Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Big Ag's Big Lie About Organic Food

Posted by Jill Richardson, Daily Kos at 10:50 AM on June 23, 2009.


You've been told a lot of lies, but right now I'm going to focus on just one.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

You've actually been told a lot of lies, but right now I'm going to focus on just one. It comes in many different forms:

  1. Organics yield less/much less/half as much as conventional ag.
  1. Organics can never feed the world.
  1. We need pesticides/fertilizer/biotech to feed the world.
  1. American farmers need to feed the world.
  1. If we tried to feed the world with organic, because it yields less than conventional ag, that means we'd have to use more land to grow the same amount of food (and cut down the forests).
  1. Third world countries need pesticides/fertilizer/biotech (bought from American/multinational corporations) or else they won't be able to feed themselves.

No doubt it would be DISASTROUS if we all switched to organic and then we didn't have enough food to feed everybody! But that's only if you buy into the idea that organic cannot compete with yields from conventional farming AND the idea that hunger is caused by producing too little food (it's not). Well... here's what the largest study ever conducted to study this question found...

To me, one of the biggest clues of what a carefully guarded lie we are told, a lie that those at the highest levels of our government believe and use to make our policy, was when a biotech/pesticide lobby group came out in opposition to Michelle Obama's organic garden. Well, they didn't really come out... I kinda outed them on my blog and the story went from there to the Colbert Report (and pretty much everywhere else).

What was the biotech and pesticide industry afraid of when Michelle Obama planted an organic garden? This.

Meanwhile, Kass told the children, the teachers and the press that the garden already had produced lettuce, snap peas, beans, kale, collards and chard. Kass said he has taken 90 pounds of produce from the garden, including broccoli and green beans and "one beautiful eggplant." He also said he has harvested herbs "every night," which are not included in the 90 pounds. The garden has produced only one cucumber, which Kass saved for the children to harvest. It was supposed to be a white cucumber, but it had turned yellow.

Kass said no chemicals — fertilizer or herbicide — had been used on the garden, but that the underlying White House soil had been "amended" with crab meal from the Chesapeake Bay, green sand compost and lime powder. A White House spokeswoman also said that only organic fertilizers and insect repellants will be used and that lady bugs and praying mantises will be introduced to naturally control other insect populations. A honeybee hive has been set up nearby for pollination purposes.

Kass said that the only insect problem he had noticed is that "something is nibbling a little bit on the kale."

Pardon the metaphor, but by planting an organic garden, Michelle Obama acted like Toto, pulling back the curtain to reveal the little man pretending to be the almighty wizard. That man - or men - behind the curtain are the biotech, pesticide, and fertilizer industries, who desperately want the American people to believe that they are absolutely necessary to prevent our starvation.

They call for using "science" in agriculture, but they ignore what science actually says. According to a paper called "Organic Agriculture and the Global Food Supply" published in 2007, a study (referred to by Jack Heinemann as "the largest meta-analysis ever conducted on the relative performance of agroecological and conventional... agriculture") found that organic CAN feed the world. Specifically, on average, organic systems produce 92% as much as conventional agriculture in the developed world. However, in developing countries, organics produces 80% MORE than conventional agriculture. Therefore, the paper concludes:

With the average yield ratios, we modeled the global food supply that could be grown organically on the current agricultural land base. Model estimates indicate that organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base.

The reason why there's such a stark difference between the developed and developing world is not because organic magically produces more in developing nations. Rather, it is because the farmers in those countries often lack the crop inputs used in the developed world to obtain such high yields. As the inputs used in the U.S. involve a LOT of oil, a resource we are running out of, this says to me that our best route to maximum yields in the future is going organic now.

Another claim by proponents of chemical agriculture is that we wouldn't have enough nitrogen to produce our food without synthetic fertilizer. The paper addressed that too, stating in its abstract:

We also evaluated the amount of nitrogen potentially available from fixation by leguminous cover crops used as fertilizer. Data from temperate and tropical agroecosystems suggest that leguminous cover crops could fix enough nitrogen to replace the amount of synthetic fertilizer currently in use. These results indicate that organic agriculture has the potential to contribute quite substantially to the global food supply, while reducing the detrimental environmental impacts of conventional agriculture.

In a press release, one of the researchers from the study summed up their findings perfectly:

Perfecto said the idea that people would go hungry if farming went organic is "ridiculous."

"Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture research has been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot of influence by the chemical companies and pesticide companies as well as fertilizer companies—all have been playing an important role in convincing the public that you need to have these inputs to produce food," she said.

There's a lot of pressure right now to pass a new bill that would "help" the world's 1 billion hungry people, focusing on those in S. Asia and Africa, by promoting chemical agriculture in those parts of the world. We are devastating our own environment with these techniques, and doing so with little benefit to our farmers. Let's not export our bad ideas.

Digg!

Tagged as: agriculture, organic food, corporate propaganda


Senate Votes to Move Forward on Health-Care Bill: McCain Accuses Reid of Criminal Scheme
In debate leading to vote, McCain compared Reid to Madoff, Hatch invoked socialism, and Lincoln promised trouble ahead
Post by Adele Stan. November 21, 2009.
ACORN: Another Super Villain with Super Powers
For the trembling patriots of the right.
Post by Steve M.. November 21, 2009.
Tiny Michigan Town Tells Liz Cheney to Take her Fearmongering Elsewhere
Someplace where they're all wusses.
Post by BarbinMD. November 21, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
By the amount of comments
Posted by: The Old Hippie on Jun 23, 2009 2:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
 
...so far - Not many, even from AlterNet, are paying real attention to this?  Just sad, or scary, depending.

I've been following the corporatist take-over of the access to water, food, healthcare, and yes, even the very definition of “organic” food, and organic farming - planetwide.  They have lost a few battles, but like the Borg of Star Trek, they keep coming, until they “win.”

And Americans, on the whole, just keep “allowing” them to win... without punishment, without correction, revolt.

The corporatists thieves can't even restrain their hubristic sneers anymore, because they know you (the American collective,) will continue to do nothing... real... to stop them.

Again, just sad, or scary, depending.
 

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» We care, but feel helpless and hopeless. Posted by: countingdaisies
conventional
Posted by: Tosh on Jun 23, 2009 10:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand why the author uses the term "conventional" to describe the modernized agribusiness. Surely by any definition of the word conventional would refer to the way we've grown sustained food crops for thousands and thousands of years. I would like to think this refers to something other then chemical additives and bioengineering.

Perhaps I need a new dictionary

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perhaps agriculture isn't "sexy" enough to get much attention?
Posted by: JLPearson on Jun 29, 2009 7:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That or this country is so used to having fast cheap "food" on demand that they don't really understand what the problem is. We seem to prefer illusion to reality, hence the "reality" TV shows that we watch, ignoring all the real people trying to survive in the real world. A TV show called "You wanna eat? Pay attention!" would not do well in the ratings. But we need to pay attention and to act now to reduce the amount of suffering both now and later.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]