I just read a blog arguing the problems versus benefits of organic food. Though it covered the issue from different angles and had some interesting points, one part that I want to address is the idea that organic fields are 40% less productive than fields that use a bunch of chemicals. That isn't true of any organic farmer I know personally – I'm not sure where this statistic comes from and I have my doubts it is accurate in any context.
I can say with certainty it is not accurate if a farmer uses any of a number of different organic growing methods such as biodynamic, biointensive, polycropping or permaculture techniques, all of which can produce higher yields than traditional agriculture at lower costs.
The problem with conventional agriculture — and the reason we have to import oil in order to grow corn — is because the way we grow our food is extremely unnatural. Think of this: We literally kill every living thing in the field before we plant our crops! To prepare a new field to plant corn, we would have to remove all the plants already growing there, and plow the soil under, which kills even many of the soil microbes that are essential for fertile soil. All that organic matter that was just removed is what created rich soils in the first place. Then we import a bunch of chemical fertilizers to feed the plants, because we stripped the place. One could call that flora and fauna genocide, you know? Every living thing? Is that really necessary?
This article appears in May 20-26, 2009.