3 ms·

The article is quite misleading with its claims of organic being better than conventional agriculture 1) The UNCTAD report that is cited actually has the follo

by 7sigma 10y ago

The article is quite misleading with its claims of organic being better than conventional agriculture 1) The UNCTAD report that is cited actually has the following text: "The views expressed in the articles contained in this Review are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their respective organisations and institutions." Many of the authors have ties with the organic industry (see https://thoughtscapism.com/2015/09/21/myth-un-calls-for-small-scale-organic-farming/ https://thoughtscapism.com/2015/09/21/myth-un-calls-for-smal...) 2) Organic food has less pesticides exposure. Not necessarily as organic agriculture also uses pesticides (naturally occuring ones). Though they tend to degrade quicker than synthetic ones, they are not as effective and need to be applied more often. Also the use of copper sulfate is allowed, which doesn't biodegrade and builds up in the soil. The following is also completely rubbish "Yes, pesticide residues are regulated by the U.S. Food Quality Protection Act, but the tolerance levels assigned for some pesticides pose potential health risks, even though they are considered “allowable.”" 3) Organic foods are more nutritious and taste better. Nope. The article just cherry picks a few studies. Following meta study comes to conclusion that organic food is not more nutritious https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22944875 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22944875 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11833635 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11833635 4) Organic foods help achieve biodiversity and soil fertility Maybe on the area farmed, but it tends to not be as efficient as conventional farming, so increase acreage is needed which reduces biodiversity. Regarding soil fertility, GMOs have actually helped thanks to no till agriculture. 5)Organic foods have no GMOs. GMOs actually can help reduce pesticide use (but its not a silver bullet) http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

jcranmer 10y ago
I did look at the UNCTAD report a bit, and it's disquietingly short on actual data to confirm their theses. The main thrust of what I read seemed to be focussing on the idea of empowering small landholders rather than industrial-scale farming, which actually isn't all that bad of an idea. But there doesn't seem to be any examination of things like crop yield effects of organic versus non-organic agricultural methods. Also, on pesticides: organic pesticides are usually more toxic to humans than synthetic pesticides. (This makes a lot of sense: think of the optimization functions used to select pesticides in natural evolution versus synthetic production). I did laugh on the "more nutritious and tastes better" bit. As you say, most studies and meta-studies find no effect on nutrition.
ptaipale 10y ago
>Not necessarily as organic agriculture also uses pesticides (naturally occuring ones) Actually, a better characterization could be "medieval ones". For instance, copper sulfate (CuSO4) is not exactly a "naturally occurring" substance, it's an industrial chemical but allowed in organic agriculture because it is a "traditional" pesticide (even though it is more toxic than, say, glyphosate, by a factor of 10). Other than that, you make the points I would have made.
rojobuffalo 10y ago
4) ... This is not correct. You can't just point to rate of output per area farmed and conclude that conventional is better for biodiversity and soil health. If you're going to do a comparison--you have to look at all the inputs. Account the footprint of the chemical plant where fertilizers, pesticides, and machinery comes from. Look at the shipping footprint to get those inputs into your fields. Look at the energy source for spreading them. Then look at fertilizer- and pesticide-use externalities. Conventional fields are net exporters of pollutants and species death. Whereas an ecologically rich field is going to actually filter water and net export richer biodiversity to it's surrounding ecosystem. The "conventional" advantage is on money and time--not concentration of biomass or biological health.

by 7sigma 10y ago

jcranmer 10y ago

I did look at the UNCTAD report a bit, and it's disquietingly short on actual data to confirm their theses. The main thrust of what I read seemed to be focussing on the idea of empowering small landholders rather than industrial-scale farming, which actually isn't all that bad of an idea. But there doesn't seem to be any examination of things like crop yield effects of organic versus non-organic agricultural methods. Also, on pesticides: organic pesticides are usually more toxic to humans than synthetic pesticides. (This makes a lot of sense: think of the optimization functions used to select pesticides in natural evolution versus synthetic production). I did laugh on the "more nutritious and tastes better" bit. As you say, most studies and meta-studies find no effect on nutrition.

ptaipale 10y ago

>Not necessarily as organic agriculture also uses pesticides (naturally occuring ones) Actually, a better characterization could be "medieval ones". For instance, copper sulfate (CuSO4) is not exactly a "naturally occurring" substance, it's an industrial chemical but allowed in organic agriculture because it is a "traditional" pesticide (even though it is more toxic than, say, glyphosate, by a factor of 10). Other than that, you make the points I would have made.

rojobuffalo 10y ago

4) ... This is not correct. You can't just point to rate of output per area farmed and conclude that conventional is better for biodiversity and soil health. If you're going to do a comparison--you have to look at all the inputs. Account the footprint of the chemical plant where fertilizers, pesticides, and machinery comes from. Look at the shipping footprint to get those inputs into your fields. Look at the energy source for spreading them. Then look at fertilizer- and pesticide-use externalities. Conventional fields are net exporters of pollutants and species death. Whereas an ecologically rich field is going to actually filter water and net export richer biodiversity to it's surrounding ecosystem. The "conventional" advantage is on money and time--not concentration of biomass or biological health.