Marley Luke

UNST 124
10/21/2014
Reading Response #2: Industrial Organics
Michael Pollans claim that industrial organic [is] a contradiction in terms (133) is a
bold statement. While it is not altogether untrue, Pollan somewhat disregards the evidence of
organic farms contributions to healthier and more sustainable farming. For instance, Pollan
reports that for every chemical input used in the farms conventional fields, a more benign
organic input had been substituted in the organic ones (139). Organic farms do not use
completely synthetic pesticides and herbicides to grow produce. They instead till fields to
remove weeds, or they remove the weeds manually. Also, organic livestock farms feed chicken,
cows, and pigs organically farmed corn and soy without the overuse of antibiotics. These
practices greatly reduce the environmental impact of organic farms. One company, Earthbound,
even claims that their practices have eliminated some 270,000 pounds of pesticide and 8
million pounds of petrochemical fertilizer that would otherwise have been applied [in
conventional farms] (164). This reduces the increase in super resistant pests and highly
concentrated nitrogen/phosphorus runoff. Therefore, according to the USDA definition of
organic, industrial organic farms are legitimately organic. In Pollans earlier statement, he
should have been clearer on whose definition of organic he was referring to.
Pollans organic is partially based upon Joel Salatin. Salatin classifies himself as a
beyond organic farmer because he believes his farm is not just organic, but also more natural
(132). His farm, like nature, is diverse. His livestock graze the grass, and their manure fertilize
the land, which helps this almost closed-loop system. Ultimately, Joel Salatin, is more of a
sustainable farmer than just an organic one. Pollan even admits Polyface Farm [owned by Joel
Salatin] is technically not an organic farm, though by any standard it is more sustainable than
virtually any organic farm (131). Organic, in Pollans earlier statement, should therefore be
replaced by sustainable; yet, the statement would still be missing some of its original meaning.
To fully comprehend and agree to Pollans claim, Pollan must add a phrase about founding
values of organic farming. Organic farming, which was once the revolution against synthetic
chemicals and in turn, the companies that made them, still has many of the same practices, but
not the same values. Instead of making healthier food for the people that is sustainable in
practice, industrial organic farming is still about profit as with commercial farming.
Supermarkets who buy organics only buy from farms operating on the same industrial scale
(161), so to even compete with commercial products, organic farms need to sacrifice some values
for profit and quantity. These organic farms sacrifice locality and fossil fuels for transport, soil
quality because of land usage, and animals freedom and health in open spaces. Because of this,
Pollan insists, Organic farming has increasingly come to resemble the industrial system it
originally set out to replace (151). These farms may be organic but they are not sustainable.
With this added context, I can now agree with Michael Pollans claim of the industrial organic
oxymoron.