"Ethical" Food Bad for the Planet

[Busboy]

Eat local, eat fair, eat organic -- save the planet. Right?

Not that easy, according to The Economist. Doing all those things may make your affluent Northern Hemisphere self feel all warm and fuzzy -- and will almost certainly put a better dinner on the table. But, according to this article , so-called "ethical eating" can have huge negative consequences for the earth and those who till it.

Take organic food. Good stuff. No chemical runoff or accumulation of nasties in our livers, spleens and other useful body parts. Unfortunately, yields for organic growing are vastly lower than for high-tech farming. How many acres of rainforest do we want to chop down to make up the extra acreage we'd need if the world went organic?

Fairtrade coffee? Encourages overproduction, which drives prices down further for non-fairtrade farmers, discourages diversification in the face of overproduction. Also, since fairtrade revenues go only to small peasant farmers, the vast majority of agricultural workers -- who work on larger operations -- get nothing, and are indeed hurt by lower commodity prices. Oh yeah -- now that Nestles is in on that game we can also suggest that fairtrade products are little more than a device to identify price-insensitive consumer, and that the vast majority of the premium we pay goes into corporate coffers and not peasants' pockets.

And "food miles" is at best a mixed bag, not only because it is more inefficient for you to drive a car to a (relatively) far off farmers market than for distributors to efficiently transport food to your local grocery store. It's also because sometimes it's simply more energy efficient to produce a commodity offshore -- New Zealand lamb, for example, or Mexican tomatoes ratrher than local hothouse varieties (save energy: boycott both) -- than to grow the stuff here at home. And, of course, if you're buying local, you can't be buying those fairtrade fruits from poor farmers in developing nations.

Sadly, it is arguable that buying local, organic berries isn't really changing the world. If we want to do that, we'll have to make tough electoral decisions about farm subsidies, energy taxes and so on.

Or so The Economist Says.

[menon1971]

How do the corporate farm workers get nothing? They just shut down harvests? They pay them less, as if that is possible? I think some data would be helpful here, because this smacks of Cato Institute-esque ideology.

There is a larger question here: what are the physical and social consequences for modifying the way the world grows, distributes, and consumes its foodstuffs and the consequences for not modifying the former.

Who is "we," by the way?

Edited December 13, 2006 by menon1971 (log)

[Busboy]

I just fixed the link, which was off for a few moments, if you didn't get a chance to read the full article. link here, as well.

Corporate farmworkers -- who outnumber the small growers in the fairtrade program -- derive no benefit from the fairtrade premium customers pay. It's an inefficient way to attack third-world poverty.

"Another objection to Fairtrade is that certification is predicated on political assumptions about the best way to organise labour. In particular, for some commodities (including coffee) certification is available only to co-operatives of small producers, who are deemed to be most likely to give workers a fair deal when deciding how to spend the Fairtrade premium. Coffee plantations or large family firms cannot be certified. Mr Bretman says the rules vary from commodity to commodity, but are intended to ensure that the Fairtrade system helps those most in need. Yet limiting certification to co-ops means “missing out on helping the vast majority of farm workers, who work on plantations,” says Mr Wille of the Rainforest Alliance, which certifies producers of all kinds."

Regarding the "larger question here: what are the physical and social consequences for modifying the way the world grows, distributes, and consumes its foodstuffs and the consequences for not modifying the former" the article is thought provoking precisely because it does just that, from an approach rarely taken. It tweaks the "save the world by shopping" mentality that marks everything from the U.S. response to 9/11 to oil dependency.

"We," I guess, is those of us looking at that larger question you mentioned.

[menon1971]

I just fixed the link, which was off for a few moments, if you didn't get a chance to read the full article. link here, as well.

Corporate farmworkers -- who outnumber the small growers in the fairtrade program -- derive no benefit from the fairtrade premium customers pay.  It's an inefficient way to attack third-world poverty. 

"Another objection to Fairtrade is that certification is predicated on political assumptions about the best way to organise labour. In particular, for some commodities (including coffee) certification is available only to co-operatives of small producers, who are deemed to be most likely to give workers a fair deal when deciding how to spend the Fairtrade premium. Coffee plantations or large family firms cannot be certified. Mr Bretman says the rules vary from commodity to commodity, but are intended to ensure that the Fairtrade system helps those most in need. Yet limiting certification to co-ops means “missing out on helping the vast majority of farm workers, who work on plantations,” says Mr Wille of the Rainforest Alliance, which certifies producers of all kinds."

Regarding the "larger question here: what are the physical and social consequences for modifying the way the world grows, distributes, and consumes its foodstuffs and the consequences for not modifying the former" the article is thought provoking precisely because it does just that, from an approach rarely taken.  It tweaks the "save the world by shopping" mentality that marks everything from the U.S. response to 9/11 to oil dependency.

"We," I guess, is those of us looking at that larger question you mentioned.

←

I'll read the article (after I grade this stack of term papers), but I am still unclear how purchasing from plantations helps impoverished farm laborers; this is kind of like suggesting that buying products from sweatshops is beneficial to those workers.

[JohnL]

How do the corporate farm workers get nothing? They just shut down harvests? They pay them less, as if that is possible? I think some data would be helpful here, because this smacks of Cato Institute-esque ideology.

There is a larger question here: what are the physical and social consequences for modifying the way the world grows, distributes, and consumes its foodstuffs and the consequences for not modifying the former.

Who is "we," by the way?

←

Why is it that when we disagree with something we often dismiss the offending ideas as part of one ideology or another?

This ignores the fact that the ideas we embrace are ideological.

It all depends upon which side you are on!

[Stigand]

I'll read the article (after I grade this stack of term papers), but I am still unclear how purchasing from plantations helps impoverished farm laborers; this is kind of like suggesting that buying products from sweatshops is beneficial to those workers.

←

The argument is:

1. Most production of goods like coffee takes place in large plantations; this is unlikely to change

2. Most workers who grow and harvest coffee are employed by these plantations

3. Fairtrade schemes are not open to large plantations - only to small cooperatives

4. Therefore paying higher prices for Fairtrade coffee will bring no benefits to the majority of coffee plantation workers

If coffee plantation workers could simply leave jobs on plantations and go to work for higher-paying, Fairtrade-endorsed cooperatives, then wages might rise on large plantations too. But I suspect the coffee plantation labour market doesn't work that way.

[Fat Guy]

Take organic food.  Good stuff.  No chemical runoff or accumulation of nasties in our livers, spleens and other useful body parts.  Unfortunately, yields for organic growing are vastly lower than for high-tech farming.  How many acres of rainforest do we want to chop down to make up the extra acreage we'd need if the world went organic?

←

Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Prize winner and father of the "green revolution," has been making this point for years. As he explains over and over again in interviews, industrial farming methods have allowed crop yields to triple in the past 50 years without a significant increase in the amount of land under cultivation (about 10%); whereas, if we went back to pre-green-revolution (or organic) farming methods we've need to farm three times as much land to get the same amount of food.

[JohnL]

Eat local, eat fair, eat organic -- save the planet.  Right?

Not that easy, according to The Economist.  Doing all those things may make your affluent Northern Hemisphere self feel all warm and fuzzy -- and will almost certainly put a better dinner on the table.  But, according to this article , so-called "ethical eating" can have huge negative consequences for the earth and those who till it.

Take organic food.  Good stuff.  No chemical runoff or accumulation of nasties in our livers, spleens and other useful body parts.  Unfortunately, yields for organic growing are vastly lower than for high-tech farming.  How many acres of rainforest do we want to chop down to make up the extra acreage we'd need if the world went organic?

Fairtrade coffee?  Encourages overproduction, which drives prices down further for non-fairtrade farmers, discourages diversification in the face of overproduction.  Also, since fairtrade revenues go only to small peasant farmers, the vast majority of agricultural workers -- who work on larger operations -- get nothing, and are indeed hurt by lower commodity prices.  Oh yeah -- now that Nestles is in on that game we can also suggest that fairtrade products are little more than a device to identify price-insensitive consumer, and that the vast majority of the premium we pay goes into corporate coffers and not peasants' pockets.

And "food miles" is at best a mixed bag, not only because it is more inefficient for you to drive a car to a (relatively) far off farmers market than for distributors to efficiently transport  food to your local grocery store.  It's also because sometimes it's simply more energy efficient to produce a commodity offshore -- New Zealand lamb, for example, or Mexican tomatoes ratrher than local hothouse varieties (save energy: boycott both) -- than to grow the stuff here at home.  And, of course, if you're buying local, you can't be buying those fairtrade fruits from poor farmers in developing nations.

Sadly, it is arguable that buying local, organic berries isn't really changing the world.  If we want to do that, we'll have to make tough electoral decisions about farm subsidies, energy taxes and so on.

Or so The Economist Says.

←

Thanks for the link and the post!

I thought this was a brilliant piece. We have seen a rise in awareness of ecology, health, food and its impact on our health and well being etc. This is good. However, the awareness is often achieved at a price. It is often achieved via scare tactics. Eat this or that and get sick and/or die.

The end of the world is at hand if we don't do this or that. It is often achieved by demonization of one entity or another. So and so corporation is out to kill us for profits.

People read a book or see a movie and accept ideas and "facts" as presented. We feel good because we are "aware"and "enlightened" we wear ribbons and act "righteously."

So the corporations are evil capitalists and the people who "expose" their evil ways making millions from their books and films are what?--righteous capitalists?

What we all too often do not do is think, seek out opposing views, listen to the other side and most of all apply healthy skepticism and common sense. We certainly do not consider the consequences of our actions.

We ban pesticides to save animals and as a result people die from diseases. We decide a certain type of farm is good and sacrifice woodlands and forests. We shun technology and people continue to starve. We use science to make a point and ignore it if the facts point elsewhere and we still don't seem to be able to accept the fact that science is often unsure, imprecise and sometimes wrong.

So what are we left with? our sense of compassion for others, our skepticism, our common sense.

There are no easy answers. We need to think and consider the consequences of what we do. To look at all sides of each issue and not just accept what we are told because it sounds good or pushes the right buttons.

Problems can be better dealt with rationally not emotionally.

Books like Pollan's should be food for thought not the "bible."

The Economist piece should be viewed as just as enlightening. Now let the thinking begin!

[menon1971]

How do the corporate farm workers get nothing? They just shut down harvests? They pay them less, as if that is possible? I think some data would be helpful here, because this smacks of Cato Institute-esque ideology.

There is a larger question here: what are the physical and social consequences for modifying the way the world grows, distributes, and consumes its foodstuffs and the consequences for not modifying the former.

Who is "we," by the way?

←

Why is it that when we disagree with something we often dismiss the offending ideas as part of one ideology or another?

This ignores the fact that the ideas we embrace are ideological.

It all depends upon which side you are on!

←

Ideologies tend to be dogmatic, outside of the bounds of argument or evidence.

[menon1971]

I'll read the article (after I grade this stack of term papers), but I am still unclear how purchasing from plantations helps impoverished farm laborers; this is kind of like suggesting that buying products from sweatshops is beneficial to those workers.

←

The argument is:

1. Most production of goods like coffee takes place in large plantations; this is unlikely to change

2. Most workers who grow and harvest coffee are employed by these plantations

3. Fairtrade schemes are not open to large plantations - only to small cooperatives

4. Therefore paying higher prices for Fairtrade coffee will bring no benefits to the majority of coffee plantation workers

If coffee plantation workers could simply leave jobs on plantations and go to work for higher-paying, Fairtrade-endorsed cooperatives, then wages might rise on large plantations too. But I suspect the coffee plantation labour market doesn't work that way.

←

The flaw in the argument is the first premise, that things are inevitable because they exist. Existence does not imply immutability, desirability, or defensibility.

Plantation labor (at least in Central and South America) essentially operates the way that mining towns were run in this country.

[Dave Hatfield]

I thought the Economist article was great and spot on. Hard though we may try to ignore economics in favour of our 'ideologies' and what feels good you can't avoid them in the end.

I just wish The Economist would do a similar article on GM (genetically modified) foods. The hoopla here in Europe over this issue is huge. I'd love to have more facts.

I'll keep my subscription to the newspaper, as they call themselves, for the foreseeable future.

[menon1971]

Eat local, eat fair, eat organic -- save the planet.  Right?

