It is interesting to compare this blinkered ideological rant
(masquerading as an exercise in "objectivity") to todays posting re the "success" of the "green revolution" in the Punjab.

Meanwhile I much prefer the vision of sustainable farming and food production, and human scale, Small is Beautiful culture promoted via these websites

1. http://www.seedsofchange.com/cutting_edge/ground_breaking.asp

2. http://www.orionmagazine.org

Plus why the animus against Rudolf Steiner and biodynamic gardening/farming?

Steiner was a polymath genius whose work is now just beginning to be appreciated. His work was/is unacceptable to mainstream reductionist scientism and their so called "objectivity". The blinkered "objectivity" that Fred Hansen promotes.

As a matter of interest the readers of this forum might like to Google the topic Rudolf Steiner on BEES. A work which provides an interesting perspective on bees, and which PREDICTED the current bee crisis.
Of course all the hard-edged "realists" will dismiss it as poppy-cock.

Altogether Hansens essay is just a display of his own benighted bad faith.

Fred only needed to debunk global warming and pollution as an invention of the luny/lefty/pinko/get a real job/get a hair cut, mob to clean up

Interesting that neither of the first two commentators actually dealt with any of the issues raised. Just smearing is not an adequate response to Dr Hansen's arguments.

These commenters are just staking out pseudo-religious no-go areas.

A good article, but obviously not one that will be acceptable to the trendies who jump on every faddish band wagon that passes by.

Like free-range eggs, a flat earth, and CO2's effect on climate, 'organic' food is just another one for the suckers.

The reason I never used to buy organic (surely, by definition, all food actually is "organic")was that I couldn't afford it. Our local so-called Health Food outlets would feature racks and racks of wizened looking avos, or spotty tomatoes, or mangoes with black spots at up to three times the price of local fruit & veg. outlets. It was never an option.

Here in China I buy at the local markets because the produce is grown in the fields around me so I can actually watch it grow and it is fresh daily - unlike supermarkets where one suspects stuff is stored until it no longer looks wholesome. I have also grown whatever I can, depending upon where I happen to live. Of course this means cooking seasonally (not using "forced" or imported products but sticking to what can actually be bought fresh daily) which I've always done.

We have quite a few farmers on this forum - I would really hope that some of them will post on this thread to put the case from a more informed point of view. Like most people I am interested in hearing the pro's and cons of this debate about which I know very little.

The author's links to the rightwing think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, need to be noted from the outset. As does his unqualified support of nuclear power and GM food, and his scepticism of well accepted climate change concepts such as food miles and carbon footprints. Some of IPA's sponsors by the way include BHP-Billiton, Western Mining, Monsanto, Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, Caltex, Esso, Shell, Woodside Petroleum and Gunns.

I don't buy organic from Coles or Woolworths. I don't trust them, plus for me the food miles and the time in storage negate the value of paying their inflated prices. Fortunately, I live close to a fantastic natural food store which sources its organic produce locally and stocks a wide range of organic and natural food at reasonable prices.

I've seen the benefits in my own health and read and observed the same in so many others that I'm convinced that this is the best way to eat. I've also experienced firsthand the benefits of homeopathy and naturopathy and, while I'm not browbeating others, I know these treatments have worked for me and I intend to continue using them as a first resort over conventional medicine.

History is littered with the mistakes of science - thalidomide, asbestos and the atomic bomb, to name but a few. It's far too early for anyone to say that GM foods are safe - the long term ramifications on health will not be easily measured, the effects will be slow and insidious and take decades to surface properly. Science has made our lives easier in many ways, but for every scientific advance there is invariably a cost, global warming being the ultimate one. Certainly, when it comes to food, I prefer natural over processed and organic over conventional as much as possible.

Romany,

You are actually buying fresh food in China.

What about the human waste used by Chinese farmers to fertilise their produce?

My wife was in China recently, and had the use of both solid and liquid human waste confirmed by her guide.

MrRight.
I'm sure it happens here as in other first world countries. As I said, however, I am surrounded by the fields in which our produce grows and pass through them daily - believe me, if such methods were being used the entire university and surrounds would go out on a hunger strike!

On the subject of waste, however, did you know that the worlds largest cow dung methane plant is here in China? The energy generated from it daily generates 30,000kwt hours of power and in fact is the sole energy source for the entire area?

Bronwyn, your last paragraph says volumes, not to mention glass fibres being used in all the insulation materials for air con/roof batts etc. The nouveau asbestos in years to come.

Fresh fruit and veggies here in the Top End are a joke. The only place to get half decent stuff (organic or naturally grown)is the Parap markets,(Sat) or Rapid Creek & Nightcliff markets(Sun) on the weekends. Limited quantities - first in, first served.

The Coles/Woolies option is mostly just second grade stuff shipped (trucked up) from down south that no one else would accept there. Time after time I have complained in writing to the "Fresh Produce Managers" asking them to remove the garbage they ask top dollar for on their shelves.

As a refrigeration mechanic I understand the issues that storage and transport pose for the companies... but really they don't give a hoot because of the lack of competition up here. Most of the local produce grown here gets trucked south and then repackaged and then a limited volume is trucked back up again...reverse logic?

There was an independent fruiterer here some years back, but fuel and shop running costs were among the main reasons for Marty's closing down.

Where to go from here...? Only certain produce will grow here due to the Wet Season and the sheer volume of water in the ground then.

Romany, thats very interesting about the cow dung plant, so often we're told how bad farming is for the environment primarily because of such releases. I know some farms in the UK have been suppling themselves with power, but not on that scale.

On your earlier question, I'm a bit sceptical of organic benefits, and the ability to feed the masses should we all turn organic. The broadacre crops tend to yield about half of conventional under organic management, but I don't know too much about orchards and vegetable growing. In essence sending any produce off farm is exporting nutrients that have to be replaced from somewhere, organic only sends about half the produce so they'll be able to do that for longer. Some are using composts, manures etc but those inputs come from other land so again somewhere is depleting. It really isn't going to be feasible to return the human wastes from the Iraqis or whoever buy our wheats/produce so it's inevitable our nutrient cycle will have a whole. To be replaced by manufactured or mined fertilisers. If the answer is to export less by using organic then there are going to be a lot of hungry people.

The biggest fallacy is that organic means no chemicals. Not true,
http://organic.lovetoknow.com/Permitted_Chemicals_List_for_Organic_Farming

Copper sulphate is particularly toxic to fish, and does humans no favours:
http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/coppersu.htm

Thats not to say organic is worse than conventional, but I wouldn't say you are getting the benefits you pay for. just make sure you wash it all.

An experiment on wine drinking showed that the drinker enjoyed the wine from a $45 labelled bottle much more than the $5 labelled bottle, even though they were both from the same $5 bottle. Perhaps the exponents of organic food expect it to be better, and consequently believe it is.

Albie

I was sorry to read of your difficulties in obtaining fresh produce. I've heard rumblings from the Big is Best brigade that the north is to become our new food bowl as climate change further dries the south. Just hang in there and all your problems will be solved! And no doubt replaced with a whole bunch of new ones you never dreamed of!

"Bronwyn, your last paragraph says volumes, not to mention glass fibres being used in all the insulation materials for air con/roof batts etc. The nouveau asbestos in years to come."

Yes, it's always good to encounter like minds! It was concerning though to read of the glass fibres. We were very careful with most choices we made when we built, but that was one choice where I didn't think it mattered that much if we went for the less natural and cheaper option. So I appreciate the notice and will do some research on it.

Rojo

Appreciated the information in your post regarding the complexities of maintaining the nutrient cycle.

"If the answer is to export less by using organic then there are going to be a lot of hungry people."

Over population, climate change and denuded soils mean that unfortunately millions of people will go hungry regardless of how much the exporting countries ramp up production. The whole idea that we have to export our over production to them to begin with is false economy in so many ways. Millions of subsistence farmers whose families had for generations fed themselves from their small plots have been forced from their land, over two hundred million in China alone. Millions more small time farmers are indebted to multinational conglomerates like Monsanto who have completely eroded any autonomy the land once gave them. They've been forced into the fertilizer/pesticide cycle and are locked into paying for expensive inputs they'd never needed before. They aren't even permitted to save their own seed. Of course, the egg is scrambled now. I can't envisage any going back, but I do question your assumption that it's up to us to feed the world. Many of these people you're referring to fed themselves quite adequately before the World Bank and other international bodies began interfering and dictating terms.

"Perhaps the exponents of organic food expect it to be better, and consequently believe it is."

No, Rojo, it's much more than a case of mind over matter. Food that hasn't been subjected to chemical spraying, artificial fertilizers, irradiation, long-term storage and long travelling distances does retain more of the nutrients nature intended.

I agree that some organic food might be subjected to these same poor practices, especially that sold from the big chains, but even so it is probably still more nutritious than that grown and marketed conventionally. A lot of people who buy organic food are also careful to source locally grown and seasonal produce when they have the choice, in which case they are definitely obtaining more nutrients in their food than they would in conventional supermarket food.

I think we've all seen enough
of these "Doctors" who become
"writers" and make passing
shots at Homeopathy without
knowing the facts such as that
numerous studies fully support
its efficacy well beyond placebo.

The following links, most particularly
the YouTube presentation by Dr. Bell,
will be most enlightening to those
who do not think by means of preconceived
notions, innuendo and high school
Avogadro's law chemistry violations
while calling every unknown thing
quackery without even knowing
what they are talking about.

These tinpot "quackers" want us
to discard an entire system of medicine
after they rant and rave and ridicule
as though someone had given
them authority to be our medical
supervisors and deciders.
Such is NOT the case and thinking
people everywhere, faced with 200 years
of cures, saving people in epidemics
and other accomplishments,
are not about to be railroaded
into discarding anything based
on the innuendo of some writer
who is frustrated that people are
buying the "esoteric" things he
despises.

http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/introductory.jsp

National Institue of Health government
web site on Homeopathy:
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#a1

Brilliant presentation by Dr. Iris Bell M.D. PhD
in support of Homeopathy and confirming
the accuracy and efficacy of recent reaearch:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M

A full list of PEER REVIEWED papers supporting her research
can be found at:

http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,173

“The Highwayman said to the traveller: pray, sir, leave your watch and money in my hands; or else, by god, you will be robbed.”

Indeed Mr Hansen. You of course are referring to the chemical merchants who duped the entire global agricultural industry with their heinous chemicals. Organochlorines, thrust upon farmers with promises of a silver bullet. Bioaccumulative chemicals which continue to kill, maim and contaminate the entire global biosphere.

These chemicals have a long and sordid history of death, illness, corporate negligence and government oversight problems.

By 1990 in the Philippines, the cases of organochlorine poisonings, mainly due to the neurotoxin, endosulfan, rose significantly, with a mortality rate of 29.7%.

Cambodia is the tenth country to ban endosulfan, joining Belize, Singapore, Tonga, Syria, Germany, the UK, Sweden, Netherlands, and Colombia.

The Brazilian state of Rondonia and the Indian state of Kerala have banned the chemical. Twenty-one other countries have placed "severe" controls on endosulfan, which has also been linked to dozens of accidental deaths in the U.S, Colombia, Benin, India, Malaysia, Sudan, and of course, the Philippines.

Yet "clean, green" Australia continues with the widespread use of endosulfan.

These pesticides are known to bioaccumulate in humans and other animals, collecting particularly in the liver, kidneys and fatty tissue. Contamination from endosulfan has caused mass fish deaths in India, Benin, Sudan, Germany, Australia, and the U.S.

So now that the majority of countries have banned the use of organochlorines and the chlorine industry is sucking its thumb, we have the return of the same highway man, with new promises of a silver bullet - the "revolutionary" GM crops coupled with the extensive use of glyphosate.

Without further ado, Mr Hansen, I advise that your article is the most deceptive I've had the misfortune to read on OLO. I for one will continue to support the organics industry despite the current obstacles and despite your attempts to ridicule it.

I am reminded of the advice I received from an old timer when I was a child:

"Fool me once, my fault. Fool me twice, your fault.

Goodnight Mr Hansen.

Thanks, Rojo, for the links - and Dickie, I used your posts as a basis for some research as well. I am at least a little better informed now.

Bronwyn, I concur, millions will go hungry one day. World stockpiles have dwindled due to economic reasons-noone wanted to own a pile of grain, and wear the oppotunity costs of that storage. In running down the stocks supply/demand figures have been misleading, particularly on the supply side. Stockpiles have been falling, yet the prices have not until now had the signal to invigorate production.

Whilst I agree that subsidised EU and US farming has harmed the returns to other countries farmers, the urbanisation of the population would happen regardless. Not everyone aspires to a life of subsistance farming. Jobs in cities that can pay more than farming will always be a drawcard. That tells me farming has been undervalued. Farming being the one occupation that allows urbanisation to occur in the first place.

Farmers can save their own seed, provided it is not part of a licensing agreement from Monsanto and the like. There is no compulsion to use Monsanto's products save for business reasons. I save my own wheat and barley seed, no pressure to do otherwise from Monsanto. On the other hand I don't save any of my own cottonseed, either GM or conventional because it's too much trouble. Incidently the price is the same for each.

No, it's not our job to feed the world, and in truth wouldn't feed that much of it. Having said that we are part of the world, and to underperform would be a tragedy for those nations that are not self sufficient- whether or not cheap imports were originally the root cause or not. Arable land has been decreasing due to things like urbanisation at a time when population continues to increase. If people starve due to production failure that is one thing, but to cut production because we don't like fertiliser/chemicals in nations where food has seldom been scarce and unlikely to be so, and thereby induce production shortfall is quite another.

cont'd

I couldn't agree more Bronwyn. Production systems have been geared more toward yield, shelf life and appearance. This has undoubtably shifted focus from taste and possibly "goodness", but I wouldn't say it was due to non-organic farming practices.
I also agree on that the seasonality of produce seems no longer appreciated. It's too easy to import say oranges from California in the off season, robbing local growers of the premium consumers pay for stuff they don't take for granted. (not to mention energy wastage to transport what is basically water).

dickie, grand total deaths in the Phillippines from organochlorines in 2000-01 was 2 according to the WHO (table 4.11). Quite possibly they drank the stuff, not stated.
"the majority of cases of acute poisoning were intentional rather than due to occupational hazard"
http://www.alloccasionsgroup.com/upload/images/AARES08/Templeton.pdf

Rojo

Thank you for your link on pesticide use in the Philippines and the invaluable information which advised:

“The significant shift in the Philippine agricultural agenda from one that strongly encouraged the widespread use of agricultural chemicals (Marcos regime 1965 to 1986) to one that explicitly considered the harmful effects of pesticides on the environment and human health (Ramos era 1992 to 1998) provided policy makers with a strong political platform upon which policies that promote the safe and judicious use of pesticides could be pursued.”

As a result, your link advises that most organochlorines including endosulfan have been banned – hence the reduction in mortalities.

By 2006/2007 chemicals used were 50% and 90% (respectively) less toxic than they were in 1991.

However, organochlorines (including endosulfan) are known neurotoxins. Medical researchers in India attributed the following health impacts to endosulfan poisoning.

Cerebral palsy, mental and/or physical retardation, epilepsy and congenital abnormalities like stag horn limbs. In addition an increase in blood and liver cancer, infertility, un-descended testis, miscarriages, menstrual irregularities, skin disorders, asthma, etc.

Psychiatric problems and suicidal tendencies from organochlorine poisoning are well documented and have also been rising.

Organochlorines are universally recognised as neurotoxins, resulting in brain damage. Suicides would be inevitable from any imprudent use of these chemicals.

Similar health impacts apply also to organophosphates:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18242652

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/706791/description#description

When you selectively advised:

“dickie, grand total deaths in the Phillippines from organochlorines in 2000-01 was 2 according to the WHO (table 4.11). Quite possibly they drank the stuff, not stated.”

Was that meant to be a joke?

no dickie, not a joke. That someone would be desperate enough to ingest poison to end their life is no laughing manner, and frankly I'm taken aback that you would consider some sort of humour in what is merely a factual statement. From memory over 60% of acute poisonings were intentional. My assumption was by drinking the stuff- and because it was not stated thus the "perhaps".

That it is simpler to ban certain chemicals than teach people how to use it properly and ensure adequate handling procedure is not a reflection on the chemicals alone. Endosulfan was banned because of misuse, when it was used to incorrectly replace the previously banned organotin chemicals.
One thing to come out of the chemical reforms was better chemical handling practices, and the importance of protection for the applicator. for all chemicals.

Indeed we use much lower toxicity chemicals these days, and often very species selective. GM cotton has vitually eliminated the use of Endosulfan within that industry.

I did err on the date of banning of endosulfan in the Philippines, and therefore the WHO figure I presented was not a true representation, my apologies.

"We see a similar sort of market distortion with the rejecting of nuclear electricity or genetically modified food, given that both are now shown to be safe and in the best interests of consumers."

Consumers should be allowed to form their own opinion - they are not sheep to be told what to do by "authorities" whose past records haven't been that great. Scientists are historical very poor at risk analysis beyond their own fields. Your definition of "safe" is flawed. I'm a PhD qualified particle physicist myself and I reject nuclear energy. I also reject GM food, and, yes, I buy organic food if its reasonably priced.

"Today, the largest food corporations in the world own most of the organic industry’s leading labels, which are distributed by the world’s largest food retailers."

Who cares about "leading labels". We can go to half a dozen markets with organic product from local providers. Often this food is the same price or cheaper than non-organics in supermarkets, and it last a lot longer in the refrigerator because it is much fresher. Guess what: you don't always have to shop in supermarkets and buy "leading labels".