What Is Slow Food > Slow Food USA Blog > Discussing the Limitations of Organic Agriculture
The Slow Food USA Blog
Discussing the Limitations of Organic Agriculture
Posted on Wed, March 04, 2009 by Jerusha Klemperer
4 Comments | Categories: Contaminated Food, Farms and Farming, Labeling, News, Current Events,
Print this Page
Send to a Friend
Two articles caught our eye this week, both exploring the potential limitations of organic agriculture.
- Paul Roberts’ article in Mother Jones is called “Spoiled: Organic and Local Is So 2008.” He’s the fellow who last year wrote the excellent “End of Food,” and in this article he tries to examine where organic and local agriculture’s limits might lie. Can organic ag feed us all? And who is “us?” Just Americans? What about those people living in increasingly desertified Africa? Sure to ruffle some feathers in the organic/local world, Roberts’ article is worth consideration.
- Kim Severson and Andrew Martin’s article in today’s Dining Section of the NY Times. Remember two weeks ago in our Peanut Butter Recall Redux when we marveled that the “organic” peanuts in Clif bars had been recalled? Severson and Martin explore organic’s inability to provide consumers with a plate free of anxiety about foodborne illness. Click here and please, let’s discuss below in comments…
Member Comments
From Jess on Thu, March 05, 2009
Roberts hits the nail on the head. As an Ag Econ student living in Berkeley, I see and study the research that supports what he is saying. He hints at the core problem of the local movement: it ignores the fact that there are tremendous gains to be had from trade. Agricultural trade is not inherently evil; in fact, it can make people everywhere better off. Of course, the trade should be fair and the system needs improvement. For once, though, I’m glad to hear someone with cred in the food movement say out loud that we shouldn’t throw out the good in pursuit of the perfect. He also says something that ag economists have known for a long time—local is not necessarily more environmentally or economically sustainable. Even if you imagine the perfect biodynamic small farm that delivers their produce to market in an electric truck, it’s a system that still won’t necessarily scale to feed billions. I’d take issue with some of his solutions, but on the whole, he presents a refreshingly realistic perspective on the local/organic discussion.
From Patrick on Thu, March 05, 2009
Two points:
1. While I am happy to hear some honest to goodness reporting - muckraking even - I hope that this article doesn’t sound the call of “organic is worthless,” as you’re more likely to give yourself a food-bourne illness in your own kitchen by improper handling of food than you are by ingesting a processed jar of PB. Sure, rats on the processing floor is nasty, but most of the salmonella outbreaks could be warded off if people simply washed their hands well.
2. I DO hope this article leads to a more holistic inspection scheme that is devised. Is it the responsibility of the organic label vs. any other food safety inspection requirements? No. But frankly, however the laws are written, we can be assured that such oversights were to be expected once organic standards-setting was wrestled away from the nation’s organic producers and associations and placed in the hands of a federal agency whose responsibilities are oft-times confused with those of the FDA. Had this never been the case back in 2000, I’d gamble the organic producer community would have been quicker to react to such “nastiness.”
From Lianne on Thu, March 05, 2009
I really enjoyed this article. While I am in a position to support local and organic growing, I am realistic enough to know that some form of “agribussiness” is needed to feed 6+ billion in the world. Idealism is great until it gets in the way of an actual ideal. I particularly liking the idea of restructuring farm subsidies to encourage responsible growing and farmer health care.
From Jerusha on Mon, March 09, 2009
