Slashdot Mirror

Are you out of your mind here? The bulk of the industry astroturfing that is going is from the organics industry which is a multi-billion dollar per year industry that profits by getting people to switch from conventional food to organic food through the use of misinformation and propaganda. GMOs weren't controversial until some corporations that stood to profit from trashing them decided to use fear and ignorance as a weapon of marketing.

Back up your crap with numbers, not stereotypes, or bugger off.

Yes, individual farmers can make higher profit margins by not giving all their money to Monsanto to purchase seeds / pesticides / herbicides. However, the total market share of organic products is small --- so, in industry aggregate, Monsanto and Pals make loads more money from smaller margins on larger sales.

From an Organic trade industry association hyping how big the organic industry is,
Total U.S. organic sales, including food and non-food products, were $28.682 billion in 2010
and represented ~4% of total food and beverage sales in 2010.

The other 96% percent of sales dollars go through the traditional Big Ag chain. From Monsanto's 2010 report, Monsanto's net sales were $10.5B, and ADM reported $68B in net sales --- so, just between these two corporations alone --- ~2.7x the entire organic industry's sales. And there are many others in the chain, making up the 96% of sales not going to organic produce.

I meant promoting a agricultural monoculture. Like having three strains of wheat instead of 3 thousand, each with huge genetic variability inside of them.

I don't think your fear makes sense. As I said, there are many private companies and public institutions performing genetic engineering around the world. Each of then will probably have many strains of wheat, designed for different climatic/economic conditions.

Add to that, the fact that organic food is growing fast [1]. Multiple strains of organic wheat will be grown for the organic market.

And if all that wasn't enough... the solution would be to lobby governments to keep a small reserve backup for each important
strain of wheat.

Therefore, using "monoculture" as an argument against GMO is absurd.

1 : http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html

See http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html

Organic food and beverage sales represented approximately 4 percent of overall food and beverage sales in 2010. Leading were organic fruits and vegetables, now representing over 11 percent of all U.S. fruit and vegetable sales.

And it grew by a factor of 26 from 1990 to 2010. In 2010 it grew 7.7% (if it keeps this 7.7% growth rate, it will double every 9.3 years)

At this growth rate, it will soon reach 10% of the market, and this far more than enough (remember, the market is huge) to ensure genetic variability, not to mention the facts that Monsanto has many competitors (private companies, government agencies all over the world), including ones who design high-yield seeds with conventional artificial engineering. And the fact that plant varieties are catalogued and preserved. Really, your nightmare scenario cant happen.

Please reconsider. You may campaign against plant patents, or against their excessive duration (AFAIK it is two decades). You may campaign against Monsanto's practice of suing farmers who allegedly benefited from their seeds without paying - you may advocate legal reform to stop this practice. But please stop demonising GMOs!

Hi Lee - you state "Previous studies showed that organic farming doesn't give bigger nutritional value" Can you provide some links? My own tests showed our potatoes were more nutritious than store-bought potatoes (we had those tested, too). I've also provided literature that stated corn had higher protein before GMO. I'd be interested to see a counter-claim.

Some quick Googling seemed to indicate mainstream media wasn't ready to state one way or the other:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/organic_nutrition.cfm
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255/NSECTIONGROUP=2
http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html

interesting report here, would be interesting to see more details:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080807082954.htm

Organic = Open Source

What a load of steaming manure. Organic is elitism coupled with misinformation coupled with FUD. What's wrong with non-organic food? Nothing at all, there is no difference in terms of nutritive value or health effects. Zero. What's wrong with organic food? It takes several times as much arable land to grow, reducing the amount of food farmed annually and directly increasing food prices worldwide which is resulting (with biofuels effects thrown in) in riots, instability and famine on a global scale.

If you give one crap about other human beings on this planet you should say no to organics and no to biofuels.

Now to await my downvoting by the misinformed morons who think that by eating organic foods they're somehow sticking it to The Man.

Industry Statistics and Projected Growth

You could check out a list of studies on this page:
http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html
"Growing crops in healthy soils results in food products that offer healthy nutrients. There is mounting evidence that organically grown fruits, vegetables and grains may offer more of some nutrients, including vitamin C, iron, magnesium and phosphorus, and less exposure to nitrates and pesticide residues than their counterparts grown using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers."

It kind of stands to reason that richer soil means healthier crops:
http://www.remineralize.org/

Actually, getting a bit of insect damage can also improve a plant's nutritional qualities sometimes (certain plant defense compounds may be used by the human body for various purposes including fighting cancer).

While "organic" is a bit arbitrary ("certified organic" means following certain guidelines though), organic generally means no GMO, which can be beneficial.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/corn-study.cfm
"Consumers have another reason to avoid genetically modified foods (GMO). Yesterday, European news outlets reported harmful health impacts on lab rats that were fed Monsanto's root worm resistant corn (Mon 863)."

But in general, you're better off eating any kind of vegetables than none, so don't let them not being "organic" stop you.

And people can rightly point to aspects of "organic" farming that are problematical too. It becomes a weighing thing of different tradeoffs.

Other factors can also effect nutrient quality of organic or non-organic produce, like shipping or choice of variety.

The point is that what we eat, especially vegetables, fruits, and beans, can have a tremendous effect on our health.
http://www.drfuhrman.com/
"You can reverse disease, reduce high blood pressure, lose unwanted weight, lower your cholesterol levels, prevent heart disease and cancer, and improve your health - all without relying on drugs and fad diets. The importance of good nutrition is emphasized in Dr. Fuhrman's dietary program, Eat To Live."

But our agricultural subsidies in the USA don't reflect that, and instead promote factory farmed animal products and processed grains.

Seriously?

Screw the parent. What does it matter if he's wrong or right? Do you really need some guy's word to prove or disprove the obvious harm to the environment and human health that industrial agriculture produces? The evidence is, literally, all around you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_cotton
http://www.ota.com/organic/environment/cotton_environment.html

Do your own fucking googling next time and save your smart ass quips.

There is no claim that organic foods are more nutritious.

Technically incorrect. I direct you to the Nutritional Considerations page of the Organic Trade Association.
http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html
There are many claims that organic food is nutritionally superior to conventional alternatives.

The UK FSA study is narrow in scope, and it's purpose was to provide a counterpoint to statements like "Research by visiting chemistry professor Theo Clark and undergraduate students at Truman State University in Missouri found organically grown oranges contained up to 30 percent more vitamin C than those grown conventionally."

Is no one watching the OTA?. I guess many of these people never watched the StoreWars either?

More info on Organic produce and the impact of antibiotics can be found here

Or if you're an Anime fan, check out Earth Girl Arjuna for a cool series which I was surprised to find having some deep insights into this very subject...

It's slightly more expensive, but we do have a choice to go for Organic produce. I can buy almost anything organic, including steak, eggs, milk, coffee, fruit and vegetables from a local Woolworths.

But then again, I guess it's difficult to change with such a huge fast-food industry.