

Mythbusting: Organic Farming - jessekeys
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

======
bh42222
_Myth #1: Organic Farms Don’t Use Pesticides_

tl;dr: They do... well OK, only natural ones - but ONE of them is as bad as
any other pesticide! Crazy anecdote huh!

The article also points out that shockingly just because something is natural
it's not necessarily safe. Which is both true and obvious but no less FUD.

 _Myth #2: Organic Foods are Healthier_

This is highly contested. Study after study, keep finding conflicting results.
There are very strong indications some high yield variates have more calories
or water, but less of everything else. But that's the varieties, not how they
are grown. Overall this is anything but clear cut at this point.

 _But when researchers had people put their mouths to the test, they found
that people couldn’t tell the difference between the two in blind taste
tests._

I hate to also bring anecdotes to this anecdote filled articles, but I can
instantly taste the difference between an organic banana and a conventional
one. I don't need to know which one it is. I've blindly picked up and bought
bananas and every time if it's just not as good, I check and it turns out to
be conventionally grown. This could be due to them being different varieties,
maybe longer time on the vine, maybe farm size affect flavor, or maybe my bias
is so powerful it's completely skewing how I experience the world!

 _Organic Farming Is Better For The Environment_

 _The simple fact is that they’re not – at least the issue is not that cut and
dry._

Ah yes, it is not that cut and dry, but the first part that sentence claims
exactly that.

 _GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritious value, and
generally improve farming practices while reducing synthetic chemical use_

That's a lot of potential, but we've seen little of it come to pass yet.
Specifically it turns out its more profitable to make crops pesticide
immune/resistant and then use MORE pesticides to help the crop out-compete
weeds.

Theoretical genetic engineering sounds fantastic, the actual GM we currently
have is rather practical and not at all that great. That doesn't mean GM isn't
good, it just means that conventional GM mass produced commercial crops today
are not particularly good.

 _Yet organic proponents refuse to even give GMOs a chance, even to the point
of hypocrisy. For example, organic farmers apply Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
toxin (a small insecticidal protein from soil bacteria) unabashedly across
their crops every year, as they have for decades. It’s one of the most widely
used organic pesticides by organic farmers. Yet when genetic engineering is
used to place the gene encoding the Bt toxin into a plant’s genome, the
resulting GM plants are vilified by the very people willing to liberally spray
the exact same toxin that the gene encodes for over the exact same species of
plant._

Apples and Oranges. The Bt toxin and bacteria sprayed on the plants can be
easily washed off. The toxin inside very single cell of the plant you're
eating - kind of a different animal. Probably still safe, but to shout
hypocrisy is FUD.

 _But the real reason organic farming isn’t more green than conventional is
that while it might be better for local environments on the small scale,
organic farms produce far less food per unit land than conventional ones.
Organic farms produce around 80% that what the same size conventional farm
produces16 (some studies place organic yields below 50% those of conventional
farms!)._

Ah, but other studies have shown organic farms can out produce conventional
farms. Again, anything but cut and dry. One thing that is pretty clear is that
human labor can have a HUGE impact on yields. Add a lot more labor and you get
A LOT more. Obviously manual labor is very expensive. (Yes, even at migrant
workers wages, it is very expensive in terms of what fruits and vegetables
cost).

 _Myth #4: It’s all or none_

 _The point of this piece isn’t to vilify organic farming; it’s merely to
point out that it’s not as black and white as it looks._

I could have sworn the point was to spread FUD: "Scientific American says
Organic food no better than conventional!"

~~~
jholman
I don't get it, why would you assume that the article is FUD?

The article starts off by saying "I'd like to bust a few myths", and proceeds
to (allegedly) do so. It also deliberately points out that there are good
things about the organic farming movement, AND points out that all of the "bad
stuff" is done by some but not all farms, both organic and conventional. It
does nothing more or less than what it purports to, and I don't see the first
hint of FUD.

And while you appear desperate to rebut it, the best you can do is "I know
anecdotes suck, but here's mine!" The funny thing is, unlike your response
screed, the article has no less than 18 references. I'm happy to assume that
the reference are cherry-picked to back up the author's points, but even so,
it's pretty hard to find a blog post that even manages this. What more could
you wish for? What more could you wish for than a piece that wishes to "point
out that it's not as black and white as it looks".

