What is in this article?:
- Stanford organic farming study sparks giant squabble
- Stanford backbone
- Elitist ideology
- Stanford organic farming study has sparked a movement to have its findings rescinded.
- The study simply pointed out that fruits and vegetables labeled organic were, on average, no more nutritious than traditionally grown crops.
It must also be produced using methods that, according to the Department of Agriculture, “foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance and conserve biodiversity.”
Still, the organic ideology is an elitist, pseudoscientific indulgence shot through with hype, Cohen believes. “There is a niche for it, if you can afford to shop at Whole Foods, but the future is nonorganic.
To expand on this, it is reasonable to calculate that to feed a planet of 9 billion people, we are going to need high yields not low yields; we are going to need GMO crops; we are going to need pesticides and fertilizers and other elements of conventional food processes that have led mankind to be better fed and live longer than any time in history.
I’ll sum up with one of Cohen’s quotes: “Organic is a fable of the pampered parts of the planet – romantic and comforting. Now, thanks to Stanford researchers, we know just how replete with myth the “O” fable is.” Or, if you prefer, a quote from great screen legend Jack Nicholson: “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!”