4 ms·

>The vast majority of consumers will choose whatever is cheapest and looks good. That is a dismissive position on the potential of consumers of organic agricul

>The vast majority of consumers will choose whatever is cheapest and looks good. That is a dismissive position on the potential of consumers of organic agriculture to affect the whole system. Its not a spectator sport - proponents of organic agriculture consume it. >you must consider a lot of factors, one of which is yield. The substantial 2016 meta review which I linked is actually a professional peer reviewed consideration of all relevant factors including yields. I dont enjoy arguing at length against common dismissal of organic farming, which is why I just dropped a very relevant quote and link to a good study in this thread. I think it could serve your interests to examine that study fully rather than brush over it.

exclusiv 9y ago
It's not a dismissive position - that's how capitalism works. Consumers as a whole don't believe the extra cost is justified. In fact, they don't even think the taste is better in some cases [1] or only a 5% preference in another [2]. Anyway, did your article talk about doing conventional and organic together? No it didn't. That's all I'm talking about. You see it as binary. I don't and neither do a lot of the best farms that have been using both methods to create a great product and have great soil. Why is it so hard to believe that combining the best of both methods could be ideal? I mean - look at the chart at the top of your link. Imagine you decided you wanted to create a better combined system with a hybrid approach which would get you better yield and a lot of the benefits of organic. Logic and alternative research appears to be escaping you because you see it as binary and likely biased for some reason. Did they also talk about waste of organic food versus conventional? No. Organic spoils faster. Since you like discussion from the consumer perspective - that's not good. Your article you posted makes absurd general claims too. Like this: "even when yields may be lower, organic agriculture is more profitable for farmers because consumers are willing to pay more" That's not an accurate claim and it's dishonest because it suggests everyone should go organic and charge the consumer more; as if forcing an industry to do it one way, charge more, and have consumers be able to afford it is possible. That would likely just push them away from produce and onto more crap than they are already eating. Higher prices do not necessarily mean higher profit and organic requires a lot more investment. If I'm a farmer and have a ton of acreage and go all organic, but cannot sell it - how do I make more profit? Or if I sell it to a market/store and it doesn't sell there - they'll order less or ask for a cheaper alternative. If it was so simple as the author suggests, everyone would be organic. But it's not that simple of course. It costs more. Even if you remove some of the cost of the certification. You can only sell so much organic produce at the higher cost required to have a sustainable business with those methods. > The review paper describes cases where organic yields can be higher than conventional farming methods. In severe drought conditions only. > Reganold and Wachter suggest that no single type of farming can feed the world. Rather, what's needed is a balance of systems, "a blend of organic and other innovative farming systems, including agroforestry, integrated farming, conservation agriculture, mixed crop/livestock and still undiscovered systems." Right there it backs up my claim that there might not be a one true way. Note: "other innovative farming systems" and "still undiscovered systems too" [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/8340585/Organic-food-less-tasty-than-normal-watchdog-says.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/8340585/Organic-food... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329399000221 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329399...
- strainer 9y ago
  >that's how capitalism works and the market as a whole has already spoken Not true, the organic market is growing fast even in USA. Organic agriculture has grown by being bought and consumed, not by being recommended or mandated, or just theorised as an ideal - people have to buy it. >a lot of the best farms that have been using both methods to create a great product and have great soil. I dont think you have any actual data for that idea - it sounds very indistinct and anecdotal. If you think there is some clearly superior selection of organic and non-organic practices, why do you think the agricultural scientists in charge of constantly developing and reviewing the organic standards are ignorant of such insight? Since its not actually your job,livelihood,passion to improve a system of agriculture, (or the job of "science vs ...." podcasters), who is most likely to be aware of the worst and best issues?? >Organic spoils faster Just quoting this as an example you could appreciate of wild overgeneralised criticism. Very little organic produce actually spoils faster than conventional. >Your article you posted makes absurd general claims too. Like this: "even when yields may be lower, organic agriculture is more profitable for farmers because consumers are willing to pay more" That's not an accurate claim and it's dishonest.... Not absurd in the slightest! That situation is securely documented in the actual study which the article is introducing for you. The study analyses the prices and profits of organic produce. Who do you think works at WSU to publish 'absurd claims' ? I put one substantial, recent, peer reviewed, scientific and accessible reference on organic agriculture in this thread, the least you could have done is read it before trying to dismiss it with podcast hearsay and random links about tomatoe growing in 1999 and such.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - exclusiv 9y ago
    Yes it is true. Growing fast doesn't mean it could saturate the entire market. "Nearly 5 percent of all the food sold in the U.S. in 2015 was organic." "Almost 13 percent of the produce sold in this country is now organic" [1] The market as a whole cannot afford organic. They are and have been choosing cheaper conventional products for years despite wanting to go organic even though taste and nutrition is dubious with organic. They've been led to believe both of those things which either aren't true or aren't good enough to outweigh the higher price. There's data on both sides of those issues. I didn't post "podcast heresay". It has multiple scientific sources posted that you are conveniently ignoring. > If you think there is some clearly superior selection of organic and non-organic practices, why do you think the agricultural scientists in charge of constantly developing and reviewing the organic standards are ignorant of such insight? They have agendas but they aren't ignorant of the insight. The graph in that study you posted shows the insight which I noted earlier. They know yield is better for conventional in almost all cases. But the studies are organic or conventional as if it has to be one or the other. Furthermore, I did find a study which talks about a hybrid approach which I've suggested. "However, instead of continuing the ideologically charged ‘organic versus conventional’ debate, we should systematically evaluate the costs and benefits of different management options. In the end, to achieve sustainable food security we will probably need many different techniques—including organic, conventional, and possible 'hybrid' systems - to produce more food at affordable prices, ensure livelihoods for farmers, and reduce the environmental costs of agriculture." [2] You can't debate there are benefits from conventional and there are benefits from organic. You ignore studies that say anything against your religion and choose to ignore logic as well. And I didn't ignore what you posted; in fact I showed that it SUPPORTS my SUGGESTION that a combination of conventional and organic methods may be ideal. There's no sense debating your religion. [1] https://www.ota.com/news/press-releases/19031#sthash.94fDsqtk.dpuf https://www.ota.com/news/press-releases/19031#sthash.94fDsqt... [2] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11069.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu...

exclusiv 9y ago

It's not a dismissive position - that's how capitalism works. Consumers as a whole don't believe the extra cost is justified. In fact, they don't even think the taste is better in some cases [1] or only a 5% preference in another [2]. Anyway, did your article talk about doing conventional and organic together? No it didn't. That's all I'm talking about. You see it as binary. I don't and neither do a lot of the best farms that have been using both methods to create a great product and have great soil. Why is it so hard to believe that combining the best of both methods could be ideal? I mean - look at the chart at the top of your link. Imagine you decided you wanted to create a better combined system with a hybrid approach which would get you better yield and a lot of the benefits of organic. Logic and alternative research appears to be escaping you because you see it as binary and likely biased for some reason. Did they also talk about waste of organic food versus conventional? No. Organic spoils faster. Since you like discussion from the consumer perspective - that's not good. Your article you posted makes absurd general claims too. Like this: "even when yields may be lower, organic agriculture is more profitable for farmers because consumers are willing to pay more" That's not an accurate claim and it's dishonest because it suggests everyone should go organic and charge the consumer more; as if forcing an industry to do it one way, charge more, and have consumers be able to afford it is possible. That would likely just push them away from produce and onto more crap than they are already eating. Higher prices do not necessarily mean higher profit and organic requires a lot more investment. If I'm a farmer and have a ton of acreage and go all organic, but cannot sell it - how do I make more profit? Or if I sell it to a market/store and it doesn't sell there - they'll order less or ask for a cheaper alternative. If it was so simple as the author suggests, everyone would be organic. But it's not that simple of course. It costs more. Even if you remove some of the cost of the certification. You can only sell so much organic produce at the higher cost required to have a sustainable business with those methods. > The review paper describes cases where organic yields can be higher than conventional farming methods. In severe drought conditions only. > Reganold and Wachter suggest that no single type of farming can feed the world. Rather, what's needed is a balance of systems, "a blend of organic and other innovative farming systems, including agroforestry, integrated farming, conservation agriculture, mixed crop/livestock and still undiscovered systems." Right there it backs up my claim that there might not be a one true way. Note: "other innovative farming systems" and "still undiscovered systems too" [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/8340585/Organic-food-less-tasty-than-normal-watchdog-says.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/8340585/Organic-food... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329399000221 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329399...

