permaculture

[Chris Wardle <cjwardle@gmail.com>]

Respected teachers,
The following article, appeared in this morning’s edition of The Kathmandu
Post.
In addition to your reactions, links to evidence upon which a rebuttal
could be made, would be greatly appreciated.
Namaste from Kathmandu,
Chris Wardle.
===

Source:
http://epaper.ekantipur.com/ktpost/showtext.aspx?boxid=153350234&parentid=26361&issuedate=18112013

ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY

Myth of Organic Agriculture

Henry I. Miller


STANFORD — Organic products — from food to skincare nostrums to cigarettes
— are very much in vogue, with the global market for organic food alone now
reportedly exceeding $60 billion annually. The views of organic devotees
seem to be shared by the European Commission, whose official view of
organic farming and foods is, “Good for nature, good for you.” But there is
no persuasive evidence of either.

A 2012 meta-analysis of data from 240 studies concluded that organic fruits
and vegetables were, on average, no more nutritious than their cheaper
conventional counterparts; nor were they less likely to be contaminated by
pathogenic bacteria like E. coli or salmonella — a finding that surprised
even the researchers. “When we began this project,” said Dena Bravata, one
of the researchers, “we thought that there would likely be some findings
that would support the superiority of organics over conventional food.”

Many people purchase organic foods in order to avoid exposure to harmful
levels of pesticides. But that is a poor rationale. While nonorganic fruits
and vegetables had more pesticide residue, the levels in more than 99% of
cases did not cross the conservative safety thresholds set by regulators.

Moreover, the vast majority of the pesticidal substances found on produce
occur “naturally” in people’s diets, through organic and conventional
foods. The biochemist Bruce Ames and his colleagues have found that “99.99%
(by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that
plants produce to defend themselves. Only 52 natural pesticides have been
tested in high-dose animal cancer tests, and about half (27) are rodent
carcinogens; these 27 are shown to be present in many common foods.”

The bottom line is that natural chemicals are just as likely as synthetic
versions to test positive in animal cancer studies, and “at the low doses
of most human exposures, the comparative hazards of synthetic pesticide
residues are insignificant.” In other words, consumers who buy expensive
organic foods in order to avoid pesticide exposure are focusing their
attention on 0.01% of the pesticides that they consume.

Ironically, in both Europe and North America, the designation “organic” is
itself a synthetic bureaucratic construct — and it makes little sense. It
prohibits the use of synthetic chemical pesticides, with some pragmatic
exceptions. For example, the EU’s policy notes that “foreseen flexibility
rules” can compensate for “local climatic, cultural, or structural
differences.” When suitable alternatives are lacking, some (strictly
enumerated) synthetic chemicals are allowed.

Similarly, in the US, there is a lengthy list of specific exceptions to the
prohibitions. But most “natural” pesticides — as well as pathogen-laden
animal excreta, for use as fertilizer — are permitted.

Another rationale for buying organic is that it is supposedly better for
the natural environment. But the low yields of organic agriculture in
real-world settings—typically 20-50% below yields from conventional
agriculture — impose various stresses on farmland and increase water
consumption substantially. According to a recent British meta-analysis,
ammonia emissions, nitrogen leaching, and nitrous-oxide emissions per unit
of output were higher in organic systems than in conventional agriculture,
as were land use and the potential for eutrophication —adverse ecosystem
responses to the addition of fertilizers and wastes— and acidification.

An anomaly of how “organic” is defined is that the designation dœs not
actually focus on the food’s quality, composition, or safety. Rather, it
comprises a set of acceptable practices and procedures that a farmer
intends to use. For example, chemical pesticide or pollen from genetically
engineered plants wafting from an adjacent field onto an organic crop dœs
not affect the harvest’s status. EU rules are clear that food may be
labeled as organic as long as “the ingredients containing [genetically
modified organisms] entered the products unintentionally” and amount to
less than 0.9% of their content.

Finally, many who are seduced by the romance of organic farming ignore its
human consequences. American farmer Blake Hurst offers this reminder:
“Weeds continue to grow, even in polycultures with holistic farming
methods, and, without pesticides, hand weeding is the only way to protect a
crop.” The backbreaking drudgery of hand weeding often falls to women and
children.

Of course, organic products should be available for people who feel that
they must have and can afford them. But the simple truth is that buying
non-organic is far more costeffective, more humane, and more
environmentally responsible.
===
Henry I. Miller, a physician and fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public
Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, was the founding
director of the Office of Biotechnology at the US Food and Drug
Administration