3 ms·

The gist of the article is at the bottom regarding the externalities to a push to complete organic farming overnight: Threat to food security? According to exp

The gist of the article is at the bottom regarding the externalities to a push to complete organic farming overnight: Threat to food security? According to experts, three scientifically rigorous meta-analyses of organic-conventional crop yield comparisons indicate that across all crops, the mean yield reduction in organic agriculture in Sri Lanka is around 19-25 per cent. This shows that an overnight shift to organic cultivation presents a clear and imminent threat to the country’s food security. Eminent researchers have also noted that organic farming increases farmland due to its low yields. This results in deforestation, leading to large scale extinction of species and a rise in greenhouse emissions. According to the Annual Review of Resource Economics, organic agriculture generates more air pollutants and environmental emissions in the crop production process for a unit of food than chemical farming. Moreover, organic farming has exponentially higher monetary input costs due to a lack of usage of pest and pathogen-resistant chemicals, which increases manual labour, according to experts. The additional processing and marketing costs of organic produce is also significantly higher, analysts said.

phkahler 5y ago
>> According to experts, three scientifically rigorous meta-analyses of organic-conventional crop yield comparisons indicate that across all crops, the mean yield reduction in organic agriculture in Sri Lanka is around 19-25 per cent. For a country that is a "net food importer" it seems obvious that would cause some kind of shock. The other stuff: >> Eminent researchers have also noted that organic farming increases farmland due to its low yields. This results in deforestation, leading to large scale extinction of species and a rise in greenhouse emissions. Longer term. Not relevant to this situation. There is also research showing the opposite, but again that's not the immediate isse. >> organic agriculture generates more air pollutants and environmental emissions in the crop production process for a unit of food than chemical farming. Not relevant. Notice the exclusion of pollutants in the chemical (fertilizer) production process. But again, not relevant to the current situation. >> organic farming has exponentially higher monetary input costs due to a lack of usage of pest and pathogen-resistant chemicals, which increases manual labour, according to experts "exponentially" is an exaggeration. The formerly mentioned increase in area means increase in labor. >> The additional processing and marketing costs of organic produce is also significantly higher, analysts said. You don't really need to do ANY marketing when the government mandated that everyone do it. There's a lot here that's basically anti-organic, but the real problem is that it's simply more expensive, requiring a more land and labor and they didn't account for any of that in the rapid transition.
- Jeff_Brown 5y ago
  "Exponentially" is worse than an exaggeration, it just makes no sense. The word describes curves (where the input, usually the horizontal axis, is an input or time), not pairs of points such as (organic, price) and (conventional, price).
RobertRoberts 5y ago
I would argue that I need to eat less high-quality food, which has greatly affected my weight, health and energy levels. I can't say organic is always more high-quality (in regards to nutrient my body needs), but I can say I have experienced a difference in quality of life after adopting many organic foods. And so have many, many other people that are now so sick that their bodies simply won't tolerate (allergic reactions) non-organic food. I think it's just fine to have 20% less output if you get more out of the food.
- 1cvmask 5y ago
  I also generally opt for organic (at least marketed as such). I don't know much on how much better it really is though apart from my feelings. But feelings and perceptions could lead to beneficial placebo effects. It is another thing to mandate it for all agriculture overnight in a poor developing country.
- NavinF 5y ago
  > their bodies simply won't tolerate (allergic reactions) non-organic food There is no evidence of this ever happening to anyone anywhere. The fact that you think this is even possible means you drank the Kool-Aid.
  - bserge 5y ago
    9 billion people. Some of them are bound to be allergic to some fertilizer or other.
    - NavinF 5y ago
      Most sources say 8 billion. Anyway, he said that some people are so sick that they can't eat non-organic food. Not food with a specific pesticide. His claim is very different from yours, and IMO his is indefensible.
      - yarcob 5y ago
        But to the consumer it's not clear what is causing the issue. They might just see that they can eat only organic vegetables. For example, my mom has told me she can't eat bell peppers from Spain because she get diarrhea from them. Now, I don't think that bell peppers grow different in Spain than they do in Portugal or in Italy, it's probably some pesticide or some fertilizer or something. It's probably not all spanish peppers, but we just don't know enough about the produce at the supermarket. All they tell us is the country of origin, so the only thing she can do is avoid spanish peppers.

phkahler 5y ago

>> According to experts, three scientifically rigorous meta-analyses of organic-conventional crop yield comparisons indicate that across all crops, the mean yield reduction in organic agriculture in Sri Lanka is around 19-25 per cent. For a country that is a "net food importer" it seems obvious that would cause some kind of shock. The other stuff: >> Eminent researchers have also noted that organic farming increases farmland due to its low yields. This results in deforestation, leading to large scale extinction of species and a rise in greenhouse emissions. Longer term. Not relevant to this situation. There is also research showing the opposite, but again that's not the immediate isse. >> organic agriculture generates more air pollutants and environmental emissions in the crop production process for a unit of food than chemical farming. Not relevant. Notice the exclusion of pollutants in the chemical (fertilizer) production process. But again, not relevant to the current situation. >> organic farming has exponentially higher monetary input costs due to a lack of usage of pest and pathogen-resistant chemicals, which increases manual labour, according to experts "exponentially" is an exaggeration. The formerly mentioned increase in area means increase in labor. >> The additional processing and marketing costs of organic produce is also significantly higher, analysts said. You don't really need to do ANY marketing when the government mandated that everyone do it. There's a lot here that's basically anti-organic, but the real problem is that it's simply more expensive, requiring a more land and labor and they didn't account for any of that in the rapid transition.

Jeff_Brown 5y ago
"Exponentially" is worse than an exaggeration, it just makes no sense. The word describes curves (where the input, usually the horizontal axis, is an input or time), not pairs of points such as (organic, price) and (conventional, price).

RobertRoberts 5y ago

I would argue that I need to eat less high-quality food, which has greatly affected my weight, health and energy levels. I can't say organic is always more high-quality (in regards to nutrient my body needs), but I can say I have experienced a difference in quality of life after adopting many organic foods. And so have many, many other people that are now so sick that their bodies simply won't tolerate (allergic reactions) non-organic food. I think it's just fine to have 20% less output if you get more out of the food.

1cvmask 5y ago
I also generally opt for organic (at least marketed as such). I don't know much on how much better it really is though apart from my feelings. But feelings and perceptions could lead to beneficial placebo effects. It is another thing to mandate it for all agriculture overnight in a poor developing country.
NavinF 5y ago
> their bodies simply won't tolerate (allergic reactions) non-organic food There is no evidence of this ever happening to anyone anywhere. The fact that you think this is even possible means you drank the Kool-Aid.
- bserge 5y ago
  9 billion people. Some of them are bound to be allergic to some fertilizer or other.
  - NavinF 5y ago
    Most sources say 8 billion. Anyway, he said that some people are so sick that they can't eat non-organic food. Not food with a specific pesticide. His claim is very different from yours, and IMO his is indefensible.
    - yarcob 5y ago
      But to the consumer it's not clear what is causing the issue. They might just see that they can eat only organic vegetables. For example, my mom has told me she can't eat bell peppers from Spain because she get diarrhea from them. Now, I don't think that bell peppers grow different in Spain than they do in Portugal or in Italy, it's probably some pesticide or some fertilizer or something. It's probably not all spanish peppers, but we just don't know enough about the produce at the supermarket. All they tell us is the country of origin, so the only thing she can do is avoid spanish peppers.