5 ms·

Destroy the Planet: Buy Organic

26 points by spottiness 15y ago

igrekel 15y ago
Over simplification. There are alternate strategies to reduce the impact of pests or to fertilize fields, or to just make those fields deplete at a slower rate. In some cases we would need the very useful pesticides or chemical fertilizers but right now they are just used by default. A lot of those GMOs aren't to make things have better nutritional value, or make it that you need to use less external help to grow produce, they exist to make the farmer buy more of something else. The roundup ready seeds are the best example of that; they make it possible to use herbicide by default, without having to mind it too much. For some produces, organic growing is actually cheaper, its just dumb that they still charge us extra for it.
wmeredith 15y ago
This is a total side note, but I find the reference to Fritos as something non-organic or unnatural amusing, because they're one of the most natural snack foods on the martket. Look at the ingredients on a bag of Fritos sometime. IIRC they are corn, corn oil, salt. Now compare that to something like Doritos.
ericb 15y ago
In principle, gmo is a fine idea--why not hack nature to suit our needs? In practice, the genetic modifications are often used to enhance resistance to pesticides (not pests). Then, more pesticides can be sprayed without endangering the health of the plant. But no one has modified us to tolerate the pesticides, which we then consume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-disappearing-male/ http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-disappearing-male/
- igrekel 15y ago
  And eventually, a few kinds of pests evolve to resist those pesticides.
- hartror 15y ago
  It is true that the first generation of GMOs are mostly directed at that sort of enhancement. However lots of newer GMOs in the design or testing phases are aimed at a wide variety of benefits that will improve things for both the growers and the consumers. For example that big cuddly corp Monsanto has a Soybean that has had omega-3 added, as fish stocks dwindle planet derived omega-3 will be more and more important. Think of it like we are at the same stage as computers were in the 1950s, what is happening today is nothing compared to what will be happening tomorrow. And it will happen in less time than it took for us to get the internet.
shykes 15y ago
I'm all for listening to contrarian arguments, but this seems a little inconsistent: "Organic farmers won’t use Roundup and other herbicides, so they plow the weeds under, which kills a lot of small animals" In other words: herbicides are good, farmers should use them. "Standard industrial cotton has Bacillus thuringiensis (“bt”) genes mixed in and these kill pests, cutting the need for sprayed pesticides in half." In other words: pesticides are bad, farmers should not use them. "Organic farmers won’t use standard fertilizer, but only manure from cows, which means we’ll need a lot more cows running around" By the same argument, recycling is bad because we'll need a lot more garbage to recycle.
- hartror 15y ago
  You miss the point of the cow manure. There is only so much of it to go around, we can't feed the world's population using it.
  - davidryal 15y ago
    And if cow manure actually was the only suitable material for organic fertilizer, you might have a point. It's called COMPOST, and it can be made from almost any organic waste.
    - hartror 15y ago
      I don't think you quite understand the scale of the problem. We don't have enough usable organic waste of any sort to put on our crops.
- Ihavenoname 15y ago
  Agreed. Personally it seems they made purly emotional decision to hate a trend and found "logical reasons" to support their whimsical supposition. I think most offensive is the implication that it is our duty to devastate our lands with pesticide and the chemical waste that go with it. This has to be one of the most contra logical articles I have seen in some time. I am for careful genetic engineering but so far it seems to bu used for noting more than a form of hydraulic despotism.
klbarry 15y ago
Extremely little (none?) actual science or evidence presented in this article. If this wasn't from the Harvard domain it wouldn't get a second glance.
- jellicle 15y ago
  It's from a particular person who is recognizable to the HN community. That's why it got a second glance. Agree that it's a worthless article.
ReadyNSet 15y ago
throughout history we consumed organic and we were fine so the by experimentation we know organic produce is generally safer (if handled cleanly). GMO on the other hand maybe causing many things (jury is still out) and we won't know that for a while probably so I wouldn't risk the entire human population just so that we can have more food which kills us rather than enough food which sustains us. and comments on that forum have listed that organic can have enough/comparable yields just that its labor intensive sounds like a job creation plan no body is mentioning :)
pyre 15y ago
Personally, I find that this was unnecessary: > Who knew that “sustainable” would mean a polyester > shirt and a bag of Fritos? What does a bag of Fritos have to do with organic vs non-organic produce? That said, 'sustainable' is a lot more just 'how efficient is our growing process?' A few things that he fails to mention: - Dealing with run-off from industrial pesticides and fertilizers into our water ways (including the 'dead zones' that form at the mouths of rivers due to this pollution). - The amount of energy that we waste in raising livestock. A good portion of the land that we use for growing (i.e. not grazing land) is used to grow corn/etc that is used exclusively for livestock feed. How much energy does it take for us to grow all of this food and then funnel it into the mouths of livestock? What is the amount of energy that we get in return for the amount we invest? How does this differ from just growing vegetables/fruits on that land and foregoing livestock? - The amount of food that we consume that is totally unnecessary. If 100% of the people on earth ate as much as the average person in the US did, that wouldn't be sustainable. That 'bag of Fritos' is unnecessary. How much essential nutrition does it actually give you? If you really want to talk about sustainability and efficiency in our food supply chain, maybe we don't need to spend so much focus on comfort foods. Or at least focus on comfort foods that provide us with more than just fat + sugar + salt. - The under-handed, rent-seeking tactics of GMO companies like Montsano. <sarcasm>Forcing farmers to remain dependent on a single company through technological means[1] and legal means[2] seems like a pretty efficient use of our time and resources to me!</sarcasm> (Read the full Wikipedia page for all sorts of nonsense -- e.g. toxic waste dumping, suppression of damaging studies, etc) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seed_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seed_contro... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff
- Turing_Machine 15y ago
  "How much essential nutrition does it actually give you?" Well, let's see... a 1 ounce (28 gram) serving of Fritos contains 15 grams of carbohydrate, 10 grams of fat, and 2 grams of protein = 27 grams. All of these are nutrients, so quite a lot, actually. The remaining gram is mostly fiber, which, although not a nutrient per se, is a good thing to eat nonetheless. I think you're using a non-standard definition of nutrient here.
ansy 15y ago
This is a pretty heavy handed interpretation. Sure, the definition of agriculture is humans messing with the genetics of plants and animals. Since the first seed was replanted, we have been involved in a process of selecting and mixing desirable genetic traits. BUT. This is all just the application of technology. And like all technologies, not every application of technology is better than the last. There was a time in the pharmaceutical industry when it was OK to mix industrial solvents and addictive substances into a deadly cocktail. Then we dialed that back, said that wasn't so good. Some pesticides and GMOs are looking a little scary, sometimes "is that kerosene in my cough syrup" scary. There is a good compromise with GMOs in my opinion. First we do the genetic sequencing to unravel the secrets. Then we use traditional hybridization to mix the strains for desirable properties without exposing ourselves to the risk of full blown genetic hackery. That's without even bringing up the topic of genetic patents. I find it far more objectionable than software patents but it is rarely discussed. There was a good New Yorker article on it for any patent haters that want to raise their blood pressure. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/27/070827fa_fact_seabrook http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/27/070827fa_fact_...
ScotterC 15y ago
This article does offer little back ground argument or cite any true hard information. However the organic vs non organic debate is a large topic. The overall argument of this post is not worthless. The amount of land used to feed the maximum amount of people is significantly less using modern technology vs organic methods.
logjam 15y ago
The 11th Rule: Any Greenspun commentary on a sufficiently complicated social issue contains ad hoc, appeal-to-emotion, bug-ridden statements regurgitating half of "Atlas Shrugged".
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
aihunter 15y ago
Totally agree. Same argument for paper vs. plastic. Takes more energy to create a paper bag that a plastic one!

26 points by spottiness 15y ago

Over simplification. There are alternate strategies to reduce the impact of pests or to fertilize fields, or to just make those fields deplete at a slower rate. In some cases we would need the very useful pesticides or chemical fertilizers but right now they are just used by default. A lot of those GMOs aren't to make things have better nutritional value, or make it that you need to use less external help to grow produce, they exist to make the farmer buy more of something else. The roundup ready seeds are the best example of that; they make it possible to use herbicide by default, without having to mind it too much. For some produces, organic growing is actually cheaper, its just dumb that they still charge us extra for it.

wmeredith 15y ago

This is a total side note, but I find the reference to Fritos as something non-organic or unnatural amusing, because they're one of the most natural snack foods on the martket. Look at the ingredients on a bag of Fritos sometime. IIRC they are corn, corn oil, salt. Now compare that to something like Doritos.

ericb 15y ago

In principle, gmo is a fine idea--why not hack nature to suit our needs? In practice, the genetic modifications are often used to enhance resistance to pesticides (not pests). Then, more pesticides can be sprayed without endangering the health of the plant. But no one has modified us to tolerate the pesticides, which we then consume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-disappearing-male/ http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-disappearing-male/

igrekel 15y ago
And eventually, a few kinds of pests evolve to resist those pesticides.
hartror 15y ago
It is true that the first generation of GMOs are mostly directed at that sort of enhancement. However lots of newer GMOs in the design or testing phases are aimed at a wide variety of benefits that will improve things for both the growers and the consumers. For example that big cuddly corp Monsanto has a Soybean that has had omega-3 added, as fish stocks dwindle planet derived omega-3 will be more and more important. Think of it like we are at the same stage as computers were in the 1950s, what is happening today is nothing compared to what will be happening tomorrow. And it will happen in less time than it took for us to get the internet.

shykes 15y ago

I'm all for listening to contrarian arguments, but this seems a little inconsistent: "Organic farmers won’t use Roundup and other herbicides, so they plow the weeds under, which kills a lot of small animals" In other words: herbicides are good, farmers should use them. "Standard industrial cotton has Bacillus thuringiensis (“bt”) genes mixed in and these kill pests, cutting the need for sprayed pesticides in half." In other words: pesticides are bad, farmers should not use them. "Organic farmers won’t use standard fertilizer, but only manure from cows, which means we’ll need a lot more cows running around" By the same argument, recycling is bad because we'll need a lot more garbage to recycle.

hartror 15y ago
You miss the point of the cow manure. There is only so much of it to go around, we can't feed the world's population using it.
- davidryal 15y ago
  And if cow manure actually was the only suitable material for organic fertilizer, you might have a point. It's called COMPOST, and it can be made from almost any organic waste.
  - hartror 15y ago
    I don't think you quite understand the scale of the problem. We don't have enough usable organic waste of any sort to put on our crops.
Ihavenoname 15y ago
Agreed. Personally it seems they made purly emotional decision to hate a trend and found "logical reasons" to support their whimsical supposition. I think most offensive is the implication that it is our duty to devastate our lands with pesticide and the chemical waste that go with it. This has to be one of the most contra logical articles I have seen in some time. I am for careful genetic engineering but so far it seems to bu used for noting more than a form of hydraulic despotism.

klbarry 15y ago

Extremely little (none?) actual science or evidence presented in this article. If this wasn't from the Harvard domain it wouldn't get a second glance.

jellicle 15y ago
It's from a particular person who is recognizable to the HN community. That's why it got a second glance. Agree that it's a worthless article.

ReadyNSet 15y ago

throughout history we consumed organic and we were fine so the by experimentation we know organic produce is generally safer (if handled cleanly). GMO on the other hand maybe causing many things (jury is still out) and we won't know that for a while probably so I wouldn't risk the entire human population just so that we can have more food which kills us rather than enough food which sustains us. and comments on that forum have listed that organic can have enough/comparable yields just that its labor intensive sounds like a job creation plan no body is mentioning :)

pyre 15y ago

Personally, I find that this was unnecessary: > Who knew that “sustainable” would mean a polyester > shirt and a bag of Fritos? What does a bag of Fritos have to do with organic vs non-organic produce? That said, 'sustainable' is a lot more just 'how efficient is our growing process?' A few things that he fails to mention: - Dealing with run-off from industrial pesticides and fertilizers into our water ways (including the 'dead zones' that form at the mouths of rivers due to this pollution). - The amount of energy that we waste in raising livestock. A good portion of the land that we use for growing (i.e. not grazing land) is used to grow corn/etc that is used exclusively for livestock feed. How much energy does it take for us to grow all of this food and then funnel it into the mouths of livestock? What is the amount of energy that we get in return for the amount we invest? How does this differ from just growing vegetables/fruits on that land and foregoing livestock? - The amount of food that we consume that is totally unnecessary. If 100% of the people on earth ate as much as the average person in the US did, that wouldn't be sustainable. That 'bag of Fritos' is unnecessary. How much essential nutrition does it actually give you? If you really want to talk about sustainability and efficiency in our food supply chain, maybe we don't need to spend so much focus on comfort foods. Or at least focus on comfort foods that provide us with more than just fat + sugar + salt. - The under-handed, rent-seeking tactics of GMO companies like Montsano. <sarcasm>Forcing farmers to remain dependent on a single company through technological means[1] and legal means[2] seems like a pretty efficient use of our time and resources to me!</sarcasm> (Read the full Wikipedia page for all sorts of nonsense -- e.g. toxic waste dumping, suppression of damaging studies, etc) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seed_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seed_contro... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff

Turing_Machine 15y ago
"How much essential nutrition does it actually give you?" Well, let's see... a 1 ounce (28 gram) serving of Fritos contains 15 grams of carbohydrate, 10 grams of fat, and 2 grams of protein = 27 grams. All of these are nutrients, so quite a lot, actually. The remaining gram is mostly fiber, which, although not a nutrient per se, is a good thing to eat nonetheless. I think you're using a non-standard definition of nutrient here.

ansy 15y ago

This is a pretty heavy handed interpretation. Sure, the definition of agriculture is humans messing with the genetics of plants and animals. Since the first seed was replanted, we have been involved in a process of selecting and mixing desirable genetic traits. BUT. This is all just the application of technology. And like all technologies, not every application of technology is better than the last. There was a time in the pharmaceutical industry when it was OK to mix industrial solvents and addictive substances into a deadly cocktail. Then we dialed that back, said that wasn't so good. Some pesticides and GMOs are looking a little scary, sometimes "is that kerosene in my cough syrup" scary. There is a good compromise with GMOs in my opinion. First we do the genetic sequencing to unravel the secrets. Then we use traditional hybridization to mix the strains for desirable properties without exposing ourselves to the risk of full blown genetic hackery. That's without even bringing up the topic of genetic patents. I find it far more objectionable than software patents but it is rarely discussed. There was a good New Yorker article on it for any patent haters that want to raise their blood pressure. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/27/070827fa_fact_seabrook http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/27/070827fa_fact_...

ScotterC 15y ago

This article does offer little back ground argument or cite any true hard information. However the organic vs non organic debate is a large topic. The overall argument of this post is not worthless. The amount of land used to feed the maximum amount of people is significantly less using modern technology vs organic methods.

logjam 15y ago

The 11th Rule: Any Greenspun commentary on a sufficiently complicated social issue contains ad hoc, appeal-to-emotion, bug-ridden statements regurgitating half of "Atlas Shrugged".

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

aihunter 15y ago

Totally agree. Same argument for paper vs. plastic. Takes more energy to create a paper bag that a plastic one!