
Denmark is on its way to becoming an organic food country - finid
http://foodrevolution.org/blog/denmark-organic-country
======
Svip
There are some problems with this article. For one thing, it's from January
2016, and it mentions Food and Agriculture Minister Dan Jørgensen, but
Jørgensen wasn't minister back in January, his government stepped down in June
2015, when a new centre-right government took over.

And exactly agriculture is one of the areas that the new government have
changed _a lot_. It was growing into a big scandal around when this article
was written, that cost the agriculture minister of _that_ government her
job.[0] So between when I am writing this post, and when Jørgensen said that
in 2015, there have been three different agriculture ministers.

Given the new relaxed rules by the ministry on farmers and what they can do to
the soil, I think it is safe to say that the ambitious plan that the article
refers to has pretty much been scrapped.

The article is _very_ out of date right now, but it was even out of date at
the time it was written. The plan was published in January 2015. The general
election was in early June 2015. The new agriculture law came into effect
around February 2016 (but its contents was known by December 2015).

[0] [https://www.thelocal.dk/20160229/danish-pm-announces-
cabinet...](https://www.thelocal.dk/20160229/danish-pm-announces-cabinet-
shake-up)

------
7sigma
The article is quite misleading with its claims of organic being better than
conventional agriculture

1) The UNCTAD report that is cited actually has the following text:

"The views expressed in the articles contained in this Review are the personal
views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their
respective organisations and institutions."

Many of the authors have ties with the organic industry (see
[https://thoughtscapism.com/2015/09/21/myth-un-calls-for-
smal...](https://thoughtscapism.com/2015/09/21/myth-un-calls-for-small-scale-
organic-farming/))

2) Organic food has less pesticides exposure.

Not necessarily as organic agriculture also uses pesticides (naturally
occuring ones). Though they tend to degrade quicker than synthetic ones, they
are not as effective and need to be applied more often. Also the use of copper
sulfate is allowed, which doesn't biodegrade and builds up in the soil.

The following is also completely rubbish

"Yes, pesticide residues are regulated by the U.S. Food Quality Protection
Act, but the tolerance levels assigned for some pesticides pose potential
health risks, even though they are considered “allowable.”"

3) Organic foods are more nutritious and taste better.

Nope. The article just cherry picks a few studies. Following meta study comes
to conclusion that organic food is not more nutritious

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22944875](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22944875)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11833635](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11833635)

4) Organic foods help achieve biodiversity and soil fertility

Maybe on the area farmed, but it tends to not be as efficient as conventional
farming, so increase acreage is needed which reduces biodiversity.

Regarding soil fertility, GMOs have actually helped thanks to no till
agriculture.

5)Organic foods have no GMOs.

GMOs actually can help reduce pesticide use (but its not a silver bullet)

[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629)

~~~
jcranmer
I did look at the UNCTAD report a bit, and it's disquietingly short on actual
data to confirm their theses. The main thrust of what I read seemed to be
focussing on the idea of empowering small landholders rather than industrial-
scale farming, which actually isn't all that bad of an idea. But there doesn't
seem to be any examination of things like crop yield effects of organic versus
non-organic agricultural methods.

Also, on pesticides: organic pesticides are usually more toxic to humans than
synthetic pesticides. (This makes a lot of sense: think of the optimization
functions used to select pesticides in natural evolution versus synthetic
production).

I did laugh on the "more nutritious and tastes better" bit. As you say, most
studies and meta-studies find no effect on nutrition.

------
a-priori
_The findings of a 2013 report from the United Nations titled, “Wake Up Before
It’s Too Late,” say small-scale, organic farming is the only way to
sustainably feed the world._

The report they're referring to can be accessed here:

[http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditcted2012d3_en.pd...](http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditcted2012d3_en.pdf)

That report is not an official statement by the United Nations nor any of its
working groups. It's published by a UN committee, but it's merely a collection
of papers by individual authors. They say right in the introduction (page 3)
that the opinions expressed in it are not those of the United Nations or any
of its member States. So it's misleading to call it a "report from the United
Nations".

It's not even clear to me which article they're specifically referring to. I
only skimmed it (it's 321 pages long) and did some keyword searches, but I
don't see a direct "we must do only 'organic' farming or we all die"
statement. Addressing concerns like crop monocultures can be done
incrementally, without abandoning the benefits of pesticides and genetic
modification.

But even then, when you're talking about 'feeding the world', crop yields are
the name of the game. And my understanding is exactly the opposite of this
article: crop yields under organic farming techniques is lower than
conventional modern farming (by ~20% according to
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X11...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X)).
Further, I recall that this gap is below the level to sustain the world's
current population.

In other words, by advocating for 100% organic farming, you're intentionally
advocating for a practice that will lead to starvation of part of the world's
population. I can't see how that's conscionable.

------
finid
_In the U.S., fast food workers are struggling to get a respectable increase
in pay. But in Denmark, the fast food industry pays its workers at least $20
an hour._

That's at least $5 more than the $15 minimum wage the same class of workers
are fighting for here (in the US).

