Edit: Thanks, down-modders. Real mature. You know what you call beliefs without evidence? Religion.
How about pointing out some evidence if you disagree with me?
I for one down-modded you for obnoxiously whining about being down-modded, something which I'm quite sick of.
But seriously people, how many lives does genetically engineered rice have to save before you admit that "all natural" sometimes means "inferior", and "artificial" is sometimes "good". You know what's 100% organic? Malaria. And there's little more artificial than the chemical-soaked neon bednets saving millions of lives across Africa.
There was a study done that highlighted that some of the pesticides used in conventional produce can have a carcinogenic effect even in 1 part per trillion.
It's funny how the author can exaggerate the studies findings like this while showing such disdain for others who respond to his exaggerated conclusion rather than address the studies findings directly. The study has some good information but I'd prefer to hear it from an author that wasn't so partisan to a particular view.
> "The FSA study is good science and by attacking, rather than endorsing it, the organic lobby in the UK has been plainly unscientific."
true, but the SA's response is an excellent marketing response. ple think what they're told, and if no one outright makes the claim about the environmental impact, then people will conclude, oh, it's already to eat non-organic.
(Admittedly the American food system is getting close to this. Corn is soooo good for you(r wallet), after all.)
Here here! The notion that we pretty much understand what's going on with food, digestion, and metabolism is as widespread as it is harmful. We have only scratched the surface.
I remember seeing a diagram of human metabolism during a talk. It was huge and messy! Spaghetti-coded-Rube-Goldberg-intertwined-messy! And it's only a diagram of what we do understand -- there's even more in there! Biology at the cellular and molecular level was not "designed" to be understood by a human intelligence.
The only convincing argument I have seen in favor of organic food is the environmental argument. I have to balance that against my belief that for every acre of organic crop grown, somebody somewhere is going to sleep hungry.
I realize, however, that any scientific or quantitative argument for or against organic food is irrelevant. Organic food tells a story that many people want to be a part of, and it will continue to grow in popularity.
A sign of the dark ages, and the death of the enlightenment. No, I don't imagine we'll burn witches at the stake, but my wife and daughter can't eat half their favorite foods when we visit some relatives' homes (for fear of really upsetting people), precisely because of nutritional dogma.
Fresh, ripe, varietal, easily-spoiled produce grown in non-industrial settings at a small scale on non-exhausted land by small groups of opinionated people does taste better.
It used to be that produce sold as 'Organic' was largely correlated with the above, but now 'Organic' is a huge profit center for big agribusiness. Being grown without pesticides doesn't make the standard shitty produce any better tasting, nor is it really much better for the environment. It just has bigger profit margins.
