SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.13 issue2Nutritional intervention for housewives from Jeráhuaro, Mich. A necessity in eating behavior author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

Share


Journal of the Selva Andina Research Society

Print version ISSN 2072-9294On-line version ISSN 2072-9308

J. Selva Andina Res. Soc. vol.13 no.2 La Paz  2022  Epub Aug 31, 2022

https://doi.org/10.36610/j.jsars.2022.130200095 

Carta Científica

Organic farming: truth or myth, judge for yourself

Julio Gabriel-Ortega1  * 
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9776-9235

1 Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabí (UNESUM). Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences. km 1.5 via Noboa, Campus los Ángeles, Jipijapa. Tel: 05-2600229/05-2601657/05-2600223. Manabí, Ecuador.


Mr. Editor.

It is mentioned that there are various explanations and definitions of organic agriculture (OA) (ecological, biological agriculture)1, but they all agree that it is a method for managing the ecosystem instead of using only agricultural inputs1,2.

So-called OA1,3 has been sacralised in an uncritical way, both in the political and legislative sphere and in the media. It is imperative to rigorously evaluate its postulates and practices in the light of the best available science4, with an objective view. A good starting point to contribute to the debate is the European Union (EU) regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products (No. 8347/2007) of June 20071,4 which states, "organic production is a general system of farm management and food production that combines best environmental practices, a high level of biodiversity, the preservation of natural resources, the application of high animal welfare standards and production in accordance with the preferences of certain consumers for products obtained from natural substances and processes"3,4. In this light definition, the ambitious enumeration of good intentions, ideals that in principle can be embraced by any citizen, is contrasted with an explicit declaration that the aim is not so much the production of foodstuffs necessary for our species as a whole, but "production in accordance with the preferences of certain consumers"3,4. It is clear from its advocates that organic food "arises as an ideological movement of reaction" to what they consider to be the excesses and problems resulting from the intensification and industrialization of agricultural production, the consequences of which are a litany of negative effects on health, the environment and society2,4.

Organic food accounts for about 2 % of the world market, with prices around 50 % higher than conventional food2. Although the expansion of OA in the world is relatively recent, reaching more than 30 million hectares, in 120 countries and 600000 production units1,2, its beginnings date back to the last decades of the 19th and early 20th centuries, based on the anthroposophical ideas of Rudolf Steiner and the empirical mysticism of Sir Albert Howard1.

OA does not use any man-made chemicals, not only avoids the use of synthetic pesticides, but also avoids the use of chemical fertilizers. Organic farmers believe that pesticides are dangerous to humans and the environment2. They claim that synthetic nitrogen is bad for soils, but it is known that any source of nitrogen always involves the same chemical element and is identical to any other2,4.

In reality, organic farmers use "natural" pesticides such as sulphur, Bacillus thuringiensis and pyrethrins5,6 [insecticides extracted from chrysanthemum flowers, Chrysanthemum cinerariaefolium (fam. Compositae)]. Most apply more pesticides, more frequently than non-organic producers2.

Studies3,4,7 concluded that organic fruits and vegetables were no more nutritious than their cheaper conventional counterparts, nor were they less likely to be contaminated by pathogenic bacteria such as Escherichia coli or salmonella (Salmonella spp.)4,8,9.

People buy organic food to avoid exposure to harmful levels of pesticides. But that is hardly valid reasoning, although non-organic fruits and vegetables have more pesticide residues, with levels 99 % of the time not exceeding the conservative safety thresholds set by regulators4,8,9. Moreover, the vast majority of pesticides described in produce occur "naturally" in common diets, through organic and conventional foods4. They determined that "99.9 % (by weight) of pesticides in the US diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves, only 52 naturally occurring pesticides were detected in high-dose animal cancer tests, 27 of them rodent carcinogens, present in many common foods2,4.

The conclusion was, natural chemicals are just as likely as synthetic versions to test positive in animal cancer studies, and "at low doses from most human exposures, the comparative hazards of these synthetic residues are negligible"2,4. In other words, consumers of expensive organic foods, in order to avoid pesticide exposure, focus their attention on 0.01 % of what they consume2,4.

Ironically, in Europe as in North America, the designation "organic" is itself a synthetic bureaucratic construct, and makes little sense. It prohibits the use of synthetic chemical pesticides, with some pragmatic exceptions4. For example, EU policy states that "flexibility rules" can compensate for "local climatic, cultural or structural differences". Where there are no suitable alternatives, some (strictly listed) synthetic chemicals are allowed4.

Similarly, in the United States, there is an extensive list of specific exceptions to the bans. But most "natural" pesticides, as well as pathogen-laden animal excrement, for use as fertilizer, are allowed2.

Another reasoning for buying organic is supposedly better for the natural environment. But the low yields of OA in real-world environments-typically 20-25 % below conventional agriculture-place various demands on farmland and increase water consumption substantially2. According to a recent analysis in the UK4, ammonia emissions, nitrogen leaching, and nitrous oxide emissions per unit of production were higher in organic systems than in conventional agriculture, as were land use and eutrophication potential, adverse ecosystem responses to fertilizer incorporation, waste and acidification4.

An anomaly of how "organic" is defined is its designation, it does not really focus on the quality, composition or safety of the food, rather, it comprises a set of acceptable practices and procedures that a farmer intends to use1,4. For example, a chemical pesticide or pollen from genetically modified plants flying from an adjacent field into an organic crop does not affect the condition of the crop1. EU rules are clear: food can be labelled as organic as long as "ingredients containing genetically modified organisms enter the products unintentionally" and represent less than 0.9 % of their content4.

In conclusion, many people who are seduced by the romanticism of OA ignore its human consequences7. Farmers' common sense indicates that, "weeds continue to grow, even in polycultures using holistic farming methods and, without pesticides, manual weed eradication is the only way to protect a crop". The heavy and burdensome work of manual weeding often falls on women and children7.

Of course, there should be organic products that you can buy, that you feel, and must have and can afford. But the reality is, buying non-organic is much more cost-effective, more humane and more environmentally responsible7.

The day will come when the level of biological, ecological knowledge at the cellular and molecular level will allow OA to be a success. But this level of knowledge is still decades away2.

In the meantime, OA will continue to produce much lower, erratic yields than conventional agriculture with high yields2. Hence the lower yields, organic production will force an expansion of the cultivated area, in order to obtain the necessary food2.

With the current level of knowledge, no responsible authority or organization is in a position to recommend organic or low-yield conventional farming systems as a replacement for highly productive agriculture2. In fact, a reduction in agrochemical consumption would possibly lead to more erosion and cancer and reduce wildlife habitat2. OA could not maintain the fertility of agricultural land and could not effectively protect it against erosion2, nor help to eradicate the hunger suffered by 828 million people, not counting an increase of 150 million people since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic10.

REFERENCES

1. Comité de agricultura [Internet]. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura. 1999 [citado 10 de julio de 2022]. Recuperado a partir de: https://www.fao.org/3/x0075s/x0075s.htmLinks ]

2. Avery DT, Salvando al planeta con plásticos. En: Avery DT, editor. Salvando al planeta con plaguicidas y plásticos [Internet]. Indiana: Hudson Institute, Inc.; 1995. p. 248-54. Recuperado a partir de: https://www.casafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Salvando-al-planeta-con-plaguicidas-plasticos.pdfLinks ]

3. Consejo para la Seguridad de los Alimentos y la Nutrición. Alimentos orgánicos: mitos y verdades [Internet]. Buenos Aires: Consejo para la Seguridad de los Alimentos y la Nutrición; 2015 [citado 13 de julio de 2022]. 2 p. Recuperado a partir de: https://www.chilebio.cl/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Alimentos-organicos-mitos-y-verdades.pdfLinks ]

4. García Olmedo F. Mito y realidad de la agricultura ecológica [Internet]. Madrid: Real Academia de Ciencia; 2008 [citado 10 de julio de 2022]; 11 p. Recuperado a partir de https://oa.upm.es/8101/1/Olmedo_186.pdfLinks ]

5. Thijssen R. Piretro, insecticida natural. Leisa [Internet]. 1998 [citado 14 de julio de 2022]; 13(4): 1-5. Recuperado a partir de: https://www.leisa-al.org/web/index.php/volumen-13-numero-4/2517-piretro-insecticida-naturalLinks ]

6. de Santiago de Santiago A, Rodríguez Maciel JC, Bravo Mojica H, Villegas Monter Á, Romero Nápoles J. Producción de inflorescencias y tallos florales de piretro (Tanacetum coccineum) en montecillo, México. Rev Fitotec Mex 2005;28(3):279-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35196/rfm.2005.3.279Links ]

7. Miller HI. El mito de la agricultura orgánica [Internet]. CropLife Latín America. 2021 [citado 10 de julio de 2022]. Recuperado a partir de: https://www.croplifela.org/es/actualidad/articulos/el-mito-de-la-agricultura-organicaLinks ]

8. Dangour AD, Dodhia SK, Hayter A, Allen E, Lock K, Uauy R. Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr 2009;90(3):680-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2009.28041Links ]

9. Smith-Spangler C, Brandeau ML, Hunter GE, Bavinger JC, Pearson M, Eschbach PJ, et al. Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012;157(5):348-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007Links ]

10. Unos 828 millones de personas sufren hambre, se revierten los avances hacia el hambre cero para 2030 [Internet]. Naciones Unidas-Noticias ONU. 2022 [citado 14 de julio de 2022]. Recuperado a partir de: https://news.un.org/es/story/2022/07/1511372Links ]

Conflicts of interest The author declares that he/she has no conflict of interest. I declare that I have not received any public and/or private funding for this manuscript.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Dr. Manuel Loza-Murguía, Director and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the Selva Andina Research Society, for accepting to publish this Scientific Letter. Washington Narváez Campana, Professor at UNESUM, for his thoughtful comments and improvements to the paper.

Editor's Note: Journal of the Selva Andina Research Society (JSARS) remains neutral with respect to the opinions expressed in this letter and does not compromise the official line of the journal.

Received: June 01, 2022; Accepted: July 01, 2022

*Contact address: Julio Gabriel-Ortega E-mail address: julio.gabriel@unesum.edu.ec j.gabriel@proinpa.org

Creative Commons License Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons