Elisabeth Rosenthal at the NYTimes:
But even as more Americans buy foods with the organic label, the products are increasingly removed from the traditional organic ideal: produce that is not only free of chemicals and pesticides but also grown locally on small farms in a way that protects the environment.
The explosive growth in the commercial cultivation of organic tomatoes here, for example, is putting stress on the water table. In some areas, wells have run dry this year, meaning that small subsistence farmers cannot grow crops. And the organic tomatoes end up in an energy-intensive global distribution chain that takes them as far as New York and Dubai, United Arab Emirates, producing significant emissions that contribute to global warming.
From now until spring, farms from Mexico to Chile to Argentina that grow organic food for the United States market are enjoying their busiest season.
And here is the follow-up question from at the blog formerly known as Green, Inc:
I know that food miles – the carbon dioxide emissions produced by food transport – constitute only a small fraction of the total emissions related to food production. Still, for me, there’s a bit of cognitive dissonance in eating an organic tomato that was grown in a desert and then flown 3,000 miles so I can feel good about eating “natural” foods.
I invite you to share your views.
That is an easy one. The negative externalities from the food miles and water-intensive agricultural technology should be properly priced into the organic vegetables. If so, I would have no qualms about eating organic produce grown in the Mexican desert. Nevertheless, I'd still rather buy organic tomatos relative to going without in the winter. I'm a big fan of international trade and, as Gernot's publicist tells me, it doesn't do much good to voluntarily make oneself worse off in order to improve environmental quality.
