To read part one, please click here.

Does "organic" require the use of non-GMO? Part of the complex argument of the practicality of organic farming on a larger scale also comes down to the use of crops that have been genetically modified. While we want GM foods to be safe, and we don’t want their use to permit unsafe levels of herbicides or other chemicals in our foods, they may be important for maximizing the yield of our food supply, and for reducing the levels of chemicals needed.

We are not currently able to provide enough output to feed the world, with 1 billion people currently malnourished. So what are the consequences for the 1 billion (plus the other 1 billion or so marginally undernourished) during a global or even regional food shortage of staple foods (corn, soy, rice) -- especially when a massive shortage can be caused by any number of common issues increasingly occurring due to climate change – not enough rain, too much rain, etc. Does the benefit of a drought-resistant crop outweigh the risk of health concerns, especially when the health concerns are more or less inconclusive? (for further discussion on the challenges of the burden of proof for safety issues from our food, see below on the pesticide issue)    

Is organic ideal for everyone? It is also undecided whether ‘Certified Organic’ is currently the best solution to addressing “food deserts” and food insecurity in populations who benefit the most from good nutrition. Until the price and availability of organic produce is the same as for conventionally grown for the food insecure, is organic even a viable choice? Most nutritionists would probably agree that eating conventionally grown vegetables is better than eating no vegetables at all – that is, until a certain level of toxicity occurs that outweighs the benefit.

What are the real costs of conventional farming? Pesticides (including insecticides and herbicides) are commonly referred to as a main argument against conventional farming, and it is no doubt a complicated and sensitive subject. Like most government policy decisions, it comes down to cost (or risk) versus benefit. There are hundreds of pesticides available all possessing a more or less unknown toxicity at the low levels typically consumed (all are tested for toxicity at levels of high exposure, but these data are not really applicable to how they are commonly consumed by people – at low-parts-per-million levels). Because such a small amount of pesticides are actually being consumed, and most (but not all) do not bioaccumulate in the body but are rapidly metabolized, toxicologists and policymakers familiar with the area have generally determined that the risk of current pesticide use does not outweigh their benefit. And while conspiracy theorists among us may disagree with this determination, (and while they also may correctly cite that cronyism and corruption sometimes occurs when government, scientists and industry together set policy) the overwhelming majority of policy in these areas is solid, set by qualified, well-intentioned people, and truly based on the information and resources available using a risk-based analysis.  

Yet on the other hand – no one has done long-term toxicity studies on low doses of most of the pesticides used, because it would be prohibitively expensive to do so, and because new pesticides are constantly being added because old ones don’t work as well anymore, The nature of planned obsolescence for a pesticide chemical compound in a business sense removes the incentive from investing a whole lot in safety testing. So the highest burden of proof (what we would consider more or less the complete proof of safety) does not exist, and may never exist in the future either. We only have “proof” that based on available evidence, the risk to our health can only be expressed in terms of statistical probabilities across populations using the totality of evidence. And this risk as determined by the experts looking at this evidence is not likely to be very high, statistically speaking. 

This answer is not very satisfying to those of us who want an absolute answer to a simple question: is eating this apple going to hurt me?  

The scenarios of how pesticides could be viewed within the Organic vs Conventional debate that could potentially play out in the future are also interesting to consider. For example, in the event we discover a synthetic pesticide that is more effective and safer at the levels used than any ‘natural’ pesticides available, do we abandon the organic requirement that only natural pesticides can be used? After all, natural does not automatically mean safe. Where does the slippery slope stop? Is a natural compound modified into an easily absorbed nanoparticle still considered organic? What about a synergistic mixture of natural and synthetic, where the synthetic is Vitamin C?

Do organic principles have something to teach us? Outside of hypothetical what-ifs, at the end of the day, don’t organic practices have something valuable to offer? Isn’t it a good thing to record, study and seek to limit the use of resource-intensive inputs into our food system?  Specifically, we are talking about pesticides (which have unknown but mostly unlikely long-term toxicity to humans at the low levels found in much produce), fertilizers (made from foreign oil and which upset the balance of ecosystems and habitats due to runoff), energy (which is a primary concern in a world where the need for energy has environmental and societal costs) and water (which we need to conserve?).

Until science has caught up to conclusively support a path forward for the farm of the future, isn’t it a good thing that consumers have a choice?     

Perhaps there is a way forward: until we have some way of proving one way is the end-all, the path to our future farming practices is likely to be one of compromise. Each side of the Organic vs Conventional debate has drawbacks that the other can help address.  Each has costs and benefits, some known to a large degree and some unknown to a large degree.    

Like many ideologies, both sides are probably not sustainable by themselves, at least not with the demands of society. As we work toward setting the processes and boundaries for how the world of the future will be fed, Organic and Conventional are likely to inform each other. Like any good debate, maybe both sides can learn from each other, and the best solutions will only be discovered through continued discussion and analysis. As for politics and religion – maybe those subjects are still best left untouched.