The "anti-synthetics" movement of Organic agriculture: Desirable or just plain irresponsible?

What is the Organic Movement?

"Only what's Natural"

The Organic Movement was mandated through the creation of legal standards for “organic food” by the USDA in 1990. Organic farming constitutes agricultural processes that reject anything synthetic: pesticides, fertilizers, GMOs etc.

Beginnings

The Organic Movement was born out of a vitalist movement where crops were nurtured by products of other living things only. In the US, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) was also formed with the objective of boycotting large "factory farms", as seen by the setting up of the Cornucopia Institute 

So, why do people go Organic? Here I evaluate Organic Farming in 2 areas: Health & Environment.

We don't know for sure if organic foods are healthier

A recentmeta-analysis (synthesis of original research) carried out in Stanford showed  that going organic did indeed lessen (-30%) pesticide & antibiotic-resistant bacteria exposure. However the researchers concluded that there is little known about the clinical significance of this. What they could show clearly was that there was no significant difference in nutrient levels between conventional and organic foods. Other naysayers also remind us that organic farming can still use natural chemicals which might be toxic at levels (e.g. copper used for wine) used are actually used in organic farming and are not tested for. The researchers at Stanford concluded that health was not a sure basis to go organic. However, other researchers  point out  that while there doesn't seem to be obvious macronutrient nutritional differences,  the jury is still out on the overall health benefit, and as it would be premature to discount the possible harm of pesticide exposure because no long term decadal long studies have been carried out. In my opinion, the reduction of pesticide exposure might hold some weight especially in the light of the high prevalence of lifestyle diseases of today like cancer (i.e. though toxicology tests have shown that levels are of reasonable concern, the issue lies with the validity of these toxicological standards over long-term exposure, especially without long-term human studies carried out.

There are other instances of health benefit to consumers. Even if these synthetics are largely in non-toxic quantities on vegetables/crops, these can accumulate to undesirable amounts up the food chain because of their effect on non-target organisms. For example, Asia's fields have been known to be contaminated by pesticides which are subsequently ingested by paddy-field crabs & fish which are important food sources for locals.  There is much evidence to show this accumulation, however, they are at not currently known to be at toxic levels (Chen et al, 1984)

While not so much a concern now, the horrors of instances like the DDT episode (a widely used pesticide that was thought to be relatively harmless but now viewed as undesirable because of its long-term persistence which has shown evidence of carcinogenic effects in the long-term) still lingers at the mind of many who advocate going organic.

The Health of Farmers

The prolific (and especially excessive) use of pesticides does however pose a more direct harm to farmers. This is especially for farmers in less developed countries where protection gear cannot be afforded and safety rules are not well implemented.

Is there an environmental basis for going organic?

 "Living in harmony with nature" is yet another phrase that goes along the tune of the movement. Organic agriculture does benefit the environment in numerous ways, including reduced pollution. There is a smaller impact on connected & adjacent ecosystems as there isn't as much nutrient runoff that pollutes water bodies and causes potentially irreversible and undesirable changes (see previous post on such problems). With organic agriculture, there also isn't long-term undesirable effects on non-target organisms such as predators of pests. Hence, while the level of toxicity may be low enough for humans to tolerate but lethal to other beneficial organisms not only play directly useful roles but are important in the integrity of ecosystems through competitive/predatory effects through the foodweb. In the third world, high yielding-varieties (brought about by the green revolution) require 10-20 times the previous annual rate of pesticide application resulting in the doubling of pest-resistance within 10 years from introduction.

So it seems clear to me that conventional agriculture isn't a very sustainable way of pest-control/ crop-maximization as there is a high possibility that more lethal and higher concentrations of pesticides will be required (versus lower, more acceptable concentrations now). The use of such synthetic pesticides doesn't seem to be an ecologically sound/sustainable principle and as Joel Salatin (a farmer made famous for the impressive economic viability of his farming methods by producing very high yields with holistic and ecologically-aware methods and without synthetic products) puts it: it's basically like a "drug trip".

