West Coast March

West Coast Publishing Organic Agriculture Main File Public Forum March 2022 Page 1
West Coast Publishing

Organic Agriculture
Main File
Public Forum March 2022
Research assistance by Kinny Torre
Thanks for using our Policy, LD, and Public Forum Evidence and Textbooks.
Please don’t share this material with anyone

outside of your school
including via print, email, dropbox, google drive, the web, etc.
We’re a small non-profit; please help us continue to provide our products.
Contact us at jim@wcdebate.com
www.wcdebate.com
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox,
google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
WEST COAST DEBATE
Public Forum March 2022

Organic Agriculture Main File
Finding Arguments in this File

Use the table of contents on the next pages to find the evidence you need or the navigation bar on the left. We have
tried to make the table of contents as easy to use as possible.
Using the arguments in this File

We encourage you to be familiar with the evidence you use. Highlight (underline) the key lines you will use in the
evidence. Cut evidence from our files, incorporate your and others’ research and make new files. File the evidence so
that you can easily retrieve it when you need it in debate rounds. Practice reading the evidence out-loud; Practice
applying the arguments to your opponents’ positions; Practice defending your evidence in rebuttal speeches.
Use West Coast Evidence as a Beginning

We hope you enjoy our evidence files and find them useful. In saying this, we want to make a strong statement that we
make when we coach and that we believe is vitally important to your success: DO NOT USE THIS EVIDENCE AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Instead, let it serve as a beginning. Let it inform you of important arguments,
of how to tag and organize your arguments, and to offer citations for further research. Don’t stagnate in these
files--build upon them by doing your own research for updates, new strategies, and arguments that specifically apply
to your opponents. In doing so, you’ll use our evidence to become a better debater.
Copying West Coast Evidence

Our policy gives you the freedom to use our evidence for educational purposes without violating our hard work.
● You may print and copy this evidence for those on your team.
● You may not electronically share nor distribute this evidence with anyone other than those on your team
unless you very substantially change each page of material that you share.
For unusual situations, you can e-mail us at jim@wcdebate.com and seek our consent.
Ordering West Coast Materials

1. Visit the West Coast Web Page at www.wcdebate.com
2. E-mail us at jim@wcdebate.com
3. Fax us at 877-781-5058
Copyright 2022. West Coast Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Visit our web page!

www.wcdebate.com
Table of Contents
WEST COAST DEBATE 2
Table of Contents 3
Resolved: In the United States, the benefits of increasing organic agriculture outweigh the
harms. 5
Topic Analysis 6
Essay 6
Definitions 8
Organic Agriculture 8
PRO 10
Pro Opening 11
Resolutional Analysis 11
Contention 1: Pesticides Bad 11
Contention 2: Sustainability 12
Contention 3: Food Security 13
Extensions 15
Pesticides Bad 15
Sustainability 18
Food Security 21
Rebuttals 23
AT: Climate Change 23

AT: Food Prices 25
AT: Food Security 26
CON 27
CON OPENING 28
Resolutional Analysis 28
Contention 1: Food Prices 29
Contention 2: Climate Change 31
Contention 3: Food Security 32

Extensions 34
Food Prices 34
Climate Change 35
Food Security 38
Rebuttals 40
AT: Pesticides Bad 40

AT: Food Security 41
AT: Sustainable 42
Resolved: In the United States, the benefits of increasing organic

agriculture outweigh the harms.
Topic Analysis
Essay
The organic movement has grown under the auspices of healthy, environmental, and socially justice
agricultural practices. The definition of organic is both objective yet subjective. Organic agriculture refers to
practices without the use of synthetic (human created) inputs. Fundamentally, part of this debate concerns
the parameters of “natural” farming practices. Additionally, what counts as organic is subject to the purview
of the USDA. The bureaucratic standard is often the source of much contention due to the high price point
that crowds out small, innovative farmers, as well as the bias toward big, corporate farms.
In terms of the pro-opening, the arguments are centered around the harmful uses of pesticides, the
sustainability of organic agriculture, and the necessity of organic farming for food security. The first piece of
evidence comes from Brian Williams, a professor of geoscience at Mississippi State University, chronicles the
history of pesticide use of rooted by anti-black racism and capitalist exploitation of the masses. Put
differently, as extended by the other piece of evidence (Chesser), pesticide use sacrifices the bodies of
agricultural workers—typically along the lines of race and class. The second contention discusses how
conventional agriculture is unsustainable. Particularly, since organic agriculture works with the environment,
its food production is most efficient—particularly for the soil which is key to crop growth and carbon
sequestration. They can also be arguments about pesticide runoff and its adverse effect on water quality.
Finally, in terms of food security, organic food is key to solving for overpopulation because of the efficient
use of agricultural land.
In terms of the con-opening, the arguments are centered around food prices, climate change, and food
security. There are several reasons why organics cost more than conventional food—most of which have to
do with the slow supply of organic food, high marketing and certification costs, and supply chain issues.
These additional costs are particularly salient for those in poverty because they would disproportionately
bear the burden of food prices. The second contention of climate change approaches the issue of
sustainability from a different perspective than the pro. Specifically, the contention argues that while
organic food has less emissions over the same plot of the land, the actual yield from farming is significantly
lower; therefore, organic food actually causes more carbon pollution due to the increased need to use land
as well as import food when land is scarce. The third contention is centered around how organic agriculture
cannot meet the demand of the current world. This is both from how organic food can deplete the soil of its
nutrients and organic agriculture’s inefficient use of resources. The food security arguments can also exploit
how organic allows for the deadly use of natural pesticides that can hurt humans.
For the pro’s refutation, many of the refutations can utilize an exploitation of uniqueness claims. For
instance, climate change is currently unsolvable—the current state of affairs is insufficient. Additionally,
climate change can be solved with organics because the push to eat environmentally friendly food is key for
mitigating climate change—the key warrant for this is how organic food enables its soil to absorb carbon. To
refute food prices, while organic food is generally more expensive, its prices have remained stagnant.
Therefore, while conventional food prices continue to climb, investing more in organic food would lower its
prices and thereby solve the impact. Finally, to refute the arguments of food security, the pro can use the
structural arguments about the racist and classist use of pesticides, as well as proving why the current world
is insufficient for solving for food security.
For the con’s refutation, I would recommend refuting the solvency of the pro contention. So, while the con
has much scientific backing defending the comparability of conventional food’s safety to organic food, they
can also argue that organic food uses pesticides that are just as dangerous as conventional food.
Additionally, the food security arguments can be refuted by defending the nutritional value of conventional
food, as well as its efficiency which is key to a stable food supply. Finally, the sustainability arguments can be
attacked by critiquing the “science” of the organics movement as being heavily bias as well as how organic
food has an inefficient use of farmland.
In terms of the pro’s strategy, the case is set up to utilize systemic and flashpoint impact. For instance, the
critique of pesticides enables the debaters to discuss the implications of racism, classism, as well as the
importance of democracy. These arguments can be used to outweigh any arguments about efficiency
because the worst type of system is an efficient and unethical system e.g., slavery. Pairing the pesticides
contention with sustainability or food security would be the smartest move in most debates because then
you can directly point to lives lost, both on and off the farm, and how that provides a more “tangible”
impact.
For the con’s strategy, I would recommend using the big stick impacts to outweigh as well as turn the
solvency of the pro. For instance, an increase in food prices moots the point of sustainable agriculture as
well as pesticides because more marginalized people will be hurt. The same can be said of the climate
change contention; the difference being that climate change is a global problem that culminates in
extinction. As a result, while the impacts of climate change are relatively far way, when that contention is
used in tandem with the either two or even on its own, the con should be able to control the pro’s impacts.
Definitions
Organic Agriculture
Organic agriculture relies on ecosystem management that considers environmental

and social impacts through the elimination of synthetic inputs
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2022, “What is organic
agriculture?”, https://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq1/en/ (accessed: 02/05/22)
There are many explanations and definitions for organic agriculture but all converge to state that it is a
system that relies on ecosystem management rather than external agricultural inputs. It is a system that
begins to consider potential environmental and social impacts by eliminating the use of synthetic inputs,
such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, veterinary drugs, genetically modified seeds and breeds,
preservatives, additives and irradiation. These are replaced with site-specific management practices that
maintain and increase long-term soil fertility and prevent pest and diseases.
This definition is better suited for the pro because it focuses the debate on the environmental and social
implications of organic food—this widens the ground for the pro significantly. While the areas overlap, the
added flexibility also allows the pro to collapse to either issue.
Organic agriculture is food that is labeled as such by the USDA

John J. Chorssen and Henry I. Miller, Cohrssen, M.Sc., J.D., an attorney in private practice, served in
senior positions for the White House and for Congressional Committees and as a consultant to
governmental and international organizations with a focus on health and science policy and regulation.
During the administrations of Presidents Reagan and G.W. Bush, Mr. Cohrssen was legal counsel to the
White House Domestic Policy Council Working Group responsible for developing and implementing U.S.
biotechnology regulatory policy and Miller, MS, MD, was the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy
and Public Policy at the Hoover Institution, Spring 2016, “The USDA’S Meaningless Organic Label”,
https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2016/4/regulation-v39n1-5.pdf (accessed:
02/09/22)
The USDA’s use of the word “organic” was muddled from the beginning and became more obscure 10 years
after passage of the 1990 Act and following the review of a quarter-million comments on proposed USDA
organic regulations. At the release of the final national organic standards, then–Secretary of Agriculture Dan
Glickman declared, “Those who want to buy organic can do so with the confidence of knowing exactly what
it is that they’re buying.” But a few sentences later in the same speech he emphasized its meaninglessness:
Let me be clear about one thing: the organic label is a marketing tool. it is not a statement about food
safety. nor is “organic” a value judgment about nutrition or quality. We shouldn’t be surprised by Glickman’s
candor. if industry did claim specific benefits for safety, nutrition, or quality, it would have had to provide
evidence to prove those claims to consumers and regulatory authorities. So, simply for marketing purposes,
the USDA allows the use of the word “organic” only by USDA-authorized producers. The label confers a
valuable stamp of approval on products made with government-sanctioned processes and procedures that
are in no way related to safety, nutrition, or quality.
This issue is much more strategic for the con because it makes the label of organic rather superficial and
corrupt. This enables many links to the arguments about the uselessness of the label as well as the
arguments about food prices and corruption.
PRO
Pro Opening
Resolutional Analysis
My partner and I affirm the resolution: Resolved: In the United States, the benefits of increasing
organic agriculture outweigh the harms.
Organic agriculture relies on ecosystem management that considers environmental

and social impacts through the elimination of synthetic inputs
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2022, “What is organic
agriculture?”, https://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq1/en/ (accessed: 02/05/22)
There are many explanations and definitions for organic agriculture but all converge to state that it is a
system that relies on ecosystem management rather than external agricultural inputs. It is a system that
begins to consider potential environmental and social impacts by eliminating the use of synthetic inputs,
such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, veterinary drugs, genetically modified seeds and breeds,
preservatives, additives and irradiation. These are replaced with site-specific management practices that
maintain and increase long-term soil fertility and prevent pest and diseases.
Contention 1: Pesticides Bad

Conventional pesticide use enables the plantation white supremacy
Brian Williams, Williams is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geosciences at Mississippi State
University, May 22, 2018, ““That we may live”: Pesticides, plantations, and environmental racism in the
United States South”,
https://journals-sagepub-com.libproxy.library.unt.edu/doi/full/10.1177/2514848618778085 (accessed:
02/06/22)
As Guthman and Brown (2016a) have emphasized, the biopolitics of pesticides are shaped by an uneven
valuation of human life through the establishment of thresholds of “acceptable risk.” Saxton (2015: 176)
argues that “more is invested—scientifically, politically, and economically—to support strawberry life” than
the lives of farmworkers. The very title of That We May Live demands a similar question to those posed by
Saxton and Guthman & Brown: that who may live? During a period of pesticide intensification in the U.S.
South, plantation bloc interests defended pesticides as crucial to both agricultural productivity and a
normative way of life—in their case, plantation white supremacy. But pro-pesticide discourses and practices
did not emerge fully-formed from the disembodied ether of national pesticide politics—rather, they must be
situated within their historical–geographical context, particularly since they were often articulated without
specific reference to race. In this paper, I have situated the conjunctural politics of agro-environmental
racism in the Delta within the “fatal power-difference couplings” (Gilmore, 2002:16) underwriting plantation
politics because plantations were particularly consequential sites of pesticide intensification.
Pesticides are deadly, racist, and undemocratic

Ashley Chesser, Co-Director at Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides—a public advocacy group,
July 30, 2020, “RACISM AND INJUSTICE IN PESTICIDE POLICY”,
https://www.pesticide.org/racism_pesticide_policy (accessed: 02/06/22)
Moving from the job site to the home, we find protections lacking for those living near pesticide
manufacturing plants. In a 2011 review of 94 studies on residential proximity to environmental hazards,
including chemical plants, studies found that those living near hazardous substances had a significant
increase in adverse health outcomes, including birth defects, childhood cancers, asthma hospitalizations
and chronic respiratory symptoms, stroke mortality, end-stage renal disease, and diabetes.13 Communities
living near chemical and hazardous waste plants are a majority non-white or those with limited incomes.14
One might assume that demographics would shift after a plant is installed. Those with more financial means
will leave, and those with limited incomes will be unable to afford to move. While that is true to an extent,
the reality is much more concerning. According to an environmental justice study by researchers at the
University of Michigan and the University of Montana, communities with limited resources and those that
are composed predominantly by people of color are targeted by industries when deciding where to locate
hazardous waste sites and other polluting facilities. These communities are seen as the path of least
resistance because they have fewer resources and political clout to oppose the siting of unwanted facilities.
15
Contention 2: Sustainability
Organic farming is more profitable, nutritious, and environmentally friendly than

conventional farming
John Reganold, Reganold is a Regents Professor of Soil Science & Agroecology at the Washington State
University, August 14, 2016, “Can we feed 10 billion people on organic farming alone?”,
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/aug/14/organic-farming-agriculture-world-hunge
r (accessed: 02/06/22)
We found that although organic farming systems produce yields that average 10-20% less than conventional
agriculture, they are more profitable and environmentally friendly. Historically, conventional agriculture has
focused on increasing yields at the expense of the other three sustainability metrics. In addition, organic
farming delivers equally or more nutritious foods that contain less or no pesticide residues, and provide
greater social benefits than their conventional counterparts.
Organic agriculture is key to reducing carbon emissions and increasing climate

change mitigations
The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 2022, “What are the
environmental benefits of organic agriculture?”, https://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq6/en/
(accessed: 02/05/22)
Air and climate change. Organic agriculture reduces non-renewable energy use by decreasing agrochemical
needs (these require high quantities of fossil fuel to be produced). Organic agriculture contributes to
mitigating the greenhouse effect and global warming through its ability to sequester carbon in the soil.
Many management practices used by organic agriculture (e.g. minimum tillage, returning crop residues to
the soil, the use of cover crops and rotations, and the greater integration of nitrogen-fixing legumes),
increase the return of carbon to the soil, raising productivity and favouring carbon storage. A number of
studies revealed that soil organic carbon contents under organic farming are considerably higher. The more
organic carbon is retained in the soil, the more the mitigation potential of agriculture against climate change
is higher. However, there is much research needed in this field, yet. There is a lack of data on soil organic
carbon for developing countries, with no farm system comparison data from Africa and Latin America, and
only limited data on soil organic carbon stocks, which is crucial for determining carbon sequestration rates
for farming practices.
Contention 3: Food Security
Organic farming is key to solving world hunger in a profitable and just manner
Organic agriculture occupies only 1% of global agricultural land, making it a relatively untapped resource for
one of the greatest challenges facing humanity: producing enough food for a population that could reach 10
billion by 2050, without the extensive deforestation and harm to the wider environment. That’s the
conclusion my doctoral student Jonathan Wachter and I reached in reviewing 40 years of science and
hundreds of scientific studies comparing the long term prospects of organic and conventional farming. The
study, Organic Agriculture in the 21st Century, published in Nature Plants, is the first to compare organic and
conventional agriculture across the four main metrics of sustainability identified by the US National
Academy of Sciences: be productive, economically profitable, environmentally sound and socially just. Like a
chair, for a farm to be sustainable, it needs to be stable, with all four legs being managed so they are in
balance
Organic agriculture is key to food security and increasing family incomes

