|
There is no substantially good scientific reason not to carefully use chemical fertilizers to grow crops, or not to use the (admittedly few) very safe herbicides.
Surprisingly, the
commercial
world has not identified and promoted methods that grow foods that are
substantially as would be found in nature - without residues, wholesome
and good. The building up of organic matter in the soil, or it's
destruction,
is entirely outside the issue of what natural food is. One day, a
'natural
food' standard may be drafted. Maybe.
Until such time, 'organic' food becomes the known standard.
'Organic food' is food raised (depending on the definition-there are
many of them) without chemical fertilizers (such as urea, potassium
sulfate,
or super phosphate) or chemical pesticides, fungicides, or herbicides.
It allows 'natural' metal fungicides such as copper sulfate and sulfur,
but no other chemicals.
Weed control is primarily by flame thrower and by digging, ploughing,
and hoeing.
Many animal and plant foods are difficult to produce without
appropriate
herbicides, pesticides, worm medecines, louse eradicants, vaccines
against
disease, and chemical fertilisers. 'Organic' production methods are generally
not as suited to mass food production. As a result, organic food is
usually
more expensive. Indeed, it may be seen as a luxury food, and is usually
priced accordingly.
There is also a strong 'moral', 'principled', and in some cases
extremely
tightly held almost quasi-religious belief set that accompanies
promotion
of organic as the only 'right' way.
As stated, because of the rigor of the allowable methods-especially
when overseen by licensed bodies-'organic' food has become the de
facto
standard for 'natural' food.
Perhaps one day 'organic' food may be put in what I believe is it's proper place - subsumed as a variant of the broad category 'natural food'. And when we consumers vote with our wallets for 'natural food', we are more likely to eventually get what we want - affordable safe, wholesome, food.
Not 'safe' as decided by government agencies testing chemicals on
mice
and rabbits (rodents), but 'safe' as decided by people (primates).
Because
chemicals cannot be tested on people we, the consumers must insist on
the
kind of production methods that we will accept. More subtle long
term effects of chemical use can never be
statistically/epidemiologically
determined in a world awash with chemicals of all kinds; we therefore
ought
to insist on a 'tiered food supply'
so
that we have choice.
A brief report on a minimal and least dangerous
spray regime for stone fruit (peaches, nectarines, apricots) pioneered
in New Zealands Hawkes Bay Province.
http://www.hortnet.co.nz/news/99/n3478.htm
When is 'organic' 'natural'? Growers experience with the proliferating
certification schemes in USA.
http://www.goodfruit.com/archive/Jan1-99/special9.html