GM Crops: Should We Be Scared?

[Melendwyr]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

I've heard that assertion many times, but I have yet to see hard data on it. Got a good resource?

I don't think it really constitues "hard data", but: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0009/feature4/

The following link is clearly not objective, but it contains links to more scholarly articles: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...eat_Extinction

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6502368/

I could try finding scientific data on the current extinction rate and what scientists believe the normal background extinction rate is, if you'd like.

[Soapy Sam]

delphi-ote
The critical word is "middle".

The last glacial maximum was around 20,000 years ago, since when a big, but far from certain number of mammals, insects, plants etc. have become extinct.

Humans started to make their presence felt as large mammal hunters about that time or a couple of thousand years after.
So, if we take that as the start of the present "mass extinction event" and now as the end, the middle was about ten thousand years ago.
If we call now the middle, the extinction has twenty thousand years to run and clearly we are a prime cause.
In short, it's a political statement which means what the user wants it to mean. We still have only a vague idea how many species exist- of any sort. We have only a vague idea how many went extinct per century from -say- 130,000 years ago until 20,000 years ago. So we have only a vague idea whether we are in a situation of increased , decreased or normal extinction rates, or even if those terms are meaningful for a given period.

That said, it's clear humans are causing the demise of many species through habitat destruction, fishing etc. Others expand into the vacated territory and will speciate accordingly. I'm betting there will be a lot more crow and rat species ten thousand years from now.

My personal suspicion is that any time is extinction time, because change is always happening somewhere. So maybe it's true- we are in the middle of an extinction event. A very long one.

[Melendwyr]

Our effect on the rainforests alone are causing the rate of species extinction to go way up. Whether you see that as an example of a larger problem is more subjective.

[bruto]

I agree that much of the scare about GM crops is overblown, and strikes me as similar to the scare about irradiation. On the other hand, there certainly are some serious issues here, especially with regard to the patenting of seeds, and the consequences of unwanted cross fertilization, which don't seem to have been answered as yet.

One, of course, is how inbred pesticides will affect non pest insects over the long run, a concern that I have not seen really well answered. It's not an idle concern either for beekeepers or for persons whose crops depend on insects for pollination.

Whether or not you agree with those who prefer old-fashioned crops, organic growing, etc., there are those who do, and who find it economically rewarding, and cross pollination is a problem that needs addressing. Here in Vermont it's been a sticky issue that the legislature has not been able to resolve very well. Who is liable when GM crops cause unwanted alteration in a neighbor's fields?

Then, of course, comes the issue of patenting. Whatever you think about it, it's certain to change the way farmers grow crops in the future if seed patents prove enforceable, and perhaps other aspects of the way we live, depending on how those patents are enforced, because seeds will get away, pollen will drift, hybrids, volunteer plants and pirated plants will grow. How will this be policed? How far does a hybrid carry its patent? Who is liable for volunteer plants?

I think we at least need to be careful.

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Our effect on the rainforests alone are causing the rate of species extinction to go way up. Whether you see that as an example of a larger problem is more subjective.

But at what rate are new species developing to take their place, and how abnormal is this extinction rate? How do we even go about measuring extinction rate? Can we really compare our count of species going extinct over the past 100 years or so with the rate of extinction we find over millions of years in the fossil record? It even seems like some life is actually adapting to our new behaviors (not that this would necessarily be a good thing...) If some species crap out and others survive because of us, couldn't we just consider that evolution?

I'm very curious about this subject. I don't think there's any question that biodiversity is going to be a very important subject in the upcoming years. Thanks for the links and the thoughts. I'll be doing some reading.

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by Beausoleil

What does bacteria evolving to digest nylon have to do with my point?

It seemed like a good example of our introducing something new to the environment and life adapting and handling it quite well. Some crazy bacteria decided something toxic should be food. It suprises me that sometimes the slightest pollutant can bring down a very complicated ecosystem, but sometimes life handles our filth without batting an eye.

[hammegk]

Originally Posted by RichardR

Do you have a cite for that?

Maybe Rolfe will answer this scientifically, but economically, if you are in the business of raising livestock for sale, preventing death & disease is high on your list of must-dos.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by FortyTwo

Modern hybrids were developed to combat disease, be more pest resistant, provide higher yields, be drought tolerant, etc. depending on the target environment.

