Slate: Organic vs. Conventional? Too Complex...
Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 1:00PM A full week has passed since the UK Food Standards Agency released the controversial report concluding that organic and conventional foods are nutritionally equal, and the debate finally started tapering off. It had been at least 48 hours since anything about the study had come through my RSS reader, and I had begun to think (somewhat hopefully) that the story would simply fade away, until I came across this Slate article by author and TSU professor James McWilliams.
McWilliams isn't out to debunk the findings of the FSA study, as many organic food advocates have in the past week. Instead, he's out to prove that organic vs. conventional is itself a false conflict. And he begins, curiously, by looking at the demographics of organic consumers:
"[C]onsistent buyers of organic goods tend to be female, college-educated, and at least somewhat well-off. All these demographic factors happen to correlate with better access to health care and basic nutritional awareness. Why should we worry whether an already healthy, wealthy, and well-informed cohort absorbs minimally more nutrition from an organic apple?
This leads McWilliams to conclude that getting more people to eat more vegetables is more important that taking sides on the organic vs. conventional debate. That's hard to argue with, but it's beside the point. The fact that college-educated women eat more organic veggies than black men doesn't in any way discredit the FSA study's findings. The people who are spending 60 percent more for certified-organic foods do want to know whether it's worth the price.
McWilliams' real contribution to the discussion is his observation that the terms "organic" and "conventional" are so broad that comparative studies produce "maddeningly mixed results—which, in turn, allow consumers to cherry-pick whatever data support their preconceived notions."
"It's so wide, in fact, that accurately comparing the categories is virtually impossible. For example, it's well-known that large, industrial farms overuse pesticides and fertilizers, but many conventional family farms practice integrated pest management, selectively employ advanced fertilizers to reduce runoff, spray very selectively, and establish grazing systems for livestock that rely on environmentally sound rotational schedules. Likewise, the environmental virtues of organic agriculture are conspicuously (and deservedly) touted, but the glowing reports rarely note that most organic food comes from large corporate operations, that some organic farmers rely heavily on natural pesticides that are toxic in high doses, that organic compost can contain more contaminants than conventional fertilizer, and that soil erosion can be as bad or worse on organic farms. There is no standard "organic" or "conventional" farm, so any broad comparison is little more than speculative."
What's your take on this debate? Share your thoughts in the comments section.
-Mark
Reader Comments (4)
Let's go back to the basics. What we need to do is support the soil in a "healthy way" so that it provides an ongoing base for raising "healthy food". We need to provide a diverse seed stock, one that is abundant and sustainable in a specific microclimate. We need animals that are provided a "natural" source of food. We need to grow food that supports happy, healthy bodies. We need happy farmers to provide us the crops, meat, dairy to sustain nations.
Summary. Happy Farms and Farmers = Happy Food = Happy People= Happy Nations
I don't care what you call it, organic or convential, just let's work toward the same end and stop the greed as it does not feed us very well. Stop playings with words that make it sound "healthy" and give us accepted defination of words for clear accurate communication so all can make wise choices.
Too much of our food supply is toxic and probably becoming more toxic as we debate "organic" vs "conventional". Consumers need to push (fight?) for healthy food grown in sustainable ways so that we all have access to food which has a net effect of nourishing us instead of slowly poisoning us.
As a college educated and semi well-off black man...I'm proud to say that we choose to eat organic. This debate will continue as long as money is being made by big Ag and producers of GMOs. Plus, consumer laziness will always choose to assume "convenient" is best because it's less expensive. However, in the long run...if they continue to eat non-organic toxic "food" they and their families will be destined for higher healthcare costs. Funny how that works.
By law, organic production is based on a system of farming that maintains and replenishes soil fertility without the use of toxic and persistent pesticides and fertilizers. Organically produced foods also must be produced without the use of antibiotics, synthetic hormones, genetic engineering and other excluded practices, or irradiation. In addition, in order to meet federal regulations, careful records must be kept about every phase of organic production. This means that everything from the source of the seeds to the way the products are placed on store shelves must be documented. Moreover, each of these steps must be verifiable by a third party. Conventional products are not required to meet such standards. Organic products thus emerge as the best bet for consumers seeking to know that the products they buy have been produced and handled in a manner that places personal and environmental health as top priorities.