Support Grist
Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.
Daily Grist

Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS
Daily Grist

The Way to a Manchester's Stomach

New study says some organic food no better for the environment

In case you weren't confused enough about your grocery shopping, a government-sponsored study in the U.K. has added a possible twist. It suggests that some organic foods may not be better for the environment than their conventional counterparts. While the 200-page study by the Manchester Business School found that many organic products do have lower impacts than their pesticide-laden brethren, it points out that the act of producing others can actually have a bigger impact. Organic milk, for instance, requires 80 percent more land and creates 20 percent more carbon dioxide than conventional milk; organic chickens, because they're raised longer than those crammed into crummy conventional coops, require 25 percent more energy. Britain's top organic group, the Soil Association, acknowledged that in some cases organic farming can be less energy-efficient, but said that factors not considered in the study more than make up for that. Like, say, eating food that's not laced with neurotoxins.

straight to the source: The Telegraph, Charles Clover, 20 Feb 2007
straight to the source: The Independent, Cahal Milmo, 19 Feb 2007
straight to the source: Daily Mail, Liz Hull, 19 Feb 2007


Comments: (2 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

Red Herrings

Claims about organic cattle milk, chickens, and other animal products are red herrings, as they simply aren't foods for humans to begin with.  Anyone who claims environmental concern yet uses animal products is at best fooling themselves and at worst a hypocrite.


Hardly Shocking

This report doesn't really surprise me.  I don't think that "organic" is really supposed to be about conservation, so much as about allowing plants and animals to grow in the way that nature intended.  Often, that means easing up on the cost-saving measures.

Of course mega-farmed chickens use less energy: the boys are promptly killed, and the girls spend their seven-week lives[1] in a space about the size of an 8.5" x 11" sheet of paper.  Everything the megafarms do is done in the name of efficiency.

I wouldn't go as far as anthony11 does, particularly because I think that the "greener than thou" attitude is a big turnoff for average joes trying to be more earth-friendly.  But I would agree that being green is more than just buying a carbon offset sticker for your car[2].

[1] Speaking of "the way nature intended," a healthy chicken would normally live 7-10 years.
[2] I have a TerraPass, and I think it's the best idea I've seen in years, but I see it as a starting point, not a solution in itself.

--

Taking accounting to the extreme since 2004.

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?


ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Jobs Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcasts
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra® | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks