Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (105473)	5/31/2005 1:27:48 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

It is absurd to think of a world without chocolate, sugar and coffee. Organically grown products provide income for indigenous farmers and their families. If there were heightened demand for organic chocolate, sugar and coffee, there would be more workers, more income, and less child slavery. Organic farmers do not keep slaves, so the best thing to do would be to drive the slave keepers out of business by taking over the chocolate market. Your post shows that you are misinformed about the feasibility of organic farming on a large-scale basis. It is conventional pesticide farming and factory farming that are destroying the earth's resources. Organic farming nourishes the soil and does not pollute. It makes family farms possible. In the third world, sustainable, organic agriculture actually feeds farmers and their families, whereas when they grow resale crops the land becomes barren and eroded and the farmers still cannot make a living. The fact that organic farming is labor intensive is a positive--it creates employment. All the world was full of organic farms until about fifty years ago, when pesticide agriculture became popular. Organic food did at one time feed everyone. It is shocking to me that people think of it as something new and threatening and unworkable. Myth and Reality Report - Summary BRIEFING PAPER The Myth and Reality Report examines some of the key issues around organic food and its production. It takes up the challenge of answering the critics – who range from public relations companies defending agri-business, through to the heads of national food authorities and some academics. It exposes the misleading and erroneous statements made against organic food, and provides the facts that prove them wrong. In particular this booklet examines six myths: Myth : Organic foods are no healthier than non-organic foods. Reality: Wrong. Food produced organically contains fewer contaminants. Some scientific studies have shown that there are more nutrients in organically produced food. Myth: Organic farming increases the risk of food poisoning. Reality: False. Organic farming can actually reduce the risk. Myth: Organic farming uses pesticides that damage the environment. Reality: Untrue. Organic farming systems rely upon prevention rather than cure, minimising the need for pesticides. Myth: Consumers are paying too much for organic food. Reality: Not so. crop rotations, organic animal feed and welfare standards, the use of good husbandry instead of agri-chemicals, and the preservation of natural habitats all result in organic food costing more to produce. Non-organic food appears to be cheaper but in fact consumers pay for it three times over – first over the counter, second via taxation (to fund agricultural subsidies) and third to remedy the environmental pollution (or disasters like BSE) caused by intensive farming practices. Myth: Organic food cannot feed a hungry world. Reality: False. Intensive farming destroys the fertility of the land and is unsustainable. Organic methods help labour-rich but cash-poor communities to produce food sustainably. Myth: Organic farming is unkind to animals. Reality: Far from it. Animal welfare and the freedom to behave naturally is central to organic livestock standards. The myths which damage the organic movement are not conjured out of thin air and they do not arrive in the newspapers by chance. The myths are generated by organisations with particular interests to defend, and they are presented as press releases and prepared articles for publication in the media. This booklet concludes by looking a little more closely at the origins of the myths, and the people who peddle them. Between 1990 and 2000 the organic market in Europe grew at average of 25 per cent a year to reach an annual turnover of £6 billion by April 2000. Growth within the UK has been particularly strong in recent years with a five-fold increase in market value in only 5 years. There is a growing shift in consumer purchasing towards organic food. This trend has developed for a number of reasons : •Loss of trust in non-organic food products after a long line of food scares. •Desire to avoid pesticide residues in food. •Desire to eat food produced without the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). •Demand for the highest possible standards of animal welfare. •Demand for environmental protection and enhancement. •Desire to protect the environment from GMO contamination. •Confidence in the external inspection programme and legal standards for production covering all organic production and processing. •Health and safety of farm and food workers worldwide. Policy makers have recognised the potential for organic farming as a means of food production that meets the demands of nature and the marketplace. The benefits of organic management are reflected by government support for conversion, and post-conversion organic management, in all European countries except the UK. However, the progress and objectives of organic farming have not been welcomed by all. Organic production aims to avoid external inputs in order to achieve sustainability. This conflicts with non-organic agriculture which relies heavily on external inputs to increase yields (particularly pesticides and fertilisers). As a consequence pesticide sales globally are now estimated to be worth over £15 billion a year. There is clearly a strong commercial interest in maintaining this market. It is therefore no surprise that organic farming has its critics, who are attempting to influence the buying habits of consumers with anti-organic allegations. It is important that these allegations or myths are engaged and refuted rather than ignored and allowed to gain credibility. The myth and reality initiative was launched by the Soil Association and Sustain to provide a well referenced and robust response to these myths. This report aims to educate critics, provide information for the organic sector and the media, and to raise awareness amongst the general public. The Soil Association has highlighted significant gaps in current research on organic food and farming. These need to be urgently filled. However, emerging research is already beginning to show the benefits of organic production. The results of a major six-year study recently reviewed in Nature magazine comparing organic, integrated and conventional apple systems revealed that an organic apple production system has similar yields to conventional and integrated production methods. Importantly, it also has higher soil quality, is better for the environment, produces sweeter and less tart apples, has higher profitability, and achieves greater economic sustainability. We are confident that more research will yield more evidence that organic food and farming is good for people and good for the planet. 1Soil Association, Organic Food and Farming report 2000, March 2001 2United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organisation web site, www.fao.org.agp/agpp/ipm/issues.htm 3John P Reganold, JD Glover, P K Anrews and H R Hinman, Sustainability of three apple production systems, Nature, Vol 410, 19 April 2001. soilassociation.org