Should Christians buy organic?

[OldWiseGuy]

Since we're not in heaven yet should Christians commit to supporting proper agriculture while here on earth? Organic ag is restorative of both the land and the human spirit. So should Christians commit part of their food budget to organics, and by doing so become partners with those good 'stewards' of the earth, the organic farmers?

 

[new_wine]

Depends on what is being farmed.

Studies show that organic chicken is less environmentally good than barn raised.

Organic milk requires more land to get the same yield.

But organic legumes are much better than standard farming methods.

Since we're not in heaven yet should Christians commit to supporting proper agriculture while here on earth? Organic ag is restorative of both the land and the human spirit. So should Christians commit part of their food budget to organics, and by doing so become partners with those good 'stewards' of the earth, the organic farmers?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Since we're not in heaven yet should Christians commit to supporting proper agriculture while here on earth? Organic ag is restorative of both the land and the human spirit. So should Christians commit part of their food budget to organics, and by doing so become partners with those good 'stewards' of the earth, the organic farmers?

Personally, I think the benefits of organic foods are overblown. Organic crops, for instance, take more land per amount of food produced, which isn't being a good "steward" of the Earth.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[rjc34]

Personally, I think the benefits of organic foods are overblown. Organic crops, for instance, take more land per amount of food produced, which isn't being a good "steward" of the Earth.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Good point.

I think the real future lies in genetically modified foods. With modern biotechnology we're able to make much hardier plants with much higher yields. The only way to properly feed every human on this planet is to use them. I can't stand so called 'activist' groups that protest the use of this stuff -- they should volunteer to trade places with a starving African child for a few months, then tell us that we shouldn't feed these people because it's 'bad' to grow modified crops.

 

[twinserk]

Well, I'm an organic farmer. So I hope so!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Organic milk requires more land to get the same yield.

Yes, and the cows love it. Actually organic farming requires just the right amount of land to produce quality food; no more, no less. Perfect balance.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Organic crops, for instance, take more land per amount of food produced, which isn't being a good "steward" of the Earth.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Actually you've parsed it wrong. Organic farming takes just the right amount of land to produce foods, while 'steroid' driven farming methods require less. Even an athlete can do great things while on steroids, but it really isn't good 'stewardship' for his body in the long run.

 

[MattRose]

Good point.

I think the real future lies in genetically modified foods. With modern biotechnology we're able to make much hardier plants with much higher yields. The only way to properly feed every human on this planet is to use them. I can't stand so called 'activist' groups that protest the use of this stuff -- they should volunteer to trade places with a starving African child for a few months, then tell us that we shouldn't feed these people because it's 'bad' to grow modified crops.

Right you are (or so says I anyway). Will the organic crowd turn down a bit of GM brocilli that cures cancer?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think the real future lies in genetically modified foods. With modern biotechnology we're able to make much hardier plants with much higher yields. The only way to properly feed every human on this planet is to use them. I can't stand so called 'activist' groups that protest the use of this stuff -- they should volunteer to trade places with a starving African child for a few months, then tell us that we shouldn't feed these people because it's 'bad' to grow modified crops.

QFT^

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Good point.

I think the real future lies in genetically modified foods. With modern biotechnology we're able to make much hardier plants with much higher yields. The only way to properly feed every human on this planet is to use them. I can't stand so called 'activist' groups that protest the use of this stuff -- they should volunteer to trade places with a starving African child for a few months, then tell us that we shouldn't feed these people because it's 'bad' to grow modified crops.

One of the precepts of organic ag is sustainability. Genetically modified foods, grown on chemically fertilized soils will certainly sustain growing populations in the short term, but like the similiar 'green revolution' of the 1950's those resulting populations will crash when periodic droughts occur (in Africa and other third world countries). The solution on the demand side is to control population growth. Organics can provide sustainability on the supply side.......Also there is a looming crisis in the supply of phosphorus fertilizer. The U.S. will be ok if we don't export our supplies, but we will still be subject to price pressure that will certainly cause food price increases. This problem is still a few years away, but it's coming.

 

[Autumnleaf]

The future belongs to Monsanto. They paid top dollar for it.

 

[Fantine]

I think that the way we raise cattle and chicken for food in this country is immoral and cruel. I think that the chemicals and hormones we use to fatten them up endanger our own health.

When God gave us dominion over the animal kingdom, I don't think he meant we should genetically engineer chickens with such big breasts that the poor little things can't even walk--just because "customers prefer white meat."

Most of us eat too much meat, anyway, and if we have to pay $1 more a pound to raise chicken and cattle in humane conditions, it's worth it.

I feel differently about the production of grains, corn, etc. The technological advances we have made to make these seeds disease and germ resistant are making food readily available to burgeoning populations in the third world. I am against windfall profits for these technologies, although I think that companies should be fairly and reasonably compensated for their inventions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I feel differently about the production of grains, corn, etc. The technological advances we have made to make these seeds disease and germ resistant are making food readily available to burgeoning populations in the third world. I am against windfall profits for these technologies, although I think that companies should be fairly and reasonably compensated for their inventions.