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2022, “Can organic
farmers produce enough food for everybody?”, https://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq7/en/
Food security. Food security is not only a question of the ability to produce food, but also of the ability to
access food. Global food production is more than enough to feed the global population, the problem is
getting it to the people who need it. In market-marginalized areas, organic farmers can increase food
production by managing local resources without having to rely on external inputs or food distribution
systems over which they have little control and/or access. It is to be noted that although external
agricultural inputs can be substituted by organic management of natural resources, land tenure remains a
main constraint to the labour investments needed for organic agriculture. Organic farms grow a variety of
crops and livestock in order to optimize competition for nutrients and space between species: this results in
less chance of low production or yield failure in all of these simultaneously. This can have an important
impact on local food security and resilience. In rain-fed systems, organic agriculture has demonstrated to
outperform conventional agricultural systems under environmental stress conditions. Under the right
circumstances, the market returns from organic agriculture can potentially contribute to local food security
by increasing family incomes.
Blending organic agriculture with some conventional farming is key to solving for
global food poverty
John Reganold and Jonathan M. Wacther, Reganold is a Regents Professor of Soil Science &
Agroecology at the Washington State University and Wachter is the lead Soil Scientist at the Carbon Cycle
Institute, February 03, 2016, “Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century”,
https://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2015221 (Accessed: 02/06/22)
Although organic agriculture has an untapped potential role in global food and ecosystem security, no one
farming system alone will safely feed the planet. Rather, a blend of organic and other innovative farming
systems, including agroforestry, integrated farming, conservation agriculture, mixed crop and livestock, and
still undiscovered systems, will be needed for future global food and ecosystem security. For example,
integrated farming systems that blend mostly organic with some conventional practices have been shown to
be more sustainable than conventional farming systems94,95 and are likely to play a central role. Achieving
global food and ecosystem security requires more than just achieving sustainable farming systems
worldwide. We need to reduce food waste, improve food distribution and access, stabilize the human
population, eliminate the conversion of food into fuel, and change consumption patterns towards a more
plant-based diet.
Extensions
Pesticides Bad
The use of pesticides in conventional farming exploits millions of farm workers and
is rooted in slavery
Ashley Chesser, Co-Director at Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides—a public advocacy group,
July 30, 2020, “RACISM AND INJUSTICE IN PESTICIDE POLICY”,
https://www.pesticide.org/racism_pesticide_policy (accessed: 02/06/22)
Let’s start with the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), the standard used by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to regulate pesticides with a health-based focus. The FQPA was passed unanimously by
Congress and then signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. The FQPA amended the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to “perform more refined pesticide risk assessments, to better
reflect real-world situations.”2 When making a registration decision, a pesticide can only be approved if it
has a “reasonable certainty of no harm.”2 But there’s a clearly carved out exception in calculating risk.
Assessments must “consider aggregate risk from exposure to a pesticide from multiple sources (food, water,
residential and other non-occupational sources).”2 Did you catch the exception? Occupational sources of
exposure are excluded, including those to farmworkers. There are about 2.5 million farmworkers in the
United States and about 73% of them were born outside of the United States.3 The practice of excluding
agricultural workers from Fair Labor Act polices that protect employees is in fact rooted in slavery. The
statutory exclusion of agricultural workers from policies like overtime, minimum wage and sick leave was
well-understood as a race-neutral proxy for excluding Blacks from benefits and protections made available
to most Whites. It made the loss of free slave labor a little easier on farm owners.4 Remarkably, despite
these racist origins, an agricultural and domestic worker exclusion remains in effect today.
Pesticide drift destroys millions of acres of crops, causes cancer, and endangers
wildlife
John R. Platt, Platt is the editor of The Revelator. An award-winning environmental journalist, his work has
appeared in Scientific American, Audubon, Motherboard, and numerous other magazines and publications,
November 17, 2017, “What Is Pesticide Drift — and Why Is It So Dangerous?”,
https://therevelator.org/pesticide-drift-dangerous/ (accessed: 02/06/22)
Earlier this month the Environmental Protection Agency announced that the pesticide dicamba — a weed
killer sprayed on genetically modified, pesticide-resistant soybean and cotton crops — had drifted away
from application sites and caused damage to more than 3.6 million acres of soybean crops in 25 states. It
was the latest blow against the use of dicamba, which was recently banned in Arkansas and Missouri after
complaints from hundreds of farmers. The pesticide, which is manufactured by Monsanto, BASF and other
companies, has also been linked to increased rates of cancer in humans exposed to it, as well as risks to
wildlife. Most of the problems with dicamba, experts say, can be linked to a phenomenon known as
“pesticide drift,” which is actually two different processes by which a pesticide can travel beyond the
application site into other agricultural locations, or even onto nearby residences, schools or other facilities.
The use of pesticides is rooted in racist and classist practices

02/06/22)
In the 19th century, slavers dealt with the limits of soil fertility by expanding into new territories, violently
seized from Native Americans, in an extensive system of agrarian expansion (Beckert, 2015: 105; Johnson,
2015). This constant expansion also limited the extent of insect damage in U.S. cotton for much of the
period prior to emancipation, since pests tend to increase when cotton is produced monoculturally season
after season (Supak et al., 1992). But the end of slavery also led to the rise of a new, chemical-intensive
regime of plantation production. As Johnson writes of chemical fertilizers, “wresting value from land
became an imperative once land replaced human chattel as the most valuable asset” (Johnson, 2015: 198).
The dramatic intensification of cotton chemical usage accelerated with the spread of the boll weevil through
the cotton South beginning in 1892, and the decision by plantation owners to defend cotton as central to
their economic and political power (Giesen, 2011). Rather than abandoning a crisis-prone crop born of racial
violence, a whole industry emerged through attempts to fix these crises through chemicals. By 1939, a
typical plantation in the Delta applied six pounds of calcium arsenate per acre (Langsford and Thibodeaux,
1939: 55). This poison was initially spread by hand or horse-drawn cart, until the advent of crop dusting by
airplane in the early 1920s (Hoogerwerf, 2010). Those who stood to profit most from
agrichemicals—planters, finance, and chemical companies—were far less likely to be exposed than the
workers who fabricated and applied the chemicals, and people who lived in or near the fields. As with
plantations more broadly, fortunes were made in the cotton chemical industry. Huff Daland Dusters, the
world’s first aerial pesticide application company, was founded in the Louisiana Delta, on the other side of
the Mississippi River (Hoogerwerf, 2010: 55). Huff Daland made a lucrative business applying pesticides for
cotton plantations on both sides of the river, and would become Delta Airlines (ranked 71st on the 2017
Fortune 500 list). Delta & Pine Land Company, once the largest plantation in the world, required that
sharecroppers use calcium arsenate, while charging them for the cost of insecticides (Giesen, 2011:
89–90).6 Sharecropping ensured that not only would workers face disproportionate exposure to
insecticides, but that the financial burden was also borne by tenants. Giesen writes that “tenants bore the
brunt of the costs for pesticides, fertilizers and additional labor, and stood to suffer the most if the crop was
diminished” (Giesen, 2011: 92).
Pesticide use perpetuates environmental racism

02/06/22)
This article situates pesticides as technologies marked by both continuities and discontinuities from
previous modes of agrarian racism in the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta, a plantation region of the United States
South. Attention to the historical-geographical specificity of pesticide intensification, I argue, provides the
means to understand pesticide intensification as a mode of what I term agro-environmental racism.
Anti-Black racism shaped the politics of pesticides, underpinning policies and material practices that were
destructive of both the environment and human welfare in the Delta and beyond. The structures and
ideologies of plantation racism helped position the Delta as one of the most pesticide-intensive sectors of
U.S. agriculture during the mid-20th century—a particularly consequential period for both the
intensification of pesticides and the formation of contemporary environmentalism. Pesticides were
defended by agro-industrial interests as technologies supporting agricultural production—and particularly
that of cotton, the most pesticide-intensive commodity crop. Simultaneously, they were figured as
technologies crucial to a normative way of life. Although pesticides were articulated without explicit
mention of race by the 1960s, I argue that the freedom struggle activism of the Mississippi Freedom Labor
Union and Fannie Lou Hamer provide context necessary to explain the pesticide politics of the Delta’s
plantation bloc. These mobilizations to enact more just, sustainable, and livable geographies were an
indictment of a plantation politics which put the health of cotton and profitability of plantations above all
else.
Sustainability
Conventional farming contaminates 90% of water; organics is key to sustainable, clean farming
Naomi Zimmerman, Zimmerman studies Environmental Science at Columbia and works with the
Sustainable initiatives Consulting Board at the Roosevelt Institute, February 05, 2020, “So, Is Organic Food
Actually More Sustainable?”,
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/02/05/organic-sustainable-food/#:~:text=Organic%20farms%20te
nd%20to%20have,biodiversity%20compared%20to%20conventional%20farming. (accessed: 02/09/22)
When used in conventional agriculture, pesticides and fertilizers can create a host of environmental issues.
Certain pesticides can poison non-target organisms such as birds, fish, and plants, and harm organisms of
special ecological importance, such as bees and algae. Pesticides also often contaminate soil as well as
surface and groundwater. A United States Geological Service study found that over 90 percent of water and
fish samples from streams contained one or more pesticides. Fertilizers that run off into streams and other
waterways cause eutrophication—a process in which excess nitrogen and phosphorous buildups lead to
algal blooms and excess production of carbon dioxide. The process results in acidic waterways with dead
zones, or areas that are so low in oxygen that they kill marine life. Since it does not include the use of
synthetic pesticides or fertilizers, organic agriculture is very sustainable in many aspects. Organic farms tend
to have more fertile soil, use less energy, and sequester more carbon. Research has shown that organic
farms use 45 percent less energy, release 40 percent less carbon emissions, and foster 30 percent more
biodiversity compared to conventional farming.
Organic agriculture has the least environmental costs and most benefits
With organic agriculture, environmental costs tend to be lower and the benefits greater. Biodiversity loss,
environmental degradation and severe impacts on ecosystem services – which refer to nature’s support of
wildlife habitat, crop pollination, soil health and other benefits – have not only accompanied conventional
farming systems, but have often extended well beyond the boundaries of their fields, such as fertilizer
runoff into rivers. Overall, organic farms tend to have better soil quality and reduce soil erosion compared to
their conventional counterparts. Organic agriculture generally creates less soil and water pollution and
lower greenhouse gas emissions, and is more energy efficient. Organic agriculture is also associated with
greater biodiversity of plants, animals, insects and microbes as well as genetic diversity.
Organic agriculture is proactive in addressing long term environmental impacts and

is key for stopping soil erosion
Sustainability over the long term. Many changes observed in the environment are long term, occurring
slowly over time. Organic agriculture considers the medium- and long-term effect of agricultural
interventions on the agro-ecosystem. It aims to produce food while establishing an ecological balance to
prevent soil fertility or pest problems. Organic agriculture takes a proactive approach as opposed to treating
problems after they emerge. Soil. Soil building practices such as crop rotations, inter-cropping, symbiotic
associations, cover crops, organic fertilizers and minimum tillage are central to organic practices. These
encourage soil fauna and flora, improving soil formation and structure and creating more stable systems. In
turn, nutrient and energy cycling is increased and the retentive abilities of the soil for nutrients and water
are enhanced, compensating for the non-use of mineral fertilizers. Such management techniques also play
an important role in soil erosion control. The length of time that the soil is exposed to erosive forces is
decreased, soil biodiversity is increased, and nutrient losses are reduced, helping to maintain and enhance
soil productivity. Crop export of nutrients is usually compensated by farm-derived renewable resources but
it is sometimes necessary to supplement organic soils with potassium, phosphate, calcium, magnesium and
trace elements from external sources.
Organic farming produces more biodiversity than other farming systems

Biodiversity. Organic farmers are both custodians and users of biodiversity at all levels. At the gene level,
traditional and adapted seeds and breeds are preferred for their greater resistance to diseases and their
resilience to climatic stress. At the species level, diverse combinations of plants and animals optimize
nutrient and energy cycling for agricultural production. At the ecosystem level, the maintenance of natural
areas within and around organic fields and absence of chemical inputs create suitable habitats for wildlife.
The frequent use of under-utilized species (often as rotation crops to build soil fertility) reduces erosion of
agro-biodiversity, creating a healthier gene pool - the basis for future adaptation. The provision of structures
providing food and shelter, and the lack of pesticide use, attract new or re-colonizing species to the organic
area (both permanent and migratory), including wild flora and fauna (e.g. birds) and organisms beneficial to
the organic system such as pollinators and pest predators. The number of studies on organic farming and
biodiversity increased significantly within the last years. A Recent Study Reporting On A Meta-Analysis Of
766 Scientific Papers concluded that organic farming produces more biodiversity than other farming
systems.
Organic farming is key for environmentally sound farming with resilient crops
Veronika Charvatova, Veronika is a biologist, nutritionist and researcher. For the last 15 years, she's
worked on a number of animal rights campaigns and is a specialist on vegan nutrition, having published a
number of health and nutrition materials, September 28, 2021, “Organic farming: What is organic farming
and why is it more sustainable”,
https://www.veganfoodandliving.com/features/organic-farming-sustainability/ (accessed: 02/06/22)
How is organic farming more sustainable? Organic plant cultivation is great for the environment because it
doesn’t pollute, it increases soil fertility, reduces soil erosion and protects wildlife.That way, it ensures the
land can be used for generations to come without exhausting the natural resources in the area.One of the
features of organic farming is cultivation of naturally more resilient crops that can ensure a reliable food
supply.The organic standards mean that farm workers and people living in the area are not exposed to
dangerous chemicals, which supports their health. That’s also a key part of sustainability.How does organic
farming support wildlife and biodiversity?Synthetic pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals don’t just kill
the unwelcome plants (weeds) or insects, they kill a number of species that are important to maintaining
balance in nature.The poster species for the devastating effects of some industrial pesticides are bees.When
bees die, our entire food supply will collapse because bees are the main pollinators ensuring successful crop
yields. Yet it’s not only about bees.Organic farming also protects thousands of other insect species,
hedgehogs, birds, bats, frogs and fish. It doesn’t poison them and their environment.Another big factor is
that organic farming supports wildlife by maintaining hedgerows, ponds and woodlands.Synthetic fertilizers
can pollute streams and ponds, throwing the whole ecosystem into disarray and causing problems such as
algal bloom.When that happens, algae reproduce at a rapid pace, covering entire water surfaces and
suffocating fish who live there.This simply doesn’t happen with organic farming! But that’s not all.By
avoiding GM, organic farming also protects local species from introducing foreign genes into their
populations.It’s true that some GM plants are safe but we still don’t have enough data to be certain of
long-term effects of GM on native species and the environment.
Food Security
Integrating organic with conventional farming solves world hunger

Organic farming can help to both feed the world and preserve wildland. In a study published this year,
researchers modeled 500 food production scenarios to see if we can feed an estimated world population of
9.6 billion people in 2050 without expanding the area of farmland we already use. They found that enough
food could be produced with lower-yielding organic farming, if people become vegetarians or eat a more
plant-based diet with lower meat consumption. The existing farmland can feed that many people if they are
all vegan, a 94% success rate if they are vegetarian, 39% with a completely organic diet, and 15% with the
Western-style diet based on meat. Realistically, we can’t expect everyone to forgo meat. Organic isn’t the
only sustainable option to conventional farming either. Other viable types of farming exist, such as
integrated farming where you blend organic with conventional practices or grass-fed livestock systems.
Organic food is safer than conventional food

Veronika Charvatova, Veronika is a biologist, nutritionist and researcher. For the last 15 years, she's
worked on a number of animal rights campaigns and is a specialist on vegan nutrition, having published a
number of health and nutrition materials, September 28, 2021, “Organic farming: What is organic farming
and why is it more sustainable”,
https://www.veganfoodandliving.com/features/organic-farming-sustainability/ (accessed: 02/06/22)
When it comes to plant foods, it means the crops are grown without the use of synthetic fertilizers,
dangerous pesticides, genetic modification (GM) and ionizing radiation.Organic farming relies on principles
such as crop rotation, crop residue utilisation, composting, less mechanical and more manual labour.Organic
foods don’t contain chemical preservatives. They aren’t coated in synthetic wax (e.g. citrus fruit) and don’t
contain synthetic colourants or flavourings.That means not just that they are healthier, it also means they
are fresher because they don’t have a long shelf life.Organic crops contain no or only tiny amounts of
chemical residues. They have more antioxidants and some other nutrients, richer flavour, are safer for
people with food sensitivities.They are also less likely to cause adverse reactions (due to the lack of
chemicals in them)1.
The economic benefits of pesticides only applies to developing countries—not the

US
Wasim Aktar et al., Aktar is An accomplished, innovative, astute Techno-Commercial and Quality
Management professional with Ph.D. Level education having more than 15.2 years of diversified Laboratory,
TIC and CRO experience in the areas of Analytical Research, Development, Validation, Testing, Training,
Consultation, Accreditation in sea food, raw agricultural commodity, processed food, water, air, veterinary
drug and environmental business sector, March 2009, “Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their
benefits and hazards”, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/ (accessed: 02/05/22)
Because of the extensive benefits which man accrues from pesticides, these chemicals provide the best
opportunity to those who juggle with the risk-benefit equations. The economic impact of pesticides in
non-target species (including humans) has been estimated at approximately $8 billion annually in
developing countries. What is required is to weigh all the risks against the benefits to ensure a maximum
margin of safety. The total cost-benefit picture from pesticide use differs appreciably between developed
and developing countries. For developing countries it is imperative to use pesticides, as no one would prefer
famine and communicable diseases like malaria. It may thus be expedient to accept a reasonable degree of
risk. Our approach to the use of pesticides should be pragmatic. In other words, all activities concerning
pesticides should be based on scientific judgement and not on commercial considerations. There are some
inherent difficulties in fully evaluating the risks to human health due to pesticides. For example there is a
large number of human variables such as age, sex, race, socio-economic status, diet, state of health, etc. –
all of which affect human exposure to pesticides. But practically little is known about the effects of these
variables. The long-term effects of low level exposure to one pesticide are greatly influenced by
concomitant exposure to other pesticides as well as to pollutants present in air, water, food and drugs.
Rebuttals
AT: Climate Change
Organic farming is key to climate adaptation

