organic infant formula

Organic infant formula

Several sorts of food can cause allergies and the sole means to learn is by eliminating each of the possible allergens and feeding something totally new. The very first good meal after 4 months The very first good food in your child’s life ought to be a vegetable meal. Breastfeeding provides the ideal nutrition for your infant. Once a superior diet is found you are able to keep the dog on such food or begin adding the previous components slowly until you’ve found out what she is allergic to. It is necessary to introduce new food once at a time as a way to have the ability to look at the reactions of your infant towards the home ingredient. In this manner you are able to introduce the entire assortment of Holle vegetable 1st foods during the next 2 months. There’s always fish but most of that isn’t cheap either.

If you prefer almonds, you’re like almond milk. Almond milk does not include sugar naturally. It is also a great lactose-free alternative. It is also a good source of flavonoids. It is a good option for athletes and weight-conscious people. Hence, it is a great milk substitute. Soya-based milks ought to be used on the recommendations of a GP since they will probably contain higher levels.

Realistically, cow’s milk is a rather rich supply of nutrition in a little package. Finally, it doesn’t provide the healthiest types of fat for growing babies. When you begin cow’s milk, it’s preferable to get organic.

Baby only organic infant formula

Similac is the just one of the bigger formula brands to provide an organic version of their typical formula Advance. The meat-based formula might also be a good option for people who do not have accessibility to raw milk. Inside this circumstance you ought to use the Follow-on Formula 3 but not before age 8 months. Keep reading to learn why and the way you should purchase and become natural baby formula. In such instances, finding natural and organic baby formula is essential to be able to safeguard your infant’s health. You can create your own baby formula to be able to make sure that you control what goes into it. You need to be absolutely sure that the homemade baby formula which you make won’t endanger the health and growth of your infant.

The usage of infant formula can affect the success of breastfeeding. You’re awesome just because you’re trying! If you want to trust it’s personal, feel free. To put it differently, there’s no best in regards to baby formula. If you’re always searching for the lowest prices on an item, then we are certainly the best options out there for European formula. This item may not be suitable for you. In addition, the calorie content in milk assists in the evolution of the kid.

A sample from every milk tanker is subsequently tested for chemical residues. The composition of infant formula is determined by the age and wellness status of your infant. It’s because of this reason that you get started feeding him infant formulas, which are designed particularly for the well-being of your infant. Abbott’s Similac brand formulas are shown to be a safe and beneficial supply of nutrition for millions of healthful babies. After you have gathered the ingredients most of which you are able to acquire online the true time to create a few days’ supply should take approximately ten minutes. Similac Organic is produced by Abbott Laboratories. Consequently, animals are sometimes not rendered unconscious.

Zinc is called the intelligence mineral since it’s essential for optimal development and performance of the brain and nervous system. It is very crucial to include coconut oil within this formula as it’s the only ingredient that gives the distinctive medium-chain saturated fats found in mother’s milk. It conveys the gist of the goods.

Best organic infant formula

Your infant might take a while to get accustomed to the formula and in this period you should observe his health also. You do all that can be done to be sure that your baby is in the very best of health. You need to also be sure your baby likes the flavor and enjoys drinking it. You need to feed your infant. In case the baby proceeds to truly feel distressed, it is wise to consult the infant’s doctor immediately. As soon as your youngster’s ready to digest that, however, milk becomes a significant part his diet. Is critical that they’re not feeding their children anything that has questionable ingredients. Hope this helps if you are thinking of marketing this on your website.

Preserve natural resources and biodiversity Support animal health and welfare

Preserve natural resources and biodiversity Support animal health and welfare

Provide access to the outdoors so that animals can exercise their natural behaviors Only use approved materials Do not use genetically modified ingredients Receive annual onsite inspections […]

If you’ve never seen History of the World Part 1, then this is lost on you.

Preserve natural resources and biodiversity
Support animal health and welfare
Provide access to the outdoors so that animals can exercise their natural behaviors
Only use approved materials
Do not use genetically modified ingredients
Receive annual onsite inspections
Separate organic food from non-organic food

Those are the basic commandments of organic food and fiber production as set down by the USDA. It may seem like that list should be a little more detailed, perhaps. A little more in depth. BUT, as George Carlin famously whittled down the 10 commandments to 2, I think that list should also be taken to the chopping block. My first objection to this is list: it makes it seem as if conventional agricultural doesn’t practice or adhere to any of the above (more on that later). SO! Let’s get to trimming.

Commandment 1: Preserve natural resources and biodiversity. This seems rather a subjective guideline. I searched the terms and definitions list and couldn’t find much help for what they mean here. Natural resources are defined as the physical, hydrological, and biological features of a production operation, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife. Ok. So… how much preservation are we talking here? Organic farming requires more land to equal conventional production, especially in vegetable and grain production. In effect, that would destroy more natural habitats due to land clearance, lowering biodiversity and increasing water usage. There are stipulations about crop rotation, cover crops and prevented soil erosion, but none of those are unique to organic. Still, I’ll let this commandment stand on its own, if nothing else because it’s a noble idea.

Commandments 2 & 3: Support animal health and welfare / provide access to outdoors so that animals can exercise their natural behaviors. Rule 3 seems more like a subset of rule two. It’s under the same umbrella principle of treating your animals well, so we can combine those two into one. But then, what is a natural behavior? Is it natural for animals to be fenced in? I don’t believe so. For instance, a cow’s natural behavior would be to graze and roam (potentially into the bean patch or alfalfa field). I realize this is nit-picky, but I don’t really care if my chicken was allowed to roam or if it was kept indoors. I want my food to be cost effective and nutritious (which conventional practices are quite good at producing). I am more concerned about the welfare of people than I am the welfare of my food. Farmers spend countless hours caring for their livestock. This doesn’t need to be a stipulation.

Commandments 4 & 5: only use approved materials / do not use genetically modified ingredients. Didn’t we just cover this same issue? Rules 4 and 5 can easily be rolled up into the same pile of b.s. The list of approved and unapproved materials is laughable. “A synthetically produced, chemically organic fungicide, Captan, is declared not ‘organic,’ but the synthetically produced, chemically inorganic fungicide copper sulfate is declared ‘organic.’” (Read the rest of the entertaining Random Rationality post here). As for what a genetically modified ingredient is, the site lacks a definition that I could find. No matter, because whatever crop the farmers are planting has been genetically modified at one point or another through its own genetic mutation, cross breeding and pollination, etc. Why would a plant be more likely to cause cancer because its genetic sequence was manipulated in a controlled, lab environment? Genetically modified organisms make food more abundant, nutritious, affordable, more environmentally friendly because of fewer chemicals needed, improve water conservation and even decrease medical costs. It seems like a lack of respect for human intellect and ingenuity. I digress. Onward.

Commandment 6: receive annual on site inspections. Fine. Maybe I’m getting lazy, but this one can stand alone.

Commandment 7: Separate organic food from non organic food. Please do. I am in full support of this. If I eat some produce that isn’t organic, there is a

likelihood I could die, or at the least I’ll experience some serious digestive issues. All food is carbon based (minerals and vitamins don’t count as food). That is what organic means. “Organic food” is a hollow term. As the link/list for approved and unapproved materials shows anyway, organic food is still grown using synthetic (often more environmentally and physically hazardous than conventional) chemicals.

So there we go. We took a list of 7 and smashed it down to 3. Commandments 2 and 3 get combined along with commandments 4 and 5 getting combined. Commandments 1 and 7 get axed completely.

Listen, I do believe there is a place for organic agricultural practices. There are benefits and diversified methods are needed for overall agricultural improvements. However, organic consumers should not be able to dictate conventional practices by blatantly spreading misinformation. Let’s not forget that there is such a thing as “Big Organic.”

This Semi-Wordless Wednesday my mini me/nephew (the Twerp) finishes his 4th grade year. Oh, how time flies. A little advice from Babe Ruth that I hope he always follows.

This Semi-Wordless Wednesday my mini me/nephew (the Twerp) finishes his 4th grade year. Oh, how time flies. A little advice from Babe Ruth that I hope he always follows.

 

Here we go again. The Organic vs. Conventional agriculture debate has recently graced the pages and website of the Wall Street Journal in the form of two separate opinion pieces. The first article from May 15th argues the superiority […]

 

Here we go again. The Organic vs. Conventional agriculture debate has recently graced the pages and website of the Wall Street Journal in the form of two separate opinion pieces. The first article from May 15th argues the superiority of conventional farming methods and downplays the viability of organic methods to produce and abundance of food without increasing the amount of land used for farming, among other things.

The second article, published on May 22nd, claims that organic farming can be as productive as conventional farming, and even goes so far as to claim that organic methods can counteract global warming entirely, and even “could sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions.” Read that again. Supposedly, organic methods of farming could single-handedly stop global warming. I’ll admit, it is nice to see a claim for organic that doesn’t rely on unfounded claims of GMOs causing cancer, but I find this one to be just as laughable.

I am no scientist, but I understand and can occasionally spot bad science. The study done to bolster this global warming cure was done by the Rodale Institute, which is a nonprofit that advocates organic practices. (A study conducted by an organization with an admitted agenda should be the first red flag here.) To further the problem, the institute set up trials and studies to prove their hypothesis. That, folks, is bad science. Experiments are supposed to try and falsify a hypothesis, not prove it.

The white paper published by the institute is laden with fear driving commentary and a lack of analyzed data. The study claims that organic has fewer input costs, uses less energy and yields just as much or high compared to conventional methods, even that organic crops are more adaptable to the potential changes attributed to global warming. To use an industry term, this sounds like a “snake oil” study.

If it sounds to good to be true, then it probably is.

Everyone Else Folks, I’m just going to lay it out there: there is the creative side of an ad agency, and then there is everyone else. Unsurprisingly, this is the mindset of more than the majority of creative […]

The post How an Ad Agency is Divided appeared first on My Ag Life.

Folks, I’m just going to lay it out there: there is the creative side of an ad agency, and then there is everyone else. Unsurprisingly, this is the mindset of more than the majority of creative side individuals (a figure made possible by some believing it so much that it factors at 1.5x). As much as it might pain me to admit it, because I am not technically in the creative department, they are right.

It’s important to note that I don’t think creatives are the end-all, be-all of the ad world. Everyone at an ad agency has their functions and everyone plays an important role, but creatives are the uncracked walnuts in the bowl of mixed nuts. Not a bunch of walnuts, just one big one. Or, perhaps more accurately, they are one big pan of homemade brownies on a dessert buffet and everyone else is a random piece of candy in the candy drawer. Allow me to explain further.

The creative department at HLK occupies the south side of the agency building (with a few programmers/developers sprinkled in) and is reffered to as the creative side, and the north side is quite literally everyone else who is not a creative. PPC managers. Strategists. Brand

managers. Account Coordinators. You name it and they are on the north side, and most likely they only have involvement with a third the people stationed over there. We really are just a mixed bowl of candy.

The north side is busy and bustling at 9 A.M. The south side usually looks deserted. That doesn’t mean that they are lazy or work fewer hours, they just function on a different schedule. Try and schedule a meeting with a creative before 10 A.M. and you’ll likely be the only participant. They just have a homemade, handcrafted feel, like a pan of brownies. They can’t be rushed or worked hastily or else the product loses its quality. That isn’t to say that the north side is sloppy, but it feels more industrious, like a bowl of mixed candy.

