Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
used on conventional farms were finding their way onto organic farms, predominantly
as run-off and spray drift, thereby contaminating both the land and the crops of organic
farmers.
Co-existence in the Age of Synthetic
Chemical Inputs
When the US National Organic Program (NOP) standards17 were conceived, a very
pragmatic approach was taken. Organic certification would be based on adherence to
prescribed practices rather than on any battery of tests on the grains or produce sold.
Thus, no extensive surveillance or testing systems were mandated in the USDA-NOP
rules. Instead, third-party testing has become available as an option for farmers.18 Part
of the reasoning for this “practice standard” was that most synthetic chemical inputs
were expected to dissipate or break down in the environment over time. Those that did
not, such as DDT, were banned or became highly restricted. The reasoning that syn-
thetic chemicals would eventually dissipate was used to develop the requirements
farmers need to follow to obtain organic certification when first stopping conventional
practices. Three years of strict adherence to the organic standards is now required before
a transitioning farm can be certified organic.19 With this liberal policy, as Larsson (this
volume) notes, both the USDA-NOP and the International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) have drifted from their purist roots. It is remarkable
that such compromises, however uneasy, were achieved at all considering the widely
documented damage done by fertilizers and pesticides to the environment.20 Many
insecticides are also highly toxic to humans and wildlife;21 evidence of their harm is
undeniable (e.g., Goulson 2013; Hayes 2005; Rosner and Markowitz 2013). Yet, organic
farmers were forced to accept that use of agricultural chemicals is the dominant farming
paradigm in most countries, and while continued activism to curtail their use altogether
goes on unabated, their presence in the environment was a fact they could not change;
they could only manage their own land and behavior.
The uneasy relationship between conventional and organic farmers is constantly
simmering and bursts into public consciousness in the news media with articles enti-
tled “Organic Farming Alone Can't Feed The World, Say Researchers”22 or “Yet Again,
Organic Ag Proves Just as Productive as Chemical Ag.”23 Reliance on synthetic inputs by
conventional farmers is justified most frequently by the need to intensify crop produc-
tion to feed a growing population. The organic agriculture movement is often criticized
as being “unable” to meet this increasing demand24 and that hunger and famine will be
the inevitable result. The organic movement counters that chemical inputs are destroy-
ing soil health and water and air quality, and that an alternative paradigm is needed
urgently in order to sustain agricultural productivity now and in the future (Rosset and
Altieri 1997).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search