Of course, much of the problem with diseases and pests is the result of modern "monoculture" factory-farming practices, which is greatly reduced with sustainable farming techniques (things like crop rotation, allowing fields to fallow, etc.).

Hunger, even in the Third World, is rarely, if ever, ever a resource issue. There is more than enough arable land to feed our current population using sustainable farming. In fact, IIRC from previous research, existing arable land is capable of supporting a considerably higher population. The problem is predominantly political. Countries that have serious hunger problems also have governments that repress their population, interfere deletoriously with the ability of their citizens to farm effectively, and confiscate large amounts of various resources to enrich themselves.

Most modern famines are artificially created by government actions. Even when there is a natural problem of some sort (eg. drought); problems that should be relatively minor and survivable are greatly excerbated by government actions, far beyond what their natural result should be.

Food availability is not an issue in a country that subsidizes farmers to keep prices artificially high.

My biggest issues with GMO crops are the cost, the inevitibility of (potentially harmful) unintended consequences, and the continued promotion of the same monoculture that caused much of the problem that GMO crops ostensibly solve.

[ysabella]

Distribution is also a problem, like in countries that lack roads. If a crop can grow with less fertilizer and/or less pesticide, then that's less stuff that has to get to the field somehow.
I read some interviews with Norman Borlaug and in this one he pointed out that RoundupReady crops could help in Central Africa:

Quote:

Roundup Ready crops could be used in zero-tillage cultivation in African countries. In zero tillage, you leave the straw, the rice, the wheat if it's at high elevation, or most of the corn stock, remove only what's needed for animal feed, and plant directly [without plowing], because this will cut down erosion. Central African farmers don't have any animal power, because sleeping sickness kills all the animals--cattle, the horses, the burros and the mules. So draft animals don't exist, and farming is all by hand and the hand tools are hoes and machetes. Such hand tools are not very effective against the aggressive tropical grasses that typically invade farm fields. Some of those grasses have sharp spines on them, and they're not very edible. They invade the cornfields, and it gets so bad that farmers must abandon the fields for a while, move on, and clear some more forest. That's the way it's been going on for centuries, slash-and-burn farming. But with this kind of weed killer, Roundup, you can clear the fields of these invasive grasses and plant directly if you have the herbicide-tolerance gene in the crop plants.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by ysabella

Distribution is also a problem, like in countries that lack roads. If a crop can grow with less fertilizer and/or less pesticide, then that's less stuff that has to get to the field somehow.
I read some interviews with Norman Borlaug and in this one he pointed out that RoundupReady crops could help in Central Africa:

Quote:

Roundup Ready crops could be used in zero-tillage cultivation in African countries. In zero tillage, you leave the straw, the rice, the wheat if it's at high elevation, or most of the corn stock, remove only what's needed for animal feed, and plant directly [without plowing], because this will cut down erosion. Central African farmers don't have any animal power, because sleeping sickness kills all the animals--cattle, the horses, the burros and the mules. So draft animals don't exist, and farming is all by hand and the hand tools are hoes and machetes. Such hand tools are not very effective against the aggressive tropical grasses that typically invade farm fields. Some of those grasses have sharp spines on them, and they're not very edible. They invade the cornfields, and it gets so bad that farmers must abandon the fields for a while, move on, and clear some more forest. That's the way it's been going on for centuries, slash-and-burn farming. But with this kind of weed killer, Roundup, you can clear the fields of these invasive grasses and plant directly if you have the herbicide-tolerance gene in the crop plants.

That's a fine idea on the surface, but I think it rather disingenuously ignores the rather obvious other aspect of these crops, which is that before planting such crops one must make a legal agreement never to propagate them in any way, thus ensuring perpetual dependency on the manufacturers of the seeds. This represents a significant change in the way that farmers have traditionally propagated crops, planned ahead for shortages, and budgeted their living. Ordinary hybridized crops have always been saveable, but patented ones are not. Manufacturers are stringently enforcing these agreements, and there is still a good deal of legal ambiguity and controversy over whether even involuntary recipients of the GM technology are infringing patents by possession of plants or hybrids of plants that have landed on their property, and there remains a considerable issue of who is liable if such involuntary propagation harms a farmer's own crops.

Just looking at the snippet of article above, herbicidal corn seems an oddly oblique way of addressing what really sounds more like a problem of sleeping sickness in livestock and poor tool technology.

edit: I just realized that the corn spoken above is not herbicidal but herbicide resistant, which doesn't actually change my argument, but should be corrected. Actually, Roundup-ready corn appears to foster a double dependency, since the farmer must commit not only buy the seed every year at whatever the going price might be, but also the specific herbicide for which it is engineered.

[RichardR]

Originally Posted by luchog

There is more than enough arable land to feed our current population using sustainable farming. In fact, IIRC from previous research, existing arable land is capable of supporting a considerably higher population.

Do you have a cite for that?

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by RichardR

Do you have a cite for that?

Yes, I do, but I see the relevant journal issue isn't in my office, I think I took it home. In fact I was quoting what someone else quoted, so I hope it was properly referenced!

Originally Posted by hammegk

Maybe Rolfe will answer this scientifically, but economically, if you are in the business of raising livestock for sale, preventing death & disease is high on your list of must-dos.

Yes, indeed. So think about it.

If your only aim is to produce good livestock, economically, then you make use of all the tools at your disposal. Wormers, vaccines, insect repellants, and of course therapeutic medicines where necessary and appropriate. These things are all well enough surrounded by legislation regarding when they may be used and in what circumstances and for how long produce (milk, meat or whatever) must be withheld from sale so that there should be no serious concern about conventionally-produced meat and animal products, certainly in this country. And in this way death and disease are prevented as far as is possible.

However, if you are ideologically committed to "organic" farming, then that committment can and indeed must override concerns about death and disease. If your organic status depends on not using wormers, then tough, the "organic" calves get to keep their worm burden. There are sometimes ways round this, whereby animals treated with "forbidden" medicines my regain their organic status after a wait of two or three times the scientifically-determined withdrawal period for that medicine (and I wonder how the "organic" consumers would react to knowing that), but understandably the organic farmers are very reluctant to take this step.

So, I know which group of farmers has combating death and disease higher up the priority list, and it ain't the organic ones.

Non-therapeutic use of antibiotics as growth promoters is much less widespread than it used to be, as you don't have to go the whole "organic" hog to see that this isn't necessarily a very good idea. However, the Soil Association rules go very very much further than that. In fact, some of it reads like the homoeopaths' promotion society.

Rolfe.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by RichardR

Do you have a cite for that?

Not a single source, no; since that conclusion is the result of several years sporadic research from a number of differernt sources. I haven't been able to organize the research into a single, easily referenced page. Not real high on my daily goal list.

[RichardR]

Originally Posted by luchog

Not a single source, no; since that conclusion is the result of several years sporadic research from a number of differernt sources. I haven't been able to organize the research into a single, easily referenced page. Not real high on my daily goal list.

Then, depending on your definition of “sustainable” farming, I dispute the claim. Specifically I dispute the claim (if this is what you were saying) that there is enough arable land to feed our current world population using organic farming. Apologies if you were not saying this.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by RichardR

Then, depending on your definition of “sustainable” farming, I dispute the claim. Specifically I dispute the claim (if this is what you were saying) that there is enough arable land to feed our current world population using organic farming. Apologies if you were not saying this.

No, I never used the word "organic", I used "sustainable". There is a significant difference. Here is a good source for info on the principles and techniques.

[RichardR]

Originally Posted by luchog

No, I never used the word "organic", I used "sustainable". There is a significant difference. Here is a good source for info on the principles and techniques.

An interesting article - thanks.

[clarsct]

GM crops:
The legal issues were something I hadn't considered, but there is a point, there. As for the science of it, well, we've been 'engineering' crops for years. Every time you eat those really HUGE strawberries, realize that they are genetic mutants we have selected FOR. Sure, polyploidy strawberries occured naturally, too, but not in such numbers. Genetic modification is just a more direct and controlled way to do so.

Organic crops:
Bull$h!t. That's my opinion. I grew up in a farm community, ok? Most farmers can't afford to lose a lot of their livestock to disease and such. Most of them also don't medicate unless it is NEEDED. Medication is expensive, ok? Vets are, too, no offense to Rolfe or BSM. We call those folks and get those meds when we HAVE to. We vaccinate our animals so we won't HAVE to do so more often. I don't know how the 'farm factories' do things, but on the 'Independent American Farmer' level, this is how things work.

Humans as a speciation event:
Of course we are. No other species has had the advantage of modifying our environment in so many ways, nor so drastically. But to assume that everything we do is 'artificial' and everything else is 'natural' isn't sound reasoning. The glaciers that came down in the Ice Age were a natural event that caused massive extinctions. So was the meteor they say killed off the dinosaurs. Mass species died out. There have been species that died out and we never even knew about them. I haven't heard anyone berate the glaciers yet for the indiscriminate destruction they wreaked upon this world. We are natural beings, and all that we do is natural, as well. How is a dam built by beavers for the purposes of beavers different from dams built by humans for the purposes of humans, on a moral level? Yes, we should be aware of what we are tinkering with, but that counts for many thing, not just ecology. Electricity, Fire, Chemicals, Nuclear Power, and Livestock can all be dangerous if you don't understand what you're doing. Agreed. But to somehow say that man is evil because we aren't 'natural' is some cockeyed thinking, to my mind.

[Euromutt]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

And how will unregulated computing poison my food or patent my genes?

You said that GM crops were a bad idea because they were "corporate controlled and largely unregulated." Just like the manufacture of your computer. Those were the only two criteria you set, so don't try to make out like I missed something because you posted something which was easily shown to be asinine.

[Mashuna]

Just reading through a post on GM foods, I didn't expect to have my views on organic animal farming changed so much! I started (or, at the time, it would have been my parents) to buy free-range and organic chickens on the back of Edwina Currie and the salmonella scares, along with the pictures of the battery farmed hens.

I can't speak generally, but my own conception has always been that free-range was good and that organic was somehow 'better'. I honestly hadn't given any thought to, or realised that organic farming precluded the use of antibiotics.

Mind you, I've tended not to buy other organic meats (beef, lamb etc), purely because where I live in Wales all the meat from the local butchers is so nice. Now I can feel good about them not being organic too!

So, thanks to Rolfe for her educational rantings!

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

http://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id=3947

It says something when you're slower to adopt new technology than the Amish.

Ouch.

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Ouch.

Reminds me of an interesting sci-fi story I read, can't recall the name or author, though...have to see if I could find it.

Basically, in the course of a murder investigation invoving an Amish community, the detective discovers that the Amish have been practicing biotech for years, achieving all sorts of biological products through extreme selective breeding (light-generating plants, treees that act as silent alarms, etc, etc). The reason for the Amsih seclusion was to safeguard their tech.

An unlikely story, but an interesting read with a unique twist.

[Almo]

What worries me is Microsoft type market manipulation:

http://www.biotech-info.net/Farmer_v_Monsanto.html

Quote:

To get Roundup Ready canola's advantages farmers have to buy new seeds from Monsanto every year. The agreement also states they must destroy any leftover seed each year and let Monsanto inspect their fields.

I read somewhere, but I can't find it now, that they are figuring out how to make the seeds expire after a year on their own.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by Almo

I read somewhere, but I can't find it now, that they are figuring out how to make the seeds expire after a year on their own.

This was Monsanto's famous "terminator" technology, which they dropped several years ago because of bad PR. I think it was a good idea, but at this tender stage of the develoment of GM technology, I guess they were being sensitive. What it was trying to do was to develop sterile crops, whose seeds produced one year would not be able to be re-planted the next. This would get around issues of inspections to verify compliance with the license terms.

What's often missed in this discussion is that several more conventionally bred hybrid crops produce seeds that can't be used the next - not that they're completely sterile, but the resulting seeds would themselves not make quality crops the next year. This is already effectively equivalent to terminator technology, completely separate from the GM issue.

But GM Roundup-ready soybeans are not like this - the seeds can be re-used. There was a famous case where a Canadian farmer (Percy Schmeiser) took seeds from plants near the edges of his fields, where they bordered neighboring farms who were Roundup-ready users, then intentionally selected for those plants by spraying them with Roundup, then planted those seeds. He knew he was violating a company's patents, and was fined by the courts. He's become a hero for the anti-GM crowd.

[patnray]

Originally Posted by phildonnia

I was puzzled by the idea of adding bt genes to a plant.
I didn't think BT conferred any immunity to pests upon the plant itself, but rather it infected those pests directly. How would putting BT genes in a plant help?

(anecdote)I used BT one year on a pear tree that was particularly troubled by codling moths. It didn't seem to help much; the whole tree was devastated. The following year I used liberal doses of malathion, and had a nice crop.

IIRC BT kills insects because of a toxin they produce and the BT gene being inserted in the plants is the gene for the toxin.

http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover11.html

"Bt toxin is considered to be an ideal tool for biological pest control for several reasons. It is highly specific for particular insect species; therefore, non-target organisms will not be affected. It is non-toxic to vertebrates, and target-insect resistance is slow to develop. Finally, due to its light-sensitivity, it does not persist in an exposed environment. Bt toxin has been used to control gypsy moth and spruce budworm populations; in this application, the protoxin is applied as a component of proteinaceous inclusion bodies produced by the bacterium, along with chemicals that attract feeding insects. However, the genes encoding the various forms of Bt toxin can also be inserted into other bacteria or plant species. For example, Bt corn is corn that contains a truncated form of the cry1Ab gene, and therefore produces an active form of Bt toxin, rather than the proform normally produced by the bacterium."

[ysabella]

Originally Posted by CurtC

This was Monsanto's famous "terminator" technology, which they dropped several years ago because of bad PR. I think it was a good idea, but at this tender stage of the develoment of GM technology, I guess they were being sensitive. What it was trying to do was to develop sterile crops, whose seeds produced one year would not be able to be re-planted the next. This would get around issues of inspections to verify compliance with the license terms.

Well, and with all the concerns about GM crops "contaminating" other crops, you'd think people would welcome sterile GM crops that can't reproduce themselves.

[meg]

I don't see how anyone could view the "terminator" gene as a good idea for conventional crops. Pretty much it means that if I plant soybeans and my neighbor plants roundup ready soybeans, his soybeans will cross pollinate with mine without me knowing it. I'll save my seed for next year, but nothing will germinate, because they've been "terminated". I'm out my next year's crop and facing hardship because of my neighbor's choice of seed.

I do, however, see value in using terminator technology when growing GM crops for pharmaceutical production. See www.prodigene.com for examples of "pharm" crops. I do have concerns about those crops free pollinating with the neighbor's and/or making it into the food chain.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...d=adT0ydpQc5Gg is an interesting article about some of the research going on.

Overall, I've been very interested reading this thread. It's so refreshing to be able to read opinions about this topic that aren't insane on one side or the other.

I do have a couple of opinions about GM crops in general, though, that I'd like to throw in.

First off, Bt corn. I am not concerned in the slightest about eating Bt corn, however I do not believe it is a good idea to plant it and here's why:

1. Insects mutate quickly to become resistant to pesticides. Bt, when applied topically has been able to be used so successfully because its use was timed specifically to when the corn borers were most vulnerable, then it broke down quickly and was gone. There are many valid concerns that if the Bt gene is in the corn through the entire growth cycle that corn borers will become resistant to it.

2. Bacillus thuringiensis (bt) is also NOT specific to only corn borers, but will colonize and kill many different caterpillars that eat it, particularly lepidoptera (butterflies and moths). Many of these are considered beneficial bugs and are pollinators for other crops.

So theoretically, we could quite possibly see in the next few years that Bt no longer is effective again corn borer, and we have poor pollination of other crops because of a general decline in lepidoptera populations.

3. I don't know that the possible outcome is worth the risk, given that I've yet to find any research that shows GM crops are in any way more cost effective than conventional. They don't produce more per acre, they don't cost less, they're not easier to grow. I don't see the point, honestly. The only reason they get grown is because syngenta and pioneer have some awesome advertising bucks.

Anybody that says GM crops reduce the need for pesticides is wrong. Most GM crops grown today are of the roundup ready variety, meaning you can and should spray MORE pesticides on them, not less. That's the whole point of them. You can now make 4 or 5 passes with the weed killer instead of the one before planting you used to do. And actually, most farmers are finding that they *do* have to make more passes with the roundup, because many weeds are now becoming resistant.

And my final thought, as to antibiotics and animals. While I hear what Rolfe is saying, I think there's got to be some middle ground there. When we started raising pigs I couldn't find a commercially prepared feed that didn't have antibiotics in it. I finally had to make up our own blend of feed just because I didn't want to feed our pigs that stuff if they didn't need it. All the consultants I spoke with were sure that we were going to need it because "pigs are sickly". Well, it didn't take long to figure out that pigs that get plenty of fresh air, water, sunlight and room to run aren't sickly at all.

