Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Fried Not-So-Green Tomatoes

Environmental activists have long derided the consumption of foods that have been mass-produced via genetic modification, pesticides, and/or growth hormones. They argue that eating organically-raised foods have less of an ecological impact than its non-organic counterparts. The Daily Telegraph explains the findings of an agricultural report from the British Department for the Environment and Food:

Organic and locally-grown food may be no better for the environment than conventional produce, according to a Government-funded report.
For example, the report states that organically-grown tomatoes use 1.9 times more energy than regular tomatoes. Also, it points out that organic chickens require 25% more energy to rear and that organic cows use 80% more land to graze for milk and beef.

Not only do organically-cultivated foods use more energy and land to grow, but emit more carbon dioxide than conventional farming. It estimates that organic milk emits 20% more CO2 than regular milk. This is due to the extra manure required to grow the feed for organic cows and poultry. What's more, intensely-fertilized land can lead to acidification of soil and the pollution of water tables.

Another lie that environmental crusaders love to proclaim is that locally produced food is better for mother earth than ones that are trucked long-distance. The report states:

"Similarly there is little evidence that the consumption of locally sourced food products generally has a lower environmental impact than those from further afield."

With all these depressing facts about organic farming, enviro-commies are further marginalized as hypocrites. They perpetually preach about climate change and the environmental damage caused by excessive CO2 emissions. That their own eating habits are to blame for more emissions being released is a hard genetically-modified pill for them to swallow.

0 comments: