Reading Passage 2
Organic food: why?
by
Rob Lyons and Jan Bowman
Today, many governments are promoting organic or natural farming methods that avoid
the use o f pesticides and other artificial products. The aim is to show that they care about
the environment and about people’s health. But is this the right approach?
A
Europe is now the biggest market for organic food in the world, expanding by 25
percent a year over the past 10 years. So what is the attraction of organic food for
some people? The really important thing is that organic sounds more ‘natural’. Eating
organic is a way of defining oneself as natural, good, caring, different from the
junk-food-scoffing masses. As one journalist puts it: ‘It feels closer to the source, the
beginning, the start of things.’ The real desire is to be somehow close to the soil, to
Mother Nature.
В
Unlike conventional farming, the organic approach means farming with natural,
rather than
man-made, fertilisers and pesticides. Techniques such as crop rotation
improve soil quality and help organic farmers compensate for the absence of man-
made chemicals. As a method of food production, organic is, however, inefficient in
its use of labour and land; there are severe limits to how much food can be produced.
Also, the environmental benefits of not using artificial fertiliser are tiny compared with
the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by transporting food (a great deal of Britain’s
organic produce is shipped in from other countries and transported from
shop to
home by car).
С
Organic farming is often claimed to be safer than conventional farming - for the
environment and for consumers. Yet studies into organic farming worldwide continue
to reject this claim. An extensive review by the UK Food Standards Agency found
that there was no statistically significant difference between organic and conventional
crops. Even where results indicated there was evidence of a difference, the reviewers
found no sign that these differences would have any noticeable effect on health.
D
The simplistic claim that organic food is more nutritious than
conventional food
was always likely to be misleading. Food is a natural product, and the health value
of different foods will vary for a number of reasons, including freshness, the way
the food is cooked, the type of soil it is grown in the amount of sunlight and rain
crops have
received, and so on. Likewise, the flavour of a carrot has less to do with
whether it was fertilised with manure or something out of a plastic sack than with the
variety of carrot and how long ago it was dug up. The differences created by these
things are likely to be greater than any differences brought about by using an organic
or nonorganic system of production. Indeed, even some ‘organic’ farms are quite
different from one another.
E
The notion that organic food is safer than ‘normal’ food is also contradicted by the
fact that many of our most common foods are full of natural toxins. Parsnips cause
blisters on the skin of agricultural workers. Toasting bread creates carcinogens.
As one research expert says: ‘People think that the
more natural something is, the
better it is for them. That is simply not the case. In fact, it is the opposite that is true:
the closer a plant is to its natural state, the more likely it is that it will poison you.
Day 5
Naturally, many plants do not want to be eaten, so we have spent 10,000 years
developing agriculture and breeding out harmful traits from crops.
F
Yet educated Europeans are more scared of eating traces of a few, strictly regulated,
man-made chemicals than they are of eating the ones that nature created directly.
Surrounded by plentiful food, it’s not nature they worry about, but technology. Our
obsessions with the ethics and safety of what we eat - concerns about antibiotics
in animals,
additives in food, GM crops and so on - are symptomatic of a highly
technological society that has little faith in its ability to use this technology wisely. In
this context, the less something is touched by the human hand, the healthier people
assume it must be.
G
Ultimately, the organic farming movement is an expensive luxury for shoppers in well-
manicured Europe. For developing parts of the world, it is irrelevant. To European
environmentalists, the fact that organic methods require
more labour and land than
conventional ones to get the same yields is a good thing; to a farmer in rural Africa,
it is a disaster. Here, land tends to be so starved and crop yields so low that there
simply is not enough organic matter to put back into the soil. Perhaps the focus
should be on helping these countries to gain access to the most advanced farming
techniques, rather than going back to basics.