The organic movement is more of a renaissance than a revolution. Until the 1920’s, all agriculture was generally organic. Farmers used natural means to feed the soil and to control pests. Then several of the high profile advocates for conventional agricultural production began stating that the world would starve if we all continued our organic agricultural practices. They have written articles for science journals and other publications saying that organic agriculture is not sustainable and produces yields that are significantly lower than conventional agriculture. Avery (2000) Trewavas (2001).
The push for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), growth hormones, animal feed antibiotics, food irradiation and toxic synthetic chemicals is being justified, by the rationale that without these products the world will not be able to feed itself.
The push for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), growth hormones, animal feed antibiotics, food irradiation and toxic synthetic chemicals is being justified, by the rationale that without these products the world will not be able to feed itself.
Is this logic or simply bullshit? (no offence to a 'bull's shit')
With a reduction in earthworms means a reduction in humus available to the soil and if you consider that 1 square foot of humus can contain up to 7 gallons of water, and this has the potential to prevent soil erosion and regulate soil temperatures, then when topsoil is lost because of erosion or poor landscaping, both the water holding capacity and the nutrient relationships of the soil are adversely affected.
Healthy soil however, is a complex network of many things including humus, microorganisms, fungi, bacteria, nematodes, earthworms and small mammals. If you take away one, you inhibit the nutrients carried to the growing plants, thus they end up suffering from what is essentially malnutrition. You see, the plants are being fed by the microorganisms that support that particular plant, the friendly symbiotic microorganisms eat their enemies and feed it to the plants (liquid form) in return for the plants sap (sugar and amino acids). So you can see, if plants are left without their nutrient carriers and are forced to take up what is available from the soil, they inevitably become prone to disease and infection the same way we do when we consume mineral deficient foods. (Check out Paul Cheks 'Under the Veil of Deception' article for a more expansive view).
Now comes the issue when we have 90% of our food supply owned and run by predominately five large international companies (Dupont, Dow, Syngenta, Bayer and Monsanto) and have a rate of suicide amongst small scale farmers higher than ever before. Why? Because these big companies are producing crops at such large scale and selling for such a reduced price that small, independent organic farmers simply can't compete. I might be going off track here but, didn't the Romans do a similar thing every time they captured a country? by salting the fields of the farmers to promote dependance on them for their food and seeds. The same is happening today, huge companies own the seeds and food, what happens when you control the food? you have direct control over the people!
Now back on track; If you consider that 10-15 tons of earth or castings (poop) pass through the digestive system of a single earthworm each year to create and maintain our topsoil, of which provides the environment for humus to thrive and microorganisms to feed off, this ecosystem can only happen if the earthworms are not all dead from artificial fertiliser contamination… FYI; chemical based salt fertilisers, genetically modified crops and mono-croping is steadily killing the most important addition to our farms/soil!
You see those five big companies and many others that have a soul intention to only create profit will likely be utilising and pushing methods of farming that disrupt all biodiveristy above and below the ground and exhausting the soils ability to nourish the plants in order to promote fast yielding profits.
A three year field study of Italian cauliflower's demonstrated that the organically grown crop produced a higher content of ascorbic acid, polyphenols, carotenoids, volatiles, and antioxidant capacity, than the conventionally grown. Though what was most interesting coming from this review, was that during the third year both crops where affected by the lack of rainfall by producing less antioxidant activity and less of the potent anticancer glucosinolates. Despite these reductions, the organic cauliflowers still increased their ascorbic acid, polyphenols, and carotenoids upon comparison to the conventional ones. A big factor linking to this review and a shorter study done on tomatoes, is that many plants treated with synthetic fertilisers have shown to divert their energy towards growth rather than defence, thus producing less secondary metabolites.
That being said the literature is split between the soil scientists stating that the organic soil will produce more nutritious food and the "food" scientists/technologists believing that there is no difference between them. One thing that continues to pop up within the literature, is that each vegetable crop is uniquely different. Whilst some fruits or vegetables are affected by the type of crop management, some simply aren't, therefore producing results of no statical difference.
Well if you can't make up your mind wether one is more nutritious than the other, go ahead and experiment on yourself, taste test various foods, purchase a 'Brik Refractometer' and measure the sugar content and quality of two similar fruits (why does that matter?). Do your own research and find what works for you physiologically by measuring body temp and pulse daily to see if you're meeting your energy demands with organic or conventional foods. Or why not go a step further and simply order a round of hair tests to measure your mineral profiles to understand of any deficiencies or toxicity represented from the foods you eat. These both offer objective data about you and bypass any opinion or belief you may have.
The Clean 15 vs Dirty Dozen:
Fortunately not all vegetation is created and processed equally. For example and by design the below ground vegetables contain and produce (once threatened) anti-microbrial, solace and anti-fungal properties that aim to inhibit the digestion of organisms within the soil or simply prevent themselves from being eaten. Therefore do they require the same treatment and attention-to-chemical-detail as lets say lettuce, chard or a cauliflower that is grown above the ground and is thus exposed to threat from herbivores, pests and insects..?
Well as it happens, they too have come fully prepared (when in their raw state) to make sure no sensitive animal takes more than one bite out of their dry 'behind'. You see, the above ground veggies might know how to produce certain endogenous toxic chemicals (goitrogens, oleic acid) to alter the internal chemistry of a herbivorous deer, but when it comes to whiteflies, nematodes or a lonely grasshopper the poor watery lettuce hasn't got a chance of survival let alone "looking aesthetically pleasing for supermarkets". Thus the men in jump suites and their jet packs of sprays come marching in, distributing their neonicotinoid upon your food, the soil and anything that happens to be in the wrong
place at the wrong time.
So thats how the idea of the 'Clean 15 and the Dirty Dozen' blossomed and while offering consumers an understanding and awareness around what types of fruits and vegetation have been treated most heavily versus the types that have had minimal intervention and exposure to chemical residue. As it happens the Clean 15 that are regularly updated and listed are in fact the "cleanest" commercially produced crops/fruits that are likely to be safest for consumers to purchase non-orgaically. This way you're still giving the 'single parent of five' the option to make conscious, safer decisions, without fully committing to organic financially. On the other hand the listed 'Dirty Dozen' are foods recommended to avoid being consumed if grown commercially and to make a strong effort to buy organically without any synthetic sprays or fertilisers applied. This is due to their vulnerability from insects, herbivores, pests, fungus and along with their exposure to poorly nourished, thin layered soils and speedy profit driven farming practices (Check out the Clean 15 lists here).
Since 1946, the sharp increase and use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, improved crop varieties and industrial paradigms are credited with producing the high yields of the ‘green revolution’. Because organic agriculture avoids many of these new inputs it is assumed that it always results in lower yields.
The assumption that greater inputs of synthetic chemical fertilisers and pesticides are needed to increase food yields is not accurate. In a study published in The Living Land, Professor Pretty looked at projects in seven industrialised countries of Europe and North America. ‘Farmers are finding that they can cut their inputs of costly pesticides and fertilisers substantially, varying from 20-80%, and be financially better off. Yields do fall to begin with (by 10-15% typically), but there is compelling evidence that they soon rise and go on increasing. In the USA, for example, the top quarter sustainable agriculture farmers now have higher yields than conventional farmers, as well as a much lower negative impact on the environment and their own health‘ Pretty (1998b) Pretty (1998a).
Think intelligently, go visit both types of farms then decide if the applied chemicals are really bettering yours, the bees, the butterflies and the earthworms chance of creating a sustainable futuristic food supply and biodiversity.
Be Wise.
Beatle.
p.s. Organic doesn't have to mean its USDA certified or British soil association approved, just because someone doesn't have a certification it doesn't mean their all using chemical fertilisers on their food. I know many market sellers that produce wholesome "organic" food day-in-day-out just without the pricey certificate (support those small guys).
Questions to consider:
What about the soil?
By design the life cycle in nature begins with the microorganisms and hummus giving their lives service to the grassland and plants, the grass then delivers its service to the herbivore, the herbivore is then eaten by the carnivorous animal to then only give its life service back to the microorganisms and bacteria within the soil through decomposition and thus the cycle continues. Now that process is optimal and has been happening for probably well over a millennia in order to maintain a nourished foot or more of top soil and microbial balance within the below ground ecosystems.
