5 ms·

I think this is just an example of 'elitism' on the part of the author. It is ludicrous to think that there is a chance that the 'local/organic' movement will

I think this is just an example of 'elitism' on the part of the author. It is ludicrous to think that there is a chance that the 'local/organic' movement will ever capture more than 1%-2% of food production. Most people don't care, and some fraction of people that do care are intelligent enough to decide that additional cost for no increase in quality is not worth it. So this is 'elitism' because people think that a very high-cost, niche, atypical behavior is in some way a 'threat' because 'everyone will do it'. Maybe everyone the author knows, but only a tiny percentage of people overall.

kristopolous 10y ago
Sure but if this was the 1950s and the article was about abstaining from smoking, you could have made similar arguments. The people of tomorrow will not think like the people of today.
loup-vaillant 10y ago
You seem to assume organic food is much more expensive to produce than chemical food. You'll need to justify that assumption, especially in the face of hidden costs: scorched soils (that require chemicals to grow anything), light but pervasive food poisoning (pesticides), growing resistances to our pesticides and antibiotics, heavy dependence on fossil fuels, as well as quite a bit of oil for chemicals. As a not so separate issue, there is the cost of distribution. Carrying food across the country, across the world, has costs: more need for energy, and degradation of the food (fresh is better). Such costs could be lowered right now, but cannot be eliminated as long as we keep large monocultures: with them, you don't get any diversity without moving lots of food around.
- geon 10y ago
  Please don't use the word "chemical" like it is something unnatural or harmful. Water is a chemical. The active ingredients of natural fertilizer are chemicals.
  - grzm 10y ago
    I understand the point you're trying to make. Likely you understand the distinction your parent intends as well, and this is a commonly understood way to discuss the topic. Do you have a preferred alternative to suggest that conveys the same intent, preferably one that is also widely understood?
    - ogrisel 10y ago
      "fossil-fuel intensive synthetic fertilizers" or "inorganic synthetic fertilizers" NH3 in particular is commonly synthesized by combining N2 from the atmosphere with H2 extracted from CH4 (natural gas).
    - geon 10y ago
      Use terms that convey the objection you have to it. Or object to the negative effects they have in the first place.
      - grzm 10y ago
        What specifically do you suggest? If you're being pedantic and snipey, you're not engaging in good faith. If you disagree with the general argument, be honest and say so. If you're looking to have a constructive discussion, help move the conversation forward, which includes showing you understand what they intend to say, even if you disagree or they're not expressing themselves as clearly as you'd prefer. Understandably you can't read their mind, but you can speculate charitably. If you don't think they're discussing in good faith, you can choose to civilly explain why that's so, or choose not to comment at all if you don't think there's a constructive way forward. For controversial topics, it's even more important to do this as it's that much easier for discussion to devolve into a flamewar.
        geon 10y ago
        I don't have a specific suggestion, but it could be something like "synthetic fertilizer kills the symbiotic microbes nevvessary to..." rather than "scorched soils (that require chemicals to grow anything)". Just an example. I have no idea what "scorched soil" means.
Swizec 10y ago
And yet in the US there is at least one supermarket chain running entirely on the premise that people do care. Whole Foods. Afaik they're pretty successful too. The worst part is that unlike in Europe, I can actually taste the difference in the US.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > The worst part is that unlike in Europe, I can actually taste the difference in the US. Yeah, I've heard about the taste thing from friends who visited US. And it makes me wonder - given that a sizeable part of the food we eat[0] is made by the same megacorps (Nestle, Unilever, etc.), where exactly does this difference come from? Is this about local ingredients? Slightly different manufacturing methods? Differences in legal landscape causing those? -- [0] - the tastier part; doesn't necessarily mean the healthier part
  - angry_octet 10y ago
    The food in big supermarkets in the US/Canada often used varieties selected for their storage longevity, prettiness, and yield. Then they are often picked early and cold stored. It's miraculous that we can have year round supplies of cheap fresh fruit and vegetables, but we sacrifice taste and variety to get there. I'd like to think this is the reason Whole Foods is successful - hierloom tomatoes that taste great etc, not did from the woo woo anti-aircraft lobby.
ju-st 10y ago
It already captured 5,3% of food revenue in Germany and growing (4,7% in 2015). Source http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/dm-gegen-alnatura-streit-um-markenrechte-a-1114214.html http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/dm-gegen-alnatu...
- srssays 10y ago
  5.3% of Germany is 4 million people. And a wealthy 4 million people at that. Organic food is not going to feed China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, etc.
- pluma 10y ago
  It's captured that many people because of fear-based marketing. Many people believe that organic also means "healthier" or "has more nutrients" and that GMO means "unhealthy". "Organic" acts as a namebrand compared to the "no-name" non-organic products. On a related note, "GMO free" has actually become a qualifier random companies slap on their products to imply health benefits over competitors. Kamps bakery[0] for example advertises itself as "just saying no" to GMO "for the benefit of the customers". Similar things have happened with "gluten-free", "lactose-free" and vegetarian products. To be clear: I'm saying that gluten- and lactose-free products are being marketed to people without special dietary requirements who have become convinced that these products are inherently more healthy (just as with "diet" products before, which often advertised e.g. less fat but contained more sugar or vice versa; and with organic and "GMO-free" products which offer no plausible health benefit whatsoever). [0]: A large chain of ~500 take-away bakeries mostly in the North-West of Germany.
andybak 10y ago
It feels a little like you are replying to what you imagined the article was about rather than reading the actual article. Please correct me if that's unfair but it does cover some of the things you're railing against.
dagw 10y ago
It is ludicrous to think that there is a chance that the 'local/organic' movement will ever... Why are you conflating local and organic? Neither implies the other and they're two entirely different questions. (local && organic) may never capture a huge share of the market, but that is an entirely unrelated question to organic farming
- justin_vanw 10y ago
  Yea I agree, the article largely conflated them and I was arguing with the article.
rini17 10y ago
It's only your preconceptions that are ludicrous. In 1990s agriculture in Russia partially collapsed, so people turned to their small plots of land and "captured the food production". They were lucky they knew how - the communist government-managed centralized distribution was unreliable so the skill was handy. Of course, there's no hard data from this chaotic period, but being from eastern european country myself, it is fully conceivable. There's widespread home food gardening culture (only we don't call it "organic", just "how it was always done").
- roel_v 10y ago
  Those home food gardening systems aren't sustainable, if you're implying that. They very often use artificial fertilizers (and in wrong dosages ,too - hey if one gram is great, 2 grams must be better, right?) They are often based on tilling and/or small monocultures with maybe a basic crop rotation system, etc. Sure, they have beneficial aspects that traditional farms don't have, but home-scale subsistence farming is just bad in different ways from conventional industrial scale farming.
  - rini17 10y ago
    I can't even. Of course they are sustainable without artificial fertilizers, if compost and animal manure (nothing big necessary, just chicken and rabbits) is used. Of course, you can use fertilizers and stuff in unsustainable way, too, but what does that prove or disprove?
    - roel_v 10y ago
      Well it depends on what you call 'sustainable'. I use a pretty common definition, roughly 'can in this way, without using non-renewable, external energy sources, a population be fed'. If I'm reading you correctly, you're using a definition of 'can this particular plot be sustained as a home garden without external inputs'; well yes, it probably (maybe) can. What my definition adds is 'can the whole population be fed this way'; and no, home-scale agriculture can't do that, in the aggregate (maybe in one village, or a rural(ish) part of a developing country somewhere; I don't care for specific case studies, I'm talking about the aggregate). If some people can feed themselves off their own land, while relying on (many) others in the rest of society to produce stuff and infrastructure etc. who need large-scale agriculture to sustain themselves, I argue that those few aren't being 'sustainable' - just ignorant of their reliance on infrastructure provided by others who produce more efficiently.

