Interesting Read

[arminh]

[..]the idea that organic farming is better for the environment is “ridiculous” because organic farming produces lower yields and therefore requires more land under cultivation to produce the same amount of food. [..]I already didn't buy organic food if I could avoid it, this article puts it well though and I recommend you read it

Comments

[spindr]

It's certainly an interesting one. I go through patches of eating organic, not because of the environmental implications (I'll be dead in 50 years; the future can fuck itself)*, but because I do wonder about the effect of high levels of pesticides on the human body

[arminh]

but because I do wonder about the effect of high levels of pesticides on the human body.

I'd say it's a good bet that if people do alright who are exposed to pesticide levels hundreds of times higher than what we're getting (i.e. farmers), then we don't have to fear much either.

[morecake]

Yeeeeees, but if stopped eating so much meat and instead turned much of the land used for it over to arable production, that skews the issue again. The article more struck me as annoying right wing propaganda than journalism with something substantial to say.

[arminh]

Oh, I missed that reply. LJ notification emails aren't what they used to be.

At any rate, you're perfectly right on that point. As a society, we're eating way too much meat than a balanced diet would stipulate and this is quite inefficient and in the big picture it would be benefitial to reduce meat consumption.

In case you missed it, pretty much the main point made in the article was that consumers are voting with their shopping baskets. "Voting with your trolley", and the rationale they're following in that process.

Glad you're so specific in your dismissal of the article and its numerous claims. Clearly, if it smells like right-wing propaganda from your corner of the world, it must be void of any facts.

[thegreatgonzo]

I keep trying to write a rebuttal to this but never get it finished, but it boils down to the use of false premises slanted use of statistics and at least one straw man to put forward a view that fits Economist's usual position of free trade and global capitalism is great. Oh and then they say that it is all about balance in the penultimate paragraph diluting their advocacy while the last paragraph doesn't say "don't do this, do politics" but "if you do this do politics as well"

[arminh]

Go on then, by all means, point out the false premises and slanted use of statistics. Don't be shy. We can go over it bit by bit.

And yes, free trade and global capitalism are -mostly- great. They give us our prosperity. They need checks and balances, but so does any powerful engine.

What's wrong, to quote you, with "if you do this do politics as well" ?
If people feel strongly enough to buy one product over the other for political reasons, I think it's fair to say that they also should go out and vote. Like it says ... "it is far more likely to make a difference".