Bhutan to be the first 100% organic country.

You got to give it to Bhutan for trying. A few years ago Bhutan became the first and only nation in the world to say the meausure of peoples happines is more important than Gross Domestic Produce. Bhutan is far from perfect and people still leave the country as immigrants.

But Bhutan, which has only 700,000 people — most of whom are farmers — has another shot at international fame if it can make good on a recent pledge to become the first country in the world to convert to a 100 percent organic agricultural system.

www.npr.org...

A little country in the back end of the Himalyas with little infrastructure pulling this off. Kind of whish my country was a little more like Bhutan in some respects.

Not everyone is so sure that a 100 percent organic Bhutan is a great idea. Leu says he's found some resistance among researchers at the Ministry of Agriculture who've been trained in conventional farming techniques abroad.

The general mood is optimistic.

Bhutan's burgeoning organic agriculture research centers will eventually be able to come up with organic methods to boost yields and manage the problems of these crops.

Organic isn't always good though, just like non-organic isn't always bad. Sometimes organic can be worse.

Reply to post by purplemer

You mean the first to return to organic? Interesting though. I would like to see if they can pull it off, being so small. With so many becoming aware of GMO foods and all, it may become profitable.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Wonderful news! Wouldn't it be great if they could/will be held up as the example of healthy farming, healthy food in correlation with healthy people, healthy animals.

Baby steps people, baby steps.

Originally posted by SpearMint
Organic isn't always good though, just like non-organic isn't always bad. Sometimes organic can be worse.

Could you please point out ANY information that asserts organic = worse than GMO?!?!?!!! This claim has me stumped!

reply to post by purplemer


Brava! Go Bhutan!

Excellent catch purplemer. Thanks much. F&S&

Originally posted by SpearMint
Organic isn't always good though, just like non-organic isn't always bad. Sometimes organic can be worse.

I do not understand how organic can be worse. I do not see how digesting toxic chemicals can be good for you...

reply to post by purplemer

Originally posted by Gridrebel

Originally posted by SpearMint
Organic isn't always good though, just like non-organic isn't always bad. Sometimes organic can be worse.

Could you please point out ANY information that asserts organic = worse than GMO?!?!?!!! This claim has me stumped!

edit on 22-2-2013 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)

I said sometimes. Sometimes organic plants have organic substances like pesticides put on them that are harmful. Usually non-organic foods that are said to be harmful are not. This is a fact.

Why would you think organic is always healthy? Is nature always healthy? Nature can be more harmful than the alternative. People just want you to buy their expensive organic food.

Also, if we were to switch to all organic food there wouldn't be anywhere near enough to around. So it's not an option.

Well, all things considered...this would not be a huge move...they are not the most advanced ya know....

That being said, there could and would be a problem if more countries did this. Many-many people bash the GMO foods, Monsanto and super agriculture companies...but lets get one thing straight...they are feeding way-way more people than the alternative would allow. Want people to starve?

I try to buy everything local when I can. I get veggies through the spring, summer and fall from the local farmers. I buy my meat from local sources when it is available...but I also have to on occasion buy from the super stores....I don't like it when I do, but I do it.

The only true answer is to teach people to live with what they have available. If you do not live in a cattle nation or area...do not expect to eat beef. If you live in the middle of a land mass...do not expect to eat seafood.

It's really pretty simple and yet so hard. We are programmed via media to want what we...in all actuality...should not be able to have...but thanks to media and big box superstores...you can have your genetically altered beef or seafood wherever you are...

Folks need to open their eyes and live and eat local...it is healthier and it is the best....but most are too stupid to see this.

reply to post by SpearMint

Also, if we were to switch to all organic food there wouldn't be anywhere near enough to around. So it's not an option.

Why is it not an option. Organic yields can hold there own against conventional methed and sometimes even do better..

India's rice revolution In a village in India's poorest state, Bihar, farmers are growing world record amounts of rice – with no GM, and no herbicide. Is this one solution to world food shortages

...

Kumar, a shy young farmer in Nalanda district of India's poorest state Bihar, had – using only farmyard manure and without any herbicides – grown an astonishing 22.4 tonnes of rice on one hectare of land. This was a world record and with rice the staple food of more than half the world's population of seven billion, big news.

www.guardian.co.uk...

reply to post by purplemer


That's rice. We need more than rice. Usually organic farms have very low yield and they get eaten by slugs and insects, which is why farmers don't tend to go organic. There's a lot of fallacies surrounding organic food, it's not even proven to be better for you.

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by purplemer

 

Originally posted by Gridrebel

Originally posted by SpearMint
Organic isn't always good though, just like non-organic isn't always bad. Sometimes organic can be worse.

Could you please point out ANY information that asserts organic = worse than GMO?!?!?!!! This claim has me stumped!

edit on 22-2-2013 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)

I said sometimes. Sometimes organic plants have organic substances like pesticides put on them that are harmful. Usually non-organic foods that are said to be harmful are not. This is a fact.

Why would you think organic is always healthy? Is nature always healthy? Nature can be more harmful than the alternative. People just want you to buy their expensive organic food.

Also, if we were to switch to all organic food there wouldn't be anywhere near enough to around. So it's not an option.

edit on 22-2-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Care to argue your facts? Get out of the box that your living in, your are being fed garbage as truth and bring the polluted seeds here to share??

If you use pesticides here in NZ, you cannot be certified organic. So there are no pesticides in organic food here. Their is no limit to how much organic food can be grown on earth, vertical farming without toxic chemicals can be certified organic. We can feed the world with just organic food - fact.

Originally posted by SpearMint
Organic isn't always good though, just like non-organic isn't always bad. Sometimes organic can be worse.

How is organic not good? No chemical pesticides or herbicides, along with a much wider range of nutrients and minerals will make organic superior to conventionally grown meat, eggs and produce. Organic farmers have a lot more regulatory hoops to jump through than the farmer that grows GM stuff.

Besides..... the whole world used to be organic.

100% Awesome. Well done Bhutan.

Originally posted by Peter Brake

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by purplemer

 

Originally posted by Gridrebel

Originally posted by SpearMint
Organic isn't always good though, just like non-organic isn't always bad. Sometimes organic can be worse.

Could you please point out ANY information that asserts organic = worse than GMO?!?!?!!! This claim has me stumped!

edit on 22-2-2013 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)

I said sometimes. Sometimes organic plants have organic substances like pesticides put on them that are harmful. Usually non-organic foods that are said to be harmful are not. This is a fact.

Why would you think organic is always healthy? Is nature always healthy? Nature can be more harmful than the alternative. People just want you to buy their expensive organic food.

Also, if we were to switch to all organic food there wouldn't be anywhere near enough to around. So it's not an option.

edit on 22-2-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Care to argue your facts? Get out of the box that your living in, your are being fed garbage as truth and bring the polluted seeds here to share??

If you use pesticides here in NZ, you cannot be certified organic. So there are no pesticides in organic food here. Their is no limit to how much organic food can be grown on earth, vertical farming without toxic chemicals can be certified organic. We can feed the world with just organic food - fact.

Care to show why non-organic is bad, or why organic food is better? It's not. Countless studies on this have been done. Organic farming is much lower yield, harder work and is very expensive. You're telling me I'm wrong based on your belief that anything with the word "natural" or "organic" is good.

Originally posted by Witness2008

Originally posted by SpearMint
Organic isn't always good though, just like non-organic isn't always bad. Sometimes organic can be worse.

How is organic not good? No chemical pesticides or herbicides, along with a much wider range of nutrients and minerals will make organic superior to conventionally grown meat, eggs and produce. Organic farmers have a lot more regulatory hoops to jump through than the farmer that grows GM stuff.

Besides..... the whole world used to be organic.

Well, you've displayed a few common fallacies here.

1. Organic does not mean no pesticides or chemicals, it simply means they must be natural.

2. Natural isn't always good, some organic pesticides are very dangerous for example.

3. Organic food does not have a higher nutrient or mineral content, it's pretty much exactly the same.

4. Organic food isn't held to a higher standard.

reply to post by SpearMint

Well, you've displayed a few common fallacies here. 1. Organic does not mean no pesticides or chemicals, it simply means they must be natural. 2. Natural isn't always good, some organic pesticides are very dangerous for example. 3. Organic food does not have a higher nutrient or mineral content, it's pretty much exactly the same. 4. Organic food isn't held to a higher standard.

I'm having a heck of a time thinking that a person that strays into a conversation as important as the health of the worlds food supply would do so with such a breathtaking lack of knowledge on the subject.

I would link mountains of published and accredited proof of organic being superior to non organic if I thought that you were for a moment serious enough about the subject to read the links.

Bhutan is not only doing the right thing for the human population but also all the other creatures they share it with. Taking care of the environment that sustains all animal life is a very good thing.

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Well, you've displayed a few common fallacies here. 1. Organic does not mean no pesticides or chemicals, it simply means they must be natural. 2. Natural isn't always good, some organic pesticides are very dangerous for example. 3. Organic food does not have a higher nutrient or mineral content, it's pretty much exactly the same. 4. Organic food isn't held to a higher standard.

I'm having a heck of a time thinking that a person that strays into a conversation as important as the health of the worlds food supply would do so with such a breathtaking lack of knowledge on the subject.

I would link mountains of published and accredited proof of organic being superior to non organic if I thought that you were for a moment serious enough about the subject to read the links.

Bhutan is not only doing the right thing for the human population but also all the other creatures they share it with. Taking care of the environment that sustains all animal life is a very good thing.

There's barely any difference between the two as proven by many studies, except non-organic is easier to produce and cheaper to buy. THAT is good for the human population. You are the one with lack of knowledge on the subject, in fact I've read in to it quite deeply. You seem to be mislead by words like "natural", natural isn't always good, synthetic isn't always bad. Telling me I'm wrong without proving it is meaningless. Look at the facts, not what the people selling the food tell you.

One such study: annals.org...

Originally posted by SpearMint
Organic isn't always good though, just like non-organic isn't always bad. Sometimes organic can be worse.

Lol Dissing organic food too now? First promoting vaccines, now this!

So, so obvious ...

Originally posted by Northwarden

Originally posted by SpearMint
Organic isn't always good though, just like non-organic isn't always bad. Sometimes organic can be worse.

Lol Dissing organic food too now? First promoting vaccines, now this!

So, so obvious ...

Talking crap without anything to back it up again are we, shouldn't you be hunting big foot or something? I'm not dissing organic food, I'm saying it's usually no better than non-organic. The last "debate" I had with you was painful and ended with you achieving nothing for your side and we established just how gullible you are, if you wish to argue, provide a peer reviewed paper on the subject as I have, rather than worthless posts that add nothing to the topic.

The part of my post that you quoted is very well known, undeniable proven (and obvious) and can be verified with minimal effort. That says a lot about you.