Food For Thought: Debating Organics
Over at the Dish, Patrick Appell linked to Ezra Klein’s back and forth with Grist’s Tom Philpott about the benefits, or lack thereof, of organic food versus “conventional” food.
The exchange was initiated by this interaction between Klein and a Post reader,
Santa Fe, N.M.: I saw a report today on a study finding that organic food isn’t any healthier than conventional food. Is buying organic a waste of money, in your opinion?
Ezra Klein: Honestly? Yes. It’s definitely not healthier, at least not according to any study I’ve seen. There’s some argument that it’s more environmentally friendly. But it’s not something that I’m convinced is worth a premium. I’d rather buy from a local farm that uses some pesticides than a major producers who has gone organic.
To which Philpott responds by saying,
Well, Ezra, here is a study, released last year by the U.S.-based Organic Center, that comes to a conclusion quite different from the U.K. agency’s findings. It’s called “New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods.” The Organic Center recently released a cogent rebuttal to the U.K. findings as well.True, the Organic Center is funded by Big Organic companies like Dean Foods (owner of Horizon Dairy) and Whole Foods, which have an interest in promoting organics as healthier. But I’ve never seen the Center’s scholarship successfully challenged.
Klein counters with,
At any rate, the hard evidence of health benefits for organic foods has been mixed at best. There are no long-term studies showing that consumption of organic foods will make people healthier over a long period of time. That’s not to say organic foods are bad. They may taste better, or be more environmentally friendly. And we may even eventually find that they are healthier. But I’m much more worried about getting people to eat fruits and vegetables in general than I am about getting fruit and vegetable eaters to switch to organics. And what we do know is that organic produce is more expensive and harder to find.
The two then get into a discussion of the environmental impacts of organic farming (Klein, Phillpot), all of which is a fine discussion as far as it goes. When it comes to discussion food and the agricultural industry environmental and nutritional components are important factors to consider and flesh out. But I think Klein and Philpott’s discussion misses, at least for me, one of the most fundamental desires and benefits of an organic diet: knowing just what you’re consuming.
That kind of knowledge might seem pretty straight forward and obvious, but it amazes me the difference in my own understanding of what is in the foodstuffs I eat and how those ingredients affect me now with a 98% organic deit and less than a year ago. My relationship to food has changed in a dramatically positive fashion and it would be quite difficult to maintain that direction without supporting it with a diet of primarily organic foods.
And even if one is careful about reading the ingredient lists of “conventional” food that one purchases and is adamant about what one does and does not consume, the process and information available is not nearly so cut and dry as it might seem at first blush. A recent article by the Canadian magazine The Walrus chronicled the genetically modified labeling controversy going on in that country, noting that,
Though it is rare to find such widespread agreement on any issue, surveys repeatedly show that the vast majority of Canadians — more than 80 percent — want to know which foods contain genetically modified ingredients. A 2007 study conducted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency indicated that Canadians are more concerned about the long-term effects of chemicals, including pesticides, and genetically modified organisms than any other food safety issue.
In short, an ingredient list doesn’t necessarily tell you everything you may want or need to know about the food you’re consuming — information about which people are finding it increasingly important to be aware.
What Klein doesn’t acknowledge in his “fruits and vegetables” comment is that the degree of involvement in the particulars of your diet that often attend a switch to an organic food base is likely to include just that kind of analysis about what types of food would be healthier to consume and those that would be less healthy. To wit, Klein’s goal can largely be achieved by advocating the benefits of an organic diet, rather than being seen as contrary or counter productive.
Of course, Klein is quite right that organic food is more expensive than conventional food, which represents a real barrier to some individuals and families. Without going into the worthiness of allocating a greater proportion of our income towards the purchase of the food upon which we rely for our survival made by folks like Michael Pollan; however, no small part of that price differential is the whole market concept known as economies of scale. Which is to say that cost prohibitiveness of organic food is not inherent to the system that currently generates it and to write off organic foods because of an correctable hurdle (a correction that Klein with his dismissal of oganic foods is actively lobbying against) is disappointingly short sighted and intellectually sloppy on Klein’s part.
Image via Flickrer All Organic
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- Is this a test? GS noted ...
- Transplanted Lawyer: Wher...
- But certainly we can't al...
- Or does being held in cap...
- All this makes sense to m...
- If my government is going...
- Pardon. In the Sarah Pali...
- The emphasis is on "claim...
- I don't have any particul...
- Sarah Palin!Seriously. On...
-
35 comments
Perhaps Scott. But we have 6-7 billion mouths to feed on this planet. I’ve never fully been able to fully grasp the vigerous opposition to genetically modified plants. The agricultural revolution is one of the cornerstones of the rise in human quality of life in modern history. I would think that prudent environmentalists would be shooting for encouraging methods that balance environmental impact with yield rather than aiming for pure organic farming (which generally leads to huge amounts of soil erosion due to the heavy tilling requirements). Nothing I’ve read about organic farming suggests that we can feed the entire planet off of this method.
Mike at The Big Stick
August 17th, 2009 at 8:36 am
I agree 100% with North on this one. Organic farming is terribly hard on the land and there are good reasons why we moved away from it. And the level of demand isn’t really every going to make it cost-effective.
There was a fantastic article about this last week over at The American. Here’s a small selection:
“…the results of organic production are so, well, troublesome. With the subtraction of every “unnatural” additive, molds, fungus, and bugs increase. Since it is difficult to sell a religion with so many readily quantifiable bad results, the trusty family farmer has to be thrown into the breach, saving the whole organic movement by his saintly presence, chewing on his straw, plodding along, at one with his environment, his community, his neighborhood. Except that some of the largest farms in the country are organic—and are giant organizations dependent upon lots of hired stoop labor doing the most backbreaking of tasks in order to save the sensitive conscience of my fellow passenger the merest whiff of pesticide contamination. They do not spend much time talking about that at the Whole Foods store.”
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/the-omnivore2019s-delusion-against-the-agri-intellectuals
North
August 17th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Mike, thanks for reading my mind. I’d seen that article like a week ago but couldn’t remember enough about where to find it again. If I had been able to find it I’d have brought it to Scott’s attention. I’d really strongly reccomend looking at it.
Travis
August 17th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
It’s really not a fantastic article. It’s just more of the same willful delusion that we can continue on our current path indefinitely. He simply dismisses offhand concerns and questions about the sustainability of modern agriculture. “Oh, well, we’ll always have a claim on fossil fuels” – what happens when their price quadruples or sextuples? What of concerns about GMO cross-contamination? What of growing pesticide resistance and bioaccumulation?
North
August 18th, 2009 at 5:26 am
I feel he has some good points about what it is that opponents of conventional farming are after and in his assertion that there’s a thick strain of romantic nonsense being employed in the thinking around farming. It really is a dirty business.
I’ve never understood the assumption that fossil fuels will suddenly one day vanish or become so scarce that their prices sextuple. What will happen is that they will gradually get less common and their price will gradually increase. When that happens then other fuel sources will gradually become economical in comparison. It’s not like we’ll wake up one day and abruptly have nothing to fuel the combine with.
For your other concerns I’d have to do more reading though my own impressions have been that GMO cross-contamination concerns are rather overwrought. I’ll have to read on bioaccumulation but why would organic farmers be concerned about pesticide resistance when they advocate the removal of that tool entirely from the farmers arsenal. Wouldn’t they welcome pesticide resistance?
Also, we do have a lot of people out there. We’re not conjuring arable land right now. In fact we’re working hard to set some arable land aside as preserves for natural environment. (an endevor I support). So our arable land is shrinking and our population is growing. Do you honestly think that we can feed the masses if we summarily ditch so many agricultural tools? I have trouble believing it. I don’t think that the way things are currently being done is sustainable, but the solutions that are being offered seem worse than the issues they perport to cure.
Travis
August 18th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Fossil fuels will not “gradually get less common.” Hubbert’s Peak posits that production from any given source increases exponentially, peaks and then declines exponentially. When the Saudi supergiant fields start declining exponentially, oil will get less common very quickly.
There’s no rational environmental or health basis to oppose GMO across the board, and we have whole countries simply banning GMO because of popular outrage. So long as there’s a regulatory agency responsible for certifying the safety and content of GMO plants, disease stemming from improper processing of produce is much more of a concern. Genetic modification is frequently conflated with inorganic agriculture (as in this excerpt), it’s impossible to certify produce as organic if it’s GMO. People even bitch about labeling milk “organic” when the cattle feed is GMO – http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1599110,00.html
There’s simply no reason to lump organic and non-GM agriculture together. As North suggests, we’ve already passed the point where we can sustain the world’s population absent both inorganic fertilization and genetic modification w/out converting to vegetarianism.
There’s a movement to stigmatize any genetic modification by labeling packaging… putting “GMO” on a package doesn’t educate a consumer at all, but only serves to scare them away from something that’s essential to reducing our dependence on inorganic fertilizer which requires huge energy inputs and is associated with actual health and environmental concern.
I’m much more worried about blind, ignorant opposition to GMO than I am about getting people to switch to organic agriculture or eat more fruits and vegetables or whatever. Opposing GMO in developed countries where we have the luxury to overspend on food means that it won’t develop as quickly as it could and won’t be available for use in areas where people are starving.
Katherine
August 17th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I agree. Genetic modification is not a “food safety” issue. It’s arguably an ethic issues, as anyone who knows anything about Monsanto knows, but the idea that GM foods are dangerous or harmful to your health is superstition.
