A food production time bomb?

Originally posted by humy
I cannot questioning nor comment on what you say about the economics in the U.S. because that is well outside all my areas of knowledge but, the following is well within my area of expertise (with full C&G qualification and much more):
[quote] and instead gave incentives to farmers producing organic fruits and vegetables, we'd be a healthier nation and [/q ...[text shortened]... just merely point out that none of it is nearly as black and white as many laypeople suppose.

Myth 3 seems to contradict the last paragraph of myth 2.

Originally posted by Phranny
Yes, roundup is very unsafe. Monsanto has inserted Roundup into the genetic makeup of it's GMO corn so now, in the U.S., whenever you eat anything that has corn in it, you are ingesting Roundup. Most, if not all, European countries have long banned GMO agricultural products and with good reason. Monsanto has been able to pay off politicians to prevent eve ...[text shortened]... The FDA does not requier any testing of the safety of GMO's outside of Monsanto's research.

I agree. Monsanto falsely claimed roundup is biodegradable.

http://earthopensource.org/index.php/5-gm-crops-impacts-on-the-farm-and-environment/5-6-myth-roundup-is-a-benign-and-biodegradable-herbicide

Originally posted by humy
I cannot questioning nor comment on what you say about the economics in the U.S. because that is well outside all my areas of knowledge but, the following is well within my area of expertise (with full C&G qualification and much more):
[quote] and instead gave incentives to farmers producing organic fruits and vegetables, we'd be a healthier nation and [/q ...[text shortened]... just merely point out that none of it is nearly as black and white as many laypeople suppose.

5 edits?

That must be a record.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Myth 3 seems to contradict the last paragraph of myth 2.

I have to admit, I had to check this for myself because, until now, I hadn't read myth 3. At first glance, there appears to be a possible contradiction there until you very carefully compare what the two text passages actually say in detail.
The middle of the last paragraph of what it says for myth 2 says:

“There may be many things that are good about organic farming, from increased biodiversity on farms to movement away from monocultures, “

Myth 3 says that organic farming is not simply better for the environment but this doesn't seem to contradict what it says for myth 3 because what it says for myth 3 doesn’t include organic farming failing to increased biodiversity on farms or to movement away from monocultures but rather gives other reasons why organic farming can be counterproductive for helping the environment which, arguably, would mean any net benefit would be negligible. Actually, I find what it says for myth 3 more interesting than what it says for myth 2, so I will give it here:

“...
Myth #3: Organic Farming Is Better For The Environment
As an ecologist by training, this myth bothers me the most of all three. People seem to believe they’re doing the world a favor by eating organic. The simple fact is that they’re not – at least the issue is not that cut and dry.
Yes, organic farming practices use less synthetic pesticides which have been found to be ecologically damaging. But factory organic farms use their own barrage of chemicals that are still ecologically damaging, and refuse to endorse technologies that might reduce or eliminate the use of these all together. Take, for example, organic farming’s adamant stance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing synthetic chemical use – which is exactly what organic farming seeks to do. As we speak, there are sweet potatoes are being engineered to be resistant to a virus that currently decimates the African harvest every year, which could feed millions in some of the poorest nations in the world15. Scientists have created carrots high in calcium to fight osteoperosis, and tomatoes high in antioxidants. Almost as important as what we can put into a plant is what we can take out; potatoes are being modified so that they do not produce high concentrations of toxic glycoalkaloids, and nuts are being engineered to lack the proteins which cause allergic reactions in most people. Perhaps even more amazingly, bananas are being engineered to produce vaccines against hepatitis B, allowing vaccination to occur where its otherwise too expensive or difficult to be administered. The benefits these plants could provide to human beings all over the planet are astronomical.
Yet organic proponents refuse to even give GMOs a chance, even to the point of hypocrisy. For example, organic farmers apply Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin (a small insecticidal protein from soil bacteria) unabashedly across their crops every year, as they have for decades. It’s one of the most widely used organic pesticides by organic farmers. Yet when genetic engineering is used to place the gene encoding the Bt toxin into a plant’s genome, the resulting GM plants are vilified by the very people willing to liberally spray the exact same toxin that the gene encodes for over the exact same species of plant. Ecologically, the GMO is a far better solution, as it reduces the amount of toxin being used and thus leeching into the surrounding landscape and waterways. Other GMOs have similar goals, like making food plants flood-tolerant so occasional flooding can replace herbicide use as a means of killing weeds. If the goal is protect the environment, why not incorporate the newest technologies which help us do so?
But the real reason organic farming isn’t more green than conventional is that while it might be better for local environments on the small scale, organic farms produce far less food per unit land than conventional ones. Organic farms produce around 80% that what the same size conventional farm produces16 (some studies place organic yields below 50% those of conventional farms!).
Right now, roughly 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, and about 16 million of those will die from it17. If we were to switch to entirely organic farming, the number of people suffering would jump by 1.3 billion, assuming we use the same amount of land that we’re using now. Unfortunately, what’s far more likely is that switches to organic farming will result in the creation of new farms via the destruction of currently untouched habitats, thus plowing over the little wild habitat left for many threatened and endangered species.
Already, we have cleared more than 35% of the Earth’s ice-free land surface for agriculture, an area 60 times larger than the combined area of all the world’s cities and suburbs. Since the last ice age, nothing has been more disruptive to the planet’s ecosystem and its inhabitants than agriculture. What will happen to what’s left of our planet’s wildlife habitats if we need to mow down another 20% or more of the world’s ice-free land to accommodate for organic methods?
The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional farming, its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides and fertilizers polluting the world’s waterways from conventional agriculture are, it’s a far better ecological situation than destroying those key habitats altogether. That’s not to say that there’s no hope for organic farming; better technology could overcome the production gap, allowing organic methods to produce on par with conventional agriculture. If that does occur, then organic agriculture becomes a lot more ecologically sustainable. On the small scale, particularly in areas where food surpluses already occur, organic farming could be beneficial, but presuming it’s the end all be all of sustainable agriculture is a mistake.
….”

Originally posted by Metal Brain
5 edits?

That must be a record.

NO. If I recall correctly, my record was 32 edits needed to correct 32 of my mistakes.
I challenge you to beat that! 😛

Originally posted by humy
I have to admit, I had to check this for myself because, until now, I hadn't read myth 3. At first glance, there appears to be a possible contradiction there until you very carefully compare what the two text passages actually say in detail.
The middle of the last paragraph of what it says for myth 2 says:

“There may be many things that are good about organ ...[text shortened]... eneficial, but presuming it’s the end all be all of sustainable agriculture is a mistake.
….”

I agree with the general point that "organic" isn't the same as "good" - amanita virosa qualifies as being an organic product despite being massively toxic. But there's problems with what he's saying in some of the later stuff.

Health (myth 2), granted tests have shown no particular difference in nutrition, but that isn't the only consideration. With arable there is the concern about health effects of pesticide residues getting into crops. With livestock there is a potential problem with overuse of antibiotics.

The problem of land use (myth 3). The bigger problem is water use. It doesn't matter what agri-system you want to use, it won't work without water. His argument misses the balancing point that some organic techniques (such as no-till farming) can help to avert soil erosion and stabilize soil, thus preventing land from becoming unavailable for agriculture. Or even reclaim unfertile land. It depends what the priorities are in a given region.

GMOs: There are several difficulties with GM techniques. GM techniques can force a farmer to buy new seed each year off a seed supplier rather than set aside some of the last crop. There are problems with genetic leakage, the solution to which is terminator genes, where this might be fine in the UK it won't work in Africa. With GM for pesticidal effect the toxin is in the plant cells and may present health problems.

The fact that the Soil Association ban GMOs means that farmers who want accreditation can't use them and so there is an alternative to GM available. There aren't very many people who are arguing for Organic farming to be the only method world-wide.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I agree with the general point that "organic" isn't the same as "good" - amanita virosa qualifies as being an organic product despite being massively toxic. But there's problems with what he's saying in some of the later stuff.

Health (myth 2), granted tests have shown no particular difference in nutrition, but that isn't the only consideration. Wit y many people who are arguing for Organic farming to be the only method world-wide.

His argument misses the balancing point that some organic techniques (such as no-till farming)

But no till farming is not exclusively used by organic farmers and can be and is often used by non-organic farmers. No till farming isn't really a “organic” technique in particular.
In fact, I have personally experimented albeit in a small way (with cabbage crops using waste cardboard as a mulch) and I am certainly not a believer in organic farming.

GM techniques can force a farmer to buy new seed each year off a seed supplier rather than set aside some of the last crop.

This could be solved simply by governments taking action on this and force GM companies to make GM crops that can be sustainably repeatedly propagated from their seed from the last crop. I see this more of an issue of bad politics and corruption rather than some kind of organic versus none organic farming issue.

With GM for pesticidal effect the toxin is in the plant cells and may present health problems.

If the toxin is not in the part of the plant that we actually eat, Then I guess it shouldn't be a big problem in most cases. Also, many plants already have evolved natural toxins for insecticidal effect so I don't see why GM for insecticidal effect should generally be regarded as a generally a greater risk to health than plants that have naturally evolved to have insecticidal effect with toxins.

The fact that the Soil Association ban GMOs means that farmers who want accreditation

This is one of the many things that is very wrong with organic farming. This total ban is totally stupid, irrational and irresponsible because, for example, it would ban any crop genetically engineered to have a totally harmless gene for drought resistance and which could help prevent a famine in the third world.

There aren't very many people who are arguing for Organic farming to be the only method world-wide.

Personally, I think it shouldn’t be used at all. The rational way forward would to think in terms of sustainability, reliability, yield and environmentally friendlessness of food production but this does NOT involve being anti-GM nor anti-intensive farming nor anti-pesticide nor anti-industry nor pro-organic farming nor anti-science nor anti-synthetic chemicals.