Peter Melchett writes in The Guardian (on-line) that the scientific evidence for organic food's healthier claims is clear and persuasive. (Melchett is "policy director of the Soil Association, a UK organic food and farming organisation.") But will that sway governments to encourage organic over their preferred GMO or pesticide-based ag systems? Probably not.
It's a commentary on the relationship between macro-political influence and agricultural habits. More closely it's a commentary on food and politics, and science and politics, and science and food.
But to say it's just "politics" -- and in so doing to treat politics at its most macroscopic level, the level of state agency and organization -- is to slight the economic structures that are intergrated within political systems. It also slights the ubiquitous micro-political level of everyday action, of alternative practices being promoted by those who choose to work outside the dominant, centralized food system. It isn't easy to live and work outside the domnant system, but it is possible, as Melchett's group is trying to show.
Melchett's got a straightforward point to make, and I think it's a valid one: "our politicians are still too wedded to the food industry to admit" the scientifically observable superiority of organic food for our health. As we consider that issue, we might also push the conversation on what leads our politicians to remain wedded to Big Food.
- Log in to post comments
What about why people tend to choose "big food" over organic alternatives? Cost is a big issue, especially with food.
Maria has a point. Except that Big Food isn't really cheap. It's cushioned by subsidies, and the costs of cleaning up the mess it makes get passed on elsewhere (or are simply stored up for the future). Governments could do something about that, but they're terrified of the political consequences of making the price of all the food on supermarket shelves reflect its real costs. Consumers are voters. (And the food industry won't fail to tell consumer-voters exactly whose fault it is that the price of your cheap food just went up by X per cent.) And so they do nothing and never will do anything.
This is also interesting in the sense that "scientifically observable superiority" has (in the past) always been hard to pin down. So much so, that I'm kinda curious as to what methodology was done differently in these cases whereby these conclusions were reached.
Next week, I'll take a look at the literature referred to in this report and see if I can come up with a post. That might provide another perspective (i.e. how good are these scientific papers) to this interesting story.
Organic food is better for you? Are you sure? That's news to me, and it contradicts the conventional wisdom and everything I've read by experts in recent years, who all seem the feel that organic food is a marketing ploy to get people to pay higher prices. I need more evidence if I am going to drop my skepticism about organic food.
In other news, representative of $INDUSTRY claims that $INDUSTRYPRODUCT is good.
Some of the studies comparing organic and conventional foods have been spectacularly bad, with multiple variables changing at the same time. If major minerals are increased, or dry matter is increased, the organic foods in those studies probably contained less water.
"Big Food isn't really cheap. It's cushioned by subsidies, and the costs of cleaning up the mess it makes get passed on elsewhere..."
As I recall, those costs are known in the biz as "externalities". Not paying attention to those external, "off-book" costs, is part of making strategic ignorance work.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention!
David,
When looking at the literature, if you have the time could you check on an effect that I was taught about in grad school but cannot remember its name.
Essentially the idea is that organic does better in this day and age as a result of its proximity to traditional farming. What I seem to remember being taught was that traditional farming does a pretty good job of eliminating (or minimizing) pests and disease in large portions of the countryside, thus reducing the number/variety of these challenges to organic producers. As long as organic farms remain in the minority, the surrounding traditional farms using pesticides etc.. will continue to serve as buffers to prevent large outbreaks of pests etc..
Just wondering?