kristopolous 10y ago

Sure but if this was the 1950s and the article was about abstaining from smoking, you could have made similar arguments. The people of tomorrow will not think like the people of today.

loup-vaillant 10y ago

You seem to assume organic food is much more expensive to produce than chemical food. You'll need to justify that assumption, especially in the face of hidden costs: scorched soils (that require chemicals to grow anything), light but pervasive food poisoning (pesticides), growing resistances to our pesticides and antibiotics, heavy dependence on fossil fuels, as well as quite a bit of oil for chemicals. As a not so separate issue, there is the cost of distribution. Carrying food across the country, across the world, has costs: more need for energy, and degradation of the food (fresh is better). Such costs could be lowered right now, but cannot be eliminated as long as we keep large monocultures: with them, you don't get any diversity without moving lots of food around.

geon 10y ago
Please don't use the word "chemical" like it is something unnatural or harmful. Water is a chemical. The active ingredients of natural fertilizer are chemicals.
- grzm 10y ago
  I understand the point you're trying to make. Likely you understand the distinction your parent intends as well, and this is a commonly understood way to discuss the topic. Do you have a preferred alternative to suggest that conveys the same intent, preferably one that is also widely understood?
  - ogrisel 10y ago
    "fossil-fuel intensive synthetic fertilizers" or "inorganic synthetic fertilizers" NH3 in particular is commonly synthesized by combining N2 from the atmosphere with H2 extracted from CH4 (natural gas).
  - geon 10y ago
    Use terms that convey the objection you have to it. Or object to the negative effects they have in the first place.
    - grzm 10y ago
      What specifically do you suggest? If you're being pedantic and snipey, you're not engaging in good faith. If you disagree with the general argument, be honest and say so. If you're looking to have a constructive discussion, help move the conversation forward, which includes showing you understand what they intend to say, even if you disagree or they're not expressing themselves as clearly as you'd prefer. Understandably you can't read their mind, but you can speculate charitably. If you don't think they're discussing in good faith, you can choose to civilly explain why that's so, or choose not to comment at all if you don't think there's a constructive way forward. For controversial topics, it's even more important to do this as it's that much easier for discussion to devolve into a flamewar.
      - geon 10y ago
        I don't have a specific suggestion, but it could be something like "synthetic fertilizer kills the symbiotic microbes nevvessary to..." rather than "scorched soils (that require chemicals to grow anything)". Just an example. I have no idea what "scorched soil" means.

