FOWC with Fandango Writing Prompt 13th Nov. “chemical”
Chemicals used on produce are part of a rising concern over food safety. Chemical fertilisers and pesticides give farmers a better yield. Alas they also endanger food safety. They can cause liver, gut, kidney and bone disease. Some have even been linked to cancer.
It is said that these chemicals are not injurious if fruit and vegetables are washed thoroughly before use. However some trace of these synthetic substances may still find it’s way into our food.
It is best that we avoid these harmful chemicals altogether to safeguard health. We need to adopt organic farming methods to ensure food safety.
Chemical fertilizers and pesticides have been developed to improve yield. This is done to make food abundant and cheap. This goes a great way towards alleviation of property and starvation. You might argue, therefore, that the use of these potentially harmful chemicals is not a bad thing.
Organic foods although good for health are far more expensive than those grown using artificial fertilisers. It becomes an expensive luxury to employ organic agricultural practices in poor countries.
This dilemma of quantity versus quality of food may be just a debate in countries with strong economies. In developing nations of the Third World it is a matter for great concern.
Is it better for the poor to suffer the seemingly remote consequences of harmful chemicals or is it better for them to suffer hunger and starvation due to expensive food?
What do you think ?
Written for the FOWC with Fandango word prompt “chemical”
You might also like:
Salted Caramel 
My wife will only buy organic produce and humanely treated meats and chicken. It’s more expensive, yes, but you’ve only got one life to live.
LikeLike
True.
That is a choice that you and your wife can afford to make.
The debate I want to start here is
What do people with limited resources do ?
Thanks for reading and commenting.
LikeLike
You pose an interesting dilemma. I guess everyone has to make that choice for themselves, but me personally, I think it is better to have a higher, more consistent and cheaper yield that will help feed more people than to have a more expensive, healthier yield that will produce less, and will therefore feed less people.
LikeLike
Thank you.
This is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted to begin.
A little sombre (if that is the right word) but necessary.
And thank you Fandango for the word prompt that triggered this.
LikeLike
I am with you. I love getting into this kinds of discussions, but sadly, most people do not. Most people only like to talk and think about the good things, only they do not really scratch the surface much. Most ideas are good in theory, but it is when you start putting them into practice where you discover their flaws.
LikeLike
A very pertinent post! What should we do when faced with the choice of buying, sometimes twice as expensive produce, because it’s organic or going with the regular cheaper produce. I do draw a line at organic bananas. I would eat them after peeling, anyway!
LikeLike
That is such a good approach.
LikeLike
Yes, but always a twister.
LikeLike
Very thought provoking. We are lucky to have the choice and ability to afford but in my opinion, it is better to have less than poor quality food. Do we really want people suffering from autoimmune, gut, kidney, bone diseases and cancer which are way harder to treat, cause greater suffering and shorten life? Its crazy how much the incidence of these ailments has gone up in the last few decades. Lets not forget, its the civilized world that introduced these chemicals in the first place.
LikeLike
This is the view of the privileged.
What about people who don’t have enough to eat. I don’t think they would mind if their food was not organic.
LikeLike
True but good food does not have to be organic… just chemical free the way it was decades ago.
LikeLike
That is true
LikeLike
These corporations and the authorities don’t care. They get their money and are happy! Who cares about us the little people?
LikeLike