Under a plan by a couple of Stanford folks, the esteemed "all natural and organic" foods could end up significantly impacting your basic barista's wallet:
California is currently experiencing its fourth year of extreme drought, and in response Governor Jerry Brown has mandated a reduction of the state’s water use by 25%, proposing reductions in lawn acreages, rebates for replacing old toilets, and forbidding homeowners from using potable water for irrigation.
However, environmental experts Terry L. Anderson, and Henry I. Miller, both fellows at Stanford University, claim to have a better idea. In their proposal “How Taxing Organic Products Could Solve California’s Water Shortage,” published last week on National Review Online, Anderson and Miller state the need for a revenue–neutral tax on all organic products (which would diminish their demand), while outlining how organic agriculture is less efficient and more wasteful than conventional and genetically engineered agriculture.
According to studies cited in the proposal, organic agriculture uses more labor, land, and water than conventional agriculture while producing much lower yields and wasting H2O. One of the studies cited was a 2008 Organic Production Survey of all 14,450 organic U.S. farms by the United States Department of Agriculture, which reported that organic corn, rice, spring wheat, and lettuce yields were, respectively 30 percent, 41 percent, 53 percent, and 70 percent lower than conventional yields.
But you knew that. This is but one of the reasons why the nutters who keep trying to ban all non-organic crops keep losing; earlier this month, the Benton County effort got creamed by a 70% margin.
Hey, it doesn't matter if you want to keep your body pure by purchasing only organic, all-natural foods, as long as you're willing to pay for the added resource costs. It is, however, stupid to keep trying to ban stuff just because you don't happen to like it. You just tick the rest of us off.
And although the most recent losers in Benton Country crowed about their success in "starting a conversation", it's not one we need to have. They always seem to use those "starting a conversation" terms when what they really want to to is force you to comply.