Comments on The Anonymous Liberal: Organic Food and Morality

First I would like to say very good discussion.The...

2006-09-22T19:07:00.000-05:00

First I would like to say very good discussion.

The one thing that I had thought was missing the whole time was any mention of the actual economics of the agriculture industry. Anonymous just touched on it. The actual need for the production that GM crops can give us is irrelevant because we live in a capitalistic society that will not distribute "the food" evenly. Why then is the government subsidizing US agricutlture? It is the destructive nature of corporate farms that have the ability to drive the price of a crop so low it is not worth growing.

Now AL I know your a lawyer so don't take this the wrong way but it is not only the production that these large farms are capable of it is the aggressive tactics taken to drive the competition into the ground. The fact that Monsanto can sue small farms that neighbor their clients for patent infringement is ludicrous .

Fox Molder

Anonymous says a lot with the increase in producti...

2006-01-10T16:59:00.000-05:00

Anonymous says a lot with the increase in productivity not always leading to better living for the many poor of the world.

True enough. And the cost of trying to grow crops like in the USA is prohibitive for many places.

That's why the genetic modifications need to get a chance. If they existing food crops could they would. But we have been helping crops along for years with selection (+ fertilizer & insecticide). The bio-modifications might let us reduce the need for as much of the other inputs,
NetAgra

Interesting article and a good discussion above. I...

2006-01-10T12:53:00.000-05:00

Interesting article and a good discussion above. I'd just like to add that there is good scientific reason to believe that "natural" is, in fact, better, simply because those molecules have evolved in the same biosphere as humans have been evolving. Thus, there is likely to be some adaptive protection, which is unlikely in a molecule developed in a laboratory. Rattlesnake venom may not be healthy, but it ain't plutonium either.

One other point: the argument that we're feeding the world with this stuff rings so false to me. Capitalism being what it is, further food production does not equate with decreases in world-wide poverty. More likely, it correlates with obesity in the rich countries, while starvation remains endemic in poor ones.

Interesting comment about organic food production ...

2006-01-09T19:05:00.000-05:00

Interesting comment about organic food production being a liberal plot. Producing food according to a strict value system seems more puritanical, conservative really, than liberal.

Organic food production at its core is intensely conservative: conservative of its input costs, strict in its methods, and if you believe it works then organic production also "conserves" resources.

"Conservative" to a lot of the farmers I know means being frugal. It's a way of life. A way of living within one's means, of not wasting anything, modesty.

To me, that more closely defines a true conservative than the republican party, for example.
NetAgra

emptywheel had the phrase I was looking for: "...f...

2006-01-09T18:28:00.000-05:00

emptywheel had the phrase I was looking for: "...food as an isolated product rather than a system of relationships". And as NetAgra said, buying food local and direct is a way to support a positive system of relationships

Unfortunately this topic has been politicized beyond rational discussion (at least at the national level), with huge farm subsidies not helping in the least. The very word "organic" is now either a Liberal Plot, or co-opted as a marketing channel for big business. Picking out, say, pesticide as just one thread from the tapestry of this issue shows how complicated it can get.

ALAh, we're getting closer.But I would dispute tha...

2006-01-09T14:43:00.000-05:00

AL

Ah, we're getting closer.

But I would dispute that Borlaug, in particular, is making an argument about system (Fattorini, I think, is just making claims not backed by real data, but I realize you weren't endorsing his argument). I absolutely agree that nitrogen fertilizer increases yield over no fertilizer (although the jury is still out whether, over the long term, it produces better yields over intensive organic farming). But that doesn't account for how many people will have less access to food in a monoculture economy. To how much more succeptible the poor will be to the political turmoil that is, as often as not, the proximate cause of famine. To how much harder it will be for farmers all over the world to make a living when they're selling their goods to one of 6 buyers (and making increasingly smaller fractions of the final price of the food). Now perhaps these associated problems of industrial agriculture (plus the medical risks of pesticides, plus the erosion, plus the overuse of aquifers, plus the diminished biodiversity, plus the dependence on petroleum) can be solved. I'm all in favor of research to solve these problems (while also supporting the idea that we ought to also encourage research into organic farming; after all, it already comes close to matching industrial yields in some situations, and that's without the benefit of years of governmentally sponsored study). But if one is going to argue positively for industrial agriculture, then one ought to consider the larger economic system it engenders, not the number of vegetables you can put on a plate.

emptywheel

EW, I didn't mean to mischaracterize your argument...

