Credit: Jim Wehtje/Photolibrary
I love my local organic food store. From the moment I enter, I enjoy the aromas that greet me and the folksy look of the place. But is organic food really any better for me? The perceived wisdom is that it's more 'pure' and 'natural', devoid of disease-causing pesticides; that organic farming "generates healthy soils" and "doesn't poison ecosystems with toxic chemicals".
Organic food is riding a surge in popularity; across the globe, sales of organic food are burgeoning. The global market in 2006 was estimated at close to an impressive US$40 billion (A$47.9 billion) by Organic Monitor, an industry research body, and growing 20 per cent annually in the U.S. and Canada.
And where consumers go, the multinational food companies follow: everyone from Uncle Tobys to Kraft, Heinz, Kelloggs and even Coca-Cola has jumped on the bandwagon. And developing countries are joining in too: China's organic exports grew 200-fold in a decade to reach US$200 million in 2004. Australia is also a major exporter, and plans to increase its organic produce by 50 per cent by 2012.
But is this belief in organic food based on faith, or evidence?
THE SURPRISING FACT IS that this mass migration to organic food has not been on the back of scientific evidence. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find comprehensive evidence that organic food is healthier – either for us or the planet. Nevertheless, in the public consciousness, organic farming is unquestioningly bundled with the reigning moral imperatives of sustainability, protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gases.
Certainly there are historical reasons for concern. In the 1950s and 1960s, the pesticide DDT was blamed for the widespread thinning of bird eggs across North America, and the rapid decline of the bald eagle and peregrine falcon. Over-intensive grain farming in the U.S. Midwest led to fertiliser run-off into the Mississippi River that ultimately created a 20,000 square kilometre dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, as algal blooms sucked up available oxygen. Soils that were tilled for decades without crop rotation or replacing organic matter led to dust storms that wreaked havoc across Australia in the 1960s and the American and Canadian prairies in the 1930s, the latter so vividly depicted in John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath.
These days, modern farming techniques have evolved after decades of pressure from the environmental movement and decades of work by a generation of scientists inspired by environmental awareness. In fact, conventional farming is starting to look a lot like organic farming.
The earthworm-rich soils, so prized by organic farmers, are being achieved through contemporary no-till (or no-plough) techniques. In Australia, most farmers use rotation to get crops out of synchronisation with weeds and to return nutrients to the soil. Natural predators are being used to control pests, and companies such as Dow Chemical are producing safe, short-acting pesticides. In fact Dow's latest pesticide, Spinosad, is also happily used by organic farmers because it is naturally produced by bacteria.
"There's been a quiet revolution in Australian farming over the last decade," says Mark Peoples, the assistant chief of the Division of Plant Industry at Australia's national research agency CSIRO.
ON THE OTHER HAND, organic farmers are bound to an ideology that demands they only use natural techniques. In some cases, such purism gets in the way of practices that are better for the environment and more sustainable for farmers. For example, organic farmers will use litres of BT spray (BT is a 'natural' pesticide made by the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis), yet they often demonise the genetically modified (GM) cotton crops that carry an inbuilt supply of BT, and which therefore require less spraying.
However, these GM varieties spare farmers – and the environment – from the risks of pesticide overuse. For instance, according to Richard Roush, the Dean of land and food resources at the University of Melbourne, cotton farmers in India have reduced their use of pesticides and accidental poisonings by 80 per cent since the introduction of genetically modified BT cotton.
The ultimate test of sustainability is whether organic farming could feed the planet. Scott Kinnear, president of Australia's Organic Farmers Federation, believes "it is imperative that the world moves over to organic farming as soon as possible".
Yet many agricultural scientists estimate that if the world were to go completely organic, not only would the remaining forests have to be cleared to provide the organic manure needed for farming, the world's current population would likely starve.
Norman Ernest Borlaug, the American plant geneticist who won a Nobel Peace Prize for breeding the high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties (triggering agriculture's 'Green Revolution'), is despairing of the organic fad. "This shouldn't even be a debate. Even if you could use all the organic material you have – the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues – and get them back on the soil, you couldn't feed more than four billion people."
Pointless hash, unless you eat politics
This article is quite worthless. It offers lots of pro-and-con claims, but it's intellectually vacuous.
Who cares what spooger says what about what? GM isn't killing anyone, organic is cool, big deal.
organic foods are not suitable for poor countries
Dear Dr
for a person living in poor country. I think organic production of food is not applied, some countries have food defficiency for example if these countries go towards organic production, they will lose self-sufficiency in agricultural crop production such as wheat. what is your idea???
Hassan Heidari
PhD candidat in crop ecology,
Tehran University
hidaryhassan@yahoo.com
Define: "chemical"
This article does a good job in addressing the (substantial) evidence against organic farming, but it's upsetting to see that it still perpetuates one of the major misconceptions about coventional farming, in using the word "chemical" to mean "something which isn't natural". This is fundamentally incorrect, and leads to preconceptions about the nature of chemicals.
All natural compounds are chemicals, as are those which are man-made, and the body can't tell the difference between a natural toxin and a synthetic one. I think what's needed here is a bit of common sense - if we get rid of the stigma attached to the use of "chemicals", we've solved half the problem.
Some thoughts
I am an organic farmer, and a biologist. I grow acres of fruit and vegetable crops. I use organic methods where appropriate. Here's a few observations-
1: It is true- Plants don't know the difference between sources of nutrients, especially macronutrients (NPK). They respond similarly whether nitrates come from manure or whether it comes from jobe's plant stakes.
Minerals are important to consider. Trace minerals expend quickly in soils. Plants will still grow easily with NPK applications to the soil, but mineral content will be lacking unless you supplement. Seaweeds are cheap, abundant, and work wonders in the soil. They are perhaps one of the most easily utilized, nutrient-dense materials I know of. They also promote healthy bacteria in the soil. Plants grown in these soils do fare better than ones dependent on conventional fertilizer applications!
