Local vs. Organic? What about both?

Which is best:  to eat locally grown or organic?  This question is often put forth as a choice that the consumer must make.  It is a false dichotomy similar to the choice that is often fabricated between the environment or the economy.  The truth is that they are usually both possible; in fact neither is a good choice without the other.  


There are many advantages to eating locally grown.  It is good for your health in that the food is usually much fresher and therefore higher in nutrients.  It is good for the economy of the community because it keeps food dollars in the local economy rather than exporting them to other parts of the country or even the world.  It is better for the environment because it does not have the footprint of transporting food from far away places and because small farmers, such as most of the produce farmers of Alabama, usually are better stewards of the land than large farmers.  They do not usually spray their fields aerially, contaminating large areas, non-target organisms, and bodies of water with pesticides.  They do not plow and leave bare large fields.  They usually do not use genetically modified seed, which has the potential of contaminating their neighbors' crops.


There are also many advantages of eating organic.  It is good for your health because there is no danger from pesticide residues on your produce.  Read:  "Three Studies Confirm Bad News About Insecticide Exposures" on the Georgia Organics website.  There are no worries about the effects of consuming antibiotics and hormones in your meat.


Rather than choose between buying from your local farmer or going to Wal-mart to buy certified organic produce why not just ask your local farmer to grow organic?  The major obstacle to the availability of locally grown organic produce is the lack of consumer demand, which can be attributed to the lack of consumer education.


It is often not just a matter of peeling your conventionally grown produce or washing it to remove pesticides.  According to The Organic Center:   

"About 20% of currently registered pesticides are called systemics. Systemic pesticides move into the plant through the root system, travel throughput the plant via its vascular system (plant blood, in effect), and move into surface tissues, where they either stop viral pathogens from growing or kill or repel insects. Some pesticides are 100% systemic, others are partially systemic."  Systemic pesticides are not only passed on to the human consumer, but also kill many pollinators, such as honeybees and butterflies.

The indiscriminate use of antibiotics to fatten food animals (cows, pigs, and chickens) and grow them faster favors the evolution and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria, a serious threat to public health.

Beef cattle are implanted with hormones at the feed lot, and often on family farms as well, in order to fatten them up in record time and increase profits.  Dairy cows are given growth hormones to increase milk production.  Though the scientific verdict on the safety of consuming these hormones by humans is still out, the European Union has banned the production and import of hormone-treated meat, allowing only imports certified as produced without the use of hormones.  This has caused an on-going and acrimonious trade dispute between the U.S. and the European Union.  See: The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute.  The U.S. maintains that there is no scientific evidence that growth promoting hormones fed to food animals pose any danger to the consumer.  However, the EU maintains that scientific data on the safety of growth hormones is inadequate, and therefore further studies were needed; that controls necessary to ensure safe administration of the hormones were not in place in the US; that the ban was justified by the EU’s historical use of the “precautionary principle”, a simple belief that any potential risk to human health warrants caution.  The EU approaches risk assessment differently than the US. See:  "The Beef-Hormone Dispute and its Implications for Trade Policy".  


The United States is the only developed nation to permit humans to drink milk from cows given artificial growth hormone.^[2] Posilac was banned from use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all European Union countries (currently numbering 27), by 2000 or earlier 1. 

The American Public Health Association policy statement on rbGHUse in Dairy Production:  Since 1994, recombinant bovine growth hormone, also known as rbGH or rbST, has been injected into dairy cows to increase milk production; the hormone typically increased production by an average of 11 to 15%.36 rbGH was developed and marketed by Monsanto and sold to Elanco, a division of Eli Lilly, in October 2008. Although approved by the FDA in a November 1993 decision, both Canada and the European Union in 1999 refused to approve the drug’s use, officially citing harm to cows’ health.  No significant scientific studies since then have led these bodies to reconsider their stance. Australia, New Zealand, and Japan have also prohibited the drug’s use.

Although some studies (including several funded by Monsanto) have failed to demonstrate that rbGH harms dairy cows, virtually all independent analyses of the data reached a different conclusion. In addition to the Canadian and European studies, the FDA’s analysis of the data submitted by Monsanto demonstrated that use of rbGH increases the incidence of 16 different harmful conditions in cows, including birth disorders, hoof problems, heat stress, diarrhea, increased somatic cell count, and mastitis, a painful udder infection. On the basis of this evidence, the FDA requires these risks be listed on rbGH package inserts, but not on finished dairy products. Virtually all animal-welfare organizations, including the Humane Society of the United States and the Humane Farming Association, oppose the use of rbGH.

