The BBC reported recently that organic food sales are currently down 19%. Is organic food the preserve of the few or is it a crucial step on Britain’s path to increased sustainability? We asked the Soil Association & The Adam Smith Institute for their thoughts. Most importantly though we want to know what you think so please do add your comments below and vote as well of course.
NO, organic food is not sustainable!
It’s quite wonderful to think that only if we didn’t use these nasty, horrible, man-made things in our farming then life would be better. Quite what the objection is to man made things is hard to understand: I’m rather fond of the fact that antibiotics have allowed me to live to 46 years of age rather than the 7 which would have been my lot before their invention. So let us leave aside such back to nature nonsenses. There is also the point that proponents of things organic seem not to know what the word means. "Organic" simply means based on carbon chemistry. Thus copper sulphate, approved for organic farming purposes, is in fact inorganic.
However, let’s leave aside language and look at whether organic farming is in fact sustainable, using the words as they are generally used within the environmental movement. The answer is, clearly and obviously, that it is not. One recent study showed that in order to feed the British Isles from organic farming the entirety of Wales would have to be put down to potatoes. This might be an improvement upon Cardiff but seems a little hard on those who enjoy Snowdonia. This is without including the land needed to feed and rear the animals which would provide the manure to fertilise the crop.
Allow me to limit sustainable a little: that we desire to feed all of those currently extant. On this basis organic farming clearly is not sustainable as there simply is not enough land to feed 7 billion of us with such techniques. Well, unless "sustainable" has some meaning that includes billions starving.
The very foundation of civilisation is that we stop using simply our labour and things that are found in nature and begin to manufacture both inputs and output by applying human ingenuity. To demand that this process stops, that we limit ourselves to the techniques of our grandfathers, may appeal to some but it is uncivilised, it is against the very process that has dragged us out of the mire.
Fortunately all of this doesn’t matter that much. Organic farming, whether it is sustainable or not, is the preserve of the angst ridden middle classes and the few remaining hippies. Neither are a large enough group to make the unsustainability of this method of farming a threat to either the lives or standards of living of the rest of us.
Tim Worstall
Environment Fellow
Adam Smith Institute
http://www.adamsmith.org
YES, organic food is sustainable!
‘Sales of organic are down!’ scream the headlines. But the truth is rarely that simple.
As with all sectors of the retail market, some organic sales are definitely down. But many organic brands and products are actually bucking current recessionary trends, as people respond to our uncertain economic times with more home cooking, less processed food, and more authentic ingredients. Sales of lots of ‘raw’ organic ingredients like flour and some dairy are up. Farmers markets have seen a rise of 18.6% in sales and many schemes where consumers buy directly from producers – like vegetable boxes – are also holding up well.
Current speculation about the state of organic sales needs to look at the longer term and the bigger picture though. To turn the question around, we at the Soil Association would ask instead – is non-organic food sustainable?
In the face of climate change, fluctuating oil prices, depleting energy and water resources (which non-organic agriculture heavily depends on) and an increasingly degraded environment, intensive, industrial agriculture is starting to look like the old-fashioned, unsustainable way. Just as none of us can now remember thinking that deregulated and unaccountable financial systems, which played Russian Roulette with our savings and pensions, was a good idea, now we must ask – is gambling our food and farming as recklessly as we do going to give us long-term food security?
On a global scale, we live in a context where around 1billion people are undernourished, and 1 billion people are obese. That means roughly one third of the world’s population are not currently well served by our food systems. There are consequent massive impacts on health, the environment and well-being.
A shift to organic principles – which would mean by default needing to eat more seasonally and locally, at least for things we could provide for ourselves (despite climate change there are lots of things we will always need to import, like coffee and bananas, for example); probably less (but better quality) grass-fed meat (rather than the grain-stuffed beasts of industrial farming), and less dairy, would not only bring enormous environmental and wildlife benefits, it would also bring huge health dividends as well.
Our current food and farming systems account for up to 30% of the average carbon ‘footprint’. If the UK is to meet its emissions targets of 80% reduction by 2050, then business as usual on this front is not an option. The solution is not going to be more intensive agriculture, more chemicals and more oil. It is going to be properly investing in our future – by increasing organic production and consumption.
Molly Conisbee
Communications Director
Soil Association
http://www.soilassociation.org
So the real question is, what do you think? Let us know below.
Categories: food
I’ve just had a very visceral reaction to these articles. In particular, I noticed a reluctance to respond as passionately as I would like in favour of organic food because of Tim Worstall’s really pejorative pointing at “angst ridden middle classes” and “hippies”. I’d like to think we can have this debate without actually insulting proponents of either side of the “divide”. And I would love first to hear a response from Tim and from Molly to one another’s arguments. My own belief is that there HAS to be a way for all people in the world to feed themselves that doesn’t rely on depletion of finite resources, environmentally pollutive by-products and processes, inhumane treatment of animals, and the use of chemicals that it is reasonable to believe will harm the intended consumers. I acknowledge that I don’t know how to make the appropriate calculations. Is it possible / realistic to work towards a society where we all grew enough food ourselves, either individually or in small communities? Is that an important part of the solution? Something about Tim’s view seems to suggest to me that, given the “mess” we are in with over-population, we have no choice but to rely on mass agri-business, intense oil consumption and the use of harmful chemicals. “Too late” thinking. Please someone prove to me that it’s not too late! And from a philosophical perspective, even if it WERE too late (whatever that means) – does that mean that those of us who CAN do it differently, and live more in line with our own values and principles of sustainability, respect and health, should not bother? Does it mean we are laughably angst ridden if we do? Never!
Since conventional industrial agriculture relies heavily on oil and gas to create the fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and fungicides on which it depends, it is quite obvious that conventional agriculture is doomed. Our governments and media are silent about the issue of Peak Oil, but it’s a reality which cannot be ignored. The UK has already passed it’s peak oil production, and while we get better at extracting what’s left, all we’re doing is depleting the “tank” faster. Worldwide, the only debate is whether we’ve recently passed ‘peak oil’ or whether it’ll happen in the next 4 years, so, like it or not, in the very near future conventional agriculture will have to rethink. Farmers have already been hit hard by 3 to 5-fold increases in fertiliser prices brought on by the high oil/gas prices. How long before they become simply unaffordable? Organic agriculture is also dependent on oil, but to a much lesser extent since it derives fertility from ‘today’s sun’ by planting nitrogen-fixing legumes rather than on fossil fuels (‘yesterday’s sun’), and does not use artificial agrichemicals. The best organic farmers apply both science and intelligence to farm management to boost the most important resource on earth
In his argument against organic farming Tim Worsall is thankful for the ability of antibiotics to treat and cure serious infections in the human population. Ironic then that it is the use of antibiotics by the intensive livestock industry that may take away this advance in medical science. The Soil Association is calling for the phasing out of routine antibiotic use on non-organic farms (organic standards prohibit the routine use of antibiotics). Earlier this year the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson also called for ‘tighter regulation of use [of antibiotics] in animals’. He states that: “Resistant bacteria developing in animals could pose a threat to people. Antibiotics must be used in moderation in agricultural settings and only when necessary for animal welfare… Every antibiotic expected by a patient, every unnecessary prescription written by a doctor, every uncompleted course of antibiotics, and every inappropriate or unnecessary use in animals or agriculture is potentially signing a death warrant for a future patient.” Tim claims that organic farming cannot feed the world. The real question we all have to answer is, how can we feed the world from systems of farming that do not rely on fossil fuels, and that do not make a massive contribution to climate change? Organic farming doesn’t claim to be a high output system, but rather aims to be an optimal output system, producing sufficient quantities of great quality food, without environmental or animal welfare compromises. However, in many parts of the world, modern organic systems can, and do, produce as much or more food than both oil/chemical based non-organic farming, and traditional systems – and in rich countries we will have to adjust our diet, eating less grain fed and more grass fed meat, and eating more vegetables, fruit, grains and pulses. We will be healthier as a result. Organic farming is not about limiting ourselves to science and techniques. For the last 60 years, very little research has been done that would benefit organic farmers. Crops have been developed that produce high yields when treated with oil-based fertilisers and sprays. Farm animals have been bred to grow faster or larger, or to produce more milk or eggs, based on higher levels of inputs. Issues of food quality, taste, the value of traditional breeds of farm animals have had a much lower priority. There are signs of this situation just beginning to change and, as organic farming comes to play a larger role in food production, more resources will be put into scientific research to help organic farmers improve their efficiency, output and the quality of the food they produce.
Unless we can change the way we think about our food production overall and view it as a valuable resource then we shall not achieve a balance. We seem to be overfed and undernourished in my view, with too many diseases and problems caused by our current lifestyle, antibiotic resistance is just one. I believe we have our priorities wrong and rather than supplying a large amount of food, that is too readily available and wasted because it’s actual cost is very small in relation to most western incomes (not all, of course…) we need to really appreciate what we eat, even if it costs more for the consumer, otherwise the true cost will be far greater than most of us care to envisage. The answer will not be simple, and it almost certainly involves compromise, but it has to be sustainable.
Molly seems to have got a little confused in her argumentation. I have absolutely no problem with someone pointing out that a process with fewer inputs might be a rational and reasonable thing to adopt. That’s what markets encourage producers to do all the time, reduce the costs of their inputs so that they can increase their profits. Where she’s confusing me terribly is that this should lead us to adopting organic methods. Excuse me? Organic farming is more expensive than conventional/industrial. The inputs cost more. Thus, given that organic farming is using total inputs of a higher value this very argument, that we should be reducing input usage, means that we should all be abandoning organic and embracing industrial. I should point out that I’ve no problem with anyone farming in whatever manner they desire, nor with consumers purchasing what they in turn desire. But I do wish that when attempting to persuade the rest of us people would actually be logical. Organic farming requires a greater value of inputs per unit of output than conventional farming. If you’re going to argue about saving resources then you must, logically, be arguing against organic farming, not for it as Molly is. Sam makes the point about antibiotics: yes, I’m very well aware that irresponsible use in either farming or amongst us humans can be dangerous. But just as I don’t think that over prescribing or unfinished courses mean that the next person to get an infection should be left to die in agony rather than given a dose of penicillin nor do I think that problems that can arise from overuse amongst animals should lead to a ban on their use there. “Is it possible / realistic to work towards a society where we all grew enough food ourselves, either individually or in small communities? Is that an important part of the solution?” No, turning our back on civilisation and adopting the peasant lifestyle is not a part of a solution to anything. The very fact that we don’t all spend our days poking vegetables with a stick is what makes civilisation itself possible. Finally: “To get the highest productivity, we need more small organic farms, working with nature not against it, staffed by greater numbers of people,” This is near insane. Do you not understand the most basic points? Productivity of labour is how much produce you get from a given amount of human labour. You’re saying that you want to add more labour to farms in order to get higher productivity? Can’t you see that you’re actually advicating exactly the opposite? By taking our, say, chemical inputs and replacing them with human labour you are lowering productivity, not raising it! Dear me, no wonder some people go round burying cows horns by moonlight if this is the understanding of the real world common in the organic movement.
Dear Tim, Please don’t resort to insulting the comments of others. The quality of points raised thus far shows a high degree of knowledge and wisdom among ooffoo readers on the subject of organic farming. A rounded counter-argument to organic farming has been lacking and suggests to me that you have a narrow perspective on what is achievable with organic farming and also what is not achievable with non-organic methods. Far from being ‘archaic’ and ‘illogical’, organic farming systems are rooted in common sense, humanity and scientific understanding. Furthermore, technology is already playing a crucial role in organics. For example Rockdust (soil re-mineralisation), Exosect (biological pest controls) and many others businesses like them, offer huge social and environmental benefits through their products and are commercially competitive. It is worth reminding all that it is the non-organic, intensive chemical agri-business practices that are and will be creeking at the seams, along with the ecological systems that we all depend on. Lets embrace organic farming and support its trailblazers. The evidence to support is clear and out there, in a wealth of academic articles and books, if you care to read them.
Here’s a “most basic point” for Tim to consider, which I note he has not addressed in his posts so far: 1 litre of oil is equivalent to 40 hours (or thereabouts) of human labour. When oil becomes so scarce or expensive that no-one apart from rich economists can afford it, we will need to replace that cheap oil with an alternative. There will not be any oil-based chemicals to replace labour. Perhaps he thinks that technology will ’save’ us? If so, what is that technology – which doesn’t rely on fossil fuels? We are living through the small blip of an ‘oil age’ and our economy is entirely driven by that cheap energy. Unless we invest some money and thinking and re-skill ourselves now, we will be left wondering how we could have been so stupid as to ignore the reality of peak oil. I work in the oil industry and have watched as our oil production has declined in this country and tens of others worldwide even as we throw more money at exploration and extract from deeper and deeper reserves. I am also a plant scientist, and am investing much time and money into learning how to grow food sustainably. I don’t yet see an alternative for fossil fuels, other than human and animal labour, and that is a great source of concern. It should be something which is being invested in heavily by our leaders – but peak oil is the ‘elephant in the room’ – it’s such a huge challenge that nobody seems prepared to acknowledge it. This should be the headline in every newspaper, but 95% of people I meet have never heard of it. How long will the veneer of civilisation last when the giant industrial food machine is no longer running, and food production crashes?
OK I have read the above comments and here is my opinion i for one am for organic farming for more reasons than that of carbon footprint mine is based on health and my familly’s fight to survive the ever chemical based life we live now lets look at the basics yes we are seeing higher levels of cancer i will answer that later yes we are an ever increasing society of obese people. Why?? (you should be asking your self) well i think these are the reasons and why go back 50 years in agriculture and the average size of a field was 10 acres it was bordered by walls or hedges industry stated that look at this tractor it will plough 24 furrows in one sweep great said the farmer i can get rid of a couple of farm hands cut down all my hedges dig out my walls and do the work of 3 men in half the time woopee. Ahh i got a problem all the birds, lizards, spiders and other predaters have gone and all thier food the insects are eating my crops its all right cos the chemical companies have developed all these insectecides to kill them not a problem a lot of them ARE harmfull to humans its ok its only killing the insects. The following season Ahh i have another problem nothing much is growing my yields are down, No problem says the chemical company (rubbing thier hands together greedilly) Feed your crops with these CHEMICAL fertilisers Most if not all would kill you if you drank it in its raw state but no its ok because its only going on the soil Hmm sound familliar and thus the never ending downward spiral started, If you think back to your chemistry lessons at school you will remember that whatever you put on a plant it will take it in to its leaves and roots Hmm thats strange because we eat all those chemically infused leaves and roots and seads. Wheat,barley,potatoes,cabbage and the list goes on well you might i for one do not!! In MY oppinion this is why the health service is struggling to cope with the levels of cancer and cancer related illnesses, any one living with or close to cancer try reading ‘cancer why we are dying to know the truth’ On the subject of obeesity it has already been mentioned on previous post GROWTH HORMONES its in the food we are eating it dosent take a rocket scientist to work it out if you eat it its in your system and you will get a little porky. I will climb down now because i do get a little frustrated. I will leave you with this thoght dont knock it until youve tried it. and buy it from the source when ever possible it tastes better
I am disappointed that Tim imagines organic farmers spend their
“1 litre of oil is equivalent to 40 hours (or thereabouts) of human labour.” I don’t know whether that number is true or not but let’s assume that it is. At minimum wage 40 hours of human labour is worth
To me, it’s obvious that the most popular
“Vote for meeeeeeee! I
Organic or conventional, the real problem is meat and dairy, which use massive multiples of water, land, energy, compared with plant protein food. Including “virtual” water, a UK vegetarian diet uses c.2000 litres a day (not a misprint) compared with c. 5,000 for the average meat/dairy based diet. One acre of land yields 8-12 times as much equivalent nutrition, including protein, as land used for animal-based production. Grass fed livestock remain part of the problem, though to a lesser extent, because livestock production is responsible for more global warming gases than all forms of transport put together. Using land not suitable for plant growing for trees or shrubs to absorb CO2 would often be a better use of the land. Many environmentalists hate to hear this message and I have personal experience of it being censored out of their campaigns, because it’s true that meat tastes nice. I love the taste of meat, but have decided the price paid by victims of this system is too high for my taste. There are now a lot of meaty-tasting vegan substitutes, and the single biggest way to promote food justice for people, reduce animal suffering and death, and help the environment, is to eat as close to vegan as you can manage. Icidentally, fertilisers can be made from plant sources too.
As a farmer who has looked at the economics of conventional and organic arable farming I find this discussion interesting but am perplexed by a few issues. 1) Can someone explain to me what makes copper sulphate more “organic” than glyphosate (or any other modern agro chemical)? 2) There seems to be a view here that “organic” farming (as defined by the soil association) does not use fossil fuels. My (organic) neighbour’s combine harvester uses half a ton of diesel per day just like mine. Unless anyone fancies a return to the back-breaking drudgery of 1930s agriculture (poking vegetable with a stick!), both systems require fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a finite resource but I imagine that agriculture accounts for only a few percent of fossil fuel consumption (please correct me if I am wrong). My guess is that those of you advocating organic food production as a way of saving the planet would make a far larger contribution by abandoning your cars, switching off your central heating, computers etc. 3) Various people have commented that organic farming can be more productive than conventional farming. Can anyone provide any data to support this? The non-livestock arable farming enterprises that I have looked at produce about one third the output per acre of my conventional system (through the rotation). In my view there are two possible solutions to greater sustainability of food production. One is going vegetarian as the fellow above suggests. Personally I am not going to give up my bacon sandwich (any more than most of you will give up your PC or car). The other answer is technology. Here “organic” farming (as defined by the soil association) is hangstrung by its rejection of certain technologies. Lets take GM as an example. Mankind has selectively bred plants for thousands of years. Now GM technology allows us to compress 200 years of selective breeding into 20 years. Within a few years GM will give us drought resistant crops and potentially crops which use nitrogen more efficiently or fix nitrogen from the air (like legumes, thus allowing farmers to reduce or eliminate applications of fertilizers). I have nothing against the organic industry. I am full of admiration for my fellow farmers who can persuade consumers to pay twice as much for an identical product just because the soil association certifies it as “organic”.
The honest answer here is ‘No, but is is a bit more sustainable than non-organic food production’. Tim Worstall’s claim that sustainability is defined as ‘keeping the greatest number of humans well fed’ is ludicrous. Where do we stop? One only has to look at what remains of the once ‘fertile triangle’ in the middle east to see what the long term effect of converting successful ecosystems into monocultural land is: desert. If one defines sustainability a little more sanely (but still somewhat selfishly) as ‘ensuring the long term existence of really quite a large number of humans’ it is plain that desertification is not the way to go. If this means that reducing the number of humans on the planet to the amount that can be fed using less destructive methods, then so be it. The idea that this involves mass starvation is nonsense. As a starter how about converting the vast acreages devoted to a few individuals becoming obscenely wealthy at the expense of the health (and the tax funded health systems) of billions: eg tobacco, coffee, sugar. If humanity doesn’t work towards this then the end of oil or total ecosystem collapse will do it for us at some point, and then you’ll have your billions starving or more likely killing each other for food. I could go on but it is late.
@RM: Great points. I wait to see some answers! @AP: There’s no point moaning about Tim when the points made by his opponents are so lame. Your own remark was particularly cringe-making: “To get the highest productivity, we need more small organic farms, working with nature not against it, staffed by greater numbers of people” Your remark exposes what this debate is really about: anti-capitalism with a green smokescreen. Just look at FK’s remark: “Our society is built on a system of exploitation, allowing a number of us to become more and more sedentary and worthless in real terms”. Put it this way: do you consider jobs a cost or a benefit? A capitalist would say they are a cost. And you?
I agree that the way we produce good healthy and sustainable food is now of urgent concern. This is not about anti-capitalism (as Charles suspects it is). The fundamental point is about motives (and even some capitalists have commendable motives!). Until the motives and the nature of the rules are established by us all then there is no point in arguing the methods or the results of the methods. If the motive is to feed the most people possible in the cheapest possible way then the methods will determine themselves as they have done. If the motive is to feed the most people possible in the cheapest possible way with the best possible animal welfare, with the highest possible health and well being to the eco system and the people eating the food, then the methods will be found.
We have a herd of Red Poll cattle on our organic farm on the Dorset/Wiltshire border. The Red Poll, being an indigenous British breed is highly suitable for grazing our pastures and we produce delicious grass fed beef, without resorting to fattening with grain or pumping growth hormones into the animals. We have decided to sell the meat ourselves because if we send the animals through the supermarket route, the consumer has no idea they are organic, grass fed, or Red Polls. They become just meat
Is this debate about whether a capitalist would consider jobs a cost or a benefit? I thought it was about sustainability. My point was that our current state of existence is not sustainable. Whether jobs in agriculture are a cost or a benefit in sustainability terms surely depends on whether human labour is considered a renewable resource.
“whether human labour is considered a renewable resource” Which it isn’t of course. That hour you spend poking vegetables cannot be used to do anything else. You can’t get back the time you’ve used to do one thing to do another…..
That is based on the asumptions that a. each human can only produce enough food for themselves, and b. the renewability of human labour is based solely on time. http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/Abstract.aspx?AcNo=19971804389
I’m certainly no expert on this subject, despite being interested, and some of the points I was going to make have been made already but here goes: – I am not a hippie or middle class and I think Tim’s childish, unnecessary comments probably make others take him less seriously. – I eat as much organic and local produce as possible mainly for health reasons. Recently the EU banned certain agri-chemicals some of which have been banned in other countries for years. Also, depsite these chemicals having been tested, they are tested individually and not as “cocktails”. I am not prepared to take the chance that they are not safe. I believe (though I can’t back it up scientifically) that many of the things just shouldn’t be ingested. – education is paramount. The world’s population is too high, so instead of trying to produce endless food supplies, we should start putting our efforts into reducing the population (through contraception and not starvation). – As has been previously mentioned, in “developed” countries we waste so much food that it is shameful. People have to be taught about food and how to cook it properly. Unfortunately, we have become used to high volume food being artificially cheap, leading to a wide price gap in comparison with organic food. Supermarkets are the particular villains in this piece having squeezed suppliers until breaking point. If “conventional” farmers were paid a fair price for their produce, our food would not be so cheap. – Cancer. I have no statistics at my disposal so all I can go by is the circle I move in. Over the past few years the people I know of with cancer has rocketed. Some of this may simply be down to ageing (although I’m only in my early 40s) but not all. As I said, this is in no way scientific but most people I speak to say the same. I’m sure that fewer people die of cancer nowadays as screening and treatment has improved greatly, but can the same be said of diagnoses? Interesting. Finally, I’m not sure that I understand Tim’s comments about labour not being renewable. Obviously, an hour spent digging vegetables cannot be used to do something else but the important point is that human energy is not depleted each time we use it. It may make us temporarily tired but it is renewable. We’re not depleting a finite resource (at least in the short term) are we?
@FK: “Is this debate about whether a capitalist would consider jobs a cost or a benefit?” Yes, it is. Too many objectors to factory farming do so *because* it is superior – ie it employs fewer people and resembles office work. Many supporters of organic production do so because they admire a rustic, archaic agrarian way of life. Forget the hard economics, forget the science – it’s about lifestyle for these guys. Just read the objections of Maggie Edwards to “throwing food away”. Why does she think it evil? Not for economic reasons – food purchasers can make their own decisions – but because she believes there is something soulless and sinful about excess. I mean, why sould people ‘eat sparingly’? What is the motivation. Health? A concern for the consumers wallets? Or more likely, a left-wing hunch that we in the West are causing hunger in Africa because we gobble up all the burgers. So yes, this ought to be a debate about economics, including costs and benefits, rather than a sentimental group hug about how nasty western living habits are.
Maggie Edwards, Full marks for using your post to promote your business. However, you are being a little less than honest. You say that your cattle are not “pumped full of growth hormones”. Well, neither are “conventionally” reared cattle. We both know that the EU banned the use of growth hormones 15 years ago, so in this respect your beef is no different from that of my neighbour who “conventionally” rears Red Poll beef. Red Poll are lovely cattle (a Suffolk or Norfolk breed I believe). I agree that their beef tastes better, but my guess is that this is down to slower growth and a higher fat content (modern breeds are bred for fast growth and lean meat). The Soil Association claim that organic animals do not receive veterinary medication. This is is not true. Read the small print in their literature. If organic animals are ill they are medicated in the same manner as conventional animals (my guess is that your Red Poll cattle have recently been vacinated for Blue Tongue). I admire organic farmers for commanding a premium for their product, but please do not resort to half truths to slag off “conventional” competitors when you promote your product. P.S. I’m still waiting for a Soil Association member to explain why copper sulphate is “organic” while glyphosate is not. Also, why are organic farmers allowed to apply mined P and K fertilizers to their crops but not Nitrogen ferts manufactured from “mined” natural gas? P.P.S – FK – you state that “organic food is healthier. Where is your evidence? Lets have a few statistics to support your statement. Folks, I don’t want to burst your bubble, but “organic” as espoused by the Soil Association (and their Chairman Lord Melchet – whose family fortune was made by the founder of ICI) is a con!
The question is irrelevant. Organic farming is not necessarily sustainable and farming with the use of normal agricultural chemicals can be sustainable. It comes down to many other aspects of farming practice. I take sustainability to mean no long lasting harm to the environment from the continuous farming practice. However others seem to think that it means, can it feed the world? The answer to this one is simple neither are able to help guarantee feeding the ever increasing populations of the world, although you would get hungry more quickly if we were all organic. Food and water shortages are inevitable unless we start to reduce the population of the world. We could also prolong things considerably if we all turned vegetarian!
RM – “The Soil Association claim that organic animals do not receive veterinary medication. This is is not true. Read the small print in their literature. If organic animals are ill they are medicated in the same manner as conventional animals” Are you deliberately trying to mislead people? Soil Association literature that I have read plus Sam Allen’s post above, quite clearly state that organic farming prohibits the ROUTINE use of anti-biotics and medication. Obviously animals have to be treated if they are ill, but not just in case they become ill. I have no intention of becoming vegetarian but I have reduced the amount of meat I eat. If we all do this and cut out waste it will benefit our pockets and our health. Meat used to be considered a luxury but has become so cheap that we do not think anything of wasting it.
The facts as I see them: More of us are living longer than ever before. More of us are fed than ever before. There is not enough usable space and labour to grow enough food to feed everyone even now. Which is why there is imbalance and suffering. GM is here because no-one wants anyone to die, food is money & capitalists need customers. If we can grow grain in a warehouse then that is fine with me. Some flawed grain is better than no grain. When a single link is established connecting GM or non-organic farming to human suffering then lawsuits will righly ensue and said company and execs will sink. So goes the market! Organic food is better for you in the same way that switching off a light impacts on climate change. Microscopically marginal. At best! And before you talk about millions doing it let me remind you that the millions don’t. Lets deal with what is not what could be. The whole world cannot go organic. We don’t have the space, time or labour to spare. We cannot stop progress but we do need to guide it more equitably. Currently it is guided by pure capital and a tiny conscience. The question is can capital work to the triple bottom line? Answer: yes. More companies are shifting that way than ever before and I suspect in 20 years time companies that are not triple-bottom line driven will be pariahs, if not sooner. Especially in core human-interaction industries. Net result: Everyone needs to calm down, hippies and libertarians need to realise they are actually on the same side and save their energy for the bigger picture instead of squandering it on immature playground gibberish that does little to give them credibility. We will be fine. We will not survive forever. Life used to be nasty, brutal and short for all and now it is now nicer, gentler and longer for more than ever before. To conclude otherwise is to let the animal within win! And THAT is the bigger picture for me folks!
The CO2 output to produce the wheat for one bread in Austria has been found to be half in organic agriculture compared to the CO2 footprint of the same amount of conventional wheat (1kg bread = 129g CO2 in organic agriculture compared to 270g CO2 in conventional agriculture). [1] This difference is mainly caused by the high energy input used for the production of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser in conventional agriculture. Moreover, organic farming increases the content of organic matter in the soil – therefore soils under organic farming can lock up to 1.5 tons CO2 per hectare and year. [2] [1] Source: Study “Klimaschutzkennzeichnung biologischer und konventioneller Lebensmittel”, FibL Austria in Cooperation with Hofer KG, 2009 [2] Source: Speech Urs Niggli, press conference in Vienna, 27 May 2009
Yes! Organic agriculture fed the world adequately before the petro-chemicals were introduced. Its not all about profit/money. Meat used to be a luxury in Britain – it needs to become so again. By eating less but organically produced meat fed on home grown crops our health & that of the planet would be greatly improved.
RM – where did I state that?
If we continue our lavish and wasteful lifestyle in terms we buy too much , consume too much or throw away too much – then organic farming in the long run will not be sustainable. If everyone has a more frugal approach towards food these days and waste not – there is a possibility it would be in fact sustainable.
Go yoonsy – then more frugal & less wasteful it is.
There is only the organic option in my mind. Humans share the world with our other fellow animals and plants. I consider it socially unacceptable to think of just human needs to the detriment of the rest of living things. I’m sure if a human was treated detrimentally by an animal, humans would not think kindly to it. Why are the majority of people so contradictory?
If you like eating pesticides and fertilisers and other chemicals, AND you don’t care about their effects on wildlife and the environment then there’s no need to consider the organic option.
I am not knowledgable about this but it seems to me that non-organic farming is only more productive in the short term and considering it more productive does not factor in the long term soil depeletion, water pollution and other environmental. effects that will eventually lower production. Tim Worstall, equates productivity with productivity per worker, when in fact, especially in current times, it might be more helpful to consdier it in terms of productivity per unit of land. There was also the statement that a capitalist would consider jobs a cost rather than a benefit. Henry Ford knew better than that, jobs may be a cost but overall they are an unavoidable cost if the capitalist wants the benefit of consumers able to buy product.
Andy R. Its the Soil Association who deliberately try and mislead consumers. Maggie Edward’s comment is a classic example. She implies that conventional beef cattle is regularly “pumped full” of growth hormones. However, the use of growth hormones is banned in the EU. Since you seem to know a bit about organic production, perhaps you can explain some of the inconsistencies in the Soil Association’s definition of “organic” which I highlighted above? No one else appears able to. Even the Soil Association couldn’t when I asked them to. FK. Sorry, it was Andy R who made that comments (his post was below yours). Come on Andy, lets have a few statistics to support your views. AP. Well done. At last, some statistics in support of organic farming. I am not aware of the details of these studies, but let me use a few more statistics to put this example of sustainability in perspective. If a family eats 500g of bread per day, using the figures you state, during the year they will save 25kg of carbon emmissions. That compares with an average European household producing 10 tonnes of carbon per year. 25kg is equal to 11 litres of petrol, or as much fuel as many people use in their daily drive to work.
I support HOME Project – it’s all about the environment. Visit this link to see the movie, its Free! http://www.youtube.com/homeproject
There are some very well made points in this thread; some I agree with (particularly Tricia and Mary about the luxury of meat) and others I don’t. But that is not the point. The point is that this is a thriving debate. It is vital beyond all comprehension that this debate grows to envelop all members of society and not just those of us who take the initiative to find out about where our food comes from. This I fear, is where the heart of the problem lies. Consumers are given way to much choice of processed food, shopping has become a chore, food is a near worthless commodity (just look at an average family’s wastage) and who cares how much water, carbon, phosphate/nitrate fertilisers etc. go into its production? It is this question which to me is the inherent problem and it is consumers (with a very large helping hand from supermarkets and vertically integrated producers) that drive the methods of production. Personally, I would love to think that Organic Farming holds the answer to the food security dilemma and I shall continue to support the research and production absolutely (I am almost militant about it!). But I suspect Organic’s greatest value is in helping conventional farmers (who are not all oblivious to the sustainability issue as has been mentioned here) to farm more sustainably. You only have to look around the countryside at this time of year to realise that farmers are waking up to the importance of soil: straw prices are high with farmers preferring to keep it on their farms for integration back into their soils and there is an increasing adoption of minimum tillage rather than inverting soils with traditional ploughing. It is early days but we should be careful about labelling farmers as conventional/intensive or organic/extensive. Finally, I recognise some of what Tim said about the stereotypical organic shopper. It is a sad fact that many organic retailers have pitched themselves at such an elite level (I live only 5 minutes from one particularly well known offender) that this lifestyle has become synonymous with such basic methods of farming. Organic living ought to be as affordable as conventional with only a modest change in the makeup of ones shopping basket. I have managed it but it is not perceived to be possible. Oh and I nearly forgot, Molly makes the distinction between organic livestock and conventional by what and how much they eat (grass or grain). I worry that people so ingrained in this debate do not realise that the diets of livestock in both systems is very similar. The only difference is that organic livestock is fed organic feed and that includes wheat, barley, rye, peas, beans, maize, sileage… and (in terms of the environment) the worst of all is soya. It is true that outdoor reared animals are lucky enough to have access to grass and this should be better taken advantage of but they all eat grain.