2006-01-09T14:27:00.000-05:00

EW,

I didn't mean to mischaracterize your argument. I personally don't think pesticides are anything to worry about for the average consumer who remembers to wash their fruit before they eat it. That said, I understand that pesiticides can have negative environmental impacts and are potentially harmful to workers, so I'm all for research to create safer pesticides and/or reduce our need for them. Genetically-modified crops are helpful in this regard.

Your argument about looking at food through the system that produces it seems to reinforce the point made by Fattorini and Borlaug, i.e., that many organic farming practices, if practiced on a large scale, could not meet the world's demand for food, and would therefore be disastrously short-sighted from a policy perspective.

I think you're right, though, that all farming practices have to be evaluated from a systemic level. It think it would be helpful though, if the key issues (use of fertilizers, use of pesticides, use of genetically-modified crops)were separated out and not lumped together under the label "organic." Some of these ideas (use of less pesticides) have a lot more merit than others (banning nitrogen fertilizers and genetically-modified crops).

ALI note how you're reframing my argument. I'm arg...

2006-01-09T14:08:00.000-05:00

AL

I note how you're reframing my argument. I'm arguing that pesticides are bad for people. You're arguing that organic vegetables are not better for you than industrial vegetables, pretending, of course, that industrial vegetables have no connection with the pesticides in which they're grown in. After adequate cleaning, the vegetables MAY be the same (I'm not arguing against that point). But that doesn't negate the fact that growing them using pesticides require that a number of people (principally the famers/agricultural workers, but also the people living downstream) to undergo exposure to pesticides.

Now, I, for one, think that it pays to avoid exposing people to that kind of toxicity if we don't have to. I don't think farmers should have to suffer from Parkinsons (as they do at significantly higher rates than the general population) so I can eat a nutritious carrot when I can eat a nutritious carrot without asking the farmer to undergo this exposure.

Nor do I think that my food choices should make it more likely that rural communities will be upended by industrial agriculture. Nor do I think that my food choices should make it harder for family farms to survive.

You see, you may want to argue about a carrot in isolation from the system that produces that carrot. But there is no moral system (which is how you started that conversation) in which things exist in that kind of isolation. Organic vegetables may or may not be more nutritious/healthier for the person who eats them. But there is overwhelming evidence that small-scale organic agriculture is healthier for the society that encourages it.

emptywheel

EW,I appreciate your comments, and maybe someday (...

2006-01-09T13:05:00.000-05:00

EW,

I appreciate your comments, and maybe someday (soon?) you will be proved right. But as it stands, there is no conclusive evidence, no respected independent studies, that demonstrate the supposed health benefits of organic foods. That's why the organic food industry isn't allowed to make such claims in their advertising.

It's also important to keep in mind that organic farmers often use "natural" pesticides, and in higher doses than synthetics because they are less effective.

Greetings,Isn't it a good thing if large farms ado...

2006-01-09T12:58:00.000-05:00

Greetings,

Isn't it a good thing if large farms adopt organic practices? No, because they're large farms? Organic is defined by size of operation? I know that's the thinking of some in the organic business community.

If the goal is to reduce the amount of pesticides being used, then it's hard to then also add a size requirement when it's the large commercial operations that use the products.

It's like saying: Because you're a big (insert definition of big) farm, we insist that you continue using pesticides.

I also struggle with the notion of denying the use of a biotech crop that may hold forth in poor soils and against insect and disease challenges in impoverished countries.
NetAgra

I'm with Stefan. This is a straw man argument that...

2006-01-09T12:42:00.000-05:00

I'm with Stefan. This is a straw man argument that looks at food as an isolated product rather than a system of relationships. Further, I've never seen a compelling argument that conventional agriculture is more efficent than organics so long as they take into account long term sustainability (for example, no one believes BT potatoes are a sustainable pesticide solution--it's a short term fix that puts us at tremendous risk of losing value of BT, and developing resistant pests). To say nothing of the oil we use to produce and transport conventionally grown (and, yes, increasingly a lot of organic) food, which will only become more problematic.

But I also think it's dead wrong to claim that organics are not healthier. Scientists are probably less than months away from proving a definitive link between Parkinsons and pesticides. Proving that link will be the first time--but probably not the last--that the health problems of industrial agriculture will be demonstrated.

emptywheel

Stefan,Your points are all well-taken, and I large...

2006-01-09T09:29:00.000-05:00

Stefan,

Your points are all well-taken, and I largely agree with them. Part of the problem here is that the "organic movement," to the extent it can even be defined, incorporates some good ideas, some bad ones, and some contradictory ones. I don't mean to disparage every aspect of the movement. For instance, reducing the use of pesticides would be a good thing. Unfortunately, perhaps the best way to reduce pesticide use is through the use of genetically-modified crops designed to be pest-resistant. Yet many people who want to reduce pesticide use are against the use of GM crops.

Your points about agribusiness have some merit as well. Unfortunately, an increasing amount of organic food is now farmed by giant corporate farms and not small local ones. That will only increase as the market for organic food grows.

I apologize for glossing over some of the distinctions. It's hard not to do so in such a short post.

Excellent comments, Stefan. My approach to the cor...

2006-01-09T09:26:00.000-05:00

Excellent comments, Stefan. My approach to the corporate food issue is to encourage people to buy local and direct.

I don't worry about the organic-ness of the locally produced, direct purchase food. Instead, I point out that it is possible to know the people who grow your food and make a value-based trust judgement for yourself.

And it need not be "all or nothing." Buy direct as you can and use the supermarket, too.

NetAgra

I think this argument sets up one specific model o...

2006-01-09T09:21:00.000-05:00

I think this argument sets up one specific model of "organic" as a straw-man to knock down while conveniently ignoring the value of many of the underlying principles. Overall, there's a lot to "organic" that's not addressed and probably not included in the calculations. The most important, I think, is the damaging economic structure of agribusiness that consolidates food production into vast corporate holdings while eliminating most of the economically and socially productive "small business" family farms. Then there's the huge dependence on expensive pesticides (ultimately derived from petroleum) and fertilizer (also imported). Plus the loss of topsoil in "big" farming causes major problems both locally and downstream, and the loss of diversity also has shown real negative impacts, while and the reliance on mono-species (increased with genetically modified crops) makes the food supply more vulnerable to unforseen insect/disease disaster. Finally, while the end-result pesticides are small, there isn't agreement that a life-time of consumption doesn't have an impact, nor is it well understood how the otherwise very small amounts interact with added toxins from air and water.

I'm not starry-eyed about organic by any means (I don't go out of my way to buy it), and I certainly understand there are vast areas of certain countries that otherwise could not produce food at all without added inputs. But to make that into a reason to disregard all the associated potential problems is a mistake.

Exactly! People are so obsessed with "natural" he...

2006-01-09T08:37:00.001-05:00

Exactly! People are so obsessed with "natural" herbs and "natural" that. It's ludicrious. I mean, rattlesnake poison is "all-natural", but I don't see people clamoring over themselves to ingest it or anything.

Exactly! People are so obsessed with "natural" he...

2006-01-09T08:37:00.000-05:00