Un-savvy Journalism and Organic Food

Has 2009 been declared the year of food? Between the Obama’s organic garden at the White House, Alice Waters’ interview on 60 Minutes, and countless articles in mainstream media about ‘slow food’ and health scares, it seems food is all the rage. Not that was ever out of style. Is this just a ploy to give us all a break from the monotonous gloom of financial holocaust? Indeed, food is a daily ritual for the vast majority of people and vital to sustaining life. It seems to me that the discourse on food is shifting from celebrity chefs to its provenance, safety, and environmental impact.

It is a telling sign that the discourse is changing when a Financial Times columnist writes on organic food, albeit in a rather ignorant manner. In ‘Consumers Are Savvy About Organic Food’ Michael Skapinker asserts that the consumer knows best and because there is controversy about the health and environmental merits of organic food, it is no wonder that sales are falling in the current economic situation. In constructing his argument, Skapinker leaves out complexities on both sides of the argument.

Regarding food safety, Skapinker cites Alex Avery of the Hudson Institute – long an environmentally sceptical think-tank – that there are higher risks for E. Coli contamination with organic food due to manure use. This should raise the question – why is so much manure being used? There is such a thing as green manure (we use it at Growing Communities) and it is equally rich and sustaining. This would prevent the increase in cattle, also claimed by the Hudson Institute, required to sustain an all-organic food system.

Climate change weaves its way in to the organic movement more subtly. Skapinker acknowledges the benefits of decreased chemical fertiliser use, but claims deforestation would need to increase due to reduced yields. Some studies of biodynamic agriculture, pioneered by Rudolf Steiner, suggest that natural yields are actually more efficient, that is require less nutrients per unit of output. It also avoids the unpleasant question: should we be changing the way we eat in a more sustainable way? That is, less meat, less processed foods? The health benefits of such changes, organic or not, are recognised and to be commended. That there are large numbers of overweight people in a world still plagued by famine demonstrates the imbalance in our current system. Skapinker ignores the local dimension of organic food, which is about more than just emissions and climate change. There is a community component to this argument that moves into the sphere of social as well as ecological sustainability. See my post on the pricing of organic food for more thoughts on this.

The fundamental problem with the existing journalistic discourse on food issues is that they tend to ignore the complexity of the matter. Yes there is a growing population and food security is an issue. Ecological threats exacerbate the problem, while the conventional solutions for feeding growing numbers exacerbate the ecological problems. The planet is telling us that there are finite limits to our numbers. This is not to sound Malthusian, but is to acknowledge there are natural limits to what our environment can sustain and technological solutions frequently have feedback loops that create larger problems. What about biodiversity?

What must be acknowledged is that organic food is a step in the right direction, but there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Conventional foods that reduce their environmental footprint are also a step in the right direction. Consumers are enslaved to the existing conventional food discourse and, at the risk of sounding elitist, are not always savvy. This is not because they are stupid, but because they have grown accustomed to a certain way of life and because the information involved to make responsible decisions is often opaque. In the end, it all comes down to values. How important are future generations and the long-term availability of sustainable foods? These are questions everyone must ask, journalists included, and to fail to raise them is to practise un-savvy journalism.