once again small scale studies do not even come close to proving anything that will work globally. the things you link are small time and don't even tell you the cost differences and how much of the product actually gets to the consumer over vast distribution lines. all they show is on small scale organic foods can yield about as much as chemical farming without telling which one is the most cost effective or most viable for distribution. sure a organic tomato crop might be as large as a chemical crop...but how much of will actually make it to market without spoiling and which crop is going to be better able to survive natural problems?

link something thats not small picture and then youll finally have replied with something that applies to the global market which is whats important.

Again if u read what i wrote, you would also understand that the goal is to get these areas that are suffering from starvation to be able to grow and sustain itself.

Organic farming is not about shipping apples grown in california to some small village in argentina. The point is that the practice should go on world wide.



Do you really need me to break it down for you word for word?

Besides; you have run away from your old argument and latched on to the one i was talking about eariler. Its not about production; its about distribution. Thank you for finally agreeing with me.
And there is no difference in spoilage from waht i understand. They dont genetically modify things so they can have a zuchinni last on ur shelf for 6 months. The way they ship foods is they pick them when they're premature, and almost ripe. Then while in transit they age and become right enough to eat.

Though it ofc loses a little nutrient content; its still good to eat. I always eat my produce from local sources as often as i can, to maximize nutritional content and support local economy, but thats a personal thing and doesnt have much to do with this discussion.

Once again i will point out the fact that farming subsidies for conventional food drives the price under the price of production; (which is not good for the economy), but that is why we see a difference in price between the two. Also if you think about it logically; GM crops have to be purchased every single year from Monsanto. It is illegal for a farmer to save his seeds to plant the next season. Now saving your seeds will obviously save money for obvious reasons; its free. Also you dont have to buy the fertilizer that goes with the crop; which is another huge price cut.

And once again you fail to provide any backing to any of your claims. I think you are the one with stranged theories that have been debunked many times.

Do you really need me to break it down for you word for word?


organic farming = Eco-friendly?

organic farming = more land

more land = more trees cut

trees cut =/= eco-friendly

more crops = more irrigation

more irrigation = more water

more water = more money

organic food = easily spoiled

organic food = easily squashed while packaging

PROFIT LOL?

there's pros and cons for both organic farming + genetic engineering

you can't have a fucking perfect world, chill the fuck down

This post was edited by QQL on Dec 18 2010 10:13pm

sigh... you really have no idea what is going on do you
1.) Eco friendly in this case is also health friendly
2.) Not really. Its somthing called Crop Rotation. Idk who told you that it takes more space to farm organically. A smart farmer can make very good use of his fields. He may use one or two of his fields as a grazing pasture for the season, while he plants crops in his other fields. The next season, those fields will be extremely fertile from the cow manure, so he'll rotate his crops and plant somthing there. Then 2 of the fields used the previous season for plants will be the grazing pastures.
3.) ^
4.) ^
5.) Problem would stand for both gm and organic varities
6.) ^
7.) ^
8.) No; bacteria will consume them at the same rate, both conventional and organic.
9.) Lol? If this is one of your reasons to be against organic farming then nothing more needs to be said

As ive said before, there are no pros to GM foods. If they are, show me.
And you're right, our world cant be 100% perfect; but do you really think GM food is the best we have? Organic foods is obviously much better. Healthier, sustainable (meaning we can do this for a very long time a.k.a. no soil destruction which means we can grow it for a very very long time), and food can be provided to everyone in the world. That covers just about every problem concerning food. Having good supportive food that can be grown for as long as our race exists and is grown to be available for everyone in the world; that is the definition of food security

I just like how everyone kinda rolls over to the people who push GE technology, despite the terriable effects it has on health. Don't you see somthing kind of wrong with a company patenting food?

I would be for GE, if and only if, it were proven in numerous third party objective research, meta-analysis', and published in well respected peer reviewed journals like the Lancet. That would make a compelling case for anyone; however all the third party research and peer reviewed journals have done nothing but show the exact opposite. There has not been a single study that shows GM foods are safe. Even Monsantos own research confirms its problems.

Since you and psycho are still spewing out wild claims, i will once again ask you to read my post when i cite multiple studies confirming my position. You may even try reading the book Seeds of Deception by Jeffery Smith. It compiles all of the research and cites them all in a single book. Though i know no one is actually going to read anything that i suggest, which is sad. Its sad that you have such a strong opinion based on little or no actual knowledge. From what i've seen, all you're doing is latching on to claims made by the companies themselves to market their products, and defending it as if it was the absolute truth.

Learning what is actually going on and not making assumptions would be a great place for you to start.

lies

5 minutes of memorized lines.

this

Google it, a friend of mine linked it to me like a year ago, I am having problems finding it as well

lol. you're making claims that don't actually have definitive results either. you claim that organic foods have more nutrients but nothing has every definitively showed that. you say organic food has the the same shelf life....that its total and complete bullshit because organic foods have way more bacteria that decays them much much faster. organic farming despite your claims of it being a huge industry represents like what? 4% of farmers? you even went as far to say as GM food have no benefits...they last longer/they are immunized against common diseases/they can survive things that kill organic crops/are perfectly fine to eat.

on top of all of that organic growers are bound by growing strategy and can't plant things that are in high demand. organic farmers are at much greater risk of failure since they take on a lot more risk. ya its a growing sector of agriculture but it is still a tiny percentage.

ironic you're telling me i have no definitive back up to my claims when you once again have failed to provide anything with the claims you are asserting.

You cant hark on me for "not providing a source" when you havent done it within this entire discussion.

Im going to take your hypocritical nonsense as that you still didnt read the articles i linked eariler and are still dodging to provide any backup to your claims.
Thanks for playing but it looks like you lose this one.



i did, i youtube'd it, google'd it, even went on MIT's website. Couldnt find anything about it

lol...the only thing you've said that has shown to be real is that its better for soil. you went to far as to say gm foods have no plus sides and organic foods have the same shelf life as non-organic. regardless of anything else thats shown you know how to link shit(that in reality means nothing since its highly controlled and done on very small scales) and talk randomly. you link me an article that says proves the following: nutrients vs nutrients, shelf life being the same, gm foods have no positive side, organic foods aren't much riskier to rely on as a food source, gm foods are terrible for people to eat.

definitive...remember that word because thats what i want.