5 ms·

The case against organic food does not stand up

25 points by tvon 17y ago

teilo 17y ago
Perhaps someone might say the same of me, but my initial reaction to the FSA study was that it sounded cherry-picked, based on the very language that was cited in this response, that nutritional differences were found in certain cases, but were overlooked as "insignificant". I believed this was cherry-picking because I have read a number of very good, highly controlled studies (NOT meta-studies), which contradicted the FSA report. If one has an agenda, it is ridiculously easy to "invalidate" this or that study, and exclude it from your pool of research. And pardon me for paranoia, but I also know that the Monsantos and Cargills of the world spend mega-bucks lobbying against organics in the halls of government. But one must ultimately set such suspicions aside and deal with the report upon its own merits. Meta-studies are damn hard to do and get right. But they are next to worthless if there is an agenda behind the study, which this article appears to imply.
- cwan 17y ago
  I suspect the Monsanto's and Cargill's of the world spend mega bucks moving the classification of organic. If that's where the money is, they would be developing products that would fit within the constraints of how organic was defined which to date is still a fairly nebulous definition. The problem is that we're all losers if we're wrong about organics and we get lower yields from land, this will ultimately reduce food security, increase food costs and increase prices for everyone - rich and poor alike. I think you also assume that those who are for organics (which in its own right is becoming a significant business) don't have an agenda of their own to encourage consumers to pay a premium for their product.
  - teilo 17y ago
    The definition of organic is fairly stringent. The USDA standards are well formed. There are other certification bodies, of course, such as Oregon Tilith, which have more stringent requirements yet. I make no such assumption about organic producers not wanting to keep prices high, because this is not really a problem. The market will set the price of organics to be appropriate and sustainable regardless of any nefarious plot by organic producers to keep prices high. Also, you make in incorrect correlation between organic farming and low yield. That is a myth (http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1778 http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1778). Organic farming does not equal low yield. The high yield of today's crops does not come from chemical fertilizer, but from producing high-yield varietals via selective breeding, something that is completely in keeping with organic farming methods.
    - cwan 17y ago
      There remains considerable controversy over whether nanotech/GMO should play a role. Currently the former is allowed, the latter is not. Another interesting article here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/the_new_organic/ http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/... I note the irony of citing Rachel Carson's Silent in the article you linked to what with her assertions debunked in subsequent years not to mention the resulting increase in deaths from malaria - at least some of which was preventable. Additional thoughts here: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122504.html http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122504.html
      - teilo 17y ago
        Yes, Rachel Carson has been thoroughly debunked. But I'm more interested in the University of Michigan studies cited in the article I linked.
        evgen 17y ago
        Having no time to check up on the sources, I would say that my only objection to the overview of the study is the comparison of "what 'organic' _might eventually_ be able to produce" with conventional agriculture as if it were a static target and presenting current production as if it were a sufficient long-term target. Organic production methods might be able to provide a theoretical caloric output that is equal to 180% of current conventional agriculture caloric output? Well done, but if global population is going to increase by 50% within 50 years this approach is not good enough.
  - dejb 17y ago
    It doesn't follow that increased popularity of organic food would necessarily lead to price increases in non-organic food. That's the great thing about having a free economy - you can chose to believe organic isn't worth the extra cost (as I currently do by the way). Furthermore you can continue to evaluate the evidence and at any point you can decide alter your behaviour based on a new cost benefit analyses. The only likely way it would increase the cost non-organic is if governments started to force farmers to pay for the 'externalities' (i.e. environmental cost) of their farming methods. But we wouldn't be 'all losers' in this either. It would simply be transfer of costs from people who are essentially mooching off the system (i.e. me by using cheap non-organic food) to the beneficiaries of a cleaner environment (all of us).
    - cwan 17y ago
