0 votes

How the "left" is losing the Organic argument

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/news/latest-news/15937-attent...

The above article by Robert Paarlberg ((B.F. Johnson professor of political science at Wellesley College, an associate at Harvard University's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, and author of Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know.))

We need to school the left on how to make non-emotional and convincing free-market arguments to save organic food and promote localism (two things they deeply believe in); rather than, seeking a Gov't solution/correction.

Read the article before you reply.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Propaganda

The author uses the term "improved seeds" repeatedly Throughout the article giving the impression that the genetically modified seeds are better for you. This is red flag number one.

He then cites a study by the The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which said "No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food." Of course that study did not take in to account what organic food doesn't have and that is harmful pesticides. Then, to dispel that little caveat, he cites an FDA study. Another GIANT red flag. I for one do not buy the results of that study in the first place.

This article is pure propaganda for the Industrial Food System industry.

Good Job Clint!

We simply have to find true value. Organics are here to stay.

It is bewildering, that a derivitives trader who produces nothing takes home astro bucks; I mean no offense, but they should just sit in a circle, print money and they'd be less trouble to us.
Yet the small family farmer, the essence of mankind, the true beauty of soveriegnty and stewardship is often an object of tremendous difficulties from every direction . . . and this seems acceptable as the price to pay for freedom.
Small family farmers around the world are simply not valued. Small family farmers could help build a healthy America, but they do need help. They are also of great value, pound for pound so to speak, and should not vanish as the way of the permacultural indians . . . more like an endagered species subsidy.
The article acknowledges that since 1980 or so, the world has turned their backs on the small family farmer, and they are put in a sort of limbo. Monies could be more readily available for small family farming communities and infrastructures like roads, electricity and water, and assited as the article suggest.
The article was not against organic farming, but nor do they mention the many problems of corporate mono crop intensified farming. Small family farming may be slow at first, but would grow a sustainable world better in the long run.

And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”

Well said Raw

Interesting, but suspect

"Africa has a relatively equitable and secure distribution of land,"
right

Mainly, this article discusses a false dichotmoy. The drive towards local/organic food is not about helping the third world. It didn't claim to be. It was about developing sustainable agricultural models. The author makes some interesting points about why these may not be as good ideas as they seem. I can't comment on those. They are certainly interesting points, and may be true. The questions of environmental impacts and hidden consequences are interesting ones, that require alot of study.

I am not sure though what this article had to due with government versus free market. That topic wasn't mentioned directly, and in fact, the current industrial system is a government creation, kept afloat by heavy subsidies. It would be interesting to see how the industrial centralized farms did without government money.

Fortune Favors the Bold

Okay John Is this a better articulation

Put it this way.

The Liberals are the driving force in Organic Farming; but their arguments are not free-market they are seeking to unionize a collective force to have equal bargining(begging) rights as Monsanto Farmers (who are powerfully unionized).

That's why this Monsanto Rep can punch wholes in their arguments.

So, how better could DPers state the Organic argument using free-market theory and help pull this well intentioned liberals out of the Gov't Beggary position?

Is that a better articulation/question?