Why Organic Can't Fulfill Our Food Supply Ideals
http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/why_organic_cant_fulfill_our_food_supply_ideals-154020"Almost any farmer or consumer could agree on the following ideals for our agricultural system:
"Farming in ways that are best for us, best for the environment, and best for providing an adequate food supply."
I believe that these are the goals and ideals of organic customers and organic farmers, and I share them. If organic could deliver on these “triple best” goals, I would be among its strongest supporters, but I don't believe that it can. The organic rules are based on the assumption that “natural” is always best. That assumption originated in a pre-scientific era, and it does not hold up to what we have learned over the last century. The "natural" definition is great for marketing purposes, but often not the optimal criterion to guide farming practices.
...
Unfortunately, some of those who market organic products, and some who advocate for organic, continue to make unsupportable claims that organic is best for us and for the environment. Many consumers accept these claims and believe that they are doing the right thing by paying the premium prices for organic items. If we really had a food supply that was only safe and responsible for those able and willing to pay higher prices, that would represent a huge failing of public policy. Fortunately, that is not the case.
..."
------------------------------------------
This is a piece that must be read fully, and therefore it is a challenge. It does not make itself easily digestible in bumper sticker responses. Yes, I could be kinder in my description of what happens, far too often, at DU.
However, it is time for DU to get back to its roots, where evidence matters more than hyperbole.
I must try to beseech my fellow DUers on that road.
Take care.
= new reply since forum marked as read
something like 40 percent of the corn crop. 
How about you respond, as a human being, to MY issues?
mixed up with some imaginary person. 
How unusual. 
As has already been noted, the shill gambit is BS.
In other words, an honorary fellowship.
Your personal criteria (which I don't think it shared by many), was someone who works in the private sector can't be an academic. I'm pretty sure that excludes a shitload of people widely regarded as academics along with most dictionary definitions.
n.
1. A faculty member or scholar at an institution of higher learning, such as a university.
2. One who has an academic viewpoint or a scholarly background.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/academic
And GMO is no miracle worker. It's just a tool. But, IMO, it makes no sense for some to demonize a tool that could help find ways to feed people, especially where it's more difficult to grow food, and when we are dealing climate change. Any tool that could limit environmental damage over time should be utilized. Each product must be assessed individually.
To say that's an attitude taken by the scientific community is utterly outrageous. It takes the work of countless thousands throughout history who have worked to improve the human condition and slanders them by conflating them with their contemporary small number of Dr. Frankensteins.
What you're talking about is eugenics, and the scientific community knows that. With the exception of utterly vile racists, that is absolutely nobody's goal.
If you're referring to advances that improve the human condition, like gene therapy to treat inheritable conditions or voluntary modifications to improve strength, endurance, etc., then no, I would have no significant objections.
Behold the abomination of science that is...
...the mule, offspring of a male donkey and female horse. Hybrids are not a modern phenomenon.
If you're talking about human-animal hybrids, then no, that's just gross.
You're going to have to elaborate on that, because that's very vague. What sort of modifications, genetic, medical, technological?
