View Full Version : Organic food may be no better for the environment than
20-02-2007, 03:22 PM
Organic food may be no better for the environment than conventional produce and in some cases is contributing more to global warming than intensive agriculture, according to a government report.
The first comprehensive study of the environmental impact of food production found there was "insufficient evidence" to say organic produce has fewer ecological side-effects than other farming methods.
Using data from previous studies, the researchers singled out milk as a particular example of the environmental challenges presented by organic farming. Organic milk requires 80 per cent more land and creates almost double the amount of substances that could lead to acidic soil and "eutrophication" - the pollution of water courses with excess nutrients
full article http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 283928.ece (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2283928.ece)
20-02-2007, 03:44 PM
studies find that studies usually find what the person who paid for them wants them to
this one was obviously paid for by the wankers who want to keep on poisoning us for profits
20-02-2007, 05:30 PM
the big irrigators and broadacre farm supporeters paid for this one surely?
they are the habitat clearers
21-02-2007, 07:43 AM
The "accounting" they use forgot to mention damage to down stream biotic communities where the chemicals are produced, damage to down stream biotic communities where the chemicals are used, the accidents when transported, the poisonings of those applying them, etc.
"Studies" like this are for gullible and stupid people who believe anything they read. How depressing.
27-02-2007, 11:04 AM
One note of caution: this was a government commissioned study, not one published in a peer reviewed journal. One of the longest-running studies comparing conventional and organic ag methods was published in Science in 2002. This Swiss study compared organic and conventional farming systems over 22 years and it found that organic farming used dramatically less energy. Why? Because one-third of the energy in agriculture goes into the production of pesticides and fertilzers.
(20 Feb 2007)
28-02-2007, 08:48 AM
don't know whether i should have given this a new thread but here goes.
the following text is copied unedited from anotehr chat forum, it may be of interest?
and my disclaimer like the other person is we are not supporting any political regime or policy:
"Recently while listening to politicians bash Cuba and everything it
stood for I began to do some behind the scense study and discovered
there was a lot more to the bigger picture than we were being told.
It turns out that when the USSR broke apart Cuba had few trading
partners left. They had been coaxed into a system that required huge
influxes of petroleum to run their farm machinery as well as their
sugar processing plants. All of this was done to increase
productivity, to increase sugar tonnage for export, to buy more fuel
and machinery, to get more money, to buy more fuel and machinery, to
produce more sugar.....
Then the U.S. offered Cuba a sweetheart deal if they would
only "change" to a more Capitalistic Democratic form of government.
We all know how that turned out. Since Cuba refused to be forced to
change the U.S. put severe trade embargoes on that country
to "force" change by any means possible. This is where the
interesting part came in and changed Cuba's agriculture forever.
Cut and paste article quote below:
Cuba became an island. Not just a real island, surrounded by water,
but something much rarer: an island outside the international
economic system, a moon base whose supply ships had suddenly stopped
coming. There were other deeply isolated places on the planetóNorth
Korea, say, or Burmaóbut not many. And so most observers waited
impatiently for the country to collapse.
[Note: I am not promoting any political phylosophy, only the fact
that Cuba returned to an organic farming existance and in so doing
reduced their need for fossil fuels, commercial fertilizers, and
massive amounts of imported pesticides.] Link below>
Cuba Leads the World in Organic Farming
http://www.projectcensored.org/publicat ... 01/12.html (http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2001/12.html)
Note: This short article was written from a totally neutral point of
view by Project Censored Media, on the transformation of the Cuban
food production system.
The removal of the "chemical crutch" has been the most important
factor to come out of the Soviet collapse, trade embargo, and
subsequent organic revolution. Though Cuba is organic by default
because it has no means of acquiring pesticides and herbicides, the
quality and quantity of crop yields have increased.
CUBAN ORGANIC AGRICULTURE and FARMING
The above is another article telling about the Organic
transformation that took place in Cuba. Interesting reading.
I posted this information to give everyone something to think about
on what it really takes to produce a true sustainable system based
on totally organic food production. Sweden has been sending some of
their top Agricultural scientists to Cuba for the past 20 years to
study their methods and success with local organic food production
based on local markets and local producers.
It takes a lot of sacrifice for any country to remove the need for
their petro -chemical fix that has become so much like being hooked
on drugs as to be one and the same problem.
I also read an article that showed a steady decline in U.S.grain
production per acre of the "modern" crops since the farmers all went
to a total chemical spray and GM seed "fix". The average farm is
right back to it's early production levels when Hybrids and granular
chemical fertilizers were first introduced. The article proved that
these new GM grains were more easily cared for, there were no weeds
to deal with, but there was a loss of 10 or more bushels per acre
under the best of conditions. Some farms are back to a 90 bushel per
acre corn yield which is pretty much what it was before GM arrived
on the scene. The reason for the chemicals and GM seed in the first
place was to reduce tillage, save fuel, and increase yields. With
yields decreasing and fuel prices increasing it is only a matter of
time before farmers are once again faced with some serious choices.
The present theory is that Americans can use the corn, to produce
fuel, to run their cars. The problem with this theory is that the
tractors also compete for the same fuel,to produce the corn, that is
made into fuel, that is becoming more expensive every day. Another
point to consider is that there are food animals that are waiting on
this same corn, to produce more meat, to feed your family, and these
animals are also going to cost more per pound because the price of
corn has gone completely through the roof because it is being
diverted [at a much higher price] to produce fuel.
In the final analysis it all boils down to paying more to ride to
work, paying more for lower quality food, and getting less of both.
Organic and locally diversified farming is starting to look better
all the time. It creates more local jobs, saves fuel, actually
produces things that can be eaten locally, and cost the consumer
less. This was the way it was before GM and government "subsidized"
monocrop farming for huge corporate farms arrived on the scene to
soak up more of your tax dollars. Dean
a long time ago i saw a documentry which said exactly what is in the above text. just wonder what health problems wouldn't exist from not eating chemical agriculture produce?
28-02-2007, 04:26 PM
cant remember exactly, though in the design manual what does Bill say is it 93%of cage hens get cancers... you are what you eat.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.1.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.