The Truth About Organic Foods

THE FORUM (Fargo, ND)
By Doyle Lentz
April 22, 2007

Excerpt…

Earth Day is today, and you can bet there’ll be claims that organic crops are somehow “better” for planet Earth than conventional or biotech crops. But it’s the biggest misperception in agriculture.  Organic farming isn’t pesticide free, as consumers are led to believe. A number of synthetic substances are allowed for use in organic crop production, including isopropanol, chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, boric acid, sulfur and streptomycin. Among the dozens of other nonorganic substances allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with organic” include various acids, animal enzymes, glucono delta-lactone (whatever that is), wood resin, cellulose, glyceride and kelp. E. coli is often linked to livestock manure, a primary source of fertilizer for organic crops, although it should be pointed out that manure is used in the production of conventionally produced crops as well, and that E. coli can originate from other sources besides manure. However, most producers of conventional and biotech crops use manufactured or synthetic fertilizer, and as Princeton molecular biologist Lee Silver puts it, “Synthetic fertilizer does not contain bacteria of any kind – period. So synthetic fertilizer cannot cause food poisoning – no need to worry if it’s been processed properly.” 

Organic farmers generally rely on conventional tillage for weed control, a practice universally understood to increase soil and water erosion and the loss of organic matter, which is the key to soil productivity. Because organic crops do not yield as well as conventional or biotech crops, organic production requires more land. Alex Avery, in his must-read book “The Truth About Organic Foods” writes that “organic farming, on a large scale, poses the single greatest threat to natural ecosystems and biodiversity in human history.” Why? Because “organic only” would force us to clear-cut, graze, plow, and farm larger areas of the earth’s remaining wildlife habitat due to lower yields. Avery points out in his book that biotechnology has the power to improve just about every aspect of farming, and has already done so in many ways. Then why is there such intense organic opposition to, and misrepresentation about, biotech crops? Avery speculates that it’s competition. “Biotechnology offers a more cost effective way to achieve the lower pesticide use and more eco-friendly farming systems claimed by organic farmers and desired by consumers,” he writes. “In short, biotechnology represents a direct threat to organic agriculture’s current monopoly on eco-conscious consumers and the illusions of super safety….” Read the full article at The Forum. 

Lentz, who farms near Rolla, N.D., serves on the board of Growers for Biotechnology, whose purpose is to promote and facilitate the research, development and acceptance of biotechnology in agriculture.  

Below is a great letter that was sent to my publisher from a die-hard organic believer who really liked the book and wants 4 copies for her other die-hard organic-minded friends.
Best, Alex

Dear Mr. Avery,

At the urging of my brother, who heard you speak at a tree man’s convention last year, I read your newly-published book, “The Truth About Organic Foods.”

My brother and I have had an unspoken disagreement about natural and organic foods since he became an adult and assumed the tree business which my father began in 1945. He works with sprays and chemicals and I, nine years his senior and married when he was just a boy, have always attempted to raise our ten children on wholesome, natural and organic foods. Our vegetable gardens have been all organically grown and, yes, I’ve covered the children’s sand box on the few occasions that we’ve decided we needed to spray our property for mosquitoes or an ant infestation. For 32 years of marriage, we’ve been “natural and organic”! (“Health food nuts” they used to call us in the beginning).

I told him I’d read the book with an open mind, as I have no “agenda” save the truth! However, I must admit that I went at it with a jaundiced eye, expecting to find stories of how the farms which call themselves “organic” are not really organic and that they’re being run by big money, etc. (which is true). What I didn’t expect, though, was the thorough study that you presented! I am really impressed by your work! I am not entirely convinced, however, because we’ve been organic farmers ourselves; back in 1978 we ran one of the only organic potato farms in the Northeast and our fields were absolutely gorgeous – the loam (we grew in muck fields, if you are familiar with them) was dark, dark brown, light and fluffy when dry and grew the largest, most delicious and succulent vegetables you have ever seen. When we first moved to the farm we couldn’t believe the size of the vegetables (the vegetable gardens were planted in the muck fields too, because of the resulting fabulous bounty). The potato crop was always great; the potatoes were delicious and insect resistant. The difference between the vegetables grown in those organic muck fields as compared to anything we’d ever seen anywhere, was truly phenomenal. Our neighbor’s fields, on the other hand, also muck, were light brown and horrible-looking. They always had problems with their crops. They used chemical fertilizer, and our farm hadn’t had any for more than 10 years. The difference was quite noticeable.

