Both the essay and the lecture talk about the pros and cons of organic foods. While the author mentions three benefits of organic products for human and environment, the lecturer repudiates those theories and states benefits of organic foods are a misconception, then he opposes all the reasons were explained in the essay.
First, the professor asserts that this idea that roganic foods do not contain hazardous chemical like ordinary non-organic foods, is not correct. He adds that organic food producers use a natural chemical, named rottenen, which has a very detrimental effedct on children. Recent researchs showed that there is a connection between rottenen and disease in children, he said. He believes that counsumers should know about these facts. Therefore, this note that organic foods improve the overall health of consomers is rejected by the professor.
Second, the lecturer posits that in accordance to the benefits of organic production practice for envirtonment, we should consider that this practice has 20 percent less yield rether than conventional agriculture method. To compensate this, organic producers will use more land, which it ends up cutting down forest. In addition it will led to less diversity of animals and plants species. He insists that just becuase of less using some pesticides and fertilizers, we should not ignore these detrimental impacts of organic food production on environment. As we see, the writer's idea about the benefits of organic foods for the environment does not hold water.
Third, the speaker points out that since organic foods have become popular and omnipresence, many big companies have involved in this field. Nowadays, many of big producers sell their organic goods through thier companies' branches. He wanted students to pay attention to the labels of organic foods next time they buy. With this explanaion, the professor rebuts this idea that buying organic foods will help small corporations or family run farms.
Both the essay and the lecture talk about the pros and cons of
organic
foods
. While the author mentions three
benefits
of
organic
products for human and environment, the lecturer repudiates those theories and states
benefits
of
organic
foods
are a misconception, then he opposes all the reasons were
explained
in the essay.
First
, the professor asserts that this
idea
that
roganic
foods
do not contain hazardous chemical like ordinary non-organic
foods
, is not correct. He
adds
that
organic
food
producers
use
a natural chemical, named
rottenen
, which has a
very
detrimental
effedct
on children. Recent
researchs
showed
that there is a
connection between
rottenen
and disease in children, he said. He believes that
counsumers
should know about these facts.
Therefore
, this note that
organic
foods
improve
the
overall
health of
consomers
is rejected
by the professor.
Second, the lecturer posits that in accordance to the
benefits
of
organic
production practice for
envirtonment
, we should consider that this practice has 20 percent less yield
rether
than conventional agriculture method. To compensate this,
organic
producers will
use
more land, which it ends up cutting down forest. In
addition it
will
led
to less diversity of animals and plants species. He insists that
just
becuase
of less using
some
pesticides and fertilizers, we should not
ignore
these detrimental impacts of
organic
food
production on environment. As we
see
, the writer's
idea
about the
benefits
of
organic
foods
for the environment does not hold water.
Third, the speaker points out that since
organic
foods
have become popular and omnipresence,
many
big
companies
have involved in this field. Nowadays,
many
of
big
producers sell their
organic
goods
through
thier
companies
' branches. He wanted students to pay attention to the labels of
organic
foods
next
time they
buy
. With this
explanaion
, the professor rebuts this
idea
that buying
organic
foods
will
help
small
corporations or family run farms.