[MD] Science: Medicine?

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Krimel]
I know you and many others are attracted to organic produce but I 
have to say there is little or no evidence that the products of the 
"Green Revolution" are less nutritious, less tasty or in the least bit harmful.

[Arlo]
Well, I won't refer to any "studies" here, but I will say that my own 
experience with tomatoes has been that those I grow or get from our 
CSA are exponentially more tasty than those red tennis balls that 
grocery stores call "tomatoes". Indeed, it is primarily taste that 
keeps me in our CSA. If I didn't think the produce tasted so much 
better, I wouldn't eat it. That said, it doesn't need to be CSA 
foods, the local corn we get from Amish farmers (who are mostly 
organic, if not certified so) if far superior in taste to what passes 
for corn in the stores. And here's a challenge. Go out and buy a 
carton of Organic Valley milk (any variety), and a carton of whatever 
the big name dairy milk is in your area. Taste them side by side. If 
you can honestly tell me that the Organic Valley milk is not better 
(if not greatly better), I'd be very surprised.

What studies I have seen on nutrition talk more about the gradual 
loss of vitamin and nutrient content as produce is packed and 
shipped. This makes the case for local foods when possible. A head of 
broccoli picked this morning contains more nutrients than broccoli 
picked days ago, packed and shipped, or frozen and stored for weeks.

With regards to chemical farming, pesticides and other additives, I 
can only say that even if you could show me that consuming tomatoes 
sprayed with pesticides was "not harmful", the sum total of these 
chemicals being introduced into the environment gives me sufficient 
pause. That trace elements of pesticides (or other chemical 
fertilizers) make their way into our meat, eggs, and even our 
drinking water is just something I can see no good in, especially 
over a long haul or lifetime.

And finally, regarding GMOs, I think even the most ardent opponents 
to GMOs recognize a difference between longterm breeding of a plant 
for particular traits (which was done unconsciously by our early 
socializing ancestors- see Guns, Germs and Steel for example) and the 
splicing of genes from fish our animals into plants. If a strain of 
rice could be cultivated that contains 15% more vitamin B, for 
example, I doubt many would object. But, to get that from splicing 
fish genes into the rice is a price too high for many (myself 
included). Of course, I speak from a nation of privilege, with 
abundant food and ample choice. If I lived in a famine-laden African 
country, I wonder if I'd be so concerned about whether or not my rice 
contained fish genes.

This ties in to the Agribusiness discussion. Modifying food so that 
the farmer becomes dependent on the seed supplier has nothing to do 
with vitamins, pesticides or fish genes. It is a horrible, and 
accepted, economic practice that seeks to maximize profit at all 
cost. To be fair, the business often says that the expense of 
research (in developing said genetically altered rice) can only be 
offset by ensuring income to the business year after year. Just one 
more reason for me to distance myself from the GMO practice, if not 
for health or ethics, then because supporting it often entails ipso 
facto support of a business model I find deplorable. But again, here 
I sit eating a salad stuffed with olives, cucumbers and feta cheese, 
that I could buy by simply walking across the street. Were I to live 
in a famine zone, perhaps my concern about economic farming models 
would give way to "just give me some damn food!"