2: Organic does not require much extra effort on my part, if you make good choices for your region, and casually tend to the health of the soil. Organic cultivating requires only a different frame of mind- an understanding of biology and rough nutrient content of different materials, many of which are often freely available.
3: Organic is not practical for feeding the world population. We presently have too many people, and implimenting it on a worldwide basis would be destructive as we presently understand it. That does not mean it is impossible- it means we need to develop better, more efficient and effective solutions for the long term.
Presently, organic is most appropriate for backyard and hobby gardeners, small scale farms where it might be easily implemented, if done so intelligently. You will have better tasting food with higher trace mineral content. Over the long term, this does matter significantly. And this well-grown organic food DOES taste better, regardless of freshness. I'm sorry, but every time see "no studies prove that Organic food tastes better" I have to laugh. Anyone who grows their own organic food will know. It may be "subjective," but after all, you don't need a double-blind study to tell you that water is hot...
All about the good side
It's true that organic farming obviously can't feed a growing population because the yields are low and there are countless problems. With GM plants "greenies" keep pushing that it is bad for you but never tell you how. I think that we should push on to use new things because methods used long ago were not meant for mass production.
BT Cotton Good?
This article seems written by Monsanto. BT cotton is a disaster in India. There is even a film documenting the disaster,it's called "The world according to Monsanto". You can listen to it on Youtube.
The debate rages on and facts are ignored
The debate rages on and facts are ignored. It appears that Miss Finkel contradicts herself in this article and I feel that she is a little biased and not fully informed.
Monsanto continues to skew the truth by manipulating governments, writers like Ms Finkel and “you the punter” with research that they conduct or fund and in which they hide the true effects of GM food on our health. They inhibit independent scientists from doing research and experiments into the safety of GM foods.
Read the article. Perverted Science – The Manipulation of GM Research http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/manipulation.htm
Her comments: “However, these GM varieties spare farmers – and the environment – from the risks of pesticide overuse. ...... according to Richard Roush, the Dean of land and food resources at the University of Melbourne, cotton farmers in India have reduced their use of pesticides and accidental poisonings by 80 per cent since the introduction of genetically modified BT cotton.”
I don’t know where this came from .. umm .. biotech funded maybe?
Ask the many families of farmers that have committed suicide due to bad debts and failing GM crops in India if what Richard Roush states is true.
If you are interested in the actual truth not fabrication visit the link below. The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using GM crops
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Noticeb03Nov2008.htm
As for Ms Finkle’s comments on the effects of Rotenone that is used in organic BT Spray ... “For instance, sulphur irritates the lungs, and rotenone has been shown to cause Parkinson's disease in rats” ,... yes Ms Finkle and the bacteria that is inserted into the Gene of BT Cotton increases the size of rat livers when fed to them and causes erratic behaviour. This and more has been and will continue to be proven in independent research.
At the end of the day we can debate and insult each other but the truth will prevail. I eat organic food and know it’s better for me and quite frankly I don’t want to be a Guinea Pig for the biotech companies. I certainly don’t want my children to be.
For the pro GM and anti organic consumers why don’t GM food producers and governments want the labelling of GM food?
Let the organic consumer eat organic and the GM consumers eat GM foods and the world will eventually only have 4 billion people on it. That’s the 4 billion that choose organic :-)
- Belinda
bluff
Common sense, that's what should be used regarding organic/industrial food.
There is healthy food that is not labeled organic. And there is more nuturing food on not labeled organic vegetables.
Use the brain, read the package, do what is best for you.
ORGANIC FOOD- JAI HO
are we guinea pigs where TNCs can keep on thrusting whatever is profitable to them. first it was pesticides and now Bt food. in precolonilastion era India had never experienced rampant starvation though farming was done in a very traditional way insync with nature.it was truly sustainable development. only the word "organic" was missing. if ancestoral wisdom of growing "pure" and "natural" food has been proven good, what is the harm in going back to it? atleast consumers should have the choice of saying "no" to Bt food. TNCs should not be allowed to take benefit of beauracracy and red tapism in developing economies to push their "Bt" exports. we have only one earth and it is our responsibility to pass it on as a "livable planet" to our children.
Shraddha Manek
Organic food exposed
Hear Hear Ms Finkel! Organic food is not free of chemicals, toxins or pathogenic bacteria. In fact, it is likely the stress of pest attack on organically grown plants is sufficient to trigger the plant to make its own pesticides - like solanine in potatoes. In fact a variety of celery grown in Hawii had so much natural pesticide, ie psoralins, that the harvesters and handlers at the supermarkets had to wear gloves to protect them.
No food is 'chemical free'. All food, no matter how it is grown is made up of toxic and non-toxic chemicals. All plant foods have in-built 'pesticides' to protect them from pest attack. We know almost nothing about these 'pesticides', but suffice it to say that the two most toxic chemicals know are from puffer fish and botulinum toxin - both are natural.
My third point is that natural fertilisers can be the source of contamination of crops with pathogenic bacteria and if these crops are consumed without cooking, in salads etc., then they can, and have, caused illnesses and deaths.
Fourthly, plants produce nutrients for their own use, not to feed humans. If there aren't enough nutrients for the plant it will look sick and scrawny and/or not grow. Nutrient uptake and production by plants is not just affected by soil conditions, but also variety, climate and other factors. You can get up to 30% variation in vitamin C content of tomatoes grown in different regions. To claim nutritional superiority is extremely difficult to prove.
Finally, if organic growing techniques are so good, why do so many people in developing countries starve and why did we ever move away from it in the first place?