How do I fit into all of this mess? I, quite literally, split the difference. I am the candied nut. The mixed nut brownie. As a content developer I share a mix of roles and responsibilities. I’ve done copywriting, copy editing, photography and production, videography and production, even been in a commercial (embarrassing outtake compilation here). My desk is stationed on the north side but I spend most of my time in the entrance/kitchen area that is in between the north and south sides. Coincidence really. I am out there partly because I like to stand and do my work (better for your back) and partly because that puts me closer to my food (which anyone here can attest that I eat constantly).
The north side candy drawer, which inspired this hair-brained post

The north side candy drawer, which inspired this hair-brained post
Where I hang out

Where I hang out

It’s a gloomy, chilly Semi-Wordless Wednesday here in Saint Louis. Perhaps that has made me a bit dreamy (and sleepy). Either way, happy Wednesday everybody. Call up someone you’re thinking of just to let them know they’re on your mind. […]

The post Star Thought appeared first on My Ag Life.
]]> It’s a gloomy, chilly Semi-Wordless Wednesday here in Saint Louis. Perhaps that has made me a bit dreamy (and sleepy). Either way, happy Wednesday everybody. Call up someone you’re thinking of just to let them know they’re on your mind. Share a little Star Thought.

 

It’s referred to as the billion dollar bug because CRW costs farmers approximately a billion dollars each year in yield losses and management costs. As the temperature begins to rise this spring, so will the CRW populations. InsectForecast is a very […]

Corn rootworm. It’s referred to as the billion dollar bug because CRW costs farmers approximately a billion dollars each year in yield losses and management costs. As the temperature begins to rise this spring, so will the CRW populations. InsectForecast is a very handy seasonal tracking tool (I did a review of the site not long ago), but the site doesn’t give specific management advice for your farm. Insert the Genuity Corn Rootworm Manager App. image_2 The app is available for free in the iTunes store and helps assess your risk for CRW, and even goes so far as to provide management advice corresponding to your risk level. The app allows you to enter multiple farms and multiple fields so that your entire operation can be micro managed. Using a question/answer format, you’re guided through five stages: Planting History, At Planting, Larval Management, Adult Management and Next Season. The Planting History section asks about what you’ve planted the previous three seasons and what (if any) precautions have been used. After answering all of the questions, the app will let you know what risk level your field is at and provide you with management suggestions depending on the severity. The app also provides some useful articles on CRW, like scouting and management practices.You can also set reminders and email yourself reports.image_3 The At Planting section inquires about what modes of action you will be using and what kinds of (if any) insecticides you will be applying. The Larval Management section centers heavily around the ability to chemigate your field. You’ll be asked to record scouting information and asked what insecticides were used at planting. Don’t worry about having to type all those hard-to-spell names in. There are listed options. At the end of this section, you’ll also be provided with a recommended insecticide.image_4 The Adult Management section relies heavily on identification and recording scouting data. Don’t worry, the app shows you how to identify the male and female beetles, even what stage of egg laying the females are in. The Next Season Section will come into play around the R5 growth stage and again is centered around scouting and modes of action used. This section will also provide a risk assessment for next season, as well it recommends management options. The Genuity Corn Rootworm Manager App should make tracking and managing CRW easier. With the ability to set reminders, receive reports, read agronomic scouting and management articles, and receive product and insecticide recommendations, farmers might steal a little back from the billion dollar bug. Download it and try it for yourself!

Plant Science and Improving the Human Condition Who is going to carry on this mission? Who is going to keep this science based society going? – Bill Danforth I didn’t know what to expect from the Taste of Science event. […]

Plant Science and Improving the Human Condition

Who is going to carry on this mission? Who is going to keep this science based society going?

I didn’t know what to expect from the Taste of Science event. The invitation was vague, but intriguing. “Join other young professionals and learn about the Center’s mission to improve the human condition through plant science,” was all email said, aside from the building address. I sharked around the lobby, sampled some of the hors d’oeuvres, enjoyed a glass (or three) of Pinot and tried to act like I had been to an event like this before.

He has a charming, unassuming demeanor. Age has bent his spine and in the certain lighting he looks frail, even though he doesn’t tremble. Soft spoken and alert, Dr. Bill Danforth addressed the crowd at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center that was “not even half” his age and delivered a simple, straight forward challenge: who will help keep this culture going?

Dr. Danforth might be anywhere between 85 and 95 (I heard conflicting reports, and didn’t think it appropriate to ask the man himself. My research found that he is 88), but he carries an enlightened, optimistic attitude with his slender frame. The former Chancellor of Washington University, Dr. Danforth expressed his delight at seeing such a youthful gathering. He is humorous, good-natured, captivating. Also, perhaps most importantly, he is a forward thinker with worlds of information.

For instance, did you know that approximately 70% of freshwater that we use goes to agriculture production? I found that to be an alarming number (the USGS says about 60% goes to irrigation). Dr. Danforth expanded upon that thought: what issues will that create with the ever rising global population?

During the “green revolution,” which occurred between 1940 and 1970, was the most significant change in agriculture production capabilities in some 3000 years. Yields for some crops doubled, thanks to better irrigation techniques, plant breeding and the introduction of better fertilizers and agro chemicals. This issue is, as Mr. Danforth asserted, is that this model of production is becoming insufficient. Too much water and too many chemicals are being used, with both situations having their own adverse effects on the environment and our survival. So how do we curb our current trends and practices? Answer: tomatoes.

The tomato has been growing in the Atacama desert for 2 million years. Granted, it is an ancestral form of modern-day tomatoes, but it is still a fruiting plant. A fruiting plant in a desert. The driest desert on Earth (there are places there that don’t receive rain for years, and some places that have never had rainfall recorded.) What scientists at the Danforth Center (one of the many things) is how to increase water efficiency in plants, like the desert tomato. One way to do so is gene splicing. (GMOs! Gasp!)

By sequencing the genes of the desert tomato and a “normal” tomato, scientists can mark and identify which segment of genes are responsible/play a role in water conservation, and by splicing in those genes into certain points on a normal tomato then they can better understand how to breed plants that need far less water. (Monsanto does this with some of their new DroughtGard products).

The Danforth Center (yes, Dr. Danforth is related the brother of Senator Donald Danforth who the building is named after) is a not for profit research center, one of the largest of its kind. While there, I also spoke to a man who is working on “golden” cassava. Like potatoes, cassava is a tubular plant and is a staple in the diet of many African nations. However, the plant might be high in starchy material but lacks much nutrient value, like a potato or rice. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is working with scientists at the Danforth Center (and around the globe) to bring these enhanced products to communities in great need of them.

Listening to Dr. Danforth speak with such optimism, and hearing how so much scientific progress can be used to improve the human condition, I left the building walking a little lighter, a little brighter. And no, it wasn’t the wine.

 

Farming Friday: Peace of Mind Between Rural and City Living

Farming Friday: Peace of Mind Between Rural and City Living

If you google living in country vs. city then you will likely be directed to some links that compare and contrast the pros and cons of the two lifestyles. In a nut shell, each link will talk about cost of living, community, culture, health, and peace of mind. Some of the statements hold water, and some are Missouri river levees. I feel that I am someone in a good position to analyze these claims, seeing as how I haven’t lived in the country for six years now.

It is true, living in more rural communities does cost less. It’s simple supply and demand economics. More people in an area = more demand for less space, so the price of space goes up. Duh. BUT! Living in town does have more conveniences in closer proximity.

There is a better sense of community in the country. People are closer knit and rely more on each other. People are also less likely to rip off someone they’ve known their whole life and much more likely to help them. However, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t great little communities in cities.

There is more culture in cities, jobs too. That comes with more people and greater diversity. Health might be a bit subjective, but I’ll grant that fitness facilities are much more accessible in town. Most who live in the country aren’t farmers who are out working manual labor 12 hours a day.

What really churned the wheels in my little noggin was some of the peace of mind comments. I begin to strongly object here. I may have been born and raised in the country, but peace of mind can be found anywhere, just like happiness. It all just depends on your preferences. The articles made it seem like peace of mind came through tranquility and nature. That may be the case for some, but it s not a necessity. You can live like a recluse in a city, in fact sometimes I think it is easier. You don’t have to live in the middle of nowhere to find peace of mind. It all just depends on your outlook.

d?

Why My Ag Life?

Why My Ag Life?

You’re not a farmer. Indeed. I never really even had the desire to be a farmer, even though I grew up on a farm and in farm country.

You don’t live in the country anymore. Fact. I very much enjoy living in the city and it is where I need to be. I don’t know if I’ll ever go back.

You don’t identify with traditional, conservative values. True. I don’t fit the conservative mold, but I still am ingrained with small town hospitality.

I don’t look country, live in the country or practice agriculture. So why start a blog titled My Ag Life? Answer: I still live country. Before I go diving into my explanation, please allow me to divulge a little. It’s relevant. I promise.

I’m not one for superstitions and pseudosciences, but if you know a little about zodiac signs then I fit the bill of a pisces almost to a T. I can be very hard to pin down. “Mutable,” is the defining term. I’m not one thing. I dabble in lots of things, and more often than not my interests don’t overlap. I’ve always had different small circles of friends that don’t really mingle with each other. It’s not that these different groups aren’t agreeable, cordial people. They just have varying values and lifestyles, and don’t do the same things as the other groups.

 

It’s very difficult to form an identity with such a varied lifestyle. I like a lot of things for a little bit of the time. So, it could go without saying that at times it is hard for me to understand myself, much less for anyone else to try and do so. I can be hot and cold on a lot of things, but I do have some constants. I may not be part of the 1%, but I had a 1% upbringing, and that will always be a part of me and a part of my life.

It won’t matter where I go or what I’m doing, I’ll still carry the core, defining characteristics of rural America. I’ll always hold doors open with a smile to let others pass through. I’ll always give up my seat for those more in need. I’ll always keep a firm handshake and look people in the eye when they are speaking. I’ll always smile at those I meet on the street, and I’ll always keep friends and family above everything else. I’ll probably always even give directions based on landmarks and cardinal directions instead street locations.

It’s true, I don’t inhabit rural parts any longer and the closest involvement that I have to agriculture is through my job and the advertising work that I do (Interestingly enough, I’ve learned more about ag in the past year than I ever did growing up), but I am still living country. I try to stay open and inviting to folks I meet. I try and remember my manners; always please and thank you. I try and make myself available to those that need anything, like a good neighbor would. At times I might suffer from identity crisis, but I’ll always have my foundation.

It’s quite likely that I will move even further away from farming and where I was raised, but it seems the further away I get the more country I become. At times living country is all I have to guide me, but that is still better guidance than most are fortunate to have. Living country isn’t a rural, agrarian lifestyle. It’s a set of values based on hospitality, honesty and community. No matter how much or how often my interests shift, I’ll always have those values as my anchor point.

What is Organic Food?

What is Organic Food?

If you’ve never seen History of the World Part 1, then this is lost on you.

Preserve natural resources and biodiversity
Support animal health and welfare
Provide access to the outdoors so that animals can exercise their natural behaviors
Only use approved materials
Do not use genetically modified ingredients
Receive annual onsite inspections
Separate organic food from non-organic food

Those are the basic commandments of organic food and fiber production as set down by the USDA. It may seem like that list should be a little more detailed, perhaps. A little more in depth. BUT, as George Carlin famously whittled down the 10 commandments to 2, I think that list should also be taken to the chopping block. My first objection to this is list: it makes it seem as if conventional agricultural doesn’t practice or adhere to any of the above (more on that later). SO! Let’s get to trimming.

Commandment 1: Preserve natural resources and biodiversity. This seems rather a subjective guideline. I searched the terms and definitions list and couldn’t find much help for what they mean here. Natural resources are defined as the physical, hydrological, and biological features of a production operation, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife. Ok. So… how much preservation are we talking here? Organic farming requires more land to equal conventional production, especially in vegetable and grain production. In effect, that would destroy more natural habitats due to land clearance, lowering biodiversity and increasing water usage. There are stipulations about crop rotation, cover crops and prevented soil erosion, but none of those are unique to organic. Still, I’ll let this commandment stand on its own, if nothing else because it’s a noble idea.

Commandments 2 & 3: Support animal health and welfare / provide access to outdoors so that animals can exercise their natural behaviors. Rule 3 seems more like a subset of rule two. It’s under the same umbrella principle of treating your animals well, so we can combine those two into one. But then, what is a natural behavior? Is it natural for animals to be fenced in? I don’t believe so. For instance, a cow’s natural behavior would be to graze and roam (potentially into the bean patch or alfalfa field). I realize this is nit-picky, but I don’t really care if my chicken was allowed to roam or if it was kept indoors. I want my food to be cost effective and nutritious (which conventional practices are quite good at producing). I am more concerned about the welfare of people than I am the welfare of my food. Farmers spend countless hours caring for their livestock. This doesn’t need to be a stipulation.

Commandments 4 & 5: only use approved materials / do not use genetically modified ingredients. Didn’t we just cover this same issue? Rules 4 and 5 can easily be rolled up into the same pile of b.s. The list of approved and unapproved materials is laughable. “A synthetically produced, chemically organic fungicide, Captan, is declared not ‘organic,’ but the synthetically produced, chemically inorganic fungicide copper sulfate is declared ‘organic.’” (Read the rest of the entertaining Random Rationality post here). As for what a genetically modified ingredient is, the site lacks a definition that I could find. No matter, because whatever crop the farmers are planting has been genetically modified at one point or another through its own genetic mutation, cross breeding and pollination, etc. Why would a plant be more likely to cause cancer because its genetic sequence was manipulated in a controlled, lab environment? Genetically modified organisms make food more abundant, nutritious, affordable, more environmentally friendly because of fewer chemicals needed, improve water conservation and even decrease medical costs. It seems like a lack of respect for human intellect and ingenuity. I digress. Onward.

Commandment 6: receive annual on site inspections. Fine. Maybe I’m getting lazy, but this one can stand alone.

Commandment 7: Separate organic food from non organic food. Please do. I am in full support of this. If I eat some produce that isn’t organic, there is a

likelihood I could die, or at the least I’ll experience some serious digestive issues. All food is carbon based (minerals and vitamins don’t count as food). That is what organic means. “Organic food” is a hollow term. As the link/list for approved and unapproved materials shows anyway, organic food is still grown using synthetic (often more environmentally and physically hazardous than conventional) chemicals.

So there we go. We took a list of 7 and smashed it down to 3. Commandments 2 and 3 get combined along with commandments 4 and 5 getting combined. Commandments 1 and 7 get axed completely.

Listen, I do believe there is a place for organic agricultural practices. There are benefits and diversified methods are needed for overall agricultural improvements. However, organic consumers should not be able to dictate conventional practices by blatantly spreading misinformation. Let’s not forget that there is such a thing as “Big Organic.”

Is Organic Farming the Cure for Global Warming?

Is Organic Farming the Cure for Global Warming?

Here we go again. The Organic vs. Conventional agriculture debate has recently graced the pages and website of the Wall Street Journal in the form of two separate opinion pieces. The first article from May 15th argues the superiority of conventional farming methods and downplays the viability of organic methods to produce and abundance of food without increasing the amount of land used for farming, among other things.

The second article, published on May 22nd, claims that organic farming can be as productive as conventional farming, and even goes so far as to claim that organic methods can counteract global warming entirely, and even “could sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions.” Read that again. Supposedly, organic methods of farming could single-handedly stop global warming. I’ll admit, it is nice to see a claim for organic that doesn’t rely on unfounded claims of GMOs causing cancer, but I find this one to be just as laughable.

I am no scientist, but I understand and can occasionally spot bad science. The study done to bolster this global warming cure was done by the Rodale Institute, which is a nonprofit that advocates organic practices. (A study conducted by an organization with an admitted agenda should be the first red flag here.) To further the problem, the institute set up trials and studies to prove their hypothesis. That, folks, is bad science. Experiments are supposed to try and falsify a hypothesis, not prove it.

The white paper published by the institute is laden with fear driving commentary and a lack of analyzed data. The study claims that organic has fewer input costs, uses less energy and yields just as much or high compared to conventional methods, even that organic crops are more adaptable to the potential changes attributed to global warming. To use an industry term, this sounds like a “snake oil” study.

If it sounds to good to be true, then it probably is.