Organic farming could feed the world (says 20-year study)

[negZero]

With the population we have now & the state of the world's economy and ecology there is no guaranteeing any one approach will work,

So going to approach that hasn't worked since the 40s must be the better idea. Yeah right

GMO's are pretty much the opposite of redundancy, they're highly specialized, barely tested crops designed to grow in certain conditions (that may shift due to climate change), they have no relationship to the land and/or surrounding biological webs. They're not tired & true and to accept them as some sort of riskless proposition or savior is dumb.

Not tested some of them have been used for +30 years in some of the harshest growing climates this planet has. Relationship with the land? Guess the Americas are doomed since most crops we grow on common basis now a days (and have grown here for hundreds of years) aren't even suppose to be here by nature's design. Sure theres a risk with them but there are whole more risks with the organic counterparts then them.

Play around with GM's if you want, but don't put all your eggs in that basket. I don't have any faith in it.

Like I said before some of us don't like watching people strave when we got the power to feed them.

So wait, GM is now a magical elixir that allows us to continue to grow population indefinitely (all the while damaging the environment & reducing carry capacity) with no side effects.

First off carry capacity will always drop especially in todays world (ex. within a decade you may start hearing about problems making new flat screen TVs)
Everything can damage the enviroment if done improperly the thing is we got people trying to prevent it. Also I never said GM are magical elixer that allow indefinitely population growth, I said they make Thomas Mathuas look like a crazy elitiest in todays world.

Sounds like magical thinking at best & a recipe for massive starvation & human misery at worst.

And yours is pipe dream that in reality will kill off billions and make famine common place again for most of the world and thats the best case

We don't need to increase the food supply, food supply increases lead to population increases.

JUST WRONG. Go read up on why population growth happens before just randomly saying . .. .. .. . cause there a whole lot more things to it then food supply

We need to make better use & make more sustainable the food production systems we already have.

Theres that whole science love again.

That's not about genetic modification.

Since you want to change the subject here

When normal crops fail it's just hard luck but when they're sold something & told it's a panacea & their decision bankrupts them it's more than just bad luck.

This quote shows how little know you about the financial impact that crop failure has on farmer.

Terminator seeds are especially bad because the farmers & forced to buy them back year after year.

Then maybe next time people like you shouldn't demand safeties that aren't even need

 

[Narz]

you still haven't answered how higher food prices is benificial for the lesser income classes and their diet.

Higher food prices are beneficial for poor farmers not for poor non-farmers.

But higher food prices are inevitable once oil prics rebound, thus supplemtory growing is a good idea.

The rest of your contentless, flaming posting ignored, BTW. You're not here to discuss or educate yourself, you're here to be a troll.

 

[Mehmed100]

Higher food prices are beneficial for poor farmers not for poor non-farmers.

I'm not fully disagreeing with you but if the prices are too high, will people buy as much? If they aren't buying as much, won't profits for poor farmers decrease?

 

[Agent Valentine]

Higher food prices are beneficial for poor farmers not for poor non-farmers.

Many countries, in the event of a truly dramatic spike in food prices, would simply increase their agricultural subsidies, keeping the price down and driving poor farmers in Third World countries out of business/work altogether. So no, increased food prices are not good at all for poor farmers. High food prices are only good for large corporate farms.

 

[Narz]

So going to approach that hasn't worked since the 40s must be the better idea. Yeah right

non-sequitur

Not tested some of them have been used for +30 years in some of the harshest growing climates this planet has. Relationship with the land? Guess the Americas are doomed since most crops we grow on common basis now a days (and have grown here for hundreds of years) aren't even suppose to be here by nature's design. Sure theres a risk with them but there are whole more risks with the organic counterparts then them.

I disagree.

Like I said before some of us don't like watching people strave when we got the power to feed them.

We can feed people without GMO. The burden of proof on why GMO is safe enough to be used & should be used & the benefits outweighing the risks is on you.

Everything can damage the enviroment if done improperly the thing is we got people trying to prevent it. Also I never said GM are magical elixer that allow indefinitely population growth, I said they make Thomas Mathuas look like a crazy elitiest in todays world.

Ok, maybe I misunderstood, what do you mean by that?

And yours is pipe dream that in reality will kill off billions and make famine common place again for most of the world and thats the best case

Not using GMO's will kill off billions?

JUST WRONG. Go read up on why population growth happens before just randomly saying . .. .. .. . cause there a whole lot more things to it then food supply

Of course there's more to it but when food supply increases so does population, we don't need more food growth, we need more sustainable food growth that safeguards populations that already exist without giving them false hope about infinite growth. This gets off topic into a discussion about limiting population growth which is related to this discussion but off topic.

Theres that whole science love again.

Huh?

Since you want to change the subject here

Already this sentence in the first paragraph show's it's bias : "Some poor developing countries, like the Philippines and some African nations, have become battlegrounds between the environmentalists and the farmers.". Much of the time it's the farmers also fighting this stuff. See above about India. 125,000 suicides, how many hundreds of thousands more do you think were adversely effected?

This quote shows how little know you about the financial impact that crop failure has on farmer.

Are you kidding? Obviously I understand how catostrophic it is for the farmer, did you not read the article about all the farmer suicides directly realated to GMO?

Then maybe next time people like you shouldn't demand safeties that aren't even need

A : Who are "people like me"?

B : Not sure what you're saying here.

 

[negZero]

Higher food prices are beneficial for poor farmers not for poor non-farmers.

Yeah we saw where that leads, and since am Canadian come on higher food prices for we benfit the most out of all the countries.

 

[Narz]

I'm not fully disagreeing with you but if the prices are too high, will people buy as much? If they aren't buying as much, won't profits for poor farmers decrease?

Food isn't a luxury item, people can't just not buy it.

Many countries, in the event of a truly dramatic spike in food prices, would simply increase their agricultural subsidies, keeping the price down and driving poor farmers in Third World countries out of business/work altogether. So no, increased food prices are not good at all for poor farmers. High food prices are only good for large corporate farms.

Which is why I think we shouldn't give agricultural subsidies to mega-farms. Big-agribusiness has destroyed small farms with these types of advantages just like other megaliths like Walmart & Target destroy local small businesses.

 

[negZero]

non-sequitur

Glad to see you know the history of this subject very well.

I disagree.

With what and why?

We can feed people without GMO.

But how many can you feed without GMOs? Thats right not as many by a long shot.

The burden of proof on why GMO is safe enough to be used & should be used & the benefits outweighing the risks is on you.

Termintor seeds, look solved that quickly. Topsoil is problem with farming technics and not the crops used.

Not using GMO's will kill off billions?

Going back to organic foods will, right now we are just at millions with limited use of GMOs

Of course there's more to it but when food supply increases so does population,

NO IT DOESN'T. If that were true Canada and the United States would have largest populations on Earth with no one close to challenging them. Go read up on population growth before even talking about it, you find there dozens of other factors that dwarf food supply.

we don't need more food growth

For once your right since we already can feed the Earth's population with

we need more sustainable food growth that safeguards populations that already exist without giving them false hope about infinite growth

I know I haven't said infinite growth and I know not single scientist would ever say infinite growth and food supply in the same sentence.

This gets off topic into a discussion about limiting population growth which is related to this discussion but off topic.

And add in the idea you have no clue how it works

Already this sentence in the first paragraph show's it's bias : "Some poor developing countries, like the Philippines and some African nations, have become battlegrounds between the environmentalists and the farmers.". Much of the time it's the farmers also fighting this stuff. See above about India. 125,000 suicides, how many hundreds of thousands more do you think were adversely effected?

And these same farmers would kill themselves if they had organic version had failed them too. Crops fail get over it and read what the man has to say for he knows what hes talking about.

Are you kidding? Obviously I understand how catostrophic it is for the farmer, did you not read the article about all the farmer suicides directly realated to GMO?

Which is:
A)Bias as hell
B)Flat out ignores the massive success India has had with those same GMOs

B : Not sure what you're saying here.

Terminator seeds

 

[Narz]

With what and why?

That GM of crops is less risky.

But how many can you feed without GMOs? Thats right not as many by a long shot.

I don't know & neither do you. It's speculation, GMO's have more side effects.

Topsoil is problem with farming technics and not the crops used.

Right, proper farming eliminates topsoil loss & can even create more topsoil.

Going back to organic foods will, right now we are just at millions with limited use of GMOs

Using organic growing techniques &/or abandoning GMO's will kill billions? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

NO IT DOESN'T. If that were true Canada and the United States would have largest populations on Earth with no one close to challenging them. Go read up on population growth before even talking about it, you find there dozens of other factors that dwarf food supply.

You misunderstand. I never said more food grown in Canda will increase Canada's population, I said increased food growth leads to increased population. I thought the word "worldwide" could be infered since many people eat food grown elsewhere.

For once your right since we already can feed the Earth's population with

So here you're saying I'm right but earlier you said we can't without GMO's or billions die? Note : I'm not against selective breeding that we've been using for thousands of years (that you got mixed up with GM earlier), just GM. We don't need GM & the risks outweigh the benefits, IMO. This isn't really a GM thread though, you should start a new one & battle with EcoFarm on that issue, it's not my specialty.

I know I haven't said infinite growth and I know not single scientist would ever say infinite growth and food supply in the same sentence.

No scientists would take about food production & population growth in the same sentence?

And add in the idea you have no clue how it works
Sorry, I know you're not a native speaker but you'll have to elaborate, I have no idea how what works? Dealing with overpopulation?

And these same farmers would kill themselves if they had organic version had failed them too.

I don't think you understand the scope of the issue.

Crops fail get over it and read what the man has to say for he knows what hes talking about.

With better farming techniques (permaculture, biodynamics) farmers are offered more protection against failure (though not complete of course).

Which is:
A)Bias as hell
B)Flat out ignores the massive success India has had with those same GMOs

GMOs are a controversial topic in India, your opinion is your own but don't tout it as truth (over the bodies of the dead).

Terminator seeds

What about them?

 

[negZero]

That GM of crops is less risky.

Yep must be riskier since there designed to have higher yields, more disease resist, or lets not even talk about the ones that can get 2 whole harvasts in a year.

I don't know & neither do you. It's speculation, GMO's have more side effects.

And not one of them has ever been found in a scientific study

Using organic growing techniques &/or abandoning GMO's will kill billions? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Evidence: Green Revolution

I said increased food growth leads to increased population.

And I keep telling you it doesn't. Just give it up you don't know what your talking about.

So here you're saying I'm right but earlier you said we can't without GMO's or billions die? Note : I'm not against selective breeding that we've been using for thousands of years

Do you even read whats in quotes? I said your right that we don't need more food growth, since the world grows enough food for the whole population already. However going orangic will drop that total below the demand.

No scientists would take about food production & population growth in the same sentence?

infinite growth and food supply, don't try changing words.

I don't think you understand the scope of the issue.

Isn't the issue famers killing themselves over there crops(happen to be GMOs) failing, yeah that happens all the time. Also go read whats in the first link you find India is filled with success with those same GMO crops

With better farming techniques (permaculture, biodynamics) farmers are offered more protection against failure (though not complete of course).

Lets see, permaculture produces very little in the terms of yield and biodynamics is joke.

GMOs are a controversial topic in India, your opinion is your own but don't tout it as truth (over the bodies of the dead).

Thats why there food supply is dependent on them, you would know that if your read the first link.

What about them?

L2backtrack (>< WoW meme)

 

[Alpine Trooper]

Yep must be riskier since there designed to have higher yields, more disease resist, or lets not even talk about the ones that can get 2 whole harvasts in a year.

Yeah, lets not talk about it since it doesn't exist.

I think the GM proponents are forgetting the difference between plants grown under an artificial light source and the sun.

 

[Narz]

And not one of them has ever been found in a scientific study

It's a debated issue

And I keep telling you it doesn't. Just give it up you don't know what your talking about.

Ah, Internet forums!

Evidence: Green Revolution

That is proof that not using GMO's will kill billions?

Anywayz, this could go on for a few more days, life is precious and I didn't start this thread with the idea of debating genetic modification & responding to thousands of little nitpicks. I know how I want to live my life. I can't effect public policy much & neither can most here so, at the end of the day, all this matters not much at all. What we do matters.

Cheers,
Narz

 

[negZero]

Yeah, lets not talk about it since it doesn't exist.

I think the GM proponents are forgetting the difference between plants grown under an artificial light source and the sun.

IR36 and IR72 are both able to pull off what I just said without it being done in lab or any other special control conditions.

 

[Mountain-God]

I hate this new trend for people to choose "natural" products, often dismissing things like GM as harmful when there's no evidence to suggest it. Sadly, my mum has fallen for it too. Just yesterday I noticed she'd bought a bag of potatoes. The first thing I noticed was they hasn't been cleaned and had mud all over them, but because people see that as natural, they think it's good. Without the chemicals used you end up with a shorter shelf life of the products and there's a higher risk of finding things like maggots in your apple or some kind of fungal disease on your potatoes. I've noticed that over the last few years, supermarkets have been stocking organic bananas, about a third of the size of normal ones you'd find, but at the same price. Oh, and in a plastic bag - that's a bit ironic. Personally, if I could be bothered, I would deliberately go around the supermarket picking up the GM variety of products instead of the normal ones. I certainly avoid organic food because it is overpriced and of lower quality.

1. GM product has led to the death or permanent paralyses of approximately 1000 people in the USA – specifically, the GM of a soybean led to the creation of a certain toxin in said soybean. Furthermore because the product was not labelled GM it took over three months for US authorities to track down the source. If I recall the names correctly, Showa and Denko conducted a study on the event.

One amongst many cases where GM has led to or caused ill-effect – even relatively ‘benign’ effects as to create an extremely hardy, but largely unproductive pumpkin strain that ‘test’ farmers had, 5 years hence it’s planting, been unable to eliminate from their properties even after the application of heavy duty poisoning.

Long story short – GM is far from safe, and largely uncontrolled, with many scientists doing little more than spinning the biological rubix cube at random and production being ‘approved’ by default.

This doesn’t mean it can’t provide some really good results – only to say, it actually hasn’t thus far, despite billions, invested little more than the vaunted ‘terminator’ strains (where said strains of plant are completely incapable of seeding or reproducing – thereby locking formers increasingly into a kind of corporate slavery).

2 Meanwhile the question of organic versus chemical grown – increasingly science and experience is finding a raft of ill-effects from chemical grown foods, including higher occurrence of cancer (for one).

In practice, there is a tendency for organic foods to have a higher instance of fungal infections, etc – but this is not an absolute, but more the result of mismanagement by the farmer: As virtually all infections can either be treated or prevented by organic means.

The real problem is that ‘1st world’ farmers tend to be relatively uneducated – relying simply on the generous application of chemicals and fertilisers to solve all problems. They have little real knowledge as to ecology in general and the myriad specifics contained therein. To run a really good organic farm would require years of education or practice – much like a medical doctor. And the fact is, few people can be bothered.

Thus, where a lot of organic produce is of lower quality now is more so due to slackness than the actual nature of organic produce.

 

[holy king]

long thread with many quotes is long and has many quotes.

 

[negZero]

1. GM product has led to the death or permanent paralyses of approximately 1000 people in the USA – specifically, the GM of a soybean led to the creation of a certain toxin in said soybean. Furthermore because the product was not labelled GM it took over three months for US authorities to track down the source. If I recall the names correctly, Showa and Denko conducted a study on the event.

Links for all of this or it didn't happen

One amongst many cases where GM has led to or caused ill-effect – even relatively ‘benign’ effects as to create an extremely hardy, but largely unproductive pumpkin strain that ‘test’ farmers had, 5 years hence it’s planting, been unable to eliminate from their properties even after the application of heavy duty poisoning.

Wait, your saying an experiment failed forcing scientists to go back to the drawing board again and we should quit doing these experiments because of that? Guess the cure for cancer should be canned too since we failed so much with that.

Long story short – GM is far from safe, and largely uncontrolled, with many scientists doing little more than spinning the biological rubix cube at random and production being ‘approved’ by default.

Hope you or anyone you know doesn't need insulin then because its 100% GMO now and its been safe for years.

Gene manipulation isn't done as hapzardly as you think it since it needs great precision just to produce a failure. What happens to failure? Well they don't get released

This doesn’t mean it can’t provide some really good results – only to say, it actually hasn’t thus far, despite billions, invested

So your saying, having wheat that produces 2 crops a year is still a failure? Damn you got high standards then

little more than the vaunted ‘terminator’ strains (where said strains of plant are completely incapable of seeding or reproducing – thereby locking formers increasingly into a kind of corporate slavery).

Which is also in place to prevent the crop from growing in the wild and destorying the local environment. Something alarmist like you demand to be place anyways.

 

[Mountain-God]

Links for all of this or it didn't happen

Wait, your saying an experiment failed forcing scientists to go back to the drawing board again and we should quit doing these experiments because of that? Guess the cure for cancer should be canned too since we failed so much with that.

Hope you or anyone you know doesn't need insulin then because its 100% GMO now and its been safe for years.

Gene manipulation isn't done as hapzardly as you think it since it needs great precision just to produce a failure. What happens to failure? Well they don't get released

So your saying, having wheat that produces 2 crops a year is still a failure? Damn you got high standards then

Which is also in place to prevent the crop from growing in the wild and destorying the local environment. Something alarmist like you demand to be place anyways.

Far from alarmist - but the accusation is telling - as clearly you've not really read what I posted but interpreted more along the lines of 'blabla-anti-GM-fundy-bla' or, to be more accurate, you have largely reinterpreted or twisted my words.

Finally, it's not my job to spoon feed publically available information to people whose only interest is to rubbish my opinion - meanwhile, if you'd bothered even the slightest, the most rudementary of internet searches would have provided you links to overviews of the study I mentioned and to the publication from which you can order a reprint.

 

[negZero]

Far from alarmist - but the accusation is telling - as clearly you've not really read what I posted but interpreted more along the lines of 'blabla-anti-GM-fundy-bla' or, to be more accurate, you have largely reinterpreted or twisted my words.

Finally, it's not my job to spoon feed publically available information to people whose only interest is to rubbish my opinion - meanwhile, if you'd bothered even the slightest, the most rudementary of internet searches would have provided you links to overviews of the study I mentioned and to the publication from which you can order a reprint.

Find he is what I found when I tired to search the "facts" you posted

GMO Soybean Deaths: Studies on how they may have increased reported allergic reaction to soybeans in the UK, Soybeans having a link to SIDS

Showa and Denko: Big Japanese chemcial company lots things showed up with them.

Also remember the burden of proof rests on your shoulders not mine (since I have already backed mine up in pervious posts). Not once have I twisted your words, I only shot down your whole alarmist argument down. And "rubbish" sorry I only believe in scientific studies not in some fearmongering bias, and garbage newspaper.

 

[Mise]

Well, there are probably a number of people that would like to farm but can't. Current corporate farming has forced a lot of families out of the business and kept newcomers from entering by pricing them out. There are probably a lot of people that wouldn't mind moving out to the country, owning a large plot of open land, and removing themselves from the congestion of cities and suburbs. Most people do not fit into your supposed society anyway, as general labor, retail workers, and back office people make up the vast majority of the workforce. Perhaps a $90K/yr PhD engineer wouldn't trade it in for a farm, but a $30K/yr GED McD's GM probably would.

They're free to do so, if they choose. If the world decides that it wants more organic farmers, then so be it, it doesn't bother me. As I've said, I don't oppose people setting up organic farms (in fact I've encouraged Narz to do exactly that).

What I object to is the claim that organic farming will magically solve world hunger, or the outrageous and baseless claims that organic farms have higher yields than modern farms. That's been debunked many times in this thread, and simple maths will show how shockingly the OP's article has corrupted the statistics (which, frankly, is something I'd expect from a New Scientist article).

If the additional labour required for organic farming could solve world hunger, then the additional labour required might be worth it, and I would not keep harping on about it.

Unfortunately, that's not true. The fact is, organic farming requires more labour and produces less food.

 

[El_Machinae]

I like to remember that there are more than two categories:
- the GM food debate vs. the non-GM food debate
- overuse of chemicals and fertilizers and fuel
- whether topsoil is unsustainably consumed
- whether ecosystems collapse
- whether water use is sustainable

I'm in favour of wise GM use. I have no problem splicing in genes to supplement a crop, if the gene is safe.
The excess chemical/fuel use is a concern. Downstream effects are growing worse and worse. As well, excess fuel use is a good stopgap, but clearly unsustainable.
Topsoil concerns me greatly. All modern farms are losing topsoil every year. Not so bad when you've got excess soil, but it sucks once that buffer is consumed.
Monoculture is tied into ecosystem collapse. I've seen a very good point raised: a hailstorm will ruin a corn field, but won't ruin a meadow. There are pilot farms which are working on having more than one species going at a time, with additional crops being available.
Finally, someone mentioned India's exports upthread. That's good and all, but their aquifers are dropping 1m per year currently. If we're feeding people, but overconsuming water, we're in trouble.