“I DON’T EAT ORGANIC FOOD”
Steve Savage recently published a thoughtful, informed, wide-ranging article explaining “Why I don’t buy organic” in Forbes Magazine. If you are not among the thousands who have read this article, you might want to join them. And take a look at the comments and his responses. And add his blog, Applied Mythology, to your reader.
It also seems an appropriate moment to re-publish, with a few minor amendments, a post I wrote on the same subject back in 2009. It was prompted by Russ Parsons, then in charge of the food section at the LA Times who published a piece beginning “I don’t believe in organic,” that just flew around the social networks.
_________________
At a party around 2000, my mother, then in her late 80s, tasted a cheese she loved. The host told her it was made in a remote English downland village just ten miles away. My mother really wanted that cheese. Since she found walking difficult, I was dispatched to seek it out in the market and all the local gourmet stores. Total failure.
Then my mother heard that the giant British supermarket chain Tesco was selling it as part of their “local” campaign. She thought she could manage Tesco, with its handicapped parking and carts to hang on to.
I was terrified someone would knock my mother over, so frail had she become. But we made it to the cheese counter. Sure enough the cheese was there. The girl started cutting a wedge, helpfully commenting: “It’s organic.”
My mother was a farmer’s wife and very picky about her food. She never ate an egg of unknown parentage, never ate broiler chicken because she disliked the smell of broiler houses, never ate bread that did not come from a baker she trusted.
Even so, she was not about to buy organic cheese. Drawing herself up to her full but much shrunken height, my mother let fly in her still vibrant voice.
“I DON’T EAT ORGANIC FOOD.”
Surrounded by puzzled onlookers, we made our way out of the supermarket without the cheese. It was her last outing.
Her outcry was not a whim, not incipient dementia. It was the well-considered opinion of someone who had been a farmer’s wife for 50 years.
Less you suspect that the farm was some dreary monoculture that needed fertilizer and pesticide to keep going, far from it. It was what was called mixed dairy and arable, standard in England at the time. Ploughland growing wheat, barley, beans, kale for cattle feed, and grass for seed was rotated with grassland that supported a dairy of 100 cows and the offliers (calves, yearlings, cows that were not in milk).
Timely and careful applications of fertilizer were needed to maintain the needed fertility even though every bit of the dung of those cows went back on the fields. Applications of pesticide rescued the day when a field of wheat just a few inches high was discovered heaving with the larvae called leatherjackets.
My parents, and most farmers they knew, felt, and I agree with them, that far from being the right and moral thing to do, going organic is a blind alley for food lovers and hungry people alike. They did not think it could produce enough food. Or safer food. Or tastier or healthier food. And they thought consumers were being confused about what it offered. My mother thought it important to speak out against organic whenever she had the chance.
I now know a little more about the background. The early organic campaigners in the United States wanted large agriculture dismantled in favor of small, labor intensive, chemical-averse farms. Good discussions can be found in Warren Belasco’s classic Appetite for Change (1989), ch. 4 and more recently in Julie Guthman’s Agrarian Dreams (2004), ch. 6.
The campaigners could not get a wholesale re-working of agriculture to fly politically. The current laws about organic were a compromise. The narrow legal definition of organic now in force in many countries usually boils down to “no synthetic chemicals,” though how this is spelled out varies from nation to nation. So no chemical fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, or (sometimes) antibiotics.
Because the anti-modern agricultural movement was against large, mechanized farms, they were horrified, not happy, when big farms began growing organic vegetables and big chains such as Walmart began selling them.
In short, organic legislation was not put in place to improve life for consumers. It was a political compromise between those who deeply distrusted modern agriculture and those involved in it. A no-chemical policy and an anti-modern agriculture policy are misguided ways to go about getting all the things we want–good tasting food, morally acceptable food, food adequate to feed the growing global population.
_________________
Rachel, Organic foods have suddenly become the “in” thing here in Greece. Not only are they more expensive, I personally don’t believe that we can always rely that they are in fact “organic.” You article has proved what I always felt: that the “organic” designation is often phony and really just a gimmick. As to the dangers of chemicals in our food, while we cannot avoid them, by varying our diet, and favoring fruits, vegetables in their season, we can certainly reduce the risk of ingesting high levels of chemicals. And let’s not forget that wise old Greek adage, PAN METRO ARISTON – MODERATION IN ALL THINGS including what and how much we eat.