      The issues with respect to externalities with respect to farming organic or otherwise are not as clear as you might think: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-gr... Adding arbitrary production constraints tend to add costs - and in the case of "organic". From what I've been reading, organics cost more to control - so either you need more land or you need more inputs - labor or additives. If you go the land route, more limited land drives up cost of the cost of the underlying capital required for everyone - given that land is also an important input at the moment for general farming. Of course, I think consumers would be best served whether buying organic or regular if the governments of the world would abandon farming subsidies that greatly distort markets - but dare to dream.
      - dejb 17y ago
        Just like a nice recursive call, the article you link to relies on a lot of information from the Soil Association which the parent article is refuting. I agree that organic is not the same as 'low externalities'. Pricing in all the externalities would be the best thing. As for the 'non-externality' costs the may be some extra demand for land but for that happen the demand for non-organic would have fallen significantly - most likely faster than supply. So in the short and medium term the prices of non -organic would actually fall.
philwelch 17y ago
What about yield? Norman Borlaug has been quoted multiple times saying organic agriculture simply doesn't have the yield necessary to feed the world.
- mcantelon 17y ago
  There's really nothing controversial about organic food. It's a time-tested method and, due to the higher cost, it poses no risk of monopolizing the marketplace. World population will likely grow until there isn't enough to feed the world by any method. So the less toxic, time-tested method should continue to provide an alternative. If one is concerned about yield, it would seem to me that corporate genetic engineering would be the concern. Monsanto and others wish to use genetic engineering to control our food supply via genetic use restriction technology. Their experimentation seems a much realer threat to the food chain than anything else.
  - netsp 17y ago
    World population will likely grow until there isn't enough to feed the world by any method. So the less toxic, time-tested method should continue to provide an alternative. Have you thought about the method which this ceiling will impose itself?
    - mcantelon 17y ago
      Disease, famine, and war seem to be the methods nature favors. The end result of working to support an excessively large population of humans is an increase in the severity of these methods when they take effect. The logical way to avoid nature's culling methods would be to decrease population by providing cheap/free birth control and encouraging a two-child limit.
      - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        "encouraging a two-child limit" I intend a self-imposed 2 child limit, we have 2 boys now. However, for those families or groups who appear to espouse drowning out other genetic variations by prolific reproduction how do you suppose we "encourage". That's kinda the hard part isn't it. For me, in the UK, I'd stop any improved child allowances beyond the 2nd child. Give council tenants triple-bunkbeds (2 to a room if necessary) rather than a bedroom for each child (! which means having lots of kids can get you a huge house payed for by the taxpayer) - that may suck but reproducing beyond your means to support is socially irresponsible. One might consider limiting to 2 maternity leave periods, child taxation (!? eg to account for education costs), ceasing all state sponsored IVF, ... what else?
hughprime 17y ago
Every time I hear the word "organic" it bothers me. All food is organic! Whoever heard of inorganic food? If it were inorganic, we damn well couldn't digest it.
- jrockway 17y ago
  It may surprise you that words have different meanings depending on the context they are used in. Chemistry and agriculture are two different fields, each with their own version of some words.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  Presumably you think that a woman described as "foxy" has red fur and a bushy tail? Or if someone tells you a UI needs spicing up then you hang some chilli peppers on the monitor? You may think it's pedantry you're practising - other people seem to cope with the dual meanings, personally I think you know exactly what is meant and are just being facetious (my father is just the same; in this instance he attempts to use the apparent absurdity as an attack against the intellectual standards of those espousing Organic, I think that attack fails and makes him look foolish, ditto for yourself).
  - hughprime 17y ago
    It's not pedantry, it's a protest against a stupid, ill-defined marketing neologism. The use of the word "organic" to mean "pertaining to living beings" dates back to the 18th century, and attempts to label a tiny subset of organic material as "organic" are a recent invention which really bugs me, as much as it would bug me if people started referring to a small subset of food as "edible food" for marketing purposes.
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      It's only ill-defined if you ignore accepted definitions. "Organic" is not purely used in marketing but describes the method of production and indicates the specifics of the husbandry and nutrition of animals and the type of fertiliser and conditions of growth of plants. The specific definition is left to particular standards bodies. Compare: Use of the word "judge" to mean "someone who determines what's right" dates way back, attempts to label a tiny subset of the population as "judges" [simply because they determine a specific type of judgement] is a more recent invention that bugs me.

25 points by tvon 17y ago

teilo 17y ago

Perhaps someone might say the same of me, but my initial reaction to the FSA study was that it sounded cherry-picked, based on the very language that was cited in this response, that nutritional differences were found in certain cases, but were overlooked as "insignificant". I believed this was cherry-picking because I have read a number of very good, highly controlled studies (NOT meta-studies), which contradicted the FSA report. If one has an agenda, it is ridiculously easy to "invalidate" this or that study, and exclude it from your pool of research. And pardon me for paranoia, but I also know that the Monsantos and Cargills of the world spend mega-bucks lobbying against organics in the halls of government. But one must ultimately set such suspicions aside and deal with the report upon its own merits. Meta-studies are damn hard to do and get right. But they are next to worthless if there is an agenda behind the study, which this article appears to imply.

cwan 17y ago
I suspect the Monsanto's and Cargill's of the world spend mega bucks moving the classification of organic. If that's where the money is, they would be developing products that would fit within the constraints of how organic was defined which to date is still a fairly nebulous definition. The problem is that we're all losers if we're wrong about organics and we get lower yields from land, this will ultimately reduce food security, increase food costs and increase prices for everyone - rich and poor alike. I think you also assume that those who are for organics (which in its own right is becoming a significant business) don't have an agenda of their own to encourage consumers to pay a premium for their product.
- teilo 17y ago
  The definition of organic is fairly stringent. The USDA standards are well formed. There are other certification bodies, of course, such as Oregon Tilith, which have more stringent requirements yet. I make no such assumption about organic producers not wanting to keep prices high, because this is not really a problem. The market will set the price of organics to be appropriate and sustainable regardless of any nefarious plot by organic producers to keep prices high. Also, you make in incorrect correlation between organic farming and low yield. That is a myth (http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1778 http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1778). Organic farming does not equal low yield. The high yield of today's crops does not come from chemical fertilizer, but from producing high-yield varietals via selective breeding, something that is completely in keeping with organic farming methods.
  - cwan 17y ago
    There remains considerable controversy over whether nanotech/GMO should play a role. Currently the former is allowed, the latter is not. Another interesting article here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/the_new_organic/ http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/... I note the irony of citing Rachel Carson's Silent in the article you linked to what with her assertions debunked in subsequent years not to mention the resulting increase in deaths from malaria - at least some of which was preventable. Additional thoughts here: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122504.html http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122504.html
    - teilo 17y ago
      Yes, Rachel Carson has been thoroughly debunked. But I'm more interested in the University of Michigan studies cited in the article I linked.
      - evgen 17y ago
        Having no time to check up on the sources, I would say that my only objection to the overview of the study is the comparison of "what 'organic' _might eventually_ be able to produce" with conventional agriculture as if it were a static target and presenting current production as if it were a sufficient long-term target. Organic production methods might be able to provide a theoretical caloric output that is equal to 180% of current conventional agriculture caloric output? Well done, but if global population is going to increase by 50% within 50 years this approach is not good enough.
- dejb 17y ago
  It doesn't follow that increased popularity of organic food would necessarily lead to price increases in non-organic food. That's the great thing about having a free economy - you can chose to believe organic isn't worth the extra cost (as I currently do by the way). Furthermore you can continue to evaluate the evidence and at any point you can decide alter your behaviour based on a new cost benefit analyses. The only likely way it would increase the cost non-organic is if governments started to force farmers to pay for the 'externalities' (i.e. environmental cost) of their farming methods. But we wouldn't be 'all losers' in this either. It would simply be transfer of costs from people who are essentially mooching off the system (i.e. me by using cheap non-organic food) to the beneficiaries of a cleaner environment (all of us).
  - cwan 17y ago
    The issues with respect to externalities with respect to farming organic or otherwise are not as clear as you might think: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-gr... Adding arbitrary production constraints tend to add costs - and in the case of "organic". From what I've been reading, organics cost more to control - so either you need more land or you need more inputs - labor or additives. If you go the land route, more limited land drives up cost of the cost of the underlying capital required for everyone - given that land is also an important input at the moment for general farming. Of course, I think consumers would be best served whether buying organic or regular if the governments of the world would abandon farming subsidies that greatly distort markets - but dare to dream.
    - dejb 17y ago
      Just like a nice recursive call, the article you link to relies on a lot of information from the Soil Association which the parent article is refuting. I agree that organic is not the same as 'low externalities'. Pricing in all the externalities would be the best thing. As for the 'non-externality' costs the may be some extra demand for land but for that happen the demand for non-organic would have fallen significantly - most likely faster than supply. So in the short and medium term the prices of non -organic would actually fall.