~~~
dvcc
A quick search shows that a meal at McDoanld's is 50% more in Denmark than in
the US. I am not really sure on the accuracy of Numbeo, but the comparative
price of a meal to wage is interesting.

[https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-
living/compare_countries_resu...](https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-
living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Denmark)

~~~
Svip
Well, since we are talking about McDonald's, you could also look at the Big
Mac Index:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index)

But yes, a cheeseburger here costs 10 DKK. That's 1.50 USD. I don't know what
a cheeseburger costs in the US, but I'd imagine it's 1 USD.

~~~
Kalium
More like $4.

~~~
overcast
Cheeseburger at McDonalds is about $1.29ish in the US.

~~~
dalke
To confirm, [http://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/mcdonalds-
prices/](http://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/mcdonalds-prices/) lists $1, then
add tax.

------
oldmanjay
How does one find the magical line with food whereby doing millennia of
untargeted poorly-understood genetic engineering is what nature intended? Does
it only become artificial when we get good at it?

I think I have too much of a scientific bent to understand the religious
reasoning involved.

~~~
istorical
You seem to be conflating 'GMO' with 'organic'. Organic food is more about
avoiding pesticide residue, artificial hormones or antibiotics, etc. And if
you don't find things like carcinogens or endocrine disruptors scientific then
I'm sorry to tell you that you're underinformed.

~~~
jcranmer
Uh, organic foods DO have ample pesticides used on them. Generally more
pesticides, and more toxic pesticides, in fact.

~~~
istorical
"Organic foods" is an idea. Organic foods in practice may often fail to live
up to their ambition though, you're correct.

------
olau
While I think it's true that organic is big in Denmark, e.g. common
kindergartens in my area generally seem to be using mostly organic food in
their kitchens, I don't think the summary is accurate in the sense that
there's a long, long way before the whole country has switched to organic
production. Or consumption for that matter. If it will ever happen.

The article is quoting the previous government, by the way, the current one
just announced it's going to cut the temporary subsidies given to farms
switching to organic production.

------
macandcheese
"Organic" food doesn't mean a whole lot, and it's produced at such large
scales that the ecological benefits attributed to "organic" food aren't there.
Now, on the other hand, you can apply those to small scale, locally produced,
sourced, and distributed food. Buying locally grown food is a benefit to your
community yourself, and often your environment, whereas organic is just a
marketing word.

------
marcoperaza
Organic food is pseudoscience. The only good reason to buy organic is that it
is often a proxy for higher quality in general, but that's not universally
true.

Modern inorganic farming methods are necessary for feeding the world. If the
whole world switched to organic farming, there would be cataclysmic mass
starvation.

~~~
finid
_Organic food is pseudoscience._

Really? Care to elaborate on that?

