We’ve been advised that organic farming is good for our health. Proponents have trumpeted the concept that organic farming is good for the environment. It appears that, increasingly, life has been divided into conventional and alternative. Each side claims their approaches to be better than others. Each tries to win people to their side. Farming, too, is involved in a struggle, traditional farming contrary to organic farming.
Environmentalists and people concerned with their health promise us that organic farming is preferable in many ways. In 2002, Swiss scientists in the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture printed in”Scientist” a highly publicized study. Their research, which covered 21 decades, compared four kinds of farming. Reporters immediately stated that the study demonstrated organic farming was more effective. Organic farming advocates said the study showed that organic farming uses 50 percent less energy.
1. Traditional farming is 20 percent more effective than organic farming.
2. The above two facts supposed energy savings in organic farming were actually only about 19 percent per unit of crop produced, not 50 percent.
3. The study did not examine organic farming against the most current procedures of conventional farming. When it had, experts say, the 19 percent benefit of organic farming would vanish.
4. Current conventional farming matches organic farming in regards to environmental benefits. Both have valuable insects, create less pesticide and fertilizer runoff, and reduce soil erosion.
5. Food quality was nearly identical in traditional and organic farming. Advocates of organic farming had claimed that their food was far superior.
6. Current conventional farming methods produce the same or higher yields mentioned in number 1 above. This research doesn’t, of course, conclude that organic farming is poor. On the face of it, the end result is more than organic farming isn’t too different from current farming. There may be other reasons for people thinking organic farming is poor.
Many took from the Swiss study a realization that, as Cambridge chemist John Emsley said, “the greatest tragedy the human race could face this century isn’t global warming, but a worldwide conversion to’organic farming’- [where] an estimated two billion people would perish.” Organic farming can supply food for smaller markets, but how can it feed starving nations If we turn completely to organic farming, they say, we will doom billions to perish of starvation.
Alex Avery, Director of Research and Education for the Hudson Institute’s Center for Global Food Issues, recently released a new book, “The Truth About Organic Foods.” (2006) In this book, Avery provides an unemotional look at the odd roots and unscientific basis for organic farming. More to the point, Avery conveys why organic farming’s lower yields and reliance on rare organic fertilizers represent a possible threat to the planet’s forests, wetlands, and grasslands.
The publication offers scientifically sound evidence that more-affordable traditional foods are healthy for families and also very good stewardship of nature.” Avery’s book, one finds statements which indicate: 1. Organic farming began in the 1920s when a German mystic advised the use of just animal manure because synthetic fertilizers had no cosmic energy. 2. Shortly, the wealthy chose manure-fertilized create was better. 4. In 2007, organic farming advocates still don’t have any credible science to support their faith. Approximately 5 percent of a vegetable’s fat is natural pesticides, some of which are cancer-causing.