Is organic food the answer?

Well, that depends on the question.

Of all the things I write about – energy, the greening of business, the politics and policy of climate change, geoengineering – food is by far the most emotional. With near-religious fervor, people debate the merits or demerits of, broadly speaking, two ways to produce food.

The first can be described, depending upon who’s talking, as big, fast, modern, conventional, industrial, intensive, chemical, genetically-modified, processed and global. It’s the system that delivers most of the food that most Americans eat.

The second is described as organic, sustainable, local, small-scale, family-owned, natural, agro-ecological and slow. It’s driving the growth of farmer’s markets and community-supported agriculture, as well as Whole Foods, and it’s increasingly being taken seriously by big companies like Walmart, Safeway and Kroger’s.

As shoppers and as eaters, most of us partake from both worlds. But make no mistake about it- the advocates of conventional food and those pushing reform are deeply polarized, as I’ve seen first-hand lately.

Earlier this month, I moderated a conference for CropLife America, a trade association of companies that make herbicides and pesticides. [Disclosure: They paid me to do so.] To their credit, the folks at CropLife – corporate members include Bayer CropScience, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta – brought in critics like Robby Kenner, director of the movie Food Inc., and Greg Jaffe of Center for Science in the Public Interest.  The CropLife people and their allies say they have nothing against organic or alternative food systems, but they don’t believe that organic ag can match modern agriculture (their term of choice) in terms of efficiency or yield. A reliable food supply on a large scale and at reasonable cost can only be guaranteed with the help of crop protection products, they say. Steve Savage, an industry consultant and blogger, made this argument articulately at the CropLife event; he’s skeptical about the claims being made for organic ag, to say the least. See, for example, Organic Crops Alone Can’t Feed the World, from Slate, or The Seven Most Dangerous Myths About Organic Farming.

Maria Rodale, left, and Myra Goodman, talking with Corby Kummer of The Atlantic

Last week, at the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Cooking for Solutions powwow, organic advocates were out in full force, particularly at a scrumptious all-organic breakfast at Earthbound Farm, America’s largest brand of organic produce. There we heard from Earthbound co-founder Myra Goodman, a passionate advocate for organic, and from Maria Rodale, chairman of Rodale Inc and author of Organic Manifesto: How Organic Food Can Heal Our Planet, Feed the World and Keep Us Safe. Her subtitle sums up the claims made on behalf of organics very well and in the book she goes a step farther, writing: “Organic agriculture is the key to our survival.”

Frankly, I’m confused about much of this. I’m skeptical in particular of the claim that organic agriculture is as productive or more productive than farming methods that use synthetic chemicals and genetically-modified foods. Partly that’s because most farmers have embraced modern ag. Less than 1% of US farmland is farmed organically. If farmers could improve their yields by giving up chemicals and genetically modified seeds, why wouldn’t they?

I put that question to organic advocates in Monterey including the fine farm and food journalist Tom Philpott and author-activist Anna Lappe, as well as Maria Rodale, and got some interesting answers. They identified strong cultural and institutional obstacles to organic.

Big seed companies, they said, dominate the market and push farmers towards GM crops. Agriculture schools and crop consultants who advice farmers are financed by and tilt toward chemical methods. Even the 4-H and Future Farmers of America are funded by the chemical companies.

Crop insurance can be more expensive for organic growers. Organic farming is more knowledge-intensive. And because farmers, like the rest of us, are influenced by their peers, they have a reluctance to go against the grain. I was told that there’s even a stigma attached to organic fields, where different crops are planted side by side and flowers grow to attract beneficial insects, because they look messier than mono cropped land.

Maria Rodale, who interviewed lots of conventional farmers for her book, told me that a farmer told her: “If I went to my banker and told him I was going to go organic, they’d laugh me out of the bank.”

What’s more, converting farmland from chemical to organic requires a three-year transition before crops can be sold as USDA-certified organic. “That’s the biggest risk for farmers,” Rodale said. “It’s a three year transition, and they can’t collect the organic premium.” What’s more, some of the benefits of organic growing – soil that becomes enriched over time, for example – require taking a long term view.

All this complicated the picture for me, although it remains hard for me to believe that the overwhelming majority of American farmers would act in ways contrary to their own self interest.

Myra and Drew Goodman, the founders and owners of Earthbound Farm, clarified matters a little when they explained that organic farmers have higher costs, perhaps just a few percent higher for the very popular salad mixes they sell but up to 30 or 40 percent higher for row crops like broccoli, strawberries, romaine heads, etc. So farmers who choose the organic path are taking a risk because there may not be enough people willing to pay a premium for the products they sell.

Said Myra: “It’s much more expensive (for us) to farm organically, and we are the most efficient producer out there.” Small organic farmers face even tougher hurdles, and they might do better to serve farmer’s markets or nearby restaurants, Drew said.

But if the economic benefits to farmers are uncertain — and it seems to me that they are either uncertain or long term — the case for the health and environmental benefits of organic seems stronger. Logic argues that chemicals created to kill weeds or pests can’t be good for farm workers who are repeatedly exposed to them. Soils treated repeatedly with chemicals lose their ability to sequester carbon, the organic advocates say. Chemical fertilizers applied to soils in the Midwest contribute to vast dead zones in the Mississippi.

And, while the scientific evidence, if any, for the health benefits of organic or the risks posed by chemical residues on food is a matter of great debate, it strikes me as entirely possible (albeit unproven) that chemical pesticides could do some of us some harm.

Maria Rodale goes a lot farther than that.

“Autism, ADHD, diabetes, obesity, cancer, Parkinson’s Disease,” she said. “I don’t think we realize yet that how our food is grown is contributing to these diseases.”

What are we to make of all this? All I can say is that we need more third-party unbiased science to address the competing claims. (Maybe The Sustainability Consortium can help sort some of this out.) The productivity and environmental issues should be relatively easy to settle; untangling the claims about health will be much harder. Some people I respect – notably plant scientist Pamela Ronald and her husband, organic farmer Raoul Adamchak – argue that truly sustainable farming should be able to embrace both organic and genetically engineered crops. (See my 2010 blogpost, Biotech and Organic Food: A Love Story.)

I’m going to keep buying organic food, especially fruits, vegetables and milk. I’m fortunate enough to be able to pay the premium, and even if some of the claims for organic ag are overblown, others (especially around farm workers’ health) make sense. I’m also going to keep listening with an open mind, and keep reading–beginning with Maria’s book. Suggestions for other reading are most welcome.

This story has been translated into Estonian. You can read the translation here.

Comments

  1. As ususal Marc, you brought some clarity to a very complicated issue. I agree that the best solution might be a combination of the two but it’s true that for many of the people involved, there can only be one right answer, theirs.
    Great post, thanks.

    Dennis Salazar
    Salazar Packaging, Inc.

  2. Marc,

    You buried the lead. “farm workers’ health” is a *huge* issue. An organic apple is slightly better for you or me as end producers who can wash our food. But it is a lot healthier for the people who pick it (often people without health insurance), and the people who drink the groundwater where it is picked.

  3. Grace Gershuny says:

    Nice to seek the middle ground as you are doing, but there are many more factors that make organically produced a better option than you mention here. It is a bit amusing to hear that “it remains hard for me to believe that the overwhelming majority of American farmers would act in ways contrary to their own self interest.” Good grief, the history of US agriculture is all about farmers acting against their own self interest (and various generations of robber barons taking full advantage of that)! And you appear to only be talking about economic self-interest, which, as should be obvious, does not begin to address the major dimensions of true self-interest.

    So you did hit on some correct obstacles to farmers transitioning to organic, but another one is the high cost and complexity of organic certification, coupled with lack of financial support for farmers seeking to transition. In Europe there has historically been subsidy available for the ‘ecosystem services’ provided by organic production methods, while here the public is asked to bear the costs of ‘externalities’ generated by conventional agriculture.

  4. Grace hit the nail on the head. The externalities of conventional agriculture, which neither farmers or corporations really pay, include things such as the anoxic dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico created by agrichemical runoff – chemicals increasingly used as the soil’s organic fertility, biological fertility, is degraded and substituted for.

    For some farmers, it is very difficult to see the long-term interest in changing to organic agriculture when profit margins now are so very low. For others, mainly the larger ones, the corporate system mining of the soil works quite well for the moment, and surely new technology will soon solve any problems it creates.

  5. Great post Marc-

    This is a huge issue with many different dimensions. One of the most important is the ever increasing link between the environment – including the foods we eat – and the rise in autism, learning disabilities and childhood cancers. Dr. Philip Landrigan (his research on lead toxicity at low levels lead to the ban on lead in gasoline and paint) is helping discover these connections at the Mount Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center. In fact, they just published a report showing exposure to certain pesticides impacts child cognitive development. One recommendation is to eat organic fruits and vegetables.

    We still have a way to go on the economic feasibility of farms converting to organic – or at least “environmentally responsible” practices. What we need is momentum driven by consumer demand. In the meantime, find a local farmers market!

  6. marc, good thoughtful post, but where I get hung up is the “feeding the world” mythology. The highly intensive model of agriculture in the US is not feeding the world and many books have been written about how inadequate this model is in areas of the world where there is food insecurity — look at the statements Howard Buffett or books like Enough: Why the World’s Poorest Starve in an Age of Plently. Yield is just one of many issues, and how you get there — in a capital- or labor-intensive model is just one of many issues to consider. Having spent a little time in Africa looking at these issues, I’m not even convinced food production is the biggest issue: dealing with waste may lead to the biggest “yield” gain, considering how much food rots before it is consumed (upwards to 40% or more). So looking at yield and agro-chemicals looks at a very small slice of a much bigger issue and yet that is where the attention always seems to lie. Why? Well there are a lot of interests aren’t there.

    Another issue that is more subtle and potentially even more important. Organic is not an either or proposition. As farmers explore organic methods and research expands, what happens? They begin to influence conventional farmers as well. After all, if an organic method works and means less expense then it would make sense to use it. That is why many organic methods especially in California are now being used by conventional farmers. If the market (ie consumers) never demanded it, the organic farmers behind these methods would never have developed them. And they would have spread to conventional farms.

  7. That last line should read: And they NEVER would have spread to conventional farms.

    • Lorraine Lewandrowski says:

      Hi, Fromartz. I think you are looking at things from a California point of view? When you say farmers would NEVER have adopted organic methods, are you saying this in relation to crop production in California? Here in the Northeast Milk Marketing Order (parts of NY, NJ, NH, VT, MD, PA) a big percentage of the Order’s 12,988 dairy farmers have grazed the cows for hundreds of years, built barns from local forests, avoided antibiotics except for treating sick cows, engaged in pasture management, sheltered threatened species when no one else does as the subdivisions ate the lands, etc. All good practices now called “organic” and touted as their own by the marketing people for the 1% of dairy farmers who are certified organic. It kinda makes the hair on my head stand violently on end when you exclaim that the farmers who you label as “conventional” (who are they specifically?) would NEVER have adopted organic practices. There is so much more out there in the world, come and see the regular farmers of the Northeast (before they are gone). The fastest growing area in the nation for dairy is Arizona. The New England grasslands farms are being lost at the fastest rate in dairy US. Your Calif0rnia-centric (if that is what it is) analysis really hurts us and prevents food-interested people from talking with us regular dairy farmers. When I try to talk with food-interested people in NYC, they sniff and turn their noses to the sky, exclaiming “oh, but you are not certified organic” and walk away. These fake dichotomies that you perpetuate are blinding urban people to the working countryside of the Northeast. (and probably other areas of the US) Please, engage the so-called conventional farmers instead of snorting at us…I BEG OF YOU! Follow me on twitter or email me, call me, visit me, tweet to me, please!

  8. Warren Goldstein says:

    Marc–

    It seems to me that the environmental costs of industrial agriculture, and reliance on chemical pesticides and over-fertilization are clear. Not a matter of debate. Groundwater as well as creeks, streams, rivers, and bays are fouled by nitrogen-rich runoff. Period. No longer open to serious question. Heavily chemical dependent soil is dead soil. Workers ARE harmed every day, and over time, by repeated exposure to the neurotoxins in pesticides.

    So why not rephrase the question: HOW do we change American agriculture to be environmentally healthier, as opposed to WHETHER it’s a good idea.

  9. One glaring omission, likely not intentional… The price of oil and industrial agriculture’s total dependence on cheap petrochemicals for transport, pesticides, herbicides, plastics, and fertilizer. The binary either or debate will be over once oil goes to and stays relatively close to or above 120 a barrel. That fact will trump the entire discussion – and crash the world food system. No serious discussion of the topic can ignore that fact.

    As China and India’s population demands a commensurate rise in living standards with the rise of their nations as commercial juggernauts the competition for that irreplaceable stuff will make it all very clear. We may have renewables come online in force, but it is not happening fast enough. There is no energy source which provides the energy returned for energy invested ratio that early generations of easy to obtain oil did. It takes oil to produce renewables.

    Until discussions of all agricultural strategies get beyond personal health/price concerns, or GMOs or “elitism” of sustainable agriculture advocates (promoted by the PR wing of industrial ag) – We are headed for a cliff.

    Grow your own.

    • Lorraine Lewandrowski says:

      Good point, Liz. I was thinking about the concept of “food security” in the Northeast myself the other day. What would happen if suddenly, petrochemicals were unavailable? Where I live in the Northeast, as I say over and over, we are blessed with plentiful and well-watered grasslands close to the Northeast Corridor. The working grasslands ecosystems that currently feeds the Northeast Corridor with dairy could continue at least in some measure as they did in the past to feed people in the Northeast. Dairying on perennial grasslands is tried and proven through 200 years of dairy farming traditions as we know it here in Herkimer County, NY. Yet, we see little interest by consumers in actually speaking with traditional grasslands farmers. Instead, urban writers cast the players as Conventional versus Organic. Not so simple here in the Northeastern milksheds. Food-interested people should be taking a look at the natural resources and food traditions of their foodshed and how best to use them to feed their populations. “Food Security” seems very common sense and basic coming from my European background where my relatives nearly starved during WWII.

  10. Marc,

    You said it right about organic food being a very emotionally charged issue! I am the mother of two young boys and now read everything I can on the subject of good food and nutrition. As a mother, it’s more complicated then ever to feed my kids the best food possible. I find myself trying to harken back to my childhood and my mother cooking from scratch–an “event” increasingly challenging in a working mothers day. One of the best books I’ve found on this subject is, The Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan. It gives a history of how genetically modified food came to be. Interesting read.

  11. Fabiola Graveaud says:

    Thanks Marc, I’d like to add another point of view to this great post.

    If some of you speak French, I recently saw a great movie on this topic: “small is beautiful: c’est par où demain?” (which way is tomorrow?). In particular, a farmer who converted the family farm to conventional farming in the 1960’s, after finishing school, realized 30 years later that maybe organic farming was a better solution, with higher quality products, less health problems, and less dependency on seed and chemical corporations. I hope this documentary will be translated in English soon.

    I think that organic farming is the agriculture of the future. Because productivity is not the sole and only goal of a sustainable agriculture.
    A sustainable agriculture should be able to feed the world (and not leave billions of humans underfed), keep water free from pesticides herbicides and fungicides, provide food that is healthy to workers and consumers, and also favor biodiversity. Organic farming can be productive and resilient (to pest attacks, diseases, climate variations…) when the potential of biodiversity is used.

