Should organics be allowed to use synthetics?

That is the question asked in a Washington Post article by Tamar Haspel.  The article discusses an important debate within the organic community about the role of technology and "naturalness".  

She hits on a big barrier that currently exists that hinders further adoption of organic practices by many farmers:

“A couple of months back, I talked to one of those conventional growers, Richard Wilkins. He rotates his crops (corn, wheat, soy and vegetables), plants cover crops and pays a lot of attention to the health of his soil. When I asked him if he ever considered growing organically, he said, “I’m too much of a believer in the benefits of science and technology to go organic.””

She also points out the overly romanticized concept of "natural".

“Amy Hepworth, an organic farmer in New York’s Hudson Valley, also believes in the importance of soil health and working with nature but says that science and technology, deployed judiciously, can help her with that, sometimes with fewer adverse effects than natural substances. “Natural doesn’t mean safe,” she says.”

and

“Every toxicologist or environmental scientist I’ve ever spoken with says that the idea that natural substances are inherently better for planet or people than synthetic ones is simply false.”

Ultimately, Haspel suggests a "third way", which she acknowledged is already being followed by many "conventional" farmers

“And then there are synthetics, the man-made substances used in conventional farming. “When you say pesticides and chemicals, we’re so indoctrinated that it feels like we’re saying the word poison,” says Hepworth, “but we need confidence in agriculture beyond organic. The most sustainable, responsible system is a hybrid system.” She’s working on crafting just such a system.

A hybrid system. A third way. A best-practices standard. Michael Rozyne, director of regional food distributor Red Tomato, calls it simply “something bigger.” He says that “lumping all non-organic growers into a single category, merely because they use synthetic pesticides, doesn’t do justice to the portion of those growers who are farming using many organic practices, high-level integrated pest management and all sorts of natural controls, who are paying attention to erosion, pollution, and farmworker safety.” ”

and

“It would also help disassemble what Hepworth calls the “two-party system,” in which it’s all too easy to believe that organic is good and conventional is bad. That idea has contributed to the us-and-them mentality that seems to dominate discussions about our agricultural system. “There’s been a lot of judgment of conventional growers,” says Rozyne, “as if they all farmed the same way.””

Critique of modern agriculture in song

One of our gradudate students sent me a link to this music video performed by a band, Wookiefoot, he recently saw in concert.

If you couldn't follow along, here's a sample of some of the lyrics

Then McDonalds got a farm GM GM GMO
And on that farm he had a chicken and a cow
But they do now you really don’t wanna know
Why must we label it organic
When that’s the way we’ve been growing it for ten thousand years

I don't suppose it would do any good to mention what organic really means or to show what agriculture really looked like 10,000 years ago?  

Organic vs Conventional Crop Yields

The other day, I was asked whether I thought the price of organic foods would fall as the market share for organic increased.  The answer is: it depends.  If increases in consumer demand outpace supply, prices will rise.  By contrast, if supply increases at a faster rate than consumers' willingness-to-pay for organic, prices will fall.  I suspect that as Wal-Mart and other large retailers become bigger players in the organic market, it will bring about some cost efficiencies that are likely to lead to a reduction in organic price.

That said, organic will never be as inexpensive as non-organic (generally speaking, as I'm sure it might be possible for a particular crop in a particular location in a particular year to experience a price inversion).

Statements such as this normally invoke a debate about whether organic yields and costs are higher/lower than conventional yields and costs.  For example, the following was written after a Twitter conversation on the subject

Again, the available data offers conflicting results: there’s evidence that organic yields can match conventional yields over the long-term, especially in less-than-ideal conditions. Other studies point to lower organic yields, especially in crops with high fertility requirements. The primary challenge in extrapolating these results to a “feeding the world” scenario is the issue of context.

Invariably, the evidence given in support of the argument that organic yields can surpass conventional yields is taken from organizations like the Leopold Institute (the paper referenced in the above quote was a proceedings paper, not one that went through the typical submission process) or the Rodale Institute that advocate on behalf of organic.  That's why it is instructive to turn to larger scale literature reviews, like this one in the journal Agricultural Systems summarizing 362 studies, which shows that organic yields are 80% of conventional on average.  Or turn to the top science journals, like Nature, where a recent paper showed that organic yields are typically 25% lower than non-organic.  (note: these review studies show a lot of variability in the organic-conventional yield gap; sometimes the gap is large and sometimes is is almost non-existent).

The quality and quantity of the evidence quite clearly points to the fact that organic yields tend to be lower than non-organic.  Yet, it seems, this never actually convinces anyone who believes the opposite.  Thus, rather than a show-me-your-study-and-I'll-show-you-mine discussion, sometimes it is useful to make a conceptual argument.

The reason I would never expect organic yields to typically surpass non-organic is summarized in the following figure.   

Here is the basic point conveyed in the picture above: a non-organic farmer is free to use any of the practices available to an organic farmer (e.g., no-till or low-till farming, cover crops, etc) but an organic farmer can only use some of the practices that are available to a non-organic farmer.  Thus, the range of possible production practices, costs, and outcomes for organic must be a sub-set of that of non-organic.  

