Organic vs. Conventional Agriculture

Hurray, text selection is un-disabled.

"I'll go ahead and support my 'outrageous alarmist claim' that this holocaust doesn't seem to exist."

Smooth, setting yourself up to be compared to a Holocaust denier.

Max, Boston, MA
August 11, 2009 7:46am

Excellent Skeptoid, Brian; Thank you. I recently discovered that a friend of mine has gone completely 'organic' to avoid the terrible effects of our 'poisoned food'. I have a hard time dealing with these sorts of confrontations without becoming a big arrogant jerk. This issue, with a dose of #116 will go a long way to help me ease the facts back into the conversation. Keep up the good work; I already can't wait to see what is in store for next week.

Cary Snowden, Utah
August 11, 2009 8:39am

You are lumping alot of food producers together under the organic label. And the ones you highlight are the ones that fit the closest to the standard industrial model. Nice straw man.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
August 11, 2009 10:27am

"Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city."

Similarly, readers/listeners should be skeptical about Dunning's use of the following phrases:

"Organic Lobby" & "Organic proponents". Hey! How about a little referencing!

Ben, Austin, TX
August 11, 2009 11:16am

You: To make synthetic fertilizer, we start with nitrogen, which we extract from the atmosphere. This process is infinitely sustainable and produces no waste.

Uh what? Do we just suck it out of the atmosphere and magically turn it into usable fertilizer without the input of any other chemicals/energy? Hardly.

Here is a good starting point for more info on the production of synthetic fertilizers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer

Galen Frazer, Baltimore
August 11, 2009 11:24am

"Scientifically, the term "organic food" is meaningless."

Absolutely correct. But just as meaningless is your application of the scientific definition for the purposes of this podcast. There is not only a legal definition for this word, the use of the word is regulated by the US Government. Let me take this a step further and actually provide a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Legal_definition

You also fail to mention that there are legitimate studies out there that conclude that organic methods DO in fact have environmental benefits.

I do agree that there are many many variables that need to be taken into account to account for the entire chain of production (energy, cost, efficiency, water use, etc., etc., etc.) It's a HARD subject and many of the articles I've read fall short in my opinion. But you do worse. You set up all these straw-man arguments and then selectively shoot them down.
If you want to do a real analysis on this, then do it, but don't pick and choose. That's what the "other side" does.

Frank, TX
August 11, 2009 11:32am

My argument against organic food is thus:

I don't want to pay more for food, so screw the environment.

H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
August 11, 2009 11:54am

Re-educate yourself on the term "sustainability," and then look closely at the Nitrogen and Phosphorous cycles of the earth. Just because something is cyclic, and "ultimately ends up" somewhere (there is no "ultimate destination" in a cycle), doesn't mean it is sustainable. For instance, water is an infinite cycle, but with more and more extraction it is no longer becoming sustainable. Although this is only tangentially important to your argument, it is still a misconception that should be corrected.

Zach, VA
August 11, 2009 12:03pm

I have no problem with any of the issues you've brought up. However, the reason I buy "organic" fruit juice instead of concentrate is that it tastes better.

The same with any other organic food. If it's tastier, and I can afford it, I'll pay more for it. Any additional claims about the environment or being different from "chemical farming" are irrelevent.

This could of course be entirely based on confirmation bias, but that's the reason I and many, many others choose to buy organic foods.

Dominic, London, England
August 11, 2009 12:26pm

It's hard to imagination sustaining the world's phosphorous requirements from seawater. As you can imagine, once the stuff hits the ocean it because extremely dilute. From what I've read recently, it seems that phosphorous is yet another storm cloud on the horizon:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4193017.ece

Peter, Toronto, Ontario
August 11, 2009 1:58pm

Dominic,

You should watch the Penn and Teller episode of Bullshit! that deals with the organic craze. The taste test segment is hilarious.

Alan

Alan Bombria, Long Island, NY
August 11, 2009 5:03pm

I was curious and skeptical to read your description of the manufacture of synthetic fertilizer. My understanding was that the process is, in fact, very energy- and fossil-fuel intensive and therefore, at the end of the day, unsustainable. To confirm my recollection, I took a look at Omnivore's Dilemma. I know, it's not your favorite source ;-) but I have no reason to question the accuracy of his description. Comment?

My husband tends a decent size garden and while he loves the rich top soil he has created with compost, he hates . . . HATES . . . the bugs that are eating some of his prized vegetables. Your podcast is helping us think less "religiously" about selective use of pesticides.

Svetlana, Evanston, Illinois
August 11, 2009 7:46pm

Ah, the whiny middle class and their organic food.
Go tell someone in the Sudan about how unethical and "unsustainable" (I hate that word) their meager UN food aid ration is.

Organic food- feeding pompous hypocrites who are not really hungry..

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
August 12, 2009 1:30am

I agree with your arguments, but I don't understand why this topic was chosen. I think you have already adequately dealt with this topic. I am very interested to hear what you think about the "Fair Trade" campaign.

Sean Webb, Hamilton
August 12, 2009 9:09am

Good episode Brian...for the most part

However, one statement rubbed me the wrong way. You state:
"we start with nitrogen, which we extract from the atmosphere. This process is infinitely sustainable and produces no waste."

Sure nitrogen is plentiful, but the fuel required for the Haber-Bosch is not at present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_environmental_aspects

It would be nice to see a comparison of the energy required for Haber-Bosch compared to that required to transport an equivalent amount of nitrogen via fish emulsion or whatever, I'm sure it would only support your stance further.

Jeff Piotrowski, Missoula, MT
August 12, 2009 12:58pm

I completely understand where you are coming from. I couldn't afford organic food for the life of me.

But what about good old Round-Up Ready crops like Soy and Corn? Monsanto is taking over the bloody world, and they are going to soon OWN our food supply and all patents to it.

Whoever gave permission to corporations so that they could patent life was bloody stupid.

Kimberly, Canada
August 12, 2009 2:24pm

The commercial definition of 'organic' is deceptive.
I say Organic = Natural, not manufactured.
Organic farming has contributed to sustainable agriculture by demonstrating soil conservation, energy conservation and, I believe, better flavor.
Maximizing output/acre is not sustainable if the acreage is lost to erosion. Till-less farming could be a real energy and soil saver. Introducing insect populations can be an effective pest control.
But I must say, I would never eat organic broccoli, but bring on the tomatoes.

