ORGANIC
AGRICULTURE
by Dr. Lawrence Wilson
© February 2021, LD
Wilson Consultants, Inc.
All information in
this article is solely the opinion of the author and for educational purposes
only. It is not for the diagnosis,
treatment, prescription or cure of any disease or health condition.
Contents
Definitions
Why Organic Agriculture?
Organic Certification And Its Problems
Four Levels Of Organic Food
II. BRIEF HISTORY OF AGRICULTURE
Ancient Agriculture
The Modern Era
The Green Revolution
The Organic Agriculture Movement
Other Newer Trends In Agriculture
Two Trends
Aspects:
1. Phosphates
2. Chemical pesticides and insecticides and Patented
Drugs
3. Mechanization
4. Agribusiness
5. Biotech
Summary – Benefits And Harm From The Green
Revolution
IV. CAUSES OF NUTRITIONAL DAMAGE DUE TO
THE GREEN REVOLUTION
1. Too many plants for the soil
2. Difficulty renourishing the
soil
3. Damage to the soil microorganisms and soil structure
4. Weaker plants
5. Poisoning of the plants and farm animals due to
pesticide residues.
GMOs
Food Irradiation
MAP Packaging
Frozen Food
References
________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
NOTE: To do justice to the subject of
organic agriculture would require thousands of pages explaining the theory,
practice, history, details, politics and thorough documentation. This is available in some books. This article is an introduction to this
large and very important subject.
A General
definition of organic agriculture. Organic agriculture is a
group of methods of growing food and raising farm animals that does not require
and does not use toxic chemicals such as pesticides, insecticides, fungicides
and others.
Some also define organic agriculture as the method of agriculture that
does not require or use chemical fertilizers (superphosphates). These are synthetic chemicals that are
growth stimulants.
Some also include in the definition of organic agriculture proper care
of the soil and rebuilding, nourishing and balancing of the soil in order to
support agriculture that does not require toxic chemicals.
Organic
certification definitions. Various organic food
certifying organizations have more precise definitions of organic
agriculture. These definitions or
certifications allow certain farm practices and some allow certain agricultural
chemicals, but not others.
Other important words used in
agriculture. A separate article contains definitions
for many other words used in connection with modern agriculture. For details, read Definitions In Agriculture.
Related terms. We
like the term organic agriculture. However, some farmers and authors use words
whose meanings overlap somewhat with the definition of organic agriculture:
Sustainable agriculture
Eco-agriculture
Regenerative agriculture
Biodynamic agriculture
This is quite confusing, but it is the situation in this area of human
endeavor. We explain more about
some of these terms in the section on the History
Of Organic Agriculture.
WHY ORGANIC AGRICULTURE?
There is a crisis in agriculture at this time. In our view, a return to organic
agriculture is the only answer for the crisis.
The crisis is as follows:
1. The mineral content of most food
on planet earth has declined by a factor or 10 or more during the past 100
years. In some cases it has
declined by a factor of 100.
This is having subtle, but
devastating effects upon all life on earth. This includes the health of human beings, especially those
who work on farms. It also
includes the health of all animal life, including wildlife, and the health of
all plant life on earth.
This crisis goes unnoticed, for the most part. Food crops often looks good and many
taste good. However, if one
analyzes their mineral content, it is far lower than it was 100 years ago. Organic agriculture is the only
way to restore the nutrition to our food and thus to restore the health of the
human beings, animals, plants and the soil.
2. The soils and water supplies of
the earth are all polluted with residues of toxic pesticides, insecticides,
toxic metals and other agricultural chemicals that persist in the environment. This
pollution is affecting the soil, livestock, wildlife, fish and the oceans, as
well as human life on planet earth.
Organic agriculture is the only way to end this pollution and
desecration of the earth.
3. The topsoils
of the planet are eroding, threatening all life on planet earth. This
is a very serious problem worldwide.
Our lives literally depend upon
the first 12-24 inches of topsoil upon which all plants live.
Standard Ògreen revolutionÓ agriculture always leads to soil erosion
and destruction of farmland. This
occurs because toxic chemicals and other foolish farming practices kill soil
microorganisms that keep the soil aerated and give the soil structure.
Without a healthy soil ecology, the soil more
easily dries out and loses its structure.
Then when it rains or the wind blows, the topsoil washes away or blows
away.
Organic agriculture methods produce soil that is more
drought-resistant, more freeze-resistant and more wind-resistant. For example, 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.
Organic agriculture also produces plants higher in sugars that move
from the plants to the soil. It
makes the soil more hygroscopic,
which means able to hold more water.
This helps prevent runoff and erosion. Soil that is higher in sugars also has a lower freezing
point, which helps keep crops alive in cold areas.
WHAT ABOUT FEEDING ALL THE PEOPLE ON
EARTH?
The
main criticism of organic agriculture is that millions of people would starve
to death without the use of chemicals in agriculture.
However,
this is not true. At first, the
green revolution of the twentieth century caused much greater crop yields. However, the promise of chemical
agriculture is fading. As the
soils of the earth wear out and as we lose topsoil, crop yields have fallen and
other problems have arisen, such as toxicity and health problems.
Also, better organic methods have been developed in the past 60 years
or so. These can produce quite a
lot of food without damaging and polluting the soil.
WHAT ABOUT ORGANIC AGRICULTURE TO
FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE?
The following will sound controversial, but it is the truth. The earthÕs
atmosphere is hit by meteors, comets, asteroids and space debris day and
night.
Without help, any of these impacts would knock the orbit of the earth
out of balance. This would quickly
freeze or burn up the planet. Without
continuous correction, the planet would not last a month.
The truth is the earthÕs climate is carefully controlled by large fine
matter beings (see the article Bodies In Space). They continuously correct the earthÕs
distance from the sun and the speed of earthÕs rotation to maintain the climate
for all the plants and creatures of earth.
The climate change movement is mostly a left-wing political movement
designed to scare people and to limit the freedom and activity of the earthÕs
people. In fact, the climate has
always ÒchangedÓ, long before the advent of gas-powered cars and power plants.
To verify this, all one needs to do is read carefully the history of
climate. The earth has had a
series of ice ages, warm periods, stormy periods and everything in between all
during its history.
The present time is no different. It has nothing to do with human activity, but rather events
on the sun and perhaps other changes in our universe. For details, read Climate Change.
ORGANIC CERTIFICATION AND ITS
PROBLEMS
Organic certification. A
number of organizations, including the US Department of Agriculture, offer
organic food certification.
Usually, farmers pay a fee and the certifying agency inspects the farm.
If it meets their criteria, they can display a certification logo on their
products.
This system is okay, but has some problems. Getting certified is costly and it is impossible for any
certifying agency to check carefully to prevent cheating by the farmer. Also, large growers have infiltrated
some certification organizations, including the US Department Of Agriculture,
and have watered down the requirements for certification.
Warning.
Organic standards have been lowered in the United States and around the
world due to pressure by large growers who say they must use some pesticides,
at times, to maintain their crops.
We think this is just cheating, but they have succeeded in lowering
the organic standards to allow some use of chemical pesticides on supposedly
organic food. This has resulted in
several levels of ÒorganicÓ food:
LEVELS OF ORGANIC FOOD
Organic food is not all the same in its
nutritional content and its toxicity.
In fact, it varies quite a bit.
Some is little better than commercially grown food, while other food
labeled or sold as organic is quite superior. Here is a rough outline of the kinds of organic food
available today.
1. Commercial organic. This is the organic food found in
supermarkets and in most health food stores. Most is not totally organically grown. The standards have been watered down to
allow the use of some chemicals and still receive the organically grown
certification.
This food is also full of the residues of superphosphate fertilizers
or N-P-K soil amendments. This
also damages the quality of this food.
Brix level. The Brix level of the supermarket organic food is usually between
3 and 10. This is poor to
medium-quality food.
