Organic dogma
Mary Madigan
Via chiasm: According to farmer Gary Jones, organic food is more of a fetish than an industry:
Small farmers - real small farmers not life-stylers who pretend to be farmers while living off wealth accumulated in other ways or off-farm income - would be helped much more by simply choosing to consume local products than entertaining an organic fetish.I know a couple who have a small farm, where they raise some of the happiest chickens I've ever seen. The chickens don't cluck, they coo. They have a heated coop, they wander all over the yard, and occasionally they get to listen to some classical music. They produce more eggs than the average, but this farm isn't officially "organic." The organic religion requires more dedication to dogma than to the animals.Many of the smartest and most environmentally caring practices, those most considerate of livestock well being as well as human health, are forbidden by organic religion. Treating an injured animal with an antibiotic means it is not organic. Fertilizing your pasture so that you don't have to use grain supplements is not organic. Even using a fly spray for the comfort and health of animals is forbidden.
The most thoughtful and environmentally aware livestock operations are not organic. They use antibiotics - but only when it is the best response, sparingly, both because it's smart environmentalism and because it is smart economics...
Without that trendy seal of approval, the happy-chicken eggs are sold at the same price as unhappy-chicken eggs, despite the fact that they're fresher and better.
Organic farming doesn't help the small farmer, and it certainly wouldn’t help the worldwide farming industry. In fact, widespread application of this fad could do more harm than good in the third world. More at chaism..
Because at this point, that's what organics is -- a 12+ billion dollar subsection of the food industry, to be precise. The largest organic producers are for the most part the same as the largest non-organic producers. The industry of organics is at this point far more important than the "fad" or "religion" of organics.
(Incidentally, as religions go, organics is notably watered down. It's nothing compared to biodynamics, its ancestor, which grew out of anthroposophy. The most devout believers in organics are industry honchos, not environmentalists, who care much more about local food, nor health food nuts.)
Organics is not going to take over the world. Even accounting for its rapid growth in the last decade, it still makes up only 2% of the food industry, and that's with widespread consumer awareness of the organic label. To get a larger market share, the only direction organic can go in is down -- as in cheaper. This is why the lessons of organic food will continue to be synthesized within the greater food industry.
I often shop organic stores for my pet rabbit's vegetables because the "organic" stores usually have a larger veggie selection than the local supermarket, although a local ethnic grocery chain has a good selection at a decent price.
--|PW|--
First off, do you agree that pesticides and artificial hormones have been over-used in agriculture and livestock? And that such things are harmful to humans as well?
The organic movement is a reaction against the abuses of the past. I agree that anti-biotics for a sick animal, if used judiciously are ok. The problem is that they have been abused, especially in situations where livestock is "factory farmed".
Yes, the current "organic" label is a bit of an overreaction, but far better than the abuses of many "conventional" products. So, how do you create a label that can't be abused? The more complicated you make the regulations the harder it is to follow and the more likely they are to be abused. (Even with "organic", there has been repeated attempts to classify GM foods (genetically modified) as "organic".)
The answer for now is not stepping into the slippery slope to begin with. (Yes I realize the label still can and probably is being abused at times, but far less that it would have been otherwise.)
All that being said, I love local farmers markets. If it were possible to have those in more places, or selling their wares in "regular stores" that would be great. However, I don't always have the time to go to them, so Wild Oats is where I try to go second.
I wish you’d tell that to the anti-globalist food luddites in Europe, who are pushing organic foods as an alternative to bioengineered “Frankenfoods”.
These European ‘greens’ have refused to buy food from African countries that allow bioengineered crops into their countries – even if those countries import that food because people are starving.
Although these European luddites hint that bioengineered food is bad for your health, they have no facts to back that claim up. Most will admit that their goal is to target corporations and capitalists in general – and some are willing to let Africans starve as a result.
I don’t have any problem with the organic food fad in the United States. The food is often buggy and damaged, it can't compete with the food you can get at the farmers’ market. The ethnic groceries/bodegas usually have a better selection too.
I do object to environmentalists' efforts to export bad technology and philosophy, especially when it can cause a lot of damage.
That said, I agree that local farmer's markets are cool.
At the local farmer's market in California, they sold flower salad. Flowers are tasty, but only when they're fresh.
Regardless, I don't think GM foods should be banned, merely explicitely labeled "GM", but Europe does tend to be heavy handed with the Govt regulation. I'd also like more FDA oversight. I'm definately not a luddite, but the food I give my daughter I want to be sure about.
As for "feeding the world", there are MANY other options to taking care of that, beyond using GM crops. First off, GM crops come with a heavy dose of IP restrictions. Monsato has sued farmers who "grew" Monsato's GM crops accidentally when wind blew seeds onto their farms. There was talk also of inserting a "terminator" gene, so that the plants would be unable to reproduce, forcing farmers to completely re-buy new seeds every year.
There are plenty of alternatives to GM to help the people starving in Africa.
Second, many "conventional" farming techniques are responsible for the erosion of topsoil and subsequent loss of fertility. The mass application of fertilizer can stave off that issue for some time, but that has it's own effects. (Witness the Miss. River delta.)
One of the main goals of the organic movement is "sustainable farming", which keeps the land in a heathly state. Instead of pesticides, different crops are interspersed so that disease and pests are more isolated and can't quickly spread through a crop monoculture. Instead of tons fertilizer, crops locations are rotated to keep the soil fertile. And from what I have read, if done properly, crop yields are on par with what can be done with conventional farming, now that the bugs and diseases have started adapting to our pesticides and fungicides.
As for "buggy and damaged", in my experience, the organic food is of much higher quality. Specifically flavor is so much better than conventional. Not to say there aren't issues, but no more than I've seen in conventional produce. I believe it's due to most organics I've seen having much better packaging. And if I pay 70 cents per pound of banana's over 30 cents for conventional, it hardly impacts by monthly budget.
All that being said, I love ethnic groceries and local farmers markets. I also agree that some people get fanatical and take it too far. But organics are definately a good thing; they aren't "bad technology and philosophy".
The notion that conventional farmers' methods are not "sustainable" is bunk. Crop rotation and similar methods have been used by them for generations too.
And the best, most common pesticides break down naturally over a short time period and simply turn into fertilizer.
In point of fact much "organic" farming is actually far less sustainable, requiring far more land to grow food--and more land for growing food means less for wildlife and human habitat. It isn't "sustainable" except by causing more damage to nature.
This is not to say there are no valuable farming methods in the "organic" movement, but let's not overreach. And let's be sure we look at the down sides as well, because they're there.
And in the meantime, how long will you prevent people like me--who are happy to eat GM foods, and are pleased with the way they make food cheaper and often eliminate the need for those pesticides--from buying them?
Maybe this is a bit off topic, but this brings to mind the issue of irradiated foods. I went out of my way to buy anything (and everything) that my local stores offered that was irradiated. That stuff mad a lot of sense to me. But then again, I’m an engineer.
When it started to disappear from the store shelves, I was curious. I asked the butcher at a local store why I couldn’t find irradiated hamburger anymore. He said that nobody would buy it, and they ended it up selling it at a loss, or throwing it away.
That’s sad to me. Maybe its our weakness in science understanding.
If Americans and Europeans want to spend their time and money on food fads, that's fine with me - but environmentalists should mind their own business, and let third world and poorer countries choose their own farming methods and their own foods.
Sustainable farming is an idea that's being pushed by Greens who already have more than enough to eat. Indian &African farmers tend to be pro-Frankenfoods.
First off, as I said before, I don't think GM food should be banned at all, just labeled so that we can each make our own choices. @Jay, I agree people get superstitious about radiation, but that's their choice. I just wish environmental activists would let up on nuclear power, which is far cleaner than coal and oil. (I totally agree with crumbtrail's post on nuclear power.)
And the "organic movement" is definately a reaction to the abuses of the past. There have been excessive applications of fertilizer and pesticides. Anti-bioitics in livestock have been abused to overcrowd and massive doses have been given as a preventative rather than a cure. Cows have been force fed meat (and even beef) to increase their protien intake. (Mad Cow spread from this.)
Unfortunately, "grain fed" doesn't have any legal controls on it's use, nor does "cage-free", or any other of these terms. "Organic" is the only one that has legal weight.
If I knew of a way to get meat from a small farmer who responsibly used these things, I would. However, because we are stuck in a world of megamarts, Organic is the only label that actually means something.
But you are right that "grass fed", free-range and pasture raised are still ambiguous terms. A turkey allowed to run free in a dirt pen while eating bagged grain meal can be called free-range. If it is organic grain it can even be called organic free-range. Even among grass-fed proponents there is dispute since it is necessary to feed stored forage in winter (or summer, depending) when fresh forage isn't available. To provide a balanced diet on stored forage it can be very helpful, and cheap, to include a little grain since grain is subsidized.
There is even dispute about the use of alfalfa hay vs. grass hay, and how far the hay can be shipped before it all becomes a ruse to bilk the consumer. Purists feed only grass hay harvested locally, often from their own land, or grass silage harvested from their own land.
I take a pragmatic approach based on the quality of the farm. What I try to do is support good local farmers who care for their land and communities because they are doing an unpaid public service maintaining the ecosystem services provided by their land to all of us, and for which we pay nothing. We even tax them. The only way they are paid is for their produce, yet it is in a very real sense the least of the benefits they provide for us.
There are some considerations that may squick you out. Pastured products taste different and look different. The carotene from grasses gives pastured products a yellow cast, especially in the fat. There is less fat too, which affects the way it cooks. It's easy to overcook pastured meats and end up with jerky. The flavor is different, stronger. A diet of bland grain produces bland yet greasy meat. In some parts of the world (especially Australia) there are even efforts to develop brands based on the flavors produced by local forage. You may find that your cooking methods and spices change as you develop a personal, local cuisine.
If health is a concern there are even more reasons to seek pastured products. That yellow fat from grass is an indicator of high quality fat rich in omega-3 fatty acids like wild fishes. Such fat has a healthful balance of HDL and LDL cholesterol that doesn't cause CVD and can even correct some damage from past indiscretions. The science on this is still sparse and disputed, or even ignored, but I find the research compelling. Choosing organic grain fed beef above non-organic pastured beef may be a poor choice from a health perspective.