Organic farming 'no better for the environment'

[Doondoo]

Organic food may be no better for the environment than conventional produce and in some cases is contributing more to global warming than intensive agriculture, according to a government report.

The first comprehensive study of the environmental impact of food production found there was "insufficient evidence" to say organic produce has fewer ecological side-effects than other farming methods.

.......

The report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs found "many" organic products had lower ecological impacts than conventional methods using fertilisers and pesticides. But academics at the Manchester Business School (MBS), who conducted the study, said that was counterbalanced by other organic foods - such as milk, tomatoes and chicken - which are significantly less energy efficient and can be more polluting than intensively-farmed equivalents.

Ken Green, professor of environmental management at MBS, who co-wrote the report, said: "You cannot say that all organic food is better for the environment than all food grown conventionally. If you look carefully at the amount of energy required to produce these foods you get a complicated picture. In some cases, the carbon footprint for organics is larger."


http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2283928.ece

[LaurenG]

1. I think it's better for those who eat it thus

making it a better choice. Why add toxic chemicals to the land and how would adding in extra poison NOT harm the environment. I call bs on that guy and his study.

[kestrel91316]

12. I get the really funny feeling organics are better for the PEOPLE WHO

WORK ON THE FARM, too. Just a theory.

[JTFrog]

2. Chemicals = $$$$

"Advocates of organic farming said its environmental benefits had long been established, not least by Mr Miliband who has written it is "better for biodiversity than intensive farming". The Soil Association said it recognised that in some areas, such as poultry and growing vegetables out of season, organic was less energy efficient.

But it said that was vastly outweighed by factors which the Defra study had not taken into consideration such as animal welfare, soil condition and water use."

[C_U_L8R]

3. Betcha somewhere in this "scientist's" past...

is a chemical company contract.
(hint.. he's a professor at a "business" school)

How do people like this live with themselves ?

[Arkansas Granny]

4. Something doesn't sound right. This article doesn't make clear

whether or not they figured in the effect of producing and transporting the chemicals necessary for the "conventional" methods of farming. For instance, in the milk production which they claim requires 80% more land to produce, did they consider the amount of land needed to produce the feed for cows which do not graze on pasture?

Other comparisons they make, such as:

"Organic tomatoes grown in heated greenhouses in Britain generate one hundred times the amount of CO2 per kilogram produced by tomatoes in unheated greenhouses in southern Spain."

Isn't this like comparing apples to oranges?

I would need more research and evidence before I put too much stock into one study.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Tell that to my neighbor

who farms with mules and uses no electricity.

Sorry, but sounds to me like these were Monsanto or Dow scientists on leave. Can you imagine what would have happened back in the '60s if these clowns had the power over the media they do now? "Silent Spring" wouldn't have become a best seller and we'd still have DDT sprays--after all, who cares about dumb birds?

[Warren Stupidity]

7. They weren't scientists at all.

They are identifed as "Ken Green, professor of environmental management at MBS" and they "Used data from previous studies" rather than original research.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Yes and organic food does not have fewer calories either.

While a lower environmental impact would be nice, the objective was better food to eat. Also I am wondering about the ability of a business school to conduct environmental impact studies. And finally they seem to have focused simply on energy use rather than the entire realm of 'environmental impact', ignoring issues such as biodiversity.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Can't say much without reading the full report, but...

if we're gonna eat cows and chickens, there will be tradeoffs no matter how we produce them.

[OneBlueSky]

9. non-organic farming uses petroleum-based fertilizers . . .

last time I checked, the process of extracting oil from the earth and turning it into fertilizer was pretty energy-intensive . . .

[Javaman]

10. plus the fuel needed to power the machines that plant and harvets

non-organics.

I think this guy is smoking some of that wacky tobaccy.

[NickB79]

11. Organic farms can require more cultivation of the fields, though

Conventional farmers will spray their fields with herbicides once in the spring to kill off weeds, but many organic farms rely on cultivation between the rows to knock down the weeds. Driving a tractor across a field several times with a cultivator instead of just once with a sprayer can add up to substantial fossil fuel consumption, considering the poor fuel efficiency of tractors.

Other than that, though, I can't think of anything else that would make organic farming more carbon-intensive than conventional farming. Organics should be sequestering more carbon than conventional farms by building up the soil, and as you stated they don't use fossil-fuel-based fertilizers.

[kestrel91316]

13. Just ask the Amish how much in the way of petroleum products they

need to control weeds.................NOT MUCH. Oil is a labor and time saver. Not some magical substance that performs the otherwise-impossible.

[NickB79]

14. Well, if we're talking organic farming using mules and oxen

Then no, not much petroleum is used up at all. However, I am pretty certain the organic veggies I can buy at my local grocery store were not cultivated with oxen-powered plows and transported to the store on the back of a horse-drawn carriage. Commercial organic farmers still use tractors and semi-trailers, no?

I was simply pointing out that modern organic farming methods can use substantial amounts of fossil fuels in some aspects of their operations, but was agreeing with the previous poster that the carbon emissions should still be lower than conventional farms since they don't use synthetic fertilizers and sequester carbon in the soil.

[silverweb]

15. Bullshit.

Follow the money.

[Robeson]

18. My thoughts, exactly.

[XemaSab]

16. Huh?

vs.

[orleans]

17. monsanto is listed as one of the "clients" on the MBS (manchester business school

website)

"The Corporate Reputation Chain can be used in a wide variety of business sectors, and this is highlighted by the list of clients that have been involved with the Institute. For example:

"Monsanto, Standa, Anheuser-Busch, Co-operative Bank, Post Office, Marks & Spencer, New Look, Prét à Manger, Vickers, Safeway, Kimberly-Clark, Centrica, Virgin, London Electricity, Tesco, Littlewoods, Checkpoint-Meto, Arthur Andersen, Lloyds TSB, House of Fraser, Mansell, Hall & Tawse, Ford, Labour Party, Conservative Party, Liberal Party; and Korean Steel.

"Case studies have been carried out for all of these organisations, and for a number of them the Institute has continued the work by undertaking identity studies and image studies.

http://www.mbs.ac.uk/research/corporate-reputation/clients.htm

with all the chemical crap monsanto has/owns--i'm sure mbs wouldn't want to piss off a client by saying that the chemicals are bad. instead, they are saying organic farming isn't worth it--so go ahead and buy your chemicals and farm in a non-organic way.