Monsanto Fingerprints Found All Over Attack On Organic Food

[womanofthehills]

Academics Carry Monsanto’s Message

Academics Review was co-founded by “two independent professors ... on opposite ends of the planet,” Bruce Chassy, Ph.D., professor emeritus at University of Illinois, and David Tribe, Ph.D., senior lecturer at University of Melbourne. They claim the group “only accepts unrestricted donations from non-corporate sources.”

Yet two email exchanges in 2010 reveal plans to find corporate funding for Academics Review while keeping corporate fingerprints hidden.

Monsanto’s motives in attacking the organic industry are obvious: Monsanto’s seeds and chemicals are banned from use in organic farming, and a large part of Monsanto’s messaging is that its products are superior to organics as tools to boost global food production.

Byrne shared an “opportunities” list of targets comprised of people, groups and content critical of GMOs and Monsanto: Vandana Shiva, Andrew Kimbrell, Ronnie Cummins, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Michael Pollan’s book “In Defense of Food,” the movies “Food, Inc” and “The World According to Monsanto,” and “topic cross-over on all the risk areas of ag-biotech (out crossing/ contamination, bees, butterflies, human safety, etc...).”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-malkan/monsanto-fingerprints-fou_b_10757524.html

[Scientific]

1. Tragically, true. Beware the Chem Trolls

Last edited Sun Jul 3, 2016, 10:22 AM - Edit history (1)

GMO & Chem Trolls flood the Internet and systematically attack clean, organic food and farms, meanwhile pumping out distorted information on their corporate genetic manipulations, chemical gushing, and thee latter-day plague they have loosed upon humanity of the herbicide glyphosate infesting our food, our wine, our beer, our tampons - and our bodies.

GMO & Chem Trolls are everywhere. By swarming the Internet as they have, they have undermined the credibility of science. That really ticks me off. Science used to be reliable, dependable, trustable. But the conflicts of interest in the corporate scientific community and the corporate PR trolls have bent and distorted science to such a degree that now a high percentage of Americans have come to mistrust science, knowing that corporations have manipulated it for profit.

Financial Conflicts at National Academy Advisory Panel on the Future of GMO Regulation
"The National Academy of Sciences needs to urgently address its one-sided work on GMOs say public-interest groups, farmer organisations, and academics. In a letter sent to the Academy’s president today, dozens of stakeholders drew attention to what they called a 'troubling trend' at the prestigious scientific institution and its work on agricultural biotechnology..."

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/conflicts-at-national-academy-advisory-panel-on-gmo-regulation/

[PatSeg]

15. Yes

The Chem Trolls are everywhere now and they use mockery and derision to belittle those who question Monsanto and GMOs. Neil Degrasse Tyson covered corporate sponsored science in his vanity show Cosmos and turned around and mocked people who had concerns about Monsanto, GMOs, and glyphosate.

Though I believe we can trust the scientific process, that does not mean we can always trust the human beings who are involved. Power, greed, and ego can distort a lot of data and studies.

Thanks for the link!

[bbgrunt]

27. exactly. well said.

[ZombieHorde]

45. They're almost as bad as the pro-vaccine or evolution trolls.

World-wide scientific consensus is stupid or doesn't exist or something. I'm joking, of course. There's been tons of peer-reviewed, scientific studies, by many different scientific organizations, other than Monsanto, and the extreme vast majority of them say GMOs are just as safe as organic food. Denying GMO safety is just as much science denial as denying vaccine safety or evolution.

Monsanto isn't even that bad of a company. Many of the things I have read about them are indeed terrible, but then those things turn out to not be true. In my opinion, Apple is a less ethical company than Monsanto, because the factories Apple uses had to install suicide nets in order to help keep the workers from jumping out the windows due to the horrific working conditions. Yet Apple is loved while Monsanto is demonized.

[classykaren]

2. Monsanto and Walmart top of my list of hated companies.

[Person 2713]

3. Keep doing the good work Ronnie Cummins /Minnesota

[JackRiddler]

25. Example of kitchen sink defense.

Last edited Sun Jul 3, 2016, 03:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Monsanto, which patents life-forms so as to forcibly extract annual tributes from impoverished farmers in India (on edit: among others elsewhere), driving thousands of them to death, deserves immediate expropriation and prosecution of its executives just for its business model. Worthy of a James Bond villain, they seek and have gained (by Supreme Court rulings, no less) unlimited rights to sue farmers who don't even use their seeds but who suffer contamination from neighboring fields.

But imagine if, for whatever reason, your task was to defend this corporate evildoer! Tough job. You can't actually address the criticisms. The only strategy is to distract. For example, you could engage in ad hominem attacks by free-association. Hit Monsanto's critics with a string of completely irrelevant and unconnected claims that no one says about Monsanto (which is not, for example, a maker of vaccines or a provider of fluoride). Don't forget to throw the kitchen sink. Shameful and stupid, but effective with some.

Most importantly: distract from capitalism. Pretend the critics are not pointing out the routine barbarism of capitalism as practiced by Monsanto. Under no circumstance say capitalism. Rather, always say "science." Make "science" into a synonym for the private, for-profit corporation you are (for whatever reason) defending. The corporations's critics are to be hit with a blanket claim (a lie) that they are "anti-science."

[PatSeg]

29. Nailed it

Absolutely the best comment I've read on this subject. Thank you!

Edit to add, I am saving it for future reference.

[Scientific]

30. Nail it II

Astute analysis, Jack Riddler. We see that Kitchen Sink GMO & Chem Troll strategy all the time.

[JackRiddler]

38. Run away then...

there's nothing to say to those who abuse the name of science in the service of capitalist looting machines like Monsanto.

[appal_jack]

10. Your assertion is verifiably false.

Directly from the article linked in the OP:

Executives for Monsanto Co., the world’s leading purveyor of agrichemicals and genetically engineered seeds, along with key Monsanto allies, engaged in fund raising for Academics Review, collaborated on strategy and even discussed plans to hide industry funding, according to emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know via state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

But don't let facts harsh your Buzz there, Clik.

-app

[JackRiddler]

39. Cannot be repeated often enough.

Executives for Monsanto Co., the world’s leading purveyor of agrichemicals and genetically engineered seeds, along with key Monsanto allies, engaged in fund raising for Academics Review, collaborated on strategy and even discussed plans to hide industry funding, according to emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know via state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

[Major Nikon]

52. ...

Non Sequitur

[AntiBank]

17. you have

[HuckleB]

28. AR is an industry funded marketing arm, so is the organic funded organization that wrote the OP.

Somehow that reality is lost on most of those responding here. And the OP doesn't even try to debunk any AR claims with any actual science, because, well, it can't.

No one on this page can debunk any of this, for example: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/04/report-fast-growing-organics-industry-is-intentionally-deceptive/#.V3rLjzeMCqQ

[JackRiddler]

35. I'm glad that a legitimate industry has organized to defend itself...

against the big-corporate offensive of those who would claim ownership to life-forms and use that ownership to extract annual tribute out of all the farmers they can possibly hit up.

[Major Nikon]

53. An industry whose entire marketing strategy relies on disinformation isn't legitimate

Furthermore using industry funds to attack a business opponent for using industry funds is not just a small example of hypocrisy.

Our regulations do not address food safety or nutrition.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/national-organic-program

[HuckleB]

61. An entire industry that must market itself with lies is not legitimate.

Further, the organic industry set itself up to aim for greater profits by lying about its competition, working to create baseless fear among the populace so people will spend more money on thei products. It is unethical to the core. And people fighting against the disinformation are not the enemy. They are fighting for true progressive principles.

[womanofthehills]

42. Denmark and Russia going organic and GMO free - organic movement growing big time

Will Denmark Become the World’s First 100% Organic Country?

