Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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

The Real Cost of Cheap Food

By Will Allen, AlterNet. Posted June 6, 2008.


The question about the real price of food should be rephrased: Is it worth sending cheap, poisonous food to the starving masses?
picture1
war on bugs

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

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

More stories by Will Allen

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Sometimes shoppers are confused by the differences in price between food grown organically and food grown conventionally. Usually organic loses the price war argument in comparison to what is called "conventional" food. Of course, we are all mostly aware that organic means grown and processed without chemical fertilizers, antibiotics, hormones, toxic pesticides, sewage sludge, irradiation and genetic manipulation.

But, what does "conventional" mean? Is food called "conventional" grown and processed with chemical fertilizers, antibiotics, hormones, toxic pesticides, sewage sludge, irradiation and genetic manipulation? Yes it is. And, this is one reason why the price war argument should be reframed. Instead of comparing the price of organic food with "conventional" foods (which sounds so normal and safe), let's compare organic food prices to the food price of toxic or poisonous food, which is what "conventional" food is.

The vegetables, fruits and grains that grocers and agribusiness giants label "conventional" are actually loaded with systemic chemicals, which you cannot wash off. The meat is laced with hormones, antibiotics, prions and multiple resistant bacteria that are difficult or impossible to cook out of beef, lamb, chicken or pork.

Clearly, something in our food system has gone terribly amiss since a majority of the food is loaded with poisonous pesticides, laced with antibiotics and hormones and infused with genetically modified growth hormones or genes from rats, bacteria, viruses and antibiotics and then -- through some bizarre logic -- labeled "conventional." Once one realizes how toxic "conventional" food is, it doesn't look that cheap.

Once one realizes how toxic "conventional" food is, it doesn't look that inexpensive.

Besides the food safety dangers, there are three additional costs that consumers pay for "conventional" food. Estimates are that about half of all the food that U.S. citizens eat is processed. This includes breakfast cereals, breads, flour, tofu, cheese, chicken pot pies, Lean Cuisine and thousands of other products. Most of the ingredients that make up the processed foods come from soy, cotton, corn, rice, canola and wheat. More than 75 percent of these processed foods have genetically modified ingredients. Soy (96 percent), corn (74 percent), cotton (95 percent) and canola (98 percent) are the most genetically manipulated crops.

Soy, cotton, corn, rice and wheat are also the most subsidized crops in the U.S. Those five crops receive more than 80% of all the taxpayer subsidies. In addition, many other "conventional" crops also receive government support from the taxpayers, including milk.

Consumers make cheap food cheap when they pay their taxes. "Conventional" food would be impossible without the farm subsidies -- which means that consumers pay at least two times for most "conventional" foods they buy. They don't seem so cheap anymore -- and that does not include the expenses associated with health issues that occur as the result of eating toxic "conventional" foods.

Unfortunately, everyone pays the second subsidy bill, even the buyer of organic foods, because the subsidy is a tax imposed on all of us by the Farm Bill, which is written by congress and the White House. The current version was just passed by both houses of congress on the 14th and 15th of May, 2008, and most of the current bill is business as usual: billions more for the richest farmers growing the five most subsidized crops.

The third payment for "conventional" food will also be made by the taxpayers, who will pay to clean up chemical spills, cancer-cases, injured farmworkers, injured citizens, polluted groundwater, trashed rivers, oceanic dead zones, contaminated wells, and toxified land that result from the toxins used to produce "conventional" food. The environmental clean up record for the chemical corporations is not good, so don't look for help when the time comes to repair the damage.

When faced with judgments against them, the chemical giants always find a loophole, stall the procedure with whatever tactic that works, and spend enormous sums on legal defense teams. More often than not they escape with no punishment or merely a slap on the wrist for the most egregious crimes, including willful groundwater and soil pollution, poisoned food, widespread illnesses, and death. Unfortunately, both "conventional" and organic consumers will foot this bill.

One of the worst examples of chemical corporation irresponsibility occurred in Bhopal, India in 1984. A chemical plant that produced cotton pesticides leaked a nerve gas; more than 28,000 people were killed and 250,000 blinded and seriously injured. That plant was owned by the chemical and battery giant Union Carbide. When its CEO offered to pay reparations to families of the deceased and to the injured, the corporation decided that such a move, though laudable and charitable, was not in the best interests of the stockholders, so no compensation was paid by the corporation.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: food, food prices, pesticides

Will Allen is an organic farmer in Vermont and author of "The War on Bugs" (Chelsea Green, 2008). He is currently a co-chair of Farms Not Arms and a policy advisory board member of the Organic Consumers Association, and he serves on the board of Rural Vermont.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
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:
Cyanide C-N was the "nerve gas" at Bhophal / much else
Posted by: grolaw on Jun 6, 2008 5:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
could have been written simply and directly. Michael Poulin's Omnivore's Dilemma does a far, far better job of explaining the difference between sustainable, organic farming and processed foodstuffs.

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

I Was Almost Going to Applaud
Posted by: Gravitas on Jun 6, 2008 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was almost going to applaud this article when I read page one for it not mentioning the mandated obesity b.s. But there it was, on page two. I think it should be made clear that obesity itself is often a side effect of other conditions. It is probably the growth hormones and chemicals that cause both obesity and diabetes. But naturally fat people who are that way because of Mother Nature's plan for diversity are not necessarily unhealthy.

The whole obesity issue is relevant because weight is entirely synonymous with health in the population's mind. They never think about chemicals or additives or the like. They only think about calories and assume if it is low calorie or low fat it is automatically healthy. This is not an accident. Not only does obsession with weight distract from other risk factors, big business can profit from weight loss products. I am glad the author mentioned Lean Cuisine as being overly processed. Sheeple I know feel virtuous for eating the stuff. If you ever look at the ingredients, it is pure garbage.

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

» overweight vegan Posted by: ptown
If we use the power of the sun to grow and produce our food instead of oil to overprocess it
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 6, 2008 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with all those petroleum manufactured chemicals, not to mention higher transportation costs since processed food is generally heavier than non-overprocessed, we'd have a better chance of repairing the poisonous damage we've done to one another.

PEACE

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

» What is your point? Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist
» And here's more. Posted by: maxpayne
» That's the good news Posted by: AdamG
It`s the economic vector
Posted by: maxfactor on Jun 6, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Removing the high quality "fat/carbohydrates" and reselling is lucrative. Substituting cheap corn based sugars is lucrative. Why does bread has a huge list of additives? Homemade bread with just the basic ingredients lasts more than a week, the factory bread is rockhard after 1 day and tastes just like cardboard. After spending billions on building trust through campaigning a brand - it all comes crashing down. Don`t trust a large company that spends ten times more (per capita) on advertising and peddling their crap than it cost to make it.

Steer away from everything GM and with more than the basic quality ingredients needed to make a decent product.

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

"Conventional" wine.........
Posted by: edgeofnowhere on Jun 6, 2008 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's also mention wine. I live in California's "wine country", which might more aptly be called "poison country". "Conventional" wine is produced from grapes grown in sterile poisoned ground (methyl bromide), continually sprayed with a deadly cocktail of pesticides, dosed with chemical fertilizers, and finished off with a nasty brew of additives at the bottling line. In Mendocino county, there are a number of organic and biodynamic wineries producing the real thing. No matter where you live, you can buy Fetzer's "Bonterra" brand of organic wine, but there are many more if you just look.
Don't quaff nasty poisoned wine with that lovely organic meal! Go for the real thing! Bon Appetite!

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

» RE: "Conventional" wine......... Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Wine
Posted by: maxfactor on Jun 6, 2008 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting plant - I grow more an more of them. Growing on the walls they make quite decent additional isolation. Growing horizontally they look purposeful and harvesting is immensly satisfying. Taste is great and maybe do my own wine in the future. Snail shield around the roots, some nearby tobacco plants and no illnesses.

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

Alarmist much?
Posted by: alynna on Jun 6, 2008 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, conventional food isn't generally as wholesome as "conventional" sounds. But "poisonous"? In most people's minds, something can't be poisonous if healthy people eat it regularly and stay healthy.

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

» RE: Yes Posted by: dkm
Knucklehead alert!!!
Posted by: dkm on Jun 6, 2008 2:36 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here we have the same mindset that thinks belief in evolution is the cause of moral decline among the young people. The same mindset that goes all flibbertigibbet when it reads that eating bread has been correlated with using drugs (true story - almost everyone who is a drug addict has eaten bread at some point before using drugs.)