My 2 or 4 cents worth.
Meg

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by meg

Anybody that says GM crops reduce the need for pesticides is wrong. Most GM crops grown today are of the roundup ready variety, meaning you can and should spray MORE pesticides on them, not less. That's the whole point of them. You can now make 4 or 5 passes with the weed killer instead of the one before planting you used to do. And actually, most farmers are finding that they *do* have to make more passes with the roundup, because many weeds are now becoming resistant.
Meg

Just a clarification that Roundup is an herbicide -(it kills plants), not a pesticide (which kills pests).

[Jorghnassen]

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

Just a clarification that Roundup is an herbicide -(it kills plants), not a pesticide (which kills pests).

I thought pesticide was a catch-all term for herbicide, insecticide and fungicide...

I just checked. Dictionary.com seems to agree with you, while wikipedia says the EPA has a much broader definition.

[meg]

I was taught also that pesticide is the term for all -cides. Insecticide, miticide, rodenticide, herbicide, etc.

M

[hodgy]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

There are two issues here. The one you seem to be focussing on is the husbandry standards of healthy stock. This may or may not be better in organic herds. Certainly you're not going to get the evils of the real "Stalag Hen" variety, but many conventional farms have very good welfare standards, and many so-called free-range systems have miserable conditions for the livestock. Welfare in this respect has little to do with whether or not an individual farm can tick the boxes that allow it to call itself "organic".

Point taken - I am a layman on this issue so its good to hear a well-informed point of view from someone with more expertise. Actually I just double-checked the farm where I like to get my meat and its not organic, only free-range. When I go there I can see the animals and they look like they have a pretty good life.

I have a pretty simple approach - I buy free range (and sometimes organic) because I don't like the idea of animals spending their entire lives in cramped dark cages or being shipped across half of Europe in trucks. Free range and organic classification helps me to identify sources. I have no pretensions to being an expert in the life history of each animal I eat but I try in a limited way to reduce suffering.

Quote:

The second issue is the important one of the prevention of disease and the treatment of sick animals. This is where organic farming sickens me. The use of many (if not most) properly tested, safe, effective and licensed medicines is forbidden. Farmers are encouraged and indeed instructed to use unlicensed, unproven and non-safety-tested preparations, under the laughable heading of "natural" remedies. This includes the use of some very toxic compounds for disease "prevention", far more toxic than the licensed products, simply because they aren't tested and licensed and so aren't "big pharma" medicines. It also includes the heavy promotion of homoeopathy.

That's a very good point and one that I was not aware of, I assumed that sick (organic) animals were treated as best veterinarian practice allowed. If you are telling me that this is not the case then maybe I will stick to free-range in future.

Quote:

Most farm animal vets simply tear their hair out over "organic" livestock farms, despairing over the animals being allowed to suffer from eminently treatable conditions because waiting till the problems go away on their own (assuming they do) will not lose these animals their "organic" status while giving the poor, thin, scouring calves a dose of much-needed wormer will. And the amount of woo coming out of the organic proponents about homoeopathy being "good for" mastitis and so on would just make you throw up.

It certainly would make me very angry so thanks for enlightening me.

Quote:

It has been shown in objective tests that the overall welfare standards of organically-reared animals are not better than conventionally-reared livestock and may often be worse. Anyone who is choosing organic meat for animal welfare reasons had better go away and do some serious reading, and have a rethink.

I'm not so concerned about the organic bit - I am more interested in the general welfare of the animals that I eat therefore I will re-evaluate my position a little. Having said that I still think that organic pork is on balance likely to have had a far less cruel life than factory-farm pork.

We should also bear in mind that cruelty is not just about how sick animals are treated but about how healthy ones are. A polar bear in a small enclosure in a zoo may have the best veterinarian care in the world but it does not make it a happy polar bear. Conversely an individual polar bear in the wild may starve to death in a bad year but I would still prefer that polar bears in general be not confined to zoos.

[Rolfe]

Stick with the "free-range" idea, then. But even there, it's good if you can actually see where the animals came from. Some producers have managed to squeeze into the "free-range" category with setups that aren't exactly what the consumer might have imagined - poultry with theoretical access to a small outside run that about 10% of the birds might actually succeed in locating during their lifetimes, for example. And the problems of bullying and victimisation aren't always addressed.