Not that easy, according to The Economist.  Doing all those things may make your affluent Northern Hemisphere self feel all warm and fuzzy -- and will almost certainly put a better dinner on the table.  But, according to this article , so-called "ethical eating" can have huge negative consequences for the earth and those who till it.

Take organic food.  Good stuff.  No chemical runoff or accumulation of nasties in our livers, spleens and other useful body parts.  Unfortunately, yields for organic growing are vastly lower than for high-tech farming.  How many acres of rainforest do we want to chop down to make up the extra acreage we'd need if the world went organic?

Fairtrade coffee?  Encourages overproduction, which drives prices down further for non-fairtrade farmers, discourages diversification in the face of overproduction.  Also, since fairtrade revenues go only to small peasant farmers, the vast majority of agricultural workers -- who work on larger operations -- get nothing, and are indeed hurt by lower commodity prices.  Oh yeah -- now that Nestles is in on that game we can also suggest that fairtrade products are little more than a device to identify price-insensitive consumer, and that the vast majority of the premium we pay goes into corporate coffers and not peasants' pockets.

And "food miles" is at best a mixed bag, not only because it is more inefficient for you to drive a car to a (relatively) far off farmers market than for distributors to efficiently transport  food to your local grocery store.  It's also because sometimes it's simply more energy efficient to produce a commodity offshore -- New Zealand lamb, for example, or Mexican tomatoes ratrher than local hothouse varieties (save energy: boycott both) -- than to grow the stuff here at home.  And, of course, if you're buying local, you can't be buying those fairtrade fruits from poor farmers in developing nations.

Sadly, it is arguable that buying local, organic berries isn't really changing the world.  If we want to do that, we'll have to make tough electoral decisions about farm subsidies, energy taxes and so on.

Or so The Economist Says.

←

Thanks for the link and the post!

I thought this was a brilliant piece. We have seen a rise in awareness of ecology, health, food and its impact on our health and well being etc. This is good. However, the awareness is often achieved at a price. It is often achieved via scare tactics. Eat this or that and get sick and/or die.

The end of the world is at hand if we don't do this or that. It is often achieved by demonization of one entity or another. So and so corporation is out to kill us for profits.

People read a book or see a movie and accept ideas and "facts" as presented. We feel good because we are "aware"and "enlightened" we wear ribbons and act "righteously."

So the corporations are evil capitalists and the people who "expose" their evil ways making millions from their books and films are what?--righteous capitalists?

What we all too often do not do is think, seek out opposing views, listen to the other side and most of all apply healthy skepticism and common sense. We certainly do not consider the consequences of our actions.

We ban pesticides to save animals and as a result people die from diseases. We decide a certain type of farm is good and sacrifice woodlands and forests. We shun technology and people continue to starve. We use science to make a point and ignore it if the facts point elsewhere and we still don't seem to be able to accept the fact that science is often unsure, imprecise and sometimes wrong.

So what are we left with? our sense of compassion for others, our skepticism, our common sense.

There are no easy answers. We need to think and consider the consequences of what we do. To look at all sides of each issue and not just accept what we are told because it sounds good or pushes the right buttons.

Problems can be better dealt with rationally not emotionally.

Books like Pollan's should be food for thought not the "bible."

The Economist piece should be viewed as just as enlightening. Now let the thinking begin!

←

I agree with the tenor of what you are saying, but I still think we should go with our best practical and ethical arguments and not just say that all opinions are equal just because a group of people hold them. Also, I don't care a fig for common sense, that gets us into enough trouble. Slavery was justified by common sense. I want good sense. It strikes me as good sense to look at the way workers are treated, at how our agricultural methods affect both supply and quality of food and long term harm to our environment, and who benefits from what and at what cost.

[Busboy]

I'll read the article (after I grade this stack of term papers), but I am still unclear how purchasing from plantations helps impoverished farm laborers; this is kind of like suggesting that buying products from sweatshops is beneficial to those workers.

←

The argument is:

1. Most production of goods like coffee takes place in large plantations; this is unlikely to change

2. Most workers who grow and harvest coffee are employed by these plantations

3. Fairtrade schemes are not open to large plantations - only to small cooperatives

4. Therefore paying higher prices for Fairtrade coffee will bring no benefits to the majority of coffee plantation workers

If coffee plantation workers could simply leave jobs on plantations and go to work for higher-paying, Fairtrade-endorsed cooperatives, then wages might rise on large plantations too. But I suspect the coffee plantation labour market doesn't work that way.

←

The flaw in the argument is the first premise, that things are inevitable because they exist. Existence does not imply immutability, desirability, or defensibility.

Plantation labor (at least in Central and South America) essentially operates the way that mining towns were run in this country.

←

All good points. But, not to get all practical, I don't see agriculture -- or any industry -- getting any less centralized any time soon. I am certainly in favor of supporting small producers and co-ops, if only for emotional reasons, but it seems that the more effective way to lift the status of agricultural workers would be to address it as a labor problem, rather than a commodity pricing problem.

This article raises huge numbers of interesting questions if you put your wonk hat on and run with them. What is the relationship between fertilizer and insecticide and yield, especially compared with the benefits of cross-breeding and (gasp) bioengineering? What if we we cut our meat intake by a third' in addition to the benefits to our watersheds and (it is said) atmospheric CO2 level, how many acres now planted in feed-grains would this free up for less-efficient organic growing? What if we just eliminated first-world farm subsidies? What is the cost of ethanol in terms of loss of agricultural land?

I hate it when flashing my Amex at Whole Foods doesn't solve the world's porblems.

[Mallet]

A really interesting article, to be sure. I think it's important to critically examine the relative benefits/costs of things like organic agriculture, especially if our underlying motivation is to improve the environment. I disagree with certain points that have been made so far, however.

[...] Unfortunately, yields for organic growing are vastly lower than for high-tech farming.  How many acres of rainforest do we want to chop down to make up the extra acreage we'd need if the world went organic?

←

Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Prize winner and father of the "green revolution," has been making this point for years. As he explains over and over again in interviews, industrial farming methods have allowed crop yields to triple in the past 50 years without a significant increase in the amount of land under cultivation (about 10%); whereas, if we went back to pre-green-revolution (or organic) farming methods we've need to farm three times as much land to get the same amount of food.

←

As far as I can tell, the relative yield of organic vs. conventional farming is nowhere near 3x less, but more on the order of ~20% (estimates vary widely and depends on crop etc. In years of drought, yield from organically grown crops can be substantially higher than conventially grown). Compounded to this is the fact that in the US, farmland has decreased by about 10%. If that farmland were to be reclaimed the difference between the two would be much lower. Add to that the notion that an acre of organically cultivated farmland has a much lower environmental impact than an acre of conventionally cultivated one and the difference shrinks even further.

I think we need to remember that organic doesn't necessary mean 'traditional' and there is as much room for change and innovative research in this sector than anywhere else (I'm sure a farmer like Joel Salatin would agree here).

What of the claim that organic farming is more energy-efficient? Lord Melchett points out for example that the artificial fertiliser used in conventional farming is made using natural gas, which is “completely unsustainable”. But Anthony Trewavas, a biochemist at the University of Edinburgh, counters that organic farming actually requires more energy per tonne of food produced, because yields are lower and weeds are kept at bay by ploughing.

Not knowing much about the accounting methods used here, I think an important distinction here between the type of energy being used can still be drawn. Artificial fertilizers are external inputs (external to the entire biosphere, since they are derived from sources which would otherwise be sequestered), whereas those used in organic agriculture are not (often, coming from the farm itself). Applying massive amounts of external fertilizers is doubly wasteful, not only in terms of the energy it takes to mine, produce, and transport but because by using them you often preclude the use of manure from livestock, which gets wasted and turns into a pollutant. Organic crops may take 'more' energy to produce per tonne, but much of this energy gets recycled back into the system, and much of it comes from a free source (the sun, via photosynthesis). In fact it is a testament to the productivity of some organic farms that, despite the increased energy costs, yields are able to match conventional agriculture so closely.

I think the best point the article makes pertains to the transportation costs. First, to make it clear:

Obviously it makes sense to choose a product that has been grown locally over an identical product shipped in from afar.

