"The USDA, which oversees the foods labeled as “Certified Organic”, states quite clearly on its website about its role in organic, that “Our regulations do not address food safety or nutrition.” Foods labelled “Certified Organic” must adhere to certain rules and regulations but aren’t endowed with any particular nutritional or safety features. However, many consumers believe that the Organic label means the food has superior nutrition and is safer, especially in regard to pesticide residues. This is not true. Studies have shown no appreciable difference in nutrition between crops grown either organically or conventionally."
"Organic farmers also use pesticides, and the products they are allowed to use are constrained with few exceptions by whether they can be considered “natural.” That is not a safety standard since many of the most toxic chemicals known are “natural.” Like all pesticides, these natural options are subject to EPA scrutiny, and so the pesticides that organic farmers are allowed to use are “safe when used according to the label requirements” which is the same standard for synthetic pesticides allowed on conventional crops."
"What the USDA data demonstrates is that the environmental movement was not a failure – it effected real change over the past 5 decades! We don’t have a two-tiered food supply in terms of safety in which only those who can afford the premiums get safe food. I also believe the global scientific consensus that “GMO” foods are safe, and so I don’t need to buy organic to avoid those."
"Some of the farming practices that are commonly employed on organic farms are very positive from an environmental perspective, but those practices are also used by progressive “conventional” growers. There are also quite a few farming practices with excellent environmental profiles which are difficult to implement under the organic farming rules (e.g. no-till farming, spoon-feeding of nutrients via irrigation). Compost, which is a major input for organic farms, has a shockingly high “carbon footprint” because of methane emissions. The carbon footprint of “synthetic” fertilizer is much smaller."
"... the biggest issue for organic is that it requires significantly more land to achieve the same level of production."
"Organic exists as a sort of “super brand” that transcends anyone marketing under that banner. Unfortunately, within the organic realm there are certain major marketers (and advocacy groups they fund) who employ fear-based and falsehood-based messages to demonize “conventional” foods."
"...I rarely see organic representatives standing up and objecting to the sort of fear-mongering that ultimately benefits the sales for the entire super-brand."
Read Article
Local Resources for Redwood Highway Willits Willits Chamber Commerce USA National Phenology Network - citizen scientists, government agencies, non-profit groups, educators and students of all ages monitor the impacts of climate change on plants and animals Ukiah Smart Growth Coalition U.S. BIOCHAR INITIATIVE home page - a non-for-profit organization promoting the sustainable production and use of biochar through research, policy, technology and “doing it” The Oil Drum - Discussions about Energy and Our Future The New Economics Institute - Promoting the building of strong local economies that link people, land, and community. The Mendocino Grain Project Sol-Solutions - Solar energy products Rodale Institute -organic farming - For over sixty years, we’ve been researching the best practices of organic agriculture and sharing our findings with farmers and scientists throughout the world, advocating for policies that support farmers, and educating consu...
Comments
Post a Comment