10_0508 | hoe v. spade...

In this hearing of the Supreme Earth Council, the two concerned parties, Hoe, representing organic agriculture, and Spade, representing chemical agriculture, fought over rights to the title of ‘Best Practices.’  The Supreme Earth Council was unanimous in their decision, handing title over to Hoe after one of the shortest debates on record. 

The court battle consisted of three areas: environment, health, and taste.  Each area was to be discussed in the classic point-counterpoint style.  Spade started the environment category with a dramatic and enigmatic speech garnished with free samples provided by agri-business giants and government subsidies.  The court seemed impressed with his genetically modified smile, clone-like assistants, and robust dusting of agrichemical perfume.  Hoe, with his natural looks and that genuine gleam in his eye easily countered all of Spade’s points.  However, at first the Earth Council was hesitant to even hear Hoe’s argument, given that his fees were more than Spade’s and he wasn’t as readily available as his opponent.  What follows is a summary of Hoe’s winning points:

On the environment:

• Organic agriculture uses no synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or other harsh agrichemicals—chemicals that harm the environment and may leave residues on the foods you consume.
• While crop loss in chemical agriculture is 20 percent higher than it was before we got on the chemical band wagon, organic crop loss is significantly lower. 
• Insects’ huge gene pool and quick evolution quickly render pesticides useless, as science cannot develop new pesticides fast enough.
• Agrichemicals are often vastly over-applied—to the point that nitrogen from fertilizer and agrichemical runoff has created a dead-zone [a place where nothing can live] the size of New Jersey at the mouth of the Mississippi in the Gulf of Mexico.
• Organic agriculture promotes healthier soil through biodiversity, increased soil biota, and natural fertilization, which can be tenfold more productive than that of chemical agriculture.
• The veritable desert that is the monoculture of traditional agricultural practices acts as an all-you-can-eat buffet for pests, destroys biodiversity, and destroys topsoil. 

On health:

• Several studies show that there is no significant human health benefit to eating organic food vs. non-organic.  However, if you ask me [and since you’re reading my blog, you kinda are] if I had the option of eating something that has been sprayed with a chemical and one that hasn’t, I’m going to choose the one that hasn’t.  You say the non-organic has been washed to “safe levels”?  Okay, tell you what.  Go dunk a Granny Smith in 10W-30, wash it off, and see if you still want to eat it.  Didn’t think so.
• Other studies show that several foods have higher amounts of healthy nutrients [antioxidants] in them.  Don’t take my word for it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6272634.stm and http://www.goodnessgreeness.com/information/organic_news/

On taste:

• Organic foods taste better.  Undeniable proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z8CWdRaQpw

Author’s note:  I have found that organics absolutely do taste better, and what’s more, they last longer [which also affects taste].  My vegetables stay fresh longer, and the organic milk is Herculean in its staying power.  This stuff just won’t sour.  I’ve left it in there for weeks after the expiration date and it comes out just as good as the day I opened it up. 

I don’t care too much about the health aspects of organic, or the fact that it tastes better.  Being unemployed, the tendency for organics to stick around longer is becoming increasingly more important, but the main reason I do it is for concern for the planet.  Whether you believe in global warming or not, it is plain fact that traditional agriculture practices are having a detrimental effect on the natural systems.  I’d prefer to not contribute to that.