Poll

What Is your favorite type of Whisky/Whiskey?

View Results

Whiskey Book

First Draft - Research
100% complete

Second Draft
102% complete

Third Draft
99% complete

We Get Letters - v. 14: Organic vs. Local

11/18/05 @ 09:00:00 am, by Kate Hopkins Email 1040 views • Categories: We Get Letters

James weighs in with a thought provoking question:

Hello Kate,

I regularly read your site and have always found your thoughts very insightful. Anyways, I'm a college student and I'm currently taking a public speaking class. For the class, we pick a theme and then deliver an informative speech, a persuasive speach, and then an action speach on
that theme. Well I picked GMO food. I am currently researching for the action speech. I just talked with the manager of my school's main cafeteria, Goudy. I found out that about 60% of the food is from local sources, which is about the same price as other food, while only about 10% of the food is organic, which is more expensive. They usually label all the food as local, organic, vegeterian, vegan, etc. with stickers (Bon Appetite is my school's catering service). I was planning on the theme of the speach being that you should eat more local organic food to
avoid gmo's and then tell the audience about the options at goudy. Well, what I was wondering do you think it's worth it to just focus on local food, given the limited and more expensive options for organic? Is organic not that important compared to local? Is it more important to
set an action that would be easier to follow (especially considering that these are college students I'm talking to) by exluding organic and just focusing on local? Or would organic be as important part of the equation as local? Thanks a lot.

Sincerely,
Jamie

Jamie, this is a great question, and I appreciate you asking it. Please note that what I'm about to say is my opinion, and so not to take it as gospel. When it comes to food philosophies, many people have differing opinions and agendas, and it's difficult to claim that one is more valid than another.

When it comes to the organic vs. Local debate, I fall more onto the local side of the equation. But to explain this position, I have to take a step back and move beyond what we here in America deal with in regard to our food choices.

We're lucky to be living in America. I don't say that as a flag-waving Toby-Keith-Listening type of patriot, but as a matter of practical fact. We can, for the most part, feed ourselves. In fact, our local food delivery infrastructure is so efficient and so plentiful that it allows us to ask questions about food that other countries cannot afford to.

Such as "How do Organic Foods fit into the equation?" When you have a country that can only deliver 1500 calories, on average, to your citizens, you're not overly concerned about which chemicals are used, nor how animals are treated, nor which foods are genetically modified. These are the problems faced every day in several countries in Africa, as well as most assuredly North Korea. Granted, I'm simplifying the geo-political landscape here, but the point is still valid.

So from a global aspect, local far outweighs organic. If you can't grow food at home, it has to be imported (at additional cost) or given freely (often in times of famine). Not being able to produce food locally carries with it tremendous problems. Encouraging folks to grow locally helps alleviate those problems.

Let's focus on America now, where we do have the luxury of asking more of our food - Which is more important: Organic versus Local? My answer? It depends.

Some foods have been so destroyed by corporate farming that organics are really the only option when it comes to taste. Apples come directly to mind, as well as tomatoes.

However, when it comes to meats, such as beef or poultry, I choose local farms as I want to ensure that I know where my food has come from, for reasons far too scary and too numerous to bring up in this post. That a great majority of these farms can be considered "organic" os not coincidental, as most farms who are transparent enough to advertise where they originate also are usually transparent enough to let you know how they treat their animals.

I could go down, item by item, on how I make my food choices in a store, but that'd be boring. What it comes down to are the following questions:

  • Which product has the superior tastes?
  • What process was used in order to develop this product? Does a company use lesser or untested ingredients? How does a company treat their animals?
  • Is the company local or not?

I ask these questions in differing order depending upon my basic knowledge of product. Eggs and Milk? I ask about processes. Broccoli or meats? I ask about proximity. Apples and Oranges? Organic or not.

I realize an answer of "It depends" doesn't lend itself to a great paper or speech, but there is a larger meta-aspect to this. I can ask these questions because of where we live and how much money I make. In many places of the world, people don't have this luxury.

Good luck in your class.

Technorati Tags: , ,


Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Ann [Visitor]
There is a great column about just this dilemma in the online (free) Grist magazine. It might be an old Ask Umbra column, I don't recall for sure. Anyhow, that's a great source of information on this debate, from an environmental perspective. I believe they come down on the side of local, too.

I worry about the local farmers who can't yet afford the multi-year process of being certified organic. It's expensive! Some people just aren't going to be able to swing it when they're living hand to mouth. I'd rather keep someone in business in my community, and just encourage/praise sustainable practices.
PermalinkPermalink 11/18/05 @ 12:28
Comment from: Barbara Fisher [Visitor] · http://www.tigerberries.blogspot.com
As a farmer's and butcher's granddaughter I fall on the side of local vs. organic. Local organic is the best of all--but price often prohibits that choice.

Why do I fall on the side of local first, and then organic?

Well, because I like supporting the local economy and local farmers, locally produced foods are fresher and taste better, and if you know your farmer, you can ask them questions about their food that you cannot ask at the grocery store.

