Claire Shipp
English 101
Argumentative Essay (Final Draft)
December 15, 2017
English 101
Argumentative Essay (Final Draft)
December 15, 2017
But is it organic?
In the article “The Ethics of Eating Meat,” Paul Schwennesen, Director of the Agrarian Freedom Project, writes, “Eating meat, particularly #906 [his steer] is ethical because most people think it is. That is, perhaps all one can say” (Schwennesen 179). In the same manner, popular opinion dictates that organic agriculture is not only superior to traditional agriculture but sustainable; however, these beliefs have been synthesized through consumers’ emotions rather than scientific evidence. The conversation of organic versus conventional agriculture has been heavily misrepresented by the media. Basing fundamental changes to the agricultural industry in emotion is problematic because these changes will affect dinner tables across the world. Scientific evidence shows that organic farming can not sustain a growing population because of exorbitant costs, inadequate practicality, and insufficient yields.
To be considered a sustainable agricultural practice, products must be affordable to the average consumer; therefore, the pricey commodities derived from organic farming cannot be considered a viable option. Despite this, many proponents of organic agriculture argue that consumers prefer organic items to traditional products. New York Times writer, Laura Shapiro explains, “Increasingly, Americans believe that the premium is worth paying: sales of organic foods have jumped about 20 percent a year since 1991 and are expected to total more than $4 billion this year” (Shapiro par. 3). A propensity toward organic products has grown, but preferences do not always represent consumption; all consumers cannot afford the extra costs that accompany organic items. Tracie McMillan, an acclaimed journalist, writes about a circular logic that directly connects preferences to behavior; in other words, consumers purchase every item they want (par. 7). Many proponents of organic farming latch onto this logic, but believing that shoppers consume based solely on desire is misguided.
The belief that preferences drive consumerism is dangerous not only to the economy but to agriculture. There are multiple factors that affect consumption; one of the biggest aspects is cost. To put the price disparity into perspective, organic foods, on average, are 30 percent more expensive than conventional products (McMillan par. 4). Due to these excessive premiums, one could assume that consumers of lower economic classes would not prefer organic products, but Shapiro claims that the desire for organic items is not exclusive to consumers with high paying jobs (par. 3). Regardless of the desire for organic options, the exorbitant prices that accompany organic food cannot become a norm for the average consumer without a dramatic change in the economy. Author Paul Schwennesen explains the paradox of desire and sustainability in his article, “The Ethics of Eating Meat.” Schwennesen explains that consumers only agonize over what to and what not to eat because they can afford to; however, not all consumers have the privilege he speaks of (179). While many consumers can weigh the benefits of meat consumption or organic farming, there are also many that cannot; therefore, organic is not a sustainable option for all.
The unaffordable prices of organic products are often validated because of their supposed superior safety and nutritional content; however, researchers have proven the inaccuracy of these claims. Media outlets often claim that organic is safer than conventional food. Shapiro explains that for consumers, the word “organic” is associated with food that is safer, cleaner, and closer to nature (Shapiro par. 4). These opinions, however, are often formulated from faulty information. In fact, doctor and researcher, Dena Bravata and her team found little evidence to support a nutritional or health difference between organic and conventional food (Myers par. 37). Stanford University’s Center for Health Policy also released a study that analyzed vitamin and mineral contents but found no evidence to support a difference in health benefits between organic and traditional meats and vegetables (Schiffman par. 1). Many consumers also bring forward worries about the effects of pesticides and herbicides on human health--a cocktail effect. A cocktail effect is defined as the negative health effects pesticides and herbicides have on consumers; often, the media claims that these chemicals have increased cancer rates. A “cocktail effect,” would be evident when observing cancer rates in farmers who are subjected to herbicides and pesticides on a daily basis, but farmers have among the lowest cancer rates of any group (Johnston par. 13). Rob Johnston, a science writer, explains that the effects of pesticides could show up as stomach cancer, but stomach cancer rates have fallen faster than any other kind (par. 13). In addition to cancer rates falling among farmers, pesticides are a natural part of farming. In fact, writer Dennis Myers explains that while critics deem pesticides unnatural, crops organically produce their own pesticides (par. 30-32). Media outlets may make empty claims that organic agriculture produces products that are superior to conventional agriculture, but there is ample scientific evidence to specifically refute these claims.
