Well, I was actually talking more about South America, but wildlife habitat destruction is a big issue in the US, too. I do agree that what Monsanto is doing is unethical, and merely for profit, but the use of genemod to actually improve a product is a good idea.

The problem, then, for the consumer, is to evaluate whether or not that "bad" effect is a likelyhood or not. So I could buy a "regular", and coincidentally genetically modified apple and consider it a risk, or I could buy an organic apple and feel less like I'm part of an experiment.

HOWEVER, I'm taking an advocate's position from the point of a biologically ignorant consumer. It may or may not be difficult to create a harmful apple by genetic modification. I'm thinking the likelyhood is extremely low that anyone would bother, so I don't think genetically modified foods are a threat.

Not much of an argument - most foods are genetically modified anyway. Wheat is a good example, as its genes were modified quite rapidly as humanity began to cultivate it. Same with apples, bananas, tomatoes, most beans... It's all about economy. It's not that anything's gone bad or wrong, it's just that we have more food of higher quality more broadly available. For our health on an individual level it's easy enough to make the small changes nessesary. Let folks make thier own choices.

About cancer: There's more of it because folks are living longer.

 

The largest cause of deforestation in South America is cattle ranching(http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0124-nepstad.html).   I can't find figures for how much grain is actually used to feed the world's cattle but suffice to say you need more grain to feed a cow than a person so eat less beef (I'm not a vegetarian btw but do limit my red meat intake).  On a more positive note, the Eu have stopped forbidding farmers from using 10% of their land to grow crops on. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7014999.stm

My wife works for an organic food distributor, who follows the guideline set forth by the Canadian Food Agency for organic food certification (which is coming in effect as of December 14, 2008, which was announced last year July 21, this being the phase in period allowing farmers to adjust to the new rules for certification. For example any meat sold, the animal must have lived and consumed it's food as close as naturally possible, in other words it must have lived in a natural enviorment or as close to natural for that animal, it must also consume only food that it would naturally consume in the wild. For the most part that means no meat, meat by products or carcasses. For plants it means using only natural fertilizer, and up to 95 percent of the finished consumer product must be organic (what exactly this means I haven't bothered to find out), here is the chemical usage guidelines http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/cgsb/on_the_net/organic/032_0311_2006-e.pdf, basically what can and cannot be used and a basic overview for what they can be used for.

As for genetic crops the issue really is like the Monsanto case for patent rights, it could get to the point that (the absolute worse case scenario) in which a corporation controls the food chain and independent farmers could get sued (again this was a Canadian court that sided with Schmeiser, so in the rest of the world farmers could be sued until they are bankrupted) because of accidental contamination or due to natural pollination process. The other issue with genetically modified food is the fact that it is done in a laboratory, and lets admit people don't really trust corporations that much, with a history of skirting with truth, many consumers don't exactly trust what corporations say about what is safe to consume. I mean medicinal drugs for example have had a bad history, with mental issue's arising from the use of certain drugs to birth of deformed babies that corporations don't like to mention. In the US at least and to an extent to the rest of the world if there is a problem to a product AFTER it was released to the public, corporations usually aren't forth coming about it all. Now if there was something wrong with the food your consuming from genetic alteration, how quickly would a corporation come out and say that is hard to say, but needless to say there could be a large amount of consumers affected. Now again, this is the most common POV from people that I have spoken to about GMO food. Although we have in Canada GMO canola and GMO potatoes. With that said I do consume the potatoes and have been doing so quite some time.

 

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

To the topic starter, MattShizzle, you said:

“I put forth that Organic agriculture is an irrational idea. Not being an expert, I would appreciate some feedback from those with a better understanding of the science behind all this.”

I actually happen to know a lot about organic foods and all natural living in general because I was raised on it by my stepmother. She is a microbiologist and has the education of a medical doctor. She was in college to become a naturopathic doctor, but ran out of money. Hopefully my knowledge on the subject will help the confusion.

“Organic agriculture refuses to use chemical means of fertilization or pesticide. I believe they also don't use genetically modified crops (being afraid of gene-mod is extremely irrational.)”

Refusing to use chemicals and pesticides as well as herbicides and other dangerous products is how farming has been done originally for thousands of years before high populations demanded more food and faster. And you’re right, they don’t use genetically modified crops as well, but it’s not due to an irrational fear. The fact is simply that genetically altered foods are dangerous and a serious risk to your health.

Genetically modified food is actually funded by major drug companies, as well as corporations like tobacco giant Phillip Morris, which owns Kraft foods. The effects of these foods are completely unknown and have in fact raised a lot of concerns amongst well-respected scientists, as well as many doctors. Very little testing has been done to see what kind of effects these foods will have on our health.

You can find more information on this topic at Mercola.com and Naturalnews.com. Dr. Joseph Mercola of Mercola.com makes this observation:

“There is no telling what the consequences of using these genetically modified foods will be. Already, investigators have found that rats fed genetically modified potatoes had an increased thickening in the lining of their stomach and intestine and a weakening of their immune system. Further, some scientists want to put vaccines into plants without any real knowledge of what effects this unnatural addition will have on human health, or the health of our planet.

This is SHEER LUNACY.

What these scientists have failed to fully appreciate is that once these genetically modified plants are growing it is physically impossible to prevent them from pollinating other plants, thereby contaminating them with these new proteins, of which we do not know the long-term consequences.

The absurdity of the entire process is mind-boggling. These scientists are willing to sacrifice the country’s food supply by adding vaccines, which do not even work, to plants.

If this continues, our grandchildren may not have access to any non-genetically modified food, and the health of our society may continue to rapidly decline.

Genetically modified foods did not exist prior to 1995. Ninety percent of the money Americans spend on food is spent on processed foods, and seventy percent of processed foods have genetically modified foods in them.

There have been NO STUDIES done with humans to show what happens when genetically modified foods are consumed. The FDA has ASSUMED that these modified foods are equivalent to the original foods and does not require any studies to have them approved, despite the fact that this technology has never before existed in the history of the world.”

-http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2003/01/01/gm-foods-part-five.aspx

If you’re unable to see this link, you probably have to become a member to the site in order to view it. Just send me an e-mail if that’s the case, and I’ll send you the whole article ([email protected])

Here are other links that might help people learn more about gm foods:

Naturalnews.com

http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/geneticall7.cfm

“Anyway, these 3 methods keep millions of people from starving to death. Organic agriculture doesn't improve the flavor or nutrition of the food grown (and may even harm it) and definitely reduces yields. Even if only a signifigant minority of farmers use organic farming, the reduction of food supply drives food prices up for everyone (and organic foods themselves are hideously expensive.)”

I can certainly agree that organic foods seem to be more expensive than the processed foods you buy, but that could be for several very good reasons: Firstly there’s the fact that although organic agriculture is growing, less people demand it than they do non-organic foods, therefore naturally, pricing is going to be different. Once more people demand it, more supply will be given, and the prices will even out. Secondly, places like Wal-Mart sell so much because a lot of their food is so cheap. And it’s cheap because it is POOR quality, not high quality. Ingredients like high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, MSG and artificial flavoring/coloring aren’t nearly as expensive as real sugar, real flavors and real food. There are ways of buying organic food cheaper though. It’s not impossible to find wholesome, healthy and unmodified foods which dangerous ingredients while sticking with your original budget. I do it every Sunday. The “365” brand at Wild Oats, which is a branch of Whole Foods Markets, costs me the same as the brands I buy at Wal-Mart.

And I don’t know where you got the notion that organic food isn’t better in flavor or nutrition, but I beg to differ.  Have you ever eaten an all organic, all natural meal before? I grew up eating processed, non-organic and genetically modified foods until I met my stepmother when I was about ten. The food she cooks is like going to an expensive restaurant and eating a gourmet meal, and it’s not just because she’s a good cook. The food she uses and the ingredients themselves taste different. Things have different texture, flavor and you don’t feel sick or bloated after the meal. I’ve gone from organic to processed off and on every other weekend my entire life, and I can tell you organic tastes better. I’m sure there are people who have different preferences than me, but the taste is just my personal opinion. Fortunately flavor or taste isn’t the issue here: nutrition is. Whether a carrot tastes better than chocolate is irrelevant here. Organic is better for your health. Period.

As for nutritional value, there’s no contest. According to a $25-million study into organic food:

· Organic fruit and vegetables contain up to 40 percent more antioxidants.

· Organic produce had higher levels of beneficial minerals like iron and zinc.

· Milk from organic herds contained up to 90 percent more antioxidants.

And yet again, Dr. Mercola has something to say here as well:

Many “health” experts continue to state that there is little difference between organic and conventionally raised produce, but if they review this evidence, they will likely have to change their tune.

Food grown in healthier soil, with natural fertilizers and no chemicals, simply has to be more nutritious. It is common knowledge -- though knowledge that is greatly suppressed in the United States.

A 2003 study in the Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry, for example, found that organic foods are better for fighting cancer.

And in 2005, scientists found that, compared to rats that ate conventional diets, organically fed rats experienced various health benefits. Rats that ate organic or minimally fertilized diets had:

• Improved immune system status
• Better sleeping habits
• Less weight and were slimmer than rats fed other diets
• Higher vitamin E content in their blood (for organically fed rats)

 

 

“It's also bad rather than good for the environment - as more land needs to be used to grow crops, thereby contributing to deforestation and habitat destruction. I'm going by the things I have read and heard and would appreciate feedback.”

It’s actually good for the environment. Only when big corporations like General Mills and Kraft foods make it a market niche and claim their foods as organic when it’s really not, does it cause the taking of more land. In fact, truly organic food is mostly grown by small family farms and local farms. I see nothing wrong with replacing processed and chemically altered foods with organics. We wouldn’t be taking more land, just the same land that’s being used for unhealthy foods.

For those of us who don’t know what Organic actually even means:

To be labeled “certified organic” by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the food must be free of most:

• Pesticides
• Synthetic fertilizers
• Hormones
• Antibiotics
• Genetic modification
• Irradiation 

But many argue that true organic food also entails respect for locally produced food, respect for livestock and employees, and environmentally sustainable practices -- something that is rarely a goal of large-scale food manufacturers.

And according to a comment by Dr. Mercola:

The 2007 report “Hazardous Pesticides in the European Parliament” reveals the disturbing truth that conventionally grown fruits are far more toxic than you might think.

Eight fruit samples, randomly selected at the GB express supermarket in the EU Parliament building in Brussels, were found to be contaminated with no less than 28 different pesticide residues, averaging almost five residues per fruit.

These chemicals included:

• 10 known carcinogens
• 3 neurotoxins
• 3 reproductive and developmental toxins
• 8 endocrine disruptors

Two of the chemicals are classified as “Highly Hazardous” by the World Health Organization (WHO), and three of the samples contained such high levels of residue that they were, officially, illegal.

Also, as for the environment issue:

Organic farming differs from conventional farming in the methods used to grow crops, which has a major impact on your environment.

 For example:

• Where conventional farmers apply chemical fertilizers to the soil to grow their crops, organic farmers feed and build soil with natural fertilizer, which is far less likely to cause any long-term environmental complications.
• Conventional farmers use insecticides to get rid of insects and disease, while organic farmers use natural methods such as insect predators and barriers for this purpose.
• Conventional farmers control weed growth by applying synthetic herbicides, but organic farmers use crop rotation, tillage, hand weeding, cover crops and mulches to control weeds.
  
  While herbicides are not nearly as dangerous as insecticides, they still are synthetic chemicals introduced into the environment and clearly are not something that will improve your health.

