Op-Ed Columnist: Return of the Organic Fable

By Roger Cohen

LONDON — Life is a journey full of discoveries and I have added at least one important fact to my store of knowledge this year: Hell hath no fury like an organic eater spurned.

Damon Winter/The New York Times

Roger Cohen

It seems you don’t park your Range Rover outside the Whole Foods store without having worked out your priorities for the planet, assembled a raft of arguments to support them and decided anyone who thinks otherwise is a Monsanto stooge or ex-propagandist for Big Tobacco.

So here goes, for all the devotees of organic cotton bedding, a follow-up to “The Organic Fable” (Views, Sept. 7) in which I cheered a Stanford University report pooh-poohing organic; argued that organic foods were a form of premium branding rather than a science; and suggested the organic movement was little more than upper-middle-class narcissism.

Reasonable debate may not be an organic commodity, but it is unquestionably in short supply in this shrieking, solipsistic age. In an attempt to bolster it, I will begin by acknowledging the several good points made by my critics.

First, the problem of feeding a planet whose population will surge to 9 billion before the middle of the century is a complex one that goes far beyond the conventional versus organic food argument. Food wastage, overconsumption in the developed world and possibly adjustable meat-eating habits are all important parts of the equation.

Second, the Stanford report did say that “the risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residue” was 30 percent lower “among organic than conventional produce.” As many who opt for organic food do so primarily because they want to avoid chemicals they believe may have a bad cumulative effect, rather than because they were under the illusion that organic is more nutritious, this appears to be a significant, or even central, finding (more below.)

Third, there is an argument for organic on the grounds of taste. It may be more expensive but it packs flavor.

Fourth, although I noted that “organic farming is probably better for the environment because less soil, flora and fauna are contaminated,” I did not allude specifically to a concern of many organiacs: The damaging effects of big agriculture’s fossil-fuel driven mono-cropping culture and the positive effects on biodiversity and sustainability of smallholders with organic farms.

Fifth, not quite everyone who eats organic is rich. And, O.K., some people want animals to be treated nicely.

All this said, the organic bourgeoisie, with their babies in reusable cotton diapers, gazing at menus of “organic, local, farm-raised” stuff and inveighing against genetically modified (G.M.) food, inhabits a world of illusion.

The loudest cheering for “The Organic Fable” came from agronomists working in the developing world. One — he preferred not to be named knowing the righteous rage of the organic movement — said that in the palm oil sector alone, the planted area will have to increase by 12 million hectares by 2050 to satisfy demand. That means either increased yield or increased areas (encroaching on rain forests.) Higher yield means fertilizer and “probably means G.M. if it can add traits to crops so they are more resilient to drought and disease,” he said. “To reject science and technology is a completely Luddite response.” His view of the organic ideology: “A substitute for organized religion.”

Put bluntly, without fertilizer the world grounds to a halt. Without herbicides, pesticides and insecticides, yields will not rise in areas, like the corn belt of East Africa, where they must. Moreover, as the World Health Organization says, “chemical control (use of pesticides) is still the most important element in the integrated approach” to control of vector-borne diseases like malaria and dengue — not, I know, a big problem in Notting Hill Gate or the West Village.

On pesticides, the Stanford report noted that “differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets limits for pesticide residue on food. These limits work, although some believe there is scientific evidence they don’t and, if they can afford it, buy organic. Fair enough, but the countries where pesticides should really be a source of concern are those like India where regulation is rudimentary.

A few other points the organiacs ignore. First, in this new era of land pressure, organic farming requires more land for a given unit of crop. It will therefore impinge on wilderness. Second, when an organiac gets sick, he or she will likely not reject the latest brilliant chemical solution for the disease: Why then reject such solutions for crops? Third, “organic” is a slick marketing tool that may be very misleading when a farmer who, say, raises great free-range chickens but can’t ship in feed from organic-certified mills is unable to use the label. Fourth, the World Health Organization view on GM: “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”

Elitist freakouts spurred by the organic ideology are no answer to the world’s food problems. In fact they are a distraction.