Being an organic farmer implies following a set of rules defined by the USDA.  These rules restrict the practices available to an organic farmer relative to a non-organic farmer.  Organic farmers cannot use "synthetic" fertilizer, Roundup, biotechnology, atrazine, certain tillage practices, etc., etc.  It is a basic fact of mathematical programming that adding constraints never leads to a higher optimum.

I suspect I know what an organic advocate will next argue: well in the long-run organic soils will build up nutrients and organic matter and will eventually achieve higher yields than non-organic.  That may be (or may not be) true, but that does nothing to nullify my point.  If it turns out that, say, 10 years down the road, organic farmers begin routinely experiencing higher yields, then non-organic farmers can copy those practices (assuming they're not higher cost) and again match organic yields, and eventually surpass them - because - yet again- they will have options available to them that organic farmers don't.  Like biotech.  Like ammonium nitrate. 

Now, maybe organic better reduces environmental or human health externalities.  I'm not particularly persuaded by the evidence on that front, but that is a reasonable debate worth having.  But, arguing that organic yields can (generally) exceed non-organic yields is not supported by the best empirical evidence or by logic.       

Organics, misinformation, and fear-based marketing

I ran across this paper discussing some of the research on consumer preferences for organic, and it delves into the tactics used my marketers of organic products.

The authors conclude:

This review of published research, documented organic and natural produce industry practices and advocacy collaborations shows widespread, collaborative and pervasive industry marketing activities, both transparent and covert, disparaging competing conventional foods and agriculture practices. Further, these activities have contributed to false and misleading consumer health and safety perceptions influencing food purchase decisions. These findings suggest a widespread organic and natural products industry pattern of research-informed and intentionally-deceptive marketing and advocacy related practices that have generated hundreds of billions in revenues.

I agree that much of the marketing (and writing) on organic has led to false beliefs among many consumers.  I've written a lot about that, and I've tried to provide research evidence on the scientific basis (or lack thereof) of such claims.  Thus, I share the author's sentiments.  

But, I personally am much less bothered by marketers.  Isn't this what marketers do?  Why does Nike show LeBron James or Michael Jordan flying through the air wearing their shoes?  What message is Nike trying to send?  It probably has next to nothing to do with how high I'm able to jump or even how well a Nike will fit me should I buy them.  Their commercials are trying to install false beliefs.  

So, I sort of expect those things from marketers and companies trying to sell products (although overt lies and falsehoods expose companies and marketers to legal liability, and for good reason).   What bothers me more is when supposed "objective" journalists or academics spread the same sort of mis-information that flies in the face of scientific evidence.  Moreover, we certainly don't want tax dollars subsidizing false beliefs.  

That's why I found this passage a bit more disconcerting:

As a result, the American taxpayer funded national organic program is playing an ongoing role in misleading consumers into spending billions of dollars in organic purchasing decisions based on false and misleading health, safety and quality claims. Further, U.S. government agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Agriculture, which entrusted with the authority to enforce truthful, non-misleading consumer protections against such abuses have either ignored or become complicit in these marketing abuses.

Does eating organic food reduce cancer risk?

Not so much, according to this paper published a few days ago in the British Journal of Cancer. Here is what the authors did:

We examined the hypothesis that eating organic food may reduce the risk of soft tissue sarcoma, breast cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other common cancers in a large prospective study of 623 080 middle-aged UK women. Women reported their consumption of organic food and were followed for cancer incidence over the next 9.3 years.

Here is what they found:

At baseline, 30%, 63% and 7% of women reported never, sometimes, or usually/always eating organic food, respectively. Consumption of organic food was not associated with a reduction in the incidence of all cancer (n=53 769 cases in total) (RR for usually/always vs never=1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99–1.07), soft tissue sarcoma (RR=1.37, 95% CI: 0.82–2.27), or breast cancer (RR=1.09, 95% CI: 1.02–1.15), but was associated for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (RR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.65–0.96).

Conclusions: In this large prospective study there was little or no decrease in the incidence of cancer associated with consumption of organic food, except possibly for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

These findings mesh well with other research I've pointed to in the past noting that food pesticide are a relatively small risk in the grand scheme of things. If the results had been the other way around (that eating organic food reduced cancer risk), I would have pointed out that this is an observational study and that it is really hard to identify causation. For example, maybe people who eat organic engage in all kinds of other healthy activities that reduce cancer risks. Organic consumption is likely correlated with income (given the higher price of organic), and higher income folks are likely to be able to better protect against all kinds of illnesses than poorer folks. That's what I would have said had this study shown a correlation between organic consumption and reduced cancer risk.

Thus, it is only fair play to apply the same thinking to this study which generates a result consistent with arguments I've made in the past. The article finds little to no correlation among people who choose to eat organic and cancer risk. But, maybe people at greater risk for cancer in the first place choose to eat more organics, hoping it will reduce the odds? Maybe people who can't afford to eat organic self-protect in other ways, such as more exercise or eating more fruits and veggies? I don't personally find such explanations for the null result very plausible, but these are the sorts of things one must worry about in observational studies.

To really provide a definitive answer to this question, one needs to do a randomized controlled trial. Or, at a minimum, apply some of the more advanced identification methods and sensitivity analyses that are today being used in the best economics papers (eg, regression discontinuity designs, propensity score matching, model specification comparison, etc). In many ways, it seems to me that much of what I read in epidemiology and nutrition reminds me of the state of the econometrics literature in economics 20 years ago.