3 ms·

> I'm unclear on the real balance of benefits of organic-ness for vegetable crops -- maybe it's better for the planet, maybe it's not. The actual meaning of 'o

> I'm unclear on the real balance of benefits of organic-ness for vegetable crops -- maybe it's better for the planet, maybe it's not. The actual meaning of 'organic' when it comes to crops: > Produce can be called organic if it’s certified to have grown on soil that had no prohibited substances applied for three years prior to harvest. Prohibited substances include most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. In instances when a grower has to use a synthetic substance to achieve a specific purpose, the substance must first be approved according to criteria that examine its effects on human health and the environment (see other considerations in “Organic 101: Allowed and Prohibited Substances”). https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-... It's probably healthier for you, in that there's less chance of trace chemicals that might have one effect or another that won't be understood or documented for decades. It's almost certainly healthier for the planet, as it requires a growing process that's more holistic than just regularly spraying down fields with various fertilizers and pesticides.

Skunkleton 6y ago
It is not clearly healthier for the planet, at least not in terms of greenhouse gas emissions [1]. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12622-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12622-7
bluGill 6y ago
> It's probably healthier for you, that isn't true, see below >in that there's less chance of trace chemicals that might have one effect or another that won't be understood or documented for decades You often trade a trace chemical that has been well studied and found mostly harmless for a much higher concentration of some other chemical that is known as somewhat toxic but has been used for hundreds of years. > It's almost certainly healthier for the planet, as it requires a growing process that's more holistic than just regularly spraying down fields with various fertilizers and pesticides. It is worse for the planet in other ways. You can't use chemicals to destroy weeds, so instead you plow which destroys soil microbes, and the tractor pulling the plow emits for more CO2 than the whole process of making and applying the chemical. Remember, organic processes that research shows are better are adopted by non-organic farmers. The opposite is not allowed.
jfengel 6y ago
That's the thing... they still use fertilizers and pesticides. They're just "natural", but copper sulfate, pyrethrins, and rotenone don't strike me as all that natural. They, too, could have effects that take decades to come together. Indeed, some "natural" pesticides, like arsenic and nicotine, are already banned. My problem here is largely with the industrializing of the "organic" label. The things that you're really hoping for -- crop rotation, co-planting, mulching, no-till, etc -- don't really scale well. The organic farms look a lot like conventional farms, enormous monocultures. The names on the labels are just different. I'm presenting the negative case here, just to point out that I'm really not certain. I'm a big supporter of what JI Rodale was doing when he popularized the term "organic", but that's not what you get in the grocery store. I have hopes that the grocery store is in fact ultimately a little better for the planet, but I wish I could be more certain.
- greenburger 6y ago
  It appears that rotenone (a powerful piscicide) is actually banned [0]. Same document also indicated that copper sulfate use is limited to specific situations/crops. Though, of course, conventional crops also have restriction on the use of pesticides, presumably they are less restricted. [0] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7#se7.3.205_1602 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1... edit: This, of course, only applies to the USDA organic program. Products produced elsewhere may have different rules.
maxerickson 6y ago
I'm kind of fascinated by cattle-washing of fertilizer. Spread ammonium based fertilizer, you aren't organic. Spread manure from cattle raised on crops grown using ammonium based fertilizer, you are good to go.

Skunkleton 6y ago

It is not clearly healthier for the planet, at least not in terms of greenhouse gas emissions [1]. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12622-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12622-7

bluGill 6y ago

> It's probably healthier for you, that isn't true, see below >in that there's less chance of trace chemicals that might have one effect or another that won't be understood or documented for decades You often trade a trace chemical that has been well studied and found mostly harmless for a much higher concentration of some other chemical that is known as somewhat toxic but has been used for hundreds of years. > It's almost certainly healthier for the planet, as it requires a growing process that's more holistic than just regularly spraying down fields with various fertilizers and pesticides. It is worse for the planet in other ways. You can't use chemicals to destroy weeds, so instead you plow which destroys soil microbes, and the tractor pulling the plow emits for more CO2 than the whole process of making and applying the chemical. Remember, organic processes that research shows are better are adopted by non-organic farmers. The opposite is not allowed.

jfengel 6y ago

That's the thing... they still use fertilizers and pesticides. They're just "natural", but copper sulfate, pyrethrins, and rotenone don't strike me as all that natural. They, too, could have effects that take decades to come together. Indeed, some "natural" pesticides, like arsenic and nicotine, are already banned. My problem here is largely with the industrializing of the "organic" label. The things that you're really hoping for -- crop rotation, co-planting, mulching, no-till, etc -- don't really scale well. The organic farms look a lot like conventional farms, enormous monocultures. The names on the labels are just different. I'm presenting the negative case here, just to point out that I'm really not certain. I'm a big supporter of what JI Rodale was doing when he popularized the term "organic", but that's not what you get in the grocery store. I have hopes that the grocery store is in fact ultimately a little better for the planet, but I wish I could be more certain.

greenburger 6y ago
It appears that rotenone (a powerful piscicide) is actually banned [0]. Same document also indicated that copper sulfate use is limited to specific situations/crops. Though, of course, conventional crops also have restriction on the use of pesticides, presumably they are less restricted. [0] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7#se7.3.205_1602 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1... edit: This, of course, only applies to the USDA organic program. Products produced elsewhere may have different rules.

maxerickson 6y ago

I'm kind of fascinated by cattle-washing of fertilizer. Spread ammonium based fertilizer, you aren't organic. Spread manure from cattle raised on crops grown using ammonium based fertilizer, you are good to go.