I recently read a thought-provoking article in the Boston Globe entitled “The New Organic“. The article points out that genetically engineered crops are not necessarily anathema to organic farming. The first example cited was how Bt cotton in Northern China reduced the use of chemical spray by 156 million pounds (almost as much as is used in California each year), and reduced insecticide related illnesses among farmers by 75%.

Biotech (genetically engineered) crops support many of the same objectives as organic farming methods. Used in concert with organic methods, some biotech crops can make organic farming easier, more profitable and more productive (three reasons why organic farming methods are not used more widely).

If you buy organic, think about the reasons you do so: Less use of chemicals? Healthier (or less dangerous) food? Better flavor? There are biotech crops that have been developed for these reasons, too; plants that need less nitrogen fertilizer, plants that are insect resistant, plants with better nutritional profiles, less likely to spoil or with better flavor, plants that can grow in salty soils.

On our own farm, one of the reasons we are not organic is that we aim for production practices that have the lowest overall impact on the environment while still producing enough to enable us to survive. For example, we are using a low level of chemical weed control in our hay field to knock the weeds back enough to let the grass compete successfully. If we didn’t, we’d be making multiple passes with a tractor to ‘naturally’ get rid of aggressive weeds whose presence in our hay would compromise its yield, quality and safety for our animals. We feel that the small amount of chemical weedkiller uses less petrochemicals than the much greater number of tractor hours needed for mechanical control. Similarly, a biotech variety may be part of the lowest environmental impact production system.

Technology alone is not the answer. We need good science and good farming practices to produce sufficient quantities of affordable food in a sustainable manner. It is my opinion that all those involved in agriculture, be they in producing or consuming, must set aside the animosity that so often exists between traditional and alternative production systems. Only in this way can we optimally evaluate and choose among our options.

Most of us tend to have an “information filter” in place that lets through information when it aligns with our existing beliefs, and discounts information that does not agree with what we already think. Once we take a position, it is human nature to become more entrenched. Challenging our ideas is not a comfortable thing to do.

I recently heard a claim that 10% of the populace has strong views on each side of any controversy. The remaining 80% of us don’t really have a dog in the fight, but our opinions are formed by whichever 10% has the most visible, logical and concise argument. For agriculture and food issues, the “industry” tends to just keep on keepin’ on without much comment. Frequently, the public primarily hears from activists viewing the issue from the other side of the plate. As a consumer AND a producer, I often think neither side takes an honest look at the big picture or looks for the truth in what the opposition has to say. Producers need to take consumer concerns seriously, not just dismiss them. The “industry” also needs to do a better job at being an ambassador to our customers. As consumers, we need to understand that the issues are often far more complex than a headline news story can convey.

I challenge you to look for both sides of the issues: If you read something that stirs strong feelings, make the effort to find an opposing view. You will likely find that it is not as cut-and-dried as it might appear. Some of my favorite (often opposing) resources for news and views on food and agriculture are Ethicurean, Feedstuffs Foodlink, Meatingplace and Mother Earth News. And if there is an issue you’d like us to comment upon, let us know!

There was a report released by the Hudson Institute on the environmental benefits of growth-promoting hormone implants in beef production. Keep in mind that the Hudson Institute is, at heart, a political organization.  Also keep in mind that many other sources of information are too.

I read the entire report.  It has lots of good statistics that address some of the perceived harm of traditional beef production practices.  However, it is definitely a paper with an agenda.  The credibility of their facts is severely hampered by the blatant slant toward discrediting the grass-fed and natural movement.  Shame on them for referencing an economic model from the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture and implying that their stance is supported by that institution.  The original model from Iowa State is a paper for farmers who are considering conversion to organic or natural beef production.  The Hudson report leads one to believe that it is upon this report that the environmental claims are based.  In actual fact, the Hudson report references to “the model” more often refer to their own model, than to Iowa State’s.  The Iowa State model does not address environmental impact in any way. 

Read the rest of this entry »