I get up this morning and begin reading my favorite blogs, and I come across a link to an article or blog post about "The Cult of Organics." Cult? Really? I had to read it, and continue reading links from it to see exactly where this perception came from or where it may be headed.
To summarize the blog post, Julie Gunlock attends a play date with a younger mother, and of course, their children. Younger mother is apparently hell bent on the beliefs that organic foods are the only good way to feed children, but Julie Gunlock does not agree. Younger, organic mom is appalled, takes her child and leaves.
Both parties obviously have their own vision and standards for what they choose to feed their children, and their reasons for it. Julie Gunlock has no concerns about "cow stuff" that she states the younger, organic mother refers to. Julie Gunlock believes the higher costs of organic foods are unjustified, yet it would seem the younger, organic mother doesn't know how to justify in words, why she is so heavily influenced by organics beyond her statement "cow stuff and stuff".
I think if we are going to promote a specific lifestyle, we should at least know why.
There is more to it, so please read that article post!
"The Cult of Organics: Is It Worth the Extra Money?" by Julie Gunlock, and the articles linked to it. It is very informative if you are trying to learn all aspects of the food debate. Don't stop there though, because there are many sources that offer different information for their own beliefs or interests. Really study up on these topics if they concern you.
Julie Gunlock points out several links that give information to justify her "The Cult of Organics" belief from one that explains a study done making conventionally grown foods and organically grown foods equivalent in nutritional properties. This study also points out that synthetic pesticide levels were higher in conventional eaters versus organic eaters among a few other facts to consider that were placed aside for the lack of long term study which has been translated to a lack of "strong evidence."
This study however does indicate that either little evidence was found or the fact that there has been no long term studies. Its the long term that has me on the organics approval list! I am with Julie Gunlock, though in aspects of affordability. If your food budget is low enough, whether you desire organic or not, chances are that you cannot afford it anyways.
I personally feel that ANY evidence along with short term study and the lack of long term study is plenty to justify organic thinking. If only everyone could afford it!
Moving on to the next reference link, we have reference to the use of pesticides in organic farming versus the use of pesticides in conventional farming in the post "Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture."
This article maintains that the natural pesticides and fertilizers that organic farmers use could very well be more toxic and dangerous than the synthetic pesticides or fertilizers of conventional farming.
With both sides stumbling back and forth the way they do, justifying their methods and making the other side seen as the evildoer, we may never get the facts we look for. I don't listen to one side over another. For me, as I stated earlier, it is about long term, scientific studies, and there are none that provide our long term health related issues of concern. No matter whether you go organic, or keep it conventional, we just don't know the LONG TERM!
Still, personally, after affordability, I would still be willing to take natural over synthetic any day despite the differences in opinions. My biggest concerns there would be e-coli and salmonella, because I don't know very much on the natural pesticides that are used from around the world. I will say though, that if we are moving toxic plants from one part of the world to another part of the world where they don't naturally exist, you have to expect imbalance in the environment. Whether it be killing bugs or weeds, that particular pesticide plant was intended with a special purpose where it naturally grows. Isn't that considered the natural balance of the earth?
Here, Julie Gunlock refers to her own article "Alarmism about Genetically Modified Foods" ,and she points out the tremendous feeding power of GM foods. I do agree with the world hunger issues, but I also believe GMO's should be labeled regardless, so people have a choice to partake or not. I cannot and will not agree to foods that have caused tumors in rats and sterility in pigs. I have compiled a page on the GMO Debate here. If GM foods were absolutely safe, other countries around the world would not have them banned!!!
The other links in Julie Gunlocks "The Cult of Organics: Is It Worth the Extra Money?" pretty much have the same information, and the bottom line is this; No matter which view you take regarding foods, it could all be equally or similarly damaging to us and to our children. It is a matter of opinion and personal preference, and like religion, it seems to be causing a huge divide. If that sounds extreme, keep reading on different sides of this ongoing debate and see for yourself how nasty people can really be when you don't believe or choose in their belief or favor.
I wish I could afford to go completely organic, but the truth is, just as you pay more for apples than a bag of chips, you also pay more for organics than conventional foods.
I enjoy cooking from scratch. That's not to say that I am against easy boxed and processed foods because believe me, my kids will need them to feed their kids because they hate cooking. Julie has a great point in saying that processed foods that many people are against are every reason some families get prepared meals or eat as a family at all. If my oldest daughter only had a bag of flour, they would starve before they would make bread, and luckily the food industry makes easy foods available for purchase. I just wish it was mandatory that producers had to label any GMO products, so people not so educated on these issues could make an informed choice, and consumers didn't have to sift through ingredients on every purchase to make sure they don't get GMO's if they didn't want them. Its funny how only the naturals are labeled currently.
There is so much information out there on each side of this debate, that everyone can make their own informed decision on whats right for them and their life style. I would personally love to know whats on the White House menu though. Is it organic? Is it GMO? That would be interesting to know and note!
After seeing the stir of Julie Gunlocks article, I had to write this to show how each side is adamant about proving their case. Unless we as people educate ourselves on the facts alone, rather than jumping on the bandwagon without a thorough knowledge of both sides, we will never change a thing.
With that said, I will add that everywhere we turn, there is something dangerous, toxic, unhealthy and even deadly to us. Food is life. Without nutrition, which is offered in ALL foods whether organic or conventional...even GMO's, we will starve. If the air is polluted, wouldn't that mean everyone breathing it is too? How about water? Vaccinations? Medications? Everything man has brought to help things out, or to capitalize on has a negative effect somewhere in the grand scheme of things.
There are starving people out there. Even in the US we have many people and families that can't eat. Why not if GMO's can sustain the world? Why is the world not sustained?
My view: MONEY ... We obviously hold it higher than the value placed on humanity, and that is a debate all its own!
I would love to hear your views on it all if everyone can be civilized that is!