If You’re Buying Organic for Your Personal Health You’re Missing the Point

Surveys of organic consumers in North America have shown that the main reason we buy organic is because we think it’s better for us; less chemicals, more nutrients. And these are true, although recent studies have shown that even organic produce can get contaminated with pesticides and there is some conflicting evidence on increased nutrients of organic food. (But here’s a study showing increased phenolic content of organically grown food – phenols are good for your health!)

But that’s not what I see is being the main reason we should be buying organic and I hope those few news stories won’t deter you from buying organic either.

This week a guest on CBC’s The Sunday Edition was talking about groups in society that seem to fight reason and have a distrust of science. This might bring to mind the right-wing climate change deniers. Or maybe the anti-vaccine group. And the guest threw out a third group – “those organic people” who think organic is better for you.

I immediately yelled back at the radio “You’re missing the point!” I don’t think he heard me, but I hope you do.

Whether or not organic has more nutrients, it is so much more than that. And I think that seeing organic as good or bad for human consumption is frankly a little selfish. Organic farming has been shown to be good for biodiversity. For example organic farms and their surrounding land have been shown to have higher diversity of birds. It deceases demand for nitrogen fertilizer which is a costly, petroleum-based product that pollutes waterways. If you live next to an organic farm you don’t need to worry about a farmer spraying pesticides on a windy day while your kids are out playing. Did you know that one of the six main principles of the Canadian Organic Standards is about animal welfare? Organic dairy farms have to have their cows out on a pastures for a minimum number of days, whereas a conventional dairy can keep them in a barn 365 days a year.

Here’s an issue created by conventional farming that I only just found out on my trip to Manitoba. Some conventional farmers spray herbicides just outside the edge of the field, killing any weeds that grow on the edge of the surrounding ditch. Once those plants die there’s nothing holding the soil in place and the ditch collapses. The government then has to re-dig that ditch, using taxpayer dollars. A costly consequence of conventional farming I would have never thought of until I saw it happening.

That same survey I mentioned at the beginning of this post showed that the main reason Europeans buy organic food is because they think it’s better for the environment. What an interesting cultural difference. One that I hope we can adopt too.

So while it’s not practical for most people to buy 100% organic due to price and availability, I do want everyone to think about the whole farming system when you make decisions around buying food. Think about the entire chain – from the farm, to processing, to transport, to buying and cooking. It’s so much more than just what goes in your mouth.

So if you buy organic (or even think about buying organic) because you think it’s better for you, I invite you to shift your thinking to what’s better for the whole system. Think big!


I use the term ‘conventional’ in this post and if you don’t know agriculture terminology this might not mean much. Basically any agriculture that’s not organic is classified as ‘conventional’, although that includes a spectrum of farming practices and not all conventional farms are managed in the exact same way. 

Response to “The World’s Resources Aren’t Running Out”

My husband recently directed me to the article The World’s Resources Aren’t Running Out written in the Wall Street Journal on April 25th, by Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist. He is a fan of that book, but knows I am not. This recent article was so obviously full of the faults I found with the book that it even swayed my husband into thinking the Rational Optimist is a little too optimistic and a little less rational then he should be.

I have to confess, I have not read The Rational Optimist, only excerpts my husband pointed out to me. Excerpts he chose to try and win me over to Dr. Ridley’s point of view, which they failed to do. That point of view is that things always get better. Society is progressing in an upward fashion, leading to better lives for people. This point is very true. Think about what life was like 2000, 200, or even just 20 years ago. Things are generally getting better. Technology and trade have helped the human race reach almost unthinkable progress. But that is not the whole story.

My issue is not with the upward trend of society. It’s the ignoring of the significant downward swings in that progress graph and what motivates us to make progress in the first place. Take the discovery that cholera was spread through contaminated water by John Snow in 1854. This was only discovered as a result of massive cholera outbreaks in London in the 1800s. Before large cities, cholera outbreaks didn’t warrant enough attention for anyone to bother solving the problem. It was only out of great tragedy that great progress was born.

The article in the Wall Street Journal claims much the same message; there’s no need to be alarmist about natural resources like oil running about because we’re always developing new technologies to either get more of that resource or we develop new resources. And yes, we have. We have developed fracking to help us get previously unreachable resources out of the earth. But failing to address any of the possible environmental concerns, like contaminated drinking water, is taking the rose-coloured glasses too far. Dr. Ridley seems to present the view that all technological advancements are beneficial. We once thought that about DDT. A great technological advancement that now we wish we had never used so liberally because of the environmental devastation that resulted.

Fertilizer is touted as saving grace by Dr. Ridley, bumping up food production in concert with pesticides and more intensive farming. The ill effects of all of these agricultural practices are completely absent from the argument. Fertilizer runoff is polluting waterways all over the world, chocking out aquatic life and shutting down fisheries. Pesticide poisoning lowers the life span of farmers in countries where safe practices are not used. Agriculture intensification causes soil degradation and a loss of natural biodiversity. These problems are happening now, and we can’t ignore the ill effects simply because they are an advancement and they increase crop production. Both sides of the coin must be augured.

Despite Dr. Ridley’s background as an ecologist, he points out his lack of understanding on what ecologists actually do by constantly referring to the scientists making claims of resource over-use and the consequences of those actions as simply ‘ecologists’. The science that Dr. Ridley brings up in his article is done by ecologists, geologists, climate scientists, marine biologists, agricultural scientists, entomologists, and more. Once again I found myself grimacing at his over simplification of the problem. His dismissal of the large body of scientists crying out for action is disturbing.

