Friday, July 17, 2009

100 Miles and Runnin

Last Saturday's Globe had a very interesting article on organic foods and the farming techniques that spawn them. The gist of the article was that organic farming and sustainable farming are mutually exclusive given the current population of the planet. Essentially, the lower yeilds of organic farming can not feed the planet. Moreover, the production costs of organic farming put the price of organic foods beyond the budget of the majority of consumers. What was perhaps the most surprising point was that (some part of the) scientific community does not believe that organic produce is safer for you. For example, the Mayo Clinic says “No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food,” and the American Cancer Society adds that “no evidence that residues of pesticides and herbicides at the low doses found in foods increase the risk of cancer.”

The article makes mention of the organic movement and lumps in a couple of other food movements including the 100 mile diet. While it does not slam the 100 mile diet it doesn't do a very good job of highlighting the positives of these movements. I for one don't think that I need to eat organic produce, although I don't like the idea of genetically modified produce, and certainly would prefer to eat organic meat when possible. The 100 mile diet, though, is a great concept that helps local farmers, ensures freshness, and reduces the impace of global food distribution. This is actually a very easy way for people to make a difference. The food industry is massive and certainly needs to make very effor to includes sustainble practices. People just need to be informed and make sure they are making choices that are actually sustainable. For a great look at the scale of the food industry check out The Great Food Revolution on the CBC website.

For a great look at one of 1990's greatest songs, check this out.

Happy Friday!

Pace out.

Labels:

2 Comments:

At Friday, July 24, 2009, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Simon,

Love that you are talking about this kind if thing here - nice diversity in your topics.

I'd like to make a suggestion concerning one observation you had made: That "(some part of the) scientific community does not believe that organic produce is safer for you."

A critical analysis of ACS's statement “no evidence that residues of pesticides and herbicides at the low doses found in foods increase the risk of cancer.” is a prudent move.

"The American Cancer Society is fixated on damage control— diagnosis and treatment— and basic molecular biology, with indifference or even hostility to cancer prevention. This myopic mindset is compounded by interlocking conflicts of interest with the cancer drug, mammography, and other industries. The "nonprofit" status of the Society is in sharp conflict with its high overhead and expenses, excessive reserves of assets and contributions to political parties. All attempts to reform the Society over the past two decades have failed; a national economic boycott of the Society is long overdue." Samuel S. Epstein M. D.

The above quote is taken from this link you may find of interest. http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm.

Important and sensitive topic close to many of our hearts. With mixed feelings I no longer support these kinds of organizations if prevention is not taken VERY seriously in their mandate. I am tired of and saddened by supporting Cancer damage control even as a friend I love fights breast cancer for the second time....
shitty
thanks
Injoy the blog

 
At Friday, July 24, 2009, Blogger Vitamin S said...

Very interesting stuff. Thanks for the info and the feedback.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home