Buying organic food could hurt you and the environment

blueberries

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 9:13 am

Buying organic food is an exercise in personal virtue: You pay more to consume food that’s healthier for you and less damaging to the environment because it’s grown without artificial or toxic chemicals.

This powerful perception, based more on belief than facts, goes a long way toward explaining why demand for organic products has grown so much. Organic sales have more than tripled in the past decade, to more than $30 billion a year, while sales of conventional food products have dawdled along at an annual growth rate of about 2 percent.

There’s just one huge problem: Neither of the main assumptions driving the growth of organic farming are grounded in science. In fact, there is evidence that organic farms produce as much, or more, pollution than conventional farms and that organic products might actually contain more toxins than other foods.

Like all farms, those that grow organic products rely on fertilizer. Often, organic farmers use animal manure rather than chemicals derived from petroleum or minerals.

In one study of greenhouses in Israel, the use of manure led to much more nitrogen leaching into groundwater compared with use of conventional fertilization. Nitrogen contamination, the study noted, is one of the main reasons for closing drinking-water wells. And by the way, nitrogen from all sorts of farming is one of the main pollutants behind algae blooms, fish kills and dead zones in bodies of water from local farm ponds to the northern Gulf of Mexico.

A broader study of 12 different farm products in California found that in seven cases, those using conventional methods had lower greenhouse-gas emissions.

A big reason for the difference? Conventional farming tends to be more efficient than organic farming, meaning fewer inputs are needed to generate the same amount of food.

That hits on a critical issue for organic farming, as noted in a 2012 analysis of more than 100 studies of farming methods across Europe: Getting the same unit production from organic farming tended to lead to “higher ammonia emissions, nitrogen leaching and nitrous oxide emissions.” And while organic farming tends to use less energy, it also leads to “higher land use, eutrophication potential” — that’s the dead zones mentioned above — “and acidification potential per product unit.”

The main author of the study, Hanna Tuomisto, a professor at Oxford University, said:

Many people think that organic farming has intrinsically lower environmental impacts than conventional farming but the literature tells us this is not the case. Whilst some organic farming practices do have less environmental impact than conventional ones, the published evidence suggests that others are actually worse for some aspects of the environment. People need to realize that an “organic” label is not a straightforward guarantee of the most environmentally-friendly product.

Organic animal production also can cause problems. Unlike conventional farms, organic farms usually let animals wander around. No surprise that animals then do their business wherever nature calls.

Rain, in turn, washes waste into local streams and rivers. Think of that next time you see free-range something on the menu.

By comparison, conventional farms can (although they don’t always) confine waste to covered areas. This prevents exposure to rain that causes polluted runoff.

As for health benefits, the evidence suggests there’s no distinguishable difference in nutritional value between organics and other food.

So are you worried now? You shouldn’t be. Buy what you like to eat whether it’s organic or not — unless you’re watching your food budget, in which case the choice is clear.

By James Greiff
Bloomberg News

thelioness

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 9:39 am

Article funded by Monsanto and the GMA.

Sorry that is the dumbest article I maybe ever read. So they are saying it is healthier to eat poisons and chemicals than to wash your produce and let animals live the way they were created to.

vintagebknyc

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 9:49 am

that article comes from bloomberg? with ONE source giving opinions about other unnamed studies?

I've got a bridge to sell you in brooklyn.

Scrabble123

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 9:51 am

This is old news. If the organic market were to compete with the conventional farming market, then of course it would be more harmful to the environment. I do not know the numbers of organic consumers in the US, but I do not believe it is yet comparable to that of conventionally prepared foods. The truth is however that I do not know the numbers, so this article may or may not be applicable at this point.

My mother has always been careful about where she purchases organic products. She wouldn't simply shop in a grocery that offers organic fruits, etc., but would go down to a farm. She has explained that she has been doing this for the reasons stated in the article.

tryinghard

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 10:12 am

thelioness wrote:

Actually the article is saying that organic products are overal worse for the envoronment - demonstrating the irony for those who eat organic because it is "green", "sustainable" and otherwise "better for the environment". There was not much said about whether it is healthier for those who eat it...

thelioness

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 10:25 am

I know but if the way it was created emits gases into the environment I am sure G-d planned for that, unlike man made emissions.

chaiz

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 10:29 am

thelioness wrote:

I know but if the way it was created emits gases into the environment I am sure G-d planned for that, unlike man made emissions.

