Organic or not organic, that is the question.

[InsaneApache]

Just read a report from the FSA that states that organic food is no more better for you than factory farming produce.

Organic food is no healthier than other produce, according to the Government’s food watchdog.

The largest ever review into the science behind organic food found that it contained no more nutritional value than factory-farmed meat or fruit and vegetables grown using chemical fertilisers. The findings challenge popular assumptions about the organic industry, worth £2 billion in the UK. Consumer groups said that shoppers may now think twice before buying organic.

The report, commissioned by the Food Standards Agency, was carried out by experts from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who studied data collected over 50 years.

Organic groups were incensed by the findings. The Soil Association accused the FSA of ignoring up-to-date evidence and pre-empting EU research for political reasons. Lord Melchett, its policy director, said that he had urged the FSA to delay its report. “They have jumped the gun,” he said.

The FSA researchers were led by by a public health nutritionist, Dr Alan Dangour. They found that there was no significant benefit from drinking milk or eating meat, vegetables, fruit, poultry and eggs from organic sources, as opposed to the products of conventional farm systems.

Pro-organic groups criticised the findings of the year-long review, which cost £120,000. They said that the conclusions, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, failed to take into account the impact of pesticides and herbicides. Organic farming bans artificial chemical fertilisers and has stricter animal welfare rules than conventional farming.

Dr Dangour said that, as a nutritionist, he was not qualified to look at pesticides. “There is a possibility that organic food has less pesticide residues, but this was not part of the review,” he said. “Potentially this may be an area for further research.”

He added: “A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance.

“Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced crops and livestock on the basis of nutritional supremacy.”

Among the differences identified by the study was a higher phosphorous content in organic food. Dr Dangour said: “Phosphorus is an important mineral and is available in everything we eat. It is important for public health but the difference in the content between organic and conventional foods was not statistically relevant in terms of health.”

He added: “Acidity is also higher in organic produce but acidity is about taste and sensory perception and makes no difference at all for health.”

Nitrogen levels were found to be higher in conventional produce, but this was not surprising given the use of nitrogen as a fertiliser in commercial agriculture. But the levels posed no better or worse impacts on human health, the research said.

A study of 52,000 papers was made, but only 162 scientific papers published between January 1958 and February last year were deemed relevant, of which just 55 met the strict quality criteria for the study, Dr Dangour said.

Twenty-three nutrients were analysed. In 20 categories there were no significant differences between production methods and the nutrient content. The differences detected were most likely to have been due to differences in fertiliser use and ripeness at harvest, and were unlikely to provide any health benefits.

The Soil Association challenged the conclusions that some nutritional differences between organic and conventional food were not important. It said it was particularly concerned that the researchers dismissed higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic food — such as 53.6 higher levels of beta-carotene and 38.4 per cent more flavonoids in organic foods — according to the mean percentage difference of samples analysed.

Dr Dangour was adamant that these were not relevant because of the level of standard error in the research — which was 37 per cent for beta-carotene and 10.6 per cent for flavonoids.

The authors said in their conclusion: “No evidence of a difference in content of nutrients and other substances between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products was detected for the majority of nutrient assessed in this review, suggesting that organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are broadly comparable in their nutrient content.”

Gill Fine, the FSA’s director of consumer choice, said: “This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.”

In reaching their conclusions, the report's authors were accused of pre-empting a Brussels study being carried out by Carlo Leifert, Professor of Ecological Farming at Newcastle University, which is due to be published this year.

Professor Leifert told The Times that his research found higher level of antioxidants — which help the body to combat cancer and cardiovascular disease — in organic foods. He said that the FSA did not want to admit that there was anything good in organic food. “The Government is worried they will then have to have a policy to make organic food available to everyone,” he said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6732520.ece

In the words of Mandy Rice Davies, they would say that wouldn't they? I've eaten a lot of organic food, usually because I'm cooking something special. It does taste better, more like the stuff I ate when I was a kid. I've always had a feeling though that I was being ripped off. Seems like my gut instinct was right.

So is it a rip off or is it a 'lifestyle' choice? (I love that word :smash:)

[Idaho]

I support organic production because it is a more sustainable way of growing food. I have never thought that the food itself was better for you. The goal is to produce food without the need to sterilise and poison the environment.

It is irrelevant whether organically grown food is better for you. What is relevant is the diversity of animal life around organic farms, the levels of pesticide and fertilizer pollution in surrounding water courses, algae blooms, soil quality, etc.

[HoreTore]

The point with organic food has never been quality or that it's better for you.

It's because of pollution and sustainable growth.

[Idaho]

As ever the press take a story and try and get a faux outraged editorial angle. I wonder if it would be possible to have a media that just presented the facts without this need to editorialise all content?

[Fragony]

It's certainly isn't any less healthy and the taste is much better. But yeah it's a ripoff, if you want cheap organic food go to the Turk, excellent quality for only a fraction of what you pay at the supermarket/carrotmuncher, and they won't let you leave until you have tried every Turkish speciality in the universe and surroundings. So much sugar it's madness.

edit: sustainable no, organic products need 4 times the amount of space required for non-organic, and because it grows slower much more water. If you eat it because you care for the enviroment you are doing it all wrong.

[Sarmatian]

Did I miss it or was the point The largest ever review into the science behind organic food found that it contained no more nutritional value?

It doesn't mention health, just nutritional value. The guy in charge is a nutritionist.

[rory_20_uk]

I imagining being able to show that the food was making a statistical difference to their health would be all impossible will all the other variables that exist.

~:smoking:

[Marshal Murat]

I don't try for organic food just because it is "more nutritional". If I wanted alot of nutrition, I'd buy 500 vitamins, mix them into a paste, and then spread that over my Big Mac.

1. Organic food is usually more locally grown, reducing the carbon footprint required for me to get some food.

2. Organic food is also less likely to contain preservatives, chemicals, fertilizers, etc. that builds up in your body or those that may give off carcinogens. Organic food is usually easier on the system as a whole, since it's all alot more natural and more naturally broken down than a Twinkie or Cheetos (which are made of corn).

3. Organic food, because it has less of the aforementioned also reduces the run-off of fertilizer that helps spawn "dead zones" at river mouths or contribute to algae blooms.

4. It's usually pretty tasty.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't try for organic food just because it is "more nutritional". If I wanted alot of nutrition, I'd buy 500 vitamins, mix them into a paste, and then spread that over my Big Mac.

1. Organic food is usually more locally grown, reducing the carbon footprint required for me to get some food.

2. Organic food is also less likely to contain preservatives, chemicals, fertilizers, etc. that builds up in your body or those that may give off carcinogens. Organic food is usually easier on the system as a whole, since it's all alot more natural and more naturally broken down than a Twinkie or Cheetos (which are made of corn).

3. Organic food, because it has less of the aforementioned also reduces the run-off of fertilizer that helps spawn "dead zones" at river mouths or contribute to algae blooms.

4. It's usually pretty tasty.

1) It can be, but I think in the UK we still import a lot of it.

2) Ah the use of the word "chemical". Sorry to break it to you, but organic foods contain a lot of chemicals too... :wall: Carcinogens are also found in nature. Try some mouldy peanuts - and hope the mould didn't contain aflotoxin which is HIGHLY carcinogenic; ditto mouldy grain. Some decent pesticide would have killed this. Naturally broken down? What are you on about? unless you're referring to chlorinated sugars and the like a given sugar is broken down whether natural or processed.

3) Possibly true, but good old "organic" silage can destroy a river just as quickly as it too is very high in nitrogen.

Organic food requires massively more land for agriculture
Organic food has a far higher rate of wastage due to pests
Organic food can contain pathogens from the organic fertiliser or toxins which although rare are generally far more poisonous than pesticides

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

No Duh. The "Organic" bandwagon has been one of the most successfull business schemes in the food industry since the slicing of bread scheme. Of course it is BS - they figured out how to make a luxury food market appeal to the middle class. I'd imagine that the jig is up lately, though.

[Marshal Murat]

Sorry to break it to you, but organic foods contain a lot of chemicals too... Organic farmers use fewer pesticides than "latifundia" farmers and use different farming methods that help reduce the number of artificial (DDT and the like) chemicals being added to food before it's processed.


Try some mouldy peanuts - and hope the mould didn't contain aflotoxin which is HIGHLY carcinogenic; ditto mouldy grain. How about we try some bitter almonds? That's got cyanide! No one eats mouldy peanuts, grains, dairy, so it's really pointless to say that they have toxins or carcinogens, because I'm not eating it and it probably won't enter my system.


Naturally broken down? What are you on about? unless you're referring to chlorinated sugars and the like a given sugar is broken down whether natural or processed. Processed foods are by definition modified from original content. Twinkies, Cheetos, etc. are all made from processed corn, which not only increases the dangers of obesity and diabetes but is also alot more complex than grains (corn can pass through your system without being fully digested).



3) Possibly true, but good old "organic" silage can destroy a river just as quickly as it too is very high in nitrogen.
If you dump too much of anything into a river, problems will occur. To say that organic silage is just as dangerous as artificial fertilizers, however, is bordering on the preposterous.



Organic food requires massively more land for agriculture
Organic food has a far higher rate of wastage due to pests
Organic food can contain pathogens from the organic fertiliser or toxins, which, although rare are generally far more poisonous than pesticides

What a broad statement.
Higher wastage I can see, but if the farmers are smart about it they don't have to waste as much, nor foster the creation of insects that can aren't affected by current pesticides.
The "organic toxin" argument sounds like an argument against marriage because your child might get hemophilia.

Organic farming is more natural and more beneficial, less a danger to me and the environment.
:beam:
(P.S., Smoking kills and causes cancer).

[Xiahou]

Organic food requires massively more land for agriculture
Organic food has a far higher rate of wastage due to pests
Organic food can contain pathogens from the organic fertiliser or toxins which although rare are generally far more poisonous than pesticidesIndeed. That's why I have to :inquisitive: whenever organic food pushers start talking about it being so great because it's "sustainable". What does that even mean? Try growing enough organic food to support the world's population. See how "sustainable" that is.

Organic food is just another marketing strategy for the well-off to feel better about themselves while taking their money.

[rory_20_uk]

Organic farmers use fewer pesticides than "latifundia" farmers and use different farming methods that help reduce the number of artificial (DDT and the like) chemicals being added to food before it's processed.

How about we try some bitter almonds? That's got cyanide! No one eats mouldy peanuts, grains, dairy, so it's really pointless to say that they have toxins or carcinogens, because I'm not eating it and it probably won't enter my system.

Processed foods are by definition modified from original content. Twinkies, Cheetos, etc. are all made from processed corn, which not only increases the dangers of obesity and diabetes but is also alot more complex than grains (corn can pass through your system without being fully digested).

If you dump too much of anything into a river, problems will occur. To say that organic silage is just as dangerous as artificial fertilizers, however, is bordering on the preposterous.


What a broad statement.
Higher wastage I can see, but if the farmers are smart about it they don't have to waste as much, nor foster the creation of insects that can aren't affected by current pesticides.
The "organic toxin" argument sounds like an argument against marriage because your child might get hemophilia.

Organic farming is more natural and more beneficial, less a danger to me and the environment.
:beam:
(P.S., Smoking kills and causes cancer).


No one eats mouldy dairy, eh? Ever heard of cheese? And such a sweeping statement all over the world. People do die of liver cancer in countries such as Brazil from peanuts.

If you are masses of sugar cane you'd also get diabetes! What a facite argument
Corn is cellulose. We can't digest it. Glycogen is just as complicated, but we have the correct enzymes. not a Biology major, eh?

Bordering on the preposterous? After reading your comments on corn digestion you'll excuse me if I ignore this.

And if you are again unaware of the parasites that exist in nature that are killed by pesticides I can't be bothered to correct you - especially if you link their prevalence to haemophilia...


"Organic farming is more natural and more beneficial, less a danger to me and the environment." Ah, your comments are free standing and self evident, eh? :laugh4:

~:smoking:

[Marshal Murat]

not a Biology major, eh? - What gave it away? :laugh4:


Ever heard of cheese? - I stand corrected.


People do die of liver cancer in countries such as Brazil from peanuts. People die from heart disease after eating food that's bad for them. Besides, Brazil has bigger problems with guns and gang violence than liver cancer.


Bordering on the preposterous? After reading your comments on corn digestion you'll excuse me if I ignore this.
Ignorance is bliss.



And if you are again unaware of the parasites that exist in nature that are killed by pesticides I can't be bothered to correct you If these parasites are soooo prevalent and dangerous, then how did anyone bother to farm them in the first place? We've done without pesticides before. The Greeks, Chinese, and Bantu, they didn't have hundreds of artificial/lab created fertilizers, so just how did they survive?


Ah, your comments are free standing and self evident, eh?
No more than yours, don't worry about. We've all been wrong before.


What does that even mean?
Sustainable Farming. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_farming)
If the Soviets practiced sustainable farming in the Aral Sea region, they wouldn't have drought, famine, and a lake that used to be a sea.

Don't confuse Vegan-crazy nuts or soy-milk drinkers with people who are responsible about their food choices.

[Hosakawa Tito]

If these parasites are soooo prevalent and dangerous, then how did anyone bother to farm them in the first place? We've done without pesticides before. The Greeks, Chinese, and Bantu, they didn't have hundreds of artificial/lab created fertilizers, so just how did they survive?

Periodically many didn't survive due to famine caused by weather, plant diseases, and insect depredation. I know from what I've experienced with my garden, fruit trees, and the 50 acres of vineyards I own and lease out...without the insecticides/fungicides/fertilizers there'd be a whole let less food available and the supplies from year to year would vary quite a bit.

There has to be a happy medium struck between the more organic method & Big Food corporate farming. The "Organic Label" is a marketing ploy by Big Food to charge more money. Like Big Tobacco, they employ thousands of food lab scientists to come up with combinations of corn syrup/fats/salt/preservatives that taste good in highly processed food products that trigger people's brains to over-eat *bet you can't eat one*. The more you eat, the more they sell, the more $$$ they make.
Highly processed foods are cheaper than the "healthy alternatives" *anyone who food shops can attest to that*, more convenient, etc... so naturally the vast majority opt for them. Taking on Big Food will be the next step toward better overall health, as taking on Big Tobacco was over the last 50 years.

[Idaho]

Try growing enough organic food to support the world's population. See how "sustainable" that is.

We could fairly easily - we would just have to eat a little less meat.

[Beirut]

I don't know why, and I don't know how, but organic cereal stays crunchy in milk longer and it tastes good.

I only eat organic cereal.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The point with organic food has never been quality or that it's better for you.



That's BS, greater nutritional value has been touted as one of the main reasons to eat organic for a long time. People have a blind spot for claims like that--if they want to believe it they won't look at the evidence.


Professor Leifert told The Times that his research found higher level of antioxidants — which help the body to combat cancer and cardiovascular disease — in organic foods. He said that the FSA did not want to admit that there was anything good in organic food.

Professor Leifert is a quack, antioxidants are another thing that people babble about the benefits of without knowing much about it. Not that I do either--but as I recall, no one is sure what amounts of what antioxidants the body needs, it's not been clearly shown that they prevent diseases, and there isn't generally a need to go out of your way to get extra antioxidants. Interestingly, antioxidants are often added to foods as one of the dreaded "preservatives" :yes:

[Samurai Waki]

I go by this general rule, the good die young, and the wicked live forever.

[FactionHeir]

I don't know why, and I don't know how, but organic cereal stays crunchy in milk longer and it tastes good.

I only eat organic cereal.

Question is, if I sold you a pack of organic high quality locally grown cereal at a higher price than your organics, would you also find that it stays crunchy longer and tastes better solely based on the fact what I marketed to you? I could then tell you afterwards it was just your average processed cereal.

This kind of research has been done before and people tend to feel better about food if they know about its benefits (which may not be existent) and paid more.

[Beirut]

Question is, if I sold you a pack of organic high quality locally grown cereal at a higher price than your organics, would you also find that it stays crunchy longer and tastes better solely based on the fact what I marketed to you? I could then tell you afterwards it was just your average processed cereal.

This kind of research has been done before and people tend to feel better about food if they know about its benefits (which may not be existent) and paid more.

Are you trying to push my buttons? Well, are you?!? :furious3:

But in answer to your question, no. I would not say your cereal was better simply because you marketed it to me in a fashion meant to influence my perception of the product. First off, I am a very experienced and critical food shopper. I love doing groceries and comparing ingredients and weights and prices and marketing tactics. Second, I'm a cereal expert, baby. Once the flakes hit the bowl, nothing you say or have said concerning their alledged in-milk performance will amount to a hill of beans. My spoon and my taste buds trump your marketing shennanigans.

When we shop for groceries I play games with the kids to have them understand the reason why packaging looks the way it does. I do the same with TV commercials. I grill the kids and make them disassemble the commecial piece by piece to understand the tricks they are using to influence us.

"...and sweetie, why do you think they put a dinosaur on the box of cereal? Is it because dinosaurs like cereal?"

"No, it's because kids like dinosaurs, so they make the box look like fun so I will buy it and they can get my money."

I am a marketers worst nightmare. :evilgrin:

[HoreTore]

I am a marketers worst nightmare. :evilgrin:

Hooray!!

Have I found a new ally for my jihad on marketing? :smash:



That's BS, greater nutritional value has been touted as one of the main reasons to eat organic for a long time. People have a blind spot for claims like that--if they want to believe it they won't look at the evidence.


By the fashion hippies yes. But I never thought anyone listened to what they said, so....

[seireikhaan]

By the fashion hippies yes. But I never thought anyone listened to what they said, so....
People have long been obsessed with living "healthier, longer" lives. Look at some of the nightmarish "health" products released in the very early 1900's. Heck, look at the First Emperor of China 2,200 years ago. A man drank mercury because he thought it would make him immortal. :sweatdrop:

[Fragony]

Screw the health/enviroment argument, it just tastes better. Fruits and vegetables you get at the supermarket are just waterbombs, bleh. And these oranges are too orange. I don't taste the difference between organic and normal meat but I think if we are going to eat something we could at least have the courtesy to treat it well. When I still lived on the countryside we bought meat straight from the farmer and his cows were in animal-paradise until they were butchered heh.

[Lemur]

For a good example, take a look at tomatoes. If you take the standardized tomato and grow it normally, it tastes like cardboard. If you grow it organically, it tastes like cardboard. That's because growers settled on a very red, very hardy tomato that can handle rough treatment and long truck trips.

But in fact there are 7,500 varieties of tomatoes, and if you grow one that's meant to be, you know, eaten, rather than one cultivated to look red and take abuse, you'll taste a huge difference.

I think there's an over-emphasis on what is or isn't organic, and not enough attention paid to different varieties of fruits and veggies.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I suggest people watch the "Penn and Teller: :daisy:!" episode on organic food that just aired recently. It pretty much destroyed all the arguments organic food has going for it.

[Xiahou]

I suggest people watch the "Penn and Teller: :daisy:!" episode on organic food that just aired recently. It pretty much destroyed all the arguments organic food has going for it.

"the dietary equivalent of the Toyota Prius" :laugh4:
Great line, but at least the Prius actually gets better mileage. Organic food... well its basically just more expensive.


I think there's an over-emphasis on what is or isn't organic, and not enough attention paid to different varieties of fruits and veggies.That's because there's a lot of money to be made in making people think they're saving the planet and themselves by overpaying for groceries. Organic foods have a great marketing campaign. :yes:

[a completely inoffensive name]

"the dietary equivalent of the Toyota Prius" :laugh4:
Great line, but at least the Prius actually gets better mileage. Organic food... well its basically just more expensive.


My favorite part was when he goes over the test results and mentions along the lines of: "The vast majority was tricked by a ******* banana!" I had a RL lol moment.

EDIT: So this will make sense to those who have not watched it yet: They did a trick study where they cut a non organic banana in half and claimed that one half of it was organic and the other was non organic. They asked people after they tasted both (ends of the same non organic banana which they didn't know was from the same banana) if the organic or non-organic tasted better and people kept choosing the organic half.

[Strike For The South]

Organic foods are a racket. If we all grew organic the same people here complaining that the way we grow food isn't sustainable would be complaining that poor people are going hungry. Growers don't use pesticide and chemicals because they are evil, they do it to meet demand.

[Beskar]

Organic argument boils down to this:

Which is better? The way things are, or the things that are improved/man-made?

It is like boycotting Nylon as unhealthy because it wasn't shaved off a sheeps back.

[Lemur]

I suggest people watch the "Penn and Teller: :daisy:!" episode on organic food that just aired recently. It pretty much destroyed all the arguments organic food has going for it.
Hmm, the Penn and Teller show did a good job, but it was far from perfect. Of the two organic debunkers they featured, one was an editor at Reason magazine, a "libertarian" (and yet almost always Republican in effect) magazine with many, many axes to grind. I find it hard to believe the P&T couldn't find a more respectable, less partisan source.

Likewise, they didn't seem to sweat very hard finding organic supporters. The hippie couple was very, very funny, but chosen to alienate normal folks. No talks with Alice Waters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Waters), not a single nutritionist, just a creepy 100-year-old man who advocates organic food.

Yeah, actually, looking back at the episode, their sourcing was sub-par. Way sub-par. They did not make the effort to find and interview truly impressive advocates or opponents.

The market tests were very funny, though.

[Marshal Murat]

Which is better? The way things are, or the things that are improved/man-made?

Talk about a loaded question.

[Jolt]

I don't try for organic food just because it is "more nutritional". If I wanted alot of nutrition, I'd buy 500 vitamins, mix them into a paste, and then spread that over my Big Mac.

You would be in for a big surprise. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis)

[MerlinusCDXX]

Yeah, I know that the "organic" marketing scheme is a racket, but I'll kindly ask you all to stop letting the cat out of the bag because my wife works at a "natural foods market" :laugh4:. That said, though, I find that locally owned and operated stores that do a substantial amount of business in "organics" sales usually have some good locally grown stuff, and carry some "heirloom" varieties of common supermarket produce, which taste like they are meant to be eaten instead of shipped. The markup these places make on "organics" give them the purchasing power to get their hands on some of the more rare items that you may not find in the average American supermarket. So, even though the organic standards at the moment are a bit of a scam, the markup realized from them does benefit smaller businesses to an extent (like the co-op my wife works at). That is, until Whole Foods (the Wal-Mart of the organic grocery business) comes to our town and takes most of the co-op's business.

[Riedquat]

One thing is the propaganda and marketing about organic food and other totally different is the organic grow of that food, if we talk about nutritive substance it's always the same. The whole difference between intensive exploitation and organic one is the final product, and its not the food but the earth itself.

I worked 3 years in an organic farm, so I'm feeling a bit entitled to speak of the matter. In agriculture you have two big branches: intensive and extensive, extensive has been associated with the concept of low efficiency and intensive as high efficiency. There is no discussion about which is better when talking about production and profitability, intensive is.

But lets talk about the cost of natural resources in the long run, while intensive brings lots of production and efficiency it loose the more natural resources in the long run, call them water, soil nutrients and soil itself.

Extensive agriculture, far from being efficient about production is a bit more conservative of natural resources and organic agriculture is a step closer to be more conservative, compensating the low profitability and low production with marketing.

Leading the world food production to be organic or at some extent extensive is against all logic, being it in favor of the environment or not, there is no way to feed the masses with only this kind of production, so why and where start doing this kind of exploitation is only decided for the market. If there is enough marketing and a established demand of these products and/or additional support from economical legislation (subsides) and/or the soil you have won't be tolerating an intensive production for more than 3 or 4 seasons, its a good option.

The farm I worked on, had the worst soil you could imagine, better to put a brick factory there than organic cultivation but at that time the state granted subsides for every exploitation with the words organic in it :thumbsdown: , and the state never controlled what production we had, nor the quality.
We survived more from the subside than from the production.

[InsaneApache]

Thanks for that insight.

[Taohn]

Just to expand on Riedquat's point on intensive and extensive agriculture, here's an excellent discussion of industrial agriculture and agricultural science by an American writer, Wendell Berry. It's about an hour long, but well worth listening to, as are the other episodes in the series. One of his main points is that industrial agriculture, in its intensity and widespread application, represents the opposite of local adaptation and has led to serious ecological and social results. You can't call him a friend of industrial agriculture (his main concern is that agriculture should be healthful to individual and community first and foremost), but I think he approaches the topic with consideration and level-headedness.


http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html#episode8