Myths/Arguments Against Local & Organic Foods Don't Hold Water

The laundry list of reasons why a growing number of people choose local and organic foods is well known - taste, health, environment, culture, economic benefits to local economies, etc. Consumers are increasingly willing to pay a higher price for these foods, particularly when they know that more of the profits are going to the farmer rather than a transnational food-processing corporation. Not surprisingly, the growth in these markets is catching the eye of many in the conventional food system. The U.S. organic market was expected to reach $13 billion last year, while U.S. farmers markets sales now exceed $1 billion annually. Several arguments have been developed to dissuade people from diverting their food dollars from conventional markets. These are meant to confuse consumers who practice social and environmental responsibility. I would like to look at three of the most common.

We need industrial agriculture in order to "feed the world." The "feeding the world" rationale is repeated so often that it is assumed to be a fact. But here in the Midwest, our largest agricultural exports are corn and soybeans. These are most commonly used as an animal feed, but also have several industrial uses as sweeteners, vegetable oils, liquid fuels and other important applications. They are, however, rarely consumed by humans directly. A study by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy a few years ago found that about one-tenth of one percent of the U.S. corn and soybean exports were directed to sub-Saharan Africa, the most food insecure region in the world. Instead, as expected, most of our exports are directed to countries that have the ability to pay for the crops.

The primary cause of food insecurity throughout the world is not a lack of food but an inability to pay for food. Maximizing U.S. agricultural production does not increase food security in other countries. To effectively address the hunger issue, the U.S. and other exporting nations need to halt the dumping of crops below the cost of production, a practice that can devastate small farmers by destroying local markets. Diverting Midwest acreage away from export markets to local and organic markets will bring us closer to a true solution to world hunger - functioning agricultural markets that allow local food systems to flourish.

Poor people cannot afford expensive organic foods. These foods are an exclusive perk that can only be enjoyed by the wealthy. This argument is often effective because the last thing that many organic consumers would want to be called is aristocratic. People are rarely criticized for choosing a house or car that provides safety, but choosing safe food has somehow become a political statement.

There's no question that organic foods are frequently more expensive than comparable conventional foods. Some of this can be attributed to the reduced production costs that can be achieved through commercial fertilizer and chemicals. Some of the price difference can also be attributed to the economies of scale enjoyed by the large multinational food companies.

But these food systems are not on a level playing field. U.S. farm policy infuses billions of dollars into the conventional food system and keeps commodity prices artificially low. Furthermore, conventional crops have been aided by decades of public and private research and development. Organic food systems receive only a tiny fraction of the agricultural research funds. The problem is not so much that organic foods are expensive; it's that government policy has made conventional foods too cheap and that hurts farmers, rural communities and the environment.

Effectively reducing the price discrepancy requires changes in public policy and strengthened food regulations. The emergence of BSE (mad cow disease) in the U.S. may hasten those regulations. But as consumers, the best thing we can do to reduce the costs of local and organic is to purchase local and organic. As more consumers choose organic and a larger network of organic farmers develop innovative practices, prices will inevitably narrow between conventional and organic products.The growing organic market will also induce more public and private investment.

Industrial agricultural practices increase yields and therefore reduce the agricultural encroachment onto rainforest and other environmentally sensitive areas. The Hudson Institute's Dennis Avery claims that increases in agricultural yields have saved 15 million square miles of wildlife habitat. This assertion assumes that agricultural production is a zero-sum game - every bushel of corn grown in the Midwest means a bushel less is grown in a rainforest. Real agricultural markets work nothing at all like this. A Mexican campesino, for example, does not consider U.S. corn yields when planting. He or she needs to earn an income and feed a family, regardless of corn production levels and prices. In fact, the dumping of cheap U.S. grain on foreign markets reduces commodity prices, forcing small farmers to clear more land rather than less in order to receive the same income.

Perhaps this theory can most easily be put to rest by observing the growth in Brazilian soy production over the past decade. Despite the fact that the U.S. has dominated the international soy market and prices are often well below the cost of production, Brazil is expected to soon overtake the U.S. as the largest soy exporter. The success that U.S. farmers have had increasing soy yields has provided an example, not a deterrent, for increasing Brazilian production.

Avery assumes that agricultural land cannot serve as wildlife habitat. In fact, agricultural land can serve many ecological functions including habitat, clean water, flood abatement, climate change mitigation and protecting biodiversity. It is not an either/or proposition. Avery also assumes that organic yields are significantly lower than conventional yields. Yet based on 154 growing seasons' worth of data on various crops, organic crops yielded 95% of crops grown under conventional, high-input conditions, even with much less research support from government and universities. Sustainable agricultural practices can provide food and fiber as well as wildlife.

In conclusion, I have yet to find an argument against local and organic foods that really holds water. The reasons for eating them become more and more apparent. Mad cow, E. coli, salmonella, antibiotic resistance, and the obesity epidemic are all indicators of a food system in peril. Have we really made progress when the traditional farming practices of 60 years ago are now considered by many to be an excessive luxury?

Don't let the critics fool you. If you care about wildlife, the environment and world hunger, then local and organic foods are the right choice.