The use of rbGH presents an additional risk to human health in the form of antibiotic resistance. As more cows develop mastitis caused by rbGH use, farmers necessarily increase their use of antibiotics to treat the udder infections. There is now a consensus among scientists that antibiotic use in farm animals increases antibiotic resistance, which can then be transmitted back to humans through food or in the environment. Reducing rbGH use would serve to reduce antibiotic use in dairy cattle.

Scientific committees for Health Canada and the European Commission have also raised concerns about the potential effects of rbGH on cancer. Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) is a necessary growth hormone present and identical in both cows and humans. However, elevated IGF-1 levels in human blood are associated with higher rates of colon, breast, and prostate cancers. On the basis of data submitted by Monsanto, FDA determined that rbGH use raises levels of IGF-1 in cow’s sera and cow’s milk. These data also show that IGF-1 survives pasteurization. Animal models show that most IGF-1 in cow’s milk survives digestion, reaching the bloodstream where it may promote cancer. The United Nations’ main food safety body, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, determined in 1999 that rbGH could not be declared safe for human health.

More and more US public health organizations have taken formal stances opposing the drug, including Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, Health Care Without Harm, and the American Nurses Association. In the last 3 years, more than 260 US hospitals have signed a pledge committing to serve rbGH-free dairy products.

A 2008 national poll showed that more than 90% of consumers favor labeling of rbGH-free products. Responding to this concern, many large retail establishments—including Wal-Mart—have phased out their milk brands produced using rbGH. Milk and many other dairy products from cows not treated with rbGH are now widely available; rbGH use fell from 22% of US farms in 2003 to 15% in 2007. Use of the synthetic hormone is still common practice on many large dairy operations, however. In 2007, nearly 43% of large herds were treated with rbGH.

In February 2007, Monsanto appealed unsuccessfully to the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission to restrict the labeling of rbGH-free milk. Since then, policymakers in 8 states have attempted to ban or restrict the labeling of rbGH-free dairy products through bills or administrative rules. All failed except in Ohio, where the proposed rules are being challenged in court.

Medical authorities and foreign governments have documented scientific public health concerns associated with rbGH use. As long as the FDA allows rbGH to remain on the market, consumers should have the right to know if it is present or absent in dairy products they consume. This right to know about hazardous or controversial substances has been defended in APHA Policy 2002-5.65 


Growth hormones are illegal for use in poultry production.  Antibiotics and arsenic are often fed to increase growth, but the rapid growth in today's chickens is attributed to selective breeding, improved nutrition, and protection from environmental stresses.


These growth hormones, antibiotics, and chemicals, such as arsenic often end up in the environment.  When they contaminate bodies of water, and adverse affects on fish populations.


If you have never watched some of the movies that describe the lives of animals that live in cafos (confined animals feeding operations), you should.  Food, Inc. is a good one.

The link between pesticide ingestion and elevated cancer occurrences are often hard to establish because of the time required for the cancer to develop and the many other factors involved.  Pesticide residues are often found in drinking water supplies and ground water.  Many pesticides are known to be lethal or harmful to pollinators, such as honeybees and butterflies, and to other non-target organisms as well.  According to EPA’s most recent Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data, across the U.S. in 2010, 3.93 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were released into the environment, a 16 percent increase from 2009. The U.S. is rated 36th among 194 nations in longevity.  Obesity, stress, and toxic chemical exposure are among the factors responsible for the relative low rating.


By choosing organic, you are not contributing to this massive loading of our environment with toxic chemicals.  Locally grown organic is the best choice, not only for your health, but also for the environment.

Why is organic usually more expensive?  It is because of the higher cost of seed, soil amendments, and other farming inputs.  Also, organic requires more labor and labor is the most expensive aspect of farming.  Whereas conventional farmers can use chemicals to control weeds and pests, organic farmers must do many of these things by hand.  Organic farmers may also have more blemished produce that is unmarketable.  Consumers demand perfect-looking produce.  Why not demand naked produce instead?  Naked produce is that produced without the use of any synthetic chemicals.  It is chemical-free produce.

The NY Times recently published an article titled:  Organic Agriculture may be Outgrowing its Ideals.  It cited several examples of unsustainable organic agriculture.  By purchasing locally grown organic food you will avoid contributing to these unsustainable practices.  So vote with your food dollars: buy locally grown organic or better yet, grow your own.  If you have space in your yard, plant a garden.  It is a good way to get exercise, sunshine, entertainment, and education, as well as good food.  If you have a patio, plant in boxes or pots.  If you don't have space in your yard, join or start a community garden.  Then you can add "make friends" to your list of benefits of gardening.