Organic vs conventional

Mar 09, 2009 13:25

Organics Have Been Debunked. What Do We Do Now?"Many of the familiar models don’t work well on the scale required to feed billions of people. Or they focus too narrowly on one issue (salad greens that are organic but picked by exploited workers). Or they work only in limited circumstances. (A $4 heirloom tomato is hardly going to save the world ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 3

miguelberta March 10 2009, 19:02:48 UTC
And the prior sentence ( ... )

Reply


asarnat March 12 2009, 15:30:17 UTC
I never thought organic food claimed to cause a smaller carbon footprint. I always thought it was just about the health benefits.

Reply

trip22 March 12 2009, 19:24:19 UTC
I thought the supposed health benefits were the primary reason to go organic too, but was aware of the carbon footprint case.

A while back I read that cases of food poisoning, like salmonella, related to organic food are higher because they don't use pesticides literally use shit to fertilize, so they are at greater risk for contamination.

I dunno, I'm not too keen on eating pesticides and fertilizers, but for a long time organic food was a hyped and easy fix, if only you were able to pay a little more. It seemed too easy a fix. Now we see there are other risks/costs besides the $price. It makes the picture a little more realistic. Once again it's not just about the $$.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up