It's really amazing, how diverse people are. Perspectives are so different that one issue will look like a godsend to someone and sinister to someone else.
Eating organic produce, is one of those subjects. There are many extreme perspectives and many of which are found online. It's easy to tell, though when the author is getting emotionally activated, they often express their anger or confusion. Which there is no issue with that, but from what I have been noticing, from researching organic articles and scientific journals, when there is emotional activation, often the facts are tweaked and presented in a way that isn't really fair to the argument.
In my opinion, the biggest reason to eat organic, is because the chemicals allowed in conventional agriculture are mostly synthetic. And despite the research we have currently done, it's truly impossible for us to make accurate judgments on how these will affect our soils, water and bodies in 20,30,40 or 100 years from now.
Common arguments against organic agriculture (other arguments will come in later blogs):
1. It's not healthier --
They claim that organic agriculture actually does use 'pesticides', that nutritional content is the same, and actually because they use manure, it's likely contaminated with E-coli.
Yes, organic agriculture is allowed to use 'pesticides'. However, they are organically approved pesticides. These don't include man made chemicals that aren't able to be broken down by natural processes in the soil. Most soil organisms can consume anything and everything applied to the soil. However, there are few man made chemicals, that nature doesn't quite know how to break down, and they persist in our natural world for long after our lifespans. Those who claim organic agriculture apply much more 'pesticide' to the field are sometimes correct. It's because when organic, or naturally derived pest control is sprayed in organic fields, it immediately starts breaking down. This is why often more has to be applied to limit a 'pest' outbreak, but within days, the substance typically will be completely broken down. But these are really the last measures for organic producers. Many do their best to follow holistic pest practices, which are often preventative. They will often use mixed crops to create more diversity in their garden, thereby diversifying the kinds of insects they have. The more insects are present, the more nature will take care of any 'pest' overpopulation problems that may occur.
The nutritional argument isn't necessarily true. In conventional agriculture, we have developed a system where farmers are dependent on synthetic nutrients. The main ones being NPK (Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium). These nutrients, even when over applied, mostly will just leach out of the soils, so actually it only hurts the farmers wallet if he applies more macronutrients (NPK) than the plants actually can benefit from. In the beginning of this agro-industry age, micro-nutrients used to be added along with macronutrients to the soils, but companies slowly phased out the micronutrients (Zinc, Iron, Boron, Manganese, etc) in the synthetic fertilizers, perhaps due to cost, and perhaps due to farmers having difficulty with their plants. If too much synthetic micro-nutrients get added to the soil, plants will suffer, and toxicity will occur, both for the plants and for those eating the plants.
When manure and compost are applied to the soil, everything is added back to the soil, micronutrients and macronutrients. When nutrients are derived from natural sources, it is almost impossible for farmers to add too much nutrients. It's like saying that you will have a vitamin C toxicity if you eat too many oranges. People will most likely get too full before ever experiencing a vitamin C overload from oranges. However, give them a bottle of Vitamin C supplements, and it would actually be possible for them to get toxicity from eating too many supplements. A farmer would obviously know not to bury his plant in manure, but it's often too difficult to know how much 'powdery' supplement (synthetic fertlizer) to add. So actually in organic farms -- as long as they are adding composted material back on their land after harvesting, the produce would be higher in nutritional value than a farmer who had been farming the same soils for 20 years and only added NPK (which is more often the case then not). The soil, works kind of like our bodies work. If we don't eat enough, our body starts depleting our fat reserves, muscle reserves and even bone reserves to get the nutrients it needs to generate energy and new cells.
In the soil, plants are constantly taking nutrients out of the soil-- nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus work almost like calories do for people. They give plants the energy they need to survive, however when we eat plants only fertilized with these macro-nutrients, suddenly we are getting less nutrients than our bodies have evolved to get from plants (because of the lack of micro-nutrients), we can survive, just not thrive. Nutrient excesses or deficiencies tend to have more of an effect the further up the food chain you go.
The last argument about E-coli, is a bit of a hit or miss argument. Organic certification does require inspections and paper work verifying when farmers apply manure to their fields --( atleast 90 days before harvest, which allows anything not fully composted a chance to become fully composted-- meaning E-coli wouldn't be an issue).
--Out of 18 reported cases of E-coli outbreaks in the past 7 years in the US, only 1 was from Organic Spinach and in the report they don't give any information as to how the contamination happened. For all the consumer knows, it could have been a factory farm upstream that contaminated their water supply. Without a proper report, no one can really make assumptions.
The bigger risk of E-coli is actually from meat and dairy products.