    Single-crop farming attracts crop-specific pests and generates the need for specific pesticides which in turn generate resistant super-pests. Single-crops are also very sensitive to the spread of diseases. Because these are often hybrids that have been designed for productivity, and not adaptation to the climate of the region where they are grown (without even speaking about long term climate change adaptation), they are also very sensitive to annual variations and extreme events, such as droughts.

    Organic single-crop farming of hybrid species would make no sense since most of the drawbacks would remain. Successfull organic farming includes a biodiversity strategy that relies on natural interactions to attract pest predators (and although some pests might appear, they woudn’t grow into an infestation) and minimize the spreading of diseases (since all plant varieties are not sensitive to the same diseases). It also relies on the adaptation of crops to the local soil and climate, so that the plant better resists extreme events and is less water-intensive. This is only possible when the farmer can collect the seeds from one year to plant them the next year, which is impossible with hybrids or GMOs because they are designed to be infertile or to degenerate if replanted – besides they are patented so collecting the seeds is prohibited.

    This is a crucial problem to food safety: if farmers in the developping world can not sustain their production by collecting and planting their seeds, and instead need to buy each year seeds of GMOs or hybrids (and spread pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and use lots of water to grow them), then they are trapped into a “conventional productivity loop” to pay for all that. Many small farmers that embrace conventional farming in the developping world get into debt to buy crops, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, equipment to spread them, hoping that productivity will enable a fast payback of their debt. But many costs are recurring and eventually farmers have very few ways to escape the “conventional productivity loop”, get out of debt, and gain independance from crop and chemical industries. On top of that, when converting to conventional single crop farming, they no longer produce their own food.

    I read several books and watched documentaries in French on this topic, but I would love to hear about more references in English.

  12. Lorraine Lewandrowski says:

    Here in the Northeast Federal Milk Marketing Order of the US, we have about 13,000 dairy farmers, average herd size of 100 cows. About 4 million acres in NY are devoted to grasslands. Indeed the hallmark of the NY milkshed is that it makes use of great grass for grazing. I believe about 98% of the dairy farmers are by your nomenclature, “conventional”.
    The either / or classification (either you are organic certified or you are “conventional”) serves only to turn food-interested people against the good old fashioned conventional dairy farmers who make use of the grasslands, who try their best not to use antibiotics unless necessary, who go to seminars on how best to make hay and forages from native grasslands and all the good programs offered in ag education.
    In the Northeast at least, farming practices are a continuum. On my farm, farmed since the early 1800’s, grazing has been the mainstay for two centuries now. The core group of my neighborhood farms are sheltering birds of special concern and unfragmented wildlife habitat. We graze the cows with pasture management to the best of our ability. We stay abreast of studies relating grazing techniques to enhanced biodiversity. My sister is a veterinarian. We make use of many organic cattle care methods, but use antibiotics for a sick animal when needed. Cooperative Extension points the value of fertilization of fields with manure as a cost-saving measure. We are not unique, there are thousands like us.
    The tone of this article seems to be that the farmer who is not totally organic is a stupid goof who never would have adopted any organic techniques. For some of us dairy farmers who have survived “Farmageddon” (drop in 660,000 dairy farmers in the 1970’s to 54,000 today), we’ve always used and never stopped using some of the techniques now labeled as organic in modern times. (grazing, medicate only when necessary, non-antibiotic herd care, use of natural manure for fertilizer).
    The either/or scenario really hurts the average farmer, and there are thousands and thousands of them. And, so does the prevalent attitude that farmers are nothing but stupid rubes. I ask Northeast food-thinkers to take the time to come and meet the farmers of the Northeast’s milkshed as we move forward to FarmBill 2012.
    By the way, I worked on the 1984 Farm Bill as the youngest member of the Northeast team. I distinctly remember consumer groups screeching at us how they wanted CHEAP MILK and plenty of it. In the late 1990’s some of us tried to implement collective bargaining for dairy farmers in NY. Once again, NYC officials like Mark Green, NYC Public Advocate vociferously opposed….again. CHEAP MILK WANTED for NYC.

  13. All manure is not alike! At its very roots organics is about closed-loop farming where soil structure and fertility are maintained by returning nutrients and organic matter through the inglorious and laborious composting of manure and plant mater. Organics work very well in smaller farming systems where labor and land are tight (most of China, Rwanda, Kennett Square PA) and compost is profitably returned to the soil. Organics becomes more challenging when estranged urban populations become dependent on distant farming practices. But when the urban sanitation facilities begin backing up – and enormous quantities of the seriously toxic sewage sludge they produce is now being sold and applied as “biosolids” across many States – we’ll be recycling another kind of manure with horrific and long-ignored impacts. The use of sewage sludge is currently prohibited under the USDA National Organic Program which is a real benefit to both consumers and the general public. All manure is not alike. Pass the organics, please.

  14. Thanks for sharing this Marc – you’ve nicely captured the debate around and complexity of organic vs. conventional.

    One critical thread is missing from your piece and the comments (and frankly the debate on food sustainability generally). The typical refrain from “big ag” is that we need technology to “feed the world.” This may be true, IF we want the rest of the world to eat like we do in the West.

    Of course, this would be disastrous. The vast majority of corn and soy grown in the US and elsewhere is fed to livestock for human consumption, which brings a variety of ails – for the environment and human health (there are so many studies demonstrating the benefits of plant-based diets, e.g. see Forks Over Knives, in theaters now).

    So I think we need to reframe the question and talk about the sort of food system we need to achieve planetary and human health – not simply pit conventional vs. organic. I think we’d then be talking about new models which are smaller scale, lower on the food chain, and contribute to human well being.

    Thanks again.

  15. Lorraine Lewandrowski says:

    So what happens to the working grasslands that cannot be converted to grow crops? If only the farmers and ranchers who produce from the land could be included in the food talks. I say look to the resources of your region. There’s a real reluctance out there in urban food policy land to even speak with farmers who earn their living in agriculture, why?

  16. Marc,
    It was great to meet you in DC last week. You are a fantastic facilitator.

    I will respond to this article in detail by email. My goal is to get you to see thorough the myths of Organic to which you still seem to be far too susceptible.

    Steve

  17. Marc, I agree more careful, unbiased research is needed to sort out the impacts of farming systems and plant genetics on food quality, but also feel we know a lot more than you acknowledge. On the question of yields, it is too simplistic to compare a corn crop on a conventional and organic farm in terms of one parameter — bushels harvested. The corn from the organic field will almost certainly be more nutrient dense and will also have a better balance of amino acids; less yield by weight, more nutritional value per pound of bushel. The organic farmer will also harvest more biomass off of the acre growing the corn, since the organic farmer relies on cover crops and rotations that allow a given field to capture solar energy for a longer period, converting it to biomass to feed animals or the soil, compared to the conventional farm. And last, the organic field will not require the addition of multiple toxins, either applied as chemical pesticides or bred into the plants via GE, to get a crop to harvest. Organic farmers learn to live with less than perfect pest control, but in the end, the tradeoffs seem positive. It is also increasingly clear that organic fruits and veggies have 15% to 25% higher levels of biologically active phytochemicals that promote health through a myriad of mechanisms. Again, the organic tomato or grape grower will harvest fewer pounds per acre, but the harvested crop will be richer in health-promoting natural chemicals like lycopene and resveratrol.
    The biggest difference between conventional and organic ag is that the fundamental goal of the former is pushing plants and animals to maximum production with little consideration for nutritional quality or food safety or soil/water quality impacts, while the goal of the latter is promoting healthy soils, plants, and animals, even at the expense of some yield. When and as organic farming is supported roughly to the degree of conventional ag in terms of research and infrastructure investments, both the production differential and price premium will narrow. No system has all the answers, but organic farming is grounded in health promotion and problem prevention, and hence strikes me as a sounder foundation to build on, compared to today’s energy and chemical-intensive conventional systems that are showing all sorts of signs of wear.

