3 ms·
The article wasn't accounting for other possible effects, it just jumped straight to concluding organic farming was the culprit. During the same time period co
by dbingham 5y ago
The article wasn't accounting for other possible effects, it just jumped straight to concluding organic farming was the culprit. During the same time period covered by the policy, agricultural yields in the US dropped significantly as well, primarily due to pandemic and climate impacts. The article mentioned that the pandemic hit months after the policy was implemented and that devastated tourism, which was one of the backbones of Sri Lanka's economy. In earlier sentences, the article implies that the organic farming policy is solely responsible for the economic problems. In short, this is a biased and unreliable assessment of the policy's impacts.
- spupe 5y agoYour statement about US agricultural output appears to be incorrect; at least, it hit record export rates in 2021 [1]. And what you are saying about tourism is irrelevant, as the article clearly states that rice production fell by 20%, and tea production recorded a loss of 450 million USD. Farmers themselves are demanding that they be allowed to import fertilizers again. While it's true that we cannot know whether the organic switch was the sole cause of this disaster, it is both logical and plausible that it was a major factor. Can you point to a single country that switched to organic farming and had increased agricultural output (ie, "better for farmers" as the comment above implies)? [1] https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/02/08/american-agricultural-exports-shattered-records-2021 https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/02/08/america...
- unmole 5y agoDuring the same policy period, South India produced record rice harvests. It has nothing to do with climate.