Although meta-analysis is a great tool that can describe broad patterns not immediately visible in primary
field research19,20, it must also be treated with caution, because no single farming system or practice
works best everywhere. Still, these studies15–19 give strength to the argument that adoption of organic
agriculture under agroecological conditions where it performs best may close the yield gap between organic
and conventional systems. Under severe drought conditions, which are expected to increase with climate
change in many areas, organically managed farms have frequently been shown to produce higher yields
than their conventional counterparts21,22, due to the higher water-holding capacity of organically farmed
soils23. In addition, improvements in management techniques and crop varieties for organic systems may
also close this yield gap. For example, direct selection of wheat cultivars in organic systems has resulted in
improved yields in organic systems when compared with indirect selection of wheat cultivars in
conventional systems24.
It's try or die for the pro: The status quo is not solving for climate change so we must change our
farming practices
Organic agriculture doesn’t pollute the water and ground, and is energy efficient
As organic agriculture uses virtually no synthetic pesticides, there is little to no risk of synthetic pesticide
pollution of ground and surface waters46. With respect to nitrate and phosphorous leaching and
greenhouse gas emissions, organic farming systems score better than conventional farming when expressed
per unit production area46,49,51,57,58; however, given the lower land-use efficiency of organic farming in
developed countries, this positive effect is less pronounced and in some cases reversed when expressed per
unit product49,57,58. In a meta-analysis of environmental quality parameters, organic farms were found to
have lower nitrate leaching, nitrous oxide emissions and ammonia emissions per unit of field area, but
higher leaching and emissions per unit product48. Severe degradation of freshwater and marine ecosystems
around the world is linked to excessive use of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers12,59, leading to
eutrophication of freshwater and the production of hypoxic zones in coastal waters. Lower nutrient
pollution from organic compared with conventional systems can be illustrated by differences in their
nitrogen cycling and losses (Fig. 3). Organic systems are usually more energy efficient than their
conventional counterparts46–48,51,54,58. For example, in Germany, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland, organic
farms were found to use significantly less energy on a per-hectare basis than their conventional
counterparts, and 70% of organic farms and 30% of conventional farms had significantly lower energy
consumption per unit of output45. The generally lower energy use46–48,54 and higher soil organic
matter45–49 of organic systems make them ideal blueprints for developing methods to limit fossil fuel
emissions and build soil carbon stores, important tools in addressing climate change
AT: Food Prices
Organic food prices remain stagnant

Kamaron McNair, McNair is the editorial assistant at LendingTree, where she provides administrative
support for the content team and runs social media for LendingTree acquisitions MagnifyMoney and
Student Loan Hero. Before starting at LendingTree, Kamaron was the editorial assistant at The Daily Beast,
where she wrote cultural essays and breaking news, October 18, 2021, “Organic Food Is More Expensive,
but Conventional Prices Are Catching Up”,
https://www.magnifymoney.com/blog/news/organic-vs-conventional-food-study/ (accessed: 02/06/22)
Fruits and vegetables represent the only organic group to record average price growth — granted, the
number of items sampled is also the largest. Organic produce prices grew at an average of 2.8% since 2019,
while organic dairy and chicken prices dropped by 0.9% and 0.4%, respectively, on average. Even though
conventional food prices have risen significantly while organic prices remained fairly stagnant, conventional
prices still beat organic for nearly every product in the sample. Sweet onions are the only item among the
tracked prices where shoppers may save by buying the organic variety. A pound of organic sweet onions
costs $1.11, compared with $1.23 per pound for non-organic — a 9.8% difference.
The impacts of pesticides outweighs; it is not ethical to get cheap food if it means sacrificing
poor people and people of color
Conventional food prices are increasing at a rate of 8 times that of organic food
Kamaron McNair, McNair is the editorial assistant at LendingTree, where she provides administrative
support for the content team and runs social media for LendingTree acquisitions MagnifyMoney and
Student Loan Hero. Before starting at LendingTree, Kamaron was the editorial assistant at The Daily Beast,
where she wrote cultural essays and breaking news, October 18, 2021, “Organic Food Is More Expensive,
but Conventional Prices Are Catching Up”,
https://www.magnifymoney.com/blog/news/organic-vs-conventional-food-study/ (accessed: 02/06/22)
If you’ve shopped for groceries, you probably have noticed the price differences between foods with an
organic label and conventional products. Organic foods generally cost more for consumers due to higher
production and labor costs, as well as limited supply. For those organic-preferring shoppers, the good news
is the costs of organic produce, dairy and meats are rising slower than conventional foods. Across 29 items
analyzed, conventional foods have increased by an average of 13.9% from 2019 to 2021, while the organic
versions of the same products only rose by an average of 1.6%. Broccoli features the biggest difference in
percentage points — 117 — between organic and conventional pricing changes. Organic broccoli increased
from $2.10 a pound in 2019 to $2.61 in 2021, a 24.3% jump, while conventional broccoli went from $0.63 to
$1.52, a 141.3% increase
AT: Food Security
We need both conventional and organic farming to solve for food security
Tamar Haspel, Haspel is an American columnist who "writes on the intersection of food and science" for
The Washington Post, May 14, 2016, “Is organic agriculture really better for the environment?”,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/is-organic-agriculture-really-better-for-the-environment/2
016/05/14/e9996dce-17be-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html (accessed: 02/05/22)
Unfortunately, you can’t believe organic food is more nutritious and safe without believing conventional
food is less nutritious and safe, and that infuriates advocates of conventional food. Sometimes that fury
takes on a distasteful edge — I’ve noticed some schadenfreude at food-borne illness outbreaks pegged to
organic foods — but I understand where it’s coming from. Conventional food is as safe and nutritious as its
organic counterparts, and if consumers are told otherwise, they’re being deceived, and conventional
producers are being harmed. And misinformation does nothing to improve the quality of the public debate.
On farms, in academic institutions and in regulatory agencies, I’ve found that nearly everyone thinks there is
value in having farmers employ and improve all kinds of practices. Feeding our growing population is a big
job, and there are many constructive ways — organic and conventional, large-scale and small, urban and
rural — in which farmers are tackling it. We need all of them.
Integration solves best: the resolution only mandates increasing organic agriculture which means
that we can have the best of the pro and con world.
The disparity in food production between conventional and organic agriculture is

minimal
Production includes crop and animal yield and their quality. Numerous individual studies have compared
yield differences between organic and conventional systems. These data have been synthesized in several
meta-analyses or reviews; according to these studies, yield averages are 8 to 25% lower in organic
systems15–19. However, with certain crops, growing conditions and management practices, organic
systems come closer to matching conventional systems in terms of yields. According to one such synthesis
study, the best yielding organically grown crops or crop groups are rice, soybeans, corn and grass-clover,
which yield 6 to 11% less than conventional systems; the lowest yielding are fruits and wheat, which yield
28 and 27% less, respectively17. Another meta-analysis found fruits, soybeans and oilseed to be the highest
yielding organic crops, and wheat and vegetables the lowest, yielding 37 and 33% less than conventional
systems respectively18. In cases where organic crop rotations depend on green manure crops, food
production over the whole rotation may be lower than one-to-one crop yield comparisons suggest17.
CON
CON OPENING
Resolutional Analysis
My partner and I negate the resolution: In the United States, the benefits of increasing organic
agriculture outweigh the harms.
Organic agriculture is food that is labeled as such by the USDA

