Tim Worstall

Organic Food is Bad For You and the Planet

The Boy Dave (M) doesn’t quite have the guts to tell it like it is of course but he does get halfway there:

David Miliband, the environment secretary, says organic produce, which
is usually more expensive, is a “lifestyle choice” with no hard
evidence that it is healthier.

OK, so that actual food itself is no better for you. But as it is more expensive this of course means it is bad for you as it reduces the income you have for other matters. It also requires more land for the same amount of food, so it is bad for the planet, increasing the encroachment upon the wild lands that other species need.

Excellent, now we know. Ban organic food now!

In

14 responses

  1. Josh Avatar
    Josh

    I truly loathe this organic con. Give me some nice gene spliced rice any day.
    But banning organic production isn’t very Worstallian of you. Instead, organic producers should pay the full cost of their elitism, which of course is the cost of owning and maintaining more land without getting extra produce.

    Reply
  2. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    “It also requires more land for the same amount of food, so it is bad for the planet, increasing the encroachment upon the wild lands that other species need.”
    Various studies have found that organic farming may actually increase yields in developing countries and it certainly reduces soil erosion and the progressive loss of fertility. You’re also ignoring the external costs imposed by conventional farming through the over-use of pesticides and lower bio-diversity. Oh and I don’t know if you noticed but we’re currently paying farmers to keep land fallow so I’m not sure there would be such a shortage if more switched to organic.

    Reply
  3. AntiCitizenOne Avatar
    AntiCitizenOne

    “Organic” is brilliant as it makes idiots poorer.

    Reply
  4. Agammamon Avatar
    Agammamon

    Its reduced biodiversity in the plots actually used for farming, but as significantly less land is used, the unused land has a *greater* biodiversity – a net increase.
    We want less biodiversity in farmland – that means less effort is spent feeding the bugs and birds and more spent on increasing yeilds.

    Reply
  5. David Gillies Avatar
    David Gillies

    Jim: bollocks. You can’t efficiently do zero-till cultivation (which is the most effective method of soil conservation) without pesticides. Fertiliser use is greatly reduced with zero-till, and for those of you who are worried about AGW, it’s a method of carbon sequestration into the bargain. ‘Organic’ fertiliser (i.e. shit) is more likely to give people food poisoning and is no less harmful to the environment (anyone who’s seen what happens when a slurry tank leaks into a river knows this).
    The argument about extensive vs intensive farming is not an issue in the West, but in the world at large it is of supreme importance. Advocating organic produce for affluent, knit-your-own-tofu Grauniad morons is one thing, but trying to foist it on developing nations is a crime against humanity.

    Reply
  6. Peter Risdon Avatar
    Peter Risdon

    Lots of goods we purchase have nothing to do with basic survival or efficiency, including all recreational arts, movies, books. Agricultural expansion into wilderness is not an issue in the UK, at least. Organic farming is much less harmful to wildlife than conventional farming, especially arable, with the exception of projects like Robin Page’s Countryside Restoration Trust (CRT). The preservation of wildlife is a luxury economic good that some people are willing to pay for. Less sensibly, the New Age twaddle peddled about organics also represents economic goods, or added value, that people are willing to pay for, just like the crystals they buy in shops in Glastonbury.
    By regarding conservation as an economic good that, in a free market, we can pay for or not as we wish, we assume responsibility for the environment and could perhaps rescue ecology from statist watermelons. Food labelling limitations at present mean that the only way we can do this is by buying organic produce, even if we’d happily buy CRT stuff instead, and detest the priesthood of the soil association.

    Reply
  7. James of England Avatar
    James of England

    I’ve been able to blind taste organic milk. I think it tastes better. I’m something of a food snob, and I’m happy to pay more for it (really, even the most expensive milk isn’t very much). I can’t think of an externality that I’m not paying for (I totally pay for the additional land use). One moment you’re wanting Tescos to have to sell some of their property to their rivals at a discount, the next you’re wanting to regulate what they can sell.
    Perhaps I’m an idiot, as anticitizenone suggests, for having my subjective preferences. I believe in the freedom to be an idiot and to make bad choices every day of my life. For instance, I should totally be working right now… OK, I’ll go work. I also believe in the freedom to sometimes not be stupid.

    Reply
  8. Oli Avatar
    Oli

    Organic Foods are a luxury food and they cost more – what is so terrible about that?
    Organic food might taste nicer, but that is only really true if you use a farmers’ market.
    Most of the organic food found in supermarkets is imported, so if you are an eco type, you just need to decide which of your special interests you most support, low tech food or local food.
    I guess the biggest issue this story has brought up is that people don’t like to be reminded that they are willingly being taken for a ride!

    Reply
  9. AntiCitizenOne Avatar
    AntiCitizenOne

    James,
    Freedom to be an idiot is the most basic liberty.

    Reply
  10. dsquared Avatar
    dsquared

    [Its reduced biodiversity in the plots actually used for farming, but as significantly less land is used, the unused land has a *greater* biodiversity – a net increase.]
    This isn’t true. Suddenly abandoning farming on previously farmed land will tend to lead to a monoculture of stinging nettles. Farmland has a surprising amount of biodiversity on it, and organic farmland even more so.

    Reply
  11. James of England Avatar
    James of England

    AntiCitizenOne: I agree.
    I’m not just a believer in freedom, though. I’d also like idiots to prosper and be happy. My sense is that organic food increases the perceived utility of idiots (and not just idiots like me, to whom the cost is negligable, but idiots who cannot afford it). Even if I was wrong, the freedom is more important than the utility, but I think that I agree with you that organic food is both something that should not be banned and a good thing. I think we disagree in that I think that it would be both something that should not be banned and a bad thing if it resulted in decreased utility for idiots and am glad that it does not do so.
    After writing this, it occured to me that your point might be more subtle. If you’re saying that it increases their utility but makes them poorer, then I’d agree with you. I think that a cost that you’re not taking into account, though, is that a lot of the wealth transfer is to green activists who will work to destroy freedom and prosperity. In case it sounds like I’m being overblown, I think that those are fair descriptions of Green Party policies to reduce growth (with dreams of negative growth) and induce good behaviour.

    Reply
  12. dsquared Avatar
    dsquared

    James, in the case of milk you are absolutely right to be able to detect a difference. Cow’s milk tastes different depending on what the cows have been eating, and grass-fed cows’ milk tastes better than milk from cows which have had a diet intensive in feed. Also, organic farms tend to take better precautions against mastitis (because they don’t have the option of using antibiotics); in my opinion people get quite ludicrously worked up about white blood cells (“pus in the milk! Oh my god!!” It’s milk FFS.) but this might also affect the taste and organic milk might have less of them. But the feed thing is almost certainly more important.

    Reply
  13. anonymous Avatar
    anonymous

    wow jack ass. Great thinking, organic is bad for you? No, it’s bad on your income only, not bad for you personally. What’s so bad about shelling out some money for your well-being?

    Reply
  14. Nate Avatar
    Nate

    During the pre industrial age farmers could not feed all of their people and the food they could supply was many a time rotten and bug infested. Crops failed for no apparent reason. And guess how they were growing crops Or(fuckin)ganically ! Pesticides were the best thing to ever happen to agriculture.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading