Ars: Birds turn their beaks up at organic food

Soo... What do birds instinctively understand about organic that we don't?

Okay repeat after me: Organic doesn't automatically = good, or better, and non-organic, conventional or even GM doesn't automatically = bad.

Better living through chemistry!

Birds turn their beaks up at organic food: "

Is organic food everything its advocates claim to be? A new study published in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
describes an experiment in which the subjects were free from human biases.
The authors found that wild birds preferred 'normal' bird food to the organic
option.

To study this burning issue, the researchers set up pairs of identical
bird feeders in over 30 locations around northern England. The feeders
contained two types of the same variety of wheat seeds, one organic and
one conventional. The researchers then monitored the rate at which each
seed was eaten over the course of a few weeks.

It was found that the birds preferentially ate the conventional
seeds. To make
sure that there wasn't something about the relative placement of the
feeders, the researchers switched each pair, and found that the birds
learned the new location of the conventional seeds and continued to
prefer eating from that feeder.

The experiment was repeated over a subsequent winter with a
different type of seed, but produced the same results. More controlled
laboratory trials with canaries found similar preferences for
conventional over organic. In an attempt to explain this disparity, the
researchers analyzed the seeds and found that the conventional seed
contained upwards of 10 percent more protein per seed, most likely due
to the use of inorganic nitrogen fertilizers used in conventional
farming techniques.

Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2010. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.4025 (About
DOIs).

Read the comments on this post

"

Reason: "Sustainable" Agriculture Ain't -- Robert Paarlberg on Organic Ag Myths

"Sustainable" Agriculture Ain't -- Robert Paarlberg on Organic Ag Myths: "

Wellesley political scientist Robert Paarlberg
has a superb article over at Foreign Policy pointing out
that 'organic, local, and slow - is not recipe for saving the
world's hungry millions.' Here's just a taste:

In Europe and the United States, a new line of thinking has
emerged in elite circles that opposes bringing improved seeds and
fertilizers to traditional farmers and opposes linking those
farmers more closely to international markets. Influential food
writers, advocates, and celebrity restaurant owners are repeating
the mantra that 'sustainable food' in the future must be organic,
local, and slow. But guess what: Rural Africa already has such a
system, and it doesn't work. Few smallholder farmers in Africa use
any synthetic chemicals, so their food is de facto organic. High
transportation costs force them to purchase and sell almost all of
their food locally. And food preparation is painfully slow. The
result is nothing to celebrate: average income levels of only $1 a
day and a one-in-three chance of being malnourished.

If we are going to get serious about solving global hunger, we
need to de-romanticize our view of preindustrial food and farming.
And that means learning to appreciate the modern,
science-intensive, and highly capitalized agricultural system we've
developed in the West. Without it, our food would be more expensive
and less safe. In other words, a lot like the hunger-plagued rest
of the world.

Amen.

Go here for
Reason's 2008 interview with Paarlberg discussing his
book, And
here for his insightful Foreign Policy article,
'Attention Whole Food Shoppers.'

"