There’s tons of resources and coverage on this very website for doing just that. That’s one of the things that brought me to subscribe to this blog in the first place. It’s great at suggesting ways to get more fresh, local, and sustainable food onto your plate, and less processed foods from a factory (or factory farm).

I agree with you that science is not perfect and that it must be questioned, but the questioning has always been inherently what makes the process “scientific.” So for instance the discovery that epigenetic factors make inheritance more complex than earlier understandings didn’t come from someone who said “science is not good enough” but rather from people doing good science.

The point I was making in the post was that just because something is “natural” does not mean that it is safe or environmentally benign (consider aflatoxin in food or a red tide in the ocean). Conversely just because something is synthetic does not mean it is dangerous (consider the fungicide fludioxanil or the insecticide rynaxapyr). What is unscientific about Organic is that it makes those assumptions and what is unethical about organic marketing is that it exploits that widespread misunderstanding for profit.

Barbara, Thanks for your response.

My assertion was not that there is a science problem with the soil-building attention that has been a very positive aspect of Organic. The limitation to only “natural” materials is what lacks a sound scientific basis and goes back to “vitalist” principles. When you talk about organophosphates and carbamates you are talking about 50+ year old products and a great many of the pesticides used today are far safer than those old materials. Copper compounds are not used as herbicides by conventional farmers. I could give you a long list of modern pesticides that are as safe or safer than those allowed in Organic. This is certainly not what the OTA implied in its extremely misleading web video, “Store Wars.” You might say it was just use of humor, but it was irresponsible and also insulting to fellow farmers. The membership of the OTA includes many companies whose production is 95% or more conventional, but even that did not prevent OTA from implying that this part of the food supply is terribly dangerous. Organic marketing all-too-often relies on fear.

If yields in Organic are actually the same or higher, why is there the Organic premium? Why is Organic still so small? You have not addressed those points. It is not as if Organic is about to become anything more than a niche even with a powerful brand and price premiums.

The carbon sequestration described in the Rodale document (and the similar recent one that came from the Soil Association) depend on the massive addition of composts. Most people simply assume that composting is fully aerobic when in fact it is not. The methane emissions from that process more than cancel any carbon benefits by sequestration. I have corresponded with Rodale’s research director about this point and her response what that most Organic growers don’t use much compost. If that is true, then the carbon sequestration levels are not what was claimed. See:http://www.scribd.com/doc/17356325/Carbon-Footprint-of-Organic-Fertilizer

The desirable goal of increasing soil carbon can be better achieved through a combination of cover cropping (which many Organic farmers use), no-till and controlled wheel traffic (see my previous post:http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2010/01/08/a-virtual-tour-of-tomorrows-super-sustainable-farm-part-1/).

Organic farming practices are not anti-science. In fact, organic farmers have tested out what works to build healthy soils. In general, organic farmers avoid the use of synthetic pesticides. Instead they use biological and cultural practices as their first line of defense against pests and resort to pesticides only in cases of extreme emergencies. Non-chemical techniques such as crop rotation, selecting resistant varieties, nutrient and water management, providing habitat for the natural enemies of pests, the release of beneficial organisms, and other practices are the principle methods used to protect crops from damage.

Organic standards allow the use of only a small fraction of the hundreds of pesticides and thousands of formulations allowed in conventional agriculture. Synthetic substances must be evaluated by a Technical Advisory Panel for any effects on human health and the environment and be approved by the National Organic Standards Board to be allowed. Soap, copper, sulfur, and narrow-range oils are exempt from EPA tolerance because of their safety. The National List bans such toxic natural pesticides as nicotine, strychnine, and arsenates.

Organic farmers use copper only for disease control under strict guidelines so they do not negatively affect soil quality or buildup copper in the soil. Copper ammonia base, copper ammonium carbonate, copper nitrate, and cuprous chloride are prohibited sources of copper for plant nutrients. In addition, copper products cannot be used as herbicides in organic agriculture. Conventional agriculture has no such limitations on copper use.

Synthetic insecticides such as organophosphates, and carbamates are the most acutely toxic pesticides used in agriculture. Organic farmers don’t use them at all.

It is inaccurate to say that organic crops have lower or less consistent yields. After the three-year transition from conventional to organic production, yields are often comparable. 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.

Other findings from The Rodale Institute show organically managed soils can store more than 1,000 pounds of carbon per acre, while non-organic systems can cause carbon loss. Surveys show that organic farms support many more species of birds, wild plants, insects and other wildlife than non-organic farms.

Organic farmers are not anti-science. Instead, they respect the laws of science in their husbandry of the land.

Barbara Haumann
Senior Science Writer/Editor
Organic Trade Association