IN RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE CONCERNING THE VALUE OF ORGANIC FOODS (9-10-12) I THINK WHAT IS ORGANIC AND WHAT IS NOT IS OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD.THINGS THAT ARE ORGANIC INCLUDE--A TILE FLOOR,TNT,CANCER CELLS,MOLECULES THAT CAUSE DEPRESSION,TOOTHPASTE,A PLASTIC BOWL,ETC.ETC.VIRTUALLY ANY CARBON CONTAINING MOLECULES IS ORGANIC.SOME ARE "GOOD" AND SOME ARE "BAD"AND MANY ARE IN BETWEEN.THE REASON YOUR QUESTION IS STILL BEING DEBATED,I FEEL IS THE COMPLEXITY REQUIRED TO OBTAIN IT'S ANSWER.
What “extra cost?” Let’s consider the actual costs of organic vs. “conventional” foods. The Morning Call Article “Are organic foods worth extra cost?” of 9/9/12 referred to a review of studies on the health benefits of organic foods. However, both the Morning Call article and the review of studies it refers to completely ignore the environmental and economic benefits of organic food, and the hidden costs associated with conventional foods. Consider these contrasting viewpoints.
The Human Health Viewpoint
The review of studies, although it didn’t find significant differences in nutrient levels between organic and conventional food, did find reduced risk of pesticide exposure for those consuming organic produce, and reduced risk of antibiotic-resistant bacteria exposure for those consuming organic chicken and pork. The health problems linked to these exposures are severe, ranging from cancer, to asthma, to reproductive issues, just to name a few.
Ask yourself: Is reducing your risk of these illnesses worth something?
The Environmental/Ecosystems Viewpoint
The environmental/ecosystems viewpoint on organic food can be taken from a multitude of angles, several of which will be discussed here. First, soil farmed organically sequesters more carbon than soil farmed conventionally. This helps reduce climate change. In their application of fungicides, conventional farms efficiently kill off the mycorrhizal fungi that organic soil contains. These fungi grow on the roots of plants and store so much carbon, that, according to Maria Rodale, CEO and Chairwoman of Rodale, Inc.: “… if all the cultivated land in the world were farmed organically, it would immediately reduce our climate crisis significantly.”
Ask yourself: Is reducing climate change worth something?
Second, farming organically has been shown to increase biodiversity. This is due to the lack of pesticides, herbicides and inorganic fertilizers used in organic farming methods. Also, a more diverse crop rotation is usually used. Biodiversity is important for a number of reasons, including: natural services (protection of water and air resources, pollutant break-down, etc.), resources (food, medicine, wood, etc.), social benefits (recreation, tourism, cultural value, etc.), and species interdependency (for a balanced ecosystem). A recent 2011 article suggests that biodiversity is worth hundreds of billions of dollars per year economically, but its value may well be greater than this because economic valuation often disregards intrinsic values. A bio-diverse, and thus balanced, ecosystem functions more efficiently.
Ask yourself: Is biodiversity worth something?
Third, conventional industrial agriculture is not sustainable. According to an Environmental Health Perspectives article, “The following environmental and public health concerns are associated with the prevailing production methods:
- Monocultures are eroding biodiversity among both plants and animals.
- Synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilizers are polluting soil, water, and air, harming both the environment and human health.
- Soil is eroding much faster than it can be replenished—taking with it the land’s fertility and nutrients that nourish both plants and those who eat them.
- Water is consumed at unsustainable rates in many agricultural areas.”
In contrast, organic agriculture promotes sustainable practices such as crop rotation and diversity, soil management, and non-use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers.
Ask yourself: Is the preservation of our environmental resources for future generations worth something?
The Economic Viewpoint
The reasons for choosing organic food over conventional extend beyond those mentioned here, but if you still aren’t convinced, consider this: Government subsidies are what’s making conventional (chemically-farmed) food so cheap. In her book, The Organic Manifesto, Maria Rodale points out:
“Every few years congress enacts legislation that sets agriculture policy for the United States. Cheap food wouldn’t be possible without it. And, if not for the farm bill, organic foods would cost less than other foods.”
Why would the farm bill subsidize chemical farming and not organic farming? I refer again to Maria Rodale:
“In Congress’s effort to ‘protect jobs’ (mainly at chemical companies) and American farmers, it produced a farm bill that put farmers on an economic treadmill by providing payment incentives to keep growing crops like corn and soybeans chemically and made it almost impossible to switch to organic or growing other crops. Many of the companies that make chemicals and GMO seeds, the American Farm Bureau, and the National Corn Growers Association employed lobbying firms that insisted to congresspeople that chemicals mean jobs and capitalistic freedom.”
Through the farm bill, we as taxpayers, subsidize conventional (chemical) food. Only a fraction of a percent of the farm bill’s billions of dollars of budget goes to supporting organic food production, (only 0.3% in 2008, in fact). Thus, we pay more for conventional foods than the price reflected at the grocery store.
Government subsidies are not the only hidden cost of conventional food. Here’s a partial list of conventional food costs to the consumer:
- the price at the grocery store
- the taxes we pay that go towards farm bill subsidies
- the cost of health care for all the medical problems caused by chemical farming
- the cost of developing more and more “resilient” mono-crops when biodiversity is diminished
- the cost of exacerbated climate change and its impacts, which are SO costly that they are virtually impossible to monetize
- the cost of replacing the excess soil eroded
- the cost of replacing the nutrients in the soil depleted by chemically enhanced monocultures
- the cost of water treatment when our water sources are polluted by chemical runoff
- the cost of fish when many are killed by pesticide runoff and fertilizer runoff that causes algal blooms in turn causing dead zones void of fish and other marine life (not to mention the cost to fishermen, who’s livelihoods are diminished)
- the cost of filtration and remediation methods when riparian zones/wetlands (our natural filters) are contaminated with chemical runoff
- the cost to future generations if all this degradation continues
- less jobs – Conventional farming is less labor-intensive than organic farming and thus provides less jobs, which are sorely needed in these economic times.
In comparison, here’s a list of organic food costs to the consumer:
- the price at the grocery store
Now, reconsider the Morning Call article’s title question: “Are organic foods worth extra cost?” The question is misstated. We should really be asking, “Are conventional foods worth the extra cost?” Clearly, the answer is NO!
I was amazed at the cost of conventional industrial agriculture to the consumer when all aspects of production are considered. Something to think about.