Are organic fertilizers better for the environment? While landscape trade magazines have been slow to get on the organic train (many are almost fully funded by chemical interests) some do make a worthwhile argument, noting that synthetic fertilizers do not leach into the soil as quickly. This is an important consideration, as phosphorus (the "P" in N-P-K) has become a serious contributor to the deterioration of our local waterways. Like many things in life, we must look closely to see if there is any color in a black & white presentation. Is organic always better? Similarly, is all genetic engineering bad? Michael Pollan poses this question in The Botany of Desire, as it relates to the genetically-engineered blue potato. The potato is genetically manipulated, but it requires no pesticide to grow. It's a conundrum. What we do know is that pesticides pose a real problem for our local watersheds. A recent USGS survey found significant pesticide and herbicide residue in a many local streams, with an uptick in chemicals occurring in spring. At a green industry presentation years ago, I posed the question: If both a small mom & pop company and industry giant Monsanto made a "natural" herbicide, who would you choose to buy it from? Most in the audience said the small company. I said Monsanto. If we don't encourage the larger industry to make these products by buying them, they simply won't make them at all. What do you think?