strainer 9y ago
>that's how capitalism works and the market as a whole has already spoken Not true, the organic market is growing fast even in USA. Organic agriculture has grown by being bought and consumed, not by being recommended or mandated, or just theorised as an ideal - people have to buy it. >a lot of the best farms that have been using both methods to create a great product and have great soil. I dont think you have any actual data for that idea - it sounds very indistinct and anecdotal. If you think there is some clearly superior selection of organic and non-organic practices, why do you think the agricultural scientists in charge of constantly developing and reviewing the organic standards are ignorant of such insight? Since its not actually your job,livelihood,passion to improve a system of agriculture, (or the job of "science vs ...." podcasters), who is most likely to be aware of the worst and best issues?? >Organic spoils faster Just quoting this as an example you could appreciate of wild overgeneralised criticism. Very little organic produce actually spoils faster than conventional. >Your article you posted makes absurd general claims too. Like this: "even when yields may be lower, organic agriculture is more profitable for farmers because consumers are willing to pay more" That's not an accurate claim and it's dishonest.... Not absurd in the slightest! That situation is securely documented in the actual study which the article is introducing for you. The study analyses the prices and profits of organic produce. Who do you think works at WSU to publish 'absurd claims' ? I put one substantial, recent, peer reviewed, scientific and accessible reference on organic agriculture in this thread, the least you could have done is read it before trying to dismiss it with podcast hearsay and random links about tomatoe growing in 1999 and such.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- exclusiv 9y ago
  Yes it is true. Growing fast doesn't mean it could saturate the entire market. "Nearly 5 percent of all the food sold in the U.S. in 2015 was organic." "Almost 13 percent of the produce sold in this country is now organic" [1] The market as a whole cannot afford organic. They are and have been choosing cheaper conventional products for years despite wanting to go organic even though taste and nutrition is dubious with organic. They've been led to believe both of those things which either aren't true or aren't good enough to outweigh the higher price. There's data on both sides of those issues. I didn't post "podcast heresay". It has multiple scientific sources posted that you are conveniently ignoring. > If you think there is some clearly superior selection of organic and non-organic practices, why do you think the agricultural scientists in charge of constantly developing and reviewing the organic standards are ignorant of such insight? They have agendas but they aren't ignorant of the insight. The graph in that study you posted shows the insight which I noted earlier. They know yield is better for conventional in almost all cases. But the studies are organic or conventional as if it has to be one or the other. Furthermore, I did find a study which talks about a hybrid approach which I've suggested. "However, instead of continuing the ideologically charged ‘organic versus conventional’ debate, we should systematically evaluate the costs and benefits of different management options. In the end, to achieve sustainable food security we will probably need many different techniques—including organic, conventional, and possible 'hybrid' systems - to produce more food at affordable prices, ensure livelihoods for farmers, and reduce the environmental costs of agriculture." [2] You can't debate there are benefits from conventional and there are benefits from organic. You ignore studies that say anything against your religion and choose to ignore logic as well. And I didn't ignore what you posted; in fact I showed that it SUPPORTS my SUGGESTION that a combination of conventional and organic methods may be ideal. There's no sense debating your religion. [1] https://www.ota.com/news/press-releases/19031#sthash.94fDsqtk.dpuf https://www.ota.com/news/press-releases/19031#sthash.94fDsqt... [2] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11069.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu...