Two posts and articles to consider, falling on either end of the real food debate spectrum:
Check out Kurt Michael Friese’s comments on Slow Food’s “Time for Lunch” campaign on Civil Eats: it contains some valuable background information on the movement and a call to action in the form of a Labor Day Eat-In.
And I have to take issue with MSNBC’s “Organic food is no healthier” as simply a piece of organic food bashing (I can hear large agribusiness rejoicing already):
“A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance,” said Alan Dangour, one of the report’s authors.
Perhaps MSNBC would care to elucidate a little bit and let the readers decide on the relevance? My family has shown a marked improvement in overall health since we converted almost completely to organic food over the past 4 years, and I’ve heard many others say the same. And how about the benefit of organic food production to the environment?
Filed under: articles, ethics | Tagged: Civil Eats, organic, Slow Food, Time for Lunch | Leave a Comment »



