Pros and cons of organic vs nonorganic?

[rc4u]

for those that think genetically modified seed or feed is good more power to ya....id like to see a clone of you and see if it is actually the same as the donator..ha...it never works that way...I bet you voted for Obama...and I would like to know why every time you type Obama it automatically capitalizes the name...government and its forces sway many ...but not from rural top central....we think for ourselves.... now I know not everybody from east or south or west doesn't have common sense..i like to visit but not live ....there's my rant like the rest of you ...jeff

 

[Biologrady]

Wow, quite a debate raging here! Before I weigh in, in case anyone cares about my credentials or background, I'm a science educator (college biology, chemistry, biochemistry, protein chemistry) and I read a lot of primary literature as part of my job. I'm also the product of a dairy farming family, and I'm a mom, a gardener, and obviously a chicken lover.

Genetically modifying food is the fundamental point of selective breeding, so I always find it comical how the GMO label can get people so riled up. Hybridization certainly changes genomes far more than targeted gene transfer or modification, and also as we come to know more about how modern living is radically changing our epigenetics, I think we need to keep that in perspective. Labeling foods GM (or not) is simply a money-making scare tactic, as most people will not bother to invest any time or mental energy in reviewing even the fundamentals of genetic engineering, so they won't be able to grasp what the labels' implications are anyway.

That being said, do we need to weigh the consequences of genetically modifying food? Certainly yes. as has been pointed out further up the thread, creation of herbicide resistant crops has certainly had some environmental consequences, and will continue. And, I think there was a challenge posted higher up the thread for any scholarly articles referencing documented harm a GMO could cause if consumed. I actually read one a few years back ( I will try to find the reference and post) that, if I remember, involved mice that were fed a GMO product and experienced anaphylaxis...I believe the explanation was that the protein coded for by the transferred gene folded quite differently in the context of the new cell, and prompted an unexpected allergy to the protein (it did not cause an allergy when made in the original cell). I imagine that is a really rare type of reaction, but it is a good reminder that molecular interactions are incredibly complex and often unpredictable.

My take on the GMO debate, for what it's worth: I'm going to make sensible choices when I can, if it doesn't break the bank. I'm not going to be bullied by either side of the debate, and I will hopefully find a good balance. Frankly, I'm a lot more worried about the other ways novel chemicals are creeping into my home and my interactome, but I'm not willing to forego my laundry detergent, my deodorant, my sunscreen or the volatile organics in my new pair of running shoes or the dry cleaning I just picked up. I guess I'm resigned to the idea that progress in all forms has always had pros and cons, so I'm going to let others tilt against windmills, I'm too exhausted from considering all the "what-if's"!

 

[Biologrady]

Update...
Looking for that article I referenced, there seem to be lots of organizations and blogs that reference the same idea, and lots of newer scholarly articles that refute that result...which I guess suggests what I said earlier... If it could cause allergy issues, it's a really rare or maybe fictional event?

 

[jonsccm]

Wow, quite a debate raging here! Before I weigh in, in case anyone cares about my credentials or background, I'm a science educator (college biology, chemistry, biochemistry, protein chemistry) and I read a lot of primary literature as part of my job. I'm also the product of a dairy farming family, and I'm a mom, a gardener, and obviously a chicken lover.

Genetically modifying food is the fundamental point of selective breeding, so I always find it comical how the GMO label can get people so riled up. Hybridization certainly changes genomes far more than targeted gene transfer or modification, and also as we come to know more about how modern living is radically changing our epigenetics, I think we need to keep that in perspective. Labeling foods GM (or not) is simply a money-making scare tactic, as most people will not bother to invest any time or mental energy in reviewing even the fundamentals of genetic engineering, so they won't be able to grasp what the labels' implications are anyway.

That being said, do we need to weigh the consequences of genetically modifying food? Certainly yes. as has been pointed out further up the thread, creation of herbicide resistant crops has certainly had some environmental consequences, and will continue. And, I think there was a challenge posted higher up the thread for any scholarly articles referencing documented harm a GMO could cause if consumed. I actually read one a few years back ( I will try to find the reference and post) that, if I remember, involved mice that were fed a GMO product and experienced anaphylaxis...I believe the explanation was that the protein coded for by the transferred gene folded quite differently in the context of the new cell, and prompted an unexpected allergy to the protein (it did not cause an allergy when made in the original cell). I imagine that is a really rare type of reaction, but it is a good reminder that molecular interactions are incredibly complex and often unpredictable.

My take on the GMO debate, for what it's worth: I'm going to make sensible choices when I can, if it doesn't break the bank. I'm not going to be bullied by either side of the debate, and I will hopefully find a good balance. Frankly, I'm a lot more worried about the other ways novel chemicals are creeping into my home and my interactome, but I'm not willing to forego my laundry detergent, my deodorant, my sunscreen or the volatile organics in my new pair of running shoes or the dry cleaning I just picked up. I guess I'm resigned to the idea that progress in all forms has always had pros and cons, so I'm going to let others tilt against windmills, I'm too exhausted from considering all the "what-if's"!

