thanks to Robbie for sending me the link to Dominic Lawson’s piece on the FSA report and responses from the organic movement in the Times.
Lawson quotes research suggesting farmers may have lower cancer rates possibly because pesticide use may protect against cancer! Now that has just got to be corporate spin…
The findings in last weeks’ FSA report that there is little to choose between organic and “conventional” food in terms of the major nutrients is hardly a surprise.
For many including myself, less rigidly defined labels such as “local” and “chemical-free” have been more important especially if we can see for ourseleves how the food is grown.
What is more surprising perhaps is some of the responses from some parties in the organic movement, which are not helping us understand the issues raised, or move the discussion onto other aspects of sustainable food and farming.
Rob Hopkins wrote to me to ask:
Might it be possible that this is actually an example of bad science, which just might have set out to prove a point, been subject to some kind of political interference and the might of the multinational food industry? Clearly it is very useful for some quite unpleasant institutions if we all believe organic farming is a waste of time. Might one argue that to believe that such a study is completely impartial and rigorous is somewhat naive? Might this report be an example of where we need to take what is presented as ‘good science’ with a rather large pinch of ‘organic’ salt?
In order to assess whether or not the review meets the highest standards of science, it is necessary to understand something about how science works, and this is an issue which goes right to the heart of what is wrong with environmentalism, because the movement in general is poorly informed about science, despite being dependent on it for assessing the general health of the environment.
As explained on Bad Science, the review followed the internationally accepted protocols established by the Cochrane collaboration, which does not accept corporate funding. These include deciding criteria for including studies before actually doing the review. The studies that were excluded were because they were either not relevant to this review, or of poor quality.
Contrary to the SA’s press release, the review found no statistically significant difference between organics and conventional foods, as explained here.
Goldacre says:
sadly, like many industries in a corner, the Soil Association seek to undermine the public’s understanding of what a “systematic review” is (which itself causes collateral damage to everybody’s ability to engage in debates on evidence).
(It came as a surprise to me, naive as I am, to discover that the SA advocates the use of homeopathy in treatment of some animal diseases, which might lead one to question whether it has any interest in evidence at all.)
The charge of vested interests seems rather paranoid, but unfortunately is all too common amongst the alternative community which often holds the view that science and technology in general is just a conspiracy to poison us for profit. We forget just how hard it is to eek a living from Mother Nature, and our separation from the means of our sustenance has the price to pay of igorance of what is actually involved in feeding ourselves.
We all have agendas, even jobbing permaculture teachers like me, so the important thing is to be upfront about them.
It seems worth noting then that Craig Sams, the vice-chair of the SA, and founder of Green and Black’s chocolate, retained a post for with Cadbury’s after the posh chocolate brand was sold to the multi-national in 2005. This kind of association between the SA and large corporations which sell sweets and use the organic/fairtrade labels to expand the market does rather seem to undermine the arguments being made about the supposed nutritional benefits of organic food. It seems reasonable to ask the question: is the Organic label nothing more than a marketing strategy?
It’s not all Black and Green: Anecdotal evidence suggests that 9 out of 10 under-12s and many adults as well find organic chocolate more yummy than non-organic carrots
Many people have said, as does the SA, that higher nutritional content is not the main reason why they might buy organic. This is certainly true; however, the SA has certainly used the perceived nutritional benefits of organic food as a major reason to favour it, as in this piece:
There is a growing body of research that shows organic food can be more nutritious for you and your family. Put simply, organic food contains more of the good stuff we need – like vitamins and minerals – and less of the bad stuff that we don’t – pesticides, additives and drugs.
The first sentence here is false as the FSA review demonstrates- although one of the conclusions of the report is that the number of good quality studies is small, and research in the area generally poor, the fact is there is no good evidence of higher nutritional content in organic food, so we should not claim that there is. We might guess that there might be, and there seems plenty of anecdotal evidence that the quality and taste may be better, but for the major nutrients that keep us generally nourished and healthy, there is no difference.
Of course, it may be that further research will show up this evidence, but the fact that it is not evident to date indicates it is unlikely to be a major difference. The SA should lobby the Big Organic growers to fund more research if it is not satisfied.
There are several other good reasons why we might nonetheless prefer organic food:
-avoidance of pesticide and fertiliser chemical residue;
-supporting sustainable farming;
-supporting small local growers;
-supporting animal welfare;
-better farming practices including better care of the soil;
- protection of biodiversity and wildlife habitat on farms;
-less dependency on fossil fuels.
-building self-reliance and local community resilience
Avoidance of pesticide and fertiliser chemical residue
The first question here is, how much residue of chemicals is actually found on non-organic food and how bad is it for us? Seems like a reasonable concern and I admit that this would have been a major reason that I have favoured organic since a teenager.
But is it really true?
Firstly, a serious criticism of organic standards is that they are inconsistent and still permit the use of fairly noxious substances such as copper sulphate, used in the control of potato blight.
On the other hand, given that most of our food is grown using pesticides etc, there doesnt seem to be any real evidence that our health is suffering as a result of consequent environmental contamination: we still have one of the longest life-expectancies in history of the race, and although there is an increase of such modern diseases, many of these may be a result of old age and of the kind of food we eat, not pesticide poisoning.
A key issue here is that as mammals we need high-energy foods like carbohydrates to keep going- in an oil-rich world, this basic need is easily satisfied, and obesity can set in if we have endless cheap supplies especially in the form of corn-syrup (fructose). That is why the emphases on “eating your greens” becomes so important for the affluent ape.
This issue goes back to Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” and the rapid destruction of the environment that was apparent in the post-war rapid expansion of industrial agriculture, but deeper than that it touches on one of the most prevalent post-modern myths that “nature is better”.
In a world dominated by our one over-successful species, the concept of “natural” may not mean very much. Practically every last square inch of the planet- and certainly nearly all of the industrial and over-crowded Europe- has been modified by humans.
More than that, we have been modifying our food since we started cooking it. Farming started some 10,000 years ago and began the process of breeding plants and animals to be more amenable to meeting our needs. The “natural” world is full of complex chemicals many of which are toxins designed to keep predators at bay. The reason our tender young salad seedlings are so vulnerable to slugs is that they have not yet developed the resistance to pests their wild cousins have.
The question then is, are artificial chemicals more nasty than natural ones? The answer is certainly not, in general- but of course each one needs to be looked at case-by-case. In the development of chemicals, many trials are conducted to ensure they are only administered at doses well below what would be fatal- in many cases this may be far below the fatal dose of, say, a glass of lager.
That is not to say that we should not be vigilant with the introduction of new chemicals, and there may be justifiable concern about long-term effects, but this issues goes to the heart of what is wrong with post-modernism. The whole of human history has been a struggle for survival and whatever the negative effects of the modern world, few of us would survive long in the natural environment without the benefits of modern science, and fewer would voluntarily choose to dispense with the comforts of modern life completely.
We need to acknowledge that naturally occurring chemicals can be just as dangerous as synthetic ones, but the latter have the advantage of being tested, and have the potential to be applied as and when we need them, in carefully controlled quantities, which cannot be achieved for their naturally occurring counterparts.
In Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability , David Holmgren also suggests that use of appropriate herbicides to aid tree establishment may be acceptable, but for many any kind of spray remains simply taboo.
Biodiversity and care of the soil
One of the great contributions of the organic movement has been an emphases on better care of wildlife habitats, and care of the soil. However, while organic farms in general may be better than conventional in this sense, this is also not a clear cut issue.
Michael Pollan in The Omnivore’s Dilemma discusses how many organic farms may have to harrow and cultivate more often for weed control, which can be more harmful to the soil than spraying, as well as using more fossil energy for this at least. He also saw evidence of the use of low-paid migrant labour on big organic farms to make up for the extra work involved.
A 2004 review of organic vs “conventional” farming practices by Anthony Trewavas concludes:
The article concludes that in the UK, at least, when problems with agriculture emerge they usually hinge around poor management not mode of agriculture. In environmental terms no-till farming currently seems to be better than others.
So in terms of soil health, no-till practices- as prioritized in permaculture for example- may be more influential than not spraying; while organic farmers may in general be more aware of issues of soil health and environmental protection, improvements in farming on some conventional farms show that good practice is possible there as well. It depends on the farm, not the mode of agriculture.