The article lists the many reasons why organic foods are better than non-
organic ones. You should read it.

~~~
marcoperaza
It's a propaganda article on a food-hipsterism advocacy website. Do the
research for yourself. Very quickly though, their points about organic food
being more efficient, tastier, healthier, non-GMO, and pesticide-free are
either wrong, conflating correlation with causation (as overpriced luxury food
is more likely to be organic), or misleading (as GMO and many pesticides are
totally safe).

~~~
coldtea
> _as GMO and many pesticides are totally safe_

Pesticides, yummy.

It doesn't inspire much confidence on the other hand that the pushers of GMOs
are huge conglomerates that control seeds (similarly to IP rights and DRM),
would sell any BS for a quick buck, and are not that dissimilar to the tobacco
industry that testified that "smoking is not harmful" and sponsored tons of
studies in the 70s and 80s (with real scientists, universities et al) to prove
that point.

~~~
splawn
It doesn't inspire much confidence that the pushers of Organic food are huge
conglomerates that push people into buying needlessly expensive food.

~~~
coldtea
That would be relevant if I particularly cared for Organic food.

But there is tons of food that is neither Organic (certified and pushed by
Whole Foods etc) nor GMO.

You know, it's just food. And it's what we've been having for years, and 100%
of what we do have now (I never buy Organic anyway, except if it's something
not available as general foodstuff).

------
Hermel
Am I the only one who finds the word "organic" stupid? Taken literally, it
means that there are no anorganic ingredients, e.g. no salt and no water. Most
countries use the term "biological" instead (implying an absence of
chemicals), which I find a much better fit.

~~~
Svip
In the context of Denmark, Danish/Denmark uses the term »økologi« which is
closest to 'ecology' in English.

------
TheMagicHorsey
I visited Denmark from San Francisco in 2014. The food there was atrociously
expensive. ATROCIOUS.

Denmark does many things better than the US ... such as bicycle lanes. But
food isn't one of those things.

Plus, much of organic food theory is total pseudoscientific bunk.

Check out this survey of research on organic food in the Gimlet Media podcast:
[https://gimletmedia.com/episode/5-organic-
food/](https://gimletmedia.com/episode/5-organic-food/)

~~~
Svip
You are saying that we don't do food better because it's more expensive? But
it's expensive _to you_. The local purchasing power in Denmark is higher than
it in the US. To Danish people (such as myself), it doesn't feel expensive.
Although, it doesn't feel cheap either. We are quite aware that we have the
third highest cost of living.

But seriously, food being expensive is not the same as not doing food right.
The few times I've been in the US, I've always been disappointed about the
food available in supermarkets. It's hard to find stuff such as good milk or
butter.

~~~
dogma1138
No it's not, food is expensive in Europe and in Denmark period. The purchasing
power is high, but the cost of food are not remotely cheap to the local
population, Danes spend more than twice the percentage of their annual income
on food than the their fellow Americans. Also the purchasing power of a US
citizen is about 25% higher than that of a Danish citizen.

~~~
Svip
_> No it's not, food is expensive in Europe and in Denmark period._

I've travelled around Europe, food is very cheap in Central, Southern and
Eastern Europe. It's basically Scandinavia that's expensive.

 _> Danes spend more than twice the percentage of their annual income on food
than the their fellow Americans. Also the purchasing power of a US citizen is
about 25% higher than that of a Danish citizen._

Source? I'm actually really curious.

~~~
dogma1138
>I've travelled around Europe, food is very cheap in Central, Southern and
Eastern Europe. It's basically Scandinavia that's expensive.

In Scandinavia it's actually relatively "cheaper" to locals compared to
central/eastern Europe, while Danes spend ~12% of their annual income on food
Poles spend over 20%. That's because the price of many food products is
actually relatively similar in most countries within the EU including local
production but there is a pretty high disparity as far as annual income goes.

>Source? I'm actually really curious.

[http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28](http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28)

Generate a report with the PPP rating.

US PPP is 55K Denmark is 45K, if you care about take home wage then the US is
also higher
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_take-...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_take-
home_pay) Overall the US has cheaper housing, transportation, food and local
services combined with considerably lower tax burden than Europe.