Wow! FINALY some one gives a great response! Not many people (me included) understand all that is involved in this subject
I try to live by two rules before citing study's. 1 what were the perimeters of the study? And 2 what was the result of peer studies? If I can't find the answers to that then I don't need to be posting it. I have looked at both sides of the subject and don't agree with either one. My support for organic or locally grown feed, is to prevent the large companies from continuing that monopoly. As long as companies like Monsanto has the power we will never be able to trust them. I say by local if you can but don't stress over it.

 

[Michael Apple]

Monsanto produced Agent Orange and said it was safe to spray all over our soldiers in Vietnam. You know...the ones who came back with all sorts of neurological damage from it. Trust them with the food supply too? One doesn't have to be too bright to conclude the answer as "no".

 

[AxisOfBeagles]

Hi everyone, I just got five day old baby chicks and they are currently eating a conventional non-soy non-GMO starter feed. I'm an avid health nut and have been buying certified organic pasture raised eggs and personally believe they are the absolute best. What I want to know is what are the benefits of feeding chickens organic vs nonorganic food? The most obvious con of organic is the high price tag, which might not be that much of a big deal for me in some cases. When my chicks are grown I will have them in my backyard but they will not be fully "pasture raised." So along with the little bit of natural grasses and whatnot they will be eating, what difference in overall bird health and egg quality/nutritive value will be apparent between feeding them organic versus conventional feed? What are the best feeds on both ends of the spectrum? And other than feed, what sort of foods and treats will the chicks get the most health benefits from?

Just my 2 cents, but I think some folks here (and elsewhere) are missing the point. It's true that there is no medical evidence that GMO foods are harmful. Nor are certified organic products necessarily more nutritious. But those are not the real issues. The issue is whether we, as consumers, choose to buy produce that has been subject to large quantities of pesticides, herbicides, chemical fungicides, etc. and whether we choose to support a slippery slope of genetic modification and patenting of our food sources. I choose not to. I choose to support sustainable agricultural practices that produce foods that are demonstrably less harmful.

I've now got my chicken feed costs down to 35 cents per pound: certified organic and non GMO. The birds consume less than .2 pounds per bird per day of those feeds, courtesy of their full time free ranging and access to the compost bins. That results, for me, in eggs and meat far cheaper than I can buy at the store and, to my mind, far healthier than what I would buy.

It's not easy getting the cost of organic feed down. For me it required cost sharing with others - participating in bulk buys from nearby mills. But to your question - the benefit of such feed is peace of mind; knowing what goes in to my food. And a certain pride in supporting more sustainable agricultural practices.

 

[heartland]

I find it fascinating that most of the world has "woken up" to GMO's and are now banning them.

So if they are the best thing since sliced bread, they should be proud to have them labeled and not work so hard to stop the labeling.

Here is how I think...and this is just basic common sense. If a crop can easily pollinate another crop in nature, then I don't consider that contamination.

But if an organism cannot NATURALLY be crossed with another, that is not something I want to eat or feed my animals.

So why would I want to eat a corn that has been forced to house a KNOWN toxin that has been forced into its genes? Or a tomato that has been crossed with fish genes? If it can't happen in nature, then I don't want it for food.

Does that mean I am anti-science? Hardly. Science has gotten us to where we are today. Whether we are better off is a whole 'nother argument.

 

[chickengeorgeto]

Here is more info on the study with rats and gmo corn:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/

I encourage everyone to open and read the above link posted to supposedly prove how dangerous GMOs are.

And here is what your link had to say about rats, GM Corn and cancer.

Does the word "Retraction" mean anything to you? Well the link you posted is about the "Almost Universal Scorn" that the "research" was met with in the scientific community and that communities demands that the so called "study" be retracted for (chose one) scientific fraud on the one hand or scientific ignorance on the other hand.. It is obvious from the first sentence that you never opened and read the link that you posted, you just assumed that it was helpful, so sad.

You know rookie39, you really should take the time to open and read the links that you post instead of flinging brown stuff against the wall like a psychotic monkey and hopping that some of it sticks.

The above post is a riot of a SNAFU LOL LOL LOL just what I would expect from a GMO activist.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/

Now please explain how you proved anything except that you don't (I won't mention the other option) read the links that you post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[rookie39]

I encourage everyone to open and read the above link posted to supposedly prove how dangerous GMOs are.

And here is what your link had to say about rats, GM Corn and cancer.   Does the word "Retraction" mean anything to you?  Well the link you posted is about the "Almost Universal Scorn" that the "research" was met with in the scientific community and that communities demands that the so called "study" be retracted for (chose one) scientific fraud on the one hand or scientific ignorance on the other hand..  It is obvious from the first sentence that you never opened and read the link that you posted, you just assumed that it was helpful, so sad.

You know rookie39, you really should take the time to open and read the links that you post instead of flinging brown stuff against the wall like a psychotic monkey and hopping that some of it sticks.

The above post is a riot of a SNAFU  LOL LOL LOL  just what I would expect from a GMO activist.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/

Now please explain how you proved anything except that you don't (I won't mention the other option) read the links that you post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[rookie39]

Like i said ignorance doesn't change reality.. Here is another opinion for ya http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...social&utm_content=lead&utm_campaign=20140520
All you do is attack it only makes you look like the immature idiot. Tell me since your so smart why is the dept. of agriculture purchasing weapons and body armor or is that a farce too. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...rders-Submachine-Guns-With-30-Round-Magazines
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/15/Dept-of-Agriculture-Orders-Ballistic-Body-Armor