I guess the problem with these debates is that 99% of those involved have already made up their minds and are not really interested in a conflicting view ( I may well be in this category). All I can say is that once you start believing that everyone who thinks differently to you is part of the political/industrial conspiracy or similar, you are lost to the world of reasoned debate.
I actually believe “organic” production with some good scientific principles applied could be a good thing for many farmers and in the long run , better for the planet. However with ~7-9 billion people, increasing prosperity and meat consumption, it is still a pipedream to be able to feed everyone organically. You would certainly need a lot more Hectares converted to agriculture .
I wish your farmers all the best with their production.
there is also vertical garden too that help were we are involved in some countries too. for eample http://www.hortidaily.com/article/24560/Foody-introduces-economically-priced-vertical-towers this just one such systems
At our current level of technology and legislation, we would need more hectares for organic production. Our increasing knowledge and technology could make organic agriculture much more sustainable - it just isn’t at the moment.
I find the current rule-set for organic production to be restricting for the following reasons:
- Some products which are produced in more sustainable ways aren’t eligible for the organic label because they don’t fulfill any one of the criteria.
- The organic rules encourage producers to do the bare minimum required for eligibility and nothing more than that - and can even encourage finding loopholes that make the product less sustainable than before it was organic.
- The rules don’t account for other, just as important, factors such as if the farm rotates its crops, uses monocropping or biodiverse practises, how far away the food was grown and so on.
I can’t justify forking out for the mark-up that the organic label currently demands and having nothing to show for it. Studies have shown that some organic foods have produced lower yields than their conventional counterparts, thus begging the question: it is possible to feed the world with organic agriculture? Do we have enough room for that?
I understand that these studies could have been biased as the organic foods studied probably weren’t grown in the most sustainable way. They were most likely mono-cropped (begging for disease and pest outbreaks and extra use of pesticides), who knows what the soil condition was, etc. There are many alternative farming methods that have their time and place and should be taken into consideration - as @ron has mentioned.
We need further research into more sustainable farming practices, rather than simply organic, in our quest to feed the world. Genetic modification is one of these alternatives that has a hugely polar reaction from the general public. Although BigAg (or whatever they call it) isn’t handling their public relations very well, it doesn’t take away from the fact that this could be one of the many answers we need to solve the problem of feeding the world.
I make my food choices based on a selection of criteria, and organic isn’t very high on the priority list. My main criteria are:
- as fresh as possible (because this is the determining factor of nutrient level; not being organic)
- as local as possible (because transportation of food can be up to 11% of the total carbon footprint of the food)
- as little packaging as possible (because why do we need so much? It is incredibly wasteful)
- absolutely no plastic where possible (because plastic wreaks havoc with everything)
Then once these criteria have been fulfilled, I can make further choices:
- buying from big business or local business?
- price
- etc
Until organic improves, or shows signs of improving, I do not hold it to a high regard.
Wheat yield world record shattered in Lincolnshire, England with Non-GMO wheat. Grower Tim Lamyman beat the five-year-old NZ record by 5% with an astonishing yield of 16.5t/ha. Tell us again why we need GMOs to feed the world? Oh, that’s right… so chemical companies can control the food supply and sell more toxic chemicals to spray on our food. Here we have more proof that we don’t need GMOs to feed the world. Not needed. Not wanted. http://www.fwi.co.uk/arable/wheat-yield-world-record-shattered-in-lincolnshire.htm
Largest-Ever GMO Crops Study Shows Massive Environmental Damage in US. Economist Federico Ciliberto led the largest study of genetically modified crops and pesticide use to date, alongside Edward D. Perry of Kansas State University, David A. Hennessy of Michigan State University and GianCarlo Moschini of Iowa State University. The four economists studied annual data from more than 5,000 soybean and 5,000 maize farmers in the U.S. from 1998 to 2011, far exceeding previous studies that have been limited to one or two years of data. AND http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/09/01/unique-study-causes-global-concerns-over-glyphosate-damage-to-freshwater-ecosystems
Great points…Just a few more reasons why I still reckon growing your own buying local farmers produce where you ask the farmer directly or shopping organic are a good idea for health reasons… http://gmoinside.org/10-problems-genetically-modified-foods-wall-street-cheat-sheet/
I couldn’t agree more about growing your own food and shopping at local farmer’s markets. These two behaviours satisfy most of my criteria, if not all! These are my two favourite methods of obtaining food.
There are an immense number of problems facing us in regards to feeding our growing population. I’m moderately in touch with the situation, being in the field of environmental science. I could list off dozens of problems from each of the major farming methods (conventional, organic, genetic-modification), but I do not have the time or space to do so - let alone explain them all. One problem that not many people talk about is the fact that we are stumbling into an issue of phosphorus depletion. Phosphorus can be likened to fossil fuels: there is only a limited amount available to us; and once it is used up, it will be very hard to recover it for reuse. The practice of using phosphate-rich fertilisers is quickly eating up our limited phosphate reserves and contaminating downstream water sources. This leads to many other problems such as eutrophication and acidification.
