Organic vs. Sustainable

(3/26/2009) - Paul Roberts has written an interesting article in Mother Jones questioning the idea that, in the case of food, organic + local = sustainable.  Or, more specifically, whether or not our current “pure” definition of organic food – no pesticides, no genetic engineering, no chemical fertilizers, no food additives, no growth hormones – is the best way to promote sustainable farming.  I want to expand on some of the points he makes and look at some of the core beliefs at play.

Organic farming began not in the context of environmental degradation, but as a push-back against the industrialization and consolidation of farms that were pushing farming families off the land.  At the center of organic farming is the distinction between organic farming, which is based in biology, and industrial or conventional farming, which is based on the use of chemistry.  An organic farmer, for example, tries to take advantage of natural biological processes to control pests and fertilize the soil.  The industrial farmer employs man-made chemicals to perform these tasks. 

The current organic foods industry is a direct result of this ideological distinction.  In order for food to be considered USDA Certified Organic in the United States, no pesticides or synthetic fertilizers can be used.  Livestock cannot be given growth hormones or antibiotics.  No foods that use genetically modified breeds can be certified organic.  While farming without pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can be more sustainable than conventional farming, there is no guarantee that an organic farm will use less energy or resources than a conventional farm.  The only guarantee is that the separation of “natural” biology and “synthetic” chemistry will be respected. 

Matt Yglesias observes, “That kind of focus on all-or-nothing issues reflects organic farming’s origins in quasi-mystical movements and it suits the business model of the “Big Organic” enterprises that have sprung up in recent years. But sound public policy is usually all about impacts at the margin. Doubling the proportion of the U.S. food supply that comes from organic sources would still leave us with 94 percent coming from conventional farms. You would accomplish much more by policies that produce a mild reduction in the ecological footprint of the entire conventional center.

Sustainable, Genetically Modified Foods

The rule against using genetically engineered (GE) breeds is particularly counter-productive if your objective is to make farming sustainable and not just “organic.”  In Tomorrows Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, (LINK) organic farmer Raoul W. Adamchak and geneticist Pamela C. Ronald argue that incorporating genetically modified foods into organic/sustainable farming will benefit both the farmer (by making it easier to grow her crops) and the consumer.  Despite the widespread fear of GE foods – many countries in the EU and elsewhere have banned GE foods – Ronald says there hasn’t been a single case in which a human or animal has been harmed by approved GE foods since we began producing them in the 1970’s. 

The authors argue that most fear surrounding GE foods is based on poor assessment or risk.  Many people, for example, oppose GE foods because they are afraid that a gene in a GE plant will be inadvertently transferred to a weed and make a “super-weed” that will out-compete native plants.  The authors argue, however, that while technically possible, this is exceedingly unlikely given the fact that domesticated species and weeds are quite different biologically (there’s a reason why you don’t find “wild”, domesticated corn or tomatoes invading your yard).  At the same time, many consumers accept the obvious and well-documented risk posed by pesticides and fertilizer to themselves and the environment.  Adamchak and Ronald argue that if people were better informed, they would not make these poor risk assessments.

The larger point is that GE foods would make sustainable farming much easier, and make farming easier in general for the world’s poor.  Fertilizer and pesticides help increase yields by a lot, but they are also tremendously expensive, which makes their application on smaller subsistence farms (as most are in poorer nations) or by farmers without access to large amounts of capital impossible.  As a result, many of the world’s poor cannot produce enough food, and are forced to farm marginal land, which results in quick degradation of the soil.  GE crops that are designed to be resistant to drought, flooding, or disease, could make a large difference. 

Though I liked many of his points, I didn’t agree with everything Roberts says.  For example, he makes the assertion that a similarly productive plot of land under sustainable management will require twice as many hours of labor to maintain as a conventionally managed field.  Though sustainable agriculture will almost assuredly require more farmer hours, Roberts doesn’t put this statement in full context.  Roberts suggests that, because more and more people live in urban areas, there won’t be enough people to provide the needed labor. 

However, I wouldn’t assume that increased urbanization will continue on its current track.  The primary driver of urbanization is the fact that, over the past century or more, an increasing proportion of economic activity takes place in cities, which creates more jobs.  Long-term increases in demand for petroleum in combination with slowing and then declining oil production (the most optimistic estimates put peak oil within the next twenty five years, and the most pessimistic say we arrived at that destination in 2008) threaten to reverse this trend as transportation costs skyrocket.  As it stands, industrial/conventional farming, especially in the United States and Europe, is cheaper than labor-intensive organic because fuel and fertilizer made from petroleum are less expensive than labor.  This situation easily change if the price of petroleum rises sharply. 

One of the most important is that organic farming practices are much less dependent on fossil fuels because it substitutes man hours for petroleum-derived fertilizer and machine fuel.  As the costs of fuel rise, sustainably grown foods will become more price competitive.

Moving Past Organic

When accessing the occasional use of pesticides or GE varieties in farming, it is more important to consider if the proposed techniques will lead to a healthful world – healthy soil, healthy consumers, and a healthy environment – than whether or not the techniques conform to specific government mandated requirements of what is considered “organic.”  However, when implementing public policy it is much harder to just say “do the right thing,” and expect that people will act responsibly.  The definition of organic food offers the advantage of providing a definite framework in which farmers can operate. 

I think one possible alternative to the current system would be to implement a sort of “cap-and-trade” program or tax for fertilizers and pesticides.  The goal would be to use market dynamics and scientific estimates to incorporate the true costs that fertilizers and pesticides have on our health and the health of the environment.  If properly designed, such a system would encourage a wide variety of farmers – not just “organic” farmers – to be more judicious in their application of pesticides and fertilizers, and explore alternative methods of farming.