3 ms·

The organic industry activity demonizes GMOs to boost their profits (GMOs aren't permitted in organic). Much of their rhetoric is based on pseudoscience. Organ

by coin 8y ago

The organic industry activity demonizes GMOs to boost their profits (GMOs aren't permitted in organic). Much of their rhetoric is based on pseudoscience. Organic is less efficient requiring more inputs and land and can be argued is worse for the environment. Organic uses pesticides yet they advertise themselves as not.

spraak 8y ago
> can be argued is worse for the environment. Worse utilization doesn't mean worse for the environment overall, especially considering the extreme damage conventional farming leaves on the health of the soil, as one example. > Organic uses pesticides yet they advertise themselves as not. I do think that it's frustrating the level of permissiveness that the term "organic" encompasses in the US especially, but pesticides aren't required for organic farming -- check out Permaculture.
- JackCh 8y ago
  Habitat loss is probably the leading cause of decline and extinction right now. I'd wager habitat loss due to agriculture is killing more than glyphosate runoff by a significant margin. Whether the degree to which habitat loss is averted with space-efficient GMOs is sufficient to offset glyphosate runoff, I cannot say. I suspect the most ethical option is to stop consuming food grown in particularly threatened environments, particularly imported tropical fruits, whether or not they're organic. Regardless, it seems clear to me the matter of organic vs non-organic is not as clear cut as the organic industry and their prolific passionate proponents would have us believe.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    Most people greatly underestimate habitat loss as the biggest problem for ecosystem decline. The appearance of many animals not seen for 100 years in the Chernobyl exclusion zone suggests that an area contaminated with high level radioactive waste is a net positive for natural ecosystems because it keeps the humans out.

by coin 8y ago

spraak 8y ago

> can be argued is worse for the environment. Worse utilization doesn't mean worse for the environment overall, especially considering the extreme damage conventional farming leaves on the health of the soil, as one example. > Organic uses pesticides yet they advertise themselves as not. I do think that it's frustrating the level of permissiveness that the term "organic" encompasses in the US especially, but pesticides aren't required for organic farming -- check out Permaculture.

JackCh 8y ago
Habitat loss is probably the leading cause of decline and extinction right now. I'd wager habitat loss due to agriculture is killing more than glyphosate runoff by a significant margin. Whether the degree to which habitat loss is averted with space-efficient GMOs is sufficient to offset glyphosate runoff, I cannot say. I suspect the most ethical option is to stop consuming food grown in particularly threatened environments, particularly imported tropical fruits, whether or not they're organic. Regardless, it seems clear to me the matter of organic vs non-organic is not as clear cut as the organic industry and their prolific passionate proponents would have us believe.
- njarboe 8y ago
  Most people greatly underestimate habitat loss as the biggest problem for ecosystem decline. The appearance of many animals not seen for 100 years in the Chernobyl exclusion zone suggests that an area contaminated with high level radioactive waste is a net positive for natural ecosystems because it keeps the humans out.