Limits of going green

A while ago the Economist ran a critique of the organic food movement, arguing that the economic reality was actually the use of more resources due to the comparative inefficiency of organic farming. Now, a wealthy couple in New York City is trying to eat organic and local, produce zero trash, use no paper, and ride no motorized transportation--for a year. This stunt, inspired by a book deal, has brought the debate back up for me.

When it comes to food production, I still believe that classical economics leads to the most efficient outcome for society: produce as much food as demand warrants at prices that are technically competitive. The darker side would include an analysis of the social costs imposed on the environment as a result of using fertilizers and pesticides and clearing land; this is where a cost-benefit shakedown with organics would be most useful. At what point is there considerable benefit from purchasing organics/local food? Freshness is good, but the taste-quality trade-off depends on each consumer's sensitivity to price. If I'm making minimum wage in Detroit, I sure don't want to be paying an extra 50% for farmer's market produce (100% for secondary products, according to Consumer Reports).

The BBC has this to say:

Many people turn to organic food because of concerns about pesticides. Around 350 pesticides are permitted in conventional farming and the Soil Association says an estimated 4.5billion litres of them are used annually. While there are Government rules for pesticide residues, they still end up in our food and nobody knows the long-term implications of their combined effect.

I'd imagine it's kind of hard for humans to know the long-term implications of just about anything. I used to worry, for example, that years from now radiation from my microwave would give me brain cancer. (Now it turns out I should have been blaming cell phones.) Health issues that get heavily publicized, such as Bovine Growth Hormone, turn me jaded quickly; it's easy to pay a scientist to say whatever supports your case (thanks to Philip Morris for teaching this to my entire generation). The bogus "Mozart Effect" craze of a few years back falls in the same category.

That makes arguments relating to present benefit far more compelling to me. Let's pretend there's a very high discount rate on the future so we agree to ignore the long-term implications of conventional farming. An article in last November's Science highlighted the benefits of biodiversity in marine ecosystems. The relevant finding:

Restoration of biodiversity, in contrast, increased productivity fourfold and decreased variability by 21%, on average. We conclude that marine biodiversity loss is increasingly impairing the ocean's capacity to provide food, maintain water quality, and recover from perturbations.

I see no reason why terrestrial ecosystems wouldn't act in parallel. Sacrifice biodiversity, lose ecosystem pollutant filtering and soil nutrients. If, as the Soil Association claims, "organic farms naturally promote biodiversity as the lack of herbicides and pesticides encourages wildlife," then I might be encouraged to buy organic. That is, of course, if I live in a place with a viable climate for farming (buying Arizona produce still seems morally reprehensible).

Aside from comments on the thought process above, I'd like to hear from people familiar with global agriculture about the prevailing paradigm on organics. I expect there's controversy over green certifications, considerable hypocrisy in marketing, and situations where organic farming is inferior to large-scale farming.