Phosphorus depletion needs to be mitigated by studying alternative, more sustainable, farming practices. Organic farming currently does not solve our problems. Genetic modification currently does not solve our problems. There is potential for development in both of these farming methods, but there is also potential in other, often over-looked, farming methods. More research needs to be conducted to determine the efficacy of:
- small-scale, local farming
- vertical farming
- aquaponic farming
- biodiverse croplands (the opposite of mono-cropping)
- underwater farming
- and I’m sure there are more options but it is late and I am quite busy
Unfortunately, the agriculture industry is a huge grey area in terms of science and sustainability. More research and innovation is needed for us to improve and move forward. There is no one golden option, no one evil practice.
Also checkout our product www.vortexics.com.au that requiring no pesticide use for the farmers saving them money and another technology that requires no fertilizers www.bioagtive.com a win win and we increase agricultural yield…proven
That is exactly what we doing with our 4 agronomists. And more we seen where Soybean nitrogen breakthroughs could help feed the world too
It’s very disappointing that after 50 years of using GMOs without one single instance of harm, that there are still people falling for anti-GMO nonsense.
Sorry to put a dint into your philosophy about GMO then please explain why every 42 minutes a Indian farmers is committing suicide. FACT Here are just some Links verifying this and also from what we seen on the ground in India alone … http://vandanashiva.com/?p=402 and http://althealthworks.com/9778/list-of-38-countries-that-banned-gmos-and-28-that-grow-themyelena/ and https://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-caused-291000-suicides-india/ then if all GMO was safe then again - I ask why has GMO crops been kicked out of38 countries in the last 3-5 years and rising here the link http://althealthworks.com/9778/list-of-38-countries-that-banned-gmos-and-28-that-grow-themyelena/ …
GMO crop nowadays we are seeing resistance by the insects to the pesticide BT gene that bred into the crops GMO to stop the insects from eating the crops. Insect attack is a serious agricultural problem leading to yield losses and reduced product quality. Insects can cause damage both in the field and during storage in silos. Each year, insects destroy about 25 percent of food crops worldwide. The larvae of Ostrinia nubilalis, the European corn borer, can destroy up to 20 percent of a maize crop. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/farmers-say-gmo-corn-no-longer-resistant-to-pests/ do you dispute this. Fred - why is this SO then: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28283-more-than-half-of-european-union-votes-to-ban-growing-gm-crops/ You should be give a CHOICE in what you eat and it should be clearly marked on the LABELs http://www.monsanto-tribunal.org/ The Monsanto Tribunal has been livestreamed so that people everywhere in the world could watch and listen to the Judges, the lawyers and the witnesses.We will share with you all the testimonies from witnesses and experts and pleas from the lawyers. As a start, you to are invited to watch or rewatch the following key moments (in French, the videos in English will be available very soon).
Organic crops is the way to go to be healthy. I look forward to your points and why you think these links are lies or mis truths …ronb This is NOT spammed links in fact they are testimonials to our discussion not just my opinion.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-03/organic-farmer-steve-marsh-loses-gm-appeal/6746108 and https://jade.io/j/?a=outline&id=406540 fyi
For those interested, here’s our recent article on GM foods, including the key controversies, what foods may have GM ingredients, labelling requirements, and what GM crops are grown in Australia.
Here some more information re GMO promises falling short. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html and we seeing: Bayer recently announced a deal to acquire Monsanto. And the state-owned China National Chemical Corporation has received American regulatory approval to acquire Syngenta, though Syngenta later warned the takeover could be delayed by scrutiny from European authorities. IMHO
Bees are not “the pollinaters (sic) of most food”. All grains (grass family) are wind-pollinated. These alone constitute “most food”. As for fruits and vegetables, there are many other pollinators at work, including many species of flies, butterflies, moths, beetles, wasps, thrips, etc. Even birds and bats are involved. The whole bee “crisis” has been totally exaggerated. Just because bees actually collect pollen to make honey, does not necessarily make them the most efficient pollinators. Furthermore, there are many native bee species in all countries apart from the introduced European honeybee.
Even if European bees aren’t the most prolific pollinators (which is debatable), why wouldn’t you care that a major natural pollinator might be destroyed? Are you on the payroll of GMO organisations? That would make sense because GMO’s don’t want you to have self-pollinating grain, they want farmers to buy their sterile gmo seed every growing season. This is how they make their money - repeat sales every year.
What I care about is scientific accuracy. It is offensive to suggest that I must be on somebody’s payroll; although a predictable simplistic activist reaction.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/11/08/myth-busting-pesticide-use-in-organic-and-conventional-agriculture/ this says it all
I didn’t intend to offend and I apologise if I did.
Now let me “react” to your comment, saying mine is “a predictable simplistic activist reaction.” I am not predictable or simplistic, but I’ll take “activist” if it means speaking up about mega corporations stealing our future.
How about answering my question about the loss of bees by the poisoning of farmland: …why wouldn’t you care that a major natural pollinator might be destroyed?
I don’t know why an intelligent person like yourself would waste their time and energy caring about scientific accuracy. There is no such thing (except for pure mathematics). Science and the reporting of science has become an exercise in propaganda these days. Big corporations can pay for studies to produce any outcome, with the main aim being to sell stuff which has little to do with the truth. What was called a “scientific fact” 100 years ago has since been proven to be hogwash. There are always variables in the scientific method and massive assumptions can be made to skew results and manipulate statistics.
Truth has been hijacked by $$$.
