In the wake of the release of the infamous “Stanford study,” which claims there  is no substantial difference between organic food and conventional food, many  with a deeper understanding of how organic food production works are speaking  out against this ill-conceived attack on clean food. One such individual,  Sarvadaman Patel, an organic farmer from India, says converting to organic was  the best decision he ever made, and that organic food production can actually  help save the world from the devastating effects of climate  change. President of the Organic Farming Association of India (OFAI), Patel denounces the notion that organic food is basically the same as  conventional food. And he would know, having grown conventional produce for much  of his life before witnessing how it slowly destroys the environment, animals,  and even human beings. And contrary to popular belief, converting to organic has  actually saved Patel from having to use as many valuable resources, including  water, which he no longer has to apply in the same high quantities.

Organic food contains few pesticides

“The biggest advantage that organic  food has over conventional food is cited by Stanford scientists themselves —  lack of pesticides,” Patel is quoted as saying to the Times of India (ToI), noting that when he used to grow conventional produce, his cattle and  farm hands became very sick from pesticide exposure. Patel also says  pesticide-exposed produce is rushed very quickly to market in India, which means  consumers there are being exposed to very high levels of chemical  residue.

Organic growing methods use less water

After switching to organic  production methods; however, Patel noticed that there was no longer any risk of  chemical exposure because he was no longer using any chemicals. And in the  process, Patel came to realize that he only needed to use about 60 percent of  the water he was using before on his conventional crops to grow his organic crops. In every respect, converting to organic growing methods revolutionized  Patel’s experience as a farmer, and changed the way he views food  production. “Organic (farming) could help save the world from global  warming,” said Patel to ToI. “It saves 40 percent of water used in  conventional farming and uses non-conventional energy sources. In summers, I  don’t need to irrigate my farms for almost 30-35 days.”

Organic growing methods produce less waste, pollution

Since Patel no  longer applies petroleum-derived fertilizers and growing chemicals to his crops,  he is also avoiding excessive pollution runoff, which contributes significantly  to the environmental alterations commonly attributed to climate  change. And on top of all this, Patel still achieves roughly the same yields  now as when he farmed conventionally, a fact that was also ignored by the  Stanford study and many others that have tried to claim that organic  production methods fail to generate adequate yields.

If it were not for unfair government subsidies, organic food would cost  less

As far as costs are concerned, organic production methods still cost  more. But this is primarily due to the fact that in the U.S., India, and  elsewhere, governments subsidize conventional growing methods while offering  little or nothing in support of organic production. Such a policy, of course,  creates an unfair advantage for conventional farming, which translates into  cheaper prices for conventional produce, a common complaint among those who  belittle organic food as some kind of luxury for the wealthy. If these unfair government  subsidies were eliminated — or if the government actually helped subsidize  organic food in the same way that it does conventional food — organic food would very likely end up being priced the same, if not cheaper,  than conventional produce. And the benefit would be that more people would  actually have the option to choose clean food rather than chemical-contaminated  food without having to worry about costs. Source : .naturalnews.com