What is Brix? Brix is a quick and simple measure of the total sugars and
amino acids, mainly, of a plant leaf.
You can buy a simple refractometer and make
the measurement yourself. Leaf
solids are mainly minerals and sugars the plant makes by photosynthesis. The Brix
reading is considered a rough measure of photosynthesis and therefore a measure
of the health of a plant.
For comparison purposes, the Brix level of chemically-grown vegetables and fruit is about 2 or 3. These plants require fertilizers and
pesticides to survive. A Brix level of 12 or over is considered good and the food
usually does not require pesticides to survive. Bugs tend to leave it alone.
2. Local farmers market organic food. This
food is often better and found in some health food stores and at some farmerÕs
markets if the farm is organic.
The Brix level for this food is between 10
and about 15 to 16. Some local
farmers use superphosphate fertilizers, even if they say they are organic
farmers.
This food is usually better for your health and for the farmerÕs
family and others who must work with the soil. It requires fewer pesticides to control insects and other
pests. They are simply not
attracted to these plants as much.
Beware, however, that not all food at a farmerÕs market is organically
grown.
3. Biodynamic agriculture. This
is a method of agriculture inspired by the late Rudolf Steiner. It is superior in that it does not use
N-P-K or superphosphate fertilizers, which are basically growth stimulants and that damage the soil.
Yields tend to be a little lower, so this food is usually more costly.
If done properly, the Brix level of this
food is usually high, roughly 15 to 20 or 21. The reason is that without chemical pesticides and without
N-P-K additives, if the soil is not very good, little will grow.
4. Development organic. Some
day in the future we hope to grow a type of organic food specifically designed
to promote development. It will require improving the soil
using the development method. It
will have a high Brix reading, hopefully over
20. This project is still in the
research stage. For details, read The Development Method Of Agriculture.
II. A BRIEF HISTORY OF
AGRICULTURE
ANCIENT AGRICULTURE
For
thousands of years, people cultivated food crops and raised animals for
food. Most of this agriculture
would be called ÔorganicÕ because it did not involve the use of toxic chemical
pesticides, insecticides, growth stimulants and other chemicals.
However,
the quality of this agriculture varied greatly. Some was excellent and some was rather poor. Soil erosion and plant and animal
diseases have been around for thousands of years. For example, older books such as the Hebrew Bible speak
about plagues of insects and other agricultural problems.
Starvation
has been a problem on earth for thousands of years, as well. This was due, in part, to poor quality
agriculture and also due to climate variations, problems storing, transporting
and distributing food and political considerations, as well. For example, often invading armies
would burn or poison the fields of their enemies or poison the wells, knowing
this is one way to defeat an enemy.
1850 - THE MODERN ERA
Big
changes in agriculture began to occur around the middle of the 1800s. It began with the invention of the
cotton gin and several other machines that made parts of the process of
planting, weeding, irrigating and harvesting crops easier.
Indeed,
if America had not had a Civil War in 1860, we firmly believe that slavery
would have died out on its own because farm machinery was already beginning to
replace some human labor on southern plantations by that date.
Soon
after, however, the pace of change really sped up. This radical change in agriculture is often called the
green revolution.
1890 - THE GREEN
REVOLUTION
The
green revolution was and continues to
be the application of modern chemical, mechanical and pharmaceutical sciences
to agriculture. We discuss it in
detail in the next section of this article, The Green
Revolution.
THE BIRTH OF
ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
The
problems with the green revolution caught the attention of a number of
prominent agricultural scientists beginning around the beginning of the
twentieth century. Among them were George Washington Carver at the Tuskeegee
Institute in Alabama, USA. Another
was Dr. William Albrecht at the University Of Missouri. Another was Sir Albert Howard in
England, and there were others.
These scientists saw clearly that the green
revolution was a trap that was slowly ruining the farmland and ruining the
health of the crops, the farm animals, and the people who eat the food. They sounded the alarm and what is
called the organic food movement began as the response to the green revolution.
Today, organic
agriculture is fastest growing sectors of the food market in America and some
other nations.
TWO TRENDS
On one hand, the green
revolution continues in full swing, with 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 agriculture. Food today is often a mixture of these two trends. As a result, you never know what you
will get these days in the supermarkets or even the health food stores. This is another problem with todayÕs
food.
OTHER MODERN TRENDS IN AGRCULTURE
LAND TRUSTS
Land
trusts are companies that buy land or receive donations of land and they agree
to preserve the land as farmland.
The trusts have strict rules for the land use to prevent its use for
parking lots and shopping centers, for example.
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 GMO 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 their local
communities. Farmers markets and
local buying clubs help 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,
meat, eggs and other foods.
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 always true. It
may well be the freshest, but sometimes a farm far away is able to produce
better quality food.
COMMUNITY
SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE OR CSAs
This is an arrangement between farmers and
consumers in which the consumers pay a farm in advance for a ÔshareÕ, usually a
box of food per week.
This
trend began in Japan in the 1960s as an alternative to large-scale industrial,
chemical agriculture. It has
spread and is now common in the United States, Europe and elsewhere.
It
ties consumers to their food much more closely and they can buy locally-grown and usually organically grown food direct from
the far, which saves money. It helps
farmers to finance their operations and assures them a market for their products.
Aspects.
The Green Revolution in agriculture began around 1880 and to a degree,
continues today. It consisted and
continues to consist of five major elements:
1.
Phosphate-based chemical growth stimulants.
These are falsely called superphosphate or N-P-K fertilizers.
2. Chemical
insecticides, pesticides, fungicides and other farm chemicals such as
antibiotics and other medical drugs.
3.
Mechanization. At the same time as the chemical
industry developed, the gas-powered tractors, cultivators, combines and other
machines were introduced.
4. Agribusiness. This is the takeover of agriculture to a large degree by
very large, multi-national corporations and the loss of family and other small
farms around the world.
5. Biotech. This is the application of various types of technologies to
the breeding, growing, storing, and preserving of food.
Let us discuss each of these in more detail.
1. PHOSPHATE
GROWTH STIMULANTS
In the late 1800s, scientists discovered that certain
toxic chemicals caused accelerated growth of plants. They are
combination of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium compounds, for which reason
they are also called N-P-K growth stimulants or fertilizers.
Applying these chemicals to the soil, or even to
plant leaves, stems or fruit, caused food production to increase
dramatically. This was hailed as an
amazing invention that would end world hunger and help the farming sector of
the economy by allowing farmers to grow much more food. Indeed, at first it did seem quite
amazing. On some wheat fields, the
crop yield increased tenfold!
The news media of the day heavily promoted the new agriculture, as it was called. The American Department of Agriculture
and other groups also promoted it.
Most agricultural scientists and farmers were jubilant and sung the
praises of the new crops.
Many did not see or did not want to see all the
problems the phosphates were creating and very few scientists spoke out against
it. We name some of these
scientists later in the article.
Problems with
phosphate growth stimulants
Damage to the
soil. The phosphates damaged the structure
and microbial life of the soil.
This made the soil less porous and more subject
to droughts. Dust bowls formed and
carried away massive amounts of topsoil, especially in the United States, which
adopted the new agriculture more than many other nations.
It was a horrible sight to behold. It wrecked millions of acres of quality
farmland all across the United States and some other nations. It also bankrupted farmers and caused
great economic suffering and loss.
Nutritional
Depletion. This is a large topic discussed in a
separate section.
Weak, sick
plants. A third problem with the phosphates was
and is that the plants were noticeably weaker and more prone to insect
attack. This was due, in part, to
their much lower nutrient content.
As a result, disease plagues and pests became a
much greater problem in America and elsewhere.
The pro-new agriculture scientists dismissed
this problem by saying that we have new pesticides that will solve the insect
and disease problems. This has
occurred to some degree, but pests are still a major problem in modern
agriculture. And the pesticides are poisons, so this adds more problems.
