College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Inorganic foods are important to life

Opinion

Published: Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Updated: Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Everybody knows that when it comes to food, organic is better, right?

Well, I wanted to play devil’s advocate and looked into the popular trend of organic farming being embraced by people across the world as an alternative to modern farming techniques.

I now believe that organic farming is just a fad whose followers base their views on very romantic environmentalist ideals and not fact.

Nobel Prize-winning agricultural scientist Norman Borlaug is one of the most seemingly unlikely opponent to organic food growing but he openly opposes it anyway.

He states that organic food is not efficient enough to sustain the population.

“You couldn’t feed more than four billion people,” he says.

If you’re for organic food being adopted by the world, you’re unknowingly for a form of population control called starvation.

Organic foods need more than twice the area of genetically modified foods to grow. They also end up producing food way slower and are at the mercy of food having to be in season.

Scientific tests have proven that organic food doesn’t necessarily taste better, doesn’t have more nutrients, and isn’t any safer.

A recent comparative study from the University of Minnesota testing both organic and genetically grown foods actually proved that organic food had more human damaging contaminants than genically modified food grown using modern techniques.

Ecoli was found on 9.7 percent of organic foods tested while only 1.6 percent of conventionally-grown foods tested possitive. Salmonella was also only found on organic samples of food and not conventionally grown foods.

Organic foods being grown so natuarally are very susceptible to fecal waste because of all the natural fertiliizers among other things.

If that doesn’t leave a bad taste in your mouth maybe Penn and Teller could assist you.

The two magicians turned comedians even had an episode of their program on Showtime spotlight organic foods where they included field taste tests.

They set up head-to-head blind taste tests between organic and conventionally grown fruits and vegetables and the conventionally-grown food won almost every time.

People who favor organic food purely for the taste are likely subconsiously choosing what they think is more eco-friendly over conventional produce.

Even with all of this evidence, organic foods is still pursued mainly by well-meaning “green groups” that lack factual evidence.

The problem with this is that the groups have possibly already been responsible for some deaths in Africa, yes… deaths.

Pressure from green groups and the propoganda they spread have been used to try to keep Africa free from bio-technology, a form of inorganic gene modification used to strengthen produce.

This actually made African officials turn down inorganic food aid from the U.S. during a recent drought in Zambia.

This left tons of food to rot in warehouses while Africans continued to starve.

Although the organic movement seems like a fine idea on the surface, we as Americans need to realize that not everyone has the luxury to choose how their produce is grown.

We must stop seeing organic farming as the best form of food production for everyone because some people don’t have the ability to be wasteful and vain.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

2 comments

Your name
Wed Nov 25 2009 06:14
The deception of biopesticides, biofungicides, bioinsecticides etc. being "safe" has to stop! These are "living microorganisms" that are being used on food crops; both human and livestock.Do you ever wonder why it is that we are all now experiencing problems with salmonella and e-coli on and in our food? Don’t you find it a little odd that on the EPA’s, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division preprinted Form; 8570-6 [which is sent to biopesticide manufacturing companies] states:[QUOTE] After fermentation and prior to further processing, each batch must have been tested or the following microbial contaminates and have levels below those listed:E. coli/ Coliform BacteriaSalmonellaShigellaStaphylocciVibrioYeastMold[END OF QUOTE]To those that don't believe this is stated in the EPA's Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division preprinted Form; 8570-6; please go to, "June 20, 2000 "Conditional Time-Limited" Registration for QST 713 Technical" (click and this will take you to an actual EPA's Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division preprinted Form; 8570-6) www.biotechawareness.com/index~option~com_content~view~article~id~161~Itemid~1.phpTo just view the EPA formwww.biotechawareness.com/images/conditional_registration_aq_qst_713_2000_copy.pdfEven melamine can be traced to bio-control. Biotechnology companies have been using melamine for micro capsule’s (of fungus, bacteria, virus) for long term pest control in biopesticides, biofungicides, bioinsecticides etc. for a long time. (Microcapsule according to claim 21, wherein said capsule shell is formed by condensation of formaldehyde with at least one of urea and melamine.)___I refer you to only one patent which reveals this; United States Patent 6506397 - which in part states:Abstract:The present invention features a sustained-release microcapsule for long-term pest controlling. In general, a microcapsule has a capsule core including active pest-control ingredients and diluents, and a capsule shell which physically separates the capsule core from the surrounding medium. Diluents are arranged to entrap active ingredients therein and to provide resistance to mass transfer of the active ingredients therethrough. The capsule shell generally includes the shell pores and provides additional resistance to mass transfer of the active ingredient therethrough. Diluents are selected from a class of material such that the mass transfer resistances existing in the capsule core and/or capsule shell depend on the temperature of the surrounding medium.23. Microcapsule according to claim 21, wherein said capsule shell is formed by condensation of formaldehyde with at least one of urea and melamine.And last, but not least I wish to reference the Netherlands, Institute of Food Safety report that was written in 2006 which clearly indicates that the ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE OF CERTAIN GENETICALLY ENGINEERED (GE) ORGANISMS and natural organisms (or of natural origin) for the purpose of plant disease and/or insect control is being found to not be as safe as had been expected with regard to human health and the environment.Why in the world would the EPA have any concerns of the above microorganisms being in ANY biocontrol product?What is being deemed as being a safer and environmentally friendly form of insect and disease control compared to “chemicals” should raise a question in everyone’s mind. Of course, time will tell, won’t it? Unfortunately, when the damage is done it is just that, done. There is going to be no turning back.And for the readers information; the following bio-control products ARE listed by the EPA as being "chemicals". This is the "active ingredient" ONLY. Now take into account the HIGH % of "inactive ingredient or inert ingredient/s"; what is NOT KNOWN to anyone exposed; be it directly or indirectly through inhalation and/or ingestion.FUNGUS: Muscodor Albus - QST 20799 [EPA CHEMICAL CODE # 006503]:Product Name: Andante,“ACTIVE INGREDIENT” 0.35% UNKNOWN: 99.65%Product Name: Arabesque“ACTIVE INGREDIENT” 0.35% UNKNOWN: 99.65%Product Name: Glissade“ACTIVE INGREDIENT” 0.35% UNKNOWN: 99.65%Product Name: QST 20799 TECHNICAL,“ACTIVE INGREDIENT” 2.10% UNKNOWN: 97.9%Manufacturing use only no site , Formulating use only no siteFUNGUS: Lagenidium giganteum [NOT KNOWN IF THERE IS A EPA CHEMICAL CODE]Product Name: Laginex as“ACTIVE INGREDIENT” 40.0% UNKNOWN: 60.0%Product Name: Technical laginex,“ACTIVE INGREDIENT” 100%,Manufacturing use only no site, Insecticide ,Miticide , Microbial pesticideBACTERIA - Bacillus pumilis strain QST 2808 [EPA CHEMICAL CODE # 006485] :Product Name: Ballad®Plus Biofungicide,“ACTIVE INGREDIENT” 1.38% UNKNOWN: 98.62%Product Name: Qst 2808 mu,“ACTIVE INGREDIENT” 1.42% UNKNOWN: 98.58%Uses: Fungicide/fungistat, Plant Growth Regulator- Manufacturing use only no site , Formulating use only no site,Product Name on Label: Bacillus pumilus strain QST 2808“ACTIVE INGREDIENT” 1.38% UNKNOWN: .98.62%BACTERIA - Bacillus Subtilis strain QST 713 [EPA...
Rainbodiddley
Wed Nov 4 2009 00:29
BS propaganda.






log out