The problem with these new seed developments is that they still require the massive chemical and fossil fuel based inputs to nourish their growth and protect them from insects and disease. The availability of these foodstuffs encourage unsustainable population growth in those third world countries. Large scale grain production also adds to undesirable climate change, soil erosion, and groundwater pollution. Organic agricultural methods solve all these problems.

 

[Fantine]

The problem with these new seed developments is that they still require the massive chemical and fossil fuel based inputs to nourish their growth and protect them from insects and disease. The availability of these foodstuffs encourage unsustainable population growth in those third world countries. Large scale grain production also adds to undesirable climate change, soil erosion, and groundwater pollution. Organic agricultural methods solve all these problems.

In agricultural societies, the biggest impetus towards large families is the need for homegrown "field hands." Greater prosperity and less hands-on work on the farm actually result in smaller families.

Anyway, isn't there something more coercive about telling people not to have children than in using technologically enhanced seeds?

 

[new_wine]

The problem is we do produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet.

The trouble is getting it to them. There are many areas where traffic for distribution is unsafe due to terrain and from conflict.

Good point.

I think the real future lies in genetically modified foods. With modern biotechnology we're able to make much hardier plants with much higher yields. The only way to properly feed every human on this planet is to use them. I can't stand so called 'activist' groups that protest the use of this stuff -- they should volunteer to trade places with a starving African child for a few months, then tell us that we shouldn't feed these people because it's 'bad' to grow modified crops.

 

[new_wine]

The world is not over-populated. Neither does it have too little food to feed everyone.

The world appears over-populated because people are gathered in the same areas they have been for centuries. It is not because these are suitable places anymore to sustain life, but due to the fact it is tradition to live there.

The world also could feed everyone if there was distribution not impeded by terrain issues or conflicts. It is very hard to get wheat into a region if it is either stolen by warlords or blown up in fear the rebels will eat it.

The solution on the demand side is to control population growth.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In agricultural societies, the biggest impetus towards large families is the need for homegrown "field hands." Greater prosperity and less hands-on work on the farm actually result in smaller families.

Anyway, isn't there something more coercive about telling people not to have children than in using technologically enhanced seeds?

There are ancient time-honored reasons for having large families; quickly expanding numbers for defense of territory, insuring against loss due to disease, famine, and war (consider this olde English planting rhyme, 'One (seed) for the buzzard, one for the crow, one to rot, and one to grow'); outnumbering rival families within your own society to gain wealth and political power, etc. All of these require the expansion of the food supply, usually agriculture based. Even today in America the rapidly growing Latino population is seen by their leaders as a future polical advantage over whites. The RCC for centuries encouraged large familys, and not entirely for upright reasons: they wanted more Catholics. (Imagine the pressure on some Latino communities by the RCC and by their political leaders to continue to have large families.) Every world empire encouraged fecundity in the lower classes as they supplied the workers, and the soldiers. Agriculture has been the means to these ends and was and still is being abused thereby. North Africa was the 'breadbasket of the Roman Empire'. Today it is a desert............. You are correct that prosperity reduces the need for large families, and conversly, smaller families reduce the need for 'prosperity'; prosperity gained at the cost of the health of not only the soil but the people as well. Also consider that because of technology we need fewer people to do what it took many to do in the past. This means we need less land for cultivation, not more. We cultivate more land because of the large export market, and non-food uses of grains; mainly ethanol. If all the cropland were converted to organic we would still produce more than we consume, and have plenty left for exports.

 

[rjc34]

One of the precepts of organic ag is sustainability. Genetically modified foods, grown on chemically fertilized soils will certainly sustain growing populations in the short term, but like the similiar 'green revolution' of the 1950's those resulting populations will crash when periodic droughts occur (in Africa and other third world countries). The solution on the demand side is to control population growth. Organics can provide sustainability on the supply side.......Also there is a looming crisis in the supply of phosphorus fertilizer. The U.S. will be ok if we don't export our supplies, but we will still be subject to price pressure that will certainly cause food price increases. This problem is still a few years away, but it's coming.

GM foods are designed to make redundant the need for chemically fertilized soils. New crops are being made that can grow in even the harshes of climates, fertilizer free.

I'm sorry, but 'organic' is simply too inefficient to ever be used to feed the world. Until it dies it will be the sole domain of middle-class and up folks in first world countries who believe they're somehow 'eating healthier' or somesuch else.

 

[rjc34]

The problem with these new seed developments is that they still require the massive chemical and fossil fuel based inputs to nourish their growth and protect them from insects and disease. The availability of these foodstuffs encourage unsustainable population growth in those third world countries. Large scale grain production also adds to undesirable climate change, soil erosion, and groundwater pollution. Organic agricultural methods solve all these problems.

[Citation Needed]

Please stop making this claim that crops designed specifically to not need fertilizers and pesticides somehow need more of it. This is an outright lie.

 

[rjc34]

The problem is we do produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet.

The trouble is getting it to them. There are many areas where traffic for distribution is unsafe due to terrain and from conflict.

If we grew standard crops on every piece of arable land on this planet, we still wouldn't be able to fully feed everyone.