The great organic myths

[aphar]

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.

Comments

[yyi.livejournal.com]

> 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.

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.

[murushi.livejournal.com]

> it could be the result of living longer, and a number of other factors

Yep. I think so too: It's probably due to a combination of factors. Pesticide use is probably one of them.

[yyi.livejournal.com]

living longer is an obvious and very distinct (possibly dominating) factor in the claim the way you have presented it ("in their lifetime"). in contrast, the role of pesticide is much less clear. the potential dangers from pesticides should also be balanced with some of the alternatives: such as malaria, against which DDT (banned in US since '71) is still used in some developing countries.
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. ;)

[aphar.livejournal.com]

5 is pretty much ad hoc - perhaps the greater contamination correlates with greater nutritional value ;). 6 also seems fairly irrelevant.
RTFA.
I am just bringing something to your attention, not necessarily agreeing with it, or considering the argumentation reasonable.