[R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Organic Farming: Myths and Facts

[Bill Totten]

The great organic myths:
Why organic foods are an indulgence the world can't afford

They're not healthier or better for the environment - and they're packed
with pesticides. In an age of climate change and shortages, these foods
are an indugence the world can't afford.

by Rob Johnston

Independent.co.uk (May 01 2008)


Myth one: Organic farming is good for the environment

The study of Life Cycle Assessments for the UK, sponsored by the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, should concern
anyone who buys organic. It shows that milk and dairy production is a
major source of greenhouse gas emissions. A litre of organic milk
requires eighty per cent more land than conventional milk to produce,
has twenty per cent greater global warming potential, releases sixty per
cent more nutrients to water sources, and contributes seventy per cent
more to acid rain.

Also, organically reared cows burp twice as much methane as
conventionally reared cattle - and methane is twenty times more powerful
a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Meat and poultry are the largest
agricultural contributors to greenhouse gas emissions emissions. Life
Cycle Assessment counts the energy used to manufacture pesticide for
growing cattle feed, but still shows that a kilo of organic beef
releases twelve per cent more greenhouse gas emissions, causes twice as
much nutrient pollution and more acid rain.

Life Cycle Assessment relates food production to: energy required to
manufacture artificial fertilisers and pesticides; fossil fuel burnt by
farm equipment; nutrient pollution caused by nitrate and phosphate
run-off into water courses; release of gases that cause acid rain; and
the area of land farmed. A similar review by the University of
Hohenheim, Germany, in 2000 reached the same conclusions (Hohenheim is a
proponent of organic farming and quoted by the Soil Association).


Myth two: Organic farming is more sustainable

Organic potatoes use less energy in terms of fertiliser production, but
need more fossil fuel for ploughing. A hectare of conventionally farmed
land produces 2.5 times more potatoes than an organic one.

Heated greenhouse tomatoes in Britain use up to 100 times more energy
than those grown in fields in Africa. Organic yield is 75 per cent of
conventional tomato crops but takes twice the energy - so the climate
consequences of home-grown organic tomatoes exceed those of Kenyan imports.

Defra estimates organic tomato production in the UK releases almost
three times the nutrient pollution and uses 25 per cent more water per
kilogram of fruit than normal production. However, a kilogram of wheat
takes 1,700 joules of energy to produce, against 2,500 joules for the
same amount of conventional wheat, although nutrient pollution is three
times higher for organic.


Myth three: Organic farming doesn't use pesticides

Food scares are always good news for the organic food industry. The Soil
Association and other organic farming trade groups say conventional food
must be unhealthy because farmers use pesticides. Actually, organic
farmers also use pesticides. The difference is that "organic" pesticides
are so dangerous that they have been "grandfathered" with current
regulations and do not have to pass stringent modern safety tests.

For example, organic farmers can treat fungal diseases with copper
solutions. Unlike modern, biodegradable, pesticides copper stays toxic
in the soil for ever. The organic insecticide rotenone (in derris) is
highly neurotoxic to humans - exposure can cause Parkinson's disease.
But none of these "natural" chemicals is a reason not to buy organic
food; nor are the man-made chemicals used in conventional farming.


Myth four: Pesticide levels in conventional food are dangerous

The proponents of organic food - particularly celebrities, such as
Gwyneth Paltrow, who have jumped on the organic bandwagon - say there is
a "cocktail effect" of pesticides. Some point to an "epidemic of
cancer". In fact, there is no epidemic of cancer. When age-standardised,
cancer rates are falling dramatically and have been doing so for fifty
years.

If there is a "cocktail effect" it would first show up in farmers, but
they have among the lowest cancer rates of any group. Carcinogenic
effects of pesticides could show up as stomach cancer, but stomach
cancer rates have fallen faster than any other. Sixty years ago, all
Britain's food was organic; we lived only until our early sixties,
malnutrition and food poisoning were rife. Now, modern agriculture
(including the careful use of well-tested chemicals) makes food cheap
and safe and we live into our eighties.


Myth five: Organic food is healthier

To quote Hohenheim University: "No clear conclusions about the quality
of organic food can be reached using the results of present literature
and research results". What research there is does not support the
claims made for organic food.

Large studies in Holland, Denmark and Austria found the food-poisoning
bacterium Campylobacter in 100 per cent of organic chicken flocks but
only a third of conventional flocks; equal rates of contamination with
Salmonella (despite many organic flocks being vaccinated against it);
and 72 per cent of organic chickens infected with parasites.

This high level of infection among organic chickens could
cross-contaminate non-organic chickens processed on the same production
lines. Organic farmers boast that their animals are not routinely
treated with antibiotics or (for example) worming medicines. But, as a
result, organic animals suffer more diseases. In 2006 an Austrian and
Dutch study found that a quarter of organic pigs had pneumonia against
four per cent of conventionally raised pigs; their piglets died twice as
often.

Disease is the major reason why organic animals are only half the weight
of conventionally reared animals - so organic farming is not necessarily
a boon to animal welfare.


Myth six: Organic food contains more nutrients

The Soil Association points to a few small studies that demonstrate
slightly higher concentrations of some nutrients in organic produce -
flavonoids in organic tomatoes and omega-3 fatty acids in organic milk,
for example.

The easiest way to increase the concentration of nutrients in food is to
leave it in an airing cupboard for a few days. Dehydrated foods contain
much higher concentrations of carbohydrates and nutrients than whole
foods. But, just as in humans, dehydration is often a sign of disease.

The study that found higher flavonoid levels in organic tomatoes
revealed them to be the result of stress from lack of nitrogen - the
plants stopped making flesh and made defensive chemicals (such as
flavonoids) instead.


Myth seven: The demand for organic food is booming

Less than one per cent of the food sold in Britain is organic, but you
would never guess it from the media. The Soil Association positions
itself as a charity that promotes good farming practices. Modestly, on
its website, it claims: "... in many ways the Soil Association can claim
to be the first organisation to promote and practice sustainable
development". But the Soil Association is also, in effect, a trade group
- and very successful lobbying organisation.

Every year, news outlets report the Soil Association's annual claim of a
big increase in the size of the organic market. For 2006 (the latest
available figures) it boasted sales of GBP 1.937 billion.

Mintel (a retail consultantcy hired by the Soil Association) estimated
only GBP 1.5 billion in organic food sales for 2006. The more reliable
TNS Worldpanel, (tracking actual purchases) found just GBP 1 billion of
organics sold - from a total food sector of GBP 104 billion. Sixty years
ago all our food was organic so demand has actually gone down by 99 per
cent. Despite the "boom" in organics, the amount of land being farmed
organically has been decreasing since its height in 2003. Although the
area of land being converted to organic usage is scheduled to rise, more
farmers are going back to conventional farming.

The Soil Association invariably claims that anyone who questions the
value of organic farming works for chemical manufacturers and
agribusiness or is in league with some shady right-wing US free-market
lobby group. Which is ironic, considering that a number of British
fascists were involved in the founding of the Soil Association and its
journal was edited by one of Oswald Mosley's blackshirts until the late
1960s.

All Britain's food is safer than ever before. In a serious age, we
should talk about the future seriously and not use food scares and
misinformation as a tactic to increase sales.
_____

Rob Johnston is a doctor and science writer

Copyright (c) independent.co.uk

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html

______

The great organic myths rebutted

Rob Johnston argued that organic foods are not as good as supporters
claim. His article sparked heated debate. Now the case for their defence.

by Peter Melchett of the Soil Association

Independent.co.uk (May 08 2008)


