I DON’T EAT ORGANIC FOOD
Published July 1, 2009 by Rachel Laudan
About five years ago, my mother, then in her late 80s, tasted a cheese she really liked at a party. It was made in a remote downland village just ten miles from where she lived. She really wanted that cheese. I was dispatched to seek it out in the market and all the local gourmet stores, none of which she had the strength to walk to. Total failure.
Then someone told her it was for sale in the giant British supermarket chain Tesco as part of their “local” campaign. Now this she could manage–nearby parking, a cart to hang on to or even sit in.
We approached the cheese counter. I was terrified that someone would knock her over, so frail she had become. But we made it. And sure enough the cheese was there. The girl started cutting it and helpfully said, “And it’s organic.”
Now you have to understand that my mother never ate an egg whose parentage was not known to her, never ate chicken because they were dirty birds, never ate bread that did not come from a baker she trusted . . . well you get the picture.
So my mother drew herself up to her full but much shrunken height, and in her still vibrant voice let fly.
I DON’T EAT ORGANIC FOOD.
We left without the cheese, but with lots of puzzled onlookers. Not a whim, not incipient dementia. The well-considered opinion of someone who had been a farmer’s wife for 65 years. She really felt, and I agree with her, that far from being the right and moral thing to do, it was a blind alley for food lovers and hungry people alike. It was her last outing.
Today Russ Parsons of the LA Times published a piece beginning “I don’t believe in organic,” that just flew around the social networks. Good for you Russ. And I think you are finding that there are lots of people who agree with you.
I’d like you to go yet further, though I think we may disagree here.
1) It’s really important to realize that that the current laws about organic in the United States are, from the point of view of those who set the politics in motion, are a pathetic compromise. They wanted large agriculture dismantled in favor of small, labor intensive, chemical averse farms. Good discussions can be found in Warren Belasco’s classic Appetite for Change (1989), ch. 4 and more recently in Julie Guthman’s Agrarian Dreams (2004), ch. 6. It was an honest and heartfelt movement even though I think in the end not the way to go.
They could not get this to fly politically. Instead they had to settle for the relatively narrow legal definition now in force in many countries. This usually seems to boil down to some version of “no synthetic chemicals,” though how this is refined varies from nation to nation. That means no chemical fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, or antibiotics.
2) Because the “no synthetics” compromise was not a bit to the liking of the anti-modern agricultural movement, they were horrified, not happy, when big chains (Wal-Mart) and big agriculture began going organic in the narrow sense.
Here’s a great chart showing how these companies leapt on the organic bandwagon (thanks to Richard Wilk on the ASFS website). A must see.
Because I think the organic policy was based on an ill-founded analysis to begin with, I would like to see both small and big organic set aside. Both a no-chemical policy and an anti-modern agriculture policy seem to me to be misguided ways to go about getting all the things we want–good tasting food, morally acceptable food, food adequate to feed the growing global population.
________
Tomorrow back to all your wonderful comments on regional foods.
Filed under Food Politics, What's Going on in Modern Food
Posts
The Organic Trade Association (OTA) would like to address several of the concerns about organic that you allude to here. First is that of traceability. Thanks to the strict set of regulations requiring that organic producers and handlers carefully document the manner in which organic products are produced, government officials and consumers alike have the ability to track the evolution of organic prodcuts from the farm to the table.
OTA would also point out that there is a growing body of research that shows organic farming is equally as productive as other farming methods, and sometimes produces higher yields. For instance, in side-by-side field trials conducted by The Rodale Institute for nearly 30 years, organically managed corn and soybeans have produced yields on average equal to those of conventionally raised crops, while building soil health and cutting energy use. In drought years, organic crops tend to have higher yields than their conventional counterparts.
In addition, researchers at the University of Michigan have shown that on a global scale, organic farming in developing countries can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land. These yields can be accomplished using existing quantities of organic fertilizers and without putting more farmland into production.
What is most important to remember is that any time you purchase an organic product—whether it is carries the USDA Organic seal (meaning it contains 95 percent or more organic ingredients) or is labeled as “Made with organic ingredients” (70 percent or more organic ingredients), you are supporting farmers who follow practices such as crop rotation, measures to encourage biodiversity, and alternatives to toxic and persistent pesticides—practices that are healthier for the farm workers and their families, and less polluting to the water and air around these farms and the wider community.
But, Rachel, something to think about is our current “need” to feel connected with our producers, to be part of something, a tradition from the distant past, when things were more of a handcrafted nature, it is idyllic, this bucolic dream. And we want a face behind a product, not the anonymous worker. Interesting. I used to have a shop that specialized in handmade textiles, similar attitude, People wanted to know who made it, was it fair trade, etc… Of course, most textile products are handmade, whether in a sweatshop in Jaipur or San Francisco, and there is little difference between the two as I’ve witnessed.
Your mother lived that life, knew that life and food that came with it. How can a label of “organic” possibly replace or be a substitute for that first hand knowledge?
I read your blog and was filled with gratitude that some one more literate than I was able to propound an “inorganic” view. In the part of the UK that I live to turn away from organic food is almost heresy. The other” bee I have in my bonnet” along the same line is the obsession with cheese made with unpasteurised milk. If it is a good example the cheese can have interesting flavours, if it is not the feacal taste can be overpowering. With the spread of TB in cattle in the UK the risk of consumption of unpasteurised products may become a serious risk to health.
if I’ve understood correctly, the word ‘organic’ in this discussion seems to have taken on various shades of meaning, mainly to suit business purposes. when people use the word amongst themselves, they are simply talking about the chemical content of the food (despite the fact that they may not realise that chemical content of some sort and to some extent is permissible according to various definitions of the word ‘organic’)
for this reason, i probably wouldn’t have reacted like your mother did. i would have been happy to find the delicious cheese which i so much enjoyed after trying it only once before, while its organic element would have been an added bonus.
the organic food market in greece has only recently gained ground; two (maybe three) years ago, there was hardly anything labelled ‘organic’. now, there are organic shelf sections, separate organic fruit and veges, etc. i dont like this myself – some produce that was being grown organic de facto is now being labeled as ‘organic’ – i wouldnt be surprised if the price was higher now for those items than it was before the organic label.
my biggest pet hate is seeing uniform-looking fruit and veges that are labelled organic – how did they grow so same-looking??!!?? I know first hand that tomatoes, oranges, cucumbers, literally everything, grows along similar but not exactly the same lines. where did all the non-standard parts go? when we buy this kind of ‘organic’, we are creating more waste
i myself shy away from supermarket organic food simply because i can’t stand the industrialisation of the organic market. everything is (over-)packaged (non-organic food lies in bulk containers), glemaing, shining, labelled: it’s clearly based on higher profits (you pay for all that pampering), especially when it’s found in an environment where most people do most of their shopping most of the time – the industries are probably thinking that someone’s bound to fall for it
great chart for the organic bandwagon – did i see m and m’s beign labelled as organic???
“In addition, researchers at the University of Michigan have shown that on a global scale, organic farming in developing countries can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land. These yields can be accomplished using existing quantities of organic fertilizers and without putting more farmland into production.”
OTA, if you come back to read the comments here can you post a link to the copy of these case studies?
As you probably know there are areas of the world that lack sufficient organic inputs. That’s just one issue that comes to mind.
One of the bigger problems I see is an “artificial” distinction between “natural” and “synthetic” in the polarizing realms of “good” and “bad”. Does the OTA support this idea? If so what is the OTA’s scientific justification for this?
Or maybe not…
“What is most important to remember is that any time you purchase an organic product—whether it is carries the USDA Organic seal (meaning it contains 95 percent or more organic ingredients) or is labeled as “Made with organic ingredients” (70 percent or more organic ingredients), you are supporting farmers who follow practices such as crop rotation, measures to encourage biodiversity, and alternatives to toxic and persistent pesticides—practices that are healthier for the farm workers and their families, and less polluting to the water and air around these farms and the wider community.”
I’m pro practices that are healthier for farm workers and their families and reduced pollution. What about the the remaining 5%-30%? Is it because a judicious, therapeutic use of synthetic chemicals has been approved by the OTA as being aligned with the OTA’s stance on “sustainable” practices? Or are there a political or economic reasons behind it?
Thank you in advance.
Thank you for writing. Is there a name to be attached here? I will be replying shortly.
Sonia, I think you are completely right about needing to feel connected. I think it’s also part of growing up to learn how to connect, difficult as that may me. this is too telegraphic and I want to post about it soon.
Thanks Brian. And as to unpasteurized milk, although I grew up on it, milk can be pretty dangerous stuff.