02/09/22)
The USDA’s use of the word “organic” was muddled from the beginning and became more obscure 10 years
after passage of the 1990 Act and following the review of a quarter-million comments on proposed USDA
organic regulations. At the release of the final national organic standards, then–Secretary of Agriculture Dan
Glickman declared, “Those who want to buy organic can do so with the confidence of knowing exactly what
it is that they’re buying.” But a few sentences later in the same speech he emphasized its meaninglessness:
Let me be clear about one thing: the organic label is a marketing tool. it is not a statement about food
safety. nor is “organic” a value judgment about nutrition or quality. We shouldn’t be surprised by Glickman’s
candor. if industry did claim specific benefits for safety, nutrition, or quality, it would have had to provide
evidence to prove those claims to consumers and regulatory authorities. So, simply for marketing purposes,
the USDA allows the use of the word “organic” only by USDA-authorized producers. The label confers a
valuable stamp of approval on products made with government-sanctioned processes and procedures that
are in no way related to safety, nutrition, or quality.
Contention 1: Food Prices
Organic farming raises food prices and crowds out small, local, and innovative
farmers
02/09/22)
indeed, current Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack’s “vision” of the organics program, revealed in 2013 to
the Organic Trade Association, contained not a single word about improving farming practices or the quality
of food. His entire focus was on the program’s financial benefits to farmers, as captured in this statement:
“Organic agriculture is one of the fastest growing segments of American agriculture and helps farmers
receive a higher price for their product as they strive to meet growing consumer demand.” Every link in the
organic production chain benefits—at the expense of consumers, the environment, and taxpayers.
Mandatory federal spending on organic agriculture mushroomed from $20 million in the 2002 Farm Act to
just over $100 million in the 2008 Farm Act, and now$160 million-plus in the 2014 Farm Act. While larger
organic producers gain a disproportionate government-sanctioned competitive advantage, the high cost of
compliance—to say nothing of being deprived of new advances in agricultural chemicals and plant and
animals genetics—places the small, local producer and innovator at a distinct disadvantage
The USDA organic label is corrupt, enables profit hoarding and corruption.
Richard Read, Read is an investigative journalist on NerdWallet’s public interest reporting team, probing
issues that affect consumers, December 12, 2017, “The Dirt on 'Organic' Food: U.S. System Lets Fakes Get
Through”, https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/organic-label-pineapple-investigation-costa-rica/ (accessed:
02/09/22)
If the USDA wouldn’t act when presented with stark evidence of fraud, critics ask, how can consumers rely
on the agency to police any of the annual $43 billion in U.S. organically certified food? The answer is that
the system can’t be trusted, NerdWallet found. USDA appoints certification gatekeepers The National
Organic Program, a USDA division with a $9 million budget, sets standards for labeling and accredits the
agency’s 80 certifiers worldwide. Many of those certifiers have solid records. Growers, processors and
handlers they approve sell legitimately organic food under the USDA seal. But the system has built-in
conflicts of interest that make it ripe for abuse. NerdWallet’s investigation of two Costa Rican cases found
breakdowns that defeat the system meant to safeguard organic integrity and protect consumers, wasting
grocery dollars and squandering tax money. The USDA doesn’t just allow growers and processors to choose
their own certifiers from its accredited list. The certifiers then get paid by those producers, even getting a
percentage of sales, a financial incentive that creates a conflict of interest. USDA investigators who lack
law-enforcement experience lag at times hundreds of cases behind as the market expands. Swindlers
among the 37,000 businesses certified worldwide can double their money by misrepresenting food grown
conventionally with chemicals forbidden in organics. But the USDA has only one compliance officer for every
$9 billion in sales. The fine for each violation remains capped at $11,000.
Contention 2: Climate Change
Organic agriculture is deadly and 60% less efficient than conventional agriculture
02/09/22)
For example, there is ample evidence that organic agriculture can actually be harmful to the environment.
its substantially lower yields in real-world settings—typically 20–60 percent less than conventional
agriculture— impose various stresses on farmland and increase water consumption substantially. According
to a 2012 British meta-analysis, ammonia emissions, nitrogen leaching, and nitrous-oxide emissions per unit
of output were higher in organic systems than in conventional agriculture, as were land use and the
potential for eutrophication (adverse ecosystem responses to the addition of fertilizers and wastes) and
acidification. Although synthetic chemical pesticides are generally prohibited from “organic” farming,
exceptions are allowed on the basis of “need.” Of course, most “natural” pesticides are permitted. However,
“organic” pesticides can be toxic. As evolutionary biologist Christie Wilcox explained in a 2012 Scientific
American web article: There is nothing safe about the chemicals used in organic agriculture. period. This
shouldn’t be that shocking—after all, a pesticide is a pesticide
Organic farming requires immensely more land and produces more greenhouse gas
emissions
Bjorn Lomborg, Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and a visiting professor at
Copenhagen Business School, August 11, 2016, “Organic food is great business, but a bad investment:
Bjorn Lomborg”,
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/08/11/organic-farming-harmful-damage-environment-ineffi
cient-column/86988504/ (Accessed: 02/06/22)
A big study in Europe found that to produce the same gallon of milk organically, you need 59% more land. To
produce meat, you need 82% more land, and for crops, it is more than 200%. That adds up to a lot of forest
and nature being turned into farms for people in Portland, Ore., or Providence, R.I., to feel better about
their choices at the supermarket. If U.S. agricultural production were entirely organic, it would mean we'd
need to convert an area bigger than the size of California to farmland. It is the same as eradicating all
parklands and wild lands in the lower 48 states. Moreover, by eating something organic, you are actually
responsible for about as many greenhouse gas emissions as if you had chosen a regular product. Those are
the gases that cause global warming. And organic products mean more of some other bad environmental
things: about 10% more nitrous oxide, ammonia and acidification, while contributing almost 50% more to
nitrogen leaching.
Contention 3: Food Security
Organic farming requires more land and threatens food security

James Temple, Temple is the senior editor for energy at MIT Technology Review, October 22, 2019,
“Sorry—organic farming is actually worse for climate change”,
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/22/132497/sorryorganic-farming-is-actually-worse-for-climat
e-change/#:~:text=Other%20recent%20research%20has%20also,required%20is%20taken%20into%20accou
nt.&text=The%20emissions%20impact%20of%20the,raised%20livestock%20is%20more%20complicated.
But the bigger problem, for both crops and livestock, is that these practices end up requiring a lot more land
to produce the same amount of food. After all, the whole point of synthetic fertilizer is it boosts crop yields,
by providing a “fixed” form of nitrogen that promotes plant growth. The legumes that organic farmers have
to rotate in to help convert nitrogen into more reactive compounds in the soil end up cutting deeply into
other food crops they could otherwise grow, the study notes. Specifically, the switch to 100% organic
practices would require 1.5 times more land to make up for the declines, which would add up to nearly five
times more land overseas than England and Wales currently rely on for food. That difference is amplified by
the fact that the UK’s agricultural system produces particularly high yields compared with other parts of the
world. The study found larger effects than some earlier papers. Notably, a 2012 meta-analysis in Nature
determined that organic farming yields are between 5% and 34% lower than those from conventional
agriculture, depending on the specific crops and practices. In addition, a 2017 Nature Communications
study estimated that switching to organic farming would increase land use by only 16% to 33%. By
evaluating the entire farming system of England and Wales, the new study helps to address some of the
criticisms of earlier organic emissions assessments, which were often limited to specific farms or crops, says
Dan Blaustein-Rejto, associate director of food and agriculture at the Breakthrough Institute, a think tank
that promotes technology solutions to environmental challenges. “Looking at the farm scale doesn’t really
tell you what a large-scale transition to organic would look like,” he says. “Only a study like this, that takes a
system-wide perspective, really does.” The world does need to find ways to cut the emissions and
environmental pollution from synthetic fertilizers. But the trick is to clean up these practices in ways that
don’t require converting more land to agriculture, or forcing large parts of the world to go hungry.
Organic farming depletes soil of its nutrients and decreases crop yield
Evelyn Jacob, Staff writer for Earth.org, April 03, 2020, “Is Organic Farming Truly Sustainable?”,
https://earth.org/is-organic-farming-truly-sustainable/ (accessed: 02/05/22)
However, organic farming may also result in soils being depleted of their nutrients, leading to a loss in
productivity. If this is true, then this would render organic farming unsustainable economically as crop yields
would decrease. Additionally, soil is difficult to replenish; it may take up to a century for a new layer of
topsoil to form. Almost four years ago, the Indian state of Sikkim converted fully to organic farming to
provide safer food using environmentally-friendly farming methods. However, farmers have been struggling
to cope with reduced yields after the switch. A major concern has been the increase in disease outbreaks
and pest attacks on crops. Sikkim’s farmers have also complained about not receiving enough guidance and
assistance from the government on how best to manage their organic farms.
Across 66 studies of 34 different crops, conventional farming produces a higher

crop yield than organic farming
Bryan Walsh, Walsh is a senior writer for TIME magazine, covering energy and the environment—and
also, occasionally, scary diseases, and the former bureau chief for TIME Tokyo, April 26, 2012, “Whole Food
Blues: Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable”,
https://science.time.com/2012/04/26/whole-food-blues-why-organic-agriculture-may-not-be-so-sustainabl
e/ (accessed: 02/05/22)
In the Nature analysis, scientists from McGill University in Montreal and the University of Minnesota
performed an analysis of 66 studies comparing conventional and organic methods across 34 different crop
species, from fruits to grains to legumes. They found that organic farming delivered a lower yield for every
crop type, though the disparity varied widely. For rain-watered legume crops like beans or perennial crops
like fruit trees, organic trailed conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet for major cereal crops like corn or
wheat, as well as most vegetables—all of which provide the bulk of the world’s calories—conventional
agriculture outperformed organics by more than 25%. The main difference is nitrogen, the chemical key to
plant growth. Conventional agriculture makes use of 171 million metric tons of synthetic fertilizer each year,
and all that nitrogen enables much faster plant growth than the slower release of nitrogen from the
compost or cover corps used in organic farming. When we talk about a Green Revolution, we really mean a
nitrogen revolution—along with a lot of water.
Extensions
Food Prices
Organic food costs 20% more than conventional food

Shayla Colon, Colon is a Native New Yorker who previously worked for Hearst CT Media. She now covers
business news for the Albany Times Union, September 28, 2021, “Here are the reasons why organic food is
more expensive”,
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Here-are-the-reasons-why-organic-food-is-more-16490982.p
hp (accessed: 02/09/22)
A pack of two organic cucumbers can cost $3.49. Two, non-organic cucumbers costs $1.36, less than half.
Similarly, a two-pint Vanilla La Yogurt had a $2.99 price tag on it during a recent visit. The other organic
Stonyfield option was priced at $4.59. Despite the higher price, the Organic Trade Association reported that
organic sales “soared to new highs” in a 2020 survey, leaping up by 12.4 percent to a record $61.9 billion.
Organic food alone saw a similar 12.8 percent jump, bringing it to a grand total of $56.4 billion from
transactions. And in 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture pointed to earlier research
determining organic price premiums from 2004 to 2010 were “more than 20 percent of the nonorganic
price” for 17 commodities it surveyed. Experts and farmers said the disparity in organic and inorganic costs
stems from the difference in farming and production. Buying an organic product means that you are
investing in an item that was created or grown through totally natural processes without chemical or
artificial agents, which should not be confused with products that are marketed as “all-natural.”
Organic food is more expensive than conventional food: multiple warrants

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2022, Why is organic food
more expensive than conventional food?”, https://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq5/en/ (accessed:
02/06/22)
Certified organic food. Certified organic products are generally more expensive than their conventional
counterparts (for which prices have been declining) for a number of reasons: Organic food supply is limited
as compared to demand; Production costs for organic foods are typically higher because of greater labour
inputs per unit of output and because greater diversity of enterprises means economies of scale cannot be
achieved; Post-harvest handling of relatively small quantities of organic foods results in higher costs because
of the mandatory segregation of organic and conventional produce, especially for processing and
transportation; Marketing and the distribution chain for organic products is relatively inefficient and costs
are higher because of relatively small volumes.
Organic food costs at least 1.5 the cost of conventional food and leads to resource
conflict
Could the global agricultural industry follow Sikkim’s example and convert to organic farming? Further,
would it be truly sustainable, or would it result in a food shortage? Another implication of organic farming is
the products’ higher prices compared to those of conventional farming. For example, according to a
Consumer Reports study, one head of organic iceberg lettuce cost at least one and a half times more than its
conventional counterpart in two of the three grocery stores surveyed. In light of this, not everyone will
benefit equally from organic farming, especially in developing countries. According to Alexander Ruane, a
research scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University’s Center for
Climate Systems Research, “The goal of organic farming in developed countries currently is about meeting
the needs of those who can afford to buy the highest quality food. If this luxury interferes with the need to
feed the entire population, then you have the potential for conflicts.”
Climate Change
At best, organic agriculture doesn’t contribute toward climate change
Courtney Vinopal¸ Vinopal is a general assignment reporter at the PBS NewsHour, October 23, 2019,
“How more organic farming could worsen global warming”,
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/how-more-organic-farming-could-worsen-global-warming
A team at Cranfield University sought to expand this scope of research by predicting how far the food supply
would carry if England and Wales made a switch to 100 percent organic farming. “The question was, how
much could we produce using only organic methods?” Williams said. Forty percent less, it turns out. Organic
farming typically produces lower crop yields due to factors such as the lower potency fertilizers used in the
soil, which are limited to natural sources such as beans and other legumes. Williams’ model found that a
100 percent organic farming system in England and Wales would mean much smaller crop yields. For wheat
and barley, for example, their production would be halved relative to conventional farming. “Having
established that there would be a shortfall in massive production, the gap would be filled by increased
imports, ” Williams said. This outcome could lead to a 21 percent rise in greenhouse gas emissions from
England and Wales because those imports would likely be raised overseas through conventional agriculture.
Such a transition would render moot the potential reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that would
otherwise be achieved by the switch.
Organic farming requires more land which causes more climate pollution
James Temple, Temple is the senior editor for energy at MIT Technology Review, October 22, 2019,
“Sorry—organic farming is actually worse for climate change”,
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/22/132497/sorryorganic-farming-is-actually-worse-for-climat
e-change/#:~:text=Other%20recent%20research%20has%20also,required%20is%20taken%20into%20accou
nt.&text=The%20emissions%20impact%20of%20the,raised%20livestock%20is%20more%20complicated.
Organic practices can reduce climate pollution produced directly from farming – which would be fantastic if
they didn’t also require more land to produce the same amount of food. Clearing additional grasslands or
forests to grow enough food to make up for that difference would release far more greenhouse gas than the
practices initially reduce, a new study in Nature Communications finds. Other recent research has also
concluded that organic farming produces more climate pollution than conventional practices when the
additional land required is taken into account. In the new paper, researchers at the UK’s Cranfield University
took a broad look at the question by analyzing what would happen if all of England and Wales shifted
entirely to these practices. The good news is it would cut the direct greenhouse-gas emissions from
livestock by 5% and from growing crops by 20% per unit of production. The bad news: it would slash yields
by around 40%, forcing hungry Britons to import more food from overseas. If half the land used to meet
that spike in demand was converted from grasslands, which store carbon in plant tissues, roots, and soil, it
would boost overall greenhouse-gas emissions by 21%.
Organic farms produce 50% more emissions

Science Daily, Science magazine citing the Chalmers University of Technology, December 13, 2018,
“Organic food worse for the climate?”,
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181213101308.htm (accessed: 02/05/22)
Organically farmed food has a bigger climate impact than conventionally farmed food, due to the greater
areas of land required. This is the finding of a new international study involving Chalmers University of
Technology, Sweden, published in the journal Nature. The researchers developed a new method for
assessing the climate impact from land-use, and used this, along with other methods, to compare organic
and conventional food production. The results show that organic food can result in much greater emissions.
"Our study shows that organic peas, farmed in Sweden, have around a 50 percent bigger climate impact
than conventionally farmed peas. For some foodstuffs, there is an even bigger difference -- for example,
with organic Swedish winter wheat the difference is closer to 70 percent," says Stefan Wirsenius, an
associate professor from Chalmers, and one of those responsible for the study.
Organic farming contributes more to climate change than conventional farming

Organic farming is largely associated with food safety, and environmentally friendly and ethical farming
practices- but is this really the case? In recent years, organic farming has been the target of criticism, raising
doubts about it being truly sustainable. In the face of the ever-growing global population and the increased
demand for food that this brings, will agriculture rise to the challenge? Contribution to Global Warming?
Organic farming may actually contribute more to global warming than conventional farming. Because it
does not use chemical fertilisers, organic farming requires more land to produce the same amount of
commercial crops compared to conventional farming. This additional land needed may inadvertently lead to
deforestation in other parts of the world as compensation for the reduced productivity of the domestic
organic farms, leading to more greenhouse gas emissions.
Organic farming is not more sustainable than conventional farming

But in considering claims about carbon sequestration in organic systems, we need to look at the whole
picture. Phil Robertson, a university distinguished professor at Michigan State, points out that a lot of that
carbon is added to the soil in the form of manure. Which means that, although there’s more carbon in that
particular soil, there’s less wherever you took the manure from. “It’s robbing Peter to pay Paul,” he says.
Robertson also said some tools that mitigate environmental harm aren’t available to organic farmers; one of
them is genetically modified crops. Although reasonable people disagree about how the advantages and
disadvantages of those crops balance out, Robertson, along with many scientists and farmers, says that both
major types of GMOs — the kind that are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate and the kind that have a
built-in organic insecticide — can help cut pesticide use. Also, it’s difficult for organic farmers to implement
no-till. Without herbicides, the best weed-killing tool is tilling, and that can lead to erosion, nutrient runoff
and the disruption of the microbial community that organic farmers work so hard to foster.
Food Security
Organic food recalls are increasing and are at best, no safer or nutritious than
conventional food
02/09/22)
Are organic foods more healthful? A study published in 2012 in the Annals of Internal Medicine by
researchers at Stanford University’s Center for Health policy aggregated and analyzed data from 237 studies
to determine whether organic foods are safer or healthier than non-organic foods. They concluded that
fruits and vegetables that met the criteria for “organic” were on average no more nutritious than their far
cheaper conventional counterparts, nor were those foods less likely to be contaminated by pathogenic
bacteria like E. coli or Salmonella. And speaking of contamination, recalls of organic foods jumped to 7
percent of all food units recalled in the first half of 2015 (compared to 2 percent in 2014). Some 87 percent
of organic Recalls since 2012were for bacterial contamination, like Salmonella and listeria, according to
studies reported in the New York Times
Organic farming is an idyllic fallacy with high concentrations of toxins

Christie Wilcox, Wilcox is a PhD student in cellular and molecular biology at the University of Hawaii,
September 10, 2012, “The Ecological Case Against Organic Farming”,
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/09/10/is-organic-food-worth-the-expense/the-ecological-c
ase-against-organic-farming (accessed: 02/06/22_
Organic farming tugs at our heartstrings, harkening back to a simpler time when life was rugged and man
lived off the land. We’re told organic farming is not only better for us, but also better for the environment.
While it sounds like the perfect solution, the fact is our notion of organic farming is an idyllic fallacy. Organic
farming does have many potential upsides, but it isn’t a panacea. Most people say they buy organic food to
avoid pesticides, but organic farms (especially those with products found in grocery stores) use natural
pesticides like rotenone and copper sulfate. While "natural" sounds better, it’s not synonymous with safe.
There are plenty of naturally occurring things that are bad for us -- after all, anthrax and botulinum toxin are
100 percent natural. Organic pesticides have been linked to a wide variety of diseases -- some at lower
doses than synthetic ones. Fact is, all pesticides are designed to kill, and natural ones aren’t in any way less
dangerous.
Organic food is more toxic than conventionally farmed food

Further, a big part of the appeal of organic farming is the notion that because it doesn’t use fertilisers or
pesticides, the food is healthier. This may not always be the case. Organic crops may have to contend with
more weeds and pests than conventional crops, so they may produce more natural toxins to ward the
weeds off, as potatoes do with a chemical called solanine. Additionally, the use of manure fertilisers may
increase the risk of contamination by microbes such as E.coli.
Conventional farming is key to efficient use of land for food

Bryan Walsh, Walsh is a senior writer for TIME magazine, covering energy and the environment—and
also, occasionally, scary diseases, and the former bureau chief for TIME Tokyo, April 26, 2012, “Whole Food
Blues: Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable”,
https://science.time.com/2012/04/26/whole-food-blues-why-organic-agriculture-may-not-be-so-sustainabl
e/ (accessed: 02/05/22)
When it comes to energy, everyone loves efficiency. Cutting energy waste is one of those goals that both
sides of the political divide can agree on, even if they sometimes diverge on how best to get there. Energy
efficiency allows us to get more out of our given resources, which is good for the economy and (mostly)
good for the environment as well. In an increasingly hot and crowded world, the only sustainable way to live
is to get more out of less. Every environmentalist would agree. But change the conversation to food, and
suddenly efficiency doesn’t look so good. Conventional industrial agriculture has become incredibly efficient
on a simple land to food basis. Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation, the each American farmer
feeds over 155 people worldwide. Conventional farming gets more and more crop per sq. foot of cultivated
land—over 170 bushels of corn per acre in Iowa, for example—which can mean less territory needs to be
converted from wilderness to farmland. And since a third of the planet is already used for
agriculture—destroying forests and other wild habitats along the way—anything that could help us produce
more food on less land would seem to be good for the environment.
Rebuttals
AT: Pesticides Bad
There is no evidence of pesticides’ adverse effect on health

Whereas organic systems yield less food, organic foods have significantly less to no synthetic pesticide
residues compared with conventionally produced foods25–28. Studies have also found that children who
eat conventionally produced foods have significantly higher levels of organophosphate pesticide
metabolites in their urine than children who eat organically produced foods29,30. In 2012, the American
Academy of Pediatrics reported that an organic diet reduces children's exposure to pesticides, and provided
resources for parents seeking guidance on which foods tend to have the highest pesticide residues31.
Although these data show that organic foods may present some clear advantages when it comes to
synthetic pesticide residues, the human health impacts of pesticide exposure from food are not clear26, and
organically certified pesticides need to be better identified and taken into account28.
Even if pesticides are bad, the case outweighs: climate change is a threat to all of humanity
Organic farming can use “natural” pesticides—there is no significant increase in

risk from conventional farming
Bjorn Lomborg”,
At least going organic means that we avoid nasty pesticides, right? Wrong. Organic farming can use any
so-called natural pesticide. This even includes copper sulfate, which Cornell University describes as “highly
toxic to fish” even at recommended rates, and which has caused liver disease in France. Or Pyrethrin, which
is “extremely toxic to fish," “highly toxic to bees”, and has been linked to an increase in leukemia among
farmers. Of course, conventional, non-organic foods carry a higher risk of pesticide contamination. Rough
calculations suggest that all the pesticides used in America could cause about 20 extra cancer deaths per
year. You have a similar chance each year of being mauled to death by a cow.
AT: Food Security
The benefits of conventional food outweighs the small risk of pesticides

Sophie Hirsh, Hirsh is a Staff Writer for GreenMatters, July 31, 2019, “Why Is Organic Food More
Expensive Than Conventional Food?”,
https://www.greenmatters.com/p/why-is-organic-food-more-expensive (accessed: 02/06/22)
The opposite of organic food is called “conventional” food. That term refers to any food that does not
restrict the use of those synthetic and chemical ingredients. Trace amounts of pesticides can be detected on
a lot of conventional fruits and vegetables, even after being washed. Is Organic Food Healthier? In 2009, the
NCBI found that in developed nations, the benefits of eating plenty of fresh produce “far outweigh[s] the
potential risks from eating very low residues of pesticides in crops.” So if you cannot afford to buy organic
produce, don’t let that stop you from eating fruits and vegetables, since conventional food provides the
same nutrient profiles as its organic counterparts.
The pro cannot solve for food security; there isn’t enough land for organic agriculture, only the
use of pesticides can solve
A Stanford study of 4 decades of research found that there is no evidence that

organic food is healthier than conventional food
Bjorn Lomborg”,
Back in 2012, Stanford University’s Center for Health Policy did the largest comparison of four decades
worth of research comparing organic and regular food. They expected to find evidence that organics were
nutritionally superior. Their conclusion: “Despite the widespread perception that organically produced foods
are more nutritious than conventional alternatives, we did not find robust evidence to support this
perception.” A brand new review this year shows the same thing: “Results of scientific studies do not show
that organic products are more nutritious and safer than conventional foods.” An organic label sends our
skepticism and good sense out the window. Consumers in one study were given two sets of absolutely
identical food items, with one set marked “organic” and one not. They declared the food they believed to be
“organic” to be lower in calories and more nutritious, and were willing to pay 16% to 23% more. It’s called
the “health halo” effect.
AT: Sustainable
Organics are not sustainable nor healthy; they are a marketing scheme protected
by bureaucracy
02/09/22)
Academics review, an organization that tests popular claims against peer-reviewed science, in 2014
performed an extensive analysis of more than 100 published academic and market studies and concluded
that “food safety and health concerns are the primary drivers of consumer organic purchasing” and that
“other factors, such as sustainability, environmental claims, and even organic certification, do not motivate
… in the absence of health risk claims.” Moreover, “the use of the USDA Organic seal is critical to conveying
confidence in organic labeling claims, which the majority of consumers mistakenly believe to mean healthier
and safer food products.” And finally, “As a result, the American taxpayer–funded national organic program
is playing an ongoing role in misleading consumers into spending billions of dollars in organic purchasing
decisions based on false and misleading health, safety, and quality claims.” in the absence of significant
consumer or environmental benefits, the USDA and the organic food industry are the only beneficiaries of
the organic agriculture deception. The USDA’s concept of organic agriculture has morphed from humus
farming for soil conservation, to a marketing tool, and now into a massive, public/private,
domestic/international regulatory bureaucracy in which the original intent has been obscured.
At worst, neither side can solve for climate change or sustainability: the increase in land offsets
any environmental efficiency
Most evidence finds that organic food is not healthier than conventional food
But there’s a problem. The environmental advantages generally are not why consumers are willing to pay
extra for organic products. According to the Organic Trade Association (and other groups ), consumers buy
organics primarily because they believe the products are better for their health: either more nutritious or
safer. So it’s not surprising that organic food purveyors and advocates often promote a product by implying
it’s more nutritious or safer, a claim not supported by most of the evidence. Organic advocacy groups
market safety and nutrition, as with the Organic Center’s “Comprehensive guide for identifying safe and
nutritious food,” or the Environmental Working Group’s Healthy Child initiative, touting “more scientific
evidence that organic food is more nutritious.” Labels for some organic products use the word “toxic” to
describe the pesticides they’re not using, despite the fact that some toxic pesticides (pyrethrin, for example)
are allowed in organic agriculture. Although organic farming certainly does use fewer pesticides, and that’s
an environmental benefit, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that trace amounts of pesticides in
food are not dangerous to human health. (Higher levels of exposure, such as those experienced by
farmworkers, are a different story.)

West Coast March

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

West Coast March

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

West Coast Publishing Organic Agriculture Main File Public Forum March 2022 Page 1

West Coast Publishing

Please don’t share this material with anyone

WEST COAST DEBATE

Public Forum March 2022

Finding Arguments in this File

Using the arguments in this File

Use West Coast Evidence as a Beginning

Copying West Coast Evidence

Ordering West Coast Materials

Visit our web page!

WEST COAST DEBATE 2

AT: Climate Change 23

Contention 3: Food Security 32

AT: Pesticides Bad 40

Resolved: In the United States, the benefits of increasing organic

Organic agriculture relies on ecosystem management that considers environmental

Organic agriculture is food that is labeled as such by the USDA

Organic agriculture relies on ecosystem management that considers environmental

Contention 1: Pesticides Bad

Pesticides are deadly, racist, and undemocratic

Organic farming is more profitable, nutritious, and environmentally friendly than

Organic agriculture is key to reducing carbon emissions and increasing climate

Contention 3: Food Security

Organic agriculture is key to food security and increasing family incomes

The use of pesticides is rooted in racist and classist practices

Pesticide use perpetuates environmental racism

Organic agriculture is proactive in addressing long term environmental impacts and

Organic farming produces more biodiversity than other farming systems

Integrating organic with conventional farming solves world hunger

Organic food is safer than conventional food

The economic benefits of pesticides only applies to developing countries—not the

AT: Climate Change

Organic farming is key to climate adaptation

AT: Food Prices

Organic food prices remain stagnant

AT: Food Security

The disparity in food production between conventional and organic agriculture is

Organic agriculture is food that is labeled as such by the USDA

Contention 1: Food Prices

Contention 2: Climate Change

Contention 3: Food Security

Organic farming requires more land and threatens food security

Across 66 studies of 34 different crops, conventional farming produces a higher

Organic food costs 20% more than conventional food

Organic food is more expensive than conventional food: multiple warrants

Organic farms produce 50% more emissions

Organic farming contributes more to climate change than conventional farming

Organic farming is not more sustainable than conventional farming

Organic farming is an idyllic fallacy with high concentrations of toxins

Organic food is more toxic than conventionally farmed food

Conventional farming is key to efficient use of land for food

AT: Pesticides Bad

There is no evidence of pesticides’ adverse effect on health

Organic farming can use “natural” pesticides—there is no significant increase in

AT: Food Security

The benefits of conventional food outweighs the small risk of pesticides

A Stanford study of 4 decades of research found that there is no evidence that

You might also like