The great organic myths
May. 1st, 2008 11:12 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
apharhttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html
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.
- 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. - Organic farming is more sustainable
A hectare of conventionally farmed land produces 2.5 times more potatoes than an organic one. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-01 04:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-01 04:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-01 07:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-01 07:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-01 07:49 pm (UTC)basically, every 8th woman has bc in her lifetime.
and at some point in our lives I read some info on bc in usa, and there is a general agreement that there is an epidemic that started in early nineties.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-01 07:50 pm (UTC)my understanding is that organic food is free of hormones (i could be wrong on this one, but that's what I always thought).
no subject
Date: 2008-05-01 07:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-02 12:47 am (UTC)Umm... I just read 2 or 3 days ago that in Canada (where I live) 39% of women and 44% of men will get cancer in their lifetime. That's the latest assessment. That definitely wasn't the case even one generation ago. So... Yes, there IS an epidemic of cancer. Now, whether it can be blamed on pesticides in our food - IMHO not, or at least not exclusively. It's probably due to a combination of factors. Pesticide use is probably one of them.
> Organic farming is more sustainable
> A hectare of conventionally farmed land produces 2.5 times more potatoes than an organic one.
That doesn't make conventional farming more sustainable. It makes it more productive - right now. But this rate of productivity probably can't be sustained for long, because it severely depletes the soil. Or so many scientists claim. Personally I tend to believe them, but opinions differ. :-)
> The demand for organic food is booming
> Less than 1 per cent of the food sold in Britain is organic
Again, wrong use of the term. "Booming" means "on the rise". Some 10-15 years ago there were no "organic shelves" in most supermarkets. And there was no interest in such. Nowadays it's 1% and the number is rising. I don't know about Britain, but in US and Canada you can see it clearly. If such giants as Wal-Mart and Costco are actively getting into this (and also smaller "local" supermarkets) - it clearly indicates there's lots of interest. I live in a pretty small Canadian town, mostly blue-collar, yet my local supermarket opened a big "organic" aisle about a year ago. Now it's 3 or 4 aisles, and it's growing.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-02 12:52 am (UTC)the nutritional value of veggies grown on overfarmed lands is much, much, much, much lower than it was 40 years ago.
quantity doesn't always translate into quality.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-02 01:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 11:38 am (UTC)Статья демагогическая, с калорийной ценностью ниже нуля:
1. Никаких ссылок не приводится. Большинству приведённой там якобы статистики я не нашёл никакого подтверждения в каких-либо официальных источниках. Писать на заборах "Иван Иваныч - педераст" было б ничуть не менее веско.
2. Делая вид, что сравнивает ограническую продукцию с неорганической, автор только указывает на недостатки огранической (подлинные и мнимые). Если в "сравнении" закрыть одну сторону уравнения, то я могу доказать, что говно во всех смыслах ценнее золота и питательней бананов.
3. Имеет место быть откровенное враньё. Например, что "when age-standardised, cancer rates are falling dramatically and have been doing so for 50 years". См., например, здесь:
http://dsol-smed.hc-sc.gc.ca/dsol-smed/cancer/c_time_e.html
Могу привести ссылки и на британскую статистику. Чего автор статьи по понятным причинам не делает.
4. Автор либо не понимает, либо осознанно искажает смысл некоторых терминов. Например, "sustainable" относится на самом деле к устойчивости развития некоторой отрасли, а не к её продуктивности.
После сухого выпаривания остаётся пшик. :(
Толковые статьи, критикующие industrial organic farming, очень даже существуют.
Но это не одна из них. Эта статья - оно. (http://ymarkov.livejournal.com/160145.html?thread=664209#t664209)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-02 02:06 am (UTC)this is not a solid argument - it could be the result of living longer, and a number of other factors. btw, genetically modified products use much less pesticide (e.g. some yield crops before their typical pests come out)
at the same time, Sam, I must say that this list looks a bit flaky too (no matter how much I'd love its point). e.g. 5 is pretty much ad hoc - perhaps the greater contamination correlates with greater nutritional value ;). 6 also seems fairly irrelevant.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-02 02:18 am (UTC)Yep. I think so too: It's probably due to a combination of factors. Pesticide use is probably one of them.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-02 02:52 am (UTC)as any politically charged topic, data on benefits of the organic produce and its conventional alternatives is somewhat conflicting. clearly, I do not want to advocate the use of pesticides (I am not an expert on this) - I do want to advocate a cool-minded level-headed approach to the topic, where convincing data is presented by both sides. ;)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-02 01:48 pm (UTC)RTFA.
I am just bringing something to your attention, not necessarily agreeing with it, or considering the argumentation reasonable.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-02 01:37 pm (UTC)this is because people live longer than a generation ago, and diagnostics is so much better.
RTFA
RTFA
no subject
Date: 2008-05-02 12:49 am (UTC)May I ask you what is the source of this info?
no subject
Date: 2008-05-02 01:37 pm (UTC)do you see the URL in the beginning?
no subject
Date: 2008-05-02 07:42 pm (UTC)thanks.