The following page will give you some interesting details when it comes to a food based fashion contest:

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/why-do-israelis-throw-away-half-the-food-they-buy.premium-1.502075

A report (from the site) says that the waste is global, but in countries that are in developmental stages, such as in Africa, most of the waste is due to inefficient harvesting, transportation and storage facilities.

However, in developed countries (like Australia - wow) the bulk of the waste is due to the fact that many retail chains refuse to accept food that does not meet uniform standards of size, color and texture. Fashion?

Then there is more wastage of food by the western world (like Australia) that is simply thrown away because people have "had enough" at dinner - let alone the issues Africa faces.

So those on this topic - I buy from organic stalls that sell some 100% "non attractive" looking food, or would others simply "look away" at a supermarket - and buy similar cheap tinned food from overseas?

That's an interesting angle that hadn't occurred to me before, Paul1405.

>>When I discuss organics with my son he always uses the key words "I can afford to eat organic food."<<

We are devoting resources to the production of food that is destined to be more expensive. Which subtracts from our ability to produce food that poorer people can afford.

In short, we are being immensely self-indulgent, are we not.

Pericles,

As I said per above - countries like Africa have: "Inefficient harvesting, transportation and storage facilities." This must be addressed, let alone the basic food problems they currently have.

This is very serious - let alone the very inefficient harvesting of food in Australia - or I would call it over-harvesting of food in Australia, that is nearly all chemical based.

OXFAM however is a good example of a 'fair trade' company, with some of their products organic. It is helping people overseas develop their own sustainable long lasting farms and have a better life.

http://www.oxfamfairtrade.be/pageview.aspx?pv_mid=8936&id=1

Crystal Smith-Spangler and her colleagues reviewed many of the studies comparing organic and conventionally grown food, and found little evidence that organic foods are more nutritious.

“There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health,” said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of a paper comparing the nutrition of organic and non-organic foods, published in the Sept. 4 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

A team led by Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy, and Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS, an instructor in the school’s Division of General Medical Disciplines and a physician-investigator at VA Palo Alto Health Care System, did the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date of existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods. They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, though consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure. While researchers found that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination than conventional fruits and vegetables, organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides. What’s more, as the researchers noted, the pesticide levels of all foods generally fell within the allowable safety limits.

After analyzing the data, the researchers found little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods. No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinical significance). There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

The researchers were also unable to identify specific fruits and vegetables for which organic appeared the consistently healthier choice, despite running what Bravata called “tons of analyses.”

"Inefficient harvesting, transportation and storage facilities." This must be addressed, let alone the basic food problems they (mostly third world countries) currently have.
Good point NathanJ, the efficient producers are in the developed world like Australia, where food is relatively cheap through efficient production, we simply throw away excess and think nothing of it. To give you an example of the difference in value, in Fiji milk 1Lt long life $3.50 a good wage $90 week, in Australia milk 1lt $1 good wage $800 week, that makes the milk in Fiji 30 times more expensive than in Australia, How much milk would we throw out if we were paying $30/lt, and that applies to all packaged food

No...get it right:)..."We must eat organic dog food"...and while Iam at it..The last thing on earth that was "organic"..was when a dinosaur farted....We don't need war any-more...we're poisoning our selves, so eat less if you want to live longer.

Kat