I'll be honest that I'm pretty passionate about people using their minds to make decisions. I've often come across people who are extremely zealous for a cause, but don't actually know the facts. It's fine to back up your point of view--if at least you've put some time into finding out what there is to know on the matter....
So, as this blog is really just a spring board for me saying whatever it is I'd like to say, I'm going to point out that I think a lot of people could use more information on issues of food distribution and sales--more precisely, on matters of buying organic vs. nonorganic, local vs. nonlocal. The New York Times just ran an article that I think would benefit anyone who gave the time to read it. Here's one especially good and summarizing section:
Eating locally grown produce is a fine thing in many ways. But it is not an end in itself, nor is it a virtue in itself. The relative pittance of our energy budget that we spend on modern farming is one of the wisest energy investments we can make, when we honestly look at what it returns to our land, our economy, our environment and our well-being.
Here's the entire article and I really would recommend anyone and everyone looking at it to get a real idea of what's going on in this area of popular culture.
Math Lessons for Locavores
Interesting article, but it does not address the concept of helping local farmers try to live closer to the land and their crops AND survive when huge conglomerates can produce bigger brighter products with bigger equipment, more chemicals and additives so that their produce can arrive across the country looking perfectly formed and ripened. Is it nutritionally any better for us, may be another question not addressed by this article, either. And then there is the issue of genetically engineered produce ---I will stop there! However, I totally agree that many people become passionate about something without understanding much of the issue - point well taken.
ReplyDeletePoints well taken--I think the article was really just focusing on the monetary mathematics of the situation. (hence the title of the article) But it's definitely not enough just to say because of money one is better than the other. Like you mentioned chemicals and additives. The article mentions pesticides, but doesn't mention the harm they may do to us. From other things I've read, it still seems that organic is the way to go on certain foods (have you heard of the "dirty dozen"?)
ReplyDeleteSo, like you're saying, still a lot more to discuss on the issue. But, I thought as far as money goes, it made so much sense to me. Though, after I wrote that, I realized much of my frustration came with attitudes in Cambridge--which don't really represent the same attitudes I'm met with here... ;-P
Good day to you Libby. The issues of farming today, oh my. The article you have suggested is well written and brought to light many valid points. If only it were so simple. For instance did you know that by the end of this year 90% of all the once known variations of potato's will be extincted, this is due to commercial farming, and why would they not want to grow the highest yield potato's, after all, Farmers are people to why should they not desire fortune. the point you made in the beginning of your Blog you know, about ignorant passionate people, you tell them sis!! I so hate that to. :) talk to you later li
ReplyDelete