[MD] Science: Medicine?
Arlo Bensinger
ajb102 at psu.edu
Thu Sep 25 10:25:57 PDT 2008
[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!"
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list