Fact one: Organic farming is good for the environment

Organic farming is not perfect; it was only developed sixty years ago,
and we still have much to learn. Over those years, organic research has
been starved of funding because most investment went first into
developing pesticides and then into genetically modified crops. Organic
farming was started by scientists and farmers who wanted to develop what
we would now call a more sustainable way of producing food. Their main
concern was with the link between healthy soils, healthy food and human
health. However, those pioneers did create a farming system that has
clear environmental benefits. Organic farming is better for wildlife on
farms. The science is clear cut. Scientific literature reviews have
found that, overall, organic farms have thirty per cent more wild
species, and fifty per cent higher numbers of those species. Based on
scientific research, the Government says that organic farming has clear
environmental benefits - better for wildlife, lower pollution from
sprays, produces fewer dangerous wastes and less carbon dioxide. The
Sustainable Development Commission says that organic certification
represents "the gold standard" for sustainable food production. I farmed
non-organically for more than thirty years, and switched to organic,
mainly to try to bring back wildlife on the farm. We have far more
birds, and data on hares before and after switching to organic show
numbers doubled from twenty to forty. This year we found 56.


Fact two: Organic farming is more sustainable

Last week's article contained several errors - for example, the
statement that organic tomatoes take double the amount of energy to
produce is wrong, as were the figures for different types of tomato. The
information on the climate change impact of organic food omitted one of
the key benefits of organic farming: storing carbon in the soil. When
this is included, the climate change impact of organic food goes down by
between twelve and eighty per cent. Government-funded studies have shown
that across a range of sectors, organic farming uses 26 per cent less
energy than non-organic farming to produce the same amount of food, and
the Government agrees that organic farming is better for climate change.
The article ignored the extraordinary challenges we face. We must
drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the farming and food
industries - by eighty per cent by 2050. We have to adapt to a world
with declining oil and gas supplies. We have to help mitigate the
effects of climate change, for example by reducing flooding and cutting
demand for fresh water. We have to adapt to a world of more extreme and
unpredictable weather. How we do this is the challenge.


Fact three: Organic farming doesn't use pesticides

We've never claimed this! The Soil Association's rules allow farmers to
use four pesticides, with permission. Non-organic farming uses more than
300. The vast majority of organic farmers have no need for sprays. If
all farming was organic, spraying would fall by 98 per cent. Organic
sprays are mainly used on potatoes and in orchards. Those we allow are
either of natural origin (rotenone and soft soap) or simple chemical
products - copper compounds and sulphur. The active ingredients in
rotenone and soft soap break down rapidly when exposed to sunlight,
minimising risk to the environment. Copper and sulphur occur naturally
in the soil, and most copper is applied by non-organic farmers to
correct copper deficiencies. None is found in organic food.

Despite the wet weather and greatly increased risk of disease last year,
only three per cent of Soil Association farmers and two per cent of
organic crops were sprayed. Our goal is to use no sprays at all.


Fact four: Pesticide levels in conventional food are dangerous

I'd say certainly risky, and potentially dangerous. In the EU, one food
item in thirty contains levels above European legal limits. Nearly forty
pesticides, which we were promised were safe, have been banned or
withdrawn from use over the past decade. People who want to reduce their
exposure to potentially harmful pesticides can buy organic food. A US
study showed that within one day of switching to an organic diet no
traces of pesticides could be found in children's urine. When the
children switched back to a non-organic diet, pesticides were found
immediately.

Cocktails of sprays are not tested when pesticides are passed as "safe",
and research has confirmed they pose a risk. Average male fertility has
fallen by fifty per cent, coinciding with the use of pesticides. There
are alternative views - a government adviser blamed "too much time
riding bikes, sitting down too much and wearing tight underpants".
Science cannot prove there is no risk from pesticides. In the absence of
clear scientific evidence either way, people who think that the accepted
nutritional differences or absence of pesticides and artificial
additives in organic food will benefit them or their children, should
buy organic.


Fact five: Organic farming is healthier

In terms of food safety, the Food Standards Agency says there is no
difference between organic and non-organic food. The animal welfare
organisation Compassion in World Farming says: "Organic farming has the
potential to offer the very highest standards of animal welfare". It
believes that the Soil Association's welfare standards are "leaders in
the field". Because animals are kept in better conditions, always free
range, there is no need for the routine use of antibiotics, and such use
is banned. The World Health Organisation says that: "There is growing
concern that antibiotic residues in meat and dairy products could result
in antibiotic resistance in bacteria prevalent in humans, reducing the
effectiveness of antibiotics used to treat human disease". The most
bizarre claim in last week's piece was that "Disease is the major reason
why organic animals are half the weight of conventionally reared animals
- so organic farming is not necessarily a boon to animal welfare". There
is no truth in this. An organic steak or chicken are the same size as
non-organic - have a look in the shops! Organic animals suffer no more
disease, and frequently less, than non-organic.


Fact six: Organic food contains more nutrients

Published research shows that, on average, organic food contains higher
levels of vitamin C and essential minerals such as calcium, magnesium,
iron and chromium, as well as cancer-fighting antioxidants. Organic milk
is naturally higher in Omega 3 fatty acids, Vitamin E, Vitamin A
(beta-carotene) and some other antioxidants than non-organic milk.

Diseases such as eczema, asthma and allergies are affecting more and
more children. Ten per cent of children in the EU now suffer from
eczema. Following research in Sweden, a Dutch government-funded study
published last November showed a 36 per cent lower incidence of eczema
in children fed on organic dairy products compared with children
consuming non-organic dairy products.

Organic standards prohibit a host of additives that researchers say may
be harmful to our health, such as hydrogenated fat, monosodium glutamate
and artificial flavourings and colourings. Recent Food Standards
Agency-funded research found that some common additives can cause
hyperactivity in children. You can avoid a wide range and large quantity
of potentially allergenic or harmful additives if you eat organic food.


Fact seven: The demand for organic food is growing

Organic is still small. But local and direct organic sales are growing
at 32 per cent per annum. In 2006 (the latest figures available) retail
and catering sales were worth GBP 1,937 million - on average the retail
market has grown 27 per cent per year over the past decade, and over the
past few years, the proportion of the market supplied by UK farmers has
grown. This is no longer simply a middle-class market. Over fifty per
cent of people in lower income groups are buying organic food, and if
they buy direct from farmers via box schemes or farm shops, it need not
be more expensive than the same non-organic food in supermarkets. Three
quarters of parents buy organic baby food, which makes up about half the
total sold. Many parents and school governors have opted for at least
part of school dinners being sourced from organic farms.

Organic farming is helping to reverse the decline in the UK's
agricultural workforce, which has fallen by eighty per cent over the
past fifty years. Organic farms in the UK provide on average more than
thirty per cent more jobs per farm than equivalent non-organic farms -
organic farmers tend to be younger, more optimistic and include more
women. The choice we face is between oil-based farming with nitrogen
fertiliser, or solar-powered organic systems. Producing one ton of
nitrogen releases the equivalent of 6.7 tons of carbon dioxide. The raw
material used to produce nitrogen fertiliser is, currently, increasingly
scarce natural gas. UK farming uses three million tons of nitrogen
fertiliser annually, half of which is imported. Organic farming is based
on renewable processes on the farm, using clover to fix nitrogen and to
build soil organic matter.

Recent research suggests that if all farming was organic, the slight
decrease in yields in the northern hemisphere would be more than matched
by overall increases elsewhere, leading to a slight increase in total
food production. Long-term trials in the US found organic yields
matching those from non-organic systems, with organic farming
outperforming non-organic in drought years. Even with the uncertainties,
in a world of increasing scarcity of fossil fuels, organic farming
provides the only environmentally, or economically, sustainable system
of feeding the world. Organic farming and food do not have all the
answers. But solar-powered, animal and wildlife friendly, pesticide- and
additive-free farming and food, is where we're heading.

Copyright (c) independent.co.uk

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-rebutted-822763.html


TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this
essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/