TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 3:55 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:45 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:06 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

November 20, 2008 | 2:15 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:52 PM
November 20, 2008 | 11:06 AM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
01.07.2008
Go Organic, Eat the Poor?

There’s a heated debate at The Economist over this charticle that claims organic farming is bad for the poor.

According to the author’s fuzzy logic, organic farming produces fewer crops yields than conventional methods, thus demanding that more farmland be put under cultivation. As the share of farmland devoted to high-premium organic crops increases--the rise is most notable in Europe--global food prices will be pushed up, and the world’s poorest will bear the brunt of the suffering, the argument goes.

 
There are many reasons why this logic is flawed. First of all, it’s still highly contested as to whether organic farming actually produces less food. Recent studies at the University of Michigan and Cornell show the contrary: organic farming yields equal or greater yields, in addition to environmental benefits that help making farming of any sort more sustainable in the long run.

 
Secondly, organic farming serves a niche market in the U.S. and Europe. The cabal of organic argula-eaters over here isn’t responsible for the skyrocketing cost of rice in Manila; food prices have escalated across the board, for reasons that have little to do with the rise of organics in the world’s richest grocery aisles. The countries that have made the biggest switch to organic farming--Switzerland, Austria, Finland, and Denmark-- have never fed the world’s poor, and they aren’t suddenly diminishing the global supply of cheap crops by going organic.

 
If anything, the rise of organic farming in the industrialized world can help point us to ways to increase global food production, push down prices, and feed poor nations. It’s a model for a more energy-efficient, less toxic form of farming that can, at its best, improve crop yields for farmers in poor countries as well as rich ones. At the same time, it’s only one among many alternative farming practices that a food-strapped country should be considering. As the U.S. News & World Report recently explained, fixing the current food crisis doesn’t necessarily mean that farming will go greener: genetically-modified crops will also have a place at the table.

 

--Suzy Khimm

Posted: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:30 PM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

cthulhu2008 said:

Could you put a link to those studies? I find it very hard to believe that GM crops with chemical farming yields equally to manure fertilizer and potash.

July 2, 2008 1:38 AM

cthulhu2008 said:

sry i suck... lol

July 2, 2008 1:40 AM

cthulhu2008 said:

Study #1: Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries, as low-intensive methods on the same land."

     The catch her is "low intensive". The GM crops with advanced chemicals still wins.

"Organic farming produces the same yields of corn and soybeans"

     This is corn and soybeans. Two crops. Thats it. Perhaps the modernized methods fail with those two.

July 2, 2008 1:42 AM

psantillana said:

I don't know about soybeans, cthulhu. I thought Monsanto's GM soybeans that are resistant to their herbicide  - "Roundup Ready" soybeans - were the jewel in their crown. If they can't beat organic yields with those, then organic isn't so shabby, right?

July 2, 2008 3:59 AM

sdemuth said:

"This is corn and soybeans. Two crops. Thats it. Perhaps the modernized methods fail with those two."

This is about as far from reality as commentary can get.  Corn in particular, defines success in modern intensive conventional agriculture.  Organic beating conventional on corn yield, while saving 30% in energy inputs, is a very big endorsement for the adaptability of organic agriculture, indeed.

July 2, 2008 6:59 AM

dhauck said:

So, just as a question, if organic farming yields the same or better output for equal inputs, why is everything in the "organic" aisle at my grocery store like 2x the price of comparable non-organic products?  Is it the target market (i.e., the wealthier "cabal of organic arugula-eaters")?  Is it different preservation & shipping methods?  I always thought it was because organic stuff took more time & effort, and suffered greater crop losses.  If this is not the case, then what's their excuse?

I don't care much about organic farming either way.  I think it's great if they can make it work, and I'll even pay a *little* more for it, I guess.  But until they can bring the price down to at least roughly that of non-organics, I'm going to have to opt out.

July 2, 2008 12:31 PM

check said:

organic means nothing.  just another fun idea for the smart set.  there is no eden.  

July 2, 2008 5:07 PM

Suzy Khimm said:

cthulhu2008: You're right that I should have made a distinction between the U of M and Cornell studies: doubling yields on low-intensive farms in the developing world is not the same as doubling yields on conventional American farms. Organic farming can produce good or better yields in the industrialized world for certain crops, but not all of them, and I don't believe it's desirable or conceivable for a country like the U.S. to make a sudden, large-scale conversion to organic farming; we wouldn't be able to afford to continue feeding ourselves or anyone else.

At the same time, I think it does make sense to pinpoint the crops for which organic methods do produce higher yields--as well as provide more energy-efficient, less environmentally destructive outcomes--and be particularly open to the use of alternative farming methods in these cases. While consumers may just be watching their pocketbooks these days--I've certainly reduced my consumption of pricey organic produce--politicians and others are in a position to be able to weigh the total costs to society of farming one way or the other.

July 2, 2008 6:27 PM