So the article makes no claim against local, seasonal products, which is the cornerstone of the 'buy local' agenda. I do think that there is a lot of progress to be made here, however. Surely it is only by continuing to support the local food supply (when in season etc..) that it has any chance of developing it's own infrastructure and arriving at an even better solution?

[Darcie B]

...

As far as I can tell, the relative yield of organic vs. conventional farming is nowhere near 3x less, but more on the order of ~20% (estimates vary widely and depends on crop etc. In years of drought, yield from organically grown crops can be substantially higher than conventially grown). Compounded to this is the fact that in the US, farmland has decreased by about 10%. If that farmland were to be reclaimed the difference between the two would be much lower. Add to that the notion that an acre of organically cultivated farmland has a much lower environmental impact than an acre of conventionally cultivated one and the difference shrinks even further.

From a purely anecodetal perspective, my brothers small grains farm was organic for 6 years, and their yields over the period were about 15-20% less on average than conventional farms. However, they didn't have to spend $$$ on fertilizers and pesticides, so they were able to break even (which is about all most small farmers can hope for). They abandoned the organic method not because it wasn't working but because they had to transport the product too far to get to an organic processing plant, so any profit was eaten up in transportation costs as the price of gas rose. It would have been interesting had they continued because they were researching different organic weed control methods (corn gluten meal) and such.

I think ending first world farm subsidies (which are mostly paid to large corporate farms, where a "small" farm is 10,000 acres+ and is worked by migrant workers who are paid minimum wage, if that), isn't going to happen without dramatic political change (more than just which side of the center line is in power). Also, I don't know what would happen if these subsidies ended - what should we expect? ADM growing organic, open-pollinated crops and no more high fructose corn syrup? People talk about ending the subsidies but I have never seen anything that predicts how it will be helpful.

It seems these arguments never change, but just keep getting rehashed. The organic movement says everyone will be healthier, the birds will be merrier and we'll all have clear skin if we just switch, and the other side says it there is no way it will work and we'll be doomed to starvation. There has to be some middle ground but each side is so dogmatic that they refuse to see any other perspective.

[Reefpimp]

Part of that "production increase" is due to monocultural agriculture methods. Are we looking at billions of calories mostly derived from grains like wheat and corn, or does it include seasonal fruits and veggies? If the U.S. outlawed petroleum-based fertilizers (solving a majority of our dependance on foreign oil) where would that leave us? How about feedlots and their resulting manure lagoons? What if God forbid we had two years in a row with failed corn and wheat crops in the Midwest? How about if farmers just started planting non-sterile corn instead of the GM stuff--what effect would that have on the economy?

There's more at stake here than mere production of calories; the US alone produces enough food to feed the world over again. I'm not a treehugger of any sort, but I would rather see the food I eat produced locally, and ethically, and maybe do without a few items, than to see Monsanto and Cargill get another thin dime off me. It's hard; but I'm trying.

[JohnL]

Part of that "production increase" is due to monocultural agriculture methods.  Are we looking at billions of calories mostly derived from grains like wheat and corn, or does it include seasonal fruits and veggies?  If the U.S. outlawed petroleum-based fertilizers (solving a majority of our dependance on foreign oil) where would that leave us?  How about feedlots and their resulting manure lagoons?  What if God forbid we had two years in a row with failed corn and wheat crops in the Midwest?  How about if farmers just started planting non-sterile corn instead of the GM stuff--what effect would that have on the economy?

There's more at stake here than mere production of calories; the US alone produces enough food to feed the world over again.  I'm not a treehugger of any sort, but I would rather see the food I eat produced locally, and ethically, and maybe do without a few items, than to see Monsanto and Cargill get another thin dime off me.  It's hard; but I'm trying.

←

Like it or not, the future in feeding the world is likely going to be due to the efforts of companies like Monsanto and Cargill. I am not sure why these companies are so often targeted for criticism. They have their good and bad points to be sure, but overall, they do not IMOP deserve the indiscriminate bashing they often receive.

[Chris Amirault]

If the U.S. outlawed petroleum-based fertilizers (solving a majority of our dependance on foreign oil) where would that leave us? 

←

Fascinating -- can I see some data to support that parenthesis?