In addition to consumer’s false perception of the health benefits of organic food, many farmers have discovered an empty passion for organic farming. Richard Schiffman, an environmental journalist, writes about a man who claims to be closer to his land as an organic farmer (par. 7). The man claimed that organic farming takes more improvisation, experimentation, and innovation than traditional agriculture. Schiffman validates the man’s thinking and makes the claim that organic farming is more difficult to perfect than conventional agriculture (par. 7-9). While organic agriculture may be spiritually rewarding to small scale agriculturalists, these techniques are far from practical. On a small scale, experimentation is acceptable; however, in large scale production experimentation is the equivalent to unpredictability. The agriculture industry cannot afford to be unpredictable when feeding and clothing a world population that is predicted to reach 8.97 billion in 2030 ("Future World Population”). Traditional agriculture is called precision agriculture because scientists have spent many years perfecting farming techniques; pursuing an agricultural practice that is exceedingly more difficult and unreliable than traditional techniques, with no significant health benefits, is unreasonable and unsustainable.
In addition to being unaffordable and impractical, organic agriculture is simply not productive enough to be sustainable to a growing population. Many proponents of organic farming argue for environmental efficiency rather than productivity. For this point Schiffman argues that even though traditional agriculture produces more products per acre, organic agriculture is more efficient environmentally:
Yet even though industrial agriculture produces more ‘calories per acre,’ that doesn't mean it's more efficient than organic if efficiency is judged by the full environmental costs. Farming machinery and petroleum-based chemicals require huge amounts of fossil fuels. Industrial farming depletes the soil of nutrients and uses water less efficiently than organic methods. Toxic pesticides and herbicides harm pollinators and pollute the groundwater. All those factors must be weighed when assessing the efficiency of our dominant agricultural system. (Schiffman par. 11)
While these points are valid, many supporters for organic agriculture overlook the advances that have been made in agricultural technology. Myers explains that organic products are portrayed as beneficial for the environment, but scientific evidence suggests otherwise; traditional farming is becoming more effective by increasing production, and, therefore, decreasing the amount of farmland needed to produce sufficient food products (par. 47). Michael Specter, a writer for the New Yorker, argues that without ripping out rainforests, there is not enough physical land to sustain organic agriculture (Myers par. 47). The vast land needed to sustain organic agriculture is not available, and, therefore, organic is not an option.
While a lack of land is a problem in organic agriculture, land shortage is not a problem for conventional agriculture. In fact, a hectare of traditional farmland can produce almost three times more potatoes than organically farmed land (Johnston par. 6). This statistic carries into other fundamental crops as well. Corn, soybeans, and wheat that are grown using traditional practices are 25 percent more productive (Schiffman par. 9). Through research, any individual can see that organic is not as efficient or productive as traditional practices. Many Americans do not understand the importance of production sustainability because they have never been without. As Schwennesen writes, “Our current hand-wringing over what we eat is clearly a privilege born of abundance. Room for such ruminations are only created after the belly hasn’t room for anything else” (179). In countries outside of America, however, food is not as abundant. To keep food on dinner tables, agriculturalists must increase production at an equal or higher rate to the growth of the World population; organic agriculture hinders this growth, and, therefore, is unsustainable.
While popular opinion is a factor in the perception of organic versus traditional agriculture, media and emotion based opinions are not the deciding element for the best agricultural option for America. There are various factors that affect the practicality of an agricultural practice. Agriculture is an issue that affects dinner tables across the world, and its importance is evident; therefore, making decisions that affect billions of people scientific facts rather than sensational media stories should be used. A sustainable agricultural practice must be affordable, practical, and efficient; while organic agriculture has benefits on a small scale, organic farming cannot sustain a growing world.
To be considered a sustainable agricultural practice, products must be affordable to the average consumer; therefore, the pricey commodities derived from organic farming cannot be considered a viable option. Despite this, many proponents of organic agriculture argue that consumers prefer organic items to traditional products. New York Times writer, Laura Shapiro explains, “Increasingly, Americans believe that the premium is worth paying: sales of organic foods have jumped about 20 percent a year since 1991 and are expected to total more than $4 billion this year” (Shapiro par. 3). A propensity toward organic products has grown, but preferences do not always represent consumption; all consumers cannot afford the extra costs that accompany organic items. Tracie McMillan, an acclaimed journalist, writes about a circular logic that directly connects preferences to behavior; in other words, consumers purchase every item they want (par. 7). Many proponents of organic farming latch onto this logic, but believing that shoppers consume based solely on desire is misguided.
The belief that preferences drive consumerism is dangerous not only to the economy but to agriculture. There are multiple factors that affect consumption; one of the biggest aspects is cost. To put the price disparity into perspective, organic foods, on average, are 30 percent more expensive than conventional products (McMillan par. 4). Due to these excessive premiums, one could assume that consumers of lower economic classes would not prefer organic products, but Shapiro claims that the desire for organic items is not exclusive to consumers with high paying jobs (par. 3). Regardless of the desire for organic options, the exorbitant prices that accompany organic food cannot become a norm for the average consumer without a dramatic change in the economy. Author Paul Schwennesen explains the paradox of desire and sustainability in his article, “The Ethics of Eating Meat.” Schwennesen explains that consumers only agonize over what to and what not to eat because they can afford to; however, not all consumers have the privilege he speaks of (179). While many consumers can weigh the benefits of meat consumption or organic farming, there are also many that cannot; therefore, organic is not a sustainable option for all.
The unaffordable prices of organic products are often validated because of their supposed superior safety and nutritional content; however, researchers have proven the inaccuracy of these claims. Media outlets often claim that organic is safer than conventional food. Shapiro explains that for consumers, the word “organic” is associated with food that is safer, cleaner, and closer to nature (Shapiro par. 4). These opinions, however, are often formulated from faulty information. In fact, doctor and researcher, Dena Bravata and her team found little evidence to support a nutritional or health difference between organic and conventional food (Myers par. 37). Stanford University’s Center for Health Policy also released a study that analyzed vitamin and mineral contents but found no evidence to support a difference in health benefits between organic and traditional meats and vegetables (Schiffman par. 1). Many consumers also bring forward worries about the effects of pesticides and herbicides on human health--a cocktail effect. A cocktail effect is defined as the negative health effects pesticides and herbicides have on consumers; often, the media claims that these chemicals have increased cancer rates. A “cocktail effect,” would be evident when observing cancer rates in farmers who are subjected to herbicides and pesticides on a daily basis, but farmers have among the lowest cancer rates of any group (Johnston par. 13). Rob Johnston, a science writer, explains that the effects of pesticides could show up as stomach cancer, but stomach cancer rates have fallen faster than any other kind (par. 13). In addition to cancer rates falling among farmers, pesticides are a natural part of farming. In fact, writer Dennis Myers explains that while critics deem pesticides unnatural, crops organically produce their own pesticides (par. 30-32). Media outlets may make empty claims that organic agriculture produces products that are superior to conventional agriculture, but there is ample scientific evidence to specifically refute these claims.
In addition to consumer’s false perception of the health benefits of organic food, many farmers have discovered an empty passion for organic farming. Richard Schiffman, an environmental journalist, writes about a man who claims to be closer to his land as an organic farmer (par. 7). The man claimed that organic farming takes more improvisation, experimentation, and innovation than traditional agriculture. Schiffman validates the man’s thinking and makes the claim that organic farming is more difficult to perfect than conventional agriculture (par. 7-9). While organic agriculture may be spiritually rewarding to small scale agriculturalists, these techniques are far from practical. On a small scale, experimentation is acceptable; however, in large scale production experimentation is the equivalent to unpredictability. The agriculture industry cannot afford to be unpredictable when feeding and clothing a world population that is predicted to reach 8.97 billion in 2030 ("Future World Population”). Traditional agriculture is called precision agriculture because scientists have spent many years perfecting farming techniques; pursuing an agricultural practice that is exceedingly more difficult and unreliable than traditional techniques, with no significant health benefits, is unreasonable and unsustainable.
In addition to being unaffordable and impractical, organic agriculture is simply not productive enough to be sustainable to a growing population. Many proponents of organic farming argue for environmental efficiency rather than productivity. For this point Schiffman argues that even though traditional agriculture produces more products per acre, organic agriculture is more efficient environmentally:
Yet even though industrial agriculture produces more ‘calories per acre,’ that doesn't mean it's more efficient than organic if efficiency is judged by the full environmental costs. Farming machinery and petroleum-based chemicals require huge amounts of fossil fuels. Industrial farming depletes the soil of nutrients and uses water less efficiently than organic methods. Toxic pesticides and herbicides harm pollinators and pollute the groundwater. All those factors must be weighed when assessing the efficiency of our dominant agricultural system. (Schiffman par. 11)
While these points are valid, many supporters for organic agriculture overlook the advances that have been made in agricultural technology. Myers explains that organic products are portrayed as beneficial for the environment, but scientific evidence suggests otherwise; traditional farming is becoming more effective by increasing production, and, therefore, decreasing the amount of farmland needed to produce sufficient food products (par. 47). Michael Specter, a writer for the New Yorker, argues that without ripping out rainforests, there is not enough physical land to sustain organic agriculture (Myers par. 47). The vast land needed to sustain organic agriculture is not available, and, therefore, organic is not an option.
While a lack of land is a problem in organic agriculture, land shortage is not a problem for conventional agriculture. In fact, a hectare of traditional farmland can produce almost three times more potatoes than organically farmed land (Johnston par. 6). This statistic carries into other fundamental crops as well. Corn, soybeans, and wheat that are grown using traditional practices are 25 percent more productive (Schiffman par. 9). Through research, any individual can see that organic is not as efficient or productive as traditional practices. Many Americans do not understand the importance of production sustainability because they have never been without. As Schwennesen writes, “Our current hand-wringing over what we eat is clearly a privilege born of abundance. Room for such ruminations are only created after the belly hasn’t room for anything else” (179). In countries outside of America, however, food is not as abundant. To keep food on dinner tables, agriculturalists must increase production at an equal or higher rate to the growth of the World population; organic agriculture hinders this growth, and, therefore, is unsustainable.
While popular opinion is a factor in the perception of organic versus traditional agriculture, media and emotion based opinions are not the deciding element for the best agricultural option for America. There are various factors that affect the practicality of an agricultural practice. Agriculture is an issue that affects dinner tables across the world, and its importance is evident; therefore, making decisions that affect billions of people scientific facts rather than sensational media stories should be used. A sustainable agricultural practice must be affordable, practical, and efficient; while organic agriculture has benefits on a small scale, organic farming cannot sustain a growing world.
works cited
"Future World Population." Tribune Content Agency Graphics, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints
in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CT3294260444/OVIC
u=chil38234&xid=38c92dcc. Accessed
14 Dec. 2017.
McMillan, Tracie. "Big-Chain Stores Make Organic More Affordable." Organic Food, edited
by Amy Francis, Greenhaven Press, 2015. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010949212/OVIC?u=chil38234&xid=3dc19fe7.
Accessed 3 Dec. 2017. Originally published as "Organic Food: It's Not Just for Yuppies
Anymore," Guardian, 1 Dec. 2017.
Myers, Dennis. "Paradox/Why Do Liberals Oppose Better Food?" Organic Food, edited by
Amy Francis, Greenhaven Press, 2015. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010949209/OVIC?u=chil38234&xid=088343aa.
Accessed 3 Dec. 2017. Originally published as "The Organic Food Lie: What's Up with
this Liberal War on Science?" NewsReview.com, 1 Dec. 2017.
Schiffman, Richard. "In defense of organic farming: less than a cure-all more than a fad."
Commonweal, vol. 140, no. 1, 2013, p. 10+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A315371736/OVIC?u=chil38234&xid=8fe229f1. Accessed
3 Dec. 2017.
Schwennesen, Paul. “The Ethics of Eating Meat.” Acting out Culture: Readings for Critical
Inquiry, 3rd ed., Bedford Bks St Martins, 2017, pp. 178–179.
Shapiro, Laura. "Is Organic Better?" Newsweek, 1 June 1998, p. 54. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A20835608/OVIC u=chil38234&xid=12cad2b1.
Accessed 7 Dec. 2017.
Johnston, Rob. "Consumers Should Not Support Organic Foods." Is Organic Food Better?,
edited by Ronald D. Lankford, Jr., Greenhaven Press, 2011. At Issue. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010791204/OVIC
u=chil38234&xid=1682471a. Accessed 3 Dec. 2017. Originally published as "The Great
Organic Myths," Independent, December 2017.
in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CT3294260444/OVIC
u=chil38234&xid=38c92dcc. Accessed
14 Dec. 2017.
McMillan, Tracie. "Big-Chain Stores Make Organic More Affordable." Organic Food, edited
by Amy Francis, Greenhaven Press, 2015. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010949212/OVIC?u=chil38234&xid=3dc19fe7.
Accessed 3 Dec. 2017. Originally published as "Organic Food: It's Not Just for Yuppies
Anymore," Guardian, 1 Dec. 2017.
Myers, Dennis. "Paradox/Why Do Liberals Oppose Better Food?" Organic Food, edited by
Amy Francis, Greenhaven Press, 2015. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010949209/OVIC?u=chil38234&xid=088343aa.
Accessed 3 Dec. 2017. Originally published as "The Organic Food Lie: What's Up with
this Liberal War on Science?" NewsReview.com, 1 Dec. 2017.
Schiffman, Richard. "In defense of organic farming: less than a cure-all more than a fad."
Commonweal, vol. 140, no. 1, 2013, p. 10+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A315371736/OVIC?u=chil38234&xid=8fe229f1. Accessed
3 Dec. 2017.
Schwennesen, Paul. “The Ethics of Eating Meat.” Acting out Culture: Readings for Critical
Inquiry, 3rd ed., Bedford Bks St Martins, 2017, pp. 178–179.
Shapiro, Laura. "Is Organic Better?" Newsweek, 1 June 1998, p. 54. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A20835608/OVIC u=chil38234&xid=12cad2b1.
Accessed 7 Dec. 2017.
Johnston, Rob. "Consumers Should Not Support Organic Foods." Is Organic Food Better?,
edited by Ronald D. Lankford, Jr., Greenhaven Press, 2011. At Issue. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010791204/OVIC
u=chil38234&xid=1682471a. Accessed 3 Dec. 2017. Originally published as "The Great
Organic Myths," Independent, December 2017.