First lady's organic garden concerns chemical firms

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Jim Snyder, The Hill

Michelle Obama planted an organic garden to promote fruits and vegetables as part of a healthy diet, but some chemical companies are worried it may plant a seed of doubt in consumers' minds about conventionally grown crops.

"Fresh foods grown conventionally are wholesome and flavorful yet more economical," the Mid America CropLife Association (MACA) wrote the first lady last month a few days after she and fifth-graders from a local elementary school planted the White House Kitchen Garden.

The garden is designed to produce fresh fruits and vegetables for the first family and White House staff and guests. The garden itself doesn't give the group heartburn. The letter also congratulates the first lady "on recognizing the importance of agriculture to America!"

But MACA, which represents agribusinesses like Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences and DuPont Crop Protection, is rather less thrilled about the fact that no chemicals will be used to grow the crops. The group is worried that the decision may give consumers the wrong impression about conventionally grown food.

"We live in a very different world than that of our grandparents. Americans are juggling jobs with the needs of children and aging parents," the letter states. "The time needed to tend a garden is not there for the majority of our citizens, certainly not a garden of sufficient productivity to supply much of a family's year-round food needs."

The blog La Vida Locavore posted the letter last month.

Although pesticides or chemical fertilizers won't be used on the White House garden, Camille Johnston, spokeswoman for the first lady, said Mrs. Obama wanted to plant the garden to promote the eating of fruits and vegetables as part of a healthy diet.

MACA members just want a little love pointed their way: "As you go about planning and planting the White House garden, we respectfully encourage you to recognize the role conventional agriculture plays in the U.S. in feeding the ever-increasing population, contributing to the U.S. economy and providing a safe and economical food supply."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/first-...2009-04-09.html

[Niels Bohr 72]

Without chemically controlled farms, food would be scarce.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Without chemically controlled farms, food would be scarce.

That's the end game for the hippies. They want less food, more starvation and fewer people. In the name of organic production and locally sourced foods, what they're really after is mass genocide.

[mr and mrs 187]

personally, i am not concerned for the welfare of chemical companies. their day has come. they should jump on the bandwagon and move towards exploring organic solutions, which are far less damaging to the natural environment. we cannot continue to pump synthetic chemicals (ie miracle gro) into the our world. let the obamas have their garden, im sure there will be plenty of 'traditional' gardeners spraying the ####### out of their tomatoes (not to mention their chemi-lawns.)

and, yes, im very biased. i live (burlington, vt) and work (at a gardening company) in one of the epi-centers of organic gardening in america.

dont treat your lawns and gardens with chemicals. yeah, im sure your tomatoes are blemish-free and your lawn is a lush green carpet, but you are kinda poisoning your children, yourself, your dog, your neighbor, fish in the river, and your world. not cool.

[Rhiannercakes 14]

Must have been a slow news day.

The woman just wants to grow fruits and veggies like she probably (assuming she did, most people do) did before her husband became president.

Excuse me while I go yell at my neighbours for growing food for themselves to enjoy.

(Sarcasm)

Edited April 9, 2009 by Rhiann

[Niels Bohr 72]

My sister is a chemical engineerer, she says people who have no idea that cow feces can contanimate water through runoff is much worse than artificial chemicals placed on agriculture land are fools.

Those who lacks chemical knowledge tend to favor orgnanic versus artificial. That is what my sister sees.

Same with my perspective. I'm a computer engineer and an electrical engineer. I also find people who are pseudo-tech specialists or have no knowledge as the way things work tend to favor brand names over what's inside the product.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[mr and mrs 187]

vemont is an agriculture state and there are most definitely problems with runoff from manure-spreading. farmers here are required to adhere to EPA rules for spreading to decrease run-off (mostly into lake champlain and the connecticut river).

but being second worst doesnt mean you get a free ticket for business as usual.

what i see in vermont is some large scale organic production. it is feasible and can be economical. making it more mainstream is part of bring the cost down of organic production.

cheap and mass-produced food isnt necessarily ALWAYS a good thing, at least in my opinion. the vitamin and mineral content is not as high in conventionally produced vegetables and the healthful benefits therefore reduced (in relation to their organic counterparts.) more bang for your buck, essentially. plus, organic stuff is sometimes produced locally (though thats changing a bit) and you can invest your money locally and it benefits the whole community.

anyways, thats how i see it. and thats how i choose to live. : ) and im okay with that!

[Niels Bohr 72]

Dr. Norman Borlaug is an advocate of genetically modified foods.

link

[Der Bücherwurm 1]

I much prefer the taste of organic produce. The GM produce you get at the store just doesn't taste as good for one and all those chemicals aren't good for you. And no, preferring organic isn't about loving hippies or hating conservatives.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I much prefer the taste of organic produce. The GM produce you get at the store just doesn't taste as good for one and all those chemicals aren't good for you. And no, preferring organic isn't about loving hippies or hating conservatives.

Proof?

Sodium Phosphate made from natural process is the same exact sodium phosphate made by artificial process. Ammonia made from natural process is the same as ammonia made by artificial process.

What my sister sees, and myself see is that if 1 and 1 are the same they must be the same.

Also, there's no proof that these chemicals aren't good for us since we eat it daily.