Sunday, February 22, 2009

Organic Food

Daniel Conrad
Professor Yerks
Comp 106
23 February 2009
The Truth about Organic Food
You have probably been told that organic food is great for your health, and great for the environment. You need to reconsider. A lot of evidence, from many different sources, shows that buying organic food actually does more harm to our planet, than good. A study conducted by the University of Alabama talks about the distance organic food travels, and how it can be very harmful to the planet by contributing to the depletion of the ozone. Also, many scholarly articles have been written about the affects of growing organic food on the environment. One article explains that in Denmark, growing organic food is harmful to the soil and thus, hurts the surrounding environment. On the other hand, growing organic is good for the environment by preventing the chemicals used in pesticides from getting into the soil and water supplies. However, the overall environment is more important. An investigation into the details on the subject proves that growing organic food causes more environmental harm, than environmental benefit.
The study done by the University of Alabama shows that buying organic produce is actually, more harmful for the environment, than buying regular, non-organic produce. When deciding whether or not to go green, it is very important to know how far the food has traveled before it arrives on your table. The study led by Vicki Burt, compared the “food miles” organic crops and regular crops. Food miles are defined as the distance that the food will travel from the field to the store counters. The results of the experiment showed that organic food travels just as far, if not farther, than regular produce. It really depends on what product you’re talking about. Organic mangoes and peppers, in particular, travel much farther than regular mangoes and peppers. In the United States and Canada, we get our organic mangos and peppers from South American countries as opposed to the regular ones from Mexico. The variance in those distances adds up to many thousands of kilometers. With this extended distance that organic food travels, more carbon dioxide is produced from trucks, planes, and ships, than the carbon dioxide produced when transporting non-organic foods. So in the end, it is far more harmful to buy organic food because of there high food miles, which leads an increased output of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and this ultimately leads to global warming (Science Daily).
An article written by Birgitte Hansen, Hugo Fjelsted, and Erik Steen Kristensen, helps to explain the environmental impact of growing organic food. The content is based on information coming from the European country of Denmark. This article points out that organic food, despite having many benefits, also can produce negatives for the environment. Many current farming practices are used because they are fast, safe, and efficient. However, modern farming can have a significant impact on the ecosystem. Organic farming can drain more nutrients from the soil, than regular farming, if it is not done at the proper time of year. Significant evidence from Denmark shows that, nitrogen, and other key chemicals that are essential to plants growth, are wasted, or used up when growing food organically. This leads to farmers using more land to grow less. Also, they end up using a wider range of crop rotations, meaning a lot of land is left empty and wasted during certain years. In order to keep production at its highest point, more farmlands have to be created. This rips into already existing ecological niches. Although, growing organic can help in certain ways with the ecology and biodiversity of local farming areas, it is more harmful by taking away the usable, natural land. Organic and non-organic farms affect the soil, water, and ecosystem in many different ways, both types of farming have some benefits, and both do some harm to the environment around them (Fjelsted).
There is a lot of other evidence and facts out there that shows how organic food can harm the environment. It has also been shown that faming organic produce, can lead to both a lower quantity of crop yields, as well as lower quality of crops. Also, some organic food is improperly labeled. You might think that what you’re buying doesn’t use chemicals, but farmers lie and twist their information around. To go along with that, there are many questions about how much affect chemicals and pesticides actually have on the environment. If used safely, and in the correct way, they actually pose little threat to the surrounding areas. Farmers need to be aware of current research of how and when to plant there crops properly, regardless of whether it is organic or not. Growing non-organic foods really doesn’t destroy the environment as much as many groups and organizations may lead on (Recipe 4 Living).
Despite common thoughts, growing organic foods is harmful to the environment. It increases the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere because of the carbon dioxide produced from the trucks, planes, and ships that carry it from the field to the store. Organic food needs more land to grow because it uses the nutrients in the soil too quickly. Due to crop rotations, less organic food is able to be grown at one time. So in the end, if you care about the environment, you should buy locally grown food, from your own garden, or from local markets. Buying organic foods is either a neutral or negative on the environment, and this evidence should be an influence on your decision making the next time you are in the grocery store.

Works Cited
Fjelsted, Hugo, Birgitte Hansen, and Erik Steen Kristensen. “Approaches to assess the environmental impact of organic farming with particular regard to Denmark.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 83 (2001): 11-26. Science Direct. Elsevier Science B.V. 2001. .
Organic Food Miles Take Toll On Environment. Science Daily. 7 June 2007 < http://www.sciencedaily.com>.
Your “Organic” Food Hurts the Environment. 10 July 2007. Recipe 4 Living. < http://www.recipe4living.com/Common/Article.aspx?id=55594>.

Organic Food Visual



Activity 1

Visual Glossary:

Rhetoric: Exaggerated use of language, or use of effective and persuasive speech.

Icon: An image or picture that can stand in or represent something else.

Design (Noun): A projection or plan that outlines or represents something, an organized creation, or structure to some object.

Design (Verb): To create or conceive some sort of plan or creation. To form, or plan, the structure or outline of something.

Representation (Noun): An object, person, symbol, or image that stands in place of and gives the same meaning as the entire thing it is taking the place of.

4c. Tags: grand theft auto, busy town, videogame, game, animated design.

6. Each logo does work to make the website visually appealing. They can’t be too simple or too complicated. They are supposed to draw the user back to the website in the future and make there website the most attractive. Google uses different colors to try and do this, Yahoo a unique font and style, while AltaVista uses a symbol above there wording. They all are effective logos and do the work they are suppose to.

I like the Google logo the best. It is a simple design but the colors are creative and cool. The biggest reason I like it the best is probably because I use it the most and am most familiar with it.

I like the AltaVista logo the least because I am not at all familiar with it and had not used it before this activity. Visually they are similar so popularity really determines what you like and don’t like.

13. Advice for validity of general research:
1. Try to avoid .com, use things like .edu, .org, or .gov because the information on these sites is much more likely to be accurate and meaningful. They are much better for an educational or professional setting.
2. If the content has grammatical and punctuation errors then the creator of the site didn’t take care to have there work carefully looked over, and therefore isn’t very professional.
3. Is the content of the website relevant? Can you understand and use the information that is provided?

Advice for validity of visual research:
1. If it looks professional and well thought out it is probably valid. If it looks sloppy and quickly thrown together then it is more likely to not be as trustworthy.
2. Is the visual content useful? If it is not relevant to the website then it is unlikely to be at a professional level.
3. If it satisfies common sense criteria. If it makes sense and is appropriate for the context of the website.