First of all, I don’t buy any of the greenhouse gases stuff. I’m not saying that organic cows don’t produce more methane gas, I just don’t think it makes a difference where the environment or “global warming” are concerned.

As far as the pesticides are concerned, I think there may be a difference between organic accreditation in the US versus the UK where this article was published. I also have a hunch that this article was dealing with the corporate mega-farms.

I do believe organic food is generally healthier - one of the reasons being the fact that conventional farming methods focus on the use of chemical sources for macronutrients without respect to micronutrients. Over time valuable micronutrients not crucial to the growth of grains, fruits, and vegetables are leeched from the soil from overuse. Good organic farming replaces the micronutrients by using organic nutrient sources. For every study you find refuting higher nutrient levels in organic food, you can find at least another one that says the exact opposite. Since we’re dealing with a UK study, here is some information from a European Union study:

“Researchers on the European Union study grew both organic and regular fruit and vegetables side by side on a site in Northumberland and compared factors such as nutritional quality. Produce compared included cabbages, lettuces, carrots, potatoes and wheat. The early results of the study carried out by Newcastle University show that organic fruit and vegetables have up to 40 per cent more antioxidants than non-organically grown produce. Also found in greater quantities in organic produce were vitamin C, and trace elements such as iron, copper and zinc. Even greater contrasts were found for milk, with organic milk containing between 50% and 80% more antioxidants and healthy fatty acids.”

Plus most (not all) organic food just tastes so much better. I challenge any milk drinker to drink organic milk and compare it to average non-organic milk. There is no comparison. We’re talking night and day.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled…

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

Like most liberals (no matter how much Atanamis wants to deny it), their hearts are in the right place, but their heads ignore all rational thought. A truly rational person would comprehend the stupidity of the whole global warming hysteria.

Only a rational person with accurate information will come to valid conclusions. Without valid information, even the most rational of people will come to incorrect conclusions. By assuming your opponents are irrational, you lose any opportunity to change minds. If instead you assume they are rational but misinformed, you can help them realize how they can better obtain their heart felt goals (by using “conservative” methods). Unfortunately, so long as you simply assume anyone who disagrees with you is simply “irrational”, you will never learn new perspectives or win people over to your own way of thinking. Fortunately, that’s a way of thinking most people grow out of as they become more mature.

Darius

Concerning energy consumption this is what the article states:

“Organic potatoes use less energy in terms of fertiliser production, but need more fossil fuel for ploughing. A hectare of conventionally farmed land produces 2.5 times more potatoes than an organic one.

Heated greenhouse tomatoes in Britain use up to 100 times more energy than those grown in fields in Africa. Organic yield is 75 per cent of conventional tomato crops but takes twice the energy – so the climate consequences of home-grown organic tomatoes exceed those of Kenyan imports.”

The greenhouse thing is probably right, but the potato example sounds quite implausible to me. The writer just doesn’t give enough evidence to support his conclusion that organic farms are less energy efficient. There are too many variables for such broad generalizations to be made. I think that many of the large commercial organic farms are quite unproductive in comparison to the smaller local farms. So to that end, if we are talking about acre/hectare ratios maybe he is right but he still paints with a broad brush.

Dennis Prager espouses very similar rhetoric on his show, yet he routinely brings people over to his side by showing evidence to support his theory.

This is solid evidence of invalid logic. Someone who is at the core illogical will not be persuaded by “evidence to support his theory”. For it to be worthwhile to PRESENT the evidence, one must assume the opponent is rational, but not aware of the needed facts. Facts are irrelevant to an irrational person. Therefore, if it is POSSIBLE to convince a liberal to become conservative based on facts, the liberal must not be irrational (merely ignorant)! I would have no problem with you accusing liberals of lacking a full understanding of the facts (which is what I myself believe).