It seems that the mythology of “Organic” farming somehow being wonderful for the environment, for everyone’s health, for the farmers, the animals, the children and whatever other cliche you would like to insert is starting to come apart.  The New York Times recently ran an article about the realities of “organic” farmed products and the environmental impact that comes with them.

I was disappointed by how apologetic the article was, but it still made an important point about where our food actually comes from.   Indeed, the “ideals” that the Times refers to never really were embodied by the organic farming movement in any meaningful way.   The entire idea really comes down to a philosophy that certain things are bad simply because they are man-made, while others are acceptable.   There’s no science to it at all and there never was.

Via the New York Times:

Organic Agriculture May Be Outgrowing Its Ideals

TODOS SANTOS, Mexico — Clamshell containers on supermarket shelves in the United States may depict verdant fields, tangles of vines and ruby red tomatoes. But at this time of year, the tomatoes, peppers and basil certified as organic by the Agriculture Department often hail from the Mexican desert, and are nurtured with intensive irrigation.

Growers here on the Baja Peninsula, the epicenter of Mexico’s thriving new organic export sector, describe their toil amid the cactuses as “planting the beach.”

Del Cabo Cooperative, a supplier here for Trader Joe’s and Fairway, is sending more than seven and a half tons of tomatoes and basil every day to the United States by truck and plane to sate the American demand for organic produce year-round.

But even as more Americans buy foods with the organic label, the products are increasingly removed from the traditional organic ideal: produce that is not only free of chemicals and pesticides but also grown locally on small farms in a way that protects the environment.

The explosive growth in the commercial cultivation of organic tomatoes here, for example, is putting stress on the water table. In some areas, wells have run dry this year, meaning that small subsistence farmers cannot grow crops. And the organic tomatoes end up in an energy-intensive global distribution chain that takes them as far as New York and Dubai, United Arab Emirates, producing significant emissions that contribute to global warming.

From now until spring, farms from Mexico to Chile to Argentina that grow organic food for the United States market are enjoying their busiest season.

“People are now buying from a global commodity market, and they have to be skeptical even when the label says ‘organic’ — that doesn’t tell people all they need to know,” said Frederick L. Kirschenmann, a distinguished fellow at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University. He said some large farms that have qualified as organic employed environmentally damaging practices, like planting only one crop, which is bad for soil health, or overtaxing local freshwater supplies.

Many growers and even environmental groups in Mexico defend the export-driven organic farming, even as they acknowledge that more than a third of the aquifers in southern Baja are categorized as overexploited by the Mexican water authority. With sophisticated irrigation systems and shade houses, they say, farmers are becoming more skilled at conserving water. They are focusing new farms in “microclimates” near underexploited aquifers, such as in the shadow of a mountain, said Fernando Frías, a water specialist with the environmental group Pronatura Noroeste.

They also point out that the organic business has transformed what was once a poor area of subsistence farms and where even the low-paying jobs in the tourist hotels and restaurants in nearby Cabo San Lucas have become scarcer during the recession.

To carry the Agriculture Department’s organic label on their produce, farms in the United States and abroad must comply with a long list of standards that prohibit the use of synthetic fertilizers, hormones and pesticides, for example. But the checklist makes few specific demands for what would broadly be called environmental sustainability, even though the 1990 law that created the standards was intended to promote ecological balance and biodiversity as well as soil and water health.

Lets stop and consider the greater context here: there are eight billion people in the world. That’s a lot of people to feed. Thankfully, we can feed them all. The fact that not everyone gets enough food is not due to a lack of capacity to produce it but more because of localized socioeconomic and political issues in getting it to those who need it. We grow enough food in the modern world to feed everyone. Not only that, we do it at a very reasonable cost, which results in people generally not having to spend the majority of their income just to get their daily nutritional needs filled.

(more…)

You may have read a couple of weeks ago about Greenpeace attempting to halt research by CSIRO on genetically modified wheat, which had been engineered to produce end products with a lower glycaemic index.    They did this by writing a letter which they then sent out to be signed by a number of “prominent” scientists, who weren’t all that prominent and not all of whom were really scientists.  They didn’t actually mention that Greenpeace was behind the letter but it ended up coming out anyway.

Not surprisingly, the letter didn’t end up stopping the research nor did subsequent attempts to seed the press with fear-mongering reports of dangers of genetic engineering.

It should be noted that the project they were trying to stop was pure research and not actually aimed at producing products for human consumption, at least not in the near term.   The wheat had been grown experimentally for a few years and is currently undergoing study in laboratory animals.   This is expected to eventually lead to human trails, but that’s not something that CSIRO has immediate plans for.

The wheat was being grown in relatively small and isolated patches on test fields that are some distance away from other wheat crops and in fields that are partially enclosed by a plastic barrier.   Some anti-GMO activists have claimed that the very existence of such crops endangers the world food supply, since rogue genes could be carried away as pollen to fertilize other crops.    CSIRO does take precautions against this, despite the fact that it’s not a very realistic fear.  Most wheat is grown from new seed, not from seed produced by the previous seasons crop, so even if it had been fertilized by pollen from the test fields, it would not actually result in the genes being brought into new crops.    Also, considering the general distribution and distances, it’s just not a very likely thing to happen.  Nor would it really make much difference even if it did.

Most Australians seemed to understand that CSIRO was proceeding with an abundance of caution and that the wheat was being grown as part of a scientific study with the aim being to better understand the potential of genetic engineering of this type with the potential that it could be applied to future food crops – assuming it is safe, which all current research would indicate it is.    After all, who could possibly oppose scientific research on such an important area of study?

With the public and politicians unwilling to buy into Greenpeace’s fear-mongering, they went to plan B:  weedwacker the whole damn crop.

Yes, that’s exactly what they did.

And if that’s not bad enough, in complete defiance of what they apparently stand for, they used a two-stroke gasoline powered weedwacker.   They could have used one powered by electricity and charged by solar cells or a wind turbine.   They could have dispensed with the weed wacker and used a human-driven sickle.   But no, they used one that runs on gasoline and produces smog.   Who woulda thunk???

In broad daylight and with no attempt to hide their destruction, Greenpeace proclaimed they were standing up against the evil scientists and doing the right thing for humanity and mother nature.   They broke into the research compound, destroyed the entire crop and then had the audacity to post pictures of it on their blog.   Apparently they felt their crimes were so noble and justified that nobody would dare call them on it and actually prosecute the organization for these acts of vandalism.

They were wrong.

(more…)

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation or CSIRO is the primary national body for scientific research in Australia. CSIRO is involved in a diverse range of scientific endeavors ranging from astronomy to particle physics to medical, environmental and biological research.

CSIRO has also been involved in agricultural experiments including those which involve genetically modified crops. As might be imagined, this has some people very very angry. A story has recently been making the rounds about how a group of “prominent scientists” are urging CSIRO to end what they call dangerous experiments with genetically modified food crops.

Via the Sydney Morning Herald:

Scientists reject human trials of GM wheat
A group of prominent scientists and researchers from around the world has urged Australia not to go ahead with human trials of genetically modified (GM) wheat.

The CSIRO is carrying out a study of feeding GM wheat grown in the ACT to rats and pigs and could extend the trial to humans.

The modified wheat has been altered to lower its glycaemic index in an attempt to see if the grain could have health benefits such as improving blood glucose control and lowering cholesterol levels.

But eight scientists and academics from Britain, the US, India, Argentina and Australia believe not enough studies have been done on the effects of GM wheat on animals to warrant human trials.
…
In a letter to the CSIRO’s chief executive Megan Clark, the scientists expressed their “unequivocal denunciation” of the experiments.

“The use of human subjects for these GM feeding experiments is completely unacceptable,” the letter said.

“The experiments may be used to dispense with concerns about the health impacts of consuming GM plants, but will not in fact address the health risks GM plants raise.

“The feeding trials should not be conducted until long-term impact assessments have been undertaken and appropriate information released to enable the scientific community to determine the value of such research, as against the risks.”

…

Greenpeace food campaigner Laura Kelly said GM experts recommended that long-term animal feeding studies of two years should be carried out before human testing to evaluate any carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural and reproductive dysfunctions.

“This is the first generation of Australian children that will be exposed to GM in food for a lifetime,” she said.

“If Julia Gillard doesn’t stand up to foreign biotech companies, soon they’ll be eating it in their sandwiches and pasta, even though it has never been proven safe to eat.”

Sounds scary, doesn’t it? In fact, truth about what is being done at CSIRO is not quite as terrifying as all that.

The particular breed of wheat which is being researched was modified in a manner that alters the structure of starches, reducing the rate at which they are absorbed into the body. This has the effect of reducing the glycaemic index. It’s an important consideration because the glycaemic index of foods is directly related to the stability of blood sugar levels. Grains with a lower glycaemic index could therefore be an important part of managing diabetes and may have other dietary benefits. As with some other genetically modified organisms, the goal is not so much to improve crop yield or economics but rather to provide desirable nutritional characteristics.

Research on the breed of rice in question has been going on for more than six years. There have been no human trials and there are no immediate plans for human trials, but the grain has been fed to rats and more recently pigs. Most of the large scale feeding experiments have been fairly limited in duration, but have generally had positive results, showing that the modified starch does indeed reduce the glycaemic index of the foods.

Of course, the intention is that these crops will eventually be grown for human consumption and as such, there will be human trails at some point in the future. And that is what has a few all hot and bothered.

Despite the news being rather common, the actual names of the scientists involved and the content of the letter have not been as widely published. Thankfully, Karl Haro von Mogel of Biofortfied did some digging and discovered things to be a bit different than they were portrayed.

First, it turns out the letter was not written by a group of concerned scientists at all. It was written by Greenpeace. Greenpeace put together the letter and then went out looking for scientists to sign it. They must have searched nearly the entire world, because in the end they had to cast their net as far and wide as India, the United States, Argentina, Australia and the United Kingdom. And in this worldwide search for scientists to sign on they managed to find a whopping… eight. Yes, eight. Eight signatures is all they could manage to get, and they’re not even from what would generally be regarded as “prominent” scientists either. Not only that, but three are not really scientists at all.

So for those keeping score: In the entire world there were five real scientists and three resume-padders willing to sign Greenpeace’s letter. Most of whom, by the way, are already fixtures in the anti-GM movement.

Von Mogel also attempted to track down the contents of the letter, which did not seem to be published anywhere. Curious, it would seem, since it is supposed to be an “Open Letter.” He contacted one of the individuals listed in news items, who dismissed him as “pro-GM” and would not provide the text of the letter. He then contacted Greenpeace, who would also not provide the text of the open letter.

Finally, he contacted CSIRO, who were more than willing to provide a copy of the letter they received.

(more…)

If that headline sounds a bit grandiose , it’s because it is.   We’ve achieve a victory, a big one.   By the ingenuity and effort of mankind a tiny destructive organism that recently existed by the trillions has been wiped from the face of the earth.   This hasn’t happened many times before, but when it does, it’s a huge victory, and one which we hope to repeat many more times.

In this case what has been eradicated is not a human disease but one that decimated livestock.   Rinderpest, or the “German Cattle Plague” was a virus related to measles but attacking bovines, such as cattle and some related species.   At times outbreaks had decimated both meat and dairy herds around the world.  It has destroyed herds since at least Roman times and even in the later half of the 20th century, it was causing billions of dollars in damage.   It ruined farmers and herders and epidemic levels in Africa contributed to famine in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

For centuries, the battle to control Rinderpest met with some success through quarantine and inspection for the disease.   Yet the threat continued to exist.  Various vaccines were developed, with early experiments going back as far as the 1700’s.   Sir Arnold Theiler is credited with producing the first fully effective general purpose vaccine for Rinderpest in the early 20th century.   More advanced vaccines would be developed throughout the century.   Organized international efforts toward eradication began in 1920 when the World Organization for Animal Health was formed with the specific goal of controlling Rinderpest.

And now it’s gone!

VIA CNN:

Deadly animal disease that shaped history is eradicated
- It decimated herds and caused disaster, devastation and death associated with the fall of the Roman Empire, the French Revolution and the colonization of Africa.

But after years of global efforts, rinderpest — German for cattle plague — doesn’t exist anymore. It is the first animal disease to be eradicated and only the second disease ever, after smallpox in 1980.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization declared Tuesday that the world was rid of rinderpest.

“This is of tremendous benefit to people and is also a relief for a lot of animal suffering,” said Peter Cowen, an associate professor of epidemiology and public health at North Carolina State University.

“The eradication of rinderpest in the animal health world is every bit as courageous an effort and as creative an effort as was the eradication of smallpox,” he said.

Rinderpest is not exactly a household name. For starters, it did not exist in America. And it affected only cloven-hoofed beasts — cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, yaks.

Animals don’t have silly ideas about vaccines causing autism or being made by the evil corporations that spread chemtrails and try to use microwave weapons to make us buy transfat-containing irradiated GMO products from Haliburton and the Freemasons.   Most farmers know a thing or two about animal health and realize how important protecting their herds are.   So there are no issues with eradicating these diseases by vaccination as there are in humans.

But we *can* do this with human diseases.  We did it with Small Pox and we can do it with Polio, and Measles and Mumps and Rubella and others.

The Environmental Working Group has really gotten under my skin before, but this time they’ve crossed the line and erased it when it comes to deceptive, dishonest tactics for attention. Their fear-mongering seems to know no bounds and their carefully cultivated image as a pro-consumer group is a thin veil for a group that is all about money. Their top executive takes in nearly a quarter million dollars a year from a group that only nets a few million. Sound like an honest non-profit to you? Of course, they are working to get more attention and more money, no doubt for more highly paid staff.

The EWG is good at one thing: Pandering to the press. They’ve turned it into a damn art. They know what to go for: topics like dangerous products and foods mixed with claims of corruption by the “big corporations.” Trendy buzzwords and hot topics like subsidies and the safety of the food supply and of course “the children!”

There are other things the press likes: They love things like lists, because lists are simple and to the point. They make good bullet points and they don’t take much thought to get the message across. So a list combining something like perceived dangerous foods is sure to get a lot of attention and coverage, which it has.

Thus the group has released their list of the “dirty dozen” most “pesticide-contaminated” foods. It has gotten a lot of attention and a lot of people are shocked to find out their favorite foods are on the list.

There is, however, a very dirty little secret here: The “dirty dozen” foods do not actually have to test high for pesticide residue, by any standard to make the list. In fact, in all cases, the actual levels found on these items are well bellow all regulatory guidelines.

In fact, they seem to have decided to come up with a list like this every year, showing the twelve “worst” and twelve “best” foods in terms of pesticide residue.   Since its a foregone conclusion before the analysis actually is done that there will be twelve selected as “worst” it does not matter how low the concentrations are – as long as they can find at least twelve foods that meet their criteria for pesticides, they will have no problem coming up with the “dirty dozen” regardless of how low the actual numbers are or how few of the samples tested have any detectible residue at all.

So the deck is stacked: as long as there is any pesticide residue anywhere they just have to rank the “most contaminated” and they have a list which can outrage everyone.

Also, their methodology is a big steaming pile of crap

(more…)

Lets get something straight:  No matter how much I disagree with a group or person I’ll support their right to protest.  By protest I mean hold rallies, demonstrate, wave banners, hand out leaflets, run advertisements, arrange boycotts and run petition drives.   Even groups I completely hate have the right to do these things.

Going onto property that does not belong to you and blatantly destroying it is not protest.   It’s vandalism, trespassing and theft.  Except in rare circumstances where a group is denied the right to express themselves otherwise and is actively oppressed, such measures are simply not justified and intolerable.

It is even more intolerable when the action comes as a result of the fact that the group is sore about the fact that they tried to stop something legitimate from happening and failed.

This is what happened in England, Belgium and elsewhere by groups which still thinks they are persecuted and can’t seem to wrap their mind around the fact that it’s the job of the police to stop them from doing this.   Perhaps I should show them how this works if the tables are turned.  Since I disagree with these people maybe I should assert my right to burn down their houses in “protest” of their view?

It’s amazing how tolerant society is of these bastards. They actually stand there and hold a press conference after breaking the law. I wonder if a bank robber could get away with setting up a podium after an armed robbery and then taking questions from the press on what he intends to spend the loot on.

This is also a classic example of fear and ignorance driven action. These people can’t understand what these crops are even all about and only know that their leaders told them to be afraid of them and destroy them before it’s too late. The developers of these crops must be evil and the crops themselves are horrible entities which must be destroyed. It’s sad but even as religion fades in much of Europe, the exact same kind of demonic thinking seems to have been applied elsewhere.

The potatoes in question are a variety that is now being tested after years of research and development. They are modified to make them resistant to damage by fungus, commonly known as blight. This is the fungus that decimated potato crops in the 1800s and lead to the Great Irish Potato Famine. Today blight no longer threatens populations with starvation but is still a major problem for potatoes, especially in Europe. Selective breeding has given potatoes some resistance to the fungus and every year huge amounts of fungicide are used to keep it in check. Still many tens of millions of Euros are lost annually.

Via Biofortified:

(more…)

As the situation at the Fukushima nuclear plants has begun to stabilize, a new threat to the economic recovery of Japan and the livelihood of Japanese farmers and exporters has begun to rear its ugly head. Reports are now surfacing of food testing positive for radioisotopes traced to the core venting at Fukushima.

Via CNN International:

Japan’s radioactive food found in major local producer
The disclosure Saturday by Japanese authorities that milk and spinach have shown higher-than-normal levels of radiation contamination has raised concerns about food safety and supplies in one of Japan’s most heavily populated regions.

Tainted milk was found 30 kilometers (18 1/2 miles) from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant and spinach was collected as far as 100 kilometers (65 miles) to the south, almost halfway to Tokyo. The plant was badly damaged after a 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami hit the coast on March 11.

But Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano stressed to reporters Saturday afternoon that the levels were not extremely high: A person who consumed these products continuously for a year, he said, would take in the same amount of radiation as that of a single CT scan.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said that equates to 7 millisieverts, more than double the 3 millisieverts that a person in an industrialized country is typically exposed to in a year.

Health effects would become more evident, he said, if such products were taken in daily for a lifetime. Edano said high radiation levels were not systemic for all spinach and milk tested, and that more data would be collected and analyzed under the Japanese health ministry’s watch to help determine what steps to take next.

The Fukushima prefecture, or province, is just to the northeast of Tokyo. According to the prefecture’s website, Fukushima plays an important role in supplying food, not only to Tokyo, but also to the nation. The prefecture is Japan’s fourth-largest farmland area and ranks among the top producer of fruits, vegetables, rice, tobacco and raw silk. The favorable climate lends itself to an active agricultural industry that includes livestock farming.

The website also states that the prefecture’s 159 kilometer-long coastline is home to a thriving fishing and seafood processing industry, and the area’s haul of fish is among Japan’s largest.

Neighboring Ibaraki prefecture supplies Tokyo with a significant amount of fruits and vegetables. Ibaraki is the largest producer of Andes melons in Japan, according to the prefecture’s website, as well as the country’s third-largest producer of pork.

Most information available is fairly vague about both the type of radioisotope found in foods and the total amount. That said, current measurements may not be entirely reliable, since levels tend to vary quite widely and a small number of samples may not provide a reliable reflection of the actual levels in the overall food supply.

(more…)

The United States has been using ethyl alcohol as a gasoline additive for many years. Typically concentrations are up to ten percent, though they may be higher in some circumstances. It has been noted here before that using ethanol as a fuel additive is something of a double-edged sword when it comes to the performance of fuel and engines. Ethanol is an effective octane booster and can produce modest increases in combustion efficiency, but it can also cause some engines to run “too lean” and may damage some fuel system components on older vehicles. For most modern automobiles, this is not a major problem.

The bigger issue when it comes to ethanol is the environmental and economic aspects of the use of ethanol as a fuel. Although government subsidies may make raw ethanol cheaper than gasoline, the full balance of cost has ethanol costing more to produce, resulting in poorer economics, regardless of whether its the tax payers or motorists who foot the bill. It also complicates the logistics of fuel delivery, as alcohols tend to absorb water and therefore cannot be transported by long distance pipelines. While ethanol may increase the cost of food by diverting important growing capacity to fuel, it has not resulted in any substantive reduction of dependence on foreign petroleum for the United States. Its environmental benefits are also questionable to non-existent.

Given the disaster that the US ethanol program has been, one might think that other nations would look at the United States and see a prime example of exactly the kind of policy they do not want to emulate!

Well that’s not the case. It’s a bit ironic, but even as many US politicians want see the train wreck that is German electricity policy as a model for the US, German politicians apparently see the train wreck that is US motor fuel policy as a model for Germany. German motorists, however, are not so keen on the idea of having ethanol alcohol added to their fuel, resulting in the government scrambling to reassure the public that it’s the way to go.

