{"id":106,"date":"2007-01-03T00:21:27","date_gmt":"2007-01-02T22:21:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.greenman.co.za\/wordpress\/?p=106"},"modified":"2007-01-03T00:21:27","modified_gmt":"2007-01-02T22:21:27","slug":"organic-food-worse-for-the-environment-economist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.greenman.co.za\/blog\/?p=106","title":{"rendered":"Organic food ‘worse for the environment’ – Economist"},"content":{"rendered":"

Being involved in the Ethical Co-op<\/a>, I’ve had a number of people gleefully tell me about the series of articles in the recent Economist, criticising Ethical<\/em> food, in particuar organic, local and Fairtrade foods, the first two of which are key policies of the co-op.<\/p>\n

I was quite looking forward to reading their argument, and doing the investigation necessary for a detailed refutation, but unfortunately the quality of their argument made the process a little less interesting than I’d been hoping.<\/p>\n

The issue contained two articles, one freely available online (Voting with your trolley<\/a>), while the other is locked (Ethical Food<\/a>, although it was called Good Food<\/em> in print. There’s a copy available<\/a> though).<\/p>\n

I’m going to break my response to their articles into pieces, focusing on their attack on organic food in this article, and their arguments against local, Fairtrade and political activism through shopping in articles (hopefully) to follow.<\/p>\n

In short, their argument against organic food<\/a> is as follows.<\/p>\n

Organic food is not better for the environment because:
\na) yields are lower, so more land is required, and ‘there’s less space left for the rainforest’
\nb) energy usage is higher per unit of food produced, because yields are lower<\/em><\/p>\n

Hopefully you’ve noted the gaping chasm in their logic. Is more space really the only factor in a better environment? Of course not – their are numerous other factors. Pesticides are poisonous. They kill things. There’s much less life of any sort on a chemical farm. That’s not better for the environment. Artificial fertisers run off, causing the demise of nearby bodies of water, algal blooms and the like. That’s not better for the environment. I could go on. But what about their actual, uncited, claim that yields are lower? Let’s look at some of the research out there, not what chemical corporates would like you to hear.<\/p>\n

According to a 22-year study by Cornell University<\/a>, in drought years, organic corn yields were 22% higher than chemically grown corn. In non-drought years, corn yields were about equivalent. Also, organic farming uses 30 percent less energy, less water and no pesticides.<\/p>\n

The study concluded that organic farming can compete effectively in growing corn, soybeans, wheat, barley and other grains<\/em>, but might not be as favorable for growing such crops as grapes, apples, cherries and potatoes, which have greater pest problems<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Another US study<\/a> concluded that organic yields were about 95% to 100% of chemical yields.<\/p>\n

The studies showing that organic yields are lower need to be looked at more carefully. Do the studies look at a specific crop, ignoring unfavourable (to them) results? Who are they funded by? Do they take a short term view? A farm moving from chemical to organic will of course have lower yields in the interim. The soil needs to be rejuvenated, and there’s also a body of knowledge that needs to be built up. As far as I know, there’s one organic olive farm in South Africa, and their yields are much lower than for chemical farms, But they’re pioneers, growing olives in a new way, in new conditions that haven’t been tested before. Perhaps in a few years they can get their yields up to equivalent to chemical farms, or beyond.<\/p>\n

Quality of soil is key to organic farming. Over time, soil quality of chemical farms deteriorates, because the soil is not being fed properly. That’s why yields are so much lower during drought, as the ability to compensate for the lack of water has been destroyed by the persistent removal of nutrients over time. Chemical farms steal from the future to feed the present. <\/p>\n

The Economist, not for the first time gets it horribly wrong.<\/p>\n

Other responses<\/h3>\n