I recently read that 2/3 of what Whole Foods Market sells is not certified organic, but is tainted with genetically-modified matter and grown using chemically intensive processes. Despite this, it is marketed as “natural.” Personally, I’m not ready to grab the pitchfork and torch. Yeah, I make an effort to buy organic. But sometimes, it’s absurd. For instance, the other day I had to opt for the conventional zucchini because the organic was $3.99. Not a pound – EACH. At the risk of sprouting a malforming Miracle-Gro induced tumor, I’d prefer to not go broke. Someday, maybe I can afford to align my life with my principles. But I doubt it.
That said, I do wholeheartedly believe that organics are preferable. No, I’m not buying into some fad here. Shockingly, food is better for you when it isn’t doused in chemicals at regular intervals and intermingled with genetically-modified matter, the impacts of which, the world is yet to fully realize. But enough about that. I have become an anthropologist of sorts, when it comes observing the natural food store employee in their native habitat. Perhaps you have also encountered this species. It’s most marked characteristic is its thinly-disguised judgment.
Now, to be fair, not every employee of Whole Foods/EarthFare/Your Local Bastion of Self-Righteousness appears to have just eaten a turd sandwich. Some of these folks actually practice what they represent and exude an aura of health and wellness. Others, well. Their dreadlocks prevent them from working anywhere else besides a record store (and the Ipod has done away with that for the most part) or organizing the next chair-through-the-Starbucks-window anti-globalization rally. They’ve settled for a job that provides a space for smoking their Natural Spirits and scowling, and where facial hair may be grown in a completely unregulated fashion.
Some time ago when I had a day job and was forced to wear something other than jeans and a t-shirt everyday, I would open my wallet and remove its contents at my local Whole Foods. (By that I mean, I ate lunch there.) This provided ample time for observation and some degree of interaction with the subject of my informal research. My conclusion was that I could buy all the wheatgrass and free-trade yerba mate in the world, but I was never getting any anti-establishment street cred with a head full of highlighted hair and heels. A shame. If we sat down to chat, we’d probably get along fairly well. Such is life in many instances, I suppose.
Perhaps nowhere in the world is this not-so-rare bird more populous than in Asheville, North Carolina. And they aren't relegated solely to hocking acai berry cleanses. When Asheville got an Urban Outfitters, I fully expected the streets to erupt in protest. “F--- you, corporate a-holes! We invented dumpster chic. And f--- that Mary-Kate Olsen too. Poseurs.” (As an aside, Urban is actually one of my favorite stores. Not all of it looks as if it were refused on sight at the Goodwill Donation center.) I remember one visit to Asheville with my sister. We hit several thrift stores downtown, and left with some great cheap finds. However, this otherwise enjoyable day was interspersed with some serious eye-daggers. In a few stores, we walked in and no one even spoke to us. Uh, awkward. When it’s just you and a latently venomous storekeep in a tiny space and no one is talking, it makes for some uncomfortable tension.
I worked in Asheville for a summer during a particularly low point in my life and it turned out to be exactly what I needed. After some initial awkwardness, the quintessential Ashevillians realized I was just as subversive, if not more so, than they were. We got along fantastically and I met some of the most interesting and hilarious people I’ve met thus far in my life.
Anyway, I hope it’s clear here that I don’t have an ill-will towards these tofu-peddlers. I certainly don’t. Probably just the opposite. But we’re all passing judgment on someone out of sheer misunderstanding, or fear of/laziness towards searching out some commonality. My challenge to myself this week, and to you if you feel so inclined, is to catch yourself passing that judgment. And then maybe, just stop.
I disagree. As someone who works in the green industry, I see a lot of research that shows details beyond just "organics have a lower environmental impact." Often times going organic can cost as much as 25 times as much as using a synthetic, while at the same time being less efficient. Furthermore, because of the increased rates needed in organic farming, organics often end up having a higher environmental impact than synthetics can when done properly.
ReplyDeleteI'm not attempting to say "organics bad! Synthetics good!" but I am trying to say that blanket statements like that are incorrect. There are some organic products that are good, and some organic products that are bad. There are some synthetic products that are good, and there are some synthetic products that are bad.
The problem lies in educating people what is good and what is bad, not just saying "oh, I go totally organic" or "fuck organics, bunch of dirty hippies!"
1. Neal Barnard, MD "Foods that Fight Pain" (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1998)
ReplyDeleteOrganic foods outperform their conventional cousins with:
63% more calcium
78% more chromimum
73% more iodide
59% more iron
138% more magnesium
125% more potassium
390% more selenium
60% more zinc.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/weekinreview/22bittman.html?ref=organicfood
"...Organic, which, under the United States Department of Agriculture’s definition, means it is generally free of synthetic substances; contains no antibiotics and hormones; has not been irradiated or fertilized with sewage sludge; was raised without the use of most conventional pesticides; and contains no genetically modified ingredients. . . "
As far as synthetic being more sustainable, it absolutely can be. If your organics are shipped from Chile, when you can get conventionally produced goods from down the street - by all means, go with the latter. But when feasible, avoiding antibiotics/hormones alone is enough reason to buy organic (when feasible.)
If there were a hierarchy, I'd say best is local and organic. If you have a choice between the two, I'd go local. Then organic. I tend to buy other organic/natural products as well - soap, toothpaste, laundry detergent. This is a matter of personal preference. While I do believe that avoiding questionable substances (like aluminum in deodorant, a known carcinogen) is valuable, I admit that some of the benefit is psychological.
My life right now is all about environmental law & policy. So, I've spent a considerable amount of time working under the Clean Water Act. Seems to me - especially in Florida where nutrient run-off is a real problem - that chemical fertilizers are the major component in this problem. I could be wrong - admittedly, I'm no scientist.
I come at it from the plant/lawn side of things, since that's what I do in every day life. I constantly see these studies, and what I always see is the high end organics being compared to low-end synthetics, like Scotts' and Miracle-gro, items my nursery refuses to sell due to their low quality and harmful environmental impact. We're constantly looking for ways to lessen environmental impacts, but it seems that people overreact to certain terms, and it is increasingly frustrating. Two examples:
ReplyDelete1. Crabgrass prevention. You can prevent crabgrass with 100% efficiency for the entire summer with a bag of an herbicide called Dimension (chemical name Dithiopyr). We sell a bag that will cover 5,000 square feet for just under $20. But now organic people are constantly pushing Corn Glutten as a way to prevent herbicide, and as a result, we've had to begin selling an inferior product to people in order to meet demand, and prevent our competitors from gaining a leg up. Here are the problems with corn glutten: A. the cost: $20 to prevent crabgrass for the year syntheticall with 100% effectiveness. Corn glutten costs $60 for a bag that covers the same area, but lasts less than one-fourth the duration, so it is recommended for 4-5 applications during the spring/summer. And here's the kicker: Corn Glutten's effectiveness was rated by the University of Maryland at Zero %. So people come in, ask for corn glutten because they want to be organic, and they pay more than ten times as much for something that doesn't actually work. Furthermore, when you have to apply that many applications of a product that must contain nitrogen by it's very nature, it eliminates any potential positive impact by going organic.
My other favorite example about how people get their head wrapped around stupid buzzwords like "organic" is what happened to an herbicide that was taken off the market after more than 20 years last year, MSMA. MSMA contains arsenic in it, so environmental lobbyists got it taken off the market. Normally, I'd agree, that's great, there is surely a study that shows it has negative effects, and is therefore needing to be taken away. Except that there aren't any such studies that weren't over turned. But still, we're getting rid of Arsenic right? Well, Arsenic is a naturally occurring element. In fact, the amount of Arsenic that was in that bottle of herbicide would be equivalent to the amount of Arsenic in a family bucket of chicken from KFC.
I agree that fertilizer runoff is a large problem. The problem isn't so much that people are using synthetic fertilizer, but crappy synthetic fertilizers. The worst fertilizers in the world are old school fertilizers like 10-10-10, 5-10-5, and 10-6-4. Fertilizers with zero percent slow release and incredibly high levels of salt. These polluters have been illegal in Europe since we were in grade school, but are still available in Virginia. My company has signed a water quality agreement with the state of Virginia not to sell them, but they are still available across the street at Home Depot. Right behind these are pollutants like Scott's and Miracle-Gro, fertilizers that are incredibly low in quality, but incredibly high in salt. The Scott's/Miracl-Gro corporation (same company) does everything counter intuitive to agricultural research, but instead does everything they can to increase their bottom line. Their company is not successful because of their quality of products, but because they have the 2nd largest advertising budget in the United States, right behind Coca-Cola.
Ok, that's enough half-incoherent, half-knowledgeable ranting from me.
Thanks, Matt. That was actually quite helpful. I'm not a hardliner, here. I'd like to think that science and nature can coexist. You've convinced me on both of your points.
ReplyDelete