To round off my rational assault on organic farming I will just add a few parting shots that will hopefully provide you with things to look our for in marketing and popular claims to reality.
The most common red flags hoisted by promoters of hokey populist claim scan all be found in the promotion of organic farming. Below is a list of the main red flags to watch out for. A more complete list can be found at the Skeptoid podcast website.
(1) Is the claim said to be “all natural”?
This is often referred to as the natural fallacy – the notion that if something is natural it is safer and more ethical than sythetic alternatives. Consider the number of poisons and toxins that occur naturally – hemlock, toadstalls, lead, poisonous mushrooms... In many cases the sythetic alternative is regulated and engineered to be safe and effective. This is because such compounds are rigourously tested while many “natural” alternatives evade testing, usually for ideological reasons.
(2) Does the claim have support that is political, ideological, or cultural?
Science is a method fortesting what actually is true. It is a rational enterprise where the evidence is all that ultimately counts. Value judgements are separate domains to what is actually true. For this reason, many emotive claims from political, ideological or cultural settings are not reliable indicators of whether the claim being made is true.
(3) Do the claimants say there is something wrong with the norm?
If a claim holds any water at all, the claimants don't need to smear the opposing claim. Real research is presented without going off on alarmist rants. Most alternative claims are supported only by alarmist ramblings against the norm. No matter how bad an alternative may or may not be, it is not evidence for the claim being made.
The claims of organic farming are promoted primarily through marketing. There is a distinct absence of scientific support for organic farming as aviable farming method, given the demand for food and the need for intensive farming. A lot of the ideals around organic farming are worthwhile causes, such as the promotion of community and recycling waste as fertiliser. Organic farming proponents stray from the path of rationality when they then claim conventional farming is somehow bad or unethical. These claims are parroted by marketers keen to cash in on the misinformation and popular cultural myths that run through society.
I hope that illuminates the area of organic farming or at least provides a springboard for critically analysing popular claims and determining fact from fiction.
Hi Fred, You are welcome to your view fortunately most of what you say is untrue so I will put it down to your lack of life experience. I will continue to grow orginally or biologically and puchase food and clothing to the same standard where ever possible. This is for two reasons, for good, or better health and greater satisfaction in eating and drinking. Well managed farms will out perform chemical input farms in the long term. I have one friend who is on a small farm in the Waikato who claims he can't afford not to farm organically with or without a premium. Plant or any other poisons are not used in quality organic growing. Insects eat what is crap for animals and humans so growing good food / fodder sorts the insects. When soils are well fertilised weeds are not a problem. Go and ask an organic grower who has been growing organically for ten years or more. My experience of science is that since it has been largely funded by industry results are not released until it suits the funder. D.D.T. was once scientifically proven to be safe!!! Health maintenance costs ar in part a testament to this as are the rising rates of cancer, heart disease and diabeties. As I said at the start you are most welcome to your point of view. I beg to differ. best wishes, Peter Bacchus
Thanks for your response Peter, although I do think your assertion that I lack experience in life because my view differs from you is a little uncalled for. Anyway, I thought I would point out what is wrong with your argument. You say my statements are untrue and your strongest arguments to back this up are "Well managed farms will out perform chemical input farms in the long term" which is speculation and that organic food is healthier than conventional crops. This is categorically untrue - study after study shows the nutrient profile is enhanced by plants that receive the right proportions of nutrients and that pesticide residue is at such a minute level that there his no documented case of deteriorating health because of these residues. While your organic produce may not have pesticides, it is incorrect to assume that this is standard practice for the entire industry. Your anecdotal evidence is unconvincing (but seemingly more convincing to you than actual science). If your views aren't based on science what reason is there to take them seriously? Yes, DDT was used on farms but notice 2 things: Firstly, the efects of DDT were hard to test for as it takes a long time for symptoms of DDT build up to have an effect serious enough to determine the cause. Also notice that scientists learned from this - which is what happens when claims are based on evidence. Our knowledge is immensely better now than it was back then so mistakes like DDT aren't likely to occur again. One further point - are you saying that by not using pesticides you are seem to think insects work for the farmer by eliminating what isn't necessary! Losing crops is not a wise move and completely wasteful - especially at atime when more food is needed. Science and technology are our friends - the mistakes of the past will be learned from. We turn away from scientific evidence at our own peril.
You need to be logged in to add comments
Advertisment