Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>]

Anyone want to pick this apart?

Organic Farming: Myths and Facts
<http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myt
hs-rebutted-822763.html>

The great organic myths:
Why organic foods are an indulgence the world can't afford
by Rob Johnston
Independent.co.uk (May 01 2008)


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.


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-myth
s-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html