Organic food: It does a body good, but is it green?
.jpg)
Reading through various green blogs and other online eco-sources, I've noticed a disturbing trend lately: more and more people are beginning to associate green living with wealth. Some writers, in fact, have even gone so far as to ask if its possible for lower-income people to live a green lifestyle.It's not too hard to figure out why people have gotten the idea that green is a fad that only the wealthy can buy into. After all, from bamboo exercise clothing to eco-jewelry to hybrid cars, it seems like most of the green lifestyle choices that are capturing the news are trendy, stylish, and expensive. Perhaps the worst offender is organic food. From Whole Foods to Fresh Direct to organic co-ops, growers and distributors seem to be charging a premium for organic produce. A large part of the reason for this is the fact that it is difficult to transport organic food over long distances, as it isn't as hardy as other types of produce. Another problem is that organic plants tend to have lower yields than their non-organic brethren. The same is true of organically-fed animals; organic milk cows produce far less milk than non-organics, and organically-fed meat cattle take longer to grow to full size. That having been said, organic food is way out of the price range for most families.
Ironically, organic food may not necessarily all that good for the environment. Wired magazine, in fact, argued exactly this point a little while back, when they noted that people who are concerned about the environment should consider cutting out organic foods and sticking to produce and meats that don't have to travel a great distance from the farm to the market. Organic animal products require more animals taking up more space and producing more methane than their non-organic counterparts. Similarly, organic plants take more space and more resources than their non-organic counterparts. Even worse, they then require refrigerated trucks to transport their products to market, further deepening a rather large carbon footprint.
There are many reasons to go organic; personally, I won't eat non-organic strawberries or celery. That having been said, the next time you find yourself getting the stinky eyeball from some would-be eco-warrior because your oranges aren't organic, you might want to smile smugly to yourself. After all, you're taking one for the team.
Shoo fly: Rid your house of flies naturally
Asian pollution could warm Europe and U.S.
Ricky Gervais is backing PETA
_thumbnail.jpg "Green superheroes")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-09-2008 @ 2:10PM
lizandrsn said...
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I am fed up hearing that expensive is the way to go, when feeding the family just the bare essentials is killing me. We live simply, eat simply. But with every trip to the grocer or farmer's market, affording to eat is more concerning.
Sign me - can't afford to be a food snob.
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 3:00PM
andrew r said...
You've made some excellent points and I'm glad to have adopters/devotees of the organic food movement show some greater self-awareness than their conventional agriculture counterparts.
HOWEVER:
You've made some factual mistakes - or at least you're representing controversial points as assumed fact.
You wrote:
1. organic plants are less productive
2. organic plants require greater resources
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=organic-farms-more-fertil
OR
Productivity and Profitability of Conventional and Alternative Farming Systems: A Long-Term On-Farm
JD Smolik - Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 1996 - haworthpress.com
While I love that you are looking at transportation costs for produce - you need to embrace that systemic view and look not only at space and methane, but at all the inputs to conventional and organic farms. Not only the conventional fertilizer, but how far it traveled to get to the farm, and how far the raw material - OIL - traveled to where it was made.
If you look at agriculture in this systemic, long-term way, diversified organic farms (especially with local distribution - i.e. Farmers Markets, CSAs) are more sustainable and more environmentally sound every time.
I'm thrilled that you're really examining how your food is made and what that means, but please do a bit more research before posting your doubts as facts.
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 3:21PM
wes said...
I think you missed the part in the Wired article where it suggests you cut out (or reduce) meat. Also? There's probably plenty of arable land right near where you live, it's just being converted willy-nilly to suburbs. I'm sure there's a middle ground of "some" fertilizer, and "some" pesticides. But what we have today, by regulation & subsidy, is all fertilizer, all pesticide, and ship, ship, ship. And it wouldn't be cheaper, if you weren't paying for it in your taxes. Everywhere people lived used to produce the food they needed. That's not the case, today.
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 6:44PM
Michael Schmitt said...
Scientific American even points out that the farms aren't as efficient: "Although organic farms typically produce lower overall yields than common plots do, their ecological benefits are greater—", so more resources are used to make the same amount of conventional foods.
And the Scientific American article talks about small organic farming, not the large commercial organic farming seen in America. The farms studied were small farms and many are subsidized by the government to make them profitable.
The debate goes on...
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 10:49PM
Bruce Watson said...
Andrew-
First off, thanks for using such a thoughtful and courteous tone. I can't tell you how nice it is to engage in a respectful conversation, not a brawl!
I attempted to qualify my comments, but I understand why you found issue with them. As you point out, there is considerable controversy surrounding the environmental viability of organic produce and I may have been a bit quick to reach for absolute facts in a situation where the facts aren't clearly established.
That having been said, in addition to the Scientific American article that Michael cites and the University of Alberta study that Wired cites, I've come across quite a few pieces that question the environmental impact of organic farming.
You make a solid point about the environmental value of buying locally-grown organic produce, and I am lucky enough to live in an area where both farmers' markets and organic co-ops operate. What's more, there are enough of them in my vicinity that competition has helped keep the prices down. That having been said, I recognize that most people don't have the opportunities that I do.
At the end of the day, my real problem is with the way that organic produce seems to be morphing into a status symbol and a brickbat that wealthy greenies can use to beat poorer people over the head. As far as I can tell, the positive environmental effects of organic farming are far from proven, and using it as some sort of badge of honor not only fragments the green movement, but also seems to miss the point.
Reply
7-11-2008 @ 9:19AM
mollyjade said...
I don't buy organic most of the time (I can't afford it), but I can't agree with your assessment either. Conventional produce is often refrigerated, too. And with the waste and energy input problems with CAFOs I can't say they're more green than organic meat. I think the real problem is that nobody talks about the real green solution that everyone can afford, buying less, using less, and wasting less. Having a lower income means you're more likely to take public tranportation, live in a smaller house, and buy more used goods. And that's all very green.
Reply
7-15-2008 @ 10:07AM
Laura said...
Why not try locally grown food instead of Organic labeled food? Often times it is organic but the farmer could not afford or did not want to go through the goverment approved labeling process.
Organic Foods
Reply