Can we feed the world sustainably using organic crop production
methods? Several studies have indicated that there is a yield penalty
for organic crops
The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agricultural Systems
Volume 108, April 2012, Pages 1-9
The above indicates ~ 20% yield penalties for organic vs conventional production
Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485,229–232.(10 May 2012) doi:10.1038/nature11069
The
above finds a range of differences in yield between organic and
conventional agriculture, from 5-35% depending on different crops,
practices, and conditions.
Alexandra N.
Kravchenko, Sieglinde S. Snapp, and G. Philip Robertson. Field-scale
experiments reveal persistent yield gaps in low-input and organic
cropping systems
PNAS 2017 114 (5) 926-931; published ahead of print January 17, 2017, doi:10.1073/pnas.1612311114
The
above indicates much of the previous research was based on research
plots, and penalties for organic vs conventional yields could actually
be worse when scaled up to field size production practices.
To what extent does organic farming rely on nutrient inflows from conventional farming?
Benjamin Nowak1,2, Thomas Nesme1,2, Christophe David3 and Sylvain Pellerin1,2
Published 5 December 2013 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 4
The
above research indicates there are significant inflows of N, P, K from
conventional sources. For example, many organic production systems may
rely on manure from animals raised or fed conventionally. If these
positive exteranalities were excluded, the increased energy and land
devoted to organic production would reduce its sustainability further.
Often in addition to some calling for increased organic food production, you will hear additional criticisms of commodity or 'monocrop' agriculture. Themes include criticisms of agricultural policies favoring 'industrial' agriculture
at the expense of healthy fruits and vegetables. However, these
criticisms ignore the importance of calorie density and consumption at a
global level. According to the FAO rice, corn, and wheat provide 60% of
the world's energy intake. Costs of production and economies of scale
favor large scale production of these staples over specialty crops like
broccoli and tomatoes when it terms of providing affordable calorie
dense food to a growing population.
Additional References:
Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification Jennifer A. Burneya,Steven J. Davisc, and David B. Lobella.PNAS June 29, 2010 vol. 107 no. 26 12052-12057
Showing posts with label organic food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label organic food. Show all posts
Monday, June 19, 2017
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Organic Activists Realize Hypocrisy On Gene Editing and Biotech
There is a segment of the organic movement that wants to get their ducks in a row so that they can oppose gene editing technologies without hypocrisy. Quote:
“Without regulatory review” is bad enough. But to allow the use of mutagenesis, a process that involves “dousing seeds with chemicals,” in organic is a serious breach of consumer trust in the USDA organic certification program.”
Well no kidding. Not that I agree that this is a concern for safety, but its always been odd to me that recombinant DNA technologies would be ineligible for certified organic labeling (especially when Bt traits would make it much easier to exclude pesticides) while the gross number of other foods produced via mutagenesis were perfectly fine. Perhaps this cognitive dissonance was just fine until recent advances in gene editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9. With the FDA taking comments regarding regulation of gene editing in new plant varieties, this is likely not a coincidence.
As I stated in my comments:
"Similar to organically certified crop varieties that use chemical and radiological methods to create in-genome changes, gene edited technologies operate within genome, vs. across species. (one popular example of gene editing includes the CRISPR-Cas9 system). Unlike mutagenic approaches used in organically approved plant breeding systems, these in-genome tweaks are planned, controlled, and designed to bring about very specific outcomes."
This presents a problem. Of course the page I have linked to does not explicitly state this as their rationale, you can't oppose new technologies that are actually more precise and safer than the old technologies you stand by unappologetically. (I realize in terms of safety we are splitting hairs but those hairs represent lots of money and marketing opportunities). So I don't blame this group for trying to get everyone on the same page. Another quote:
"How do you know if your organic food comes from mutant seeds? You don’t. If you buy local, you can ask your local farmer. Alternatively, you can avoid rice, wheat, barley, pears, cotton, peppermint, sunflowers and grapefruit. These are the only mutant crops that you could potentially find in the organic section."
Slim pickings if you want to oppose gene editing with integrity.
See also: Fat Tails, the Precautionary Principle, and GMOs.
“Without regulatory review” is bad enough. But to allow the use of mutagenesis, a process that involves “dousing seeds with chemicals,” in organic is a serious breach of consumer trust in the USDA organic certification program.”
Well no kidding. Not that I agree that this is a concern for safety, but its always been odd to me that recombinant DNA technologies would be ineligible for certified organic labeling (especially when Bt traits would make it much easier to exclude pesticides) while the gross number of other foods produced via mutagenesis were perfectly fine. Perhaps this cognitive dissonance was just fine until recent advances in gene editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9. With the FDA taking comments regarding regulation of gene editing in new plant varieties, this is likely not a coincidence.
As I stated in my comments:
"Similar to organically certified crop varieties that use chemical and radiological methods to create in-genome changes, gene edited technologies operate within genome, vs. across species. (one popular example of gene editing includes the CRISPR-Cas9 system). Unlike mutagenic approaches used in organically approved plant breeding systems, these in-genome tweaks are planned, controlled, and designed to bring about very specific outcomes."
This presents a problem. Of course the page I have linked to does not explicitly state this as their rationale, you can't oppose new technologies that are actually more precise and safer than the old technologies you stand by unappologetically. (I realize in terms of safety we are splitting hairs but those hairs represent lots of money and marketing opportunities). So I don't blame this group for trying to get everyone on the same page. Another quote:
"How do you know if your organic food comes from mutant seeds? You don’t. If you buy local, you can ask your local farmer. Alternatively, you can avoid rice, wheat, barley, pears, cotton, peppermint, sunflowers and grapefruit. These are the only mutant crops that you could potentially find in the organic section."
Slim pickings if you want to oppose gene editing with integrity.
See also: Fat Tails, the Precautionary Principle, and GMOs.
Friday, March 03, 2017
Positive Externalities and Spillovers of Conventional Food Production on Organic Food
Jayson Lusk recently pointed out that making large scale organic work (i.e. read if we want more access to organic food that means 'large scale') we need large scale conventional producers:
"Indeed, if one wants large scale organic, it almost certainly implies (given the current population) the need for large scale non-organic. All that life-supporting nitrogen has to come from somewhere. Until we find a better way, right now it is coming from Haber and Bosch and is smuggled into organic agriculture via animal manure. "
So organic thrives on positive externalities related to N use in conventional production.
Let's not forget the positive externalities of biotech traits....which not only help conventional producers use fewer pesticides but also help organic producers get by without sytnthetics:
Positive Externalities of Biotech Bt Traits on Non-Biotech Crops and Non Target Insects
Note: To be more precise, externalities represent uncompensated benefits so technically the benefits related to N use might not be true 'positive externalities.' The point is the importance of the interdependence between production systems that have been overlooked by a broader segment of the public.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Jurassic World: Mutant dinosaurs more likely related to technologies used in organic & conventional farming?
Jayson Lusk has an interesting take on Jurassic World: http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2015/6/21/jurassic-world
"In many ways the new animal they created reminds me much more of what might happen from mutagenesis (a technique widely practice in plant breeding for many decades and is NOT regulated as biotechnology, in which seeds are exposed to radiation or chemicals to cause mutations). The reason I say that is mutagenesis could cause several possible (and unexpected) genetic changes, which is exactly what happened with the dinosaur. By contrast, transgenic (or intragenic) biotechnology typically involves moving one gene from one species (or within a species) to another, in cases where it is well understood what the particular gene does."
