Being involved in the Ethical Co-op, I’ve had a number of people gleefully tell me about the series of articles in the recent Economist, criticising Ethical food, in particuar organic, local and Fairtrade foods, the first two of which are key policies of the co-op.
I was quite looking forward to reading their argument, and doing the investigation necessary for a detailed refutation, but unfortunately the quality of their argument made the process a little less interesting than I’d been hoping.
The issue contained two articles, one freely available online (Voting with your trolley), while the other is locked (Ethical Food, although it was called Good Food in print. There’s a copy available though).
I’m going to break my response to their articles into pieces, focusing on their attack on organic food in this article, and their arguments against local, Fairtrade and political activism through shopping in articles (hopefully) to follow.
In short, their argument against organic food is as follows.
Organic food is not better for the environment because:
a) yields are lower, so more land is required, and ‘there’s less space left for the rainforest’
b) energy usage is higher per unit of food produced, because yields are lower
Hopefully you’ve noted the gaping chasm in their logic. Is more space really the only factor in a better environment? Of course not – their are numerous other factors. Pesticides are poisonous. They kill things. There’s much less life of any sort on a chemical farm. That’s not better for the environment. Artificial fertisers run off, causing the demise of nearby bodies of water, algal blooms and the like. That’s not better for the environment. I could go on. But what about their actual, uncited, claim that yields are lower? Let’s look at some of the research out there, not what chemical corporates would like you to hear.
According to a 22-year study by Cornell University, in drought years, organic corn yields were 22% higher than chemically grown corn. In non-drought years, corn yields were about equivalent. Also, organic farming uses 30 percent less energy, less water and no pesticides.
The study concluded that organic farming can compete effectively in growing corn, soybeans, wheat, barley and other grains, but might not be as favorable for growing such crops as grapes, apples, cherries and potatoes, which have greater pest problems.
Another US study concluded that organic yields were about 95% to 100% of chemical yields.
The studies showing that organic yields are lower need to be looked at more carefully. Do the studies look at a specific crop, ignoring unfavourable (to them) results? Who are they funded by? Do they take a short term view? A farm moving from chemical to organic will of course have lower yields in the interim. The soil needs to be rejuvenated, and there’s also a body of knowledge that needs to be built up. As far as I know, there’s one organic olive farm in South Africa, and their yields are much lower than for chemical farms, But they’re pioneers, growing olives in a new way, in new conditions that haven’t been tested before. Perhaps in a few years they can get their yields up to equivalent to chemical farms, or beyond.
Quality of soil is key to organic farming. Over time, soil quality of chemical farms deteriorates, because the soil is not being fed properly. That’s why yields are so much lower during drought, as the ability to compensate for the lack of water has been destroyed by the persistent removal of nutrients over time. Chemical farms steal from the future to feed the present.
The Economist, not for the first time gets it horribly wrong.
Other responses
Technorati tags: Economist ethical organic farming organic food
..if organic food yields are generally and consistently similar (90-95% of ) to non organic food then why are they so expensive? Surely if yields were so similar they should be at the same price. Are organic food consumers being conned and exploited by the organic captalistic food industry? Yes they most surely are. However, if yields are consistently lower then they are not! By the way pesticides have not caused a single species extinction whilst land take, ie farming, has…
I’ll ignore the sarcasm, and point you to an economics 101 textbook. Yield alone does not equal price. Things such as supply and demand also have an effect.
And I’ll treat your unprovable claim about pesticides not having caused a single species extinction as equally untrusworthy 🙂
And the rising price of commodities will also have an impact on all of this. Organic products / Ethical products have still an image to build in some countries like France.
It is a really helpful information about organic foods. I live in a village and organic foods are very important for us,
there is also a very useful guide that i got great informatin about organic foods:
http://agricultureguide.org/
Sorry Ray, but I have to agree with “greenman” on this one.
Any person with even an elementary knowledge of economics, knows that yield alone does not yield price. Take a look at how many organic vs. conventional farms there are, and that will explain the price difference quite a bit. If you have one organic farm for every 9 conventional farms, then the supply availability is only 10%, relatively (assuming same yield on every farm). It’s clear that the demand for organic food has increased over the last few years (as seen by agricultural consumer reports/trends). Put two and two together, and you have a supply vs. demand curve that correlates with the prices you see. Keep in mind that supply vs. demand isn’t the only direct factor. Farmers that have a smaller infrastructure (like some newer organic farmers) have to markup their products in order to compete and make a living. Over time, as the infrastructure grows, the markup needed drops and the prices begin to stabilize with that of the other larger farms. Asking a more general question– isn’t it worth it to pay for food that is better for you and better for the environment (overall sustainability, etc.) ? As per Ray’s second statement: “pesticides have not caused a single species extinction.” First of all, do you have a claim to back that up? Second, does a species need to be extinct, before we exercise caution on something that is harmful to them (that has killed them)? Your logic (or lack thereof) has faltered here. If a pesticide is shown to kill every sparrow that comes into contact with it (but doesn’t kill every sparrow — thus no extinction), does that mean that there is no harm? You must be joking…I have read many cases where different species have died due to pesticides.
Here are a few references to back up my claim.
The bald eagle is one species that has been harmed by the use of pesticides.
http://www.epa.gov/espp/coloring/especies.htm
Here are some other sources concerning pesticide effects.
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0325-salamanders.html
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/chemicals/pesticides/protectinges/extinction.aspx
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ansci/wildlife/wl1017-1.htm
I won’t take up any more blog space for references as their are so many. The evidence speaks for itself.
-Lagius
Sorry Ray, but I have to agree with “greenman” on this one.
Any person with even an elementary knowledge of economics, knows that yield alone does not yield price. Take a look at how many organic vs. conventional farms there are, and that will explain the price difference quite a bit. If you have one organic farm for every 9 conventional farms, then the supply availability is only 10%, relatively (assuming same yield on every farm). It’s clear that the demand for organic food has increased over the last few years (as seen by agricultural consumer reports/trends). Put two and two together, and you have a supply vs. demand curve that correlates with the prices you see. Keep in mind that supply vs. demand isn’t the only direct factor. Farmers that have a smaller infrastructure (like some newer organic farmers) have to markup their products in order to compete and make a living. Over time, as the infrastructure grows, the markup needed drops and the prices begin to stabilize with that of the other larger farms. Asking a more general question– isn’t it worth it to pay more for food that is better for you and better for the environment (overall sustainability, etc.) ? As per Ray’s second statement: “pesticides have not caused a single species extinction.” First of all, do you have a reference to back that up? Second, does a species need to be extinct, before we exercise caution on something that is harmful to them (that has killed them)? Your logic (or lack thereof) has faltered here. If a pesticide is shown to kill every sparrow that comes into contact with it (but doesn’t kill every sparrow — thus no extinction), does that mean that there is no harm? You must be joking…I have read many cases where different species have died due to pesticides.
Here are a few references to back up my claim.
The bald eagle is one species that has been harmed by the use of pesticides.
http://www.epa.gov/espp/coloring/especies.htm
Here are some other sources concerning pesticide effects.
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0325-salamanders.html
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/chemicals/pesticides/protectinges/extinction.aspx
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ansci/wildlife/wl1017-1.htm
I won’t take up any more blog space for references as their are so many. The evidence speaks for itself.
-Lagius