Should people eat only locally produced, organic food?

No

2 of 18

by Michael Greaney

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Whenever I see a sign or advertisement about "organic food," my initial reaction is to ask (sometimes out loud), "What other kind is there?" I realize that there are certain inorganic elements essential to the human body and, ultimately, all organic matter is composed of inorganic elements, so the label "organic" turns out to be misleading and inaccurate.

Still, I understand that what less picky people mean by "organic" is produce and other foodstuffs raised in a manner that does not harm the environment or employ chemical fertilizers, and so on - which leads to endless discussion over what actually harms the environment, and to what degree some fertilizers are non-chemical in nature. My grandfather, for example, made a point of testing his soil and liming it or adding potash as necessary to adjust the acidity for his crop mixture, as well as adding manure. As a result, the other farmers in the area who did not take proper care of their soil later had to undertake expensive restoration programs after they exhausted their soil, while the fields on my grandfather's farm (now owned by others) are at least as productive as they have been for the past two centuries. Are such materials, used for millennia, "chemical"? Of course, but most farmers would also agree that they are "natural" and "organic." Hence the confusion over what is meant by the "organic" label.

The other common stipulation is that, to be truly consistent with an environmentally safe approach to food production, it should be locally grown. This, too, presents serious problems. The definition of "local" can be as vague as the label "organic." Some otherwise thoughtful individuals claim that "local" means only what you yourself have produced on your own plot of land (shades of the old BBC television comedy, "Good Neighbours"!). Others include only what is produced within a certain number of miles from where you live.

The most consistent definition of "local" (and, unfortunately, the least wise) is, in my opinion, whatever you and your family produce on your own land using your own resources. Anything else becomes, in the end, completely arbitrary - e.g., how many miles from home is "local"? Who is my "neighbour"? The problem is that, carried to its logical conclusion - subsistence farming - there is insufficient arable land in the world to support earth's population, and anything less than a system-wide reliance on organic and locally-produced food is self-defeating and a delusion, as opponents of the various "back to the earth" movements are quick to point out. I won't give the statistics here, because it is easy to check them with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, but given that subsistence farming requires between 20 to 40 hectares of ordinary arable land per individual (the best and most productive land reduces this to two to four hectares, but most land is not the "best"), there is enough arable land only for less than 1% of the world's population, and that includes transforming all forests and grasslands to subsistence farms, a self-defeating step that would harm the environment far more than many of today's common farming practices.

Thus, while eating only locally-produced, organic food sounds good, and (used judiciously) can be a socially-conscious means of improving your personal quality of life, it is not a genuinely socially-just solution to anything. Carried to its "reductio ad absurdum," it requires that more than six billion people die of starvation. It might be better to ask whether YOU, not a generic "people" should eat only locally-produced, organic food. Making it personal turns the decision into a possibly-viable personal choice, while making it a general demand on "people" implies a mandate enforced by some authority. I might be tempted to select the local, organic alternative if I could be persuaded of its benefits, but to turn it into a demand goes against the grain, and - despite any real or perceived benefits - I would tend to resist.

Learn more about this author, Michael Greaney.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.