http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/does-big-organic-scare-you/ Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:11:39 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/does-big-organic-scare-you/#comment-3071 bc Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:50:13 +0000 http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/does-big-organic-scare-you/#comment-3071 you might want to check out Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" on this issue, as he makes a pretty compelling argument that there IS a real difference between "big organic" and "real" organic food production. The former, like any good corporation, needs food to be uniform, always available, and relatively cheap. In other words, big organic food may be organic (e.g. no pesticides) but it is still a commodity. Pollan suggests that stripping food of its association with the land and location removes something important from the food itself and the way it is produced. So, for example, Horizon organic milk gets a lot of milk from cows that live in enormous feedlots; organic "free range" chickens don't really go outside b/c if you don't use antibiotics yet you still need to keep thousands of chickens in one place (which big organic requires) they are quite vulnerable to pathogens. Chickens raised on family farms, which eat grass, bugs, etc. and have plenty of room to roam don't suffer from the same problems (and incidentally taste better and are probably happier animals). Big organic food production requires much more fossil fuel input than carefully managed small farms would, etc. Anyway, this is not to say that the tradeoffs for big organic aren't worth it - as you point out, there's something to be said for getting more people to eat organic food. But there is a difference, and an argument can be made that this difference is important. you might want to check out Michael Pollan’s “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” on this issue, as he makes a pretty compelling argument that there IS a real difference between “big organic” and “real” organic food production. The former, like any good corporation, needs food to be uniform, always available, and relatively cheap. In other words, big organic food may be organic (e.g. no pesticides) but it is still a commodity. Pollan suggests that stripping food of its association with the land and location removes something important from the food itself and the way it is produced. So, for example, Horizon organic milk gets a lot of milk from cows that live in enormous feedlots; organic “free range” chickens don’t really go outside b/c if you don’t use antibiotics yet you still need to keep thousands of chickens in one place (which big organic requires) they are quite vulnerable to pathogens. Chickens raised on family farms, which eat grass, bugs, etc. and have plenty of room to roam don’t suffer from the same problems (and incidentally taste better and are probably happier animals). Big organic food production requires much more fossil fuel input than carefully managed small farms would, etc.
Anyway, this is not to say that the tradeoffs for big organic aren’t worth it – as you point out, there’s something to be said for getting more people to eat organic food. But there is a difference, and an argument can be made that this difference is important.

]]>