Earlier I read a blog entry that was posted on Yahoo's website by a medical doctor on the subject of organic food. Here's just one unfortunate quote: "It is probably true that organic production of all crops improves the environment over time. However, organic farming procedures are inefficient; wholesale adoption of them would make it difficult to meet the food needs of the world."
It seems the good doctor has forgotten that it was only in the 1920s when chemicals began to be used commercially on a large scale. Is he suggesting that humans were actually starving for over a hundred thousand years and it's a good thing someone sprayed on some chemical fertilizer so the population could finally eat?! Please.
I won't say the name of the doctor, although when I read the article this afternoon it already had 203 responses - many saying similar things as I am. (Of course, if you want the name or the article, I'd be happy to send it to you.)
I believe chemical 'conventional' farming is a blip in human evolution and will soon be coming to an end. And I imagine this ill-conceived backlash against organics is part of the chemical industry's desperate attempt to stay alive as the world awakens to the truth.
According to a recent article in Baltimore's The Sun newspaper, sales of organic foods have risen from $3.5 billion in 1997 to more than $15 billion in 2004.
The more we vote with our dollars for natural, healthful, organic produce, the sooner this planet will heal from the damage inflicted upon it over the last few decades.
Today's wisdom: "A good scientist says, 'My mind is open to the truth, whatever the truth may turn out to be. I have no preconceptions.' - Alan Watts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The conventional wisdom during the 50's and 60's was that the world's population was going to quicky exceed mankind's ability to produce food based upon a finite amount of arable land, current crop hybrids, etc.
I look at it this way: 1) organic farming is not as efficient as modern farming 2) the worlds poplulation is increasing 3) the amount of arable land is finite. Won't widespread use of organic foods promote the destruction of rainforests in order to feed the already overpopulated planet?
Also, please put this quote on your next entry to your blog:
Pigs are filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals.
Vincent Vega:
Yeah but bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good.
Jules Winnfield:
Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy mother-fu**ers. Pigs sleep and root in sh**. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eating nothing that ain't got sense enough to disregard his own feces.
Vincent Vega:
How 'bout a dog? Dog eats his own feces.
Jules Winnfield:
I don't eat dog either.
Vincent Vega:
Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?
Jules Winnfield:
I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy, but they definitely dirty. But, dog's got personality; personality goes a long way.
Vincent Vega:
Ahh, so by that rational, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?
Jules Winnfield:
Well, we'd have to be talking one charming mother-fu**ing pig.
Although I do appreciate the "Pulp Fiction" reference, I find your argument flawed. Organic farming practices positively impact the planet on all levels. It is the destructive habits of modern civilization that lead to destruction of the rainforests.
Post a Comment