Fascinating that organic is just taking off in Greece. Any idea why?
Greece is a traditionally agricultural country with limited farming done on a large scale because of lack of adequate farm land. So we still have our connections to small rural plots etc. Even produce sold in the cities mostly comes from such enterprises. A Greek consumer will always seek out certain fruits & vegetables, fish, meat, wines etc. from areas that are known to produce excellent products.
The ancient Greeks, in fact, were the first [in Europe?] to define and designate origins of local product excellence and write about it [see A. Dalby’s, SIREN FEASTS, pp104-105, Routledge 1996] Up until now there really was little need for supposedly superior organic foods. That has changed since we began importing food from the EU and other countries. Even now there are those of us who refuse to buy lemons and apples from South America, etc. I occasionally buy products from other Mediterranean countries.
But the organic movement has begun to take hold but exhibits slow growth due to the financial crisis. There is probably more to this story which includes obligations with our European partners to absorb certain amounts of their excess productions [primarily milk and other dairy products].
The crisis has also driven young people “back to the farm” when they cant find work in cities and towns. They are more likely to invest themselves and their resources in specific high-quality but traditional agricultural and production projects [raising herbs, fish farming, cheeses, olive oil,)
I hope this answers your question, Rachel.
Yes, it does. Thank you Linda. Very interesting.
‘So no chemical fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, or (sometimes) antibiotics.” I would amend that statement to read So no synthetic chemical fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, or (sometimes) antibiotics. Organic fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides are chemicals too.
You’re right, Keith. that was sloppy writing and I think you for the correction.
I like your mom, and I’ve never met her.
I’ll start by saying that I’m a scientist so I’m hardly one of the flag-waving members of the “peace, love and granola” parade. I write a science-based technique-oriented food blog (listed below.)
However, there is a simple question that every good journalist (and scientist) needs to ask.
In any opinion, who benefits and who does not?
In short, what is Steven Savage’s vested interest in the problem?
He worked for DuPont and he now works for Mycogen. He has a clear financial interest in the outcome.
By comparison, I have ZERO vested interest in whether or not GMO’s are safe and/or whether or not organic is better than conventional. (For full disclosure, I work in finance but I couldn’t care less whether any given corporation succeeds or fails. I get paid to get predictions right.)
In Warren Buffett’s immortal words, “Never ask the barber whether you need a haircut.”
I love your blog and we share an enthusiasm for bone marrow and Mexican dried shrimp. The question of whether you should ever trust anyone in industry is a huge one and I have been thinking about blogging about it for years. Maybe now is the moment!
There seem to be several interrelated threads to the whole organic vs conventional debate.
Four of them are:
[1] Science/Economics
[2] Health
[3] Distrust of Corporations
[4] Moral Notions
The first one is plainly clear. There is no way to feed the world without conventional agriculture. Not enough energy, not enough arable land, too much population, not enough productivity, etc. The Alice Waters’ of the world are just plain stupid and economically illiterate.
Which brings us to the fact that this is plainly an elitist debate. There’s nothing wrong with being elitist. If you want the best of anything whether it be food or literature or opera or art, a high degree of knowledge and taste matters.
So who are we talking about? A small segment of the population. The richest 5% at best in the US and the richest 1% at best in the world.
This is not very different than saying that the “Darcy’s” of the world ALWAYS ate very well. They made their money elsewhere and they ran a “gentleman’s farm” that was really a mode of consumption not a mode of production (economically speaking.)
The health argument is a little more subtle. There is no way that the science can tease apart all the different variables. It’s just too complex a system and our genetic understanding is exceedingly shallow at best. Conservatism could serve you well here.
Some of these notions are just quaint. Nobody complains about sulfites in fancy wines (Bordeaux?) but they whine about the same sulfites used in conventional agriculture? Oh “so-called elites”, get your arguments consistent at least!
The distrust of corporations is what’s driving this the most. If you take a look at a McDonald’s burger from the 50’s and the one made today, there is no way they are even the same product. There is no question that we’ve been lied to.
Who has the time and energy to verify all the scientific literature? I’m a scientist and I don’t have time to read it, let alone digest it and check the flaws in statistical methodology, etc. The average person doesn’t stand a chance with all the spin-doctors and the paid-for horseshit in the newspapers.