philwelch 17y ago

What about yield? Norman Borlaug has been quoted multiple times saying organic agriculture simply doesn't have the yield necessary to feed the world.

mcantelon 17y ago
There's really nothing controversial about organic food. It's a time-tested method and, due to the higher cost, it poses no risk of monopolizing the marketplace. World population will likely grow until there isn't enough to feed the world by any method. So the less toxic, time-tested method should continue to provide an alternative. If one is concerned about yield, it would seem to me that corporate genetic engineering would be the concern. Monsanto and others wish to use genetic engineering to control our food supply via genetic use restriction technology. Their experimentation seems a much realer threat to the food chain than anything else.
- netsp 17y ago
  World population will likely grow until there isn't enough to feed the world by any method. So the less toxic, time-tested method should continue to provide an alternative. Have you thought about the method which this ceiling will impose itself?
  - mcantelon 17y ago
    Disease, famine, and war seem to be the methods nature favors. The end result of working to support an excessively large population of humans is an increase in the severity of these methods when they take effect. The logical way to avoid nature's culling methods would be to decrease population by providing cheap/free birth control and encouraging a two-child limit.
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      "encouraging a two-child limit" I intend a self-imposed 2 child limit, we have 2 boys now. However, for those families or groups who appear to espouse drowning out other genetic variations by prolific reproduction how do you suppose we "encourage". That's kinda the hard part isn't it. For me, in the UK, I'd stop any improved child allowances beyond the 2nd child. Give council tenants triple-bunkbeds (2 to a room if necessary) rather than a bedroom for each child (! which means having lots of kids can get you a huge house payed for by the taxpayer) - that may suck but reproducing beyond your means to support is socially irresponsible. One might consider limiting to 2 maternity leave periods, child taxation (!? eg to account for education costs), ceasing all state sponsored IVF, ... what else?

hughprime 17y ago

Every time I hear the word "organic" it bothers me. All food is organic! Whoever heard of inorganic food? If it were inorganic, we damn well couldn't digest it.

jrockway 17y ago
It may surprise you that words have different meanings depending on the context they are used in. Chemistry and agriculture are two different fields, each with their own version of some words.
pbhjpbhj 17y ago
Presumably you think that a woman described as "foxy" has red fur and a bushy tail? Or if someone tells you a UI needs spicing up then you hang some chilli peppers on the monitor? You may think it's pedantry you're practising - other people seem to cope with the dual meanings, personally I think you know exactly what is meant and are just being facetious (my father is just the same; in this instance he attempts to use the apparent absurdity as an attack against the intellectual standards of those espousing Organic, I think that attack fails and makes him look foolish, ditto for yourself).
- hughprime 17y ago
  It's not pedantry, it's a protest against a stupid, ill-defined marketing neologism. The use of the word "organic" to mean "pertaining to living beings" dates back to the 18th century, and attempts to label a tiny subset of organic material as "organic" are a recent invention which really bugs me, as much as it would bug me if people started referring to a small subset of food as "edible food" for marketing purposes.
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    It's only ill-defined if you ignore accepted definitions. "Organic" is not purely used in marketing but describes the method of production and indicates the specifics of the husbandry and nutrition of animals and the type of fertiliser and conditions of growth of plants. The specific definition is left to particular standards bodies. Compare: Use of the word "judge" to mean "someone who determines what's right" dates way back, attempts to label a tiny subset of the population as "judges" [simply because they determine a specific type of judgement] is a more recent invention that bugs me.