The benefits of Organic foods have been greatly exaggerated. In fact they use more energy, are worse for the environment and are not any healthier than regular food.
In fact, according to the report, they may even be more dangerous in some instances:
Myth three: Organic farming doesn’t use pesticides
Food scares are always good news for the organic food industry. The Soil Association and other organic farming trade groups say conventional food must be unhealthy because farmers use pesticides. Actually, organic farmers also use pesticides. The difference is that “organic” pesticides are so dangerous that they have been “grandfathered” with current regulations and do not have to pass stringent modern safety tests.For example, organic farmers can treat fungal diseases with copper solutions. Unlike modern, biodegradable, pesticides copper stays toxic in the soil for ever. The organic insecticide rotenone (in derris) is highly neurotoxic to humans – exposure can cause Parkinson’s disease. But none of these “natural” chemicals is a reason not to buy organic food; nor are the man-made chemicals used in conventional farming.
Don’t forget to take a look at the article.
More Links
Here are some great articles in regards to the abolition of public school and the cost of public schools.
Family accused of having “too many kids” by Austin social services
Wall Street Journal Reports: Stock Up on Food not savings
Are we actually in for some global cooling?
New York Times: “The Supreme Court on Monday upheld Indiana’s voter-identification law, declaring that a requirement to produce photo identification is not unconstitutional and that the state has a ‘valid interest’ in improving election procedures as well as deterring fraud.”
Douglas Groothuis explains twelve principles for Christians on How to Write a Letter to the Editor. Andrée Seu has some tips on writing as a Christian.
I read the article about organic farming, and I have read quite a bit on the subject in the past. While as with any trend there are always exaggerations, I think the article was pretty weak.
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 remember an episode of Penn & Teller’s Bullshit! where they did blind taste tests on water and found that people couldn’t actually tell the difference between bottled water and tap water. With that in mind, I doubt that the human palette is much better when it comes to other foods/liquids. The better taste of organic food is all mental.
Chris, I agree that the methane issue is smoke and mirrors (had to use the pun!), but it doesn’t negate the study’s findings that organic farms use more energy (which means burning more fuel somewhere) than conventional farms. But I think the most important fact that is largely overlooked is this: “Sixty years ago, all Britain’s food was organic.” We’ve modernized in so many ways that it is impossible to target one factor as being the culprit for whatever tragedies we now face. I’m still waiting, however, for global warming to be linked to TV viewership.
In that case, cchrisr, here is an article I found last fall describing how it is actually better for the environment to ride in a car than to walk. Also in the piece: cloth diapers are as environmentally bad as disposable ones. The whole global warming debate has reached the completely absurd stage. Next stop (as I suggested in a blog post of my own) is Jonathan Swift:
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
Darius, that’s a fascinating Times Online article! Thanks for posting a link to it. I think most environmentalists have their hearts in the right place; unfortunately, their heads are somewhere else!
I agree. 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. What is funny about the global warming scam is that it has forced liberals to rethink (if you will pardon the expression) many of their firmly-held beliefs. Thus, silliness like organic food and ethanol are getting thrown out. Unfortunately, those fads are being replaced with ever more dumb ideas.
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.
I don’t think everyone who is a liberal does so because they are irrational. Some do so because they truly don’t care what policy is better. They are completely rational, but apathetic as to the results of their beliefs. I’m not trying to win anyone over to my way of thinking on here, since I haven’t run into any liberals on this blog. If I did, then I would change my tune. Until that point, I am merely talking about them, not talking to them. There is a difference, which you don’t seem willing or able to grasp. 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. I keep showing you evidence, and you keep ignoring it.
Darius
“Chris, I agree that the methane issue is smoke and mirrors (had to use the pun!), but it doesn’t negate the study’s findings that organic farms use more energy (which means burning more fuel somewhere) than conventional farms.”
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.
Darius
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).