"Organic, schmorganic," fumes New York Times columnist Roger Cohen sarcastically in an article entitled "The Organic Fable."
He bases his sweeping dismissal of the organic foods
movement on a new Stanford University study claiming that "fruits and
vegetables labeled organic are, on average, no more nutritious than
their cheaper conventional counterparts."
Cohen does grant that "organic farming is probably
better for the environment because less soil, flora and fauna are
contaminated by chemicals... So this is food that is better ecologically
even if it is not better nutritionally."
But he goes on to smear the organic movement as an elitist, pseudoscientific indulgence shot through with hype.
"To feed a planet of 9 billion people," he says, "we
are going to need high yields not low yields; we are going to need
genetically modified crops; we are going to need pesticides and
fertilizers and other elements of the industrialized food processes that
have led mankind to be better fed and live longer than at any time in
history.
"I’d rather be against nature and have more people
better fed. I’d rather be serious about the world’s needs. And I trust
the monitoring agencies that ensure pesticides are used at safe levels -
a trust the Stanford study found to be justified."
Cohen ends by calling the organic movement "a fable of the pampered parts of the planet - romantic and comforting."
But the truth is that his own, science-driven Industrial Agriculture mythology is far more delusional.
Let me count the ways that his take on the organic foods movement is off the mark:
No comments:
Post a Comment