Organic has a cost

We've got a few people on a runaway organic trip and I figured I might as well get in my licks as well. I realize the power of belief that drives what we eat so I don't plan on trying to dispel the bad science contained in books like The Maker's Diet or Trudeau's two books on how the Gov't is covering up all sorts of healthy foods (whatever that means) to protect big biz. Go ahead and believe.

What I want to do is note why organic is a questionable alternative. First off, and no one converted to Trudeau or the Maker's Diet is going to buy this, there is no advantage to organic food. It isn't superior, it isn't safer and it isn't healthier than conventional food. These are the conclusions from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the USDA and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I know, I know, they are all bought, all corrupt, all hiding the facts. But let's at least consider this: their findings are based on good science while those of the Maker and Trudeau are junk science at best. I'm going with the good science. My point is that there is no advantage to organic food. But go ahead and pay 40% more if you must.

A more serious consideration is that organic production is not zero impact on the environment, a fact the organic community has kept covered up and hidden because to let it out would cost their big distributors financial loss, and we all know it's about money not food (just kidding).

The pitfalls in organic production are best seen in areas of the world that practise it, such as Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, and formerly Canada and much of Europe. The big problem in organic production is tillage because you cannot produce organically without it. The system requires a system of composting, which means constantly growing a green manure crop then plowing it down for nutrients. The green manure crop provides the chemicals necessary to grow crops - nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, etc.

The organic system uses intensive tillage (note the word intensive) for soil preparation and weed control. This increases the potential for runoff and soil erosion and leads to the breakdown of soil organic matter and soil aggregation (clodding). It is also harmful to most soil organisms incuding earthworms.

It was organic production that turned the southern prairies into a dust bowl in the 1930's. Intensive tillage was the problem. That was a lesson learned for Canadian agriculture and since that period we have marched consistently towards zero or minimum tillage. Soil health across the prairies is at an all time high, erosion is at an all time low and aggregation is back to normal. The one exception to this bill of health is the return of about 3% of acres to organic farming methods which reverses all the gains.

Africa is maybe the best example of how organic farming can affect the land base from which we grow food. Since 1980, 75% of the soils of sub Saharan Africa have experienced severe degradation through the loss of soil nutrients to grow crops. The degradation has been through organic farming methods that have removed crop residues year after year, leading to the breakdown of soil until it was susceptible to erosion from wind and water and leaching of nutrients due to lack of tilth and aggregation. This is called nutrient mining and it is the exact same process as done in slash and burn agriculture (organic).

Yields in Africa are about 400kg per acre, compared to 1,200 kg per acre in the rest of the world. As their infertile, organically farmed fields cease to produce crops African farmers just keep pushing further into the bush as they slash and burn to release nutrients and access new soils to mine. About 70% of deforestation in Africa is the result of clearing land for cultivation.

Have a look at Africa, especially the sub Saharan area where millions are starving to see the long term effects of organic farming. It's a system with serious problems.

78% of the increase in food production in the world was due to increased production per acre of land. This has allowed the world population to increase but food to remain widely available and relatively cheap. Organic production reverses this since it requires more and more land and yields are significantly lower. It would also need to solve the problem of intensive tillage to be sustainable long term.

It's really only in resource rich North America that we can go on an organic food trip. Nobody in China can afford to since it is a land poor (agricultural land) country, feeding 21% of the world's population on 9% of the world's arable land. There is not enough land available for them to even think of organic production practices.

Ogranic production in Canada is still trying to find a way around the intensive tillage problem it creates. To date we have isolated pieces of land that have been deemed organic but the system is so damaging to land it remains to be seen if it can be maintained. As long as consumers are willing to pay 40% more the returns may be high enough to keep an organic farmer in business but all will face declining yields over time requiring an expansion of their land base, something the organic business model may not support.

When you buy organic food think about the cost to you and to the land. All food requires chemicals to grow and pest control to protect yield and deliver an acceptable product to the marketplace. Organic production does not produce superior food and it has a direct environmental cost. Think about the whole system when you buy organic. Enjoy the trip, but understand the cost.

One last thing - organic milk. I'd just like everyone to know that any milk you buy is organic milk. In Canada you cannot use lactation hormones in dairy cattle and any cow under antibiotic treatment for disease cannot be milked for human consumption. So what you have is milk from a cow eating grass and forage, just like the organic cow. However, if you want to pay 40% more for organic milk I encourage you to do so, it helps keeps farmers in business.

Pa