Organic foolishness

Everytime I hear someone say that "organic" food is healthier to eat or better for the environment, I automatically thinkthat they either a) "left"-over hippies ot they're punaciously ignorant. So, when I read an article somewhere that doesn't automatically assume that "organic" is better than "non-organic", I'm pleasantly surprised.

That stated, I essentially concur with the article in Glasgow Scotland's, The Herald, (http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/53522.html). However, it's not as simple as this guy portends. The definition of "organic" is contentious (and litigious) now. Most importantly, the author is confusing organic vs. conventional agriculture with sustainable vs. industrial agriculture. For instance, more and more organic crops (with the USDA “Organic” seal) are being farmed industrially. And organic-industrial agriculture uses as much (or more) non-renewable resources as conventional. Although I haven't reviewed the literature, it would be interesting to see if energy accounting or balancing has been conducted in conventional-industrial vs. organic-industrial production; I would expect that the two types would be equivalent in terms of overall energy usage. Where land is limiting or where soils are marginal, conventional is obviously the best option.

The author does not mention "sustainability". From a thermodynamic standpoint, all agriculture is non-sustainable. In fact, human existence is non-sustainable, unless of course we are willing to somehow re-attach the forbidden fruit to the tree of knowledge and return to the garden. Therefore, I propose that the author feel "real good" by growing his own garden, and getting "off the grid", so I can consume more of the resources he will be sacrificing.

Although I grow organic citrus, it does not mean I am a standard bearer. I'm simply participating in a capitalist venture that allows a small grower to compete with larger ones, by compensating for the economy of scale by providing a specialty product for niche clientele - most of whom are status-conscious, materialistic bobos with the ignorant view that organic crop production is somehow more earth-friendly and better for them. Some of these folks (like my ex-mother-in-law and her daughter) are paranoid hypochondriacs, while others are hippie-marxists. Hell, if they want to pay me 50% more for their produce - fine - I'll grow it.

Finally, as I've opined for years, the day will come when several classes of produce are available for consumers, all with different levels of synthetic and pharmaceutical input:

"Hippie-Organic" - Produce grown only with animal work, fertilized only with fecal material, and protected with nothing remotely resembling a pesticide whatsoever (note that disclaimers will be prominently displayed on this produce holding the grower harmless from dysentery and cholera)

"Non-Xenobiotic" - conventionally produced crops with no xenobiotic materials used except those which are deemed naturally occuring (similar to today's USDA Organic")

"No Synthetic Pesticides" - conventionally fertilized with no synthetic pesticides

"Yuppie-Organic" - GM modified produce with enhanced levels of untested youth hormones and skin-enhancing chemicals fertilized conventionally with no pesticides

“Conventional” – as if there is really such a thing.

Enough already.

Dr. S