4 ms·

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

by 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.

by teilo 17y ago

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.