More Organic rebuttal rebuttals to come!
Eating organic produce, is one of those subjects. There are many extreme perspectives and many of which are found online. It's easy to tell, though when the author is getting emotionally activated, they often express their anger or confusion. Which there is no issue with that, but from what I have been noticing, from researching organic articles and scientific journals, when there is emotional activation, often the facts are tweaked and presented in a way that isn't really fair to the argument.
In my opinion, the biggest reason to eat organic, is because the chemicals allowed in conventional agriculture are mostly synthetic. And despite the research we have currently done, it's truly impossible for us to make accurate judgments on how these will affect our soils, water and bodies in 20,30,40 or 100 years from now.
Common arguments against organic agriculture (other arguments will come in later blogs):
1. It's not healthier --
They claim that organic agriculture actually does use 'pesticides', that nutritional content is the same, and actually because they use manure, it's likely contaminated with E-coli.
Yes, organic agriculture is allowed to use 'pesticides'. However, they are organically approved pesticides. These don't include man made chemicals that aren't able to be broken down by natural processes in the soil. Most soil organisms can consume anything and everything applied to the soil. However, there are few man made chemicals, that nature doesn't quite know how to break down, and they persist in our natural world for long after our lifespans. Those who claim organic agriculture apply much more 'pesticide' to the field are sometimes correct. It's because when organic, or naturally derived pest control is sprayed in organic fields, it immediately starts breaking down. This is why often more has to be applied to limit a 'pest' outbreak, but within days, the substance typically will be completely broken down. But these are really the last measures for organic producers. Many do their best to follow holistic pest practices, which are often preventative. They will often use mixed crops to create more diversity in their garden, thereby diversifying the kinds of insects they have. The more insects are present, the more nature will take care of any 'pest' overpopulation problems that may occur.
The nutritional argument isn't necessarily true. In conventional agriculture, we have developed a system where farmers are dependent on synthetic nutrients. The main ones being NPK (Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium). These nutrients, even when over applied, mostly will just leach out of the soils, so actually it only hurts the farmers wallet if he applies more macronutrients (NPK) than the plants actually can benefit from. In the beginning of this agro-industry age, micro-nutrients used to be added along with macronutrients to the soils, but companies slowly phased out the micronutrients (Zinc, Iron, Boron, Manganese, etc) in the synthetic fertilizers, perhaps due to cost, and perhaps due to farmers having difficulty with their plants. If too much synthetic micro-nutrients get added to the soil, plants will suffer, and toxicity will occur, both for the plants and for those eating the plants.
When manure and compost are applied to the soil, everything is added back to the soil, micronutrients and macronutrients. When nutrients are derived from natural sources, it is almost impossible for farmers to add too much nutrients. It's like saying that you will have a vitamin C toxicity if you eat too many oranges. People will most likely get too full before ever experiencing a vitamin C overload from oranges. However, give them a bottle of Vitamin C supplements, and it would actually be possible for them to get toxicity from eating too many supplements. A farmer would obviously know not to bury his plant in manure, but it's often too difficult to know how much 'powdery' supplement (synthetic fertlizer) to add. So actually in organic farms -- as long as they are adding composted material back on their land after harvesting, the produce would be higher in nutritional value than a farmer who had been farming the same soils for 20 years and only added NPK (which is more often the case then not). The soil, works kind of like our bodies work. If we don't eat enough, our body starts depleting our fat reserves, muscle reserves and even bone reserves to get the nutrients it needs to generate energy and new cells.
In the soil, plants are constantly taking nutrients out of the soil-- nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus work almost like calories do for people. They give plants the energy they need to survive, however when we eat plants only fertilized with these macro-nutrients, suddenly we are getting less nutrients than our bodies have evolved to get from plants (because of the lack of micro-nutrients), we can survive, just not thrive. Nutrient excesses or deficiencies tend to have more of an effect the further up the food chain you go.
The last argument about E-coli, is a bit of a hit or miss argument. Organic certification does require inspections and paper work verifying when farmers apply manure to their fields --( atleast 90 days before harvest, which allows anything not fully composted a chance to become fully composted-- meaning E-coli wouldn't be an issue).
--Out of 18 reported cases of E-coli outbreaks in the past 7 years in the US, only 1 was from Organic Spinach and in the report they don't give any information as to how the contamination happened. For all the consumer knows, it could have been a factory farm upstream that contaminated their water supply. Without a proper report, no one can really make assumptions.
The bigger risk of E-coli is actually from meat and dairy products.
More Organic rebuttal rebuttals to come!
No comments:
Post a Comment