Listen to this article on my radio show: Invisible Gardener Radio

No Difference between Organic Food and Chemically  Grown Food? Part 2

Last week, I wrote about a recent study that concluded that there is no difference between Organically Grown Food and Conventionally Grown Food, here is part 2.

This “study” looked at around 300 “studies”. It should be mentioned that these “studies” where mostly studies of other studies and that very few actually grew anything themselves.  Those that did grow the food themselves, were flawed (in my opinion).

Here’s why-

First off, the studies that did grow their own. These researchers were not farmers, let alone organic farmers. They assumed that by merely picking a plot, dividing it up into two sections, one organic and one conventional: and then buying plants from one source, and then growing them according to each system.

Sounds simple right?

Wrong!

Problem #1

The Plants. Perhaps someone should have told them that there is a big difference between plants grown via different systems and that the plants they bought in the nursery were not the same quality plants that you get when you start them from organic heirloom seeds that plants have been grown organically for centuries. These plants will act differently if grown in dead soil, and will not get any nutrients from these types of soil. Same is true for the chemically grown plants. They will start off weak and will never get the proper nutrients and therefore will not show any nutrients difference, other then what was given to them.

Problem #2

The soil. If these researchers did not amend the soil with compost , the food grown in it will be different then the food grown in a living soil environment.

Lets say the soil was in good shape, lets say that they picked a piece of land that has plenty of good rich soil. If they planted in that, then the results of both will almost be the same, they both will have what ever nutrients are in the soil (actually the organic side will be able to uptake more of the nutrients then the conventional side) but lets assume that they just planted in each plot, gave one side chemical fertilizers, etc ., and the other side organic fertilizers , etc.. The results will favor the conventional side because on the organic side, organic seeds or organic plants where not used (after all there really is no different between organic seed and conventional seed now is there?).

In the organic system, one practices sustainability while on the conventional side one cannot be sustainable . In the conventional method, soil depletion is a big factor in diminishing food quality and farmers have to use more chemicals and do more damage to the soil then if they were organic which is sustainable and one can grow more and more and better quality food while doing less and less damage to the environment.

Problem #3

None of the studies mention GMO(GEO) foods. Most conventional farmers are using more and more GEO foods while organic farmers cannot use GEO if they want to be certified organic. We were never meant to eat Round Up , 24-d or whatever pesticide. Simple as that.

Yes, I feel that Organic farmers are keeping prices higher then they should be, but as the public wants more organic food, these prices will go down because a good organic farmer can compete with conventional farmers in prices,  just look at Death Smith Valley (over 40 organic acres).

Want to do a proper study? Grow each method for 10 years. Get real farmers on both sides. We will see then.

Andy Lopez

Invisible Gardener

Any questions? Email andy@invisiblegardener.com