Organic Agriculture: Hero or Hype?

Another school paper. There is a lot to say on this topic, but for some reason there was a page limit so I had to be a little too brief in some areas. Originally written 11/1/10.

 

Organic Agriculture: Hero or Hype?

 

Organic food is a conventional food crop (genetically exactly the same plant variety as the regular version) but grown according to a different set of standards. The exceptions are GMOs (genetically modified organisms) which the organic agriculture industry tends to avoid. This paper will basically be a critical analysis of some of the popular conceptions surrounding organic agriculture. We’ll jump right in and start with the most common misconception that I see repeated in basically every pro-organic article out there: Organic farms don’t use pesticides or herbicides. Well, it turns out that mainstream agriculture doesn’t use these things because they’re fun or inexpensive to produce and apply. They do it because if they don’t, their farms get eaten by pests or overrun by weeds. To put it outright, if organic farmers didn’t use pesticides and herbicides to control bugs and weeds, they wouldn’t have anything to sell. According to USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, “The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances which identifies synthetic substances that may be used, and the nonsynthetic substances that cannot be used, in organic production and handling operations.” Notice how it doesn’t say that organic crops use no chemical substances at all. Rather, they just have a different set of standards than conventional farmers. Not a necessarily superior set however.

As it turns out, much of the selection of which substances to allow favors the ideology over common sense, science, and sustainability. One example includes an interview with a winemaker by the Los Angeles Times. According to one Stephen Pepe, most vineyards do not get certified organic because some of the rules emphasize the ideology over the science. Vineyards need fungicide. Organic fungicide, consisting of sulfur, lasts 7 days, while superior synthetic fungicide lasts 21 days. This means two fewer tractors pass through the vineyard spewing diesel exhaust and compacting the soil. Fertilizer is essentially chemical nutrient, and the organic version delivers exactly the same chemical load as the synthetic. It has to, otherwise it wouldn’t work. All plant fertilizers, organic and synthetic, consist of the same three elements: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. The difference between the types used by the different types of farming is the source of these chemicals.

This leads nicely into the next big word that surrounds organic agriculture: sustainability. This is a modern buzz-word that I have been seen work it’s way into pop culture. As it turns out, the definition of sustainability isn’t really all that amazing. Generally, it means “able to be maintained at a certain rate or level” and/or “conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of non-renewable natural resources.” It is almost wholly uncontroversial among lay people that organic agriculture is more sustainable and more environmentally friendly than conventional farming. Let’s take to look at the way these two types of farming acquire the ingredients for their fertilizers. According to Brian Dunning, to make synthetic fertilizer, they start with nitrogen, which is extracted from the atmosphere. This process is infinitely sustainable and produces no waste. The potassium is mined from ancient ocean deposits. The phosphorus is acquired from surface mining of phosphate rock. Although there are centuries of reserves of phosphate rock and millennia of reserves of potassium salts, mining is not infinitely sustainable, as these reserves will eventually run out. So, increasingly, producers are turning to seawater extraction for both. This forms a completely sustainable cycle, as the oceans are the ultimate destination of all plant matter and farm runoff. (Dunning 1).

However, clean and sustainable atmospheric and seawater extraction are both off the table for organic certification. The fertilizer ingredients used in organic agriculture have to be derived from post-consumer waste. The use of manure in the process has been looked into, as it doesn’t appear to be safe. In the United States, 2006 brought two major outbreaks of E. coli, both resulting in deaths and numerous illnesses, ultimately traced to organically grown spinach and lettuce. According to the Center for Global Food Issues, organic foods make up about 1% of all the food sold in the United States, but it accounts for 8% of E. coli cases. While the use of chemicals derived from post-consumer waste as fertilizer is safe and effective, there simply isn’t enough to go around. Given that the end result of the two processes lead to the same chemical output, the restriction on synthetic fertilizer seems completely arbitrary.

Myth number three: genetically modified organisms are dangerous. GMOs are, in this context, plant species with genomes which have been altered using genetic engineering techniques. Covering GMOs is important because it’s one of the technological breakthroughs of the twentieth century that has led to saving more lives than any other. The man who began the process, Norman Borlaug, started by hybridizing crops from different regions of the planet so the offspring could grow more efficiently and in environments that the previous generation couldn’t cope with. Hybridizing is simply breeding two plants via cross pollination. This is what humans have been doing since we began farming thousands of years ago. All that genetic modification has allowed us to do is speed up and refine the process by making it more precise. Norman Borlaug received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, the 1977 US Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the 2006 Congressional Gold Medal for his work with crops and farming techniques. The unanimous act of Congress states “Dr. Borlaug has saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived, and likely has saved more lives in the Islamic world than any other human being in history.” The Nobel committee put a number on this, estimating that he was personally and directly responsible for saving over one billion human beings in the Third World from starvation.

Dr. Borlaug did it by pioneering the use of hybrid and genetically modified crops, designing new strains that could thrive in arid conditions where pesticides or herbicides were not available. This may seem like a digression, but it’s relevant here because there are some very drastic misconceptions surrounding GMOs in Western nations where the misery and constant hunger in parts of the developing world are hard for many people to imagine. The simple truth is that GMO crops are safe, efficient to grow, and are the only way forward to meet the food demands the world’s enormous and growing population.

While this all may have come off as anti-organic agriculture, that hasn’t really been my intention. There is nothing wrong with the food itself, it’s just surrounded by misconceptions and costs more. My only real problem with organic food is the way it’s marketed. Bad mouthing competitive markets and lying about the benefits of their product don’t paint a good picture for the consumers and I choose not to reward it with my food-buying dollar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annotated Bibliography

 

 

Dangour, Alan PHD. MacKerron D.K.L. et al. “Organic farming: science and belief.” Individual articles from the 1998/99 Report. Scottish Crop Research Institute, 1 Dec. 1999. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://www.scri.ac.uk/scri/file/individualreports/1999/06ORGFAR.PDF>

According to the authors above, (Dangour and Mackerron et al.) this article states that there is currently no independent authoritative statement on differences in the putative health effects of organic and conventional produced foodstuffs. This systematic review of the available published literature was designed to review the evidence of differences in putative health effects of organically compared with conventionally produced foodstuffs. The focus of the review was the nutritional content of foodstuffs, and only outcomes of clear direct relevance to human health were included. This review does not address contaminant content (such as herbicide, pesticide and fungicide residues) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, or the environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural practices. Good overall. Published in a scientific fashion, complete with lots of statistics.

 

Dunning, Brian. “Organic vs. Conventional Agriculture.” Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 11 Aug 2009. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4166>

In this article, Dunning lays out some of the misconceptions surrounding organic agriculture. Includes details on the manufacturing of fertilizers and a review of the statistics involving pesticide related poisonings. Dunning is not a scientist, but sites the sources he used in his research. Although some of his word choice comes across as biased, it is clear that he aims at objectivity. The greatest strength of this article is that he uses simple language, is concise, and sites his research sources so you can look into them yourself.

 

Kava, Ruth. “Is Organic Produce Better?” American Council on Science and Health. American Council on Science and Health, 12 Mar. 2002. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.228/news_detail.asp>

Ruth analyzes the claim that organic food is nutritionally superior to non-organic. The evidence does not support this. The main source cited for the initial claim is Dr. V. Worthington, in volume 7, issue 1 of the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, in which the author presents a survey of the scientific literature comparing the nutrient content of organic fruits, vegetables, and grains with that of their conventionally-raised counterparts. The conclusion that was reached by Dr. Worthington are rather premature, as it relies on data that is too small and aren’t strong enough to justify it. This article, though written by a scientist, is not written in a scientifically oriented fashion. However, it is concise, to the point, and unambiguous.

 

USDA. “National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances.” United States Department of Agricutlure: Agricultural Marketing Service. US Federal Government, 25 Sep. 2008. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&page=NOPNationalList>

Shows the list of allowed and prohibited substances in organic farming. Relevantly, it shows that organic farmers don’t use no pesticides and herbicides, but instead only use specific ones. Usually, non-synthetic. Doesn’t really lend itself to a more in-depth summary/response.

 

 

 

Other Sources Bibliography

 

Avery, Dennis T., Avery Alex. “Tainted Spinach Raises Big Questions of Manure on Food Crops.” Center for Global Food Issues. Center for Global Food Issues, 27 Sep. 2006. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://www.cgfi.org/2006/09/27/tainted-spinach-raises-big-questions-of-manure-on-food-crops/>

 

FDA. “FDA Statement on Foodborne E. coli 0157:H7 Outbreak in Spinach — 9/20/06 Update.” US Food and Drug Administration. US Federal Government, 20 Sep. 2006. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2006/ucm108740.htm>

 

Parsons, Russ. “‘Organic’ Debate Goes On, Naturally – Latimes.com.” Los Angeles Times – California, National and World News – Latimes.com. LA Times, 29 July 2009. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-fo-calcook29-2009jul29,0,2340961.story>.

 

NBHF. “Dr. Borlaug’s Boyhood Home.” The Norman Borlaug Heritage Foundation. The Norman Borlaug Heritage Foundation, 23 May 2008. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. <http://www.normanborlaug.org/>