The article “Better Beef,” written by California rancher Dave Evans and published in the March 2008 issue of Best Life magazine, gives a great in-depth view of the many benefits of grass-fed beef, from environmental sustainability to the sheer difference in taste and nutrient content of the beef. 

Evans also offers this list of grass-fed beef ranchers in the United States, where you can find good-quality meats: 

• Panorama Meats – Black Angus and Red Angus
  www.panoramameats.com
• Country Natural Beef – Hereford and Angus
  www.countrynaturalbeef.com
• Tallgrass Beef
  www.tallgrassbeef.com
• Niman Ranch – A network of more than 600 independent farmers and ranchers, and probably the easiest to find locally
  www.nimanranch.com
• Pacific Village – Entirely grass-fed cattle since 2002
  www.newseasonsmarket.com

Irrelevant. My mother-in-law is a college educated medical professional who still believes in reflexology, healing oils and the like. A college degree does not confer rationality(although it should). Frankly, from reading up on naturopathic doctors and what they tend to believe, I would have to say I am not impressed.

You don't grasp the problem. Factory farming is what is keeping the huge mass of people alive on this planet right now. Organic farming requires more intensive work with smaller crop yields. That means that if one acre fed 10 people under convetional farming, it would only feed 5-8 under organic farming(depending on the conditions). While I have no problem with personal small scale farming(I have a small garden in my back yard), the simple fact is that you would have to take 20-50% MORE land for cultivation if we went all organic and the population stayed exactly the same. This would force the conversion of a lot of natural environments to farmland. The only other option is to eliminate 20-50% of the current population, which I'm sure will go over well.

I would also note that the increased need for labor on the organic farm also raises the price. Look at what a spike in corn prices caused(riots and such). Now imagine what will happen when every piece of food experiences a similar price hike.

So, the bottom line is that neither conventional factory farming nor large scale organic farming will answer the problem. Genetically engineered food combined with some form of hydroponics is likely to be the only way we'll be able to feed a growing population.

"Irrelevant. My mother-in-law is a college educated medical professional who still believes in reflexology, healing oils and the like. A college degree does not confer rationality(although it should). Frankly, from reading up on naturopathic doctors and what they tend to believe, I would have to say I am not impressed."

That wasn't even my point in bringing it up. I was just explaining WHY I know about it. If you're not impressed with naturopathic doctors, you should be even less impressed by medical doctors. Naturopathic doctors require a lot more schooling than medical doctors, and they actually have to know some things. They're not just professional drug dealers.

"the simple fact is that you would have to take 20-50% MORE land for cultivation if we went all organic and the population stayed exactly the same. This would force the conversion of a lot of natural environments to farmland."

Or just a lot of unnatural environments into natural farmland. Again, not bad for the environment. Economy maybe, but not the environment. I've actually never considered what it would do to the economy, so you got me there. But the assertion that organic food isn't any better than conventionally grown food is silly.

"The only other option is to eliminate 20-50% of the current population, which I'm sure will go over well."

It won't be hard. Just tell them aspartame is the new pomegranate. My point is that organic food is healthier than conventionally grown food, whether it takes more work or not. Taking up space wouldn't be an issue at all if Americans weren't as lazy as they've become. Anyone with a little bit of space in their yard can grow more than enough food for themselves and their family. This family did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCPEBM5ol0Q.

 

"So, the bottom line is that neither conventional factory farming nor large scale organic farming will answer the problem. Genetically engineered food combined with some form of hydroponics is likely to be the only way we'll be able to feed a growing population."

I think the problem is that people are unwilling to take care of themselves and would rather the government do everything for them while they whine like babies. And when that happens, we have mass production with low quality and poor results. I understand your point, and you may be right that organic agriculture won't produce enough...but maybe people are just lazy and unwilling to go the extra mile, even if it means keeping people safe and healthy.

Naturopathy is a pseudoscience like Homeopathy and Reflexology. I don't care how much training someone has in bullshit. Those links seem to be to pseudoscientific sites.

 

http://skepdic.com/natpathy.html

 

Evidence?