Biodiversity of crops

Some say that modern agriculture is the largest-scale (and to some non-consented) experiment on the health of our bodies and the environment. So it would be interesting to take a look at the Experiments of  Rothamsted, the longest-running (from~ 1850s) experiments carried out since the advent of synthetics (and coincidentally started by Lawes, the person who commercialized them). Rothamsted consists of plots of grass, wheat & turnips with all kinds of treatments & controls whose conditions have been maintained over the centuries.

It is interesting to note that the change in crop reactions over the years. Initially, synthetic N & P increased yields, but later on, inorganic N led to low biodiversity (2-3 VS 50 species) of various plants (E.g. grass, herbs). Back then, the environmental problems of pollution weren't apparent and monocrops were seen as the way to go as farmers could 'specialize' in a crop and produce it it bulk. (I will explore more on biodiversity in the future…)

Still, it must be noted that environmental protection was not the original interest of its pioneers, and today it may not either. "How is this so?" You may ask, given the organic movement going all 'natural'. Let's simplify things and consider what will happen if the majority of us were to go organic…

Firstly, as I mentioned previously, the global environmental problems we face today aren't isolated to just the concerns of nitrogen use or pest resistance. Instead, agriculture also taps into the areas of transport (leading to green gas emissions) and ecosystem degradation.

1. Transport & GHGs

4.4 billion tons of manure would be needed to fulfil the effects of 65 million of chemical nitrogen. What this entails is higher number of livestock, grain feed & transportation.

2. Landuse

Organic farming is a less efficient way  (60-70% yields of conventional farming)  of farming. More land is needed to yield the same biomass and more land is needed for livestock to produce manure, this would mean a requiring a much higher % of global land being dedicated to agriculture. To put it into perspective, "if Europe tried to feed itself organically, it would need an additional 28 million hectares of cropland, equal to all the remaining forest cover of France, Germany, Denmark, and Britain combined" 1  The distressing implications of this are: increased deforestation (ecosystem services) and destruction of wildlife habitats (biodiversity). In addition, the strict prohibition of synthetic N also means the degradation of now viable cropland in the future- because of the high demands on crop yields, it is said that soil health needs to be maintained not only by good practices (manure and crop rotation) but also with the addition of some amount of synthetic nitrogen/fertilizers to restore the soil.  The rejection of such fertilizers means that organic farming has two consequences:

Firstly, this means that many soils might become depleted of their nutrients and farmers have to abandon ship and move on, clearing even more land (as seen in Africa due to a lack of nitrogen use (but not in the context of organic agriculture)).

Secondly, highly reliant on tillage of the soil (i.e.  also does not allow the use of no-till practices which are increasingly seen as favourable to the environment as it prevents soil erosion and reduces GHGs by increasing Carbon sequestration in the soil and reduces the need for machinery (equating to diesel-use).

The Unique Situation of Today: Population Boom

It seems that modern agriculture is in much better stead to cope with today's challenges than organic agriculture. This is because we have to tailor to a pressing need of a burgeoning population. This is probably the strongest argument going for those who oppose organic farming and they call it purely unrealistic and irresponsible. In his book "Bountiful Harvest: Technology, Food Safety and the Environment", Degregori argues that with the ever increasing number of mouths to feed, what is responsible is to maximize productivity through: 1) crop protection against other organisms and 2) soil nutrient renewal- this is what is sustainable for the sustenance of human life. In conventional agriculture, this takes the form of 1) synthetic pesticides, disease resistance (GMOs), and 2) synthetic fertilizers.

Personally…

From a personal note, over the past year, I have subscribed to a health newsletter advocating, based on scientific evidence, the superiority of the more “natural” forms of food- e.g. organic food in terms of nutrients and the environment.  The past year has been spent trying to eat organic as far as my wallet allows it and minimizing any exposure to pesticides.

Writing this blog post has helped me to understand better the complexities and half-truths of that. From the above, I cannot say that there is scientific prove for this but it still remains a personal choice of mine (i.e. am practicing the precautionary principle here/it is better to be safe than sorry). May I also put forth that there maybe a case made in the minimization of pesticide exposure: given the assumption that conventional agriculture applies pesticide residues at levels legally allowed, one could question the strength of that legal requirement. For example, organophosphates in synthetic agriculture has been correlated to have detrimental mental effects on children, but we are currently prevented from knowing the exact mechanisms because of the nature of its complexity. As Michael Pollen concludes in his response to the hype about the meta-analysis, "the absence of proof means that we either haven't studied it or we haven't found it yet, it doesn't mean we won't. In the meantime, there's a precautionary principle: even though the case isn't closed on low levels of pesticides in our diet, there are very good reasons to minimize them."

Still, does this have other trade-offs that I had not expected?

Does this choice of health conflict with the environment?

DeGerogri argues that the organic movement is but a manifestation of antitechnology elitism when in fact humans are “inherently technological beings” as seen by the developmental path we have taken. Along these lines, the organic movement might be a mindless knee-jerk reactions to the bad of modern agriculture. Does it mean that organic agriculture is all good? Based on the above, no.  But is it all bad? The answer too is no.  Which then is better?

Interestingly, Lawes' conclusion after years of experimentation at Rothamsted was that the idea of "growing as fine crops by the aid of a few pounds of some chemical substances as by the same number of tons of farm-yard dung" was a  delusion. Instead he recommended "selecting a locality where I could obtain a large supply of yard manure at a cheap rate". Now it would be interesting to find out what inclined him to saying that. Along those lines, Joel Salatin and farmers like him aren't advocates (and even oppose to some extent) the organic movement. But they are not advocates of modern industrialized agriculture either.  Perhaps the common denominator is because the idea of 'organic' isn't radically 'natural' enough- natural not in the sense of nothing synthetic but natural in the sense of working really alongside nature in terms of understanding and maximizing sound ecological principles.  And in the process, both health (nutrient quality) and environmental benefits (lower impact farming through higher yields per area and lower pollution) are maximized.

Lepisto argues that perhaps modes of production should be the way to evaluate a product's sustainability and not the 'organic' label or certification. For example, wines can be produced at the same quantity if it is grown in the appropriate climate without the use of any pesticides or insecticides. While there isn't much nutritional benefit between foods with and without the organic label, it might be because of the non-discriminating nature of the term. Organic is often associated with natural but there can still be use of practices that while having no synthetics apply large-scale industrial processes that do not take the health of the animals and crops as first concern. For example, cows can be fed on organic grain but they are not in their most natural habitat of being pasture-fed, with the soil certified organic or not. In fact, healthy fats (omega-6:omega-3 ratio, high CLA which is protective against many lifestyle diseases) are much higher in grass-fed cows as compared to cows on organic stall feed. So it is the same with vegetables where multicropping and biodiverse farming methods (which tend to be on smaller hence less industrial farms)- studies have shown that they boast of higher nutrient levels. To put it in the words of Farmer Kira Kinney of Evolutionary Organics farm (a multi-crop farm) "Large-scale organic is much the same as conventional agriculture in that it is all numbers -- get the most yield in the fewest days." This would then explain the seemingly lack of evidence for going organic in terms of health.

In the end if you ask me, with some proper tweaking especially, I do think that going organic is the lesser of two evils. But apparently, there are alternatives to both modern industrial non-organic and organic farming. And I am really excited to read and find out more ;) Stay tuned!

Alternatives I would be exploring in the subsequent posts:

1. Biodynamic Farming
2. Agroforestry
3. Urban Agriculture
4. & whatever else interesting crops up ;)

Additional References & Further Reading:

1. Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know. Robert Paarlberg. 2010. Oxford University Press. Chapters: "Agriculture, the Environment and Farm Animals" & "Organic Food.

2. Alan Weisman. 2007.The World Without Us. Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin's Press.

3. John Abraham. 1991. Food and Development: The Political Economy of Hunger and the Modern Diet. WWF & Kogan Page Ltd

4. Organic Agriculture: Fifty (Plus) Shades of Gray.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-wartman/organic-agriculture_b_1894660.html

5. The Truth Behind Organic Labels.

http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-agriculture/truth-behind-organic-labels.html