Via DE World:

Germany calls emergency summit amid organic fuel chaos

The poorly prepared launch of a new fuel composed partly of organic petroleum has rocked the German petroleum industry, prompting the economics ministry to convene an emergency summit to resolve the situation.

Organic petroleum? Sorry, but what exactly other kind of petroleum exists?

I realize that this is just a mix-up of terminology, but it goes to show how confusing this issue can be made when politicians, reports and scientific terminology are involved, not to mention how silly the over-use of the word “organic” has gotten.
(more…)

It seems like it’s come back into vogue again.   Back in the 1970’s it was considered very fashionable to show how smart you were by predicting just how horrible the future would be.    Resource depletion, climate change and overpopulation, oh damn that overpopulation!    The world would certainly be a terrible place to live in the future as our evil technology lead to more filthy humans living longer lives and ruining everything!

Well, it seems like this whole song and dance is now back as “top scientists” and “researchers” warn us of the bleak future we have in store.

Via Discovery News:

Earth Could be ‘Unrecognizable’ by 2050
A growing, more affluent population competing for ever scarcer resources could make for an “unrecognizable” world by 2050, researchers warned at a major US science conference Sunday.

The United Nations has predicted the global population will reach seven billion this year, and climb to nine billion by 2050, “with almost all of the growth occurring in poor countries, particularly Africa and South Asia,” said John Bongaarts of the non-profit Population Council.

To feed all those mouths, “we will need to produce as much food in the next 40 years as we have in the last 8,000,” said Jason Clay of the World Wildlife Fund at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

“By 2050 we will not have a planet left that is recognizable” if current trends continue, Clay said.

The swelling population will exacerbate problems, such as resource depletion, said John Casterline, director of the Initiative in Population Research at Ohio State University.

But incomes are also expected to rise over the next 40 years — tripling globally and quintupling in developing nations — and add more strain to global food supplies.

People tend to move up the food chain as their incomes rise, consuming more meat than they might have when they made less money, the experts said.

It takes around seven pounds (3.4 kilograms) of grain to produce a pound of meat, and around three to four pounds of grain to produce a pound of cheese or eggs, experts told AFP.

“More people, more money, more consumption, but the same planet,” Clay told AFP, urging scientists and governments to start making changes now to how food is produced.

Population experts, meanwhile, called for more funding for family planning programs to help control the growth in the number of humans, especially in developing nations.

The WWF. Why am I not surprised? This organization, which was once reasonably moderate and even sane in the environmental sector is now racing to catch up with others when it comes to anti-humanism and dire predictions of a world ruined by mankind and technology. More money? More consumption? The horror! That there would be more wealth and more people could be comfortable and even enjoy a luxury or two! What will we do?

(more…)

Food-borne illness is not limited to organic-certified foods nor is it limited to non-certified foods. In recent years it’s become fashionable to claim that cases of food-borne illness are the result of modern large-scale agriculture, while it has been basically taboo to even consider the possibility that food labeled “organic” might actually have higher probability of carrying pathogens.

But dare I point out, has anyone else noticed this seems to be happening rather a lot lately?

Ground Beef Recall Issued for Nature’s Harvest Organic Beef

Sprouts linked to Salmonella outbreak

Boncheff fresh herbs recalled over salmonella

94 Cases of Salmonella Linked to Alfalfa Sprouts; Cilantro, Parsley Recall Expanded

E. Coli Risk Causes Cheese Recall

Salmonella scare prompts J&D Produce to recall Little Bear brand of vegetables

If you read the above articles, you’ll note that in all these cases, the products in question are of the “organic” variety.

This is not to single these products out as being the only ones which have the potential to carry pathogens, they certainly are not.   The fact of the matter is that both non-certified foods and certified foods can be contaminated with pathogens, but it’s relatively rare.

Still, it’s a growing problem.  Even as organic food becomes more popular.   Could it be that organic certified foods represent a higher (even if still relatively low) risk?

To some that might seem like blasphemy, as many organic food advocates claim that organic is safer and less likely to have pathogens, which they associate with big “factory farming.”

But there are some things about organic foods which could present a greater risk.

Some things to consider:

(more…)