| Chimel - 7/23/2013 00:55 "rip-off artists like Whole Foods markets", "devotion from consumers attains almost cult-like status", "devotees of organic foods", 'bio-nuts", yeah, that sounds totally objective. And it's from Henry I. Miller, who works for capitalist billionaire subscribers who didn't make their money from organic farming. He also worked on genetic engineering at the FDA (one of the agencies that has revolving door policies with Monsanto) and belongs to the conservative Hoover Institution think tank,
The study of studies he mentions has had some harsh criticisms from other scientists in the Annals of medicine site he himself linked, about its methodology, for instance. Other blogs he links mention "organic chemicals" (what's that?) that are either as toxic or more toxic than conventional pesticides (nope, it seems that there is no organic pesticide that is less toxic, or that is an organic complex compound, not a "chemical", or they haven't bothered inquiring). Another stupid argument is that plants host lots of natural pesticides already, to protect themselves, like solanine in tomato and potato, so the actual difference between the pesticides added by conventional and organic farming is only 0.01% by weight! As if the LD50 lethal dose used to measure toxicity is only dependent on the weight of the pesticide, not its family or chemical composition. All pesticides equal, what a socialist philosophy! Or they mention the toxicity of copper sulfate which is used by organic farmers for a few vegetables and fruits, but show the LD50 of copper for comparison. Miller also mentions the "pathogen-laden animal excreta" (i.e. manure), apparently not knowing that organic farmers must either compost it (thus heat-killing the pathogens) or apply it 3 to 4 months before harvest if it's intended for human food. There is no doubt that some activists have made up their mind on chemicals and GMOs, but they hardly represent organic farmers, Organic farming has its place, there is no good or bad guy, it's not the one or the other, and it also has its justification, because it uses no synthetic chemicals which are generally much more toxic than the ones actually used in organic farming, it has been proven sustainable for thousands of years, and many other reasons. Conventional farming also has its place right now, but give it a couple of decades when robots will start weeding the fields, and I am predicting many conventional farmers will switch to organics. Yes, the article is caustic at times. But you have some factual errors as well. I can't tell if you're being facetious or serious, but all food is made of chemicals. So are our bodies. "Another stupid argument is that plants host lots of natural pesticides already, to protect themselves, like solanine in tomato and potato, so the actual difference between the pesticides added by conventional and organic farming is only 0.01% by weight!" -- Actually, this is a very good argument. There are plant-produced compounds (even in 'organic' foods) that are known carcinogens. Thousands of other naturally occurring chemicals in plants have never been tested for human safety -- at least the pesticides have been tested! There is no inherent difference between plant-produced pesticides (to keep insects, fungi, bacteria at bay) and human-engineered ones in terms of human safety -- check out Bruce Ames' work on that. Your statement that organic has proven sustainable for thousands of years is laughable. The erosion and soil degradation from what was essentially organic farming has ultimately caused the collapse of countless civilizations -- read David Montgomery's Dirt for a full account. sincerely, |
Forbes article on the "Organic Religion".
