In last week's post, I linked to a Scientific American article that busted some "myths" about organic farming versus conventional. Grist blogger Tom Laskawy wrote a detailed, well-thought-out rebuttal to the article, being careful to mention where he found her claims accurate and where they were completely unfounded.
Now, I posted the link without any explanation, but after reading the article I saw these same inconsistencies. I was hoping it would get people thinking and talking - and certainly, it has. To me, the word "organic" has been used to describe many different kinds of farming practices, and even though "USDA certified organic" might not apply to many of the things I raise on my little farm (for example, we feed our chickens conventionally-grown feed), I think there are a lot of things higher on the priority list than being able to apply that particular adjective to a food product. Organic farms, on the very large scale, may not look all that different from a "conventional" farm.
What is your opinion? Is "organic" worth it? Do you pursue organic certification for your farm, or do consumers understand that while you may not meet that standard, you do things in a natural, small-scale and sustainable way? Or are you a conventional farm in every sense of the word?
Comments