A friend's arguments against organic -- need your thoughts please

As a person who buys organic whenever possible I'm not buying your friend's arguments.

For one thing, in the past they did genetic engineering by breeding a tomato with a tomato. These days genetic engineering means inserting genes from jellyfish into a tomato. Frankenfoods seems like an accurate descrption.

Secondly, I'm interested in social justice. Pesticide residues my be withing acceptable levels on produce, but what about agricultural workers? I't my understnding that in concentration the chemicals are bad news for the folks who work in the fields.

Third, in the old days the edges of fields were wildlife habitat. Now the edges of fields are poison. It would take a lot of alternate set-aside area to make up for that habitat loss.

The issue of whether intensive agriculture is needed to feed the world is a red-herring. Probably it is, but that doesn't mean that all agriculture should be industrial agriculture. "Organic" is a meaningless term (there is no legal definition) but in general it implies small scale local production without using the agricultural chemicals produced by big corporations. The benefits of orgainc are:
-lets lsmall scale farmers make a living without getting in debt to agricultural corporations
-preserves heirloom varieties
-makes the food taste a lot better (If you don't believe me, try switching ot organic for a while then seitch back)
-is not dependent on oil prices or supply
-keeps chemicals off agricultural workers and out of my food.

--AmyB

<<She is a technical writer for the agricultural industry >>

And if she were a technical writer for, say, the health industry, would that mean that the 'research' and 'information' she has on issues like natural chilbirth, VBAC, breastfeeding & circumcision are going to make her opinions 'correct'?

My father farms, so I get to read his journals and the focus is always on things like increasing profitability (i.e. yield) and 'developing' new varieties which will be resistant to all the chemicals used. Sometimes an article on a 'great new' variety which has been developed to have more vitamin X, etc.
I can't ever remember seeing an article on healthy soil for healthy food.
Also, how much healthier do you think 'sludge' is as opposed to natural fertilizers like manure.
What about recent research showing that not only do organics have fewer residual chemicals (even considering effects of drift, etc.) but they often also have more vitamins/minerals--without having to engineer them!

And just a quick note that my father--who does do conventional--gets very frustrated with some of the other farmers he knows who do not apply their chemicals correctly. Yes! They need the right paperwork to buy them, but then they determine what is necessary in their situation, mix up and apply their own chemicals. And just like imitation breastmilk--the companies have a vested interest in convincing you to use their product and then keeping you using it. Use Round-Up to control your broadleaf weeds. Lower-than-expected yield? Try the new Round-Up-Ready seed beans! Weeds developing 'resistance'? We've got a nother product for you! And of course, once your soil is depleted of natural, organic nutrients, (like so many urban lawns, it's addicted to chemicals) we'll sell you a special fertilizer for that, too!

Don't even get me started on beef cattle--which are intended to be grass-fed, but for purposes of economy, convenience, and--surprise, surprise!--yield, are fed silage instead. No wonder beef is now so unhealthy and the Americans who eat so much of it are low in their EFAs and other important nutrients. But the beef industry is a whole 'nother can of chemically treated worms!

It's not just farmers who are focused strictly on profits, the chemical manufacturers advertise heavily, provide their own 'research' and promote the indispensibility of their products.
It's about the same as the imitation-breastmilk companies, and their paid-for medical supporters who hand out samples to unquestioning parents.
I have no problem paying more for organic foods--it might cost a bit more in the short term, but, IMO, in the long term it's a much better thing (for my family, the organic farmers' pockets, and the land) and well worth the expense.
Teresa

If you are not eating organic you are missing out on many nutrients and minerals. Modern non-organic farmers are required to only put back in 3 nutrients in to the soil and are allowed to use sewer sludge as fertilizer. The food that is produced this way has decreased nutritional value.

I think she has been well trained from the agricultural standpoint but behind that is a very greedy and profit orientated pharmaceutical producing these chemical fertilizers.

FOOD FOR PEOPLE NOT FOR PROFIT is what organic gardening is all about.

Has she tried a taste test? I would suggest a banana or apple test. Has she ever eaten an organic Macintosh apple? Or ask her why non organic food lasts much longer that organic. It's because the microorganisms and digestive enzymes have been destroyed through irradiation and make our body work double time just to get it digested. And when it is digested, the nutritional needs of the body ARE NOT MET.

Food is your fuel, your fuel comes from the earth, do you want that earth saturated with artificial chemicals?

And the whole argument about having to use all the chemicals to grow enough to feed the world is crap. American farmers consistently overproduce; there was a great article in the New York Times last week linking rising obesity rates with rising corn production (which means food manufacturers can afford to supersize everything, because their raw materials are dirt cheap). We have price supports in place for agriculture because otherwise the marketplace would put farmers out of business when they can't get anyone to buy their crops because the silos are overflowing.

Also, we don't feed the world with what we produce. In fact, our price supports for our overproduction means that African farmers starve because they can't export their crops to us, and our overproduction rots in warehouses rather than feeding hungry people around the world (or even in this country.)

Or, even worse, we feed all this grain to cows and pigs, thereby turning a lot of protein into a little protein and causing huge pollution problems while we're at it. We truly could feed the world if we'd stop eating grains in the form of beef and pork and provide them to hungry people instead.

And don't get me started on what pesticides and fertilizers are doing to our groundwaters, lakes, rivers, and bays- the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is caused by fertilizer runoff, and the Chesapeake Bay (among many others) is dying because of fertilizer runoff as well.

Oh, and let's not forget all the beneficial insects, small birds, and mammals that die when a farmer carpet bombs his crops with poisons.

Your friend is just brainwashed, pure and simple.

I wish I had time right now to read all the replies...Her arguement that we couldn't feed the world is ridiculous! There is no shortage of food, never would be even if all agriculture was organic. Any starvation is related to greed, simple as that. There are storehouses of rotting food that certainly could have been used to feed people, but the bottom line, is the bottom line. Grrr, she's clearly bought into the propaganda that she's been fed in her line of work. Open her eyes!

your friend sounds uneducated (& perhaps willfully ignorant about this topic) so she could benefit from exposure to the information you find. if one thinks Tide is the only detergent that's out there, one is shocked to find out how sinister Proctor & Gamble is. just because it's common doesn't mean it's 'right.' is she not familiar with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring? good grief.

there's much more to be said than her reductionist arguments, or even the small points we've all briefly touched on here. there are many books on this topic, including Diet for a Healthy Planet. her 'points' about needing to clearcut to make room for sustainable crops turns a blind eye to the amount of land that cannot be used for growing crops because of our preposterous dependence on beef. those agrichemicals are about grow it bigger, grow it faster, and big agribusiness. supporting small, family farms is what we like to visualize when we buy vegetables at the supermarket, but in fact, those family farms are being buried by the ConAgras with their frankencrops. buying organic is both about making healthy choices for your family and ethical decisions about the practices & people you support with your dollars.

My friend is a Certified organic farmer, which, to have that title in NJ is to undergo VERY strict guidelines to keep that Certified title. They do inspections on his farm more often then they probably do a conventional farmer. He has a roadside stand run by the honor system and many area restaurants buy his produce. He works very hard, and yes, he probably has smaller produce, his yield may or may not be smaller, I'll ask him..but his produce?? Out of this world wonderful. And as to your friend's assumption as far as waste product residue on the produce.. He has to completely spin the produce.. he actually uses a washer/drier setup to make sure all residue is off. I eat his stuff right from the stand and would NEVER do that with conventional produce. Please buy and keep using organic, the more of us that do so will not only help the earth's resources... but it will lower the prices of organic.. it is good to see that many conventional markets now carry organics, howver their prices are very high. Coops are cheaper, as well as straight from the farm in season. In the words of Joni Mitchell..." Give me spots on my apples, but leave me the birds and the bees, PLEASE!!"

I am just so
about your friends ideas, I don't know where to start. Commercial fertilizers and pesticides are leaving entire once-rich agricultural areas barren, leaching chemicals into groundwater, and poisoning fieldhands and nearby residents. They are destroying heirloom crops within windreach. They are producing flavorless, nutrient-deficient foods (as compared to organics). The list goes on and on. And to say that fertilizing organically is "gross", well that just shows who you're dealing with and how little she knows about how organic fertilizers come to be. So does she or doesn't she believe her statement that "nitrogen is nitrogen"? She holds conflicting views, I guess. Very few nasty things can survive the composting process, which reduces things to their basic elements. Perhaps she should say, "Nitrogen is nitrogen unless it comes from something I think is icky." :

The green revolution (ie, pesticide and fertilizer use) is not going to save the world. It is responsible for soil losses and requires the continuing use of these additives to maintain yields. It's not the panacea it was supposed to be.
I wrote out my feelings on organic for a co-worker of my husband who wanted to know what to feed his infant. It's related to this subject, so I'd like to post it.
I'll note that I am in the organic business, I am responsible for the organic division at my workplace.

Quote:

Of all the ridiculous arguments in the OP, this one has to be the most ridiculous:

Quote:
ummm....nitrogen, and nitrogen compounds, and fertilizers ARE in fact chemicals. Everything is made up of chemicals, even living things. Yes, nitrogen is nitrogen, but crops and soil do not live on nitrogen alone. The premise of organic farming is building a healthy soil, not just pumping nitrogen onto an inert substrate, the only purpose of which is to hold the plants in place. Soil is an ecosystem, and without healthy soil we cannot have healthy food. I read one organic farmer, I think it was Eliot Coleman, who said that he doesn't even apply organic fertilizers such as bone meal, fish meal, etc, because he believes in nurturing and building the soil through application of compost and minimal disturbance of the soil structure.

There are many reasons to buy organic over conventionally grown food...As Apricot said, one reason is that organic is better for you, aside from the pesticide issue. I recieved a handout from my CSA regarding the Rutgers Univ. study showing the superiority of organic...the Rutgers team expected organic to be slightly superior but they were much more than that. One example is Spinach, conventionally grown spinach had (trace elements parts per million dry matter) 49pm, organic had 1584pm. Tomatoes; 1pm (conv.) 1938 pm (organic). They tested for Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium, Sodium, Boron, Manganese, Iron, Copper, Cobalt, Phosphorus. every single time, the difference was astounding. So if your friend thinks organic farming is irresponsible, how can producing food stripped of its nutritional value be anything but grossly irresponsible?