I'm all for improved welfare standards, it's just that you have to be constantly on the watch for people who will sweat the letter of the law while maintaining systems that really aren't too great. However, the whole "organic" movement, complete with overt, preposterous claims of efficacy for homoeopathic remedies, just makes me see very very red.

Rolfe.

[meg]

I understand why you see red, Rolfe, when dealing with an organic woo woo that's more concerned with whether he'll lose his organic certification than the health of his animal. This makes me see red, too.

To be fair, though, on the other end of the spectrum is the factory farmer piglot where the pigs are suspended in cages no bigger than their own bodies over a lagoon of their own manure and fed daily doses of antibiotics to attempt to counter the many diseases that such a system naturally breeds.

Or a somewhat less disgusting opposite end of the spectrum is the diligent farmer that worms his goats every 12 weeks whether they need it or not, which is resulting in the problem we have now that many wormers no longer work because the worms have developed resistance.

These also make me see red.

I think its a good thing to remember that the whole organic movement is a *reaction* to what has been occuring in our food production systems. And, like most kneejerk reactions, its not the absolute best choice of all. I believe that in general the organic movement is a good thing, because it is bringing to the forefront questions about how we grow our food, how we treat our food animals, and how we process that food for the table. I think these questions are important. I think we all should be taking a lot more responsibility for what we eat.

Unfortunately, I think many people think that as long as that "certified organic" stamp is on the package, it means that this food was lovingly grown by old macdonald himself in eden where, since he doesn't use those nasty chemicals, nothing ever gets sick and everything grows perfectly and you don't even need to wash it. Buying that "organic" product somehow proves how much they care about the environment, and sticks it to "the man".

It's just not true, though. There are huge organic factoryfarms interested only in taking the larger profit that organic stamp can get them, and there are soil conscious environmentally concerned conventional farmers that do everything in their power to maintain a healthy sustainable ecosystem.

Finding that middle ground where a farmer can make a halfway decent living and raise healthy nutritious food in a sustainable way is hard. I think the best advice is to try to have a relationship with the farmers that grow your food, and take a more active role in the decision making about where your food comes from, and how it gets to your table.

Trying to bring this back to the whole GM question. I think that those that consider all GM foods to be evil are wrong. Equally wrong is the attitude that since organic methods don't allow GM seeds, and since (some) organic farmers are woo that GM must be ok. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Meg

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by meg

To be fair, though, on the other end of the spectrum is the factory farmer piglot where the pigs are suspended in cages no bigger than their own bodies over a lagoon of their own manure and fed daily doses of antibiotics to attempt to counter the many diseases that such a system naturally breeds.

Just for information, where does this actually happen?

Rolfe.

[meg]

That is a fairly common method used by large pigfarms. It is called the "conventional confinement system". Quite common here in the midwest US, anyway.

ETA

Here are a couple of links describing the various options for farmers looking to get into hog production, which include some descriptions of confinement operations.

Brief paper description hog production systems from North Dakota State University:
http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/dickins...5/produc75.htm

"Hogs Your Way. Choosing a hog production system in the upper midwest" pdf. Has a pretty good description of confinement systems. Warning, fairly big download 80+ pages.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/distrib...nts/DI7641.pdf

Let me know if you want more. I detest the "anti" websites that only show pictures of the disgusting parts in order to get emotional reactions, so I'm trying to put forward only university based publications that tend to be a bit more balanced.

Meg

[Rolfe]

I don't have the welfare regs at my fingertips, but so far as I'm aware, that stuff is illegal in the UK.

Rolfe.

[Floyt]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

I don't think it really constitues "hard data", but: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0009/feature4/

The following link is clearly not objective, but it contains links to more scholarly articles: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...eat_Extinction

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6502368/

I could try finding scientific data on the current extinction rate and what scientists believe the normal background extinction rate is, if you'd like.

I started reading the Biodiversity Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (which is largely an UN project). You can get it here:

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/...Synthesis.aspx

- the specific biodiversity report is half a page down. (big, 14Mb)
It seems to be thorough and comprehensive research on a global scale. Had some surprises for me! So far it seems to pretty much bear out the hypothesis that we are triggering a noticeable extinction event.