Animal Welfare
This is a key ethical issue and one that has certainly motivated by buying habits; but is it an issue for specifically organic production? Again, the target should be large-scale factory farms, the worst excesses of profit-driven industrial farming, rather than converntianl farming per se. Personally, I am far more concerned about avoiding intensive factory farming than buying organic.
Fossil fuels dependency
Organic farming may be less fossil-fuel dependent, but on the other hand, yields may be lower and therefore more land may be required. Some crops may require more fossil fuels; clearly, the increased use of refridgeration and the habit in some cases of flying in fresh organic produce would not help reduce fossil-fuel dependency. There is a lot of studies referred to on Wikipaediabut again there are many other factors apart from the specific industry standards of “organic” that effect fossil fuel inputs.
Food plant diversity
The greatest threat to our food security, and the greatest tragedy of modern farming, is the loss of food crop diversity.
The vast range of food crops, adapted and bred for specific characteristics for specific locations and conditions, was a hallmark of traditional food resilience; but industrial methods have lead to an inexorable decline as the priority has been towards a “one size fits all” type for mechanical harvesting and ever-bigger fileds of monocrops.
For the smallholder or home gardener, seed saving to protect diversity and home plant breeding for varieties more suitable to the home gardener, has become increasingly important.
The organic movement is to be applauded for raising these issues and encouraging the protection of seed diversity. The work of Vandana Shiva highlights the loss of biodiversity in food plants and the corproate complicity in this process.
Most scientific research goes into breeding varieties geared for maximum yields, ability to intake nitrogen and and withstand pesticide use; and allow for mechanical harvesting, global transport and storage.
As much as anything, the perceived superior quality and tast of organic produce may be down to variety.
However, if the resources of science could be harnessed to produce varieties of greater diversity for the home gardener or small producer, this is an area where a real difference could be made. It is of course quite correct for the organic movement to lament the increasing influence of big business on the uses of science in this area, with the miuses of GM technology for profit and control of seed the most obvious example.
Self-reliance and building community resilience
These may be the most important contributions that the organic movement have made. It is obviously important for people to know how to grow food without the addition of chemicals they have no chance of producing themseleves on a small scale; on the other hand, organic farming may be reliant on many other inputs from plastic tunnels to mulch.
Home gardening is a fascinating and fulfilling activity which can contribute to local food security, and it is essential to retain and develop the skills needed for people to grow at least some of their own food.
Peak oil-ists have long been advocates of growing food,and far more people will need to be working on the land in an energy descent future- but this is not something most are yet willing to accept and would involve considerable change in lifestyle. Goldacre for example says that most food “will always be industrial”. It would be interesting for him to consider more seriously the peak oil issue and whther this will indeed always be possible into the future.
Conclusion
The “Organic” label is primarily a marketing device to sell an expensive product with “added value”; in times of recession fewer will be willing to pay for it.
There is an obvious difference between an organic lettuce flown in fresh from israel and a regular lettuce from a sprayed field down the road where you know the farmer.
It should be said though that where “organic” does mean “local, small farmer using natural methods and trying to limit fossil input” many of us will be willing to pay more as a “sustainability subsidy” and to support local growers. Food has become unrealistically cheap during the last 50 years when we learned to increase yields with fossil energy, and there is every indication that we will have to pay more in the future, and that a lot more of us will have to be involved in actually doing the work to produce it. Food has been a declining proportion of our weekly grocery budget and this has lead to it becoming undervalued and treated as just another commodity; consumers have come to resent the farmer asking for a decent wage and demand cheap food. I don’t resent the extra cost becasue much of what I buy comes from the ocal grower; but I wouldnt favour “Big Organic” over “Big Conventional” otherwise.
There is lots of reasons however to feel that some organic produce, especially meat and salads, taste better and are produced more ethically, and are of superior quality.
In addition, the organic movement should be applauded for raising the issues of the environmental impact and pesticide use, and perhaps playing an important role in reigning in big AgriBusiness from the worst excesses of profit-fuelled conventional farming practices.
As environmentalists, we should reject the simplistic notion that “natural is better” and we should demand that groups like the Soil Association and other prominant environmental lobby groups such as Transition Towns stop trying to confuse us about the workings of science, and should make their own agendas more transparent. The anti-science stance of many prominent environmentalists is a shameful disgrace to the movement, discrediting it in the eyes of those who actually understand just how science works and how profoundly we depend on science to survive.
In an age of climate change, which will effect food and farming more profoundly than anything, our understanding of science is paramount, and it is a tragic irony that sectors of the environmental movement itself are undermining this understanding at a time when we need it most.
The question still remains as to whether organics or small-scale farming can really feed a population of 6.7 billion and still retain at least some of the benefits and creature comforts the modern world has brought us; all too often the “green” lobby conveniently forgets how tough life can be on the farm, and red in tooth and claw “nature” really is.
For these reasons alone we should salute the farmer, any farmer, who is able to at least temporarily cheat the natural competitve forces of nature and put food on our plates.
Comments»
Good piece Graham. I’ve always objected to hearing the ‘natural is better’ argument. What about tobacco? Deadly nightshade? Poison ivy? Hemlock? All natural; all lethal. Well, except the ivy which will give a nasty rash.
Absolutely correct to look at the soil more that what comes out it. That is where the most important contribution of organic farming lies, as was seen and written about by Fredrick King, Lady Eve Balfour, J.I Rodale and the other early pioneers of organic farming. Whether organics or small-scale farming can really feed a population of 6.7 billion is something we may learn very soon, but perhaps a better question is can the alternative, the chemical means, feed that population in a fashion that does not ruin the soil base?
THE FSA AND BAD SCIENCE. The fault in the FSA study was that it set out to disprove that organic food was ‘healthier’ by selection from previous research. The question should have been: how unhealthier is ‘conventional’ food? As I recall, the FSA said there were no residues in 70% of conventional food and therefore disregarded this as a health negative. But this means that a third of conventionally grown food has residues of hormone-supplements, toxins, pesticides etc and is therefore less healthy than clean food. The FSAI (the Irish equivalent of the British FSA) made the same pronouncement about 18 months ago, without any scientific pretense. It just shows who is calling the tune.
Fergus The points you raise have already been adressed in the article. Science does not “set out to prove” things, but to find out what is going on; this particular review was looking only at nutritional content of major nutrients. You need to provide some evidence of conspiracy before suggesting there is one! Naturally, a review looking at other health impacts would also be useful; doesnt mean this one isnt. The Trewavas paper linked to above is well worth a read (unfortunately you have to pay) – here is a small relevant quotation: “However chemophobia is the commonest reason for the public to buy organic food on the assumption that such food is free of synthetic pesticides. Organic food contains synthetic pesticide traces although understandably the amounts are lower than in conventional produce (Baker et al., 2002). Life expectancy continues to increase unabated (Oeppen and Vaupel, 2002) and figures specific for the UK are to be found in Lomborg (2001). Centenarians are now ten times more common in the UK than they were 50 years ago. There has been no obvious effect of the introduction of pesticides and use through 50 years on life expectancy or on general public health (Coggon and Inskip, 1994).”
The evidence of many more centenarians today than fifty years ago does sound impressive; but to conclude this means organic, non-chemical foods have no effect on health is a stretch. Remember that those over 100 years old came of age before “better living through chemistry” became so ubiquitous. Perhaps this longevity has more to do with our conquest of infectious diseases in the period?
I am shocked by current reports of so many young people (under 50) getting cancer, the epidemic of child autism, and even early-onset alzheimers, which was unheard of when I was young in the 80s. I think this is due to the “chemical soup” we are forced to live in, which is so complex, direct correlations to such disorders can’t be proved. Except perhaps by process of elimination –literally: detoxification protocols have been known to cure many chronic illnesses and even autism. I know this by experience, having cleared heavy metal poisoning from my personal “polluted stream” to my immense relief.
Good science is dependent far more on the intentions and prejudices of the experimenter, than on any given set of measurements. It is a discipline which aims at objectivity, but that very objectivity inevitably exists within a frame of reference. So being alert to such frames of reference, being open-minded, is of the essence, keeping in mind that each conclusion reached must be provisional and temporary –what we know so far.
Always good to keep asking questions and to challenge any orthodox thinking, however hip, cool and trendy it appears: especially then. So we retain our receptivity to new ideas and connections, to what’s really out there. Thus permaculture’s emphasis on continuous observations of effects is one of my favorite lessons.
Have you read the headlines … Public health is at stake!
Organic Food is not All That- Chicago Sun Times, 30 Jul 09 No Added Nutritional Benefit From Organic Food- U.S. News & World Report, 1 Aug 09
News media from around the world have been misrepresenting the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine’s recent research review.
No Evidence‚ Organic Foods More Nutritious- National Business Review, 3 Aug 09 Organic Food: Just a Superstition- American Daily, 2 Aug 09
The NHSTM study reported that organic foods tested in previous work were superior in measurements of beta-carotene, flavonoids, phenolic compounds, protein, copper, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, sulfur and zinc, all of which are required for complete nutrition.
Mainstream media missed this fact, instead running misleading headlines that confused the public. Is that a function of “frames of reference” or knee-jerk rejection of a hard science look at chemo-vs-organic? It seems that there is just as much an organophobia as there is chemophobia at work here.
No Albert, public health is not at stake- but the public understanding of science is. As I’ve indicated in the post, while eating sufficient fruit and veg of any kind- organic or otherwise- has been shown to cut cancer rates in half, there is no evidence organic food in general contains more nutrients. Other lifestyle factors play far bigger roles, especially, we eat too many carbs and fructose leading to obesity.
As Holford Watch (linked to above) explain:
“The report clearly states that the differences were not statistically significant for Beta-carotenes or proteins. The differences for zinc and flavonoids only hold if you were to include all of the included studies and comparisons, regardless of their quality[c] but were not relevant if the reader is only interested in the results from studies that are of ’satisfactory quality’.[d]
Consider the Beta-carotenes example. Accepting even the non-significant difference figure for all of the included studies would be the equivalent of selecting one carrot from a barn that is filled with organic carrots of different cultivars, grown in different countries, in different soils, with different growing methods, of different stages of maturity, analysing that and then claiming that the nutrient profile for that carrot is true for that of all other carrots that you deem to be comparable.
For the zinc and flavonoids example, consider this. Drawing a retirement pension is strongly associated with mortality, based on reports from all sources, including newspaper articles. However, neglecting to mention that retirement pensions are normally drawn by people aged 60 or more and that older people do die would be foolish for many reasons. Most readers would realise that perhaps the association doesn’t hold once age is taken into account and perhaps it would be more relevant, in this instance, to assign credibility to figures and interpretations from appropriate sources such as the Office of National Statistics.”
The Daily Mail at least certainly did not neglect to copy the false reports of the SA that those nutrients were found to be higher in organic food- that is not the case; the “previous work” you allude to simply was not of good quality, but even if we accept it, the differences found were insignificant.
So the message is- eat your greens- and stick to the science.
<
p>Okay, Graham, I went back upstream to the Holford Watch report and also looked at comments by Rodale Institute and others and confess my previous post was hasty and too off the hip, instead of considered. But I would not have gone so far as to make a blanket statement like “there is no evidence organic food in general contains more nutrients.” FSA cited 162 studies that are in evidence, but had to be excluded from consideration because they lacked one or more of the following criteria:
What this seems to suggest is not that there is no nutritional advantage (in either direction) but that better work still needs to be done.
The price premium paid for organic food probably could not be justified on a consumer health basis, in any event, for all the reasons you’ve cited. It might, nonetheless, be justified for what it has done to benefit soils and land use practices, and I’d go so far as to say Green and Black’s initiative to build an organic cacao industry in Belize is a good case in point.
Thanks for your clarification Albert. The reasons you list for the studies being excluded are standard reasons of scientific protocol; the methodology needs to be transparent and consistent. Obviously the method of farming; the nutrients being examined; and the method of analysis need to be clear, otherwise there is no possibility of making meaningful comparisons. Remember, for a review of this nature, it is obligatory that the protocol is agreed in advance of the review- there was no way to know in advance that, say, the better quality studies would not show better nutritional content for organic food. There still seems to be an implication in what you say that the review was biased. Science doesnt operate in absolutes , but in probabilities based on the nest available evidence; therefore we can say with a high degree of certainty that: a)claims by the organic industry for higher nutritional content in organic foods are not evidence- based; and are often plucked out of thin air (for example a locally made film on organics claimed them to have “4 times” the nutritional of conventional veg); b)there is no reason to think organic food is likely to have higher nutritional benefit c)the organic lobby is not very interested in evidence, and has a low degree of scientific literacy;
More than this even, the point is, if there was any significant difference it would surely have shown up in the extensive review, without the need for further study- which would be, of course, always welcome. Nonetheless, it is obvious at this stage, as already stated, that other factors- eating more greens etc- are orders of magnitude more important than eating organic per se, even if there does turn out to be a marginal benefit in some foods. Getting the third world to give over valuable land to grow cash crops like cacao for the affluent middle-class sections of the rich world raises a whole other set of controversial issues- and I say that as an inveterate coffee drinker! Either way, it doesnt seem to have a whole lot to do with promoting health or nutrition, considering the high sugar content. However, both your comments seem to miss what I think is the most interesting aspect of the whole subject- chemical farming may actually be better for the soil than organics, because of low-till regimes. The Trewavas review found this to be likely, and found generally soil quality to be also effected much more by general management practices than by organic or otherwise.
I was with you until we got to the part about …
Science doesnt operate in absolutes , but in probabilities based on the nest available evidence; therefore we can say with a high degree of certainty that:
Whoops. A little non-sequitur there. Best available evidence and high degree of certainty do not equate. The probability advantage can be quite small, and often is.
you continue:
a)claims by the organic industry for higher nutritional content in organic foods are not evidence- based; and are often plucked out of thin air (for example a locally made film on organics claimed them to have “4 times” the nutritional of conventional veg);
granted, but kindly grant me also that claims by the chemical industry for higher nutritional content are also too often unsubstantiated. No-one to blame. That is what the ad biz is about. Likewise industry lobby groups with beltway think tanks and endowed labs in Universities, maybe even a CIA/MI5/Mossad/Saudi connection, who knows? And, lest we forget, chemical exposure does put meat on the table for Big Pharma. Lots of suspects in the parlor.
b)there is no reason to think organic food is likely to have higher nutritional benefit
nor to think the contrary. But I still wouldn’t be quite so absolute. This discussion is hardly a literature review.
c)the organic lobby is not very interested in evidence, and has a low degree of scientific literacy;
Sorry, have to respectfully disagree with the characterization. I know a lot of soil scientists. Many are organic food consumers, even advocates, and quite a few are recent converts. I don’t see any that go the other way. I seriously doubt the scientific literacy for the organic side is any dumber than on the chemical side. Consider phthalate esters, for instance.
Getting the third world to give over valuable land to grow cash crops like cacao for the affluent middle-class sections of the rich world raises a whole other set of controversial issues- and I say that as an inveterate coffee drinker! Either way, it doesnt seem to have a whole lot to do with promoting health or nutrition, considering the high sugar content.
That statement is theobromine-starved. No worries, we’ll just have to bring you to meet some Mayan cacao growers. Cacao is not sweet, it is bitter. The medicinal properties have been well known for three thousand years, and probably considerably longer, given its Amazon origins. The bitterness was moderated with maize, chili, vanilla, peanut butter, honey, and sometimes fresh blood. The reason it found a way to the Olde World had little to do with sweets and more to do with the caffeine-like buzz of the cacahuatl, which the Europeans couldn’t get enough of. Bitter was the usual cocoa drink until the first chocolate shop opened in London in 1657. Sugar plantations and the industrial revolution had begat the sweet chocolate you and I know and love.
However, both your comments seem to miss what I think is the most interesting aspect of the whole subject- chemical farming may actually be better for the soil than organics, because of low-till regimes. The Trewavas review found this to be likely, and found generally soil quality to be also effected much more by general management practices than by organic or otherwise.
This may be getting a bit too labored, but there is a body of credible science on many aspects of organics, even a growing body of good studies on organic no-till now.
In 1943 Howard published An Agricultural Testament, which described his theories of building compost piles, recycling waste materials, and creating soil humus as a “living bridge” between soil life, such as mycorrhizae and bacteria, and healthy crops, livestock, and people. At the heart of his work is the idea that soils, nutritious crops, and organisms in general are not just arrays of minerals, but are parts of a complex ecology of cycling organic matter, and these life-supporting cycles are critical for a self-regenerative agriculture, of the type described in other societies by F.H. King, etc.
Howard became embroiled in a mid-20th-century conflict. On one side were disciples of chemists such as Carl Sprengel (1787-1859) and Justus von Liebig (1803-1873), who promoted the Law of the Minimum, a mechanical approach arguing that plant growth is boosted by adding the scarcest, or limiting, mineral. Big Ag: roll out the NPK. This soon became a widely accepted agronomic principle and the basis for the Green Revolution, which didn’t work in Africa because there were no healthy soils left to exploit. On the other side were the organic advocates, who adhered to Howard’s Law of Return, which states that crop health depends on maintaining soil ecology, done by returning to the soil not just the minerals lost in farming, but also the organic matter that supports the nutrient cycles of soil life. Howard’s position was, in the words of biologist Janine Benyus, that it is life that best creates the conditions conducive to life.
Industrial agriculture has badly degraded nearly every ecosystem it has encountered while consuming roughly 20 percent of world energy production, and obviously that can’t last, so I think these minor disagreements are moot, in any event. Chemical agriculture requires an unsustainable commitment to ever-greater energy use, declining EROI, peak phosphorus, the nitrate-greenhouse connection, and whatever the next shoe to fall, so, despite heroic measures of chemical and genetic manipulation, agronomist sentiment is tilting against the reductionism that characterized the “scientific agriculture” of the past century. That is not an anti-science statement, but you have to take a peck at hubris whenever you see it.
Last week Tom Vilsack, former Iowa governor, and Big Ag promoter, made a personal appearance at the North American Biochar Conference to endorse biochar as a soil amendment, water conservation tool and GHG-sink. He is Secretary of Agriculture and in Obama’s cabinet.
Today agricultural colleges are working much more closely with soil science laboratories and soil scientists are taking the time to look more closely at traditional methods such as the terra preta dark earths of the Amazon, the milpa and chinampa systems that pre-existed European contact with the Americas, and the return-loop systems described by King as practiced in Asia for 4000 years. Whatever direction agriculture takes now, even putting aside nutritional claims, we need to consider the role of energy cost, soil, carbon, conservation of water, and caloric efficiency in ways we have not had to give much thought to before — and chemistry plays a role. The alternative is not early famine but later one because of the continued degradation of ecosystem services and conversion of one-off resources to unrecoverable waste. The ecosystems that support us cannot afford another 10,000 years of that, they are purty near broke as it is.
In my humble opinion.
Thanks again Albert You are right- should have read “hi level of confidence”- but I think you know what i mean! The whole point is, again, if there are differences, they will be very small, very variable, and absolutely insignificant compared to differences between different management practices on different farms, and many other variables- the organic/conventional divide is really not very relevant at all. I maintain, we can be very confident of this given the body of evidence that does exist.
“…but kindly grant me also that claims by the chemical industry for higher nutritional content are also too often unsubstantiated.” I dont think Ive ever seen a claim that non-organic food has higher nutrition. But I think the line between “industrial/corporate” marketing and “organic/natural/holistic” marketing”, and the corporate sponsors of each, is increasingly blurred. You can see this very clearly in alternative medicine. In general, though, Big Business is slightly more sophisticated at manipulating data than the “alternative” corporate sector. Neither should be confused with the workings of real science.
Much as i would love to visit the Mayan cocao growers, my personal air miles policy would prohibit it. My point still holds: Green and Blacks chocolate (I just consumed a half-bar to get the theobromine levels up! I love it!) is an expensive middle-class consumer item, containing minimum 15% sugar; and the high embodied energy of long-distance shipping. Good for individual cacao growers maybe in the short term; little to do with nutrition or local self-reliance and sustainability as far as i can see.
“Industrial agriculture has badly degraded nearly every ecosystem it has encountered while consuming roughly 20 percent of world energy production”
It is agriculture per se that is doing this; if we speculate that a fully mature permaculture system (NB: Organic farming as currently practiced has very little in common with food forests) would do better, IMO it wont support the current world’s population.
“Chemical agriculture requires an unsustainable commitment to ever-greater energy use, declining EROI, peak phosphorus, the nitrate-greenhouse connection, and whatever the next shoe to fall, so, despite heroic measures of chemical and genetic manipulation, agronomist sentiment is tilting against the reductionism that characterized the “scientific agriculture” of the past century. That is not an anti-science statement, but you have to take a peck at hubris whenever you see it.”
The evidence does not bare this up Albert. Chemical agriculture may in fact reduce fossil-fuel inputs and improve efficiency; and uses less land, which means more for the birds and the bees. The issue is over-population and total human impact; not organic vs conventional.
Again, these are issues for agriculture in general, not just “chemical” farming; I agree that the elephant in the room is peak oil, but this will be just as much an issue for organics as for “conventional”- the real issue as we all know is over-population, which many would argue is a result of agriculture in general. I have never thought “organic” equated with “sustainable”; this is clearly not the case. Many organic farms may use more fossil fuels than the “chemical” farms you denigrate.
Here is what Trewavas concludes:
“Uhlin (1999) estimated that fuel represented 26% of the energy use in conventional farming; fertiliser production only accounted for 14%. Putting the Bertillson figures (for fertiliser and transport) with those of Leake (2000a) on fossil fuel use on farms and Uhlin (1999) estimates of energy use, the efficiency of conversion of fossil fuel use into seed energy can be estimated. From Table 2, the figures for organic in kWh/ tonne of yield of wheat are organic 200, integrated 132, conventional 140. The latter two forms of farming are on this basis more efficient in their conversion of energy into product. There are several caveats in the figures above. Leake (2000a) used 180 kgN/ha for wheat production (Table 2). Other farmers may use more or less N, dependent on manure input. Leake however states his ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Trewavas / Crop Protection 23 (2004) 757–781 773 organic yields are substantially higher than the average UK organic yield. Bertillson (1992) assumed that intensive farming only uses 100 kgN/ha. Thus I have programmed in a worst case scenario for conventional farming. Secondly I have not included any energy considerations for the mining and transport of phosphate rock or transport or packaging of minerals to organic farms. Taking account of these considerations places integrated no-till as about 2 times as energy efficient as organic farming and conventional farming about the same.”
While some may see the hand of MOSSAD in these figures, I have no problem accepting them having read the review. What would do much better however would be the small home garden or allotment- whether “organic” or not.
Nor does there appear to be good evidence that soil structure is necessarily better on organic farms- it may very well be worse because organic farms often need to till more often.
There is really no evidence that I can see that shows merely applying Organic standards, or even just avoiding “chemicals” will either protect the soil more or reduce fossil fuel inputs. (Chemical farmers can just as easily add manure etc as organic ones.)The opposite could equally be true- the point is again, it is the specific management practices, not the mode of farming per se.
This seems to be comparing two colors of apples rather than apples and oranges, since organic vs conventional agriculture, as discussed here, are both industrial monocultures, only with different kinds of inputs, the organic one eschewing certain kinds of chemicals, such as pesticides, while allowing other perhaps unwholesome inputs, such as treated sewage sludge on fields of carrots. I agree it’s “the specific management practices” that are more at issue for both soil health and nutrition.
Maybe it’s true that mature permaculture food forests would not support the current world population, which may be, ecologically speaking, too large. However, I agree that “what would do much better would be the small home garden or allotment.” Intelligence-dense attention to small areas have supported dense populations in the past in both Asia and Mesoamerica; and we know more now.
For example, in “The Power of Duck” a Japanese farmer experiments in a conventional rice paddy, first with organic methods requiring expensive inputs, then with stacking functions and yields by adding ducks and fish, with amazing results, verified by university researchers. The author then travels to China to compare his practices with the age-old methods of traditional peasants, and finds them far less labor-efficient…
This may be going a bit aside from the present discussion; but my hope is that a culture of intelligent land management with a population tending smallholdings which present continuous challenges to their minds, hearts and bodies (rather than working out in gyms!) would be the healthiest.
I found this rebuttal valuable: http://civileats.com/2009/07/30/organic-versus-conventional-food-uk-report-flawed/
I too have been disappointed in the ‘true colors’ shown by those who have attacked the FSA study using bad logic, bad science and/or unsubstantiated accusations of bias or conspiracy. Poor form.
But I’m expecting the eventual truth will favor organics. I mean, its a fact that the heavy chemical input kill off microbes and fungi, yes? And its a fact that the fungi are responsible for breaking down rock into constituent and plant-available minerals. So is there any reasonable doubt that a healthy, living soil produces more nutritious food?
Time will tell, ball’s in the organic movement’s court.