I agree with this. I would like to see a certification system that highlights whether or not the farming method builds/doesn’t deplete soil. And I would like it to be legit, not watered down by marketing. One thing that seems to matter is how soil viability is maintained. Cover crops, tap root cover crops, compost, and maintaining/adding minerals and adjuncts into soil are important to keep the soil from disappearing. If this was a common practice, there would be much less need for any chemical based fertilizer or pesticide.
One thing I’ve repeatedly read is that produce from 70+ years ago (hmmm…before the green revolution) was far more nutrient dense than produce grown today regardless of its being grown conventionally or organic. The farm soils today are massively depleted and absent additions of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium, wouldn’t grow fuck all. Modern farm soils now mostly act as a hydroponic growing medium and are being constantly flooded with NPK to boost growth absent soil viability and with loads of it then running off.
Building soil enhances it as a growth medium and absorbs adjuncts rather than shedding them, and that additional viability is taken up by the plants enriching their nutritional value.
The organic labeling that exists today is wasted effort.
The reasons for eating organic is not health benefits, but the logic surrounding the production. It should be said though, that many products still contain trace amounts of glyphosate, which can be traced in people’s urine. That can hardly be healthy.
But the main argument for organic farming is that it takes less of a toll on resources, including fossil fuels, and is better for biodiversity if done right. Permaculture especially is better in that sense. But of course, that’s not what agro-business would have you believe.
For example, there’s supermarkets in my area that have a section of produce set aside for locally-sourced fruit & veg. It’s labeled as ‘organic’. I trust that buying that stuff is generally not a waste of my money.
And there’s mass-market certification programs that have built a greater degree of trust as well, such as Oregon Tilth. I look for products that have well-known rigorous certification when I can.
But as @mister44 says, it’s complicated. Declaring all organic food a ‘scam’ is painfully cynical and untrue.
Yep, the key watchword here for many of us who buy “organic” is sustainable agriculture. Taking whatever ethical improvement we can in our normal lives, however small they may seem.
Of course it won’t suddenly solve the carbon footprint problem. Of course it won’t suddenly eliminate toxins. But that is the perfection fallacy, and we are all happy to take whatever small improvements we can. We just have to avoid falling into the trap of radicalism, where pushing too far ends up causing a backlash.
I’m not sure that changes my point at all. Seasonal crops are sometimes locally grown inefficiently and with a large pollution cost. It isn’t a given that eating something grown “locally” is more environmentally sustainable/beneficial, much less nutritionally superior in any way.
That is a main benefit of sustainable farming, not organic farming. The majority of acreage in organic farms are not also being maintained in a sustainable manner. You can also have sustainable farms that are not organic.
Well, in Europe the Venn diagram of the two has enough overlap that people assume they are closely related. That, and things like humane treatment of livestock are expected to be better with certified organic produce.
IIRC, some organic certifications like Demeter and BioLand also have sustainable production as part of their requirements to get their seal. And since they were there before the EU-seal was codified, people just assume organic farmers are also performing sustainable agriculture.