So, in a very general sense, I try to go for local first, organic or free-range or naturally produced second, with other stuff coming in down the line.
PermalinkPermalink 11/18/05 @ 12:31
Comment from: Monkey Gland [Visitor] · http://www.jamfaced.com
This is a tricky one because I think we have to consider what is ethical, as there seems to be something essentially ethical implied by the terms organic or local but as we know this is not the case at all.
PermalinkPermalink 11/18/05 @ 16:31
Comment from: Tina [Visitor] · http://tinas-shark-tank.blogspot.com
Another point with local versus organic, non-local organic food has to be shipped using fossil fuels, sometimes hundreds if not thousands of miles. In those cases, the environmental damage done by the fossil fuels tends to outweigh the benefits of the organic farming. I live in Michigan, and much of the organic food we get, especially from the big brands like Earthbound Farm, is shipped from California, using tons of fossil fuels. For those products, local is much more environmentally friendly.

As far as apples, I've been getting local non-organic apples from the local farmer's market. Taste-wise they are still excellent, better than the conventional apples shipped in from Washington that sell in the local grocery stores.
PermalinkPermalink 11/18/05 @ 16:40
Comment from: d [Visitor] · http://gmopundit.blogspot.com
Organic farming uses 30% to 80% more land than conventional farming so too much switching to organics is bad for the environment. It also relies on excess manure created from conventional farming and synthetic fertiliser, so is dependent on them.
PermalinkPermalink 11/18/05 @ 23:11
Comment from: Barbara Fisher [Visitor] · http://www.tigerberries.blogspot.com
Where did you hear about organic farming using more land? I am curious, because some of the organic techniques that I am familiar with, such as biodynamic farming, use far less land than conventional mechanized agriculture.

What is your source of information?

And--as for manure--it is being produced anyway--so why not use it, rather than let it sit around and pollute the environment?
PermalinkPermalink 11/19/05 @ 09:34
Comment from: Laura M [Visitor]
In the debate over local vs. organic, I also lean towards local (and traceable). Since I can actually meet and talk to the growers, I am able to assure myself of the growing techniques, which often are the same as organic growers, without the certification. As several others have mentioned, certification is a lengthy and costly process, that many small farmers find to be beyond their means. At the same time, the federal government continues to weaken organic standards, making it easier for large agribusiness to get into the market. Look at the "organic" products on your supermarket shelf - many of them are divisions of Heinz, Con-Agra, General Mills, etc.
PermalinkPermalink 11/22/05 @ 17:29
Comment from: d [Visitor] · http://gmopundit.blogspot.com
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/organic-farming-uses-more-land-and.html
A start on extra land used by organic farming.

a google on Anthony Trewavas plus organic would help too.
gmopundit.blogsot.com
PermalinkPermalink 11/25/05 @ 16:19
Comment from: Jack [Member] Email · http://www.ForkandBottle.com
"Organic farming uses 30% to 80% more land than conventional farming so too much switching to organics is bad for the environment." - GMOPunditt

I think the more important issue at hand is that the quality of the organic product is far greater (nutritive value etc.) than the product of the conventional farm. As I understand it (mostly from what Carlo Petrini said when he was recently in SF) the world produces far more food than is needed to feed the hungry - the food is just poorly (terribly) distributed and ultimately wasted. Increasing the yield by turning back to conventional farming undermines the movement to raise maintain and protect a quality of life.

I don't believe that Biodiversity can be simply defined as the yield of different products/hectare. It's a much bigger issue than can be addressed solely by a divisible number. All these things are parts of a system they can't be separated and analyzed individually. One element of organic farming might cause more nitrogen run-off than conventional farming - but that ultimately should be balanced out by some other aspect of the farming cycle.

... and as for that "conventional manure" I doubt much of that is being used in organic farming - at least in CA. Perhaps I'm poorly informed? I would think if an organic farming system somewhere in the world is relying on conventionally produced manure it should be a quickly addressed problem.

I really do believe that for the biodynamic/organic/sustainable system to work it has to be balanced. Relying on sources that have roots in the world of synthetic fertilizer and conventional manure laced with who-knows-what seems to be an imbalance that is in no way sustainable.

The meaning of the word "Organic" is certainly evolving if not only for the intent interest of corporate America.

You can't just trust in the label – you need to know who made it.
PermalinkPermalink 11/25/05 @ 22:52
Comment from: farmgirl [Visitor] · http://farmgirlfare.com
Manure Buyers Beware!
Regarding Jack's comment that "if an organic farming system somewhere in the world is relying on conventionally produced manure it should be a quickly addressed problem," I have to wholeheartedly agree. He also mentions "conventional manure laced with who-knows-what." Would you believe ARSENIC?

My natural/organic farm fertilizer dealer and an organic grower customer of his were recently negotiating with a local, conventional chicken producer to buy their "organic" manure. They were assured by the seller that it had tested "clean." They decided to take a sample of the chicken manure to an independent lab themselves. Surprise! The manure contained over 100 TIMES the government "allowed" amount of ARSENIC. And that was just in the manure. Imagine how much arsenic is still in the chicken that is being sold for human consumption. Large scale, commercially raised chickens are often fed huge amounts of arsenic merely to help keep their sickly selves alive during their short lifespans. Scary but sadly very true.

I would never, ever use commercial manure on my farm or in my garden.
PermalinkPermalink 12/03/05 @ 10:10
Comment from: carole [Visitor]
I like this site!
PermalinkPermalink 05/12/06 @ 03:05

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
What color is a red balloon?

AH Food Journals