121–130 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happens when you eat this BT corn?
The extremely acidic and enzyme rich system in your stomach demolishes the chemical structure, DNA, and proteins into constituant amino acids.
One thing I don't see him cover is how to deal with the "ecosystem" which will form around, and eventually consume, a fully organic permaculture farm. One of the big advantages of monoculture is that you usually only need to protect against a single class of pests in a specific area.
The gist of it is that in balanced ecosystems, you have natural remedies against pests; birds against insects for example, or certain plants that repel insects, or plants to combat diseases, or predators that eat insects that distribute diseases.
This is the theory; currently there is little evidence (as in, scientifically valid results, not anecdotes) that this works as it's claimed. I'm working on an experimental food forest to test some of these concepts. There are many things I'm very skeptical of, but in the mean time I have an excuse to work outside in the field, so hey...
Organic isn't the answer, it's trying to address some legitimate concerns, but it's a movement full of scientific woo-woo that's been legislated. For instance, organic farming thinks GMO's are bad, but is just fine with irradiating large fields full of plants to accomplish random mutations through radiation breeding. This article is one example of this, the author decries traditional corn fields, and as a counterexam…
The reason why GMO is bad is probably not because of the "Modified" part. It's because they're optimised to withstand heavy pesticide use. Pesticides are bad. Also, that freedom thing: GMO are generally sterile, so you have to buy seeds every year from Monsanto. Great business model for Monsanto, not so much for the farmer.
> It's because they're optimised to withstand heavy pesticide use. Pesticides are bad.
The use of roundup on crops predates the roundup ready gene by a couple of decades. What certain GMO traits allows is reducing the pesticides down to pretty much only roundup, instead of the cocktail – including roundup – that ends up on the non-GMO crops. Other GMO traits help eliminate the need for certain pesticides completely.
If pesticides are bad, GMOs pave the path to reducing and maybe one day eliminating them.
> GMO are generally sterile
There was a theoretical terminator gene in the news, but it has never been made available on the market.
The law dissuades replanting patented seeds, if that is what you had in mind? It's not the big deal that you might think it is though. There are a number of reasons why we would not opt to replant the seeds even without GMOs being a thing.
> Great business model for Monsanto, not so much for the farmer.
Why single out Monsanto? There are many different companies that have GMO varieties on the market. In fact, the original roundup ready patent that started this whole hubbub has already expired. You are free to replant it now.
I think this is just an example of 'elitism' on the part of the author. It is ludicrous to think that there is a chance that the 'local/organic' movement will ever capture more than 1%-2% of food production. Most people don't care, and some fraction of people that do care are intelligent enough to decide that additional cost for no increase in quality is not worth it. So this is 'elitism' because people think that a…
It already captured 5,3% of food revenue in Germany and growing (4,7% in 2015). Source http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/dm-gegen-alnatu...
Many people believe that organic also means "healthier" or "has more nutrients" and that GMO means "unhealthy". "Organic" acts as a namebrand compared to the "no-name" non-organic products.
On a related note, "GMO free" has actually become a qualifier random companies slap on their products to imply health benefits over competitors. Kamps bakery[0] for example advertises itself as "just saying no" to GMO "for the benefit of the customers". Similar things have happened with "gluten-free", "lactose-free" and vegetarian products.
To be clear: I'm saying that gluten- and lactose-free products are being marketed to people without special dietary requirements who have become convinced that these products are inherently more healthy (just as with "diet" products before, which often advertised e.g. less fat but contained more sugar or vice versa; and with organic and "GMO-free" products which offer no plausible health benefit whatsoever).
[0]: A large chain of ~500 take-away bakeries mostly in the North-West of Germany.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't use the word "chemical" like it is something unnatural or harmful. Water is a chemical. The active ingredients of natural fertilizer are chemicals.
I understand the point you're trying to make. Likely you understand the distinction your parent intends as well, and this is a commonly understood way to discuss the topic. Do you have a preferred alternative to suggest that conveys the same intent, preferably one that is also widely understood?
In principle, yes. I can imagine there are different chemicals used for farming, and that some of them may cause more harm to consumers of the produce than others.
But in terms of specifics, no. I have very little idea what distinctions are being made when people refer to "chemical food" or similar, because objection to it tends towards these vague emotive terms, rather than highlighting specifics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happens when you eat this BT corn?
The extremely acidic and enzyme rich system in your stomach demolishes the chemical structure, DNA, and proteins into constituant amino acids.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also that's a stupid metric: subsistence farming is wildly inefficient and cannot sustain the population of any country today.
Not knowing where your food comes from makes you unable to make an informed choice about what you consume. It is a tragedy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The extremely acidic and enzyme rich system in your stomach demolishes the chemical structure, DNA, and proteins into constituant amino acids.
You say this as if there was no organic poison that could kill you if you eat it...
The thing with conventional farming is that a lot of the costs (in terms of environmental damage which needs to be repaired) are currently externalized, i.e. payed for by the society, which indeed makes industrial farming more cost-effective than organic farming, at least for the farmer (though in many countries you can charge a good premium for organic food, which will often outweigh your additional cost). The same…
The criticisms of conventional farming are valid, but that doesn't mean that organic farming is any better. I believe that organic farming is much more likely to cause soil degradation and environmental harm than conventional farming for several different reasons: - organic farming's main tool to combat weeds and regrowth is tillage, which causes immense amounts of damage to the soil directly and allowing the soil to…
- Rodale Farm is all about no till - http://rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/organic-no-till/
- Not sure about adding salt, unless you mean adding seaweed or ash? Salt is bad for the soil, and so it's known that those substances should be used prudently
- As far as caring about the value of their land, it's valuable to have an organic farm since "organic" cows have to be raised on organic soil. Organic milk has higher retail value, which can be seen as adding value. You can also work with other farmers that want to produce organic milk, by helping them transition by using your own land [edit] for a fee...
- "organic herbicides are less efficient, so organic farmers use more". Not sure this is true, my work with Rodale has mostly been towards trying to rid the farm of pesticides and finding natural ways around them. Not sure about big ag though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's because they're optimised to withstand heavy pesticide use" Actually, GMOs need less pesticides than non GMO crop. Some of them produce their own pesticide (BT corn and BT cotton). "Pesticides are bad." Thats kind of the point, they are bad to pests that try to eat the crop "GMO are generally sterile" You are confusing GMO with hybrids and no they are not sterile, the just lose vigour after a few generations, s…
> > "GMO are generally sterile" > You are confusing GMO with hybrids and no they are not sterile Monsanto did have the (terribly named) "terminator gene". They said this was to protect the environment from spilled seed.