# Does the scientific community find Organic foodies and Climate change deniers equally ignoble ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 1, 2019, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119 "2019-10-01T21:48:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/21 "2019-10-02T13:29:00Z")
While there seems to be a solid consensus (at least among nutrition and agriculture scientists) that organic foods do not offer health benefits superior to those of non-organic (inorganic?) foods, I doubt the scientific community views organic food advocates as being anywhere near as reprehensible as climate change deniers. On a philosophical level, lying and misrepresentation, no matter what the issue may be seen as equally abhorrent. But as previously noted, the stakes are considerably higher when it comes to resisting efforts to minimize harm from climatic change. Speaking of consensus (and to correct an earlier misstatement in this thread), there’s a strong consensus that glyphosate (Roundup) is _not_ a carcinogen. Reviews by public health/safety institutions around the world overwhelmingly [support this view](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5515989/). As for another erroneous statement, opposition to golden rice is not based on fears of “economic exploitation of farmers”, at least not in any logical sense. Licenses to golden rice technology [are granted free of charge](http://goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how9_IP.php) to breeding institutions and farmers in poor countries, and farmers are free to save seed and replant it or sell the seed if they wish. It’s clear that opposition to golden rice is overwhelmingly based on anti-GMOers’ fear that once the project succeeds, public hesitancy about GMO foods will be greatly diminished. Ideology-based opponents can’t have that, no matter what the cost to public health in poor countries. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/22 "2019-10-02T15:21:04Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > _Some_ organic farming cycles resources, promotes ecological balance, and conserves biodiversity. And some “chemical” farming does all those things, too, and some organic farming works directly counter to all of those things. “Organic” and “sustainable” are completely unrelated, and if you want the one, you shouldn’t ask for the other. > > But organic food is harmless at worst. Climate change denial is extremely harmful. In the mid-to-late-nineties, there were no federal organic standards. Organic agriculture was decidedly small-business, and most of the folks farming organically either were farmers wanting to minimize their impact on their local environment, or were family farmers looking for a niche market that would allow them to keep their family farm and not sell out to a big business. Then Cascadian Farms was sold to Roy Disney’s conglomerate, and other major businesses entered the field. They lobbied for, and got, national organic standards that were very friendly toward large farms. A lot of smaller organic farmers couldn’t afford the new certification process and got pushed out of the field. Organic farming got gentrified. At this point, I don’t much care about an organic label, because it doesn’t have much to do with environmental impact. But it used to, and the dilution of the concept by agribusiness is a damn shame. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/23 "2019-10-03T02:33:13Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > Were you actually replying to **Kimstu**? My post mentioned nothing about non-GMO foods or organic farming practices. Mea culpa. Being pro-organic usually goes hand-in-hand with anti-GMO and so I interpreted your post as being pro-organic and anti-GMO. If that was not your intent then please accept my apology. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Golden Rice isn’t such a persuasive example for your point, because what many of its opponents are primarily expressing is not some kind of ill-informed anti-scientific paranoia about genetic modification in and of itself (although such paranoia does exist). Rather, what they’re chiefly concerned about, as your own cite points out, is the high potential for economic exploitation of farmers and the environment for the sake of profit. > > I agree that it’s a tragedy for poor people to incur death and disability due to preventable causes. But distrusting the good intentions of corporate agriculture multinationals is not the same thing as denying science. I disagree; I think it’s is an excellent example and your response illustrates why. Golden Rice is a technology that can help prevent the death or blindness of a million children every year, largely in poorer countries and yet you exhibit skepticism based largely on FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) regarding big pharma/agro and their practices. This is very similar to tactics used by anti-vaxxers. The science (and facts) say otherwise: Golden Rice has been deemed safe by multiple trustworthy authorities and is considered a humanitarian triumph. The rice is free for small farmers and they are allowed to replant any resulting seeds. Besides, if your concern is largely due to economic exploitation then a bad solution is to ban a product that can literally save millions of lives; it would make more sense to ban the economic practices. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/24 "2019-10-03T04:06:03Z")
I’m a scientist and I think climate change deniers are dumb and are really truly awful. I am not sure if they are worse than anti-vaxers; probably about just as odious. Organic food weenies are much further down the ladder, as are ardent (faith-based) recyclers, anti-GMO nutjobs, and anti-nuclear evangelists. At least there is some basis for belief in these cases though their beliefs are simplistic and often wrong. Sometimes right, but often wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/25 "2019-10-03T05:30:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > What do you think the organic food position is? That organic foods are better for you? Might be, in a small way. That animals should not suffer? That’s an ethical, not a scientific, position. That all non-organic farming should be banned? Haven’t heard of this as a real position. > > If the organic position prevails, the impact on the world would be slightly negative at best. If the climate denial position prevails, you who are younger than me are likely to be in deep shit. And not organic manure. I don’t think death by starvation of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, counts as slightly negative. Hardcore organic and anti GMO people are like antivaxers in a way, they benefit from the situation created by the things they oppose and just don’t see it or care because they are in a privileged position that would isolate them from the devastating consequences of what they are advocating. Vlogger Myles Power has done quite a few videos showing the negative (and some outright sinister) aspects of anti-GMO advocacy. [This one for example mainly focused on Vanda Shiva, quote from the video description:](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygV2DfHIatw) _“I am lucky enough to live in a part of the world in a time where I would have to go out of my way to experience the physical sensation of hunger. It is a luxury that few in history have had, and one that I have never taken for granted, however, some do. There are people out there who view their high standard of living, where they have easy access to relatively cheap nutritional food, as the baseline. They have no appreciation, in fact I would go as so far as to say that some have a disdain, for the very technology that is allowing them to live so well. They fetishise the past and yearn for a time when everything was grown organically, without fertilisers or pesticides and there was no hunger… a time that never existed! Despite having a child-like understanding of food production, they believe they have the right to dictate how the less fortunate grow their food, all the while safe in the knowledge that no matter what they do/say, it will not affect them. These are the people who oppose the technological advances made during the Green Revolution and who, if they ever got their way, would be responsible for the death of over a billion people and the malnutrition of many more.”_ So… toss up I guess, on one hand people that in their ignorance would not stop things that could lead to the deaths of millions and in the other people that in their ignorance would stop things that keep millions of people alive. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/26 "2019-10-03T05:33:53Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > I still don’t get why you chose these two wildly disparate issues. Anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers I could understand because both groups deny mountains of scientific evidence and endanger many other people in the process. But organic food fans? Who are they harming, exactly? And how does it harm them to buy or grow organic foods? Because if all food would be grown according to their principles there wouldn’t be enough food to feed all people on Earth. IMO advocating for something that would slowly, painfully kill millions of the most downtrodden people on the planet is kind of problematic, good intentions notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/27 "2019-10-03T13:00:57Z")
> [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > Your citations don’t rebut my claim. Take the wiki article - the word science does not appear. The word marketing appears several times. > > You appear to be attempting to rebut a strawman who claimed the word didn’t exist or that it had no meaning whatsoever. I made the claim that the word wasn’t scientific, but was instead a marketing term… and you provide cites about how it’s defined for use in marketing materials. “Corinthian leather” is a marketing term. It means nothing. The actual leather came from new Jersey. Organic means “grown without pesticides, without synthetic fertilizers, and without GMO”. The first one has actual (small and possibly undetectable) health benefits, per the uptick in cancer from glycophosphate and the likely other unknown problems with pesticides. The second and third are still things a farmer has claimed to have done, with some level of enforcement. They didn’t just slap a label on it that says organic, a lot of labor was involved. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/28 "2019-10-03T19:19:41Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > I don’t think death by starvation of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, counts as slightly negative. > Hardcore organic and anti GMO people are like antivaxers in a way, they benefit from the situation created by the things they oppose and just don’t see it or care because they are in a privileged position that would isolate them from the devastating consequences of what they are advocating. Pro-organic != anti-GMO. And as I said, I’m unaware of organic food proponents who want to ban non-organic farming. I’m pro-GMO, btw, though I worry about the monoculture issue and the increased control by the seed companies - neither of which means GMO foods are Frankenfood. We seem to be more organic than we used to be with little impact on the food supply. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/29 "2019-10-03T19:24:14Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > Because if all food would be grown according to their principles there wouldn’t be enough food to feed all people on Earth. > IMO advocating for something that would slowly, painfully kill millions of the most downtrodden people on the planet is kind of problematic, good intentions notwithstanding. Anti-vaxxers do harm because those not vaccinated by choice can infect those not vaccinated out of necessity. Choosing to buy organic food does no one any harm. Forcing others to only eat organic food would, but either show any mainstream organic advocates who want this or stop with the organic strawman. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/30 "2019-10-03T20:32:33Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > Because if all food would be grown according to their principles there wouldn’t be enough food to feed all people on Earth. This, by the way, is why I consider bonsai enthusiasts to be mass murderers. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/31 "2019-10-03T23:28:08Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This, by the way, is why I consider bonsai enthusiasts to be mass murderers. Also so are beef eaters. Each pound of beef could have been approximately 2 lbs of chicken with equal nutritional value. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/32 "2019-10-03T23:40:45Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Choosing to buy organic food does no one any harm. Forcing others to only eat organic food would, but either show any mainstream organic advocates who want this or stop with the organic strawman. There are certainly advocates who promote worldwide conversion to organic farming, [based on dubious claims](https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/11/organic-farming-can-feed-the-world-until-you-read-the-small-print/) (the referenced study argues that organic farming can feed the world, but only if the earth’s population is converted entirely to vegetarianism and we magically find a way to reduce food wastage by 50%). [This outfit](http://regenerationinternational.org/2018/10/22/organic-agriculture-can-feed-the-world/) has cherry-picked a number of small examples to make its case for universal organic farming, not always honestly. I picked one at random to check on. They cite an organic farming cotton project in India in claiming that its yields were 20% higher compared to neighboring conventional farms. As cited elsewhere, yields were said to be about the same as the neighboring farms, but the organic farmers supposedly did better because they could charge a 20% organic premium for the crop, which is not the same as “20% higher yields”. And what happens during a bad pest year? How do the organic cotton farmers do in comparison to those growing a GMO variety (_those_ farmers [have been highly successful](http://indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/gm-crops-boon-or-bio-hazard