First off, the majority of food poisoning cases reported to the CDC are from eating plants, not animals. The various bacteria on and in plants (research has shown that Salmonella will actively invade a plant so washing tomatoes and lettuce is only partially effective) come from the soil. What do "conventional" farmers fertilize with - mostly chemical fertilizers, but also manure. What do organic farmers fertilize with? Manure. Which has more bacteria, especially potentially pathogenic bacteria? You got it.

Second, most of the items that the author is all bent out of shape about aren't even in the least toxic. Genetic manipulation is less toxic than crossbreeding because you only introduce a few genes, not half a genome. Irradiation is not at all toxic to people unless you happen to be holding the food in front of you while it is being irradiated. I remember someone suggesting that a classmate should hold the x-ray cassette in his lap while it was being exposed, the thought being that it would weed out an undesirable genetic line. To go crazy about irradiating food is just another Kevin James moment where the knucklehead jumping around, screaming makes it very clear that he has no idea what he's talking about.

The only health advantage that organic food has over conventional food is that there are no pesticides on it. As far as nutrients, to show a difference, you have to fiddle with the numbers. As far as production, the reason that organic costs so much more is that it costs a lot more to produce. I can practically guarantee that organic apples will go mostly for cider because the average American consumer won't buy fresh fruit unless it looks like a still life painting. Misshapen, insect damaged fruit doesn't get bought. Remember the old saw, one for the rabbit, one for the crow, one for the cutworm, and one to grow? That is what organic farming has to deal with. In an overpopulated world, organic is a small niche and cannot be expected to produce what is necessary on a finite amount of tillable soil.

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

» Wrong all the way. Posted by: maxpayne
Josephine Wadlow-Evans - M
Posted by: wadlow on Jun 6, 2008 11:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps one of my main concerns, having farmed for some 20 odd years and now living with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as a result of the constant impact of organophosphates etc., is that we have forgotten the insidious part that 'Monsanto' continues to play in the world food shortage - in order for them and their partners to gain world control their seeds are 'self-destructing' producing one crop - Third world countries rely in the main on producing their own 'seed' from each harvest - Monsanto's 'world's best practice' is called 'world dominance' force countries to be 'reliant' and 'needy' and you have them in the 'bag' so speak!

Josephine

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

if we changed
Posted by: richholland on Jun 7, 2008 3:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
asume we grow organic sooner or later WallStreet will have its McOrganic Corporation.
If we go from Peak Oil to Sunpower soon we have SunlightInc. CEO Al Gore.

If we have no oil the shareholders will use slaves to optimize their profits.

Without political changes all the Alternet comments will not have results.

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

Bravo!
Posted by: Patriotsthink on Jun 10, 2008 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

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

madfrit (continued)
Posted by: cocacolocao on Jun 10, 2008 7:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The food argument is very real, but the issue is why is it that we allocate poverty according to which end of the suppermarket chains you are held by. Lose the (supermarket)chains. Validate the right of people in the developing world to live in similar grandeuar that we do. There must be a disequilibrium from wealthy to poor to maintain the integrity of economies, especially those whose only trade is primary production, food, flowers, fuel, paid pittances so we can eat asparagus out of season, and use not the market to correct itself, but impose restrictions on the suppliers costs by a take it or leave it duress. Why is counter-inflationary policy a uni-directional market that enriches in only one direction, except where arrangements are such that one sector becomes rich while another goes hungry. Remember wealth is relative, but why should it be that in choosing to devalue labour abroad, it implies a similar moral regard as during the 18th century and 19th century slave-trade. World market price for coffee subverted by unscrupulous contractors, exerting pressure by picking and choosing which one of its contracted growers will get paid according to cost benefit analysis, based on market integrity, quality etcetera, in an inequitable distribution of power. Nuff said.

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

FOOD FIGHT part II
Posted by: wittler youth on Jun 11, 2008 4:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
organic food is prey to every known bug/parisite/pest/deer/etc. dosnt leave much left for the grower and yes it dosnt look all that great either..t.v. dinners have been around as long as iv been alive..how the hell are we going to turn back the clock on the modern food chain? yea its posion..but not deadly..just sub leathal..and by the time you you fall ill from it..you will be scracthing your head of who to sue! acid rain? god? man.? maybe will be like bugs and evolve to be able to survive on partially hydrogenated palm oil?..my peanut butter came from argentina..whats up with that? dosnt georga have a nuff goobers for the us?..poor people eat what they can..so this is just a silly back to earth old rich people argument..

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