So, while I see that your studies show one thing, my experience at our own farm was the opposite, so I’m wondering where the discrepancy can be. I would like to know your thoughts on this. I would also like to obtain about 4 of your books if they are of a reasonable price, because I have told some of my hard-line, organic-minded friends about it and asked them if they would be open to reading it, and the response was “yes”! Would you please be so kind as to send me four books…?

Sincerely,

XXX

The Californian
By Jake Henshaw
The Salinas Californian Capitol Bureau

Grower Identified, California health officials say

Excerpt…

SACRAMENTO - Fresh spinach in the nationwide E. coli outbreak this past fall became contaminated on a roughly 50-acre plot in San Benito County, state health officials said at a legislative hearing Tuesday.

Officials said the field was in the second year of a three-year transition from a conventional to organic operation.

Until now, officials have said the tainting occurred in either San Benito or Monterey counties but haven’t specified which.

Tuesday’s revelation came during questioning at a joint hearing of the Assembly and Senate agriculture committees chaired by state Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, and Assemblywoman Nicole Parra, D-Hanford. The hearing was intended to examine the E. coli outbreak on the Central Coast and one linked to Central Valley lettuce, as well as state and industry responses to the scares. Department of Health Services doctors said they’ve identified the grower who was farming that plot but will only divulge that information when the full report on the outbreak that killed four people and sickened about 200 is released.

Also Tuesday, Seattle-based attorney Bill Marler, who represents 90 plaintiffs in the Central Coast outbreak, said he’s added Salinas grower Mission Organics to a list of defendants his clients are suing. Marler is pushing forward eight lawsuits in six states - Ohio, New York, Maryland, Utah, Wisconsin and Oregon.

Two other defendants, Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc. and Natural Selection Foods in San Juan Bautista, reported finding the deadly E. Coli O157:H7 strain in pigs and cattle feces on or around a plot farmed by Mission Organics and leased from Paicinas Ranch in San Benito County, Marler said.

“Genetics in this type of outbreak tend not to lie,” Marler said. “They found it hanging around the Mission Organics farmland….It’s pretty strong evidence from Dole and Natural Selection’s perspective.” (Read on …)

Reader’s Digest
Michael Downey
February 26, 2007

Excerpt…

Like a growing number of Canadians, Jennifer Kavur shops regularly for organic groceries. She buys organic tomatoes, lettuce, apples and many other items. And the 31-year-old Toronto editor pays dearly for them: For example, last fall she paid $2.99 for a head of cauliflower in the organic section of her local grocery store, while, a few metres away, the conventionally grown version was priced at just 99 cents a head. Her reasoning for spending more? “It’s better for you, healthier. You don’t get all those pesticides.”

Organic food is still a niche market, representing just over two percent of all food sold, and, according to Consumer Reports, costs consumers on average about 50 percent more than conventionally grown foods. But organic food is more visible today than ever before, with most large supermarket chains in Canada now offering dedicated organic sections. A reason for its growing popularity? People think it’s better for them. A 2005 survey by the large American chain Whole

Foods Market showed 53 percent of organic-food consumers think it is healthier, in part because they believe it’s pesticide-free. Most Canadians who buy organic, according to a 2005 survey by ACNielsen, say they do so because it’s healthier than conventionally grown food.

But are they right? (Read on …)

Telegraph
Harry Wallop, Business Correspondent

The middle class’s love affair with organic milk might be starting to sour, according to the latest industry data. After years of paying a premium for supposedly healthier milk, shoppers are no longer buying organic milk in ever increasing numbers. According to market research company TNS, which closely monitors the market, sales of organic milk grew from 73.8 million litres in 2004 to 158 million last year. Though that represents rapid growth, it has slowed down considerably in recent months. Growth in the last 12 weeks has faltered to zero. Organic represents only six per cent of all milk bought. Despite being championed by a host of celebrities such as Anthony Worrall Thompson, this percentage shows little sign of rising substantially. (Read on …)