Really, Hashem cannot plan for man-made emissions??

DrMom

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 10:36 am

I don't have access to the full article on which the Bloomberg article was based.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s.....04264

I don't know if it was sponsored by an entity with an interest against organic farming.

The abstract doesn't seem very biased. The author recommends adapting certain practices from organic farming and applying them to more industrial farming in order to minimize environmental damage, and to adapt practices developed by industrial farming to improve organic farming yields.

The Bloomberg journalist lifted passages from the article which spoke about the disadvantages of organic farming and ignored the other data which points to its advantages.

mirror

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 10:38 am

When it comes to blueberries and strawberries, you should buy organic or grow your own.

thelioness

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 10:52 am

chaiz wrote:

Really, Hashem cannot plan for man-made emissions??

Yes, the world even recovers from atomic bombs but not without harm to humans. While the way the world was intended, doubt it has the effect of farming the original way harms people in the process to be concerned like the article suggests.
\
To clarify, I think the article is ridiculous in that it presents few points that have some truth and leads you to think the conclusion is don't waste your time on organic.

Scrabble123

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 10:57 am

thelioness wrote:

That' not the message that I walked away with.

It never commented on organic with regards to the actual food produced.

Message is: Everything is not always as it seems. It was directed to those who buy organic to be "green."

These ideas are not new. We learned about them in school. As I said, my mother buys organic food only from select farmers because of these facts.

studying_torah

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 10:59 am

Read an article ( can't recall where) that the pesticides used in organic planting are just as dangerous as those used in reg planting- and since they're less effective, more of it needs to be used so it ends up more toxic.
Can that be true? If so what's the point of using those pesticides?

blueberries

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 2:46 pm

http://blogs.scientificamerica.....ture/

amother

Mustard

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 2:51 pm

Deleted.

Last edited by amother on Sun, Jan 24 2016, 3:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

shnitzel

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 8:09 pm

studying_torah wrote:

To qualify as an organic fertilizer it needs to be actually organic - a natural product from the ground, essentially a creation of Hashem. Hashem has created a lot of things that are not healthy for our bodies.

Monsanto is evil but genetically modifying isn't. There are incredible ways to make plants pest resistant that can save the lives of farmers who are the ones who actually need to worry about pesticides.

Food miles are also a feel good sort of endeavor but don't actually reduce fossil fuel usage.

mirror

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 8:19 pm

shnitzel wrote:

Food miles are also a feel good sort of endeavor but don't actually reduce fossil fuel usage.

Translation please.

shnitzel

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 8:34 pm

OPINIONATED wrote:

Translation please.

A lot of people are into trying to eat only locally grown produce but in a chapter of a book I read a few months ago but basically it sometimes uses more fossil fuel (gas) to grow something like heirloom tomatoes in NY state than it will to drive them 1000 miles from California when you factor in the way produce needs to be grown in different place. You might feel great about buying your tomato at a farmers market but the hothouse it was grown in can mean it took more fuel than the long drive on a truck. Also individual people driving longer to get to farms and markets instead of the local grocery can be worse than a single truck bringing a lot of veggies to the grocery store from further away.

(I am still obsessed with farmers markets though because the produce tends to be incredible).

studying_torah

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 9:14 pm

I've heard about Monsanto but no idea what it is.
I don't like the idea of genetically modified produce or animals/fish. Creeps me out, makes me feel like a science horror experiment and frankly we don't know how it will/ won't affect us

Orchid

Mon, Jun 09 2014, 11:26 pm

To me, this article was saying organic produce is possibly worse for the environment.

Maybe so, but I - and everyone I know that spends extra money on organic produce - do so because it's better for us personally. Environment shemvironment.

As to the claim (which I read when it came out) that organic food has no measurable health benefits over conventionally produced food, again, no one claimed otherwise. We organic eaters don't say organic carrots have more Vitamin A than conventional carrots. But it does not have chemical pesticides, which by all measures are bad for us.

Miri1

Tue, Jun 10 2014, 1:37 am

"Organic animal production also can cause problems. Unlike conventional farms, organic farms usually let animals wander around. No surprise that animals then do their business wherever nature calls.

Rain, in turn, washes waste into local streams and rivers. Think of that next time you see free-range something on the menu. "

This makes no sense to me. There are millions of non domesticated animals and birds roaming through our countryside - and no one is controlling their bathroom habits. So we have to rope in the cows to protect our water?