the official grace & cello blog

i don’t like this article. perhaps you think i am biased, since we are obviously fans of organic agriculture here at grace & cello, and this article is clearly out to knock organics off its ecologically-friendly high horse. but it’s more than this; more than my natural inclination to defend organics that leaves me shaking my head at this sort of argumentation.

his argument is basically this:

1. organics aren’t necessarily as environmentally-friendly as they pretend to be, especially given the important place large corporate farms play in the organic market;

2. buying local might not be the answer either since a mass exodus out to small, local farms might emit more greenhouse gases than having a centralized food distribution system (i.e., status quo) that could (arguably) be more efficient (and therefore less polluting);

3. if all agriculture was organic, we’d need more land to grow the same amount of food;

4. there is a chance we wouldn’t even be able to feed everybody if all agriculture was small-scale and organic;

5. buying local means having ’icky’ and ‘disgusting’ meals in the dead of winter;

6. it is a little hypocritical to force ourselves to buy food locally while everything else we buy (like televisions, shoes, dishes, furniture) comes from overseas; and,

7. ending subsidies to farmers might have more environmental bang for the buck, since it would remove the incentive to overproduce (which in turn causes soil erosion, soil exhaustion, and water quality issues … to name a few).

of course, there is also the tired old accusation that it is “naive to assume all of our food needs could be met through small-scale organic farming methods.” i think it is always good to point out the naivete in those trying to do things differently.

my rebuttal:

let’s ignore for a second the fact that we currently over-produce by more than 100% for our needs, and so we dump our excess on poorer nations at ridiculously low prices (which we are able to do because our farmers (and especially our american rather than canadian farmers) are subsidized handsomely), which in turn devastates the local agricultural economies in these poorer nations — in other words, farmers in africa can’t sell their locally grown goods and make a decent living because we pay our farmers to grow way to much food, which burns out our soil and pollutes our waterways, then we ship the leftovers thousands of miles over sea and land to get rid of it.

yes, let’s ignore all that for the moment.

to respond to specific concerns raised in the article:

1. if large corporate farms are working hard to cash in on what started out as an independent and alternative approach to making and selling food (which they are), we as consumers should work to ensure that we give the bulk of our money to small or medium-sized local farmers. to do this, join a CSA, and support your local economy.

2. i am sceptical that everyone driving out to a farm would really be an ecological catastrophe, especially since many urban dwellers already head out on road trips every weekend … why not pick up groceries while they’re at it? but really, to be more practical and realistic, it should be stated that CSAs often have a drop off point in local cities, and people can walk and ride their bikes to pick up their weekly basket of veggies and fruits. as well, knowing economists personally, and the nature of such research, i am sure the measures used in the research cited in this article were very rough. did said economist consider the fossil fuels that go into making all the fertilizer used in large-scale agriculture, as well as the transportation of those fertilizers and chemicals, as well as the fossil fuels and energy that went into making the very large machinery used to apply these chemical inputs … ? also, did said economist consider the fact that current distribution systems mean that even if one lived next door to a large corporate farm, the veggies and fruits on that farm would likely have to travel hundreds of miles away to the main distribution centre, before they would then be put on the truck that would work its way back to the local supermarket in the original county where the neighbour could then buy it? … in other words, i find this argument very weak …

3. and 4. these points are both about how organic agriculture couldn’t feed the world. this argument cracks me up … first, because of the incredible amount of overproduction we have in this country (pick your western country of choice), as well as the disgusting tonnage of waste … in the UK, 17 million tonnes of food are dumped in landfills every year despite the fact that almost all of it is edible. this means that 30-40% of all the food grown in the UK is thrown away. there is a great deal of information out there that shows this inefficiency in food distribution is exactly the same in north america.

so could we grow enough food with a more intelligent form of farming … probably. but the real point is, why is this question even being asked at this point? organics account for 2.5% of all the food available out there …. let’s wait until we get up to 30-40% to start gauging the need for more or less organics?! this line of argument seems like a diversion or scare tactic to me, and doesn’t hold a lot of water in my books.

5. and 6. working to buy locally doesn’t mean we can’t support global trade. in fact, responsible global trade should be one of our priority goals … as well as building efficient and environmentally intelligent transportation systems for moving this trade. and, if you asked anyone who buys their food locally you’ll likely see that they also try to buy other goods locally as well. if our governments were wise (which they are not), they’d work to ensure that we retain local manufacturing capabilities, especially since long-distance trade might become unfeasible as gas becomes more scarce.

7. ending subsidies might not be the answer, and the author’s flippant suggestion that it might be the real answer to our agricultural woes speaks to the lack of sincere thought he has put into this piece. since we aren’t paying the fair value for our food in supermarkets, we might have to pay for it elsewhere (i.e., with tax dollars), especially if we value our rural communities, and food grown locally.

in fact, the most disappointing aspect of this article for me is its lack of sincerity and honest thinking. instead of careful research and investigation, this piece is little more than fluff journalism on the look out for an easy polemic that’ll help sell a story first to an editor, then to the public. i find it disappointing that the editor bit, and more disappointing that this line of polemic is becoming increasingly common in universities.

for intelligent thinking on organics (and what large corporate greed is doing to its merits), start with morgan and murdoch (2000: organic vs. conventional agriculture: knowledge, power and innovation in the food chain) out of the uk, and follow the references cited in their paper.

c.

This entry was posted on Saturday, June 2nd, 2007 at 5:39 pm and is filed under eco-debates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.