Life is a journey full of discoveries and I have added atleast one important fact to my store of knowledge this year: Hell hath no furylike an organic eater spurned. It seems you don’t park your Range Rover outsidethe Whole Foods store without having worked out your priorities for the planet,assembled a raft of arguments to support them and decided anyone who thinksotherwise is a Monsanto stooge or ex-propagandist for Big Tobacco.
Reasonable debate may not be an organic commodity, but it isunquestionably in short supply in this shrieking, solipsistic age. First, theproblem of feeding a planet whose population will surge to 9 billion before themiddle of the century is a complex one that goes far beyond the conventionalversus organic food argument. Food wastage, overconsumption in the developedworld and possibly adjustable meat-eating habits are all important parts of theequation.
Second, many who opt for organic food do so primarilybecause they want to avoid chemicals they believe may have a bad cumulativeeffect, rather than because they were under the illusion that organic is morenutritious, this appears to be a significant, or even central, finding. Third,there is an argument for organic on the grounds of taste. It may be moreexpensive but it packs flavor.
Fourth, although I noted that “organic farming is probablybetter for the environment because less soil, flora and fauna arecontaminated,” I did not allude specifically to a concern of many organiacs: Thedamaging effects of big agriculture’s fossil-fuel driven mono-cropping cultureand the positive effects on biodiversity and sustainability of smallholderswith organic farms. Fifth, not quite everyone who eats organic is rich. And,OK, some people want animals to be treated nicely.
All this said, the organic bourgeoisie, with their babies inreusable cotton diapers, gazing at menus of “organic, local, farm-raised” stuffand inveighing against genetically modified food, inhabits a world of illusion.In the palm oil sector alone, the planted area will have to increase by 12million hectares by 2050 to satisfy demand. That means either increased yieldor increased areas (encroaching on rain forests.) Put bluntly, withoutfertiliaer the world grounds to a halt. Without herbicides, pesticides andinsecticides, yields will not rise in areas, like the corn belt of East Africa,where they must. Moreover, as the World Health Organization says, “chemicalcontrol (use of pesticides) is still the most important element in theintegrated approach” to control of vector-borne diseases like malaria anddengue – not, I know, a big problem in Notting Hill Gate or the West Village.
The US Environmental Protection Agency sets limits forpesticide residue on food. These limits work, although some believe there isscientific evidence they don’t and, if they can afford it, buy organic. Fairenough, but the countries where pesticides should really be a source of concernare those like India where regulation is rudimentary.
A few other points the organiacs ignore. First, in this newera of land pressure, organic farming requires more land for a given unit ofcrop. It will therefore impinge on wilderness. Second, when an organiac getssick, he or she will likely not reject the latest brilliant chemical solutionfor the disease: Why then reject such solutions for crops? Third, “organic” isa slick marketing tool that may be very misleading when a farmer who, say,raises great free-range chickens but can’t ship in feed from organic-certifiedmills is unable to use the label. Fourth, the World Health Organisation view onGM: “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumptionof such foods by the general population in the countries where they have beenapproved.”
Elitist freakouts spurred by the organic ideology are noanswer to the world’s food problems. In fact they are a distraction.
RogerCohen is a British-born journalist and author. He is a columnist for The NewYork Times and International Herald Tribune
