ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
by Lawrence Wilson,
MD
©
February 2012, The Center for Development
The
impact of twentieth century changes in agriculture on our health is at least as
profound as the effects of such inventions as cars, television and computers. One hundred years ago, all of our food
was:
¯
Organically grown.
That is, it was grown without toxic pesticides and chemical
fertilizers. Modern farm chemicals
simply had not been developed.
¯
Fairly locally grown, as the means to transport it
thousands of miles did not exist.
¯
Minimally processed compared to today.
¯
Not genetically modified, as this technology had not
even been dreamed about.
¯
Not grown with NPK or
ÒsuperphosphateÓ fertilizers.
¯
Not nearly as hybridized, as most food is today.
¯
Not sprayed with wax or MAP (modified atmospheric
packaging).
¯
Not irradiated, as some of it is today.
Many
more people lived close to the land on small, family-owned farms. The average life span was shorter than
it is today. However, that was due
to the prevalence of infectious diseases that caused many to die in
childhood. If one lived to adulthood, the
life span was the same as today or better, without the need for operations and
modern drugs. Cancer and
heart disease were minor problems - and people ate plenty of red meat, and fat.
Today, our health situation has
improved in some ways with modern medical care, the ability to airlift people
to hospitals, and modern surgery and drugs. But in other ways, the health picture is far worse. Cancer, heart disease, diabetes,
arthritis, ADD, autism, birth defects and other conditions that were much less
prevalent are today major problems.
Much more money is spent on disease care, with very poor results.
Changes in agriculture have a lot to
do with these changes, and this is the subject of this article.
WHAT
IS ORGANIC, SUSTAINABLE AND BIODYNAMIC AGRICULTURE?
Basically,
these are methods of growing food and raising livestock, to some degree, that
do not depend the use of toxic chemical pesticides, basically. Instead, less toxic pesticides and
other means are used to combat insects and other pests. These include innovative means of
fertilizing the soil, crop rotation techniques, composting methods, and many
other techniques. Some are older
methods, while others use cutting edge technology to help improve the fertility
of the soil and to combat plant diseases and insect and other pests that
routinely destroy crops around the world.
Some
organic or sustainable agriculture is also done without the use of
superphosphate fertilizers. These
are more modern fertilizers that stimulate the soil and the crops, and
definitely produce higher yields in some cases. One problem is that the superphosphate fertilizers, of
themselves, do not replenish the trace minerals on the soil. This becomes a serious issue when one
is removing more minerals due to highter crop
yields. Also, like many
symptomatic healing methods, superphosphates tend to deplete the soil to a
degree and can definitely damage it.
For more on this topic, read Superphosphates
on this website.
Biodynamic
agriculture is a European variant of organic agriculture that is based on the
work of Dr. Rudolf Steiner. It is
a more involved way of using various mineral preparations, enzymes to break
down compost, and other methods to enhance the soil and the crops grown on that
soil.
Organic
agriculture is once again on the rise.
It is one of, if not the fastest growing sectors of the food market in
America, in particular, but also in Europe and some parts of Asia. Many supermarkets are now offering
organic products, for example, along with health food stores and other
outlets. While the quality is not
always consistent at all, this I view as a life-saving trend for everyone on
planet earth. The reasons for
returning to scientific organic agriculture are:
1.
To stop the horrendous pesticide pollution of the soil, water and air of the
entire planet earth. This
pollution is affecting the soil, livestock, wildlife, fish and the oceans, as
well as human life on planet earth.
2.
To improve the quality of our food.
Organic food generally has much higher levels of vital nutrients than
commercially grown food, although not in every case. The food, of course, is also much less toxic for the farmers,
their families, and for those who eat it.
This has been proven in numerous studies. Do not believe anyone who says there is no difference
between organic and non-organic food.
3. Organic soil is rich in humus and other compounds that
absorbs radiation much better from nuclear disasters such as is occurring in
Japan (see Acres USA Magazine, Vol. 41, #5, 2011, page 5).
5.
Organic methods also tend to preserve the topsoil and prevent soil erosion, a
very serious problem in some areas of the world.
6.
Organic farming methods tend to make the soil more porous, so that when it
rains it absorbs a lot more water.
This helps reduce water runoff, flooding, and topsoil erosion.
Let
us now discuss a number of aspects of the agriculture question, one of the most
important on planet earth at this time.
ARE PESTICIDES A BAD IDEA?
Yes,
as a general rule they are a horror.
They have now contaminated most water supplies on planet earth, killed
thousands of people, polluted the air, killed animal species, and continue to
persist in the environment because most do not break down quickly. They have also damaged the soil
micro-organisms, worsening the quality of the soil in most nations of the
world. Pesticides are discussed in
more detail later in this article.
IS
ORGANIC FOOD BETTER FOR YOUR HEALTH?
Real
organically grown food is far better!
To begin with, it is generally much more nutritious. This has been proven in a number of
studies, one of which is mentioned later in this article. Also, you will be exposed to far fewer
toxic chemicals, pesticides, insecticides, growth hormones, drugs and other
harmful items. Also, by choosing
to eat only organically grown food you will be helping to clean up planet earth
far more than you might imagine.
The only problem is that not all food
labeled organic is wonderful. This
is because the standards are still being established and some large companies
are fighting to have them lowered. So always shop at places you
trust. Also, look for labels that
tell you where food was grown and avoid the long-distance food sources like
China, if at all possible.
THE
GREEN REVOLUTION
The
green revolution is the name given to the changes that revolutionized
agriculture in the twentieth century.
Scientists discovered that fertilizing plants with superphosphate
fertilizers, sometimes called N-P-K fertilizers, stimulated plant growth and
increased crop yields. Hybrid
crops were also developed that enhanced crop yields. The combination increased food production per acre up to 10
times or even more!
The
mineral content of the soil remained the same, however. So the mineral content of each plant
declined dramatically. The new
crops were also weaker and more vulnerable to pests and diseases. Scientists then developed modern pesticides
to kill the bugs.
Along
with high-yield crops and chemical sprays, mechanization was introduced to
agriculture. Because a large
acreage of one crop is easier for a machine to plant and harvest, monoculture
or one-crop farming became more common.
This also made crops more vulnerable to pests, which increased the use
of the toxic sprays. With heavy
equipment, one farmer could cultivate thousands of acres. Many fewer people were needed on
farms. The mechanized farms were
more efficient, so small farmers began to go out of business by the thousands
and the industry consolidated.
AGRIBUSINESS
Thus
was born what is called agribusiness.
These are large multinational companies that own or control huge farms
and expensive equipment, produce the pesticides and fertilizers, and distribute
food worldwide. Combined with
other twentieth century inventions such as refrigeration and high-speed travel,
the Green Revolution radically changed food production and distribution in the
world.
While
the family farmer is still around in a few nations, in most nations
agribusiness has bought up the land, replaced the old crops with the new
hybrids, sprayed the land over and over, and depleted the soils even more in
many instances. In a way, it is a
total shame. However, thanks to
capitalism, the land and crops are valuable, so the agribusinesses cannot
afford to totally destroy the land, as some of the farmer of old did when they
had lots of extra land to farm, as occurred in the early history of America for
example. Here farmers would just
plant the same crop until they wore out or demineralized
the soil, and then they would just move on to a new area.
SCIENTIFIC
FARMING
Those
days are over, mainly, so now farmers must rotate crops and rejuvenate the soil
as much as they can to maintain production. Even so, the land is quite demineralized
in most places on earth from poor farming practices. Farming is actually a very exact science and not one
that lends itself to random experimentation. Farming has become much more scientific, and this is
good. The identical test to the
hair mineral analysis is used by all larger farmers to check their land before
planting to determine what they are missing and what the soil has too much
of.
The
really wise farmers can also interpret the test somewhat like Dr. Eck
interprets a hair analysis. This
is more advanced, however, than most farmers are capable of. Fortunately, the mineral system in the
soil is also simpler, so less studying is required to know how to alter the
soil minerals to produce the best crops.
