Certainly, there remain questions regarding local and organic food. Still, in response to Alex Holgate’s Oct. 11 article in The Sextant, I defend my argument that organic certification (like the Canada Organic logo) strives toward sustainable agriculture. Choosing to consume certified organic foods reaches far beyond the debate about nutritional value and food transportation. Choosing organic is a movement towards global food security.
Current widespread farming practices are detrimental for a number of reasons. First, decades of intensive monocropping has been linked to the degradation of fertile land, depletion of groundwater, erosion of biodiversity and pollution of air, soil and water. In addition, the chemicals current farming typically relies on are becoming ineffectual as pests are increasingly evolving ahead of pesticides. It’s undeniable that pesticides, among other industrial agricultural methods, deplete soil fertility. With increasing changes in the climate, in part due to the use of pesticides and industrial farming (such as intensive cattle farming where enteric fermentation significantly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, even as much as 18 per cent more than transport emissions), we need to pay attention to principles, not just for the environment, but for ourselves. In India, communities are reporting human health problems and deaths they believe have come from the use of pesticide sprays.
Organic farming fosters healthy ecological systems that grow healthy plants. It increases water retention capacity and efficiency by improving soil structure and increasing soil life, by cultivating climatically adapted varieties, and by growing polycultures of deeprooting and ground-covering crops. Studies of organic farming have also reported yields that are comparable to high yields from conventional farming, and have even lasted longer. There is no substantial evidence that organically grown foods have a higher nutritional value than conventional ones. However, eating certified organic ensures that food doesn’t contain pesticide residues, metals, or any other pollutants used in conventional farming. For example, a 2005 study has shown metals in the soil of tomatoes grown using sewage sludge, and immobilization strategies for heavy metals in organic materials will have to be investigated in long-term studies. Clearly, we cannot rely on current methods to grow healthy, natural food as there are no long-term studies to show the negative impacts of the chemicals employed.
I question the aim of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and of ‘golden’ rice in particular. GMOs and biotechnology play a huge role in conventional agriculture. Yes, ‘golden’ rice does target Vitamin A deficiency, but it is not the key to eradicating world hunger. Consider an Indian farmer’s perspective in response to the ‘golden’ rice proposed in 2001: “My farmers have been committing suicide after using the biotech products, for the last few years our farmers often complain of friendly insects and predators disappearing after they started using the biotech products.”
The local organic movement doesn’t entirely solve world hunger. However, the movement does look after the well-being of farmers by eliminating their exposure to chemicals. Through this movement, farmers are offered alternatives to companies like Monsanto who create GMO seed monopolies and seed patents that put farmers in debt. In capitalist countries, organic farming also puts more money in the farmers’ pockets when consumers buy from them directly (through farmer’s markets and community-shared agriculture) as opposed to the hands of corporate giants in the agricultural industry. Despite concerns about the global economy, organic farming can work to create a sustainable system, especially through local networks. In India, organic farming has actually been looked to as a means of creating more employment to strengthen their economy.
Perhaps I miscommunicated my argument in my previous article, but I do believe in journalistic integrity. I think my area of study is irrelevant in this matter; anyone has a right to comment on these issues. I still believe that the local and organic food movement is the most sensible reform that works toward sustainability, especially within a capitalist framework. Most of all, I believe in the integrity of those who challenge corporate monopolies, particularly in response to corporations who destroy our heritage of healthy soil and exploit farmers, workers, animals and the environment.
Recent Comments