* Any time you’re farming you’re screwing up the local ecology by putting shit where it doesn't normally grow or if it does, specifically tailoring it.
* Organic food still uses chemicals for pesticides and fertilizers. The difference they aren’t made chemically, and still have negative effects on local ecology. Example: Cow shit is bad for water tables just like fertilizer, and less effective.
* There’s still no evidence about a nutrition gap between organic and non organic.
* If you’re going to produce food, the ideal is to use the least amount of land and the least amount of chemicals for minimal impact.
* I don’t agree with many mass-ag techniques like high yield varieties in water strapped areas but we can make drought resistant crops that are more mindful of fresh water resources with GMOs and be more responsible.
* I do not like the idea of patenting organics or crops unable to reproduce. It's not conducive to small farming by pricing smaller producers out, which promotes mass ag. Localization of food production helps minimize impacts. * The best reason to support organic is that many of the farms have better work conditions, more female owned, more social responsibility, but that’s exactly the same reason why you want to buy local.
* We need to cultivate a signifier to the idea of minimal impact farming over the idea of organic vs GMO. A classic example of a minimal impact farming technique is shade grown coffee, which means allowing more biodiversity in flora and fauna. Large trees protect the coffee berries, and allow native species to still grown which in turn provides nature habitat for local avian populations which in turn helps maintain local ecology and naturally help curb pests. There's not a single metric, nor a right technique for every crop.
Being pro or anti GMO is misunderstanding the issue. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogss...