Food

(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.