Author Topic: Video luomun ympäristövaikutuksista Hanna Tuomiston väitöskirjan pohjalta  (Read 9614 times)

Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 17680
    • View Profile
    • Email
Nyt Luomuinstituuttikin on antanut em. tutkimukselle tukensa:

https://luomuinstituutti.fi/luomupelloilla-suuremmat-ymparistohyodyt/

Teksti tuossa on minusta aivan sama kuin Luomuliitolla.

Meidän kannaltamme tilanne säilyy ennallaan: koska meillä ei ole asiaan resursseja, odotamme tieteellistä vertaisarviointia.
« Last Edit: 30.03.19 - klo:07:45 by Heikki Jokipii »

Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 17680
    • View Profile
    • Email
Yhä uutta evidenssiä siitä, että luomun ympäristöedut ovat näennäisiä:

Existing research may downplay environmental benefits of organic farming, new study claims

Asiaa yritetään tuossa kyllä tarkastella mahdollisimman tasapuolisesti.
« Last Edit: 25.03.20 - klo:07:45 by Heikki Jokipii »

Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 17680
    • View Profile
    • Email
Iida Ruishalme ruotsalaisesta tutkimusraportista:

Organic vs. conventional farming: Which has lower environmental impacts?

Quote
The Swedish Food Agency (Svenska Livsmedelsverket SLV) recently published a report on a many-faceted breakdown of environmental effects in farming per one kilogram of farming product. This report was also discussed in an opinion piece in the Sweden’s largest newspaper, Dagens Nyheter (under the title “Organic farming has never been better for the environment”).

Iskevä ja havainnollinen taulukko. Sitten yhteenvetoa, johtopäätöksiä:

Quote
What conclusions can be drawn from this summary?

Neither conventional or organic is clearly environmentally superior. The claim that one of these two systems would be worth special subsidies, higher cost to consumer, or a better reputation, is not well founded – if such a difference is hinted at, the benefit seems to reside slightly on the side of conventional farming.

Eli istutaanpa alas:

Quote
Let’s sit down at a neat table: Correct mistaken ideas

What makes this kind of review important is clear when you consider the common belief propagated by organic marketers: that theirs is the more environmentally friendly way to farm. I used to make the same Natural Assumption. But the environment does not in fact differentiate between a harmful impact from a ‘natural’ source (however that may be defined) and a ‘non-natural’ one.

If the organic label was committed to striving toward documented environmental benefits instead of the idea of some kind of superior naturalness, I would still be the loyal organic customer I used to be. As it is, there is little support in the science or in this SLV report for the claim of organic farming leading the way in the use of environmentally friendlier methods today.

Instead organic lobbying has marketed its idea of superiority to the degree that the Swedish state pays subsidies to support organic farming to the sum of 600 million Krona per year – and half that again in the amount state institutions’ commitment to buying organic, and more still if you consider the cost to ordinary consumers who believe the same idea (figures are according to the Swedish ecologist and Emeritus Professor Torbjörn Fagerström and plant physiologist Jens Sundström in their article in DN). In the same vein, taking things to more of an extreme, a rather worrisome suggestion comes from the Swedish Green Party, where they campaign for a shift into 100 percent organic farming. It makes me wonder if farming methods have become all marketing and politics? Where does science fit in all of this?

Ihan erikseeen voi tuossa artikkelissa suositella tarkastelua luomun ja tavanomaisen viljelyn käyttämistä torjunta-aineista.