Deleted my last post as I'd missed this one. Fair enough and happy to read alternative views. I'd stand by the ideological comment because the principle of organic farming does not allow for mixing of organic and conventional farming methods.
The problem with discussing a subject like this is that there is a wide variation in experience and knowledge and most of us are anonymous. I made a sweeping statement because this is a football website and getting a broad idea across to non-scientists is more useful than a nuanced discussion. The big message that I think is worth stating is that organic food has no significant health benefits and uses more land than conventional farming. And the corollary is that GMOs are not the work of the devil.
No one was patronising you because no one knows what your qualifications and experience are.
That's true, I was just a bit irate as I had three people questioning me at the same time. I know it's just a footie forum, but it's always good to try to educate and spread the good word.
It's a subject that I know a fair amount about and something that I'm very interested in.
It's ironic that we now seperate organic and conventional farming, as organic farming was the convention, right until The Industrial Revolution.
One of the big issues facing us as a species in the near future is "Feeding the 9 Billion." By 2050, there are predicted to be over 9 billion people on the planet and we will need to use a multitude of methods in order to feed those people in an environmentally and sustainable way.
GM crops will be one of those tools required. Of all the research I have read, I haven't come across any that provided evidence of GM crops being bad for us, or bad for the environment.
Again, I disagree with your broad statement that "organic food has no significant health benefits." There is no definitive "yes / no" answer, lots of variables involved.
Here's an abstract from the paper below:
Organic foods contain higher levels of certain nutrients, lower levels of pesticides, and may provide health benefits for the consumer The multi-billion dollar organic food industry is fueled by consumer perception that organic food is healthier (greater nutritional value and fewer toxic chemicals). Studies of the nutrient content in organic foods vary in results due to differences in the ground cover and maturity of the organic farming operation. Nutrient content also varies from farmer to farmer and year to year. However, reviews of multiple studies show that organic varieties do provide significantly greater levels of vitamin C, iron, magnesium, and phosphorus than non-organic varieties of the same foods. While being higher in these nutrients, they are also significantly lower in nitrates and pesticide residues. In addition, with the exception of wheat, oats, and wine, organic foods typically provide greater levels of a number of important antioxidant phytochemicals (anthocyanins, flavonoids, and carotenoids).
Although in vitro studies of organic fruits and vegetables consistently demonstrate that organic foods have greater antioxidant activity, are more potent suppressors of the mutagenic action of toxic compounds, and inhibit the proliferation of certain cancer cell lines, in vivo studies of antioxidant activity in humans have failed to demonstrate additional benefit. Clear health benefits from consuming organic dairy products have been demonstrated in regard to allergic dermatitis. (Altern Med Rev 2010;15(1):4-12) Introduction Organic food consumption is one of the fastest growing segments of U.S. domestic foodstuffs. Sales of organic food and beverages grew from $1 billion in 1990 to $21.1 billion in 2008 and are on track to reach $23 billion in 2009. (1) Consumers generally perceive these foods to be healthier and safer for themselves and the environment. (2,3) A plethora of studies in the last two decades have assessed whether organic foods have higher levels of vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals than conventionally raised foods and whether they have fewer pesticide residues. Far fewer studies have been conducted to assess either the potential or actual health benefits of eating organic foods. Factors Affecting Nutritional Content of Produce Determining the potential nutritional superiority of organic food is not a simple task. Numerous factors, apart from organic versus inorganic growing, influence the amount of vitamins and phytochemicals (phenols, flavonoids, carotenoids, etc.) in a crop. These factors include the weather (affecting crops year-to-year), specific environmental conditions from one farm to the next (microclimates), soil condition, etc. Another major factor not taken into account in the published studies was the length of time the specific plots of land had been worked using organic methods. Since it takes years to build soil quality in a plot using organic methods and for the persistent pollutants in the ground to be reduced, this can significantly affect the outcome of comparative studies. The importance of these different factors is apparent from a review of the recent studies examining the nutrient content in tomatoes. Differences between Growers and Soil Quality Of six recent studies of nutrient content of organic tomatoes, only one showed no significant differences between organic and conventional farms. (4) This study, conducted in Taiwan, did find that while there was no difference...
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA225739685&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=fulltext&issn=10895159&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1&isAnonymousEntry=true