Denmark wants to go completely organic “as soon as possible,” LifeGate reported. But at least one country has an even more ambitious plan than Denmark. Five years ago, Bhutan pledged to go 100 percent organic by 2020. To be fair though, Bhutan’s population (754,000) is dwarfed by Denmark’s (5.6 million). Still, Bhutan has some impressive claims. It’s not only carbon neutral, it’s also a carbon sink—making it one of the few countries in the world to have negative carbon emissions

http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/30/denmark-organic-food/

Russia Wants to Be World’s Top Exporter of Non-GMO Food

Russia—which largely opposes genetically modified food (GMOs) and is stamping out GMOs in its entire food production—wants to be world’s largest exporter of non-GMO food, according to RT.
In a speech given to Russian Parliament last week, President Vladimir Putin announced his intention to be the world’s biggest supplier of “ecologically clean and high-quality food” and criticized GMO food production in western countries even though demand for organic food has soared exponentially in recent years.

“We are not only able to feed ourselves taking into account our lands, water resources—Russia is able to become the largest world supplier of healthy, ecologically clean and high-quality food which the Western producers have long lost, especially given the fact that demand for such products in the world market is steadily growing,” he said.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/09/russia-non-gmo-food/

Putin also said that in the last decade, Russia has gone from importing half of its food to becoming a net exporter. Putin claims that Russia now makes more money from selling food than from selling weapons and fuel.

[NNadir]

6. Ignorance kills people.

A body of the world's most prominent scientists, Nobel Laureates, are trying to address this sort of thing.

I covered it elsewhere: 109 Nobel Laureates sign a letter slamming Greenpeace.

We hear all sorts of people on the far left who know no science but hate it anyway. Clearly the scientific community is fighting back, and it's none too soon.

Enjoy the rest of the holiday weekend.

[roody]

8. Will do. Eating my good, organic food.

[womanofthehills]

43. Eating my good organic food too

I'm really not into eating antibiotics, hormones, and Roundup.

[HuckleB]

20. It's truly sad to see the type of hyperbole in the OP pushed in a progressive forum.

No one spends time defending specific corporations, but if you defend the scientific consensus you will be painted as someone who does. It's truly unethical, and yet DU allows these types of attacks, and many here think they're grand.

The piece in the OP is written by an organization funded by the organic industry. The hypocrisy is astounding.

More on the recent story that has been ignored by DU, for the most part.
https://storify.com/mem_somerville/nobel-award-winners-ask-greenpeace-to-stand-on-sci

[Chathamization]

46. That letter is a pretty good example of how both sides are filled with nutcases

From the letter:

How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a "crime against humanity"?

[NNadir]

47. As the Nobel Laureates point out, and I certainly agree, anti-GMO crap is, in fact, a crime...

...against humanity.

Genetic modification is, and always has been, a feature of something called "life." The word for it is "evolution."

This undeniable fact makes anti-GMO horseshit exactly and precisely equivalent to creationism.

[Chathamization]

49. "The climate is always changing! Why are people worried about climate change?" -Rightwing cranks

The climate is always changing, yet climate change has a particular meaning. All organisms are genetically modified, yet GMOs have a particular meaning (used to refer to living modified organisms as defined by the Cartagena Protocol). Not really sure if the "ALL ORGANISMS ARE GMOS!!!" crowd are just ignorant or intentionally pushign misinformation, but either way they probably shouldn't be addressing the subject.

[NNadir]

50. This is a very poor response, completely consistent with the scientific illiteracy of anti-GMO...

...rhetoric.

There is no sense even talking to people who make such specious associations. They neither know anything about genetics, nor about climate change.

[Chathamization]

51. Sorry, but your statement was as ignorant as the right-wing climate change denier rhetoric.

Yes, the climate is always changing and yes, all life is genetically modified. But climate change refers to a specific change in the climate (anthropomorphic climate change), and GMO refer to a specific kind of genetically modified organism (living modified organisms as defined in the Cartagena Protocol).

Ignoring what people are actually referring to and trying to create a new literal definition of the term with a completely different meaning is what both GMO-boosters and right-wing climate change deniers do. And you're absolutely correct: "There is no sense even talking to people who make such specious associations. They neither know anything about genetics, nor about climate change."

[randr]

7. Many discussions on this board re: GMOs or Organic food

end up with trolls all over them.
Monsanto has special interest in the posters here on DU.

[rachael7]

9. Happens Everywhere

Any board with people that dare question the awesomeness of GMOs will be filled with agribusiness lobbyist trolls. It's a very well funded and widespread effort. They are easy to identify because they typically start by linking any criticism of GMOs to antivax, anti-science, and/or any random conspiracy theory. When I see that behavior, I just immediately put them on ignore. There are too many agri-trolls to get away from, but not too many to put on the ignore list.

[AntiBank]

19. indeed indeed

[PatSeg]

18. They hijacks these threads

quickly and often double-team people, until they are the only ones left in the "discussion". It is really annoying, as this happens to be a very important topic and deserves reasonable and unbiased discussion.

[AntiBank]

23. I am waiting for them to start using "GMO Denialist"

[PatSeg]

26. Thanks, I needed a laugh!

The "anti science" label is getting a little old I think.

[Major Nikon]

54. Banal nonsense

For many anti-GMO activists, Monsanto assumes the role of Satan in Christianity; a faceless corporation that is responsible for all harms supposedly caused by GM crops. The belief in the malevolent meddling of the company in all areas of science and politics is so strong that it is used as an escape hatch — a variation on the shill gambit called an "appeal to Monsanto," or "argumentum ad Monsantum."[28][29] Any information that challenges the views held by anti-GMO activists can be disregarded by claiming that the source was bribed by the corporation.[30][31] For example, when Mark Lynas changed his stance on GMOs, the Organic Consumers Association immediately accused him of taking kickbacks from biotech companies — listing Monsanto first.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Monsanto#Appeal_to_Monsanto

[roody]

66. That's why we call it Monsatan.

[Major Nikon]

68. Obviously

[ananda]

11. Monsatan

Nothing but pure evil.

[maindawg]

12. They never rest

When the good guys win one we rest. When the bad guys lose they fight harder. They never rest and when they win they see that as a reason to redouble their efforts. When we sleep they are working. Monsanto will not rest until they own and destroy everything on the planet.

[IronLionZion]

13. Except Monsanto has jumped into organic farming years ago

along with many other large corporations once they found out that the popularity was going to continue. They often do it through subsidiaries since people distrust their name.


Monsanto Is Going Organic in a Quest for the Perfect Veggie
http://www.wired.com/2014/01/new-monsanto-vegetables/

http://www.monsanto.com/improvingagriculture/pages/organic-and-conventional-agriculture.aspx

I am NOT a fan of this company. But the article doesn't provide very much evidence of the collaboration on studies. It is certainly possible that they are playing both sides of this, but they are definitely profiting from organic farming.

[HuckleB]

21. Exactly. Monsanto sells all types of seeds.

Somehow that reality is ignored by those who prefer a less realistic view of the world.

BTW, the piece in the OP is from an organization funded by the organic industry. The hypocrisy doesn't get much more blatant than that.

And, funny enough, the piece can't debunk any actual claims made by Academics Review. Hmm.

[skepticscott]

34. Yes, there is this weird delusion

that "organic" farming and food production is just a bunch of mom-and-pop, grass-roots, community-based, locally sourced outfits that never try to exercise political clout by (horrors) lobbying and who never engage in propaganda of any kind.

[Major Nikon]

55. As are Dean, Cargill, and ConAgra

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Organic_food#Organic_woo

[Octafish]

14. Corporate Truth is like Corporate Science.

You get what you pay for. Like a Discredit Bureau.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/27/1373484/-Monsanto-s-Discredit-Bureau-Swings-into-Action#

[PatSeg]

22. Thanks for the link

"One student asked what Monsanto was doing to counter the “bad science” around their work. Dr. Moar, perhaps forgetting that this was a public event, then revealed that Monsanto indeed had “an entire department” (waving his arm for emphasis) dedicated to “debunking” science which disagreed with theirs. As far as I know this is the first time that a Monsanto functionary has publically admitted that they have such an entity which brings their immense political and financial weight to bear on scientists who dare to publish against them. The Discredit Bureau will not be found on their official website."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/27/1373484/-Monsanto-s-Discredit-Bureau-Swings-into-Action#

That sums it up beautifully.

[villager]

16. Yet if you're a self-described "skeptic," all corporate spin and claims go unquestioned

The only thing you're allowed to be "skeptical" about is whenever official and/or profit-based narratives are dare challenged...

[HuckleB]

24. The piece in the OP is written by an organization funded by the organic industry.

Got hypocrisy?

And the organic industry's deceitful, unethical marketing practices are criticized by scientists around the world. It's time to be honest. Your fellow citizens need that.

https://storify.com/mem_somerville/nobel-award-winners-ask-greenpeace-to-stand-on-sci

[Archae]

31. Yup. "Organic" is not what it is painted to be.

Organic farmers are not a group of nature loving, hippie farmers tenderly watering each plant.

They are big business. The Organic Growers' Association is a major-league lobby, with budgets in the millions.

In addition to their high-priced lobbying, they regularly put out really vile propaganda, like this:



It has no basis in reality, but is simply produced to scare people, the way dictatorships put out propaganda to scare their people.

[Scientific]

44. Ha ha - hilarious

Jumping on a thread about how Corporate GMO & Chem Trolls routinely attack organic food in order to launch your own discreditable attack organic food. Brilliant parody.! You win the thread for your Theater of the Absurd joke. Top notch. Bully for you. Worthy of Monty Python. Thanks for the knee-slapper. ROFLMAO.

[Archae]

48. And just what have I said that isn't true?

You guys have ANYTHING to back up your claims?
I thought so. Zilch.

Organic producers are scared shitless of GMO's, if they catch on, organic producers will lose out, big time.

So they put out lies and propaganda attacking GMO's that have ZERO basis in actual science and facts.

Now try actually using Science, not just pretending.

[HuckleB]

60. One has to wonder why posters who can't support their claims, ...

... Over and over again, never seem to wonder why.

[Scientific]

32. That so-called Nobel-Greenpeace story is a Biotech Huckster, Inc. PR Poo Party

You should read up on what is being found out about the corporate hucksters & chem trolls who are flinging that "story" around. You will be appalled.

[HuckleB]

33. 110 Nobel Laureates stand up for science, and you pretend it's something else.

That's pretty disturbing.

https://storify.com/mem_somerville/nobel-award-winners-ask-greenpeace-to-stand-on-sci

Meanwhile, the piece in the OP is actual organic industry PR, and you don't seem to care about that.

[JackRiddler]

37. How many of them are agricultural scientists?

[HuckleB]

57. You haven't even bothered to see who is on the list?

And you are going to pretend that the vast majority of the world's ag researchers don't agree with them?

[JackRiddler]

77. This is a leading question and typical of your unethical tactics.

Obviously I have looked and like a good lawyer don't mind asking a question I already know the answer to. How many agricultural scientists are on that list?

[HuckleB]

83. I'm not the one who is unethical.

Calling me that is absolutely not ok, when you have refused to be fully honest with DU about your posts on this topic.

[JackRiddler]

86. More unethical avoidance of the question.

[HuckleB]

87. No one is avoiding anything other than your repeated avoidance of correcting misinformation.

Seriously, WTH?

[JackRiddler]

88. Still not touching the question.

[HuckleB]

89. Enjoy your pointless red herring silliness.

Get back to me when you can discuss the issue based in reality.

[JackRiddler]

90. Reality. Ethics. Science. Responsibility. Etc. etc.

You've learned the lesson that repeating words that sound good is more important than addressing the issues, which you continue to avoid as you repeat the same talking points over and over on behalf of the side you have chosen. Nothing more than team-sports behavior. Deeply unethical.

[Scientific]

41. No need to pretend anything. The facts speak for themselves. This is Biotech PR hookwinkery

Get the facts.

You will be appalled at how the corporate GMO PR trolls have undermined the integrity and good reputation of science.

[Major Nikon]

56. Sure, look at how many genuine scientists have claimed chemtrails are nonsense

[HuckleB]

58. Your fictions have been shown for what they are, over and over again.

Why do you continue to peddle them, anyway?

[JackRiddler]

78. Plus, it's pushing the discredited "Golden Rice" mythology.

Golden rice doesn't actually help solve Vitamin A deficiency but is pimped out as a solution to blindness through poor nutrition -- which is a very dangerous lie, like all the lies about GMOs as solutions to world hunger, because it distracts from the real causes of inequality and poverty. But it's a handy talking point that serves commercial interests, so it refuses to die.

Golden rice has already failed on the market and the ags aren't even bothering to market it. Its failures had nothing to do with anti-GMO campaigning. But the ags continue to flog this now-old letter from 2008 or 2009 (which includes a number of signatures from now dead people) as part of their strategy of confusing all issues as much as possible, to paint any critique of GMOs (and the related business model) as "anti-science." Related to the confusionism is what you see on this thread with the "kitchen sink" nonsense throwing in completely unrelated matters.

[Humanist_Activist]

81. Why post things that are so easily discredited?

Even by the main Wikipedia article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

What related business model are you talking about? You mean all the shit people criticize that has NOTHING to do with GMOs?

Do you have any reasonable objections to GMOs that aren't related to such general topics as capitalism or industrial agriculture?

[JackRiddler]

82. "Such general topics as capitalism."

Last edited Wed Jul 6, 2016, 11:58 AM - Edit history (1)

I guess you are a big fan of the system that will mainly go down in history for burning the biosphere - or are you also a climate-change denialist?

Nevertheless I speak to the highly specific business model of claiming ownership over living organisms for the purpose of forcing annual profit extraction. Something very easy to understand, yet you seem incapable of talking about it. I wonder why.

Do you have any arguments for your position on behalf of the ags' rent extraction that aren't blanket claims of "science" -- on a level with those once advanced by the phrenologists and snake-oil salesmen?

[Humanist_Activist]

84. You do realize that that SAME issue predates GMOs and applies to hybrids, right?

Not to mention that large industrial farms generally don't save seeds so that, for one, they don't have to set aside part of the harvest/product to not sell, and two, so that when they plant seeds for the next year, they can be assured by the seed company that the product will be consistent.

So I ask again, do you have an issue with GMOs, as a technique for producing organisms that is ONLY related to GMOs and not to other methods of genetic manipulation or making/raising produce?

[bhikkhu]

40. Monsanto and the organic food corps are both primarily involved in generating profit

ideally through delivering products that people want to buy. But if you can build a bit more margin by smearing your competitor, that's fair game too, just business, and it works or not depending on how many people fall for it. Manipulating consumers into buying your product and not the competitor's is at the core of marketing and advertising in every sector.

In principle I'm most fond of the organic side, and in my own garden generally grew heirloom varieties and saved seeds. But that doesn't mean I have to buy into anti-science and innuendo. They do that because it helps build their market share (slim as it is) and justify higher prices and higher margins. That's ok with me, as higher margins are needed for smaller farmers to survive, and organic and heirloom varieties are a good niche for smaller farmers.

On the other hand I have no problem with GMO's, and the world we have would be quite different if not for the green revolution, industrial agriculture, new strains of high-producing and drought resistant crops. With climate change the challenges will only be greater, and selective breeding is a very slow way to genetically engineer better crops. If we can do it more directly and with more thorough understanding, why wouldn't we?.

[Humanist_Activist]

59. Organic is fine for small scale gardening, etc. But at large scale production levels..

its not really any better for the environment or people's health than conventional farming.

You post seems to be pretty balanced otherwise, and I agree with most of it.

[Major Nikon]

62. "Organic" for small scale gardening is even less meaningless

It's also impractical for small scale commercial farming. The costs associated with organic certification put it out of reach for most small scale producers.

[Humanist_Activist]

63. True, just thinking of people who have their own little tomato gardens and stuff and decide to...

not use pesticides or herbicides, and don't worry too much about "certification". Growing up we had an awesome neighbor who would give us free tomatoes all the time. They were good, inconsistent as far as size and shape compared to the grocery store, but, what the hell, it was free.

I mean, I guess you couldn't call it "certified organic" then again, that didn't exist when I was growing up. He was just an old guy who was a retired widower with a lot of time on his hands. He put such time to good use, and wasn't too nosy either. lol

[Major Nikon]

64. There's all sorts of advantages to doing it yourself

You can grow higher quality varietals that aren't well suited to commercial production, and allow them to truly vine ripen.

"Organic" even when certified doesn't mean organic, and the whole thing is nothing more than a marketing strategy anyway. So it's not as if it really means anything to begin with.

[roody]

67. Agribusiness feeds livestock, not people.

It is unsustainable.

[Humanist_Activist]

71. That's an argument to have everyone switch to a vegan or vegetarian diet...

conventional farming methods to raise those crops would still be better for the environment than "certified organic" methods.

[JackRiddler]

79. Now now, it doesn't have to be everyone.

Less meat-eating can and should be encouraged and helped along through enlightenment and a shifting of subsidies.

[JackRiddler]

80. Now now, it also feeds fuel tanks.

Let's not forget the hungry fuel tanks, okay? We've got to start thinking about how to support more conversion of food into fuel and making sure the strongest Democratic candidate emerges from Iowa in 2020, okay?

[Scientific]

65. Wrong. Only small Farmers and Agroecology can feed the World, says the UN

Be careful. You got duped into repeating a corporate talking point that has long ago been discredited. Tragically, that's one of industry's attack lines on clean organic farms and food. I am sure that as you learn this you will find that fact upsetting, so as a consolation here's a link to much more accurate presentation of the truth around this critical issue:

UN: only small Farmers and Agroecology can feed the World

"Governments must shift subsidies and research funding from agro-industrial monoculture to small farmers using 'agroecological' methods, according to Hilal Elver, UN's Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. Her call coincides with a new agroecology initiative within the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation.

"Modern industrial agricultural methods can no longer feed the world, due to the impacts of overlapping environmental and ecological crises linked to land, water and resource availability..."

https://www.tni.org/en/article/un-only-small-farmers-and-agroecology-can-feed-world

[Major Nikon]

69. That's not what the UN said, nor did they say anything about "organic"

[PatSeg]

70. Crickets............

Obviously nothing in the playback to respond to this, as yet anyway.

[Humanist_Activist]

72. You know that says nothing about organic farming, organic farming is industrial farming...

in most of the world.

[PatSeg]

73. It is about Agroecology

"We are being far too kind to industrialised agriculture. The private sector has endorsed it, but it has failed to feed the world, it has contributed to major environmental contamination and misuse of natural resources. It's time we switched more attention, public funds and policy measures to agroecology, to replace the old model as soon as possible."

Prof Sergio Sauer, formerly Brazil's National Rapporteur for Human Rights in Land, Territory and Food, added: "Agroecology is related to the way you relate to land, to nature to each other - it is more than just organic production, it is a sustainable livelihood.

https://www.tni.org/en/article/un-only-small-farmers-and-agroecology-can-feed-world

Definition of "agroecology" - an ecological approach to agriculture that views agricultural areas as ecosystems and is concerned with the ecological impact of agricultural practices

I would say that this is more complex than our idea of "organic".

[Humanist_Activist]

74. The issue is that our "organic" is very destructive to the environment, generally speaking...

agriecology sounds good on paper, but not really practical with real world applications.

Agriculture, since we started it, has been hugely destructive to the biosphere of the Earth, animal and plant diversity has plummeted since we started. At this time, we have farmed practically all the arable land available on Earth, so we have a choice, find ways to expand to areas not as arable, destroying those ecosystems, or find ways to increase yields on available land.

The fact is that while we grow more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet, there's huge logistical issues in trying to distribute that food equably. What we need to concentrate on is trying to find techniques and technologies that can allow small scale farms to not be stuck with subsistence farming that's one bad harvest away from starvation in their locality.

This means, and people will hate it, there will need to be better access to technologies such as effective herbicides and pesticides, fertilizers, etc. that can dramatically help increase yields on smaller farms. Frankly speaking, the opening premise of the quote you made is completely false, and the rest of the argument doesn't really reflect any changes. You can try to treat agriculture like an ecology, and see yields fall, and more people will end up starving as a result.

[PatSeg]

75. Sorry

I'm inclined to agree with Dr. Mindi Schneider, though you are obviously entitled to your opinion.

[HuckleB]

76. And, yet again, you post misinformation.

https://thoughtscapism.com/2015/09/21/myth-un-calls-for-small-scale-organic-farming/

[Rex]

85. There is a war going on between GMOs and organic produced food.

Let the mega-corporation with the biggest war chest win!