

Destroy the Planet: Buy Organic - spottiness
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2011/06/03/destroy-the-planet-buy-organic/

======
pyre
Personally, I find that this was unnecessary:

    
    
      > Who knew that “sustainable” would mean a polyester
      > shirt and a bag of Fritos?
    

What does a bag of Fritos have to do with organic vs non-organic produce?

That said, 'sustainable' is a lot more just 'how efficient is our growing
process?' A few things that he fails to mention:

\- Dealing with run-off from industrial pesticides and fertilizers into our
water ways (including the 'dead zones' that form at the mouths of rivers due
to this pollution).

\- The amount of energy that we waste in raising livestock. A good portion of
the land that we use for growing (i.e. not grazing land) is used to grow
corn/etc that is used _exclusively_ for livestock feed. How much energy does
it take for us to grow all of this food and then funnel it into the mouths of
livestock? What is the amount of energy that we get in return for the amount
we invest? How does this differ from just growing vegetables/fruits on that
land and foregoing livestock?

\- The amount of food that we consume that is totally unnecessary. If 100% of
the people on earth ate as much as the average person in the US did, that
wouldn't be sustainable. That 'bag of Fritos' is unnecessary. How much
essential nutrition does it actually give you? If you _really_ want to talk
about sustainability and efficiency in our food supply chain, maybe we don't
need to spend so much focus on comfort foods. Or at least focus on comfort
foods that provide us with more than just fat + sugar + salt.

\- The under-handed, rent-seeking tactics of GMO companies like Montsano.
<sarcasm>Forcing farmers to remain dependent on a single company through
technological means[1] and legal means[2] seems like a pretty efficient use of
our time and resources to me!</sarcasm> (Read the full Wikipedia page for all
sorts of nonsense -- e.g. toxic waste dumping, suppression of damaging
studies, etc)

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seed_contro...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seed_controversy)

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff>

~~~
Turing_Machine
"How much essential nutrition does it actually give you?"

Well, let's see... a 1 ounce (28 gram) serving of Fritos contains 15 grams of
carbohydrate, 10 grams of fat, and 2 grams of protein = 27 grams. All of these
are nutrients, so quite a lot, actually. The remaining gram is mostly fiber,
which, although not a nutrient per se, is a good thing to eat nonetheless.

I think you're using a non-standard definition of nutrient here.

~~~
pyre
I was thinking in terms of vitamins and minerals. Also 'protein' is rather
nebulous of a term (though I imagine there is some government-approved
definition that you have to use when generating those labels). Beans have
'protein,' but would should really have something like beans and rice to have
'complete protein.'

~~~
Turing_Machine
Those are more along the lines of micronutrients. Your body runs on
carbohydrates. In a pinch it can create them from fat or protein, but that's
pretty inefficient.

The "complete protein" thing is a myth, at least in the sense that you need to
eat (e.g.) beans and rice at the same meal. You do need to get all of the
essential amino acids at some point, but they don't have to come in one slug.

Also, the third world diets that you advocate tend to be, to a first
approximation, pure carbs. They don't get organic baby vegetables from Whole
Foods in January. They get brown rice, or wheat, or, yes, corn meal, for
breakfast, lunch, and dinner, every day of their lives with occasional bits of
other foods to relieve the monotony.

~~~
pyre

      > In a pinch it can create them from fat or protein,
      > but that's pretty inefficient.
    

[citation needed]

See vitamin B-12 and vitamin C, for example. On the other hand, in a pinch
your body can convert fat/protein into energy rather than carbs. Though your
urine may be smelly from the chemicals it uses.

    
    
      > The "complete protein" thing is a myth, at least
      > in the sense that you need to eat (e.g.) beans
      > and rice at the same meal. You do need to get all
      > of the essential amino acids at some point, but
      > they don't have to come in one slug.
    

I wasn't referring to the idea that they need to be in the same meal. I mostly
calling out the fact that 'we' always tend to refer to 'protein,' but it's
possible to eat tons of protein and still be missing out on some essential
amino acids.

    
    
      > Also, the third world diets that you advocate tend
      > to be
    

Huh? Where did I advocate that? I was using 'rice + beans' as an example.
Also, where did I say anything about Whole Foods? You seem to be constructing
a bunch of straw men arguments based on the idea that I'm some person that
fits into some sort of 'bucket' with other people you disagree with.

~~~
18pfsmt
WRT to your request for citation, I can point you toward this[1] (not sure
about the protein/ muscle claim) wikipedia post, and quote a portion:

"Ketosis is deliberately induced by use of a ketogenic diet as a medical
intervention in cases of non-responsive epilepsy.[6] Other uses of low-
carbohydrate diets remain controversial."

What I find interesting is the assumption that everyone operates with an
intentional diet. I forget to eat all the time.

EDIT: Maybe I should elaborate to say that I had unintentionally adopted a
"ketogenic diet" by accident, and it took me 4 years to figure that out.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis>

~~~
pyre
Ketosis talks about converting fatty acids to energy (when your body runs out
of glucose/glycogen). It says nothing about creating vitamins and minerals out
fat+sugar+salt.

If your body could get all the essential nutrients out of nothing but carbs
and/or fats, then malnutrition would be a fictitious condition, as would be
scurvy (Vitamin C deficiency).

------
shykes
I'm all for listening to contrarian arguments, but this seems a little
inconsistent:

 _"Organic farmers won’t use Roundup and other herbicides, so they plow the
weeds under, which kills a lot of small animals"_

In other words: herbicides are good, farmers should use them.

 _"Standard industrial cotton has Bacillus thuringiensis (“bt”) genes mixed in
and these kill pests, cutting the need for sprayed pesticides in half."_

In other words: pesticides are bad, farmers should not use them.

 _"Organic farmers won’t use standard fertilizer, but only manure from cows,
which means we’ll need a lot more cows running around"_

By the same argument, recycling is bad because we'll need a lot more garbage
to recycle.

~~~
hartror
You miss the point of the cow manure. There is only so much of it to go
around, we can't feed the world's population using it.

~~~
davidryal
And if cow manure actually was the only suitable material for organic
fertilizer, you might have a point. It's called COMPOST, and it can be made
from almost any organic waste.

~~~
hartror
I don't think you quite understand the scale of the problem. We don't have
enough usable organic waste of any sort to put on our crops.

------
ericb
In principle, gmo is a fine idea--why not hack nature to suit our needs? In
practice, the genetic modifications are often used to enhance resistance to
pesticides (not pests). Then, more pesticides can be sprayed without
endangering the health of the plant. But no one has modified _us_ to tolerate
the pesticides, which we then consume.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food>

<http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-disappearing-male/>

~~~
hartror
It is true that the first generation of GMOs are mostly directed at that sort
of enhancement. However lots of newer GMOs in the design or testing phases are
aimed at a wide variety of benefits that will improve things for both the
growers and the consumers. For example that big cuddly corp Monsanto has a
Soybean that has had omega-3 added, as fish stocks dwindle planet derived
omega-3 will be more and more important.

Think of it like we are at the same stage as computers were in the 1950s, what
is happening today is nothing compared to what will be happening tomorrow. And
it will happen in less time than it took for us to get the internet.

------
ansy
This is a pretty heavy handed interpretation. Sure, the definition of
agriculture is humans messing with the genetics of plants and animals. Since
the first seed was replanted, we have been involved in a process of selecting
and mixing desirable genetic traits.

BUT. This is all just the application of technology. And like all
technologies, not every application of technology is better than the last.
There was a time in the pharmaceutical industry when it was OK to mix
industrial solvents and addictive substances into a deadly cocktail. Then we
dialed that back, said that wasn't so good. Some pesticides and GMOs are
looking a little scary, sometimes "is that kerosene in my cough syrup" scary.

There is a good compromise with GMOs in my opinion. First we do the genetic
sequencing to unravel the secrets. Then we use traditional hybridization to
mix the strains for desirable properties without exposing ourselves to the
risk of full blown genetic hackery.

That's without even bringing up the topic of genetic patents. I find it far
more objectionable than software patents but it is rarely discussed. There was
a good New Yorker article on it for any patent haters that want to raise their
blood pressure.

[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/27/070827fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/27/070827fa_fact_seabrook)

------
wmeredith
This is a total side note, but I find the reference to Fritos as something
non-organic or unnatural amusing, because they're one of the most natural
snack foods on the martket. Look at the ingredients on a bag of Fritos
sometime. IIRC they are corn, corn oil, salt. Now compare that to something
like Doritos.

------
igrekel
Over simplification.

There are alternate strategies to reduce the impact of pests or to fertilize
fields, or to just make those fields deplete at a slower rate. In some cases
we would need the very useful pesticides or chemical fertilizers but right now
they are just used by default. A lot of those GMOs aren't to make things have
better nutritional value, or make it that you need to use less external help
to grow produce, they exist to make the farmer buy more of something else. The
roundup ready seeds are the best example of that; they make it possible to use
herbicide by default, without having to mind it too much.

For some produces, organic growing is actually cheaper, its just dumb that
they still charge us extra for it.

------
ScotterC
This article does offer little back ground argument or cite any true hard
information. However the organic vs non organic debate is a large topic. The
overall argument of this post is not worthless. The amount of land used to
feed the maximum amount of people is significantly less using modern
technology vs organic methods.

------
ReadyNSet
throughout history we consumed organic and we were fine so the by
experimentation we know organic produce is generally safer (if handled
cleanly).

GMO on the other hand maybe causing many things (jury is still out) and we
won't know that for a while probably so I wouldn't risk the entire human
population just so that we can have more food which kills us rather than
enough food which sustains us.

and comments on that forum have listed that organic can have enough/comparable
yields just that its labor intensive sounds like a job creation plan no body
is mentioning :)

------
aihunter
Totally agree. Same argument for paper vs. plastic. Takes more energy to
create a paper bag that a plastic one!

------
klbarry
Extremely little (none?) actual science or evidence presented in this article.
If this wasn't from the Harvard domain it wouldn't get a second glance.

~~~
jellicle
It's from a particular person who is recognizable to the HN community. That's
why it got a second glance. Agree that it's a worthless article.

------
logjam
The 11th Rule: Any Greenspun commentary on a sufficiently complicated social
issue contains ad hoc, appeal-to-emotion, bug-ridden statements regurgitating
half of "Atlas Shrugged".