  18. It’s so unfortunate that the big E. coli and Salmonella outbreaks recently appear to be associated with organic products:

    German E. coli O104:H4 Update – 276 with Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome

    and
    Does this recent Sprout Salmonella Outbreak show a hole in the new Food Safety Law called the Tester Amendment, and why are Sprouts and Raw Milk not treated equally?

    Would this be an increasing problem with increasingly more organic practices, too?

  19. Organic agriculture is the key to our survival. Chemical laden conventional agriculture is harmful to the land and to us.

  20. ?”…it remains hard for me to believe that the overwhelming majority of American farmers would act in ways contrary to their own self interest.” Really? American consumers do it everyday. Does knowing and seeing the harm from fast, fat, processed food keep people from consuming it? It is mainstream convention that drives mainstream behaviour and decisions. Change mainstream conventions and you’ll see different decision making.

  21. Great post! But as many of others have commented, there are so many social factors that must be considered when comparing Big Ag vs Organic Ag. Not everything should be about the bottom line.

  22. What difference does it really make?

    If people are eating vegetables, they will likely be healthier than if they weren’t. Until studies come out identifying specific pesticides to specific diseases, I’m going to continue to concern myself with cost and taste. I’m fairly certain that those two factors are going to keep people who don’t tend to gravitate towards healthy foods eating them.

  23. Marc,
    stop wasting your money.

  24. To add my humble opinion,

    Organic agriculture may only make up 1%, but from what I understand, it is on the rise. Back in the 1980s (or 70s, not sure), organic production only made up about .1% of farming in the U.S. Can’t verify this, but it might be something worth looking into.

    I also know a farmer who recently switched to organic and is now making much more money because he gets paid more for his products.

  25. Food products that are produces using harmful pesticides are very harmful for health, GMO seeds make crops increase but they lack in the original taste of the product.

  26. Khristyan says:

    Imagine a world where people were developing illnesses just because of the fact that they are consuming food. Current farms are increasing the use of chemicals in their crops in order to improve their growth rate and their resistance to diseases and pests. As a result, supermarket shelves are being loaded with contaminated food, which bring us to wonder: “Is organic food the solution?”
    In fact, it is firmly confirmed that organic food is much healthier compared to those in which pesticides were used during their growth. Another benefit of organic food is that its flavor and quality overcomes the ones of non-organic, which makes it more pleasant to our palate. Needless to say, consuming organic food is undoubtedly a way for us to not only preserve our health but also help environment healing. In other words, the production of organic food helps the world become greener.
    However, organic food production costing outweighs the costing of non-organic, which takes farmers to prefer the conventional method. Moreover, organic crops are more susceptible to pests and diseases, which means that they require more care. Another drawback is that organic food output rate is low, therefore, it ends up being charged for a high price, making it be considered a high-society food.
    In conclusion, although organic food is a considerable solution to bar contaminated food consumption, it is yet difficult for farms to produce sufficient quantity that would be able to feed the entire planet. We need to focus on studying a way that could help organic food output increase in a way that it equalizes non-organic. Naturally, its costing would decrease and it would become affordable for the whole society.

Trackbacks

  1. […] journalist Marc Gunther recently posted a thoughtful article discussing public perceptions of the role of organic agriculture in a future sustainable food […]

  2. […] journalist Marc Gunther recently posted a thoughtful article discussing public perceptions of the role of organic agriculture in a future sustainable food […]

Speak Your Mind

*