I too believe that humans will find a way to deal with some of the coming (and already here) problems, but I think great tragedy will have to happen first to motivate people to progress. And in some ways it already is. Crop failures caused by extreme weather are driving up food prices and causing riots in some countries. Antibiotics are becoming less effective and we have no alternative in the pipes. Residents in Alberta can’t drink their water because of a chemical leak from a nearby gas plant. And if I, as a scientist, want to try to help humans avoid some of the coming tragedies, I will, because that’s my job and that’s why I became a scientist.

Are yours real or fake?

Your Christmas Trees, of course!

I know I’m probably a little late this year for most of you, but here’s something for you to think on for next year. Real or artificial?

You might think artificial is better. The tree looks perfect every year, you can use it for years and years, so in the end it’s cheaper, there’s no needles to clean up and it doesn’t need to be watered. Plus you saved a tree from being cut down so it’s better for the environment, right?


Artificial trees are made out of plastic. So the fact that you can use it year after year also means it will be around for years and years, like hundreds of years. Eventually that artificial tree will end up in a landfill where it will biodegrade at a rate pretty close to zilch.

Another wonderful thing that plastic trees can do for you…off-gas. Have you ever noticed how something new and plastic smells plasticy? That’s because it’s giving off chemicals and you’re breathing them in. We already get enough toxins from other sources, we don’t need to add another.

Real Christmas trees are grown on farms. And sure you’re cutting down a tree, but that tree farmer is going to make sure another tree gets planted in it’s place because that’s their source of income. Plus if you happen to live in Nova Scotia, we have a huge Christmas tree industry and you’d be buying local! Everyone wants to buy local these days.

So what if you already have an artificial tree? Well, if it’s likely to end up in a landfill anyway you might as well do your body a favour and send it there now. There’s not much you can do about the landfill bit after it’s been bought (is there a market for second hand artificial trees?), but at least spare yourself some chemicals.

Our very real Christmas tree

We had a fantastic day going to a u-cut and chopping down our own tree. I hope it becomes a yearly tradition, and that you think about starting this tradition too.

PS I know some people are allergic to real trees, but you can always have a fun alternative like a deciduous tree!

Oh Canada, more like Oh, how embarrassing

There’s a new round of climate talks taking place in South Africa. A bit of a surprise yesterday when China called for a binding agreement. Let’s let that sink in for a mintue.


China wants binding emissions targets. What does Canada want? To stick it’s head in the sand, the Tar Sands to be precise.

Last week’s Quirks and Quarks had a segment on the talks in Durban and a little recap about how we’re all doing with Kyoto. Did you know Canada’s emissions rose by 17% from 1990 levels (the 1990 levels were the baseline for Kyoto, we were actually supposed to decrease from that)? Did you know the US only went up 7%? Yup, we’re worse than the US. We’re basically the worst climate offender in the world.

Overall developed countries actually did decrease their emissions, mostly due to European counties. This was partly due to the economic downturn but Germany seems to be doing OK and also lowering it’s emissions, caused in a large part to government initiatives.

So Canada failed Kyoto and now it’s poo-pooing on the very thought of a new agreement. It’s past whines include “The US isn’t doing it, why do I have to?”. Basically Canada says some of the largest emitters (US, China, Brazil) aren’t covered by Kyoto so it’s useless. Right, because we wouldn’t want Canada to set a progressive example, or do our part to reduce global emission anyway, maybe just because it’s the right thing to do. And now China’s on board and Canada still poo-poos it!

All the Canadian government wants is to work the Tar Sands for all they’re worth and leave the rest of the world with the consequences. We all knew this going into the last elections and yet we still gave Harper a majority government. So shame on Harper for not recognizing what climate change really means, but also shame on Canadian voters for doing the exact same thing. Get informed.

Time to speak up

Well, after venting most of the frustrations I might have put on my blog through twitter, I finally have something else to say that needs more than 140 characters. I sent this letter to our premier and MLA tonight:

Dear Mr. Dexter and Mr. MacDonell,

My husband and I want to live in Nova Scotia. This is where we grew up and this is where our family lives. We both moved away at one point, but we made a conscious decision to move back. This is where we want our kids to grow up too.

But Nova Scotia is not making this easy. We had moved back for 11 months before I found a job in my field. I have a masters degree and I had to work at a department store to pay the rent. Then the province raised the GST, so I had less money in my pocket with every transaction I made. Then I hear power rates are going to go up, at a much higher rate than my yearly pay increases. But we tolerate and adjust because we love Nova Scotia.

And now I am terrified that our beautiful province is going to allow shale gas fracking. To me, as someone who loves Nova Scotia, someone who is making financial sacrifices to live here, this could put the nail in the coffin that drives us to another province. The risks just seem too high. Not only is this system water intensive, it could potentially ruin our drinking water supply. Nova Scotia’s fresh water is a blessing, and water resources are not something to be taking lightly. As a family looking to really settle into Nova Scotia life, we have to look at the long term. Allowing fracking seems short-sighted to me. How can we invest ourselves long term in this province if we fear one day we won’t be able to turn on the tap and have safe drinking water?

We want to do our part to help Nova Scotia be a better province. Protesting shale gas exploration is part of that. Even if it can’t be claimed that fracking will or won’t contaminate our water, it is not a risk you should place on the shoulders of Nova Scotians. Preserve this province’s natural splendor for future generations.

Help us make our lives in Nova Scotia.

Thank you,

Carolyn Marshall

Milford Station, NS