Is Organic Agriculture a Myth, or a Viable Reality?
“Myth” #1: Organic Farms Don’t Use Pesticides
“When the Soil Association, a major organic accreditation body in the UK, asked consumers why they buy organic food, 95% of them said their top reason was to avoid pesticides. They, like many people, believe that organic farming involves little to no pesticide use. I hate to burst the bubble, but that’s simply not true. Organic farming, just like other forms of agriculture, still uses pesticides and fungicides to prevent critters from destroying their crops. Confused?..The top two organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, were used at a rate of 4 and 34 pounds per acre in 1971. In contrast, the synthetic fungicides only required a rate of 1.6 lbs per acre, less than half the amount of the organic alternatives.”
Notice the misdirection there? Just because 95% of people polled said that their top reason for buying organic was to avoid pesticides does not mean that 95% of people don’t know that pesticides of various sorts are used in organic agriculture. A large portion of those people are probably buying organic to avoid specific pesticides, like the highly toxic insecticides widely used in conventional agriculture. The whole point of the organic standard (weak as it is, in some ways) was to restrict pesticides to those that had a very long track record, and are widely regarded to not damage the environment when used properly.
Copper and Sulfur compounds, though less effective per pound (that is why more has to be used) work fairly well. Copper can be toxic in moderate doses, but Sulfur (though it is an irritant) isn’t bad at all with an LD50 of around 5 grams/kg. You’d have to be grabbing handfuls of the stuff and eating it to seriously hurt yourself. Conventional fungicides are not that bad either, frankly, but conventional insecticides are often weird neurotoxins with a high acute toxicity, and that is what most people don’t want them on their food.
That whole paragraph of the author’s was, at best, mendacious. There are some good points in this section about the futility of ‘letter of the law’ organic agriculture and the need to thoroughly test all pesticides, but the overall effect is one of sowing confusion with little in the way of facts to back it up. The author tries to bolster their weak case by bringing up the example of Rotenone, but even here there is nothing to stand upon.
“Rotenone’s use as a pesticide has already been discontinued in the US as of 2005 due to health concerns, but shockingly, it’s still poured into our waters every year by fisheries management officials as a piscicide to remove unwanted fish species.”
Using the example of a pesticide that is natural but has proven harmful and, thus, was removed from use hardly makes the case that organic food is a scary thing, covered with pesticides. If anything, it’s a good example of the system, for once, working as it should. The inclusion of the anecdote about fisheries management is a bizarre non sequitur. The management of fisheries has absolutely nothing to do with organic agriculture standards. Another study which the author pointed to, that demonstrated that organic food sometimes makes it to market with off-standard pesticides coming along for the ride, does not support an attack upon organic agriculture either. It is as logical as saying that because some peanut butter has been contaminated with disease-causing bacteria, you should avoid peanut butter as a whole. If you mess up, or lie, does it matter what label your product is being sold under? The producer is culpable in that case, not the organic certification or organic agriculture. Suggesting otherwise is deceitful.
“The point I’m driving home here is that just because something is natural doesn’t make it non-toxic or safe. Many bacteria, fungi and plants produce poisons, toxins and chemicals that you definitely wouldn’t want sprayed on your food.”
Since the organic standard seeks to find pesticides which are both natural and safe, and the example of Rotenone actually serves to prove this, this statement comes very close to being an outright lie. It seeks, at the least, to give someone an impression that is not true; that is, that the pesticides that are used in organic agriculture are unsafe and untested.
“Not only are organic pesticides not safe, they might actually be worse than the ones used by the conventional agriculture industry. Canadian scientists pitted ‘reduced-risk’ organic and synthetic pesticides against each other in controlling a problematic pest, the soybean aphid. They found that not only were the synthetic pesticides more effective means of control, the organic pesticides were more ecologically damaging, including causing higher mortality in other, non-target species like the aphid’s predators. Of course, some organic pesticides may fare better than these ones did in similar head-to-head tests, but studies like this one reveal that the assumption that natural is better for the environment could be very dangerous.”
Yes, perhaps organic pesticides are not effective if used in stupid, inappropriate ways. Good thing we have a process to figure out when and how we should use the tools available to us. It’s called science, and an example of science demonstrating how things should not be done does not prove that things are done that way generally, and further, it helps us to not make the same mistakes in the future. This study improved organic agriculture, and using it to bash organic agriculture is ironic at best.
“Even if the organic food you’re eating is from a farm which uses little to no pesticides at all, there is another problem: getting rid of pesticides doesn’t mean you’re food that is free from harmful things. Between 1990 and 2001, over 10,000 people fell ill due to foods contaminated with pathogens like E. coli, and many have organic foods to blame. That’s because organic foods tend to have higher levels of potential pathogens. One study, for example, found E. coli in produce from almost 10% of organic farms samples, but only 2% of conventional ones. The same study also found Salmonella only in samples from organic farms, though at a low prevalence rate. The reason for the higher pathogen prevalence is likely due to the use of manure instead of artificial fertilizers, as many pathogens are spread through fecal contamination. Conventional farms often use manure, too, but they use irradiation and a full array of non-organic anti-microbial agents as well, and without those, organic foods run a higher risk of containing something that will make a person sick.”
This statement is stunning in it’s apparent ignorance of recent history. The only big scare involving contamination coming from an organic farm in recent memory was the German E.coli scare involving an organic sprout farm, which turned out to not be the true source of the bacteria! However, we have recently had two massive outbreaks of salmonella which were firmly traced to a massive, industrial peanut butter factory where birds were crapping directly into the product, and a massive conventional egg farm that was treating its birds so poorly that bacteria were growing inside of the eggs themselves. Sure, organic farms have E.coli on some of their produce; it’s fertilized with manure. What is more important is that the E.coli not be a pathogenic variety, and livestock that are not pumped full of antibiotics are poor incubators for virulent, antibiotic resistant bacteria. And as far as using irradiation to sterilize manure, balderdash! The process is so expensive it’s only used on things like sushi in countries where it is regularly practiced. I’ve never once heard of it being used on manure in any commercial operation. Why bother, when you can just compost the manure until it’s own metabolic heat sterilizes itself, as mushroom growers do?
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Latest CleanTechnica.TV Video
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
