Thanks for Subscribing!
Use Code: at Checkout!
Hurry! Expires !
Wouldn’t it be nice if there was nothing wrong with our industrial agriculture and chemical food system? Wouldn’t it be a relief to learn that it doesn’t matter whether we buy organic or conventional food, because there isn’t really any difference in their nutritional value? Last week, the corporate media, responding to a biased article in the British press, slandered the now mass-based organic food and farming movement with headlines reading: “Organic Food No Better Than Conventional”.
Unfortunately, the articles are in reference to a new study which actually did show some nutritional benefits to organics. In addition, chemical and energy intensive industrial farming degrades the soil, pollutes the environment, and destabilizes the climate with CO2, methane and nitrous oxide greenhouse gas pollution. Food produced with agri-toxic chemicals loses its nutritional value, while organic farming replenishes the soil, sequesters climate destructive greenhouse gases, and produces food which is safer and far more nutritious. Forty years of field trials and research have clearly demonstrated the superiority of organics, but no doubt your local media outlets probably missed this point when reporting on the bogus “organics are no better” story which was planted in the UK media.
The US House of Representatives passed the Food Safety Enhancement Act, H.R. 2749, late last week. This was the second attempt to pass the bill. Representative Dingell’s willingness to address the concerns of organic and small producers was one of the factors that eased passage the second time around. It’s now up to the Senate to move similar legislation. The Organic Consumers Association will be organizing its members to contact the Senate to ensure that their version has stronger language to protect small producers from a regressive fee structure and burdensome tracking requirements, and organic producers from conflict with National Organic Program regulations designed conserve wildlife habitat.
Aug 5th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
But you aren
Aug 6th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I think it is pretty clear if you look at it in a certain way:
““In addition chemical and energy intensive industrial farming degrades the soil pollutes the environment and destabilizes the climate with CO2 methane and nitrous oxide greenhouse gas pollution. Food produced with agri-toxic chemicals loses its nutritional value…”“
That’s from the article itself.
I am going to go out on a limb and say that food that is organic is generally available fresh as a necessity and therefore its nutrient value would be higher. I thnk that if you enjoy breathing air that is not laced with ozone then organic food is more beneficial as again by necessity organic foods generally are more local.
Also if you enjoy the idea of children being able to drink water that is not laced with petrochemicals or are like me and like the idea of being able to drink it myself then you might see a method of agriculture that does lasting and epidemic damage to our waterways via pesticide runoff as less beneficial than one which strives to maintain a balanced ecosystem and to preserve the usability of the land for generations to come.
I’m not sure I understand your questions… you have all the reasons you could possibly want in my response. Are they untrue? Unfair? Maybe I don’t understand your angle…”