THE
COMPLEXITY OF AGRICULTURE TODAY
Another
complication is there are a dizzying number of seeds available now to
farmers. This is new and it the
result of research and genetic alteration, though farmers have been doing this
forever, practically. This
complicates the soil-seed-food connection, as it is often a hit or miss
process, at least with certain crops.
All
this lends complexity to agriculture, something that is not appreciated by the
consumer of the food in most cases, who is mainly concerned with how it looks
and how it tastes. Agriculture,
however, is one of the most important subjects, if not the most important next
to water, for human health. So it
is a very important area, even though it is a very specialized one as well.
GREEN
REVOLUTION A MIXED SUCCESS
The
Ôgreen revolutionÕ succeeded in drastically increasing the amount of food
grown. American farms feed
millions more people around the world. Our government pays farmers millions
each year not to grow certain crops to keep the prices up. We also have access
to fresh pineapples from Hawaii or Malaysia, tomatoes from Colombia, even rain
forest herbs. Fresh food can be
shipped virtually anywhere on earth in a few days.
The
green revolution also succeeded in increasing the efficiency of farming, if
that is measured in human labor required to grow food. It also succeeded in reducing human
drudgery - the hard, relentless manual labor required for non-mechanized
farming.
However,
not all changes have been positive.
Modern agriculture requires huge investments in machinery, fuel,
chemical sprays and fertilizers.
Other difficulties and costs to society may be far greater.
Chemical Poisoning. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency considers pesticide poisoning the worst environmental problem in the
world. Pesticides have
contaminated almost all water supplies in most nations, decimated dozens of
animal species, and polluted every aspect of our environment. Most are cumulative poisons and
carcinogenic. Cumulative means
they do not leave the body and they just build up more and more.
The
American Cancer Society estimates that 85% of cancers are environmentally
caused. The cost of this epidemic
is enormous. Some pesticides cause
genetic damage similar to the effects of atomic fallout. This may contribute to a doubling or
the birth defect rate in America since 1950. Other pesticides mimic estrogen, which may contribute to
many cancers and other health problems.
By killing soil microorganisms, herbicides and pesticides contribute to
massive soil erosion and loss of precious topsoil around the world, even
creating deserts in some areas.
Nutritional Depletion. Few people realize how devastating
chemical agriculture has been to the nutrient content of our food. The average supermarket apple or tomato
today bears little resemblance to
one grown 100 years ago. This was
the subject of a book written in the 1980's called Food For Naught, The Decline
in Nutrition by Ross Hume Hall. A more
recent book on the same subject is called Empty Harvest (1995) by Bernard
Jensen and Mark Anderson.
According
to the USDA, the calcium content of an apple has declined from 13.5 mg in 1914
to 7 mg in 1992. The iron content
has declined from 4.6 mg in 1914 to 0.18 mg in 1992. Some nutrition books written 50 or 60 years ago simply do
not apply to today's food.
For
example, some people think they can live comfortably on the protein in pasta or
other wheat products because they read this in books. However, today's wheat has about half the protein content of
wheat grown just 80 years ago. The
use of pesticides and stimulant fertilizers has allowed poor-quality crops that
would otherwise have been destroyed by pests to make it to market.
Mass
production of chicken, beef, pork and other products often results in unhealthy
animals who receive over half the antibiotics used in America. Residues of these and other drugs used
in food production find their way into our meat, eggs, and dairy products.
A
study published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45, #1, 1993, pp.
35-39 compared the nutrient content of supermarket food versus organically
grown food from food stores in the Chicago area. The organic produce averaged twice the mineral content of
the supermarket food! Fortunately,
the organic food industry is growing rapidly, as the truth about our
nutritionally-depleted food becomes more widely known.
Health Disasters and even more world
starvation. Along with the
green revolution has come "the diseases of civilization". Authorities are realizing that costly
epidemics of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, AIDS, mental illness and even
violence are related to the nutritional content of the food, and toxic
substances in the food, water and air.
Also, the advent of agribusiness has upset the social fabric of many
traditional societies. Today they
cannot feed themselves and their land has often been sold out from under them
to the large companies that ruin the land and ship the crops back to America
and Europe while the local people do not have enough to eat.
Social Displacement. Factory farming has also forced millions
of people off their land and into the cities seeking work. Life on the farm was not easy, but
living on the land provided a source of security, and a far healthier
environment than many city environments.
Many people today cannot even afford the food that is grown on what was
their land. Living on the land has
been replaced by ghetto tenements in many nations including America.
This
is not a total indictment of factory farming and agribusiness. However, it is important to understand
that any movement or revolution of this magnitude and nature, as has occurred
in agriculture just in the past 50 to 100 years, has had far reaching
consequences in many nations on the globe. If one wishes to evaluate the green revolution, one must
consider all of these consequences, and it is a very complex picture. While millions have been displaced,
millions have also been relieved of a life of drudgery and given educational
opportunities to work in the factories and at the computers that were literally
impossible 50 years ago. This is
especially the case in nations such as China where most of the people still
live on family farms and barely eke out a living, while the wealthy live so
much better and live so much longer, as a result. So the agribusiness revolution that is sweeping the world is
having a powerful leveling effect as well, and this is decidedly positive. The worst aspect, from my perspective,
is the destruction of the old seeds and the fertile land. It is being sprayed and sprayed until
everything is contaminated with chemicals that are quite toxic. America is way ahead of the rest of the
world in setting up laws to prevent wholesale destruction of the environment
with agricultural chemicals, but even here, farmers are among the most ill
people, which is new, because they work with all these chemicals. Organic farms are better, but the
organic movement is still very small, though it is growing fast as people wake
up to the reality of the health and environmental disaster that is modern
chemical agriculture.
TWO
TRENDS
On one hand, the
green revolution continues in full swing, with ever newer technologies to
produce more and cheaper food.
Genetically engineered foods and food irradiation are two of the newer
technologies. New drugs are
developed to handle the new plant, animal and human diseases that result from
consuming the chemically-grown foods.
.
The
other trend is the growth of organic, sustainable, or ecological agriculture,
the environmental movement, the locally grown movement, land trusts, and seed
banking. Sometimes I feel it is a
race to see which will win. Of
course, the answer is the organic movement, as it is the more sustainable and
it is what the people want.
However, the Òfood scientistsÓ keep trying to come up with newer seeds
and plants that can withstand more pesticides and can grow in more depleted
soils. The food is a mix,
therefore, of old technology and new.
As a result, you never know what you will get these days in the
supermarkets or even the health food stores. This is just one problem with todayÕs food.
GENETICALLY
ENGINEERED (GE or GMO) FOODS
Genetic
engineering involves adding, deleting or changing specific genes in a plant to
produce certain qualities in the plant.
Genetic modification is not new.
Crops have always been crossbred to produce tastier, hardier, more
nutritious varieties of food.
Indeed, our present foods were bred from wild plants by generations of
farmers who carefully picked the best of their crop to produce the next year's
crop.
The
new genetic methods are more specific, work much faster, and for the first time
companies are patenting their new varieties to give them control over who grows
the crops. They are also, for the
first time, combining the genes of pigs or fish with those of plants. This is radical new technology –
and very unproven in its long-term effects.
As
with any new technology, there are potential problems with GE. For example, some G-E plants make their
own toxic pesticides. In a recent
incident, Bt corn, bred to produce a pesticide to kill corn borers, also killed
monarch butterflies that ate the pollen.
It won't kill humans outright, but what are the health effects? Thirty percent of the corn grown in
America in 1999 was genetically engineered Bt corn.
Roundup
Ready soybeans are bred to withstand more of the pesticide called Roundup. This means more pesticide can be
sprayed. This is excellent for the
pesticide producer. However, what
does the pesticide do to our bodies, water supplies, wildlife, and soil
microorganisms?
Another
controversial area of GE is called "terminator genes". These are genes that are added to the
plant so that it will not reproduce.
This way, the farmer must buy new patented seeds from the company each
year, instead of saving seeds for next year, a common practice especially in poorer nations. In summary, there are potential
benefits of GE, such as improved drought-resistance or nutrition of crops. In practice, however, the focus of GE
is often on greater production and continued dependence on chemical methods of
agriculture.
Most
European nations, where more small farms remain, prohibit the importation of GE
foods or seeds. There is less
concern in America, although recently two large natural food retailers decided
to stop selling GE foods.
Americans tend to embrace new technology more readily, and in America
chemical companies have more influence.
Most likely, GMO
or GE foods should be banned, as we simply donÕt know enough about its
long-term effects. As a first
step, there is a campaign to insist on labeling of genetically engineered
foods. This is the only way people
will have a choice regarding what they are eating. Time will tell if any of the GMO
foods are really better foods for our health, and not just ways to enhance crop
yields or fight bugs that attack poor quality crops.
FOOD
IRRADIATION
As
food is grown and shipped globally, avoiding spoilage is of great
importance. Food grown with
pesticides and chemical fertilizers often does not keep as well as the older,
hardier varieties. This has spawned
interest in newer methods of food preservation. Irradiation of plant and animal products kills bacteria that
can cause spoilage.
Problems
with food irradiation are the danger of damaging sensitive components of the
food, harm to workers, and disposing of spent radioactive material. Ionizing radiation is very harmful to
living matter. Also, food that
spoils easily is often of lesser quality.
Preserving it with irradiation to make it edible does not make it
healthful to eat. The nutritional
and vitality of the food take a back seat to the desires of the processors to
avoid spoilage.
Irradiated
food in America is supposed to be labeled, although processed food often
contains irradiated ingredients that are not labeled. Labeling of GE foods and irradiated food is a critical issue
so that people have a choice. I
believe irradiated food should be outlawed completely, as it is a method of
food processing that just further reduces the nutritional and safety of our
food, even if it kills harmful germs.
MAP
OR MODIFIED ATMOSPHERIC PACKAGING OF ORGANIC PRODUCE
Another newer insult to the food supply – including
food that is labeled organic - is called MAP. It is the
spraying of produce – fruits and some vegetables, too – with
various ÔnaturalÕ chemicals to preserve the food. This puts a sort of bio-film on the surface of the fruit that
helps retard spoilage.
As a result of this technology, food can be grown in China
or India, for example, and shipped to the United States on a slow-moving boat. The trip takes two weeks, at times, and
the food is miraculously still fresh-looking. This outsourcing of our agriculture is great for China, and
very bad for our health and for our farmers.
Problems with this technology are that food begins to lose
some of its nutrients as soon as it is picked, so Òpreserving itÓ with MAP,
while it may not spoil, it still loses nutrients. Also, the chemicals used to create the bio-film or
atmospheric packaging, as it is euphemistically called, are often slightly
toxic. They can cause allergic
reaction, and often there are outbreaks of disease because the food is not
clean and fresh, even if it looks like it.
This may be one reason to eat good quality frozen produce
instead of fresh produce Òmade in ChinaÓ.
The frozen vegetables are often frozen at the farm, and freezing, or
even canning them, preserves them better than many of the chemicals used in the
modified atmospheric packaging. This
is a difficult question to answer simply, as it will vary among different
crops. I will be researching it
more in the future and will report upon it in this article.
I am opposed to all MAP technology at this time, as I do
not think it is necessary or helpful for our health. Yes, it makes for slightly cheaper food grown in China, but
the unintended consequences or Ôside effectsÕ of ingesting many unknown and odd
chemicals is not worth it. At
least, it should be absolutely labeled with any chemicals that are sprayed on
it, even if they are ÒnaturalÓ. Here
is a link to a longer article on this subject:
ORGANIC
AGRICULTURE
The
organic, sustainable and biodynamic agriculture movements in America and around
the world are the fastest growing area of agriculture. A recent study revealed one can grow
equal amounts of food without toxic pesticides and herbicides.
One
can also raise animals without massive use of antibiotics, female hormones and
other drugs used on farm animals and farm fish. An excellent, simple study in the Journal of Applied
Nutrition (45:1, pp.35-39, 1993) indicated that commercial food bought randomly
at Chicago supermarkets had an average of less than half the mineral content of
organic food, also bought randomly at Chicago area food stores.
The
organic methods build up the soil, produce hardier crops that resist pests,
preserve the environment, and provide more nutritious food. The food may not look different, but it
has a longer shelf life and is nutritionally superior, as revealed in several
studies.
A
final word on organic agriculture.
Recently the US Department of Agriculture took over mandating standards
for organic agriculture. This was
probably inevitable, but it has resulted in a definite decline in the quality
of some organic food. They allow a
certain amount of pesticides and residues in the food, no doubt a perk for
certain large companies that want to be in on the organic profits.
Therefore,
be wary of organic food, especially if you donÕt know the source. It is still far preferable, in general,
to standard commercial food, but not always.
Organic
clothing and more. Offshoots of
the organic movement that are still in their infancy include the use of organic
cotton and hemp clothing. Half of
all the pesticides are applied to cotton.
Hemp
requires no pesticides as it is a hardier crop. It was a major crop in America until it was banned in 1937.
Hemp is an excellent source of fiber for clothing, alcohol for fuel, and
protein and oils for nutrition and industrial applications.
Hemp
is not the same variety as marijuana, and was not banned in America because of
drug abuse. It was banned because
it competed with the nylon industry for clothing manufacture. It also competed with oil for fuel, and
with the timber industry for paper-making. Hemp is grown commercially almost everywhere except the
United States.
LAND TRUSTS
Land
trusts are agreements made by individual land owners to prevent future
development on their land. The
trusts contain strict covenants for the land use, to prevent its use for
parking lots and shopping centers, for example. Buyers or renters of the land
must agree to abide by the contract.
Though still a small movement, land trusts now exist in every part of
America. They are helping to save
farmland, wildlife habitats and old-growth forests from destruction.
SEED BANKS
As
new hybrid plants are used more widely, some of the older seed varieties are in
danger of being lost. Several
groups have taken on the task of saving and banking precious seeds. They could
be useful or even life-saving if weather changes or new crop diseases destroy
the hybrid or GE plants. Also, the
genetic material in the older seeds may be needed at some time to enhance our
crops. For research and for
disaster preparedness, the movement to save traditional seed varieties is an
important trend.
LOCALLY GROWN
More
small farmers are finding a niche catering to the needs of the local
community. Farmer's markets and
local buying clubs helps address the problem of the loss of the family
farm. Communities are reaping the
benefits of supporting local farmers by getting fresher and often better
quality produce. Often the local
farmers grow food organically, helping preserve the land, the wildlife and the
local environment. The locally
grown movement also fosters a greater sense of community, and contributes to
local self-sufficiency and sovereignty.
However,
do not be misled into thinking that locally grown food is always best. This is not the case. It may well be the freshest, but
sometimes a farm far away is able to produce better quality food.
We
are not going to go back to farming as it was done a century ago. However, it is possible to use modern
technology wisely to produce pure, nutritionally superior food without damaging
the environment. This is the
challenge for agriculture in the 21st century.
Resources
1. www.thecampaign.org (excellent site for labeling of
genetically engineered food.
2. Bergner, P., The Healing Power of Minerals, Special
Nutrients and Trace Elements, Prima Publishing, CA, 1997.
3. Hall, R., Food For Naught, The Decline in Nutrition,
Keats Publishing, New Canaan, CT, 1979.
4. Price, W., Nutrition and Physical Degeneration,
Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, La Mesa, CA.
1945, 1970.
5. J. Applied Nut., 1993, 45:1, pp. 35-39. (study of the mineral content of
organic versus commercial food in the Chicago area)
6. Wilson, L., Nutritional Balancing And Hair Mineral
Analysis, LD Wilson Consultants, Inc., 2010.
Home
| Hair Analysis | Saunas | Books | Articles
| Detox
Protocols