View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Alex Rast
 
Posts: n/a
Default

at Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:50:56 GMT in
>, (Vox
Humana) wrote :

>
>"rmg" > wrote in message
.com...
>>
>> "Vox Humana" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Actually I just posted the article. It did say the following:
>> > ">"These data are exploratory and should not be understood to be a
>> > reflection
>> >> >of the distribution of perchlorate in the U.S. food supply," ...

>>
>> No offense intended, but then why post the article at all?

>
>I thought it was interesting and food related. Many people pay a
>premium price for "organic" food thinking that it is free of unwanted
>chemicals.


In the way the article is presented by the FDA, I see a subtle implication,
however. Now, organic food in and of itself doesn't guarantee that it is
entirely free of any so-called "chemicals" that a public of varying levels
of knowledge might consider to be worrisome. And a consumer who buys
organic in *that* expectation needs to learn a lot more about first what is
natural and second what is realistic. However, in the FDA article, there's
a bit of an implication that buying organic is a waste of time and money.

The point about organics, though, is not that they're guaranteed to be
chemical-free, but rather they're guaranteed not to have been subjected to
a process the farmer might reasonably be expected to have control over that
would *increase* the amount of chemicals present over that which would have
occurred had the farmer taken no intervention at all. Pesticides and
fertilisers carry the potential to increase the amount of possibly toxic
substances, and this is why there are strictly limited and controlled under
organic production.

In a similar manner, they're not guaranteed to be completely free of GMO
genes, but there *is* the assurance that they weren't planted with
*deliberate* GMO genes inserted.

It's probably impossible to guarantee that any food is perfectly safe, but
consumers buying organic at least can know that they are making the best
effort available to them to minimise the exposure and certainly that in
their buying habits they aren't contributing to making the situation worse.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)