Terrible Pollution. A fourth problem with the phosphates and is that they do not
break down quickly. As a result,
they poison the land, rivers, lakes, oceans, drinking water supplies and even
the air near some farms. This
pollution has now become one of the greatest environmental problems on planet
earth!
Very yin food. Another
problem with the phosphates is they produce food that is much more yin in macrobiotic terminology. Eating it makes the body more yin, which is very harmful, even if the nutrient content of
the food is decent.
Yin means cold, expanded and weak. This is mainly due to the lower mineral
content of the food. It is another
reason this food is unhealthy. For more details, read Superphosphates and Yin
Disease.
2. TOXIC PESTICIDES,
INSECTICIDES AND DRUGS FOR AGRICULTURAL USE
The second aspect of the green revolution was and
continues to be the use of highly toxic chemical pesticides and insecticides
and toxic drugs to combat plant and animal diseases.
These are needed because plants grown with the
phosphate fertilizers are weaker and are easily attacked by pests. Farm animals raised on food treated
with phosphates also have more disease and this was and still is handled by
feeding them modern medical drugs.
Today, billions of pounds of toxic chemicals are
used on farms, ranches and in medical offices in an attempt to counteract the
harm done by eating food fertilized with superphosphate fertilizers.
A Primer On Agricultural Pests. A key
principle is that pests leave healthy food alone. This is known in agriculture and is not open to debate.
A related principle is that the ÒjobÓ or role of agricultural pests
– bacteria, viruses, fungi, insects, grasshoppers and many others –
is to remove and destroy weak, sick plants.
(This is completely analogous to the principle
that disease germs do not attack healthy human bodies.)
In agriculture, if one does not want these creatures to destroy oneÕs
food crops, then one must improve the quality of the plants. To do this, one needs organic
agriculture to restore the soil, produce healthy crops and keep crop yields
high by reducing losses to pests and plant diseases.
The race. Today there is a race or contest between the bugs and
diseases versus the drug and chemical companies who try to invent new cures for
the diseases.
For example, in the early twentieth century
antibiotics were invented. They
were called wonder drugs. Trillions of pounds of them are used
each year on crops, in animal feed and given to humans and other creatures to
control certain infections, as growth stimulants and for other purposes.
Unfortunately, residues of these drugs are in
much of the food today and this is negatively impacting human health. Antibiotics damage the intestinal
flora, damage the liver and have other negative effects. For details, read Beyond Antibiotics.
Other Òwonder drugsÓ were the vaccines. They also seemed miraculous and are
widely used on farm animals and human beings. However, they are often preserved with toxic metals that find
their way into our food. For
details about vaccines, read Vaccination - A Medical
Abomination.
Who is winning
the race? At
first, it seemed like the chemical and pharmaceutical industries would clearly triumph
over the bugs and diseases. However,
today the bugs are winning.
Agricultural diseases are multiplying and human and
animal health are becoming worse, not better.
Problems with chemical pesticides.
- Poisoning the land, air and water of planet
earth. For example, a recent
report on the major drinking water supplies in the United States found that all
of them are contaminated with pesticide and drug residues. Toxic metals used on farms are a very
serious problem worldwide.
Sewage sludge, formerly an excellent type of
soil amendment, now is banned in some nations because it is so contaminated
with toxic metals and residues of drugs and vaccines.
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. Most are cumulative poisons and carcinogenic. Cumulative means they do not leave the
body and they just build up more and more.
-
More human, animal and plant disease as a result of the above pollution. For example, 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 of
the birth defect rate in America since 1950.
Other pesticides mimic estrogen, which may
contribute to many cancers and other health problems.
- Nutritional damage to the food.
3.
MECHANIZATION
The third aspect of the green revolution was the
invention of motorized tractors and other motorized farm implements. This made it possible for one man to
farm a much larger area than in the past.
This helped gave rise to mega-farms that depend
on the use of a lot of mechanized equipment. This led to lower prices for food, but put a lot of smaller
family farms out of business because they could not compete with the new
mega-farms.
The new equipment and superphosphates also gave
rise to large-scale monocrop farming. This means raising just one crop in a
field because the crop is suited to tilling and harvesting by a large
machine. It is basically mass
production of food.
4. AGRIBUSINESS
A
fourth aspect of the green revolution was an enormous concentration of money
and power that took place in the twentieth century in the hands of a few large agricultural
companies.
In the early part of the twentieth century,
large companies began moving into the agricultural sector. Today, just a few such as Cargill, ADM,
Monsanto and very few others own or control vast amounts of farmland.
Most of these companies own the entire food
chain. This means they produce
fertilizers and pesticides. They
also own seed companies and may patent seeds. They may also control aspects of the food distribution
system of a nation, as well. These
very large and vertically integrated companies are called agribusiness.
Progress? Some see agribusiness as ÒprogressÓ because these companies take
advantage of economies of scale and are well-funded
and well-managed. For example, the
huge agricultural companies protect their land against dust bowls (soil
erosion) because they view the land as an investment that they do not want to
lose, and they have the resources to take plenty of steps to protect the land.
Problems with agribusiness include:
- Corruption. For example, these companies have dozens of lobbyists in
Washington, DC and the capitols of most other nations that protect their
interests against all competition.
They have also made millions of dollars using farm subsidy programs that
are set up in such a way that they benefit, rather than small farmers.
- Watering down organic standards. The large companies have infiltrated
government and private organic certifying agencies and have watered down the
standards and made them confusing and deceptive for consumers. For example, the label Ò100% grass fedÓ
for beef actually means 75% grass fed, not 100%.
- Intellectual corruption. They have infiltrated most farming organizations, magazines and journals to make sure the
journals do not interfere with their business.
-
Social displacement. Millions of
people have lost their family farms.
Some of this is due to unfair competitive practices. Many people also believe the Great
Depression of 1929 was organized by these large companies in order to steal the
land from thousands of farmers.
- Such a large concentration of land ownership,
power and wealth is always harmful to a free society.
5. BIOTECH
Another
aspect of the green revolution has been the application of various 20th
century technologies to producing, storing and preserving food. Here are some examples.
Hybrid crops. One of the major projects of the agribusiness companies is
to breed and even invent new hybrid crops. This is needed, in part, because the traditional crop
varieties simply will not grow in the mineral-depleted and toxic soils of the
farms that use the phosphate fertilizers and toxic pesticides.
When creating these hybrids, enhanced nutrition
is not on the list of traits they breed for. Instead, they are interested in hardier varieties that can
live on todayÕs depleted soils, withstand insect attack and toxic chemicals,
last longer on the supermarket shelf and be cheaper to produce. This has had a terrible effect upon the
nutritional content of the food.
Other aspects of biotech include GMO plant
varieties, and methods such as food irradiation and MAP. We discuss these topics under Other Topics.
SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS
OF THE GREEN REVOLUTION
The
Ôgreen revolutionÕ succeeded in the following ways:
- greatly increasing the amount
of food grown.
- increasing the efficiency of
farming, if that is measured in human labor required to grow food.
- reducing human drudgery - the
hard, relentless manual labor required for non-mechanized farming.
The negative effects include:
- Destruction
of the soil microorganisms,
- Erosion of topsoil
- A severe decline in the nutritional content of food.
- Also, crop yields are decreasing as a result of all of the above.
IV. CAUSES FOR
NUTRITIONAL DEPLETION OF THE FOOD DUE TO THE GREEN REVOLUTION
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.
When the same amount of calcium, zinc and other
minerals in the soil have to be divided among ten times as much wheat, each
wheat plant gets one tenth the minerals that the older plants received.
The new agriculture crops contain noticeably
more carbohydrate, but much less protein – often half as much. For example, wheat grown without
phosphates contains about 13 or 14 percent protein. TodayÕs wheat contains 6 or 7 percent protein. This is a very significant
difference. The same is true of
rice, corn, and many other food crops.
The pro-new agriculture scientists answered that
we can solve this by just putting more fertilizers on the land. However, this is not easy to do and it
is very costly.
In fact, farmers did begin to use more fish
fertilizers, kelp, rock dust, biochar, sea minerals
and more on their soils. This
helped to some degree to improve the mineral and other nutrient content of the
food, but not that much.
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 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.
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.
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, however, are more invasive, 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.
There
are serious problems with GMOs. For example, some GMO 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 GMOs 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 GMO science,
such as improved drought-resistance or nutrition of crops. In practice, however, the focus of GMOs 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
GMO foods or seeds. America is
somewhat behind in this area, though resistance to GMO technology is
growing. Americans tend to embrace
new technology more readily, and in America chemical companies have more
influence.
Most likely, GMO 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.
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 GMO foods and irradiated food is a critical
issue so that people have a choice.
We 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 reactions, and often there are outbreaks of disease because the food
is not clean and fresh, even if it looks like it.
We oppose all MAP technology at this time, as we 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:
Frozen food. We recently found that frozen food is not helpful for
development. We are not sure why
this is so. One possible reason is
that frozen food companies are allowed to spray the food with various chemicals
such as EDTA to preserve the color of the food. Unfortunately, EDTA binds up minerals in the food to prevent
ÒtarnishingÓ and thus preserve the color.
This definitely damages the food.
So please avoid most frozen food.
An
exception is frozen meats. These
seem to be fine for health and development as long as one uses them within
about 6 months of freezing the meat.
If eaten later than this, the quality of the meat begins to deteriorate.
We are quite certain that modern toxic chemical
agriculture is not sustainable and is seriously damaging planet earth. However, transitioning to organic
agriculture is a difficult task.
Some of the problems are:
- It takes a number of years to transition a
farm from chemical use to organic method.
One must build up the soil and this cannot be done overnight.
- The soil is toxic and it takes up to 10 years
for the chemicals to break down in the soil.
- There are many people to feed and the chemical
method sometimes produces more food.
Switching to organic methods may produce as much food, but usually not
for the first five years or so.
- Many farmers know the chemical agricultural
method. They need to be
re-educated and this takes time and willingness.
- When one transitions to the organic method of
agriculture, one saves money by not having to buy some agricultural chemicals
such as pesticides and insecticides.
However, one must spend money to build up the soil with products such as
rock dust, kelp, fish fertilizer, manure, biochar,
and other soil amendments.
- Until the soil is restored, the farm is
delicate and bad weather or disease can take a large toll on farm animals and
crops.
- Most existing laws favor the large
agribusiness companies and they favor toxic chemical agriculture.
- Farmers still do not receive much help from
government agencies to transition to organic farming.
Using a combination of ancient and modern
technology, one can produce pure, nutritionally superior, high-Brix food in significant quantity without damaging the
environment. This is the challenge
for the organic agriculture movement in the 21st century. Let us pray that this movement survives
and thrives.
Resources
1. Organic Agriculture magazines. These are excellent and include The StockmanÕs Grass Farmer, Countryside,
Mother Earth News and others.
2. www.thecampaign.org
(excellent site for labeling of genetically engineered food.
3. Bergner, P., The Healing Power of Minerals, Special
Nutrients and Trace Elements, Prima Publishing, CA, 1997.
4. Hall, R., Food For Naught, The Decline in Nutrition,
Keats Publishing, New Canaan, CT, 1979.
5. Price, W., Nutrition and Physical Degeneration,
Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, La Mesa, CA.
1945, 1970.
6. J. Applied Nut., 1993, 45:1,
pp. 35-39. (study
of the mineral content of organic versus commercial food in the Chicago area)
7. Wilson, L., Development Science And Development programs,
LD Wilson Consultants, Inc., 2019.
Home
| Hair Analysis | Saunas | Books
| Articles | Detox
Protocols