The great organic myths

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html

1. Organic farming is good for the environment
   A litre of organic milk requires 80 per cent more land than conventional milk to produce, has 20 per cent greater global warming potential, releases 60 per cent more nutrients to water sources, and contributes 70 per cent more to acid rain.


2. Organic farming is more sustainable
   A hectare of conventionally farmed land produces 2.5 times more potatoes than an organic one.


3. Organic farming doesn't 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.


4. Pesticide levels in conventional food are dangerous
   there is no epidemic of cancer. When age-standardised, cancer rates are falling dramatically and have been doing so for 50 years.
   If there is a "cocktail effect" it would first show up in farmers, but they have among the lowest cancer rates of any group.


5. Organic food is healthier
   Large studies in Holland, Denmark and Austria found the food-poisoning bacterium Campylobacter in 100 per cent of organic chicken flocks but only a third of conventional flocks; equal rates of contamination with Salmonella (despite many organic flocks being vaccinated against it); and 72 per cent of organic chickens infected with parasites.


6. Organic food contains more nutrients
   The easiest way to increase the concentration of nutrients in food is to leave it in an airing cupboard for a few days. Dehydrated foods contain much higher concentrations of carbohydrates and nutrients than whole foods. But, just as in humans, dehydration is often a sign of disease.


7. The demand for organic food is booming
   Less than 1 per cent of the food sold in Britain is organic, but you would never guess it from the media.

clarification: I am merely bringing an interesting article to your attention. I did not write it. I do not necessarily agree with everything it says, or like the argumentation. Please RTFA before commenting.

What Cancer Epidemic?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34777.html

"Overall cancer incidence and death rates have continued to decrease in men and women since the early 1990s, and the decline in overall cancer mortality has been greater in recent years," concludes the ACS report. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) annual report for 2000 also found that "the number of new cancer cases per 100,000 persons per year-for all cancers combined declined on average 0.8 percent per year between 1990 and 1997." In fact, the incidence of cancer has declined by 1.3 percent per year since 1992, according to the NCI.

A lot of furor over cancer rates can be traced to the seemingly dramatic increases in breast and prostate cancer during the 1980s. "The apparent increases in the incidence of breast and prostate cancer are mostly due to increased screening," according to Mary Beth Hill-Harmon, an epidemiologist with the American Cancer Society.

No rising cancer epidemic then. But perhaps the declines in cancer rates are a result of regulatory efforts to rein in industrial chemicals? That's unlikely, since very few cancers are caused by synthetic chemicals in the first place. Sir Richard Doll, head of the Clinical Trial Service & Epidemiological Studies Unit in Britain, estimates that only 1 to 5 percent of cancers can be attributed to pollution. The American Institute for Cancer Research also concluded, "There is no convincing evidence that eating foods containing trace amounts of chemicals such as fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and drugs used on farm animals changes cancer risk. Exposure to all manufactured chemicals in air, water, soil and food is believed to cause less than 1% of all cancers."

warning: this article is 7 years old.