Ed, Amherst, MA
August 12, 2009 7:13pm

even if the farmers are protected these toxic chemicals end up in lakes and rivers..

but this is true for fertilizers as well, organic or chemical...

mots, usa
August 13, 2009 2:00am

I had a few problems with this episode, though I was glad to have my organic assumptions challenged with some cold logic.

But what I thought was a bit lacking was:

• "What harm exists is usually among farm workers who mishandle pesticides..."

Yes, that and indiscriminate application. Residential areas and schools for the children of farmworkers in Arcata's Central Valley sometimes get "drift," when plumes of pesticides are carried on the wind into these areas. It's not an exotic phenomenon, and is weakly monitored by the various county ag commissioners.

So I suppose you could call that farmworker mishandling, if you define contract cropdusters as farmworkers.

• "Everyone loves to hear that corporations are bad, that all-natural is good, that chemicals and synthetic compounds are poisons."

Really? Everyone? I know that was meant to be ironic, but still. More precise language might have been helpful there, because that statement is clearly not supportable.

• I'm too lazy to look it up, but I do recall Consumer's Union publishing a list of conventional foods to avoid if you can afford the organic alternative.

I don't know that they had their hair on fire about pesticide poisoning, but they're a responsible organization. I don't think they'd ever publish a list, for example, of homeopathic medicines to purchase instead of conventional.

Anyway, these are basically quibbles. I continue to be astounded by the depth of your research, Brain. Thanks for the fun listening!

Kevin Hoover, Arcata, Calif.
August 13, 2009 8:19am

Another good episode.

I don't buy organic fruit and veg or animal produce.

Organic animal welfare standards are based on the 'all natural' mind set. This approach doesn't translate into humane standards. For example, animals cannot receive preventative medicine, which is standard practice for conventional farming; pig cages cannot be used to separate a sow from her piglets, which results in a higher number of piglets get crushed by their mothers.

I buy Freedom Food certified meat as the wealth is monitored by the RSPCA (I live in England). The following is take from the RSPCA website:

Is Freedom Food organic?
Not necessarily. Freedom Food is concerned primarily with welfare, while organic schemes focus primarily on environmental sustainability. Of course, any producer, organic or otherwise, who meets all the RSPCA's welfare requirements is welcome to join Freedom Food.

Benedict, Bristol
August 13, 2009 8:50am

Brian,
I love your podcasts and am generally in agreement with you on these things. The one thing that I think you could do better at is in the use of the word “all” or “always”. You can often find an exception to the rule. So when even a single exception is pointed out it falsifies your entire statement. In this episode you state that “Soil management is something all farmers have always done” and then go on to say “When some farms do practice monoculture, in which only a single crop is grown season after season” you are contradicting yourself in the in the same paragraph.

Thanks, Keep up the good work!

David, Minneapolis
August 13, 2009 10:43am

When I was a kid I used to visit my grandmother’s house in rural Ohio where she grew all sorts of vegetables in her rather substantial garden—including tomatoes. I can testify that taste-wise there is no comparison between those then and what can be found in any urban grocer. We could eat those raw and come back for seconds; not at all true for these store brought ones. They work OK for salads and sandwiches, but to eat raw? How gross! Also I will concur along the lines of what you write that even so-called “organic” labeled tomatoes aren’t much better on this score.

Now I fully realize that the subject of your post/podcast dealt with quantifiable factors, not matters of subjective taste. I bring this up to point out that the real issue is not “organic” vs “non-organic” food, but the mass production of food and the disconnect between urban lifestyles and the source of the food we eat. My grandmother’s tomatoes tasted better not because they were “organic” or more “natural”–but because they were picked fresh at the real height of ripeness and eaten within the hour. This also explains why beer taste much better when consumed at the brewery than it does much later out of a bottle. It is this sense of disconnect city-dwellers feel that marketers play on with the whole “organic” or “natural” schemes. I’m sure they have done enough (scientific) studies of their target audience (urbanites) to not be unaware of this ploy.

Neokortex, St Petersburg FL
August 13, 2009 1:00pm

P.S. In the interest of not being "lame" I'll append a response with my real name, rather than my usual internet handle (Neokortex)

Eric J, St Petersburg, FL
August 13, 2009 3:15pm

David,

Only the most nit-picky people would call someone out on something like that. Brian appears to speak in vernacular in this podcast (in other words, he's talking to us in our own language), and in the vernacular "all" and "always" includes a little wiggle room. Besides, monocultures don't preclude good soil management, they just make it more difficult.

Gregory, Alabama
August 14, 2009 10:00am

I found this podcast to be very interesing. However, I was wondering if you could comment on Genetically Engineered Ingredients/Food. I have a baby and buy "organic" rice cereal only because it states that it does not contain any GEI's. I have yet to find any conclusive statements from Gerber, etc. So do organic foods mean no genetic engineering?

NeuronMommy, Austin, TX
August 14, 2009 10:15am

Eric,

My grandparents also had vegetable gardens, as did my parents and myself. Our tomatoes and other veggies tasted fantastic compared to anything we could buy in the grocery store. But there was absolutely nothing "organic" about any of our vegetable gardens, or those of any other relatives or neighbor's gardens. Store bought fertilizers and pesticides were the norm. In fact Granny probably used DDT back in the day! Can't get much more non-organic than that.

David Bentley, Little Rock, AR
August 14, 2009 10:20am

gregory,

then what do those words mean? If all and always don't mean 100% then they shouldn't be used. If not then equivocation rules the day.

Now on to my own thought. Brian is correct that organic is a meaningless title, though that's not the fault of those who would buy organic. The word organic and the regulation thereof was stolen by the industrial organic (ie wallstreet). Otherwise the practices now used wouldn't be tolerable. In the podcasts that Brian has done on this and related topics I've noticed that pesticide runoff hasn't been mentioned. This has created a deadzone in the gulf of mexico of a vast size (the claim was the size of a smaller state but can't remember that off hand). This is due to extra pesticides and fertilizer needed when planting with a mono or dual culture crop.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
August 14, 2009 10:27am

Robert, Thanks for your support.

I know that many people stop listening when you generalize with words like all, every, & always. Specifics are what is needed to clarify the issue, not generalizations like the “believers” use to obscure the issue.

A small correction
I believe that it is the runoff of fertilizer, not pesticide that is creating the dead zone(s)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_%28ecology%29

David, Minneapolis
August 14, 2009 12:54pm

I think part of the problem is that 'organic', much like 'holistic health', is a hodge-podge term that mixes good practice with bad, and misses the complexities on the (pardon the pun) ground.

Many ideas from the organic crowd are great: we *should* be avoiding giant monocrop swathes to ensure local insect health, we *should* minimize pesticide application, we *should* use fertilizers responsibly, avoid genetic homogeneity, etc., but this isn't at all the same as *never* doing these things.

Industrial agriculture has frequently been awful for the environment, but these practices can often be modified instead of rejected, e.g., highly soluble mineral fertilizers can be applied responsibly to minimize runoff instead of switching to less available forms (mulch, etc.).

Jason Loxton, Halifax, NS
August 14, 2009 7:46pm

Been talking to some Vegans recently and was wondering... Bone meal and blood meal are a "natural fertilizers" used in organic farming. Does that mean some organic produce is not "vegan"?

Also I second NeuronMommy's comment thay a discussion of genetically modified food would be interesting.

Chas, Mpls
August 16, 2009 7:26pm

Thanks for a great podcast Brian.

Your point about people misunderstanding the word Organic reminds me, as an Organic chemist, of a story that happened to me.

I was once on a train and over heard two guys talking about the pollution caused by industry. One said (I'm paraphrasing) "the worst kind are chemical plants", his friend agreed and then added "..... except those organic chemical plants". I almost fell off my seat laughing!

Neil, San Diego
August 17, 2009 12:42pm

So, OK I'm with ya on most of your podcast, but like someone mentioned above, I think you left out something pretty important.

Its been clearly shown that nutritionally organic and "standard" are equivalent.

Tastewise, a ripe organic tomato and a ripe standard tomato taste that same (the biggest problem with comnparing a grocery stores tomato to granny's is that granny waits until they are red before picking)

so the question is, what about the pesticides and fertilizer that remains on the vegetables?

I don't like the answer "it's too little to worry about". LSD has significant effects at extremely small doses. Other chemicals are significant bad actors at parts per billion concentrations.

The questions become: how much pesticides (or herbicides, or whatever) remains on fruits and veggies you get at the store, and does this level pose any risk?

If that is not answered, the organic faithful will forever remain...well.. faithful.

Robert Hirsch, Troy, NY
August 17, 2009 2:18pm

Most of the people I know who advocate organic do so from a scientific perspective. Here are two spokespersons I have seen in documentaries:

Dr. Vandana Shiva is a physicist who advocates for organic agricultural methods in the third world. Her speechs about the social costs of the Green Revolution in India are worthwhile background for the person who wants to know more.

Fred Kirschenmann is a scientific farmer who came back from the university to convert his father's farm to organic in North Dakota over twenty years ago.
N-P-K are not the only nutrients needed by plants. You missed a few like Ca, S and Mg plus all the biology of the soil micro organisms. Empirical evidence can exist without a complete scientific explanation but I am sure science will explain all eventually. Soil biology being a new science we will surely know more tommorrow.

The leaders in the organic agriculture scene are not the large corporations and we consumers have to be vigilent against greenwashing and misuse of the organic label. I am a member of the Organic Consumers Association which IS concerned with worker's rights worldwide.

Concerns for anti-biotic resistent microbes? Industrial production methods CFOs require continuous use of antibiotics for all animals. Some GMO seeds are "activated" by the use of tetracycline- over use by humans is the third contributor.

Organic researchers are learning how to increase the rate soil microbes to "fix" atomospheric Nitrogen.

Go science

Linda Sebring, Corvallis, OR
August 17, 2009 5:59pm

I agree with a lot of the other comments here that this Skeptiod installment is lacking in reference and evidence. While I'm skeptical of the organic food benefit claims, I thought I would do some web research for references to back up the argument the non-organic food is just as health and safe. The amount of data/information/articles pushing the organic agenda is orders of magnitude more than any solid, scientific data backing non-organic foods.

For one example, how do I argue with my wife, friends, and family when they point out something like this:

http://www.ewg.org/node/7877

It is clearly non-scientific, with a lot of "back of the envelope" estimating going on, but the take-away 99% of the people have is "I’m not going to save a few dollars and poison myself and my kids.”

In summary, from my many hours of web research so far, I’m no closer to being able to convince people I know that organic is an overpriced fad, and am now even more likely to agree with some benefits of organics than I did before hearing this podcast.

Keep up the great work Brian!

Dave B, Seattle, WA
August 18, 2009 1:18pm

I have to disagree on one minor point: organic crops are bad overall. If conventional crops have higher yields, acre for acre, than organically grown crops, then there is land tied up for use in agriculture that's not producing as much food as possible. This raises costs (supply and demand) for all crops in addition to companies charging a premium on organics. Some "green" feel-good ideals are therefore costing all of us, whether or not we buy into flawed logic.

Erik, Miami
August 18, 2009 3:00pm

Very good post. The British Soil Association has been given a punch in the face by the FSA (UK's Food Standard Association) recently

http://tinyurl.com/nzk7d4

Meta analysis of the scientific literature has shown that,

"No evidence of a difference in content of nutrients and other substances between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products was detected for the majority of nutrients assessed in this review suggesting that organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are broadly comparable in their nutrient content. The differences detected in content of nutrients and other substances between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are biologically plausible and most likely relate to differences in crop or animal management, and soil quality. There is no good evidence that increased dietary intake of the nutrients identified in this review which are present in larger amounts in organically than in conventionally produced crops and livestock products, would be of benefit to individuals consuming a normal varied diet, and it is therefore unlikely that these differences in nutrient content are relevant to consumer health"

But the organic fundies are all up in arms saying the the report is "misleading".

http://tinyurl.com/m6tu4z

Juan, Edinburgh
August 19, 2009 8:32am

One piece of evidence not discussed is the prevalence of certain diseases (Parkinsons, for example) in agricultural areas. If chemicals were having no effect except on those who handled them, what would explain the statistically significant correlation between residence (in places where the air is, in fact, cleaner) and disease? Would the organic variants used have the same effects?

Karlo, DC
August 21, 2009 9:22pm

Linda, Dr. Vandana Shiva is a doctor of philosophy, with a BS in physics. It is much, much more accurate to call her a philosopher. She is one of the founders of 'ecofeminism' and while she has written many books on the subject of the 'green revolution,' she has many critics. Personally I find many of her arguments deeply flawed, and her stance against GM crops to be weakly supported.

Also, please check out the first podcast on organic farming.

Most of the people I know who support 'organic' foods know little to nothing about science or farming. Or even what 'organic' standards are for that matter.

Anyone who is interested please, visit the Skeptoid forums at JREF. Check out the general forums. Read the threads on these subjects. It's pretty easy to post something here and believe it is solid because no one takes to time to challenge it. Not so at the forums! The anti-biotic thing has even been covered very well by board animal vets.

Brandon, Falconer NY
August 24, 2009 4:48pm

OK as far as it goes Brian, but you only addressed vegetables. I agree organic is silly when it comes to vegetables. However Dr. Dean Edell is a great skeptic who I admire greatly, who advises using organic dairy and other animal products, as growth hormones and antibiotics are limited in animal in order to be certified organic. Or do you say that ingestion of growth hormones and antibiotics has no effect on humans? Or that these substances are destroyed in cooking or something? You don't even mention that there's organic *anything* other than veggies. Big hole.

David Richards, Orange County, CA
August 27, 2009 12:51am

The fact that you spend the core of the post attacking the "hippie arguments" makes this seem almost like a straw man case. Well, I guess you are right to attack the common fallacious positions such as "green tastes better", "will you feed pesticides to your children" etc.

But you miss the main point in the process, because there are serious researchers who believe that organic farming is actually a good thing -- for the ecosystem of species around the farm, that is. And since we live in the midst of a great extinction period, probably caused by Homo sapiens, this is not some out there hippie fantasy. You can't simply claim dibs on science for the anti-organic position, at least not while limiting your scientific references to some statement about agriculturists in general.

And while we're at it, what's your source on the land use and energy balance of organic farming, other than a Girl Scout trip?

Fredrik Johnsson, Sweden
August 29, 2009 3:34am

People defending 'organic farming' are willfully missing one of the key points Brian has pointed out; Organic is a silly alarmist term that tries to tie itself with good farming practices.

Most of these defenses cite things that are in no way tied to organic farming, they are simply good farming practices. What logically fallacy is this again?

@ David Please check out the JREF boards as that exact question has been brought up as a defense of 'organic' farming, and shown to be both overblown, and horrible for the animals.

@ Fredrik Cite? Who are these 'serious researchers' and what are their specific claims? An ad hom and an appeal to authority are hardly a good rebuke for this article. Right, I should instead be distracted by the red haring, 'human caused great extinction'.

The more I learn about 'organic agriculture' and it's apologists, the less impressed I am. This is coming from someone who actually practices 'organic agriculture' on a small scale.

Brandon, Falconer NY
August 29, 2009 10:37am

@Brandon ... so, you're a skeptic who started 'organic agriculture' without knowing anything about it. Now you say you are learning about it and are not impressed. Yet you still actually practice it. I was skeptical of the ability of anyone to have their cake and eat it too, but you have proved it is possible.

Shayne O'Connor, Blue Mountains
August 29, 2009 8:58pm

I practice it in my garden, not because I try to, but because the methods I use for small scale gardening happen to coincide with what people label 'organic'.

I didn't start into 'organic agriculture', I just gardened. Then came about the silly label.

But did you have something substantive to bring up or was the only thing about what I've said that affected you at all the last sentence? (I can use false dichotomies too!)

Brandon, Falconer NY
August 29, 2009 9:22pm

a casual observation of the "organic standards" that float about indicate only one thing.

The whole idea was thrown together in a bag. There may be some "organic" practices that yield great benefit but whilst its tied in with cultural claptrap the gems will never shine.

The Australian Organic standard is such a document. Anyone who believes that diseased or injured animals benefit from homeopathic treatment over a simple dose of antibiotics has a problem with reality. Yet.. the standard disseminates this delusion.

In fact.. if you read the standard closely you could crop or husband as per normal and condition your produce to suit "organic" standards.

Go search... find out for yourselves.

Organic farming isn't a simple case of increasing the size of your garden.. Don't think of it in those terms.

There are technologies coming to fore that can safely recycle to farms. Normal everyday farmers want these technologies to cut costs and to condition soils. This isnt organic farming.

I deal with a few chefs who are suckered by the idea because their tomatoes or snow peas from the garden taste better. Delusion at its best I say

Henk van der Gaast, Sydney, Australia
September 01, 2009 6:11pm

Check your premises, Mr. Dunning. You are very, very wrong here. If you want to know why people shop organic, ask. We'll be happy to tell you. Far better than you putting words in our mouths.

Chew on that.

Rodney Guerra, Salem, Oregon
October 15, 2009 8:58pm

Rodney - A snippy "You're wrong, chew on that" adds very little to a discussion. If you have something constructive to add, like WHAT you feel was wrong and why, I welcome that.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
October 16, 2009 8:51am

One of the things I constantly hear about organic products is that they have more vitamins and minerals. I haven't done a huge amount of research on that myself, but I have heard it from sources that I relatively trust.

Thanks for your articles. I will definitely be doing some research myself thanks to your writing.

Josh Walker, Spring Hill, TN
October 23, 2009 2:33pm

"One of the things I constantly hear about organic products is that they have more vitamins and minerals."

Actually, that is one claim that is well debunked. A tomato is a tomato. The plant extracts the same nutrients it needs from whatever kind of farming.

One could possibly engineer a different kind of tomato but the change in vitamins and minerals would lie in the tomato, not in the "kind" of farming.

Guy Bannis, San Francisco, CA
October 26, 2009 12:59pm

If you removed the straw man arguments, this podcast would be half the length.

As already pointed out, choosing just the chemical meaning of the word "organic" is irrelevant. It's like saying that there are no political resistance movements, because the members do not resist the flow of electricity.

"toxic chemicals that poison consumers" yeah, some people say that. You're choosing the most extremist statements to characterize the whole organic position. This is the definition of a straw man argument.

"don't reward the people who are profiteering by selling you fear" Nobody is "selling me fear".

"I'm saying the claims made by organic proponents — that we're all being poisoned". Except that not all proponents are saying that.

"I'll go ahead and support my "outrageous alarmist claim" that this holocaust doesn't seem to exist."
This isn't an argument, this is Brian whining.

Please Brian, stop pretending you're a victim, stop exaggerating every opposing opinion, stop accepting confirming opinions uncritically, and just make rational argument.

Paul, Walnut Creek, CA
October 28, 2009 8:34pm

Paul, what are the arguments being put forth for organic that you find a, mainstream, and b, valid? Besides, outside of the statements you find 'exaggerated' what isn't rational about the argument?

Perhaps if you said what those were, people could link you to discussions of them.

Brandon, Falconer NY
November 01, 2009 9:59am

The problem with the term 'organic' is mostly one of context. For example:

1) This apple is organic.

&

2) This appple was grown using organic agricultural practices.

These two sentences mean two completely different things.

Paul's 'political resistance' example is a good one. It specifies the context of the word 'resistence' outside any scientific origins.

The word 'organic' has been around for centuries and has only relatively recently been used to describe farming methodologies.

The statement in sentence 1 is a direct statement of fact. The apple is organic. It is a carbon based substance. If used outside that context, it needs to be clarified.

The main context of the discussion regarding organic foods is one of regulations and standards. It is generally a scientific discussion and the meaning of the term 'organic' should be treated as such unless specified otherwise.

Joe, NYC
November 03, 2009 1:13pm

Thank you Brian,

I just presented a class project of Organic and Conventional Agriculture in my Environmental Science course. My fear of the dread-locked white kids beating bongo drums was quelled as we discussed the underlying issues of each. The 2 skeptoid podcasts concerning organics helped immesurably as we deffined and explored each issue invovled with the debate.

Using skeptoid as a starting block to our own research, we were well prepared for the Q&A that followed. I even got a chance to throw in a quick blurb about skeptoid.com. So,from Group 9, in the EVS 206 class at Cleveland State University...THANK YOU!!!

Gregory Mosher, Sheffield Lake, Ohio
November 13, 2009 3:42am

I am surrounded by commercial farming fields. I wonder what you would think about our food supply if you had to shut all the windows in your home and flee the area several times a year while the crops are being sprayed with round up and other poisons. I wonder if you would appreciate Monsanto and their schemes to dominate every farmer you know. How about entire counties having to pipe their water in from somewhere else because of all the nitrates in the water. (And all of the older people who use to drink it dying of cancer. Coincidence, right?)

By the way, I don't buy organic produce, I grow my own. I would buy it and pay more gladly if I had to. Tastes better TO ME anyway. Maybe it's knowing people didn't have to leave their homes so it could be treated. I know, not scientific for YOU, but it's just daily observation for me.

kadie, NE
November 21, 2009 7:22am

All of these claims against organic agriculture I agree with, but you missed the biggest factor of them all. Organic farming fails to use no-till farming meathods. With the use of herbicides Conventional farming meathods allow farmers to no-till. No-till extreemly reduces soil runoff, it improves soil structure and yield, reduces compaction. Tilling the soil is far worse on the environment with soil runoff than any chemical runoff in conventional farming.

Bryan Miller, Elizabethtown, PA
November 28, 2009 5:34am

I very much enjoy reading these skeptoid episodes, thanks for writing them!

However, the production of synthetic fertilizer DOES produce waste as it requires large amounts of electricity to capture the atmospheric Nitrogen and convert it into a form that can be used by plants. This electricity often comes from power plants that do produce waste. Smoke from coal fired plants and etc.

Eric Ness, Montreal Quebec
December 02, 2009 4:39pm

Dude have you read the information contained in the links you provided.

Click on the rotenone link. Then click control F, then type organic in the find field and read what it says

Nancy, Florida
December 12, 2009 12:57pm

I think the overall picture we can paint is that neither of these methods are truly sustainable and safe per say. I think in the past 'organic farming' as a principal had more meaning, before government regulation. Government usually seeks to improve the profitability potential for large business.

One of the main offenders is crop spraying which will always produce huge waste and toxify large area's surrounding farms and including drinking water. The problem for me mostly arrives from the broad spectrum pesticides and fungicides. If a insecticide compound is amply sufficient a large group of insects, it is fair to assume that they are toxic to ourselves as well. The fact that you mention a pesticide that can last for 21 days vs. the organic alternative of 7 days, proves a point in a way. That is, the compound takes longer to breakdown, increasing the potential it has to adversely affect our health.

Deep down, the root of this remains the monetary system, which requires that profit is placed above everything else, including health of farmers and the public. Suicide rates are high in farmers, yes both organic and conventional farming(both are generally using very similar overall chemicals). These chemicals are suspected to be linked to compounds in pesticides that are linked to depression as a strong link was found in a peer reviewed paper.

Chadzuka, Aussie
December 14, 2009 5:20pm

Nancy: I read:

"Rotenone is classified by the USDA National Organic Program as a nonsynthetic and was allowed to be used to grow "organic" produce until 2005 when it was removed from the list of approved substances due to concerns about its safety."

OK, so it's toxic. That's what Dunning said. This was supposed to help your side how?

Safe-Keeper, Bergen, Norway
December 28, 2009 9:22pm

"Plastic and coal are organic, a diamond is not."

Diamonds ARE coal.

I would argue that food is more than its chemical matters and that industrial farming changed food for worse.

"All plant fertilizers, organic and synthetic, consist of the same three elements: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Referring to one as a "chemical fertilizer" and implying that the other is not, is the worst kind of duplicity, and no intelligent person should tolerate it."

It makes a huge difference if you are exposed to a chemical overdose, a pure substance, or a natural dose. Our natural ecosystem is not used to overdose and gets unbalanced.

Your approach is chemical-analytical, that is a fallacy in lights of complex matter.

Andre, Wilhelmshaven
December 29, 2009 8:05am

Hope you choke on gmo monoculture produce and factory farmed pork .Then swell up with intestinal parasites and repent. I bet your family is pigging out on organic at this very moment.

Thomas, West GA
January 16, 2010 6:52pm

I'm glad someone finally called out this lie for what it is.

@Andre, your comment about ntural doses and chemical doses is a fallacy; the same amount of nitrogen is put into the ground as 1 kg of synthetically produced spray or 200 kg of organically derived manure (for example), the farmer will apply the same quantity of nitrogen to the ground. Just because the manure contains lots of other stuff which isn't needed doesn't change how it affects you when the plant growing from it ends up in your soup.

Organic farming is unethical, the same amount of land and resources produces less food, which is used only to satisfy the rich and pompous

Chris, UK
January 19, 2010 6:55am

from what I have read, many conventional produce is roundup ready. The produce will be resistant to the chemicals but the insects of course will naturally die. This just sounds like a bad idea for human food consumption.

lyn, la
January 20, 2010 3:41pm

""Hope you choke on gmo monoculture produce and factory farmed pork .Then swell up with intestinal parasites and repent."2

What about factory farmed organic pork? Should one choke on that, too?

Safe-Keeper, Bergen, Norway
January 29, 2010 2:54pm

im doing my senior topic on this topic. i live on an apple farm where we grow organicly and conventionally and i find the conventional is alot better for all the reasons stated in this article

sam ricker, Turner ME
February 22, 2010 5:08am

While I think most of your comments hold merit, I'm concerned about your short-sigtedness and irresponsibility towards the environment. If you're going to write an article like this, do all the work. This is half-assed at best. How does eating local organically grown foods factor into this mess? What about using beneficial bugs and organisms to help control pests when organically farming? What about toxic runoff that damages the water table? What about the damage of inorganic pesticides on the soil versus organic pesticides? How do both effect the ecology? Sure science has done wonderful things for crop yield, but let's discuss what it hasn't yet done for future generations by ensuring we have that land to continually grow on. Science is awesome and I'm all for improvements, but do we ever stop to wonder, should we be using these advances? I think there is merit to both sides of the arguement and somewhere we can meet in the middle.

Cory Matthey, Walnut Creek, CA
February 22, 2010 12:41pm

Cory, most all of your objections apply equally to organic farming. This is especially true of water table damage from runoff.

I'd suggest you take your own advice and do all the work.

Nice little bit of throw away 'anti-science' bias at the end, along with the 'golden mean' fallacy.

Brandon, Falconer NY
February 22, 2010 5:16pm

Brandon,

You're misinformed. And, my apologies if I believe that two sides of one arguement can work together for the greater good of mankind, jackass.

While we're at it...which of my objections "apply equally"? The one objection I had to this article/podcast being halfway written/recorded? Because to me, it appears that I objected to the lack of information or rather the incompleteness of his one sided attack. If you're going to lay it on the table, then lay it all out there. Give ALL of the facts and let a discussion develop from there. This just leads one to believe he's biased and therefore, not ready to deal with all of the issues surrounding the topic.

Organic farms protect the environment by building soil organic matter and by mimicking natural systems rather than relying on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Research studies have demonstrated that compared to soils on conventional farms, organically farmed soils tend to have:
Less nitrogen leaching
Better nutrient holding ability
More efficient biological nutrient cycling
Less runoff and erosion

Cory Matthey, Walnut Creek, CA
February 22, 2010 5:40pm

It would appear that you're misinformed Cory, but I'm always ready to be proven wrong. What's your evidence? Organic and synthetic fertilizer carry the same chemical load. Leaching into water is still a major problem with both. You claiming it is not so doesn't make it not so. Yes, if you use more soil, then yes, there is less of a risk of leaching. That's true either way. It isn't an advantage for organic at all.

Pesticides are the same way. The only way organic ones are safer are the ones that are carry less of the needed chemicals and are thus less efficient.

You making the golden mean fallacy doesn't make me a jackass. Resorting to name calling tends to make one's argument appear weak, or at least based on emotion.

Of course the article is incomplete. All articles are. There happen to be two articles on this subject, perhaps you'd like to read the other one?

Brandon, Falconer NY
February 22, 2010 7:21pm

Organic foods cost more. There must be some reason behind those higher prices, and I can't taste any quality difference, so what's left? It must be socio-economic. It just makes sense.

Both of these episodes on organic farming were enlightening. Thanks!

Abby, Austin, TX
February 23, 2010 1:45am

Brandon,

Hope this helps. Cheers!

http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055%5B0573:EEAECO%5D2.0.CO;2

Cory Matthey, Walnut Creek, CA
February 23, 2010 11:41am

This is a very informative article. Thanks.

I'm a former organic farmer. I still practice many of the same methods--composting, mulching--but I no longer call them "organic" because of the excesses and the fibs of the organics movement.

Methods and substances--whether "conventional" or "organic"--should be judged on a case-by-case basis and not according to Manichean, absolutist ideologies like "organics."

Mike, Maine
February 25, 2010 4:05am

I agree with Mike on how methods should be judged.

Cory, you linked to an abstract of an article that I can't read because I'm not a member of 'Caliber'. However, even the introduction states that over use of fertilizer is a problem. OVER use. It also cites 'sound management practices' which can reduce pesticide input. Those practices turn out to be sound farming practices developed outside 'organic' standards and are not required for an organic label.

But look, I can link to articles too that one cannot read without membership.

www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/om-waterquality.pdf

But in neither article we've posted am I able to read the full, including the most basic needed information from the articles to decide their relevance to this conversation; their definition of the word 'organic'.

Brandon, Falconer NY
February 25, 2010 7:09am

Brandon,

Sorry you're not a member and can't read the information. Perhaps that's why you remain uneducated? It wasn't abstract either, there was data to support the article, but I guess until you can pony up, you'll just have to take my word for it.

Overuse of fertilizer IS a problem. I've never argued that. However, it is less of a problem where organic farming methods are used. In most cases. Depending upon soil type and crop. Even the article of metaanalysis that Brian references (albeit selectively) states there noticeable differences which are worth further exploration.

Look, we both know that the practices that organic farmers use are better for the environment and we both know that conventional farming could in fact, adopt these methods. The fact is, they don't. So, while you can sit back and say there is no advantage that organic farming has over conventional, I will continue to disagree until conventional farming changes their methods as a whole.

Cory Matthey, Walnut Creek, CA
February 25, 2010 10:52am

Cory, what fallacy is it to attack the arguer again?

Fertilizer overuse is THE problem, and it's independent of the organic label. Organic farmers are CORRELATED to better use, but is not CAUSED by the organic label, or the enforced practices there of.

It isn't necessary to prove that conventional agriculture doesn't have major problems to show that 'organic' is pretty useless. It's some good practices, a bunch of bad ones, and some ideological rules. To pick out the good parts and say, 'this is real organic' reeks of No True Scotsman, and Cherry picking.

'Organic farms leach less nitrogen' is NOT the same as, 'Organic farming practices are better for the environment and cause less leaching'. When you're 1% of the market, you're not going to have as many problems.

I'm not arguing their data, I'm arguing their conclusion. Thank you for ignoring my article. Very honest of you.

And that's a nice group to target, 'conventional farming as a whole'. Conventional farming is a HUGE cross section of different industries and practices. It's not hard to cherry pick the bad parts out. 'Conventional farming' is not inherently good. It has good and bad. Individual practices are what have merit. Ideological purity tests like if you keep your animals healthy with vaccines? Not so much.

Brandon, Falconer NY
February 25, 2010 11:38am

Brandon,

I submit. You've argued your points well. Agree there are problems with methodology in the farming community.

I'm still gonna eat my locally and organically grown veggies though. Cuz in my opinion, they do taste better.

Cory Matthey, Walnut Creek, CA
February 25, 2010 11:59am

You've done more than most any other proponent I've spoken with, and you do clearly care deeply about what is best for long term food production. This is one of those issues where it's easy to get frustrated and upset with the 'opposition'. At the most basic level, the vast majority of people on both sides of this (and in the middle of course) are motivated by altruistic intentions. Sure there are some 'corporate apologists' and some 'anti human' people out there. They may even be the loudest ones in the room. However, we're almost all on the same 'side'.

There isn't much wrong with liking organic farms or products. I don't personally want that standard used for a large percentage of farming for reasons already discussed. But many of the farms do employ many great practices that most other produces simply cannot afford to implement (or are simply too foolish to change to).

Good game Cory.

Brandon, Falconer NY
February 26, 2010 10:39pm

I just re-read the article because I wanted to quote from it and provide a link to it from another website.

I want to re-iterate how nicely written this article is.

I've been reading further about this, and my opinion overall has become much more doom-ish.

All farming is unsustainable. William Catton's book "Overshoot" is one of the most important books written about this. Farmers grow populations, whether they use "organic" or conventional methods.

I take exception to the paragraph beginning:

"To make synthetic fertilizer, we start with nitrogen, which we extract from the atmosphere. This process is infinitely sustainable and produces no waste."

"Infinite sustainability" is a contradiction. Hydrogen from natural gas is a key component in fertilizer production. NG, like oil, is finite and will peak.

The whole agricultural system is fatally dependent on diesel for farm implements and gasoline for transportation (so is organic farming). Oil production peaked in the US in 1970, and we are increasingly dependent on "foreign" oil, which is also peaking.

World production, in fact, peaked in 2005. The fallacy is that new "reserves" will save the day, but these reserves are either guesses, in hard-to-get places, or of inferior quality, meaning that the RATE of production simply cannot be infinitely ramped up.

I think we're in for a big surprise this year as the economy recovers and fuel prices begin to rise again as we hit the ceiling of oil production limits.

Mike, Maine
April 04, 2010 3:22am

@ Mike from Maine

One also has to take into account the countermeasures towards high prices. If there is a lack of a certain resource then we will exploit it more efficiently and ramp up production of alternative fuels to keep the economies going.

Capitalism can't plan ahead in the samme manner that planned economies can but it isn't devoid of mechanisms for handleing change.

Stefan, Denmark
April 11, 2010 4:45pm

Thank you for your level headed approach to your research. We need more people who can sit back and think about what they are hearing before they believe it. I hope that people keep coming to your site and start to learn to ask, "Why?" It is not easy for me to hear people bashing conventional agriculture when I know that on my farm, we take care to make sure that we are protectors of the soil and the source of food for the public. It is true that the most harmful trickery being played on the public today is the use of fear in advertising. Some people just do not care what their words are doing as long as they are the ones making the dollar.

Anthony, Universtiy Park PA
April 15, 2010 12:06pm

the less chemicals in your body, which are not supposed to be there, there are, the better. however you get there...it makes sense. easy.

pamela leeson, manchester
April 27, 2010 11:05am

I would say that organic food is unethical on the grounds that it's generally lower yield than non-organic foods. Considering how many individuals are starving in third world countries (and first for that matter), using agricultural methods that are less efficient and more costly to produce 'luxury' goods is not ethical by any standards.

dt, uk
May 10, 2010 6:32am

I am using this article in a social issue project. It is enlightening to be able to read a level-headed, non biased truth about commercial agriculture. My project aims directly at what is stated in this article, and it also coincides with Integrated Pest Management. Too many people don't understand how we got to where we are agriculturally, and assume that they alone are going to go against years of research and development. I commend you for taking a straight forward approach to this issue.

cm, Michiagn
May 13, 2010 1:08pm

"Despite claims in the organic community, there's never yet been a confirmed case of anyone becoming ill from consuming produce contaminated with residue from pesticides or herbicides, either organic or synthetic."

There's that "no victim" canard again. One victim is a tragedy, a million are a statistic.

Here's something new:
"A Link Between Pesticides and ADHD"
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1989564,00.html

"The team analyzed the levels of pesticide residues in the urine of more than 1,100 children aged 8-15 years old, and found that those with the highest levels of the breakdown products of organophosphate pesticides, also had the highest incidence of ADHD...
Youngsters are most likely to ingest the chemicals through their diet — by eating fruits and vegetables that have been sprayed while growing — according to the National Academy of Sciences."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100517/ap_on_he_me/us_med_children_pesticides
"A 2008 Emory University study found that in children who switched to organically grown fruits and vegetables, urine levels of pesticide compounds dropped to undetectable or close to undetectable levels.
Because of known dangers of pesticides in humans, the EPA limits how much residue can stay on food. But the new study shows it's possible even tiny, allowable amounts of pesticide may affect brain chemistry"

Max, Boston, MA
May 17, 2010 2:22am

That's an interesting study, but I find that the methodology to be insufficient to establish such a link. The testing was a one time only sampling of urine. The children's diets were NOT examined at all. Organic foods can't be credited for protection because of that. There was no control for that at all. Besides, correlation is not causation, and even that study doesn't show a strong correlation. We know that ADHD children process other chemicals differently (such as caffeine) so it's also reasonably plausible that the ADHD caused the higher levels of organophosphates in the urine and not the other way around.

It is a worthwhile and interesting line of research, IMHO, but hardly proof of the dangers of pesticides.

Brandon, Falconer
May 22, 2010 9:29am

Brandon,

Sure, maybe children with ADHD don't wash their fruits and vegetables thoroughly, or maybe pesticides increase the risk of developing ADHD, in which case the children with ADHD are the victims. Maybe organic pesticides increase the risk of ADHD too, I don't know. We have to make decisions with incomplete information.

Here's a report on the Emory study.
http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/2008/spring/lu.html
"During the five days on the organic diet, there were no signs of pesticides in the children’s urine...
The father of two boys, [the study leader] Lu says about 70 percent of his family’s diet is organic food. They base these choices on a study by the Environmental Working Group that tested conventional fruits and vegetables and ranked them based on their pesticide level."

Max, Boston, MA
May 24, 2010 8:51am

Wait a second max,

Your saying the leader of the study allowed his own son to take part, and that he is a proponent of organic food already? Um... if that is not evidence of poor research methods I don't know what is!
This should have been a double blind study with at least one control group. And there is no way in hell the children of the man conducting the study should have been involved whatsoever.

That report is useless for anything except as an example of bad research.

Cheers,
Colin

Colin, Okazaki, Japan
May 25, 2010 4:39am

Colin,

The leader of the study says his family eats organic food. That doesn't make them part of his study. It's no different than a vaccine researcher getting his family vaccinated.
The study would've been better if it were double-blind, bigger, more expensive, etc., but it's not useless.

Max, Boston, MA
May 25, 2010 8:12am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/29/food.agriculture

I'm not convinced pesticide poisoning is a real health risk, but organic methods do have other benefits. As the link above shows, herbicides can have effects well beyond those intended.

Cath, Norway
July 05, 2010 4:35am

This episode rocked my world. Organic food is one of my sacred cows. Ping:http://open.salon.com/blog/anthropologist_underground/2010/07/18/sacred_cow_organic_food

Anthropologist Underground, American West
July 19, 2010 6:24am

I was 'poisoned' by pesticides, or so I was told. Then I was supposed to use colon cleansing to get it out of my system. I had done so many colon cleanses this year that it was just too tiring; I was completely over it. I said to myself "Fine, I'll be poisoned, I don't even care anymore," and did not take the advice of my naturopath, who had used a form of Applied Kinesiology to diagnose my condition. Several weeks passed and I felt no different. The naturopath tested me for the poisoning again. I was cured. "Isn't that wonderful how these products work??" she gushed, "I bet you won't be eating too many commercial salads again." I smiled and agreed with her. On the way home I scarfed down a pesticide-ridden salad from Wendys.

Soulvei, Ocean Beach, CA
July 26, 2010 3:30pm

The documentary Food Inc made the claim that feeding five days worth of grass to cattle would reduce the level of e-coli in the cow by 80% and thus make the beef safer. Is this true or made up?

Patrick, Indianapolis
August 16, 2010 7:59am

I smell BS (pun intended) but would need to ask a veterinarian specializing in cows to be certain. E-coli is present in the digestive tract of most if not all mammals. Its contamination by fecal material that results in the illness.

Lets for the sake of the argument assume the claim is correct and that feed influences the number e-coli in a cow’s digestive tract. Would having a lower level really be safer?

My thought is that it would depend on how the animal was being processed something that a factory is perhaps better at than say your local butcher (conjecture.)

m167a1, Yakima WA
September 03, 2010 10:25am

This article is bunk. There is a new article in USA Today linking pesticide amounts in kids directly with incidence of ADHD. Kids who primarily eat organic food and don't live near conventional farms had lower amounts of pesticides, and lower amounts of ADHD. Think about how many kids in North America have ADHD. Think about how many people have cancer and heart disease and autism. Think about how many eat conventional food.

The truth is that the studies haven't been done to show how bad our food system is for our health.

Ezra, Kelowna
September 03, 2010 1:32pm

As someone with ADHD who has heard this claim before and researched it, the CORRELATION of pesticide and ADHD comes down to diagnoses of the condition, and not of actual occurrence of it. If you have a link to new research that proves otherwise, please provide it.

Think about how many people live past 60 in North America. Think about how many eat conventional food.

Ezra, correlation doesn't impress me in the least. If you have evidence of causation, by all means.

Brandon, Falconer
September 03, 2010 6:33pm

Do you ever get the feeling that Brian Dunning has never spent a single day on a farm? The ignorance of farming practices he shows is simply outstanding. I wonder where he gets the nerve to call himself a skeptic. I suppose anyone who doesn't know what he is talking about but displays a huge amount of ego and arrogance can qualify as a skeptic.

Dunning, go get an education, or at least have someone competent to do fact checking for you. You are a joke.

You can look at scientific studies showing how much pesticides are ingested by people who eat organic vs. conventional. Making comparisons like coal being an organic food is just childish. Who resorts to such absurd logical fallacies? No organic farmer makes the claim that no fertilizer or pesticides are used. Do you just dream ad hominems to battle?

The claim that pesticides are safe belies the fact that the EPA has banned numerous pesticides and lists their health effects. I suppose you did zero fact checking on this issue, I'm not surprised.

Get a clue on this subject.

Doug, Wichita, KS
September 04, 2010 3:00pm

I'd like to remind the organic worshippers that 100 years ago EVERYONE ate a so-called organic diet, yet their overall health was worse and they didn't live as long. In fact in the mid 14th century, 80 million European people on strict "organic" diets died of the Black Plague. So there's more to correlate to in life than just food. Couldn't be the vaccines that are improving longevity either. They're making us all autistic. Oh, and the clean drinking water with its fluoride - cancer. I'm actually amazed any of us live past 20!

Rick, Smiths Falls, ON
September 07, 2010 9:20pm