Travis
August 17th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Maybe we’ve reached the point where the world’s population is too large, then?
North
August 18th, 2009 at 5:27 am
Perhaps, but who’s going to decide who is going to starve? Wars have been launched over far less important things than food.
I’m not sure if one can ever actually know what one is consuming unless one grows it or raises it oneself. This is a line that organic advocates use that just seems like nostalgic drivel.
North
August 17th, 2009 at 9:24 am
That is a tad harsh Dan. I’d agree on plants to a degree but when it comes to organic meat or dairy I’d say there’s some moral value there. You can be generally confident that organic meat or dairy were not factory farmed. Now I love me some pork chops but I’ll be the first to admit that factory farming gives me pause so the ability to be certain I’m avoiding it seems to have merit to me.
Jaybird
August 17th, 2009 at 9:35 am
This strikes me as a Maslow thing, though.
I have enough of my needs met to care about whether the eggs I purchase are laid by chickens who are cage-free, free range, and are able to eat insects in addition to their vegetarian-only feed diet.
Indeed, there are intangible benefits that I get from purchasing those eggs beyond mere nutrition.
If, however, I started having nutrition issues, I’d jump back to the cheap factory eggs in short order, I reckon. The “organic” in my organic eggs are a luxury good.
Dan
August 17th, 2009 at 10:22 am
North,
It is a little harsh and Jaybird said it more delicately but this, “knowing where your food comes from business”, is a reason that is purely ethical and subjective. It’s a warm feeling, an ethical satisfaction for the scrupulous, and a quite release from consumer anxiety that could only exist in a state of total decadence. Organic advocates should be comfortable with that. They take on an aesthetic practice in their shopping which gives their life additional meaning. They have made a “lifestyle decision”, they should embrace it as such.
North
August 17th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I don’t object to either of your points. My point was merely that on the subject of animal products there is a value (even if it’s only or mostly moral) to the organic label. But 100% absolutely, if I was starving then any such concerns would be heaved out the window.
Jaybird
August 17th, 2009 at 11:59 am
For my part, the fact that a benefit may be intangible does not make it any less valuable. Not for a second.
If I get 5 bucks worth of warm fuzzies out of purchasing the pain-free eggs for 2 bucks more than the factory eggs cost, I am getting a huge bargain. There’s the pleasure in buying them, the pleasure in telling the wife “hey, we got those organic eggs you like”, the pleasure in hearing her say “good”, the pleasure in taking a little more effort to crack them open than the factory eggs, the pleasure in seeing the deeper colors in the yolks, the pleasure in knowing that the cats who lick the crumbs off the plates after we’re done are getting “good” proteins in addition to the hippie food we spoil them with anyway. I’ve never done a double-blind taste test but I reckon I’d be able to tell the difference between the organic and factory eggs (the organic ones, of course, taste better and have a better texture).
There’s a lot of pleasure to be had and saying “only or mostly moral” seems, to me, to minimize the potential value to be found in spending an extra two bucks for a dozen eggs.
(That said, if someone else would get more value out of buying the factory eggs and spending the two bucks on powerball tickets and daydreaming about winning the powerball for 3 days, that’s okay too.)
Murali
August 17th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Dude, the deep coloured yolks are not “natural” Those chickens have been fed something!!!
North
August 18th, 2009 at 5:28 am
Well yes, they’ve been fed bugs and barley and various bits of green plants and whatever else they find bouncing around in their ranges.
Jaybird
August 18th, 2009 at 8:05 am
We have been blessed to be able to buy eggs from a place where we can feed the chickens ourselves. (We only get dozen a month from there and you wouldn’t believe how expensive they are.)
But, lemme tell ya, these chickens are eating free range cage free insects in addition to whatever else.
Just how much of the price difference between conventional and organic produce is due to the base cost of organic farming vs. a retailer marking up the price just because they can?
And how much of the retail price savings of conventional produce is a result of externalized costs? What of the damage to live in the watershed from fertilizers and pesticides? Is the cost of that really reflected in the price I pay at the Safeway?
I’m happy to pay a little more for organic, not because I believe the produce itself is healthier in an of itself, but because I believe the process of organic farming is less destructive.
I’m willing to concede that these beliefs are wrong, and would welcome any studies that show organic farming methods are more harmful to the watershed than methods that require chemical inputs that are likely to run off into the watershed.
Mike at The Big Stick
August 17th, 2009 at 10:11 am
AC,
I would suggest you read that article I linked to above before you claim organic farming is less destructive.
North
August 17th, 2009 at 11:54 am
AC, this article:
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/the-omnivore2019s-delusion-against-the-agri-intellectuals
provided by the intrepid Mike, has some very thought provoking items. My own minor contribution: Organic farming uses no herbicides to control weeds, as such in order to control weeds they use an older method: tearing their soil the hell up with tillers in order to destroy all the undesirable plants. This contributes hugely to prescious living soil being washed into rivers and thus into oceans with every rain fall. Organic farming has its’ own ecological problems.
As to your inquire about prices. There are several different retailers and middle men providers, each of whom would merrily undercut their competitors if it meant getting a couple extra customers. There are strong disincentives against padding their prices.
Sully Fick
August 17th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
The American Enterprise Institute? Now there is an objective source!
How about this update to the Dish post, with a link to a Scientific American article about the “black box” of GM seeds:
There is no data to contend that GM seeds are harmful because the companies that produce the GM seeds threaten lawsuits if you even attempt to conduct research on them.
North
August 17th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
If you have some arguments you’d like to make against the authors points I’d be happy to hear them. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day and AEI has been right in the past on things far more frequently than that. And I lack the mental armor of conviction that would cause me to discard an argument based solely on its source.
Now, we as a people have been using GM seed for 15 some years now with ferocious opposition from multiple groups across multiple nations. If there was concrete evidence of genuine problems from GM seed that outweighed their very obvious benefits I dare say that those people would be trumpeting them on high by now. The absence of such a result so far sort of puts the responsibility for proving them dangerous on those decrying their use. In the absence so far of anything concrete against and with an eye to their very obvious benefits I see no reason to discontinue using them. Heck, even organic farmers are arguing about whether GM isn’t in line with organic farm principles.
Sully Fick
August 18th, 2009 at 5:53 am
Ahem. Did you even read what I wrote?
Scientists (or anyone else, for that matter) are FORBIDDEN (by threat of lawsuit in the user agreement you MUST sign) from studying the seeds for possible negative effects.
Yet, you say:
“The absence of such a result so far sort of puts the responsibility for proving them dangerous on those decrying their use.”
I’m truly astounded at the mental gymnastics required.
I’m sorry, perhaps I wasn’t clear I shall attempt to elaborate for you on my second point. (I assume you’re conceding the field on the first one and have no material objections to the AEI article since you seem to have skipped that point.)
There has been fifteen or so years of use of GM crops. And to my knowledge nothing concrete has been produced in terms of the predicted negative side effects. Perhaps as you claim the direct users of the GM seed aren’t allowed to research it for negative effects. Accepting for this arguement that companies that sell GM seed are able to legally suppresss all research on GM seeds everywhere by anyone (which I find highly implausible) you do not need to be researching the seed directly to produce evidence of negative effects. Where are the neighbors of GM seed users waving around their mutant turnips that were transformed by nefarious GM pollen? Where are the assorted health disasters that GM crops were supposed to induce in the consuming populations? You can’t litigate against those studies and we both know that a legion of them have been done. As far as I can see the worst opponents have been able to come up with were some foggy claims of allergic reactions. That’s pretty weak tea.
And I have to ask: We have 6-7 million people and growing. How are we going to feed them if we’re going to try and freeze farming technology back to a 1900 level?
North
August 18th, 2009 at 6:58 am
If it wasn’t obvious this was a response to Sully, put my letters in the wrong box thinger.
Sully Fick
August 18th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Tried to post a reply, but it doesn’t show up. Curious.
Sully Fick
August 18th, 2009 at 8:00 am
I’m trying to post other links and quotes, but they aren’t showing up. Maybe they’re dumped into spam or moderated comments?
About some research: http://www.grist.org/article/Genetically-modified-science
About gene transfer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Gene_transfer
Some of the science: http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/GeneticRoulette/HealthRisksofGMFoodsSummaryDebate/index.cfm
Sully Fick
August 18th, 2009 at 8:00 am
I’m trying to post other links and quotes, but they aren’t showing up. Maybe they’re dumped into spam or moderated comments?
Sully Fick
August 18th, 2009 at 7:53 am
It seems that you haven’t actually looked at the science (or talked to any scientists or researchers) if you believe that “nothing concrete has been produced in terms of the predicted negative side effects”.
From here:
And here: http://www.grist.org/article/Genetically-modified-science
Sully Fick
August 18th, 2009 at 7:54 am
It seems that you haven’t actually looked at the science (or talked to any scientists or researchers) if you believe that “nothing concrete has been produced in terms of the predicted negative side effects”.
From here:
Sully Fick
August 18th, 2009 at 7:56 am
And here: http://www.grist.org/article/Genetically-modified-science/
Sully Fick
August 18th, 2009 at 7:57 am
And here: http://www.grist.org/article/Genetically-modified-science
Or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Gene_transfer
And, if you’d like to read some of the science: http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/GeneticRoulette/HealthRisksofGMFoodsSummaryDebate/index.cfm
North
August 18th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Thanks for the links. I’ll review them as soon as I get a chance and see what they say.
However,
Seedsofdeception.com? Now there is an objective source!
(I just had to get that dig in :P)