Note that if you purchase something via one of our links, including Amazon, we may earn a small commission.
Take Your Broken Things to Get Fixed
Dear Reader,
Welcome to Mythbuster Monday. Today we’re considering whether food that’s labeled “organic” (a descriptor often deployed as shorthand for “good for the planet”) is in fact always a better choice.
For starters, the “always” raises issues, but so does the term “better.”
As Dear Dot queried in this column, “by ‘better,’ are we asking only if the food is more nutrient dense? Or are we also asking if it’s safer for agricultural workers? For the watershed? And are we thinking long-term about down-the-road impacts of specific farming practices, including carbon and nitrous oxide emissions?” What’s more, there’s a wide range of what can be considered “organic.” So without getting too deep into the weeds, let’s determine: Myth, Partly True, or True.
In order to be certified organic in the United States (and certifications around the world are roughly the same), the USDA states that, “Produce can be called organic if it’s certified to have grown on soil that had no prohibited substances applied for three years prior to harvest. … As for organic meat, regulations require that animals are raised in living conditions accommodating their natural behaviors (like the ability to graze on pasture), fed 100% organic feed and forage, and not administered antibiotics or hormones.”
So far, so good, right? For the most part, organic food isn’t more nutritious (although some research shows that organic meat and dairy can contain more omega-3 fatty acids, sometimes up to 50% more than non-organic alternatives, since organic livestock eats more grass). But it’s really what organic food lacks — synthetic chemical pesticides, and so on — that makes it healthier for us. And not just healthier for those of us who eat the food, but also for those who work in the fields and with the animals.
What’s more, by eliminating synthetic nitrogen fertilizers (which are made largely from natural gas), we could cut global greenhouse gas emissions by about 20%. That’s “better,” right? And that Dear Dot column also pointed to a 40-year study indicating that organic farms use 45% less energy than conventional farms.
But the “better” claim breaks down when coupled with the word “always.” An organic farm that relies on heavy tillage drains the soil of the biology that feeds plants. That’s where regenerative farming (a soil-restoring, carbon-sequestering approach to agriculture) is superior. (Curious about regenerative farming? Listen to Bluedot Living’s podcast, Imagine If …, featuring a conversation with regenerative farmer Liz Cicchelli from Granor Farm in Three Oaks, Michigan.)
So Dot’s going to declare this claim Partly True. Organic is consistently better for reducing chemical exposure and environmental harm, but it is not necessarily more nutritious, and it doesn’t always imply the use of environmentally optimal farming methods. “Organic” is a meaningful label, but not a perfect one.
Truthfully,
Dot
Check out the iFixIt global repair community.
For more Bluedot Climate Quick Tips, click here.