I have not seen the movie, but from what he describes in his full post, I am on the same page. He mentions there is some language in the movie that implies that these dinosaurs may have been developed using techniques related to plant or animal biotechnology, or extensions of practices we might be using today in modern agriculture. I would guess then it is based on some sort of embryo transfer and gene insertions related to frogs and some bit of dinosaur DNA based on the post.
But don't misinterpret the title of this post. I am not saying that embryo transfer/cloning/recombinant DNA techniques (or whatever are actually used in the movie I have not seen) are used in organic farming! But if we want to distinguish between technologies used in both organic and biotech crops, and ask among these, which are most likely to produce unexpected 'mutant' results or consequences, the evidence clearly points to organic, or conventional non-GMO methods.
In fact, in conventional and organic crop improvement programs, as Jayson mentions, chemicals and radiation are used specifically to create 'mutant' crops. But the hope is for 'superhero' type mutants not 'super villians.' The only problem is, research shows that these methods are very imprecise and impact thousands of genes in unknown and unpredictable ways compared to transgenic/gmo based approaches!
In fact, in conventional and organic crop improvement programs, as Jayson mentions, chemicals and radiation are used specifically to create 'mutant' crops. But the hope is for 'superhero' type mutants not 'super villians.' The only problem is, research shows that these methods are very imprecise and impact thousands of genes in unknown and unpredictable ways compared to transgenic/gmo based approaches!
We also know that based on things like microarray analysis and other research, that even traditional plant breeding introduces greater and unpredictable genomic disruptions than transgenic techniques.
It has always been very interesting to me that despite these differences, there are no calls for labeling conventional or organic crops that use these techniques, but such a strong emphasis on the much more controlled and precise genetic changes brought about by GMOs! (interesting but not surprising for a number of reasons we could get into like rent seeking etc.) And, don't start talking about 'fat' tails or the precautionary principle etc. because fat tail and precautionary principle arguments would equally apply to organic and conventional technologies if not be even more relevant.
If it comes down to what is more 'natural' we know that research has also shown that the kinds of genetic modifications used in modern agriculture based on specific gene insertions into plants has occurred naturally over time with positive benefits! Just like today's roundup resistant crops were produced using agrobacterium to insert the resistant genes into soybeans, and then the best hybrids containing the gene were selected by plant breeders and sold to farmers, our ancient ancestors selected sweet potatoes containing improved traits conferred by gene transfers from Agrobacterium and they didn't even need a lab to do it!
See also:
AgWeb:MICROARRAY ANALYSIS: MORE ON BIOTECH SAFETY
For more references on plant breeding and crop improvement technologies and genomic disruptions see: Biotechnology and Genetic Disruptions
Fat Tails, the Precautionary Principle, and GMOs
Additional References:
The genome of cultivated sweet potato contains Agrobacterium
T-DNAs with expressed genes: An example of a naturally transgenic food crop
PNAS|May 5, 2015|vol. 112|no. 1
Batista R and others (2008). Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105(9): 3640–3645
Baudo MM, Lyons R, Powers S, Pastori GM, Edwards KJ, Holdsworth MJ, Shewry PR. (2006). Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional breeding. Plant Biotechnol J. 2006 Jul;4(4):369-80
It has always been very interesting to me that despite these differences, there are no calls for labeling conventional or organic crops that use these techniques, but such a strong emphasis on the much more controlled and precise genetic changes brought about by GMOs! (interesting but not surprising for a number of reasons we could get into like rent seeking etc.) And, don't start talking about 'fat' tails or the precautionary principle etc. because fat tail and precautionary principle arguments would equally apply to organic and conventional technologies if not be even more relevant.
If it comes down to what is more 'natural' we know that research has also shown that the kinds of genetic modifications used in modern agriculture based on specific gene insertions into plants has occurred naturally over time with positive benefits! Just like today's roundup resistant crops were produced using agrobacterium to insert the resistant genes into soybeans, and then the best hybrids containing the gene were selected by plant breeders and sold to farmers, our ancient ancestors selected sweet potatoes containing improved traits conferred by gene transfers from Agrobacterium and they didn't even need a lab to do it!
See also:
AgWeb:MICROARRAY ANALYSIS: MORE ON BIOTECH SAFETY
For more references on plant breeding and crop improvement technologies and genomic disruptions see: Biotechnology and Genetic Disruptions
Fat Tails, the Precautionary Principle, and GMOs
Additional References:
The genome of cultivated sweet potato contains Agrobacterium
T-DNAs with expressed genes: An example of a naturally transgenic food crop
PNAS|May 5, 2015|vol. 112|no. 1
Batista R and others (2008). Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105(9): 3640–3645
Baudo MM, Lyons R, Powers S, Pastori GM, Edwards KJ, Holdsworth MJ, Shewry PR. (2006). Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional breeding. Plant Biotechnol J. 2006 Jul;4(4):369-80
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
Portlandia: True Food Democracy-Voting with Your Fork
Whatever the true intentions of this humorous scene from the IFC series Portlandia, one thing it illustrates (with a little embellishment) is how well market forces respond to the wide array of consumer preferences that exist. Many people may feel that so called 'corporate industrial agriculture' has dominated the food supply, and that only by democratizing the food supply can we get the politically correct form of agriculture (as in local, free range, organic, natural etc.) that we should want and deserve.
As discussed before, markets ( in a sense voting with your fork), provide a much better way to express food preferences than voting schemes. In a food democracy, the vast array of options the people in the video are after, and what most 'foodies' desire, would be limited to only reflect the limited knowledge and preferences of a few voters or bureaucrats. Instead of allowing the multitudes to express their food preferences as often and intensely as they desire through the market, input about food options would be limited to the untimely occasion of a blunt vote, with intense lobbying, protesting, and letter writing (to elected officials, newspapers etc.) in the interim. With food democracy we move away from a system that continuously captures everyone's input via the price system (perhaps imperfectly) to one that simply samples (even more imperfectly) it in the voting booth. Of course some advocates of food democracy could argue that they are not advocating every calorie be put to a vote, but simply democratically setting some ground rules about how food is produced, processed, marketed, regulated, labeled, etc. and letting the market take over from there.
The analysis is still the same. Instead of allowing the multitudes to express their food preferences (in relation to about how food is produced, processed, marketed, regulated, labeled, etc.) as often and intensely as they desire through the market, input about these options would be limited to the untimely occasion of a blunt vote, with intense lobbying, protesting, and letter writing (to elected officials, newspapers etc.). The principle still holds that whenever we move away from allocating resources based on prices that reflect the knowledge and preferences of multitudes of free people, to democratically allocating resources, we shrink the pool of knowledge we are willing to consider in making these choices. The information we throw out is often the most personal and meaningful (unless of course your preferences exactly match those that get the most votes!)
As discussed before, markets ( in a sense voting with your fork), provide a much better way to express food preferences than voting schemes. In a food democracy, the vast array of options the people in the video are after, and what most 'foodies' desire, would be limited to only reflect the limited knowledge and preferences of a few voters or bureaucrats. Instead of allowing the multitudes to express their food preferences as often and intensely as they desire through the market, input about food options would be limited to the untimely occasion of a blunt vote, with intense lobbying, protesting, and letter writing (to elected officials, newspapers etc.) in the interim. With food democracy we move away from a system that continuously captures everyone's input via the price system (perhaps imperfectly) to one that simply samples (even more imperfectly) it in the voting booth. Of course some advocates of food democracy could argue that they are not advocating every calorie be put to a vote, but simply democratically setting some ground rules about how food is produced, processed, marketed, regulated, labeled, etc. and letting the market take over from there.
The analysis is still the same. Instead of allowing the multitudes to express their food preferences (in relation to about how food is produced, processed, marketed, regulated, labeled, etc.) as often and intensely as they desire through the market, input about these options would be limited to the untimely occasion of a blunt vote, with intense lobbying, protesting, and letter writing (to elected officials, newspapers etc.). The principle still holds that whenever we move away from allocating resources based on prices that reflect the knowledge and preferences of multitudes of free people, to democratically allocating resources, we shrink the pool of knowledge we are willing to consider in making these choices. The information we throw out is often the most personal and meaningful (unless of course your preferences exactly match those that get the most votes!)
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Food Democracy *Not* Now or Ever
Are food choices something that should be determined by democratic decision making? To understand this, it is important to understand the fundamental problem of economics known as the knowledge problem. The problem facing all forms of government including
democracies is that centralized decision makers never have enough
information or proper incentives to act on the information at hand. As
Economist F.A. Hayek (1945) described it:
'the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form, but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all separate individuals possess'
The price system allows us to channel the imperfect knowledge of multitudes of imperfect people with imperfect incentives and utilize it to coordinate decisions. Democratic decision making on the other hand, allocates resources using command and control based on the more limited knowledge and preferences of a few voters, elected officials, or appointed bureaucrats. So, when we move from market based food choices to democratically based choices we are drastically reducing the amount of information we are willing to consider in making these decisions.
Many people complain about phone and cable bundling packages. Voting is the ultimate form of bundling, only worse, the voter often doesn't get to even choose the 'service.' As explained in article 'The Public Choice Revolution' (Regulation, Fall 2004):
"In our democracies, voters do not decide most issues directly. In some instances, they vote for representatives who reach decisions in parliamentary assemblies or committees. In other instances, they elect representatives who hire bureaucrats to make decisions. The complexity of the system and the incentives of its actors do not necessarily make collective choices more representative of the citizens’ preferences."
Voting also fails to capture the intensity of our preferences. When we vote, its just one vote, no matter how intensely we may care about an issue. With a price system, we can express our interests penny by penny and minute by minute (as we toil to earn an income).
Does that mean that we should leave the country or start a dictatorship? Of course not. We should however, limit democratic decision making and government involvement to as few areas of our lives as possible, which is what our founders had in mind when they created our Constitutional Republic.
So what does that mean for food choices? Food is an extremely personal and detailed consumption product. Of all areas of our life, food is an area where we would hope our choices can be expressed as precisely and intensely as possible, based on our own private knowledge, tastes, and preferences; not bundled with the preferences of others or subject to how some stranger may 'vote' about it or some politician or bureaucrat may dictate (Sorry Mayor Bloomberg).
In fact, the market does a pretty good job of providing consumers a variety of food choices, from non GMO organic, to local, to an array of modern sustainable choices made possible by companies like Cargill, ADM, and Monsanto. Food in a democracy should be food that we choose to consume, not food that we vote to consume.
References:
'The Public Choice Revolution', Regulation Fall 2004. ( link ).
The Use of Knowledge in Society
F.A. Hayek
The American Economic Review Vol 35 No 4 (Sept 1945) p. 519-530
'the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form, but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all separate individuals possess'
The price system allows us to channel the imperfect knowledge of multitudes of imperfect people with imperfect incentives and utilize it to coordinate decisions. Democratic decision making on the other hand, allocates resources using command and control based on the more limited knowledge and preferences of a few voters, elected officials, or appointed bureaucrats. So, when we move from market based food choices to democratically based choices we are drastically reducing the amount of information we are willing to consider in making these decisions.
Many people complain about phone and cable bundling packages. Voting is the ultimate form of bundling, only worse, the voter often doesn't get to even choose the 'service.' As explained in article 'The Public Choice Revolution' (Regulation, Fall 2004):
"In our democracies, voters do not decide most issues directly. In some instances, they vote for representatives who reach decisions in parliamentary assemblies or committees. In other instances, they elect representatives who hire bureaucrats to make decisions. The complexity of the system and the incentives of its actors do not necessarily make collective choices more representative of the citizens’ preferences."
Voting also fails to capture the intensity of our preferences. When we vote, its just one vote, no matter how intensely we may care about an issue. With a price system, we can express our interests penny by penny and minute by minute (as we toil to earn an income).
Does that mean that we should leave the country or start a dictatorship? Of course not. We should however, limit democratic decision making and government involvement to as few areas of our lives as possible, which is what our founders had in mind when they created our Constitutional Republic.
So what does that mean for food choices? Food is an extremely personal and detailed consumption product. Of all areas of our life, food is an area where we would hope our choices can be expressed as precisely and intensely as possible, based on our own private knowledge, tastes, and preferences; not bundled with the preferences of others or subject to how some stranger may 'vote' about it or some politician or bureaucrat may dictate (Sorry Mayor Bloomberg).
In fact, the market does a pretty good job of providing consumers a variety of food choices, from non GMO organic, to local, to an array of modern sustainable choices made possible by companies like Cargill, ADM, and Monsanto. Food in a democracy should be food that we choose to consume, not food that we vote to consume.
References:
'The Public Choice Revolution', Regulation Fall 2004. ( link ).
The Use of Knowledge in Society
F.A. Hayek
The American Economic Review Vol 35 No 4 (Sept 1945) p. 519-530
Sunday, February 27, 2011
§ 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production
§ 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.
Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=f1312ca30770a8e585290633a1216a75&rgn=div8&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7.354.2&idno=7
In accordance with restrictions specified in this section, the following synthetic substances may be used in organic crop production: Provided, That, use of such substances do not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water. Substances allowed by this section, except disinfectants and sanitizers in paragraph (a) and those substances in paragraphs (c), (j), (k), and (l) of this section, may only be used when the provisions set forth in §205.206(a) through (d) prove insufficient to prevent or control the target pest.
(a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning systems. (1) Alcohols. (i) Ethanol. (ii) Isopropanol.
(2) Chlorine materials— Except, That, residual chlorine levels in the water shall not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
(i) Calcium hypochlorite. (ii) Chlorine dioxide. (iii) Sodium hypochlorite.
(3) Copper sulfate—for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.
(4) Hydrogen peroxide.
(5) Ozone gas—for use as an irrigation system cleaner only.
(6) Peracetic acid—for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated planting material.
(7) Soap-based algicide/demossers.
(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable.
(1) Herbicides, soap-based—for use in farmstead maintenance (roadways, ditches, right of ways, building perimeters) and ornamental crops.
(2) Mulches. (i) Newspaper or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks. (ii) Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum-based other than polyvinyl chloride (PVC)).
1 of 3 10/13/2010 11:32 AM
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=bf13d03b61b52...
(c) As compost feedstocks—Newspapers or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks. (d) As animal repellents—Soaps, ammonium—for use as a large animal repellant only, no contact with soil or edible portion of crop. (e) As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control). (1) Ammonium carbonate—for use as bait in insect traps only, no direct contact with crop or soil. (2) Boric acid—structural pest control, no direct contact with organic food or crops.
(3) Copper sulfate—for use as tadpole shrimp control in aquatic rice production, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to levels which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.
(4) Elemental sulfur. (5) Lime sulfur—including calcium polysulfide. (6) Oils, horticultural—narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils. (7) Soaps, insecticidal. (8) Sticky traps/barriers. (9) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s—42922–74–7; 58064–47–4)—in accordance with approved labeling. (f) As insect management. Pheromones. (g) As rodenticides. (1) Sulfur dioxide—underground rodent control only (smoke bombs). (2) Vitamin D3. (h) As slug or snail bait. Ferric phosphate (CAS # 10045–86–0). (i) As plant disease control.
(1) Coppers, fixed—copper hydroxide, copper oxide, copper oxychloride, includes products exempted from EPA tolerance, Provided, That, copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil and shall not be used as herbicides.
(2) Copper sulfate—Substance must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation of copper in the soil. (3) Hydrated lime. (4) Hydrogen peroxide. (5) Lime sulfur.
(6) Oils, horticultural, narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils. (7) Peracetic acid—for use to control fire blight bacteria. (8) Potassium bicarbonate. (9) Elemental sulfur.
(10) Streptomycin, for fire blight control in apples and pears only.
(11) Tetracycline, for fire blight control only and for use only until October 21, 2012.
(j) As plant or soil amendments.
(1) Aquatic plant extracts (other than hydrolyzed)—Extraction process is limited to the use of potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide; solvent amount used is limited to that amount necessary for extraction.
(2) Elemental sulfur. (3) Humic acids—naturally occurring deposits, water and alkali extracts only.
2 of 3 10/13/2010 11:32 AM
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=bf13d03b61b52...
(4) Lignin sulfonate—chelating agent, dust suppressant, floatation agent. (5) Magnesium sulfate—allowed with a documented soil deficiency.
(6) Micronutrients—not to be used as a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or chlorides are not allowed. Soil deficiency must be documented by testing.
(i) Soluble boron products. (ii) Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt.
(7) Liquid fish products—can be pH adjusted with sulfuric, citric or phosphoric acid. The amount of acid used shall not exceed the minimum needed to lower the pH to 3.5.
(8) Vitamins, B1, C, and E.
(9) Sulfurous acid (CAS # 7782–99–2) for on-farm generation of substance utilizing 99% purity elemental sulfur per paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
(k) As plant growth regulators. Ethylene gas—for regulation of pineapple flowering. (l) As floating agents in postharvest handling. (1) Lignin sulfonate. (2) Sodium silicate—for tree fruit and fiber processing.
(m) As synthetic inert ingredients as classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for use with nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances listed in this section and used as an active pesticide ingredient in accordance with any limitations on the use of such substances.
(1) EPA List 4—Inerts of Minimal Concern.
(2) EPA List 3—Inerts of Unknown Toxicity allowed:
(i) Glycerine Oleate (Glycerol monooleate) (CAS #s 37220–82–9)—for use only until December 31, 2006.
(ii) Inerts used in passive pheromone dispensers.
(n) Seed preparations. Hydrogen chloride (CAS # 7647–01–0)—for delinting cotton seed for planting.
(o)–(z) [Reserved]
[65 FR 80637, Dec. 21, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 61992, Oct. 31, 2003; 71 FR 53302 Sept. 11, 2006; 72 FR 69572, Dec. 10, 2007; 75 FR 38696, July 6, 2010]
Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=f1312ca30770a8e585290633a1216a75&rgn=div8&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7.354.2&idno=7
In accordance with restrictions specified in this section, the following synthetic substances may be used in organic crop production: Provided, That, use of such substances do not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water. Substances allowed by this section, except disinfectants and sanitizers in paragraph (a) and those substances in paragraphs (c), (j), (k), and (l) of this section, may only be used when the provisions set forth in §205.206(a) through (d) prove insufficient to prevent or control the target pest.
(a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning systems. (1) Alcohols. (i) Ethanol. (ii) Isopropanol.
(2) Chlorine materials— Except, That, residual chlorine levels in the water shall not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
(i) Calcium hypochlorite. (ii) Chlorine dioxide. (iii) Sodium hypochlorite.
(3) Copper sulfate—for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.
(4) Hydrogen peroxide.
(5) Ozone gas—for use as an irrigation system cleaner only.
(6) Peracetic acid—for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated planting material.
(7) Soap-based algicide/demossers.
(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable.
(1) Herbicides, soap-based—for use in farmstead maintenance (roadways, ditches, right of ways, building perimeters) and ornamental crops.
(2) Mulches. (i) Newspaper or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks. (ii) Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum-based other than polyvinyl chloride (PVC)).
1 of 3 10/13/2010 11:32 AM
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=bf13d03b61b52...
(c) As compost feedstocks—Newspapers or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks. (d) As animal repellents—Soaps, ammonium—for use as a large animal repellant only, no contact with soil or edible portion of crop. (e) As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control). (1) Ammonium carbonate—for use as bait in insect traps only, no direct contact with crop or soil. (2) Boric acid—structural pest control, no direct contact with organic food or crops.
(3) Copper sulfate—for use as tadpole shrimp control in aquatic rice production, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to levels which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.
(4) Elemental sulfur. (5) Lime sulfur—including calcium polysulfide. (6) Oils, horticultural—narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils. (7) Soaps, insecticidal. (8) Sticky traps/barriers. (9) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s—42922–74–7; 58064–47–4)—in accordance with approved labeling. (f) As insect management. Pheromones. (g) As rodenticides. (1) Sulfur dioxide—underground rodent control only (smoke bombs). (2) Vitamin D3. (h) As slug or snail bait. Ferric phosphate (CAS # 10045–86–0). (i) As plant disease control.
(1) Coppers, fixed—copper hydroxide, copper oxide, copper oxychloride, includes products exempted from EPA tolerance, Provided, That, copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil and shall not be used as herbicides.
(2) Copper sulfate—Substance must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation of copper in the soil. (3) Hydrated lime. (4) Hydrogen peroxide. (5) Lime sulfur.
(6) Oils, horticultural, narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils. (7) Peracetic acid—for use to control fire blight bacteria. (8) Potassium bicarbonate. (9) Elemental sulfur.
(10) Streptomycin, for fire blight control in apples and pears only.
(11) Tetracycline, for fire blight control only and for use only until October 21, 2012.
(j) As plant or soil amendments.
(1) Aquatic plant extracts (other than hydrolyzed)—Extraction process is limited to the use of potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide; solvent amount used is limited to that amount necessary for extraction.
(2) Elemental sulfur. (3) Humic acids—naturally occurring deposits, water and alkali extracts only.
2 of 3 10/13/2010 11:32 AM
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=bf13d03b61b52...
(4) Lignin sulfonate—chelating agent, dust suppressant, floatation agent. (5) Magnesium sulfate—allowed with a documented soil deficiency.
(6) Micronutrients—not to be used as a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or chlorides are not allowed. Soil deficiency must be documented by testing.
(i) Soluble boron products. (ii) Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt.
(7) Liquid fish products—can be pH adjusted with sulfuric, citric or phosphoric acid. The amount of acid used shall not exceed the minimum needed to lower the pH to 3.5.
(8) Vitamins, B1, C, and E.
(9) Sulfurous acid (CAS # 7782–99–2) for on-farm generation of substance utilizing 99% purity elemental sulfur per paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
(k) As plant growth regulators. Ethylene gas—for regulation of pineapple flowering. (l) As floating agents in postharvest handling. (1) Lignin sulfonate. (2) Sodium silicate—for tree fruit and fiber processing.
(m) As synthetic inert ingredients as classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for use with nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances listed in this section and used as an active pesticide ingredient in accordance with any limitations on the use of such substances.
(1) EPA List 4—Inerts of Minimal Concern.
(2) EPA List 3—Inerts of Unknown Toxicity allowed:
(i) Glycerine Oleate (Glycerol monooleate) (CAS #s 37220–82–9)—for use only until December 31, 2006.
(ii) Inerts used in passive pheromone dispensers.
(n) Seed preparations. Hydrogen chloride (CAS # 7647–01–0)—for delinting cotton seed for planting.
(o)–(z) [Reserved]
[65 FR 80637, Dec. 21, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 61992, Oct. 31, 2003; 71 FR 53302 Sept. 11, 2006; 72 FR 69572, Dec. 10, 2007; 75 FR 38696, July 6, 2010]
Monday, November 01, 2010
Office Sustainability Committee
Below is my attempt to create an animation that depicts a back and forth discussion between two people with two very different perspectives on sustainable food production. I have to compliment xtranormal.com for making this possible. If you can type, you can make movies.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Time : Get Real
In a recent article in Time Magazine, ( Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food) I think that I have witnessed one of the worst pieces of pseudo science I've seen in a long time.
Isn't obesity the result of diet, genetics, and exercise? Personal choice and genetics are the drivers, not agricultural production practices as the author seems to claim. There are some other 'unbalanced' assertions made in the article as well:
'He's fed on American corn that was grown with the help of government subsidies and millions of tons of chemical fertilizer. '
>From this statement one might thing that 'subsidies' are leading farmers to produce corn instead of healthy apples and spinach. The reason we produce so much corn is not due to the subsidies, the reason we have the subsidies is that we produce so much corn ( and thus have strong lobbying arms for production and processing industries). Grains are a worldwide food staple. They would be produced with or without government programs.
A main assertion made in the article is that modern science based agriculture ( or 'industrial agriculture' if you prefer the more negative connotation) is leading to ever more use of ever more toxic chemicals and environmental degradation. On the contrary modern agriculture is becoming more sustainable every day. Biotechnology, a key factor in modern agriculture, is not mentioned at all in the entire article. The adoption of biotechnology has led to decreased levels of chemical applications and in some cases the elimination of certain pesticides completely. 1.04 million fewer pounds of insecticide are applied each year as a result of biotech Bt cotton alone. With Bt cotton, 4 million gallons of fuel and 93.7 million gallons of water are saved on the farm each year from fewer insecticide applications.In addition, Bt corn also has reduced levels of carcinogenic toxins produced by fumonisin . Last year, in Britain, two organic corn meal products were recalled because testing showed that they had unacceptably high levels of fumonisin. Roundup Ready technology has allowed for glyphosate herbicide to substitute for 7.2 million pounds of other chemicals that are more toxic and persistent in the environment.There are also economies of scope or synergies between sustainable production practices such as crop rotation and reduced or no tillage farming and biotech plantings. As a result biotechnology has also contributed to increased biodiversity among pest populations while maintaining yield gains. Further, with fewer chemical applications and less tillage, energy inputs to grain production are down, while yields continue to increase, reducing the overall environmental impact and carbon foot print. Between 1987 and 2007 energy use per unit of output is down in corn, soybeans and cotton production by nearly 40 . Irrigated water use per unit of output decreased by 20 percent while carbon emissions per unit of output have dropped by about one-third in the three crops. In addition to the lower carbon and water foot print, these practices have decreased groundwater pollution as well. The use of biotechnology in the livestock industry has demonstrated similar environmental gains.
( see here, here, here for more examples. )
'The UCS estimates that about 70% of antimicrobial drugs used in America are given not to people but to animals, which means we're breeding more of those deadly organisms every day.'
This is meaningless. What matters is of the antimicrobials given to animals, what % actually target pathogens that affect humans. Resistance requires selection pressure, and if the majority of antimicrobials used in livestock production are not selecting against deadly pathogens, then the risks are overblown. What we have observed is that in countries where food grade antimicrobials used in livestock production have been more heavily regulated or banned, the resulting increase in livestock illness has lead to an increased use of antibiotics actually used in human medicine. This policy results in increased selection pressure for antibiotic resistance among pathogens dangerous to humans and should be avoided. The article also avoids to mention the environmental benefits of antimicrobials as well as the benefits of other pharmaceutical products such as growth enhancing hormones. Pound-for-pound, beef produced with grains and growth hormones produces 40% less greenhouse gas emissions and saves two-thirds more land for nature compared to organic grass-fed beef.
'Worldwide, organic food — a sometimes slippery term but on the whole a practice more sustainable than conventional food '
There is little scientific consensus on this conclusion. There is certainly evidence to the contrary, and while there are very desirable qualities associated with organic food ( some of my favorite frozen foods are Amy's brand of organics) organic should not be sold as a panacea in contrast to modern agriculture. The fact that many organic producers are now ( see here) considering adopting biotech options indicates that organic alone as it stands today is not a solution. Reduced yields as a result of organic practices imply a larger carbon footprint and decreased biodiversity compared to biotech crops. No where in the article did I find the author mention any of the downsides of organic production such as toxic biological controls used in organic production including nicotine* sulfur, pyrethrum, neem, sabadilla, and rotenone* that government regulators don’t even track data for.These can be just as persistent in the environment and detrimental to biological diversity as some conventional products. Nor does the author mention increased risks of E coli contamination ( which the author of the Time piece attributes to conventional agriculture).
Notes and References:
*Nicotine, one of the more toxic organic insecticides, has a rat LD50 (lethal dose in 50% of animals tested)of 55mg/kg. The newest synthetic insecticide, imidacloprid, has a rat LD50 of 425mg/kg, making imidacloprid nearly 10 times less toxic than nicotine. Rotenone has an LD50 of 60-1500 mg/kg and is more acutely toxic than Malathion or Sevin. Cats are highly susceptible to pyrethrum.
Science 31 May 2002:
Vol. 296. no. 5573, pp. 1694 - 1697
DOI: 10.1126/science.1071148
Munkvold, G.P. et al . Plant Disease 83, 130-138 1999.
Dowd, p.J. Economic Entomology. 93 1669-1679 2000.
Miller, Henry I, Conko, Gregory, & Drew L. Kershe. Nature Biotechnology Volume 24 Number 9 September 2006.
Agricultural Outlook ERS/USDA Aug 2006.
Science 8 June 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5830, pp. 1475 - 1477
DOI: 10.1126/science.1139208
Capper, J. L., Cady, R. A., Bauman, D. E. The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science, 2009; 87 (6): 2160 DOI: 10.2527/jas.2009-1781
Smith, J.S.C.; Smith, O.S.; Wright, S.; Wall, S.J.; and Walton, M. (1992)
‘‘Diversity of United States Hybrid Maize Germplasm as Revealed by
Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms.’’ Crop Science 32: 598–604
International Journal of Food Microbiology
Volume 120, Issue 3, 15 December 2007, Pages 296-302
The Environmental Safety and Benefits of Growth Enhancing Pharmaceutical Technologies in Beef Production
By Alex Avery and Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute, Centre for Global Food Issues.
Isn't obesity the result of diet, genetics, and exercise? Personal choice and genetics are the drivers, not agricultural production practices as the author seems to claim. There are some other 'unbalanced' assertions made in the article as well:
'He's fed on American corn that was grown with the help of government subsidies and millions of tons of chemical fertilizer. '
>From this statement one might thing that 'subsidies' are leading farmers to produce corn instead of healthy apples and spinach. The reason we produce so much corn is not due to the subsidies, the reason we have the subsidies is that we produce so much corn ( and thus have strong lobbying arms for production and processing industries). Grains are a worldwide food staple. They would be produced with or without government programs.
A main assertion made in the article is that modern science based agriculture ( or 'industrial agriculture' if you prefer the more negative connotation) is leading to ever more use of ever more toxic chemicals and environmental degradation. On the contrary modern agriculture is becoming more sustainable every day. Biotechnology, a key factor in modern agriculture, is not mentioned at all in the entire article. The adoption of biotechnology has led to decreased levels of chemical applications and in some cases the elimination of certain pesticides completely. 1.04 million fewer pounds of insecticide are applied each year as a result of biotech Bt cotton alone. With Bt cotton, 4 million gallons of fuel and 93.7 million gallons of water are saved on the farm each year from fewer insecticide applications.In addition, Bt corn also has reduced levels of carcinogenic toxins produced by fumonisin . Last year, in Britain, two organic corn meal products were recalled because testing showed that they had unacceptably high levels of fumonisin. Roundup Ready technology has allowed for glyphosate herbicide to substitute for 7.2 million pounds of other chemicals that are more toxic and persistent in the environment.There are also economies of scope or synergies between sustainable production practices such as crop rotation and reduced or no tillage farming and biotech plantings. As a result biotechnology has also contributed to increased biodiversity among pest populations while maintaining yield gains. Further, with fewer chemical applications and less tillage, energy inputs to grain production are down, while yields continue to increase, reducing the overall environmental impact and carbon foot print. Between 1987 and 2007 energy use per unit of output is down in corn, soybeans and cotton production by nearly 40 . Irrigated water use per unit of output decreased by 20 percent while carbon emissions per unit of output have dropped by about one-third in the three crops. In addition to the lower carbon and water foot print, these practices have decreased groundwater pollution as well. The use of biotechnology in the livestock industry has demonstrated similar environmental gains.
( see here, here, here for more examples. )
'The UCS estimates that about 70% of antimicrobial drugs used in America are given not to people but to animals, which means we're breeding more of those deadly organisms every day.'
This is meaningless. What matters is of the antimicrobials given to animals, what % actually target pathogens that affect humans. Resistance requires selection pressure, and if the majority of antimicrobials used in livestock production are not selecting against deadly pathogens, then the risks are overblown. What we have observed is that in countries where food grade antimicrobials used in livestock production have been more heavily regulated or banned, the resulting increase in livestock illness has lead to an increased use of antibiotics actually used in human medicine. This policy results in increased selection pressure for antibiotic resistance among pathogens dangerous to humans and should be avoided. The article also avoids to mention the environmental benefits of antimicrobials as well as the benefits of other pharmaceutical products such as growth enhancing hormones. Pound-for-pound, beef produced with grains and growth hormones produces 40% less greenhouse gas emissions and saves two-thirds more land for nature compared to organic grass-fed beef.
'Worldwide, organic food — a sometimes slippery term but on the whole a practice more sustainable than conventional food '
There is little scientific consensus on this conclusion. There is certainly evidence to the contrary, and while there are very desirable qualities associated with organic food ( some of my favorite frozen foods are Amy's brand of organics) organic should not be sold as a panacea in contrast to modern agriculture. The fact that many organic producers are now ( see here) considering adopting biotech options indicates that organic alone as it stands today is not a solution. Reduced yields as a result of organic practices imply a larger carbon footprint and decreased biodiversity compared to biotech crops. No where in the article did I find the author mention any of the downsides of organic production such as toxic biological controls used in organic production including nicotine* sulfur, pyrethrum, neem, sabadilla, and rotenone* that government regulators don’t even track data for.These can be just as persistent in the environment and detrimental to biological diversity as some conventional products. Nor does the author mention increased risks of E coli contamination ( which the author of the Time piece attributes to conventional agriculture).
Notes and References:
*Nicotine, one of the more toxic organic insecticides, has a rat LD50 (lethal dose in 50% of animals tested)of 55mg/kg. The newest synthetic insecticide, imidacloprid, has a rat LD50 of 425mg/kg, making imidacloprid nearly 10 times less toxic than nicotine. Rotenone has an LD50 of 60-1500 mg/kg and is more acutely toxic than Malathion or Sevin. Cats are highly susceptible to pyrethrum.
Science 31 May 2002:
Vol. 296. no. 5573, pp. 1694 - 1697
DOI: 10.1126/science.1071148
Munkvold, G.P. et al . Plant Disease 83, 130-138 1999.
Dowd, p.J. Economic Entomology. 93 1669-1679 2000.
Miller, Henry I, Conko, Gregory, & Drew L. Kershe. Nature Biotechnology Volume 24 Number 9 September 2006.
Agricultural Outlook ERS/USDA Aug 2006.
Science 8 June 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5830, pp. 1475 - 1477
DOI: 10.1126/science.1139208
Capper, J. L., Cady, R. A., Bauman, D. E. The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science, 2009; 87 (6): 2160 DOI: 10.2527/jas.2009-1781
Smith, J.S.C.; Smith, O.S.; Wright, S.; Wall, S.J.; and Walton, M. (1992)
‘‘Diversity of United States Hybrid Maize Germplasm as Revealed by
Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms.’’ Crop Science 32: 598–604
International Journal of Food Microbiology
Volume 120, Issue 3, 15 December 2007, Pages 296-302
The Environmental Safety and Benefits of Growth Enhancing Pharmaceutical Technologies in Beef Production
By Alex Avery and Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute, Centre for Global Food Issues.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Organic Biotechnology
Given all of the environmental and health benefits from biotech foods, you would think that more supporters of organic production and 'sustainble agriculture' would be supportive of biotech crops. I'm not here to bash organic production, because I think that there is a market for everyone. However, research indicates that one shortfall of organic food is its exclusion of biotech/GM crops.
A recent Boston Globe article makes this point:
Link
Europeans are very skeptical of biotech crops but accept nanotechnology. They also are very supportive of organic production. I wonder how most organic consumers view nanotechnology? Even if it benefits the environment?
On another note, most people probably don't know that even organic wheat varieties used for making organic pasta come from germplasm that was developted using mutation breeding i.e. introducing genetic variation by mutations casued by gamma rays. I wonder how they feel about that? What is more radical or more unnatural? If we really wanted 'all natural' corn, we'd have to eat the grass-like plant - teosinte- that's ultimately where we got modern corn.
A recent Boston Globe article makes this point:
Europeans are very skeptical of biotech crops but accept nanotechnology. They also are very supportive of organic production. I wonder how most organic consumers view nanotechnology? Even if it benefits the environment?
On another note, most people probably don't know that even organic wheat varieties used for making organic pasta come from germplasm that was developted using mutation breeding i.e. introducing genetic variation by mutations casued by gamma rays. I wonder how they feel about that? What is more radical or more unnatural? If we really wanted 'all natural' corn, we'd have to eat the grass-like plant - teosinte- that's ultimately where we got modern corn.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
WAL-MART- ORGANIC COTTON?
I recently watched an infomercial featuring Wal-Mart and the contributions that it is making to society. This was obviously a corporate produced marketing film, but it did point out many good things about Wal-Mart that were true. I do have an issue with one aspect dealing with sustainability.
Apparently in some stores Wal-Mart is introducing lines of clothing produced from Organic Cotton. From the corporate web site:
“So, we expanded our organic practice to include select bath, bed and baby products. From just these few orders in a limited number of stores, the Organic Exchange has informed us we will have saved 50,000 – 60,000 lbs of pesticides, herbicides and synthetic fertilizers and other chemicals from being used, and have become the largest single purchaser of 100% organic cotton products in the world.”
Unfortunately, Wal-Mart does not have all the facts about agricultural sustainability. They may have saved 50,000-60,00 pounds of synthetic pesticides, but what about the toxic biological controls used in organic production such as pyrethrum, neem, sabadilla, and rotenone that government regulators don’t even track data for. In citing this data, is Wal-Mart comparing only conventional cotton to organic? What about the environmentally superior biotech varieties of Bt and Roundup Ready cotton?
All of the advantages that Wal-Mart is seeking to exploit from organic food are available via biotech cotton. As noted in previous biotech entries there are many advantages to these technologies in relation to environmental sustainability that organic production cannot provide. ( See 7 reasons why you should support GM food, May1, 2007, Bt Cotton & Environmental Health, or click on biotech label at the end of this entry). While organic product promotion is most likely just a marketing and PR ploy by Wal-Mart, and involves just a limited array of the products they have to offer, they are now the single largest purchaser of 100% organic cotton products.
As a result, because Wal-Mart deals in such large volume, Wal-Mart may be doing more harm than good when it comes to the environment in their decision to buy and sell organic.
Apparently in some stores Wal-Mart is introducing lines of clothing produced from Organic Cotton. From the corporate web site:
“So, we expanded our organic practice to include select bath, bed and baby products. From just these few orders in a limited number of stores, the Organic Exchange has informed us we will have saved 50,000 – 60,000 lbs of pesticides, herbicides and synthetic fertilizers and other chemicals from being used, and have become the largest single purchaser of 100% organic cotton products in the world.”
Unfortunately, Wal-Mart does not have all the facts about agricultural sustainability. They may have saved 50,000-60,00 pounds of synthetic pesticides, but what about the toxic biological controls used in organic production such as pyrethrum, neem, sabadilla, and rotenone that government regulators don’t even track data for. In citing this data, is Wal-Mart comparing only conventional cotton to organic? What about the environmentally superior biotech varieties of Bt and Roundup Ready cotton?
All of the advantages that Wal-Mart is seeking to exploit from organic food are available via biotech cotton. As noted in previous biotech entries there are many advantages to these technologies in relation to environmental sustainability that organic production cannot provide. ( See 7 reasons why you should support GM food, May1, 2007, Bt Cotton & Environmental Health, or click on biotech label at the end of this entry). While organic product promotion is most likely just a marketing and PR ploy by Wal-Mart, and involves just a limited array of the products they have to offer, they are now the single largest purchaser of 100% organic cotton products.
As a result, because Wal-Mart deals in such large volume, Wal-Mart may be doing more harm than good when it comes to the environment in their decision to buy and sell organic.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
ORGANIC FACADE
While organic foods provide us with a sense of nostalgia for 19th century agriculture, its claims of safety, sustainability, and ‘greenness’ can be distracting. Case in point, the recent recall of E. coli infested spinach, traced to a major organic producer, Earthbound farms. According to the Center for Global Food issues, organic foods are 8 times more likely to be recalled than conventional food. Although organic food makes up less than 1% of diets in the US, it accounts for 8% of all food E coli cases.
According to a University of Minnesota study, researchers determined that produce grown with manure aged 6-12 months was actually 19 times more likely to be contaminated with E. coli than foods grown with manure aged more than a year. USDA organic rules allow manure to be applied after just 3 days of composting—right up to harvest time and raw manure can be applied until 90 to120 days prior to harvest in most cases.
It’s true that conventionally growers may also use manure as part of their fertility program, but in a recent study published in the Journal of Food Protection, organic produce was 6 times more likely to be contaminated with E. coli than conventional produce. Conventional growers always have the option of reducing manure use and supplementing with synthetic alternatives that offer the same nutritional value with less risk and increasingly less damage to the environment as genetics and technology improve.
Perhaps that’s why the founder of The Whole Earth Catalog believes the environmental movement will soon reverse its trend of aversion to GM foods.
According to a University of Minnesota study, researchers determined that produce grown with manure aged 6-12 months was actually 19 times more likely to be contaminated with E. coli than foods grown with manure aged more than a year. USDA organic rules allow manure to be applied after just 3 days of composting—right up to harvest time and raw manure can be applied until 90 to120 days prior to harvest in most cases.
It’s true that conventionally growers may also use manure as part of their fertility program, but in a recent study published in the Journal of Food Protection, organic produce was 6 times more likely to be contaminated with E. coli than conventional produce. Conventional growers always have the option of reducing manure use and supplementing with synthetic alternatives that offer the same nutritional value with less risk and increasingly less damage to the environment as genetics and technology improve.
Perhaps that’s why the founder of The Whole Earth Catalog believes the environmental movement will soon reverse its trend of aversion to GM foods.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Anti-Agricultural Agenda
Some of the top reasons that people offer for choosing organic food is their belief that it is safer, better for the environment, and some go as far as to say that it is more nutritious. Others feel that it helps promote the family farmer. Through this blog I will continually resound the theme that these notions are incorrect.
Why? First, for scientific accuracy. Second, because aside from being a fad, and aside from those organic patrons genuinely seeking health and well being, there are those cohorts of an organic movement that are motivated by an anti-capitalist and anti-agriculture agenda.
Because modern technology makes agriculture an information driven and capital-intensive industry, because this is made possible by economic growth and capitalism, and because it works so well, the modern farmer makes a difficult mascot for any socialist or interventionist agenda.
These people prefer an agriculture of the past. I’m not talking about the strong work ethic and rural values that they try to romanticize in their cause, I’m talking about mules and pitchforks. For their mascot they want the `family farmer` that milks two cows and grows sweet corn for the local market. And they want the government to subsidize that way of life. They want us to believe that only this type of organic production is healthy and sustainable.
The modern farming operation then becomes a `factory` farm and livestock management is deemed cruelty.
The truth is that this is an anathema to modern agriculture, and the most anti-agricultural stance one could take. This vision promotes the stereotype of an ignorant rural America devoid of education and technology. It then stigmatizes the modern producer that takes advantage of better education (High School FFA or College) and technology like herbicide resistant crops and improved livestock genetics.
While organic foods can offer us a fad choice and possibly a sense of nostalgia, modern agriculture will provide us with food, fiber, medicine, and perhaps energy for years to come.
Why? First, for scientific accuracy. Second, because aside from being a fad, and aside from those organic patrons genuinely seeking health and well being, there are those cohorts of an organic movement that are motivated by an anti-capitalist and anti-agriculture agenda.
Because modern technology makes agriculture an information driven and capital-intensive industry, because this is made possible by economic growth and capitalism, and because it works so well, the modern farmer makes a difficult mascot for any socialist or interventionist agenda.
These people prefer an agriculture of the past. I’m not talking about the strong work ethic and rural values that they try to romanticize in their cause, I’m talking about mules and pitchforks. For their mascot they want the `family farmer` that milks two cows and grows sweet corn for the local market. And they want the government to subsidize that way of life. They want us to believe that only this type of organic production is healthy and sustainable.
