Tuesday, June 2, 2009 8:38 PM CDT
Myths and facts: organic production vs.
foods produced via modern agriculture
By AMY ROCHKES, For the JG/T-C
Today there is a lot of discussion around food, cost of food, production of food and where our food originates. Organic versus conventional food production methods are always part of the discussion.
Organic foods are those produced without the use of sewer-sludge fertilizers, most man-made fertilizers and pesticides, genetic engineering, growth hormones, irradiation and antibiotics. Livestock manure may be used to fertilize organic production.
Conventionally grown foods are those grown using modern agricultural practices and technologies. These practices include the use of man-made fertilizers, pesticides, and biotechnological advances to improve yields and efficiency.
The growing popularity of organic food surprised many in conventional food and agriculture industries. Modern agriculture traditionally relies on science and data-based production and processing practices that provide guidance for safety, environmental impact, content, and nutrition. In the wave of growing organic popularity, ill-informed consumers have become confused by misleading labels and non-science based marketing that leads them to believe organic foods are safer, more nutritious and better for the environment than foods produced via modern agriculture.
The cost of organic foods is economically restrictive for some consumers; the same product often sells for triple its normal value with the addition of an “organic” sticker. With all of the uncertainties and misunderstandings in the industry today, it is essential to educate consumers on the facts regarding organic and modern food production. Moreover, given heightened consumer concern for the environment and over global climate change; it is essential consumers understand the real (not perceived) impact of their choices on both.
One myth is organic foods are healthier and taste better than non-organic foods. In reality, there is no scientific evidence shows that organic foods are healthier or safer than conventionally grown foods. Sometimes organically grown foods have more bacterial contamination than conventionally raised products. In general, people tend to find that the fresher a food is, the better it tastes, regardless of how it was produced. The most important thing is to eat a balanced diet with plenty of fruits and vegetables, organic or not.
Is organic farming is better for the environment? Organic production prohibits using biotechnology; however, biotech crops can require less (or no) pesticides, fertilizers, and even water. Peer-reviewed scientific studies repeatedly find biotech varieties are more environmentally friendly. Studies show that in 2005, U.S. pesticide applications were reduced by 70 million pounds due to agriculture biotechnology.
Because organic production requires more plowing, it uses more fuel, contributes more to greenhouse gas, and results in more erosion than modern agricultural practices like no-till. Since 1996, about 440 million gallons of fuel have been saved through use of biotechnology and no-till practices.
It is virtually impossible to produce the world’s food supply organically — there isn’t enough land. Doing so would result in severe intrusion into protected areas, like the rainforest.
The lower yield of organic farming (compared to modern production agriculture) is an important trade-off in deciding whether organic production is really an improvement. It has been estimated that twice as much land would have to be farmed with organic methods to product the same amount of food the world currently grows. That much farm land does not exist.
Modern agricultural methods provide the only system that can support the growing world population. While there is certainly room for organic alternatives, such alternatives cannot replace the conventional system.
Amy Rochkes is manager of the Shelby County Farm Bureau.
Add your comments
Not already registered?
Then click Here.
Comment policy:
JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.
In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.
We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.
No comment may contain:
* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.
If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
iowafarmboy wrote on Jun 3, 2009 8:19 PM:
"It is virtually impossible to produce the worlds food supply organically there isnt enough land. Doing so would result in severe intrusion into protected areas, like the rainforest.", is a form of fear-mongering, and the fear is that the chemical companies might not make enough profit from chemicals used in all it's other divisions, that it has to be in our food in every way it can find. What a load! I cannot believe that having our food grown without their chemicals will bring about the end of the world. Do you agree with Amy or nature? "