The moral notions are just really ripe for parody because they are basically religious in nature. There is nothing “purer” about organic. It’s just chemistry admittedly a complex one. (Insert the standard joke about the chemist telling biologists that it’s “just” chemistry, and the physicist telling the chemist that it’s “just” physics, and the mathematician telling the physicist that his models are “just” mathematics.)
Looking at it from literary theory, it’s really just another version of the Pastoral (as understood by 19th century Romantics.)
I wrote a whole aricle on this so I’ll just refer you to that:
http://shockingschadenfreude.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-dark-side-of-pastoral.html
I’ll also observe that one of the reasons for all these “artisanal hand-made organic” products is that we’re so productive an economy as a whole that we can afford to waste money on a Brooklyn hipster behaving like a 19th century maid. For most of economic history, nobody was in a position to do this. This is just mind-boggling and amazing.
In my opinion, high-quality produce that’s seasonal matters more than organic v/s conventional.
I like my “steak tartare” and barely-set eggs. There is no way EVER that I’m going to do that with supermarket produce. It would be suicidal.
Seasonal matters because you’re better off with canned tomatoes (I can my own!) than with the complete garbage that you get in the supermarket in winter.
Those fruits taste like crap because they ARE crap. Picked early, artificially ripened. (Insert standard science about climacteric v/s non-climacteric fruits here.)
This sounds suspiciously like your mother, I think. We might be in agreement.
(On a side note, I’ll observe that no country has been willing to experiment at a mass-level with their diets that the United States has.)
Thanks for the long comment. I agree with you on the pastoral, though whether it’s the last gasp, I’m not sure. And I like your comment about the US experimenting with their diets. I need to mull that over. Looking forward to more interactions.
Dear Crazy – Having a financial interest in an outcome does not necessarily make one biased, although an interest should always be disclosed. What I find hypocritical among the leaders of the pro-organic crowd is the notion they have no financial interests or bias, they just want to help people lead a healthy life. Organic produce is a multi-billion-dollar industry and you will often find that money backing organic versus conventional research. There are also lots of pro-organic bloggers who peddle every type of snake oil under the sun, including detoxifiers to rid the body of all those nasty environmental contaminants they claim are so dangerous, including pesticide residues.
However, fear not, science to the rescue. The proper test is not to immediately assume that one is biased because they have a financial interest (your “simple question”), it is to judge their conclusions based on reason and evidence. In that, I am afraid there are no shortcuts, one has to become well-enough acquainted with the subject and the science so that they can judge a valid conclusion from an unfounded claim. Science provides for a wonderful set of consistent standards that can be used to evaluate a claim. The argument that “There is no way that the science can tease apart all the different variables.” and that “It’s just too complex a system and our genetic understanding is exceedingly shallow at best.” is a weak excuse for not doing the work necessary to understand the subject and often leads to the application of an extreme, wholly unnecessary version of the precautionary principle.
The preponderance of credible evidence supports the argument that conventional produce is safe and no different in nutritional value compared to organic, but that fact is often lost on those who give up on trying to understand the subject and instead, rely on preconceived notions and stale bromides for guidance.
Thank you. I couldn’t agree more heartily that pro-organic advocates have interests of their own, often financial, often prestige and the power it brings.
This article was good back in 2009 and even better today in 2016.
Thanks, Peter.
This is a charming piece and a brilliant take on the issue.
Rachel, as you know, we are in agreement on many things about the food system. In this particular case, I’m not sure I agree with you completely. Organic agriculture creates a space where we can think about alternatives. Would you prefer there be no organic agriculture at all? Where might humans find the place in the growing world to discover alternatives to the current industrial agricultural system? If we think of organic agriculture not as a dogma but as a place of possibility, it might be worth keeping.
Hi, Melanie. I love the expression “place of opportunity.” I’m going to apply that to my own life because I think if I understand what it means right, that’s what I am groping toward all the time. I think there is no immediate risk of no organic agriculture. Much of the world has no option, many in the US really want it. But unlike you I am not opposed to the current agricultural system. It’s not perfect but I think it is our best bet. “Industrial”–if you dislike industry–demeans it. But if we see industry as using fossil fuels to achieve economies of scale, then wow. Wonderful. I see farmers as constantly innovating, constantly seeking places of opportunity. But maybe I am blinded by my background. Tell me more.