The modern farming operation then becomes a `factory` farm and livestock management is deemed cruelty.
The truth is that this is an anathema to modern agriculture, and the most anti-agricultural stance one could take. This vision promotes the stereotype of an ignorant rural America devoid of education and technology. It then stigmatizes the modern producer that takes advantage of better education (High School FFA or College) and technology like herbicide resistant crops and improved livestock genetics.
While organic foods can offer us a fad choice and possibly a sense of nostalgia, modern agriculture will provide us with food, fiber, medicine, and perhaps energy for years to come.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
FARMERS' MARKETS
Do we need local governments to subsidize the development of farmers’ markets? Farmers in fact already have developed markets for their products-the CBOT (Chicago Board of Trade). More and more farmers are utilizing the risk management tools offered via futures markets. In addition direct contracting with buyers allows other firms to share market risk traditionally associated with agriculture.
According to the USDA, 40% of total agricultural production in 2003 (vs. just 11% in 1969), and 47% of livestock production, was accounted for by contract marketing. For small operations this accounted for 20% of their production and more than 50% of production with regards to larger operations.
Of course this mostly comprises major food staples like livestock, corn, wheat, and soybeans as opposed to produce. More so than farmers, city and local governments have stronger interests in local ‘farm’ produce markets for the sake of local tourism and to promote so called ‘green’, ‘sustainable’, or ‘organic’ agriculture (see also 'Is Organic Better').
The truth is, as agriculture has evolved into a heavily capitalized information driven industry, there are too many other profitable investment opportunities for producers to engage in as opposed to tomatoes and carrots. Investments in RTK (real-time-kinetics) technology or a GPS consulting service can save enough in production and energy costs to pay for itself sometimes within one season -and is a free market solution to environmental pollution (see 'Free Market Agriculture-Green Profits').
Livestock markets have overcome the equivalent to the age-old ‘lemon’ problem by using micro chip inserts. This technology can guarantee the identity, health, and genetics of livestock, allowing producers to receive a premium for better livestock.
It's likely that many of the ‘roadside pickup truck’ marketers are the weekend gardener types. Local governments and fad enthusiasts may be trying to capitalize on the romanciticism of old fashioned agriculture to promote tourism via pork barrel spending. I think this undermines those legitimate producers interested in transitioning from tobacco to produce, and tarnishes the image of the modern producer and the self-reliance that modern technology makes possible.
According to the USDA, 40% of total agricultural production in 2003 (vs. just 11% in 1969), and 47% of livestock production, was accounted for by contract marketing. For small operations this accounted for 20% of their production and more than 50% of production with regards to larger operations.
Of course this mostly comprises major food staples like livestock, corn, wheat, and soybeans as opposed to produce. More so than farmers, city and local governments have stronger interests in local ‘farm’ produce markets for the sake of local tourism and to promote so called ‘green’, ‘sustainable’, or ‘organic’ agriculture (see also 'Is Organic Better').
The truth is, as agriculture has evolved into a heavily capitalized information driven industry, there are too many other profitable investment opportunities for producers to engage in as opposed to tomatoes and carrots. Investments in RTK (real-time-kinetics) technology or a GPS consulting service can save enough in production and energy costs to pay for itself sometimes within one season -and is a free market solution to environmental pollution (see 'Free Market Agriculture-Green Profits').
Livestock markets have overcome the equivalent to the age-old ‘lemon’ problem by using micro chip inserts. This technology can guarantee the identity, health, and genetics of livestock, allowing producers to receive a premium for better livestock.
It's likely that many of the ‘roadside pickup truck’ marketers are the weekend gardener types. Local governments and fad enthusiasts may be trying to capitalize on the romanciticism of old fashioned agriculture to promote tourism via pork barrel spending. I think this undermines those legitimate producers interested in transitioning from tobacco to produce, and tarnishes the image of the modern producer and the self-reliance that modern technology makes possible.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Organic Destruction
While organic production avoids synthetics, it introduces other hazards to our health and environment. Organic producers use 'naturally' derived substances such as copper sulfate and pyrethrum, which are just as toxic and carcinogenic as many conventional chemistries.
Organic cultural practices require tillage and the use of manures, which both contribute to erosion and pollution. Organic production also can have yields as low as 10-40% less than conventional methods. Thus feeding the world via organic methods would require more land i.e. destruction of habitat and biodiversity.
Organic cultural practices require tillage and the use of manures, which both contribute to erosion and pollution. Organic production also can have yields as low as 10-40% less than conventional methods. Thus feeding the world via organic methods would require more land i.e. destruction of habitat and biodiversity.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Is Organic Better?
The first myth or misunderstanding that I would like to address is that "organic foods are healthier and better for the environment than conventional and GM foods."
Health and Safety
Many people fear synthetic pesticides and herbicides. The media in its use of terms like "factory farming" and "frankenfoods" has helped create the perception that GM foods are unsafe as well. Since organic foods avoid chemicals and 'genetic engineering' people naturally think that they are safer. Since organic products are produced naturally on 'small' family or cooperative farms people feel that these foods are better because quality is lost with mass produced foods.
2) Even organic and 'natural' foods are not 'natural'. They have been developed by plant breeding that involves bringing together thousands of unknown gene combinations with unknown functions. Seedless grapes and watermelons result exactly because these combinations have adverse effects on the plant embryo(seed).
3) Without herbicides, you get weeds that can host pests. In absence of pesticides, pests feed on plants, which can lead to disease and mycotoxins that are known carcinogens.
4) Transgenic crops will actually enable us to improve the nutritional quality of our food- on the market now we have 'Vestive' soybeans that have improved fats that obviate hydrogenation and unhealthy trans-fats.
Next I will discuss myths regarding environmental pollution and organic vs. conventional foods.
Health and Safety
Many people fear synthetic pesticides and herbicides. The media in its use of terms like "factory farming" and "frankenfoods" has helped create the perception that GM foods are unsafe as well. Since organic foods avoid chemicals and 'genetic engineering' people naturally think that they are safer. Since organic products are produced naturally on 'small' family or cooperative farms people feel that these foods are better because quality is lost with mass produced foods.
The Facts
1) Mass produced foods are able to be produced with great precision, getting each plant what it needs as accurately as technically possible using GPS technology.2) Even organic and 'natural' foods are not 'natural'. They have been developed by plant breeding that involves bringing together thousands of unknown gene combinations with unknown functions. Seedless grapes and watermelons result exactly because these combinations have adverse effects on the plant embryo(seed).
3) Without herbicides, you get weeds that can host pests. In absence of pesticides, pests feed on plants, which can lead to disease and mycotoxins that are known carcinogens.
4) Transgenic crops will actually enable us to improve the nutritional quality of our food- on the market now we have 'Vestive' soybeans that have improved fats that obviate hydrogenation and unhealthy trans-fats.
Next I will discuss myths regarding environmental pollution and organic vs. conventional foods.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Scientific Misnomers
There are many misnomers, misunderstandings, or myths out there because some people have been influenced by the media, never been exposed to sound science, or have a recently outdated concenption of modern science in their daily lives. Some of the following are examples.
- Organic foods are healthier and better for the environment than conventional and GM foods.
- GM foods are not as safe as natural or organic foods.
- Decaffeinated coffee is unhealthy because it is produced using toxic chemicals like ammonia.
- We are running out of oil and are on the verge of an energy crisis.
I will address each of these in later posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)