The Organic Wars Flare Up

Once again, the FSA is the source of some controversy. No, not the Financial Services Authority, but the Food Standards Agency, the (roughly) UK equivalent of the FDA. Last week the British media reported on the FSA’s findings that organic food is no ‘healthier’ in nutrient composition than conventionally farmed produce. A war of words ensued between organic proponents, scientists, the Soil Association, and industry lobbies. Strangely the FSA remained relatively absent from the trenches of verbal strife, yet the ensuing clamour touches upon larger issues of discourse that neither side fully appreciates.

The immediate reaction from the organic movement was to focus on the absence of pesticide residue from the report’s consideration. This is a key point, and as Leo Hickman writes in the Guardian, it is perhaps a more important reason to eat organic foods. Not so, says Robin McKie, science editor at the Guardian. McKie points out there are toxins in both organic and conventional foods, noting that they are ‘natural’ (from fungi) in organic produce and synthetic (from chemical plants). The essence of McKie’s argument is that natural is not always better – science has allowed us to feed a growing population and we should continue in this spirit with GM crops. Unfortunately responses from both sides neglect the larger scope and discourse in which this debate occurs.

The organic movement, particularly the response from Soil Association in this case, too often responds with hostility when studies demonstrate dubious benefits of organic foods. In the case of the FSA study they should have thrown in the towel and acknowledged that perhaps there is no nutritional benefit in the aggregate (it seems that some nutrients did vary between organic and conventional, but this report looked at studies done over a 50 year period and considered the question on a broad level). Organic champions also fail to engage on the social issues raised by yields and income disparity.

Those who find organic produce to be ‘snake-oil’ too often have absolutist view of science as saviour. The 20th Century deified science to the extent that it caused quite a mess of our environment in the name of technological progress. Science of course has much to offer us, but turning to technology is not a universal panacea. There are genuine trade-offs to consider between science, technology, and nature. Lastly, while many of the comments from scientists make no reference to their employers, it seemed a good number of them were chemists or biochemists. One must question the commercial interests and training that could bias their retorts. Too often science is used as a veil by those in the scientific community to close the books on an issue, rather than acknowledging the politics involved in scientific decision making.

Where do I come down on this issue? I still believe that organic produce is a good thing, that it sends the right signals about ecological values and a production system that (often) has sustainability at its core. I am with Hickman in that I primarily purchase organic foods because they are more ecological friendly (smaller carbon footprints from reduced pesticide use). Of course this all depends on the producer in question and how far the food has been shipped. There are many local producers who are essentially organic, but do not pay for the certification due to the cost and bureaucracy. Likewise there are many organic farms run by agribusiness and that practice monoculture (a single crop farm). Regardless of whether a producer is organic or not, avoiding monoculture should be a value we can all work towards.

The social aspects of this debate are equally important. Critics of the organic movement tend to believe organic foods are the provenance of the upper middle class intelligentsia and are out of reach for the average consumer. Indeed organic foods have been associated with elitism, but this is an issue for which the media is responsible. I have previously remarked on the large variation in pricing of organic products depending on where they are purchased and the item in question. While research on the matter might prove difficult (why would retailers want to be caught red handed?), it does seem reasonable to believe that margins are higher on organic foods due to the perception of them being a luxury good of sorts. This should not be the case and gouging consumers at the expense of the environment is despicable. We all make choices about how we prioritise our disposable income and the discourse needs to shift from status signals to ecological responsibility. I know wealthy people who buy no organic food and have poor friends who refuse to sacrifice on food. It very well maybe the case that conventional food becomes more expensive if hydrocarbon prices increase due to carbon trading and taxes.

Lastly, ensuring a global supply of food for the world’s growing population is important. Indeed organic foods due have lower absolute yields, though even these figures vary tremendously as previously noted back in May. It does not take a genius, however, to notice huge imbalances in caloric distribution globally. Obesity is a health crisis in the developed world while famine and malnutrition affects the developing world. As one wise individual on the Guardian’s commentary page noted, distinguished economist Amartya Sen has attributed famines to political failure rather than food shortages (see his work Development as Freedom for more on this topic). Surely organic agriculture could have a large, if not absolute, place in the world’s food production if a shift to less processed foods were widespread. GM crops, while potentially reducing the need for fertilisers and increasing yields, are fraught with ethical challenges. McKie ignores these in the name of food security for the world’s poor, yet fails to acknowledge the dangers of patenting genetic material. Would poor farmers have rights to GM crops spread in the wild? What of biodiversity? As for now, these questions have not been adequately answered by GM proponents.

The FSA report has not settled the organic debate. Perhaps it has settled the nutrition debate for now, but there are sure to be contradictory studies on this matter at regular intervals over the coming years. Organic food is not a full-stop solution to the environmental issues posed by agriculture, but it is a step in the right direction. Social aspects of this debate cannot be suppressed and the hostile discourse surrounding it must change from its patronising view of consumers. The media shapes perceptions. Perhaps the best move would have been to put such a report deep inside the newspaper rather than on the front page. And please, let’s end the sensationalist headlines. These are complex issues and the public is ready to deal with them as mature adults when given the chance.

**Afterword - I realise I relied extensively on reports from the Guardian, but this speaks to the absence of a real debate in other news media presently. Perhaps this should raise our awareness to the lack of coverage on this issue**