I see all institutions in crisis at the moment, including organic agriculture. People seem to be blind to the growing economic inequality and blame everything on public institutions, particularly government. (See, for example, one of my best students: http://theodysseyonline.com/pace/the-essence-of-life/366174). Industrial organization has something to do with those inequalities and with the environmental crisis as well, yet from Malheur to my own students, there seems to be a growing blind spot about that. Governmental institutions have a mixed record, to say the least, but I’m afraid of a world without government. And I’m afraid of a society that is blind to the role of industry in creating the current social and environmental crisis. At least, I tend to see things from this political (agro)ecology perspective.
When I say “industrial agriculture” I more accurately mean the industrial food system. I’d have to pull out my copy of Alfred Chandler to present more specific evidence — he’s in a box somewhere. But as I learned in my work on the history of milk, Borden’s was one of the earliest industrial organizations, which required a transformation of production from the soil to the consumer. The farmers associated with that system, I would argue, are industrial organization farmers. Chandler argues that Borden’s inspired the growth of industrial organization in other sectors — vertical organization. I don’t mean industrial as a demeaning term, just a term for the type of system this type of agriculture is integrated into.
A less intensive form of dairying covered New York State’s hills at the turn of the 19th Century. Those hills are now wooded — “land saving” you (and the Breakthrough folks) might say — but is that really a “better” environment? Could a “middle landscape” (to quote Leo Marx) pastoral agriculture be just as good a use of that land?
Thanks for this long, helpful comment, Melanie. Expect a proper response in some form or other pretty promptly (weaseling there!)
After reading these interesting comments, would like to add that I am old enough to remember neighborhood Victory Gardens in Chicago during WWII [complete with little American flags!]. These gardens were inspired by wartime food rationing.. And even though we didn’t live on a farm, we had a compost heap where we threw all of our parings, garden trimmings, etc. My Dad used this organic fertilizer in our garden. These were ideas from long ago that have largely been forgotten and yet were simple solutions to big problems of feeding people proper food. Yet I wonder if they are even applicable in today’s world in which we have been groomed to buy only clean, colorful, perfect unblemished fruits, etc. neatly packed in plastic and styrofoam. At least the organic movement may change some people’s attitudes.
Yes, we used compost heaps too. I think the best aspect of the organic/urban farming movement is that it brings people into touch with the realities of growing things.
I, also, have mixed feelings about the organic vs. non-organic. The argument that the world’s population can’t be fed without industrial agriculture seems plausible – if there were a system in place that evenly and fairly distributes produce all over the world.
The reality is that there’s oversupply and enormous food waste in wealthy countries and starvation in not so fortunate ones. When industrial-style farming is exported into third world countries, small local farms are often put out of business, they usually don’t benefit from this development, and, often, the new crops are no longer something they can eat (or afford), but animal food for wealthy nations.
Not having a family farm in my neighborhood or the time to grow vegetables in my garden, the label “organic” is for me as consumer at least a guideline to what I don’t want to eat, or support by buying – eggs or meat from animals kept in horrific conditions, or plants that are contaminated with pesticides.
Barbara Elisi just published a series of posts: “Am I gluten-sensitive?” on her blog “Bread and Companatico”, a very interesting read. Not gluten-intolerance but intolerance against resistant starches can cause symptoms. And there is a high probability that Amylase-Tryptin-Inhibitors in modern wheat (and other plants) became more aggressive over the years as a plants’ defense against pesticides: http://breadandcompanatico.com/2016/04/04/i-am-not-gluten-sensitive-how-about-you/
Thanks for this, Karin. Getting the world’s food system fine-tuned is, I agree, a huge problem. I do have the feeling things are better than they were in the sense that starvation is way down. And we do need some over-production or we run the risk of starvation. I look forward to reading the theories about resistant starches.
On organic, I’d say that in Greece, there are a lot of city people in Greece who make a big big deal about buying organic food. They dont grow their own food, and they seem (in my opinion) to misunderstand the concept of ‘organic’. It’s pretty much a legal term (ie chemical additives are allowed in organic up to a certain amount and certain kinds). I personally never buy food that is labelled organic because I’m not prepared to pay the extra price, so when I buy food, I buy whatever suits my pocket or taste buds, rather than how ‘safe’ it is to eat. I don’t really trust food labels either.
Here’s what I think is (still) going on in terms of organic food labelling in Greece (the concept of fairtrade has still not caught on, despite the Greek crisis) http://www.organicallycooked.com/2012/05/organic-and-fairtrade-e.html
Sounds much the same as in the States, Maria, where people pay extra not realizing that they are not necessarily getting what they think. Thanks for the comment.