What do you want it to do? Give you superpowers? The ability to predict the future perhaps? Growing food organically keeps things like pesticides and herbicides to a minimum which means they don't run off and end in rivers and reservoirs. They also use considerably less fertiliser which causes eutrophication in water as well as acidification of soils and water. Then there's pollutants which are found in both pesticides and fertiliser which accumulate in soil, water and food, not to mention accumulation of heavy metals such as cadmium. Then there's the amount of energy that goes into producing billions of gallons of fertiliser each year which has a direct impact on the environment, even just in terms of energy use and production.
Well maybe the solution to these problems is to continue to make the process of producing food more efficient both to the environment and in terms of net yields, rather than knocking it back 100 years. The simple fact is that organic farming can not produce enough of the foods we currently eat (the likes of producing organic cereals leads to huge losses in yields) to feed the population of the planet - so giving that someone has to eat the food which was produced by using fertilisers, and there is no proof it's any worse for me, then I'll buy the cheaper stuff, thank you very much.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about Mick. Intense farming causes huge damage to soil meaning an ever increasing need for more land. Erosion, desertification, acidification of soils etc. means that every year we lose millions of hectares of what was once productive land. This means that new land must be turned over to agricultural production which means destruction of forests, wetlands, savannah etc. It is utterly unsustainable. The more cheap, mass produced food you buy, the more land that needs to be used to produce it, leaving behind whole areas of little or no agricultural or economic value. Of course, being an expert in agriculture you'd already know that eh?
That would be terrific. I'd buy that. Belter. I remember that story about Internet Explorer and remember thinking âthis canât be rightâ whilst simultaneously secretly congratulating myself for using Safari (or Firefox). Aha, I silently told myself, I knew I was a wee bit special. Even starkly implausible news stories have a habit of warming the soul if they reflect well on the person reading them. Shameful but true. You canât remember what you got from Bad Science? Happens to me all the time. I can read a book and - even if Iâve really liked it - forget its contents almost immediately, unless Iâm able to talk about it with someone directly afterwards. Latterly, Iâve found myself occasionally taking notes, which is about as tragic an image as they come. Iâve read it. This is the worst book exchange club ever.
What I remember most about Bad Science is his complete debunking of anything that that rat-faced, hideously **** obsessed munter had to say, about anything.
You obviously have very strong opinions on this and may win an argument on something I've more casually paid attention to - but still I'm allowed to have an opinion on this if that's ok? I thought the whole pragmatic debate on the future of food was on how we produce more if it, more efficiently, with less water - with some of the key ideas being on genetically modifying crops to be more hardy. Apart from this (again I'm coming to this with my casual observations - you don't have to be so harsh as to claim that I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about) Britain has been intensively farmed for 100 years and we are not losing fertile land en masse. If the Brazillians are ruining their own environment then surely it's a case of educating on sustainability - I'm not sure non educated organic farming on these huge tracks of claimed land would be any better than intensively farming them? Anyway farmers in Britain are not switching from intensive to organic to save the environment - they are doing it so M&S can offer the middle classes a premium way to feel better about themselves - they are charging much more than their increased overheads necessitate to sell me something which is no better for me, and they are often marketing it as a healthier choice - this is my gripe - and again I'm sorry for not being as much of an authority on the subject as yourself.
Fair enough, but you are now not allowed to talk about sports betting until you've done 9 years in a betting company then
Anyway on to my next point. I refuse to buy anything with egg in it in M&S because they only offer products containing free range eggs I've yet to see a scientific study show me that free range eggs are any better for me, and I'm pretty sure they don't taste any different. Battery farmed hens all the way
Aside from issues of whether organic farming is better for the environment, more sustainable etc etc, "Organic" is undoubtedly a marketing ploy. Pushed by ******s like Jamie Oliver to make people think buying expensive, organic produce = tastier, healthier etc. It's not.
The funny thing is while I was admittedly doing a bit of fishing I wasn't making it up - I won't buy free range eggs
Try Happy Egg free range eggs. Trust me, once you've tasted proper eggs you wont go back to battery ****e. Anyway, 'battery hens' are supposed to be banned in Britain.
Free range are far nicer. There's a wee old woman lives near me with a few chickens out her back and gives me a few eggs now and again. They're white things and ****ing tasty.