I've seen numerous references stating that every gram of fertile soil can populate up to one billion bacteria and fungi. There are many different types of bacteria and fungis, most of these organisms are aerobic metabolisers, meaing that they require oxygen from the soil's atmosphere to optimally function. Though when we begin to congest the dirt by destroying its biodiversity and raping the soil of all its minerals through our conventional farming methods, you begin inhibiting optimal filtration and aeration creating somewhat of a hypoxic effect due to the lack of oxygen becoming available and exchanging of gases (despite the soils air containing huge concentrations of CO2 naturally).
By design the life cycle in nature begins with the microorganisms and hummus giving their lives service to the grassland and plants, the grass then delivers its service to the herbivore, the herbivore is then eaten by the carnivorous animal to then only give its life service back to the microorganisms and bacteria within the soil through decomposition and thus the cycle continues. Now that process is optimal and has been happening for probably well over a millennia in order to maintain a nourished foot or more of top soil and microbial balance within the below ground ecosystems.
Though it must be understood and appreciated that a plant or its fruit that comes from the soil cannot be healthier that the soil from which it was born- Kohnike
I've seen numerous references stating that every gram of fertile soil can populate up to one billion bacteria and fungi. There are many different types of bacteria and fungis, most of these organisms are aerobic metabolisers, meaing that they require oxygen from the soil's atmosphere to optimally function. Though when we begin to congest the dirt by destroying its biodiversity and raping the soil of all its minerals through our conventional farming methods, you begin inhibiting optimal filtration and aeration creating somewhat of a hypoxic effect due to the lack of oxygen becoming available and exchanging of gases (despite the soils air containing huge concentrations of CO2 naturally).
 |
| A perfectly woven society of organised chaos, that we need to learn to leave alone. |
The United States of America had lost 61% of its farmable topsoil by the year 1937- Rachel Carson
Healthy soil however, is a complex network of many things including humus, microorganisms, fungi, bacteria, nematodes, earthworms and small mammals. If you take away one, you inhibit the nutrients carried to the growing plants, thus they end up suffering from what is essentially malnutrition. You see, the plants are being fed by the microorganisms that support that particular plant, the friendly symbiotic microorganisms eat their enemies and feed it to the plants (liquid form) in return for the plants sap (sugar and amino acids). So you can see, if plants are left without their nutrient carriers and are forced to take up what is available from the soil, they inevitably become prone to disease and infection the same way we do when we consume mineral deficient foods. (Check out Paul Cheks 'Under the Veil of Deception' article for a more expansive view).
Now comes the issue when we have 90% of our food supply owned and run by predominately five large international companies (Dupont, Dow, Syngenta, Bayer and Monsanto) and have a rate of suicide amongst small scale farmers higher than ever before. Why? Because these big companies are producing crops at such large scale and selling for such a reduced price that small, independent organic farmers simply can't compete. I might be going off track here but, didn't the Romans do a similar thing every time they captured a country? by salting the fields of the farmers to promote dependance on them for their food and seeds. The same is happening today, huge companies own the seeds and food, what happens when you control the food? you have direct control over the people!
Now back on track; If you consider that 10-15 tons of earth or castings (poop) pass through the digestive system of a single earthworm each year to create and maintain our topsoil, of which provides the environment for humus to thrive and microorganisms to feed off, this ecosystem can only happen if the earthworms are not all dead from artificial fertiliser contamination… FYI; chemical based salt fertilisers, genetically modified crops and mono-croping is steadily killing the most important addition to our farms/soil!
You see those five big companies and many others that have a soul intention to only create profit will likely be utilising and pushing methods of farming that disrupt all biodiveristy above and below the ground and exhausting the soils ability to nourish the plants in order to promote fast yielding profits.
The soil is the foundation from where all plants receive their nutrition- Chek
Chemical exposures, should we care?
My very first visit to a commercial farm in North Devon was harvesting and planting wakefield cabbages and iceberg lettuce for Tesco (supermarket giant), this was the beginning of a very drastic change to the way I viewed food. My intention was not to observe their farming techniques and practices, I was initially drawn in and intrigued by the large amount of stored, unwashed cabbages there where just sitting in half a dozen trailers outside the fields. The farms across Devon are pretty open and 'easy to view' and with that I stood for about forty minutes watching these two quad bikes trek up and down 3-4 hectares of mono cropped cabbage land, openly spraying and applying insecticides to warn off cabbage worm and a form of herbicide to control any unwanted weeds.
Now that may sound fine to you and quite necessary to most reading this, especially if you're view is that in order to produce disease free, high yielding crops and enough food to feed our growing population that these technique are essential, but have you considered the very purpose of what food is meant to do or offer? and have you even looked at the stats? ...nope?
Back to the chemicals. Now i used to think there was a universal agreement and united gathering of common sense when discussing the exposures to harmful chemical residues and whether its 'safe' or quite simply neurotoxic. Well as it happens all those people that don't give a F@£k about what goes past there lips tend to think that a little DDT, NPA, chlorinated hydrocarbons, PCB and NPK salt fertilisers (that kill the earthworms) are not actually that harmful.
Well it actually all started kicking off 'mainstream' around the mid 1940's when some idiot discovered the use of DDT and parathion as chemical insecticides and herbicides. Now we have a brand of glyphosate derived insecticide leading the market that has been classified as a "probable carcinogen" by the World Health Organisation, despite being shown numerous times in humans and animals to promote the degeneration of the liver, breast, kidney, reproductives and pancreas, as well as the mitochondria. Though i could go on and this blog post would get quite lengthy for the average reader, I'm just going to share with you two or three very important links glyphosate and various other active compounds that are presenting the downfall in most peoples health status.
Firstly, a general mode of action of glyphosate is that it chelates (wraps them up and renders them useless) the soluble ions of many minerals including calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, nickel and zinc, which are essential cofactors in many specific biochemical reactions. Low magnesium has been shown to decrease production of the most important form of Vitamin D3, essential in bone development. Not only that glyphosate and chlorothalonil have shown to through their chelation of manganese, disrupt the synthesis of glutamine from glutamate, because the enzyme glutamine synthase depends on manganese as a catalyst.
Glyphosate can be expected to induce hypoxia (oxygen deprived) by interfering with haemoglobin synthesis and impaired manganese homeostasis can explain many features of the rising disorders in the human population, including autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, osteoporosis, and rheumatoid arthritis.
Secondly, Many pesticides, including chlorothalonil and glyphosate, have been shown to work synergistically to quickly damage vital biological processes in the cells of plants and animals (bees included). Glyphosate has been shown to be an endocrine disrupting hormone, able to induce growth of breast cancer tumor cells in concentrations of parts per trillion. This is well below the level usually studied in toxicology investigations and heavily links to the study done in Thailand where they found glyphosate mimicking the action of estrogen, and using the same molecular pathways as the natural hormone to promote proliferation of cancer stem cells. They also found that glyphosate had synergistic effects in enhancing breast cancer cell growth in combination with genistein, a common phytoestrogen
in soybean.
And Thirdly, Mitochondrial dysfunction aka energy failure. Yes it does occur through many mechanisms, Dr. Alex Vasquez and Stephanie Seneff are just two of many leading scientists sieving through the research and producing sound evidence that varying pathways associated with insecticide and pesticide exposure are linked to the inhibition of our cells to effectively respire and function optimally, thus injuring all energetically driven pathways.
Even under scientific and industrial scrutiny—organically raised foods are free from harmful chemical residues used and applied by commercial farmers (who of which are at great risk)! That alone makes them worth the extra money they may cost and the time they may take to acquire. There is a mass of new information emerging implicating environmental pollutants, farming chemicals and food additives as the source of degenerative diseases (see above) and why your getting fatter and dumber!
My very first visit to a commercial farm in North Devon was harvesting and planting wakefield cabbages and iceberg lettuce for Tesco (supermarket giant), this was the beginning of a very drastic change to the way I viewed food. My intention was not to observe their farming techniques and practices, I was initially drawn in and intrigued by the large amount of stored, unwashed cabbages there where just sitting in half a dozen trailers outside the fields. The farms across Devon are pretty open and 'easy to view' and with that I stood for about forty minutes watching these two quad bikes trek up and down 3-4 hectares of mono cropped cabbage land, openly spraying and applying insecticides to warn off cabbage worm and a form of herbicide to control any unwanted weeds.
Now that may sound fine to you and quite necessary to most reading this, especially if you're view is that in order to produce disease free, high yielding crops and enough food to feed our growing population that these technique are essential, but have you considered the very purpose of what food is meant to do or offer? and have you even looked at the stats? ...nope?
 |
| Tractors running their lines and protecting their wheat with chemical pesticides and herbicides. A little here and there, once in a while, isn't that bad, is it? |
Well it actually all started kicking off 'mainstream' around the mid 1940's when some idiot discovered the use of DDT and parathion as chemical insecticides and herbicides. Now we have a brand of glyphosate derived insecticide leading the market that has been classified as a "probable carcinogen" by the World Health Organisation, despite being shown numerous times in humans and animals to promote the degeneration of the liver, breast, kidney, reproductives and pancreas, as well as the mitochondria. Though i could go on and this blog post would get quite lengthy for the average reader, I'm just going to share with you two or three very important links glyphosate and various other active compounds that are presenting the downfall in most peoples health status.
Firstly, a general mode of action of glyphosate is that it chelates (wraps them up and renders them useless) the soluble ions of many minerals including calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, nickel and zinc, which are essential cofactors in many specific biochemical reactions. Low magnesium has been shown to decrease production of the most important form of Vitamin D3, essential in bone development. Not only that glyphosate and chlorothalonil have shown to through their chelation of manganese, disrupt the synthesis of glutamine from glutamate, because the enzyme glutamine synthase depends on manganese as a catalyst.
Glyphosate can be expected to induce hypoxia (oxygen deprived) by interfering with haemoglobin synthesis and impaired manganese homeostasis can explain many features of the rising disorders in the human population, including autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, osteoporosis, and rheumatoid arthritis.
Secondly, Many pesticides, including chlorothalonil and glyphosate, have been shown to work synergistically to quickly damage vital biological processes in the cells of plants and animals (bees included). Glyphosate has been shown to be an endocrine disrupting hormone, able to induce growth of breast cancer tumor cells in concentrations of parts per trillion. This is well below the level usually studied in toxicology investigations and heavily links to the study done in Thailand where they found glyphosate mimicking the action of estrogen, and using the same molecular pathways as the natural hormone to promote proliferation of cancer stem cells. They also found that glyphosate had synergistic effects in enhancing breast cancer cell growth in combination with genistein, a common phytoestrogen
 |
| Many tonnes of organic squash where harvested in late autumn from just two acres of land (Gloucester market). |
And Thirdly, Mitochondrial dysfunction aka energy failure. Yes it does occur through many mechanisms, Dr. Alex Vasquez and Stephanie Seneff are just two of many leading scientists sieving through the research and producing sound evidence that varying pathways associated with insecticide and pesticide exposure are linked to the inhibition of our cells to effectively respire and function optimally, thus injuring all energetically driven pathways.
Even under scientific and industrial scrutiny—organically raised foods are free from harmful chemical residues used and applied by commercial farmers (who of which are at great risk)! That alone makes them worth the extra money they may cost and the time they may take to acquire. There is a mass of new information emerging implicating environmental pollutants, farming chemicals and food additives as the source of degenerative diseases (see above) and why your getting fatter and dumber!
Nutritional value: Is there even a difference?
Organically raised foods are likely to be chewed on and targeted more often by bacteria, birds, insects and herbivores than their conventional counter parts, thus forcing them to produce more antioxidantion activity and phytonutrient compounds needed to warn off insects and pests.
Beyond the fact that the health benefits of organic foods are controversial, organic fruits and vegetables have lower nitrate content and pesticide residues, and their vitamin C and phenolic compounds are often higher by 20-40% than conventional ones. Some in vitro studies have compared health related properties of organic vs conventional foods, demonstrating higher anti oxidative and antimutagenic activity as well as better inhibition of cancer cell proliferation within organically grown food.
Organically raised foods are likely to be chewed on and targeted more often by bacteria, birds, insects and herbivores than their conventional counter parts, thus forcing them to produce more antioxidantion activity and phytonutrient compounds needed to warn off insects and pests.
Beyond the fact that the health benefits of organic foods are controversial, organic fruits and vegetables have lower nitrate content and pesticide residues, and their vitamin C and phenolic compounds are often higher by 20-40% than conventional ones. Some in vitro studies have compared health related properties of organic vs conventional foods, demonstrating higher anti oxidative and antimutagenic activity as well as better inhibition of cancer cell proliferation within organically grown food.
A three year field study of Italian cauliflower's demonstrated that the organically grown crop produced a higher content of ascorbic acid, polyphenols, carotenoids, volatiles, and antioxidant capacity, than the conventionally grown. Though what was most interesting coming from this review, was that during the third year both crops where affected by the lack of rainfall by producing less antioxidant activity and less of the potent anticancer glucosinolates. Despite these reductions, the organic cauliflowers still increased their ascorbic acid, polyphenols, and carotenoids upon comparison to the conventional ones. A big factor linking to this review and a shorter study done on tomatoes, is that many plants treated with synthetic fertilisers have shown to divert their energy towards growth rather than defence, thus producing less secondary metabolites.
 |
| From all the Nutritional Therapies and Healing modalities i've studied, they all seem to unify on at least one thing, the use of whole-organic real food to promote healing Why is that? |
Well if you can't make up your mind wether one is more nutritious than the other, go ahead and experiment on yourself, taste test various foods, purchase a 'Brik Refractometer' and measure the sugar content and quality of two similar fruits (why does that matter?). Do your own research and find what works for you physiologically by measuring body temp and pulse daily to see if you're meeting your energy demands with organic or conventional foods. Or why not go a step further and simply order a round of hair tests to measure your mineral profiles to understand of any deficiencies or toxicity represented from the foods you eat. These both offer objective data about you and bypass any opinion or belief you may have.
The Clean 15 vs Dirty Dozen:
Fortunately not all vegetation is created and processed equally. For example and by design the below ground vegetables contain and produce (once threatened) anti-microbrial, solace and anti-fungal properties that aim to inhibit the digestion of organisms within the soil or simply prevent themselves from being eaten. Therefore do they require the same treatment and attention-to-chemical-detail as lets say lettuce, chard or a cauliflower that is grown above the ground and is thus exposed to threat from herbivores, pests and insects..?
Well as it happens, they too have come fully prepared (when in their raw state) to make sure no sensitive animal takes more than one bite out of their dry 'behind'. You see, the above ground veggies might know how to produce certain endogenous toxic chemicals (goitrogens, oleic acid) to alter the internal chemistry of a herbivorous deer, but when it comes to whiteflies, nematodes or a lonely grasshopper the poor watery lettuce hasn't got a chance of survival let alone "looking aesthetically pleasing for supermarkets". Thus the men in jump suites and their jet packs of sprays come marching in, distributing their neonicotinoid upon your food, the soil and anything that happens to be in the wrong
 |
| Despite coffee serving hundreds of millions every day, its a debated subject. With its huge waste mass from modern agricultural techniques polluting vulnérable ecosystems and water supplies, the intense use of fertilisers, Roundup and insecticides probably isn't helping matters. |
So thats how the idea of the 'Clean 15 and the Dirty Dozen' blossomed and while offering consumers an understanding and awareness around what types of fruits and vegetation have been treated most heavily versus the types that have had minimal intervention and exposure to chemical residue. As it happens the Clean 15 that are regularly updated and listed are in fact the "cleanest" commercially produced crops/fruits that are likely to be safest for consumers to purchase non-orgaically. This way you're still giving the 'single parent of five' the option to make conscious, safer decisions, without fully committing to organic financially. On the other hand the listed 'Dirty Dozen' are foods recommended to avoid being consumed if grown commercially and to make a strong effort to buy organically without any synthetic sprays or fertilisers applied. This is due to their vulnerability from insects, herbivores, pests, fungus and along with their exposure to poorly nourished, thin layered soils and speedy profit driven farming practices (Check out the Clean 15 lists here).
Which method produces more food?
In this first decade of the 21st century, many farmers around the world are facing a great economic crisis of low commodity prices. These low prices are due to oversupply. The laws of supply and demand, in current economic theories, show that prices decrease when supply is greater than demand.
In this first decade of the 21st century, many farmers around the world are facing a great economic crisis of low commodity prices. These low prices are due to oversupply. The laws of supply and demand, in current economic theories, show that prices decrease when supply is greater than demand.
Professor Jules Pretty the Director of the Centre for Environment and Society at the University of Essex in the UK wrote: "Recent evidence from 20 countries has found more than 2 million families farming sustainably on more than 4-5 million hectares. This is no longer marginal. It cannot be ignored. What is remarkable is not so much the numbers, but that most of this has happened in the past 5-10 years. Moreover, many of the improvements are occurring in remote and resource-poor areas that had been assumed to be incapable of producing food surpluses."-1998.
More recently if you've tuned into the BBC's documentation of Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's look into "Britain's Waste", you'd see that at this current moment in time we are producing above ground and below ground vegetables far beyond the amount needed and with a large percentage of the crops grown not even being sold to humans. Supermarkets have a big say in what they sell to the population and if the crops aren't symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing, then they are simply not sold, therefore the farmer is now at a loss! I recommend you have a watch or just a visit to a British farm and see for yourself the amount of vegetation being mined out of our soils and not being distributed fairly.
Now instead of me regurgitating the stats, here are just a few from a 2010 paper; 'Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World'.
- 223,000 farmers in southern Brazil using green manures and cover crops of legumes and livestock integration have doubled yields of maize and wheat to 4-5 tons/ha.
- 45,000 farmers in Guatemala and Honduras used regenerative technologies to triple maize yields to 2-2.5 tons/ha and diversify their upland farms, which has led to local economic growth that has in turn encouraged re-migration back from the cities;
- 200,000 farmers across Kenya as part of sustainable agriculture programs have more than doubled their maize yields to about 2.5 to 3.3 t/ha and substantially improved vegetable production through the dry seasons;
- 100,000 small coffee farmers in Mexico have adopted fully organic production methods, and increased yields by half;
- Approximately a million wetland rice farmers in Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and in Vietnam have shifted to sustainable agriculture, where group-based farmer-field schools have enabled farmers to learn alternatives to pesticides increased their yields by about 10%.
- A more recent October 2015 literature review coming out of Europe stated; that yields of organic fruit and vegetable farming systems can reach on average 89–102% of conventional yields.
Since 1946, the sharp increase and use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, improved crop varieties and industrial paradigms are credited with producing the high yields of the ‘green revolution’. Because organic agriculture avoids many of these new inputs it is assumed that it always results in lower yields.
The assumption that greater inputs of synthetic chemical fertilisers and pesticides are needed to increase food yields is not accurate. In a study published in The Living Land, Professor Pretty looked at projects in seven industrialised countries of Europe and North America. ‘Farmers are finding that they can cut their inputs of costly pesticides and fertilisers substantially, varying from 20-80%, and be financially better off. Yields do fall to begin with (by 10-15% typically), but there is compelling evidence that they soon rise and go on increasing. In the USA, for example, the top quarter sustainable agriculture farmers now have higher yields than conventional farmers, as well as a much lower negative impact on the environment and their own health‘ Pretty (1998b) Pretty (1998a).
Think intelligently, go visit both types of farms then decide if the applied chemicals are really bettering yours, the bees, the butterflies and the earthworms chance of creating a sustainable futuristic food supply and biodiversity.
Be Wise.
Beatle.
p.s. Organic doesn't have to mean its USDA certified or British soil association approved, just because someone doesn't have a certification it doesn't mean their all using chemical fertilisers on their food. I know many market sellers that produce wholesome "organic" food day-in-day-out just without the pricey certificate (support those small guys).
Questions to consider:
- Is non-organic wine really that beneficial and safe?
- Is your coffee needs negatively impacting vulnerable ecosystems?
- Do pharmaceuticals and agricultural sprays have similar environmental effects?
No comments:
Post a Comment