Swizec 10y ago

And yet in the US there is at least one supermarket chain running entirely on the premise that people do care. Whole Foods. Afaik they're pretty successful too. The worst part is that unlike in Europe, I can actually taste the difference in the US.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
> The worst part is that unlike in Europe, I can actually taste the difference in the US. Yeah, I've heard about the taste thing from friends who visited US. And it makes me wonder - given that a sizeable part of the food we eat[0] is made by the same megacorps (Nestle, Unilever, etc.), where exactly does this difference come from? Is this about local ingredients? Slightly different manufacturing methods? Differences in legal landscape causing those? -- [0] - the tastier part; doesn't necessarily mean the healthier part
- angry_octet 10y ago
  The food in big supermarkets in the US/Canada often used varieties selected for their storage longevity, prettiness, and yield. Then they are often picked early and cold stored. It's miraculous that we can have year round supplies of cheap fresh fruit and vegetables, but we sacrifice taste and variety to get there. I'd like to think this is the reason Whole Foods is successful - hierloom tomatoes that taste great etc, not did from the woo woo anti-aircraft lobby.

ju-st 10y ago

It already captured 5,3% of food revenue in Germany and growing (4,7% in 2015). Source http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/dm-gegen-alnatura-streit-um-markenrechte-a-1114214.html http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/dm-gegen-alnatu...

srssays 10y ago
5.3% of Germany is 4 million people. And a wealthy 4 million people at that. Organic food is not going to feed China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, etc.
pluma 10y ago
It's captured that many people because of fear-based marketing. Many people believe that organic also means "healthier" or "has more nutrients" and that GMO means "unhealthy". "Organic" acts as a namebrand compared to the "no-name" non-organic products. On a related note, "GMO free" has actually become a qualifier random companies slap on their products to imply health benefits over competitors. Kamps bakery[0] for example advertises itself as "just saying no" to GMO "for the benefit of the customers". Similar things have happened with "gluten-free", "lactose-free" and vegetarian products. To be clear: I'm saying that gluten- and lactose-free products are being marketed to people without special dietary requirements who have become convinced that these products are inherently more healthy (just as with "diet" products before, which often advertised e.g. less fat but contained more sugar or vice versa; and with organic and "GMO-free" products which offer no plausible health benefit whatsoever). [0]: A large chain of ~500 take-away bakeries mostly in the North-West of Germany.

andybak 10y ago

It feels a little like you are replying to what you imagined the article was about rather than reading the actual article. Please correct me if that's unfair but it does cover some of the things you're railing against.

dagw 10y ago

It is ludicrous to think that there is a chance that the 'local/organic' movement will ever... Why are you conflating local and organic? Neither implies the other and they're two entirely different questions. (local && organic) may never capture a huge share of the market, but that is an entirely unrelated question to organic farming

justin_vanw 10y ago
Yea I agree, the article largely conflated them and I was arguing with the article.

rini17 10y ago

It's only your preconceptions that are ludicrous. In 1990s agriculture in Russia partially collapsed, so people turned to their small plots of land and "captured the food production". They were lucky they knew how - the communist government-managed centralized distribution was unreliable so the skill was handy. Of course, there's no hard data from this chaotic period, but being from eastern european country myself, it is fully conceivable. There's widespread home food gardening culture (only we don't call it "organic", just "how it was always done").

roel_v 10y ago
Those home food gardening systems aren't sustainable, if you're implying that. They very often use artificial fertilizers (and in wrong dosages ,too - hey if one gram is great, 2 grams must be better, right?) They are often based on tilling and/or small monocultures with maybe a basic crop rotation system, etc. Sure, they have beneficial aspects that traditional farms don't have, but home-scale subsistence farming is just bad in different ways from conventional industrial scale farming.
- rini17 10y ago
  I can't even. Of course they are sustainable without artificial fertilizers, if compost and animal manure (nothing big necessary, just chicken and rabbits) is used. Of course, you can use fertilizers and stuff in unsustainable way, too, but what does that prove or disprove?
  - roel_v 10y ago
    Well it depends on what you call 'sustainable'. I use a pretty common definition, roughly 'can in this way, without using non-renewable, external energy sources, a population be fed'. If I'm reading you correctly, you're using a definition of 'can this particular plot be sustained as a home garden without external inputs'; well yes, it probably (maybe) can. What my definition adds is 'can the whole population be fed this way'; and no, home-scale agriculture can't do that, in the aggregate (maybe in one village, or a rural(ish) part of a developing country somewhere; I don't care for specific case studies, I'm talking about the aggregate). If some people can feed themselves off their own land, while relying on (many) others in the rest of society to produce stuff and infrastructure etc. who need large-scale agriculture to sustain themselves, I argue that those few aren't being 'sustainable' - just ignorant of their reliance on infrastructure provided by others who produce more efficiently.