Appendix 5: Scientific method and alternative agriculture

Extracts from “The Science of Organics: Peeling the Onion to Reach Core Truths” Dr. Charles Benbroo, Chief Scientist of The Organic Center
http://www.organic-center.org/res.lead.benbrook.html

One of the foundations of science is being able to replicate a finding in another place and at another time. In fact, whenever scientists publish a novel finding that's never appeared before, that data and any conclusions based upon it, are typically not accepted until it is replicated somewhere else by another team of scientists…

In studies on the impacts of organic farming systems, especially field-based studies, precise replication is difficult, and indeed often impossible, since the conditions of each study are so heavily influenced by soil conditions, weather, levels of pest pressure, and how routine farming practices were carried out. One way for scientists to get around many common, uncontrollable sources of variability is by carrying out comparative studies over multiple years, in many places, on fields that are side-by-side. When the same sorts of impacts are observed year after year in such studies, greater confidence is placed on quantitative findings…

In looking at the science that has been done comparing organic and conventional food and farming, we often see that scientists have designed studies to address the same question, but with subtle and sometimes important differences. For example, some studies analyze organic fields that have just recently been converted to organic management, whereas others focus on fields that have been under organic management for over 10 years. The former field might actually still have more in common with a conventionally managed field that a long-term organic field…

In other cases, scientists have compared organic fields to conventional fields in which a number of core organic practices have already been adopted, such as use of compost, mating disruption for insect pest management, and use of cover crops to suppress weeds and build soil fertility. Scientists also tend to come up with different ways to measure food quality and as a result, the data collected in one study might not be directly comparable to the results obtained in other research...


Much of the past research comparing "organic" and conventional systems has been flawed. One of the reasons that many studies done by academic scientists have failed to find consistent differences between conventional and organic food is because the scientists have based their field research on university experiment stations that have been farmed conventionally for twenty, thirty, or a hundred years. They attempt to convert some acreage to organic production, but typically do it quickly, accepting certain "compromises." They are simply not able to grow crops as skillfully as an experienced organic farmer. They don't have the time to build up their personal farming skills to match those of good organic farmers. They lack the time to work with a piece of land for five, ten, or twenty years in building up its fertility and capturing all of the biological benefits that are associated with organic farming.

The deepest and most significant benefits of organic farming almost certainly arise from complex system interactions that are extremely difficult to isolate and control in replicated field studies. They also are hard to study through reductionist research strategies (i.e., carrying out research on one isolated component of a complex organic system). This does not mean that the benefits do not exist; it just means that two of the core strategies of western science - replication and reduction of complex systems to their component parts - are relatively inefficient in peeling away the layers of this onion.