A quick definition of each would probably be helpful:

Organic- Organic agriculture relies on “traditional” methods such as crop rotation, compost, and manure, instead of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Please see Eating Organic for more information.

Fairtrade- Most broadly, Fairtrade is a movement dedicated to helping marginalized producers and workers become empowered in international trade, specifically in the export of products from developing countries to developed countries. The purpose of Fairtrade-certified food products is to provide producers with a “fair price” regardless of the market price, provided they meet particular labor and production standards.

Local- Quite literally, this means buying food that is produced locally on smaller farms. A smaller number of “food miles” ideally makes local food better for the environment in cutting carbon emissions and reducing petroleum usage. Buying locally is the foundation of Sustainable Eating.

While many of us would like to help the environment and/or the poor through the power of our grocery dollar, we might not be helping as much as we think.  Here are the article’s major claims:

1.  Norman Borlaug, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and advocate of synthetic fertilizers, argues that organic farming produces lower crop yields, requiring more land to produce the same amount of food. He points out that between 1950 and 2000, global cereal production tripled while land use increased by only 10%.

2.  Fairtrade products do not solve the basic problem of the over-production of certain products, such as coffee, and contribute to making non-Fairtrade farmers even poorer. The low price of products such as coffee is due to overproduction, and should encourage farmers to diversify to other crops. Paying a Fairtrade “subsidy” prevents this message from getting to farmers, and instead, encourages more farmers to grow already over-produced products. This lowers the price of non-Fairtrade products even more, and makes these farmers even poorer.

3.  The benefit of eating locally through a smaller number of “food miles” may be misleading. As concluded in a report by DEFRA, Britain’s environment and farming ministry, the move away from a supermarket-based food system may actually increase the number of food miles, as food moves more often, in less efficient packed vehicles. This report found that the production of certain products outside Britain (tomatoes, dairy products, lamb, apples, and onions) uses less energy and is better overall for the environment than producing these products “locally.” We also cannot forget also the benefit of trade for developing countries.

Aside from being very controversial, this article is very important. It encourages consumers to question environmentalist and fair-trade claims with food purchases, and overall, to rely on conventional political activity to make a difference. But, just for arguments sake, here are a couple things to keep in mind in this debate.

1.  Other research, such as the much cited Cornell University study, has found that organic farming produces the same yield as conventional techniques, while using less energy and no pesticides. Traditional agriculture may be contributing to pesticide resistant, which certainly affects any discussion of yield comparison.

2.  “Organic” foods, which can be shipped thousands of miles from big, corporate producers, may not have the same considerations as, say, sustainable farms, which take into account not only production but distribution impacts.

3.  The local food movement really, in concept, shouldn’t mean that producers, products and consumers are traveling more food miles (and thus hurting the environment). Something seems fishy in using the DEFRA example, especially as the local food movement is young and certainly not optimally efficient. Also, this study seems to ignore the importance of eating seasonally, and relying on foods that can be produced only through local, sustainable agriculture.

Dismissing the Economist’s claims would certainly be hasty, but this does not mean that the ideas behind the organic, fair-trade, and local food movements are inherently bad. While not yet ideal in practice, they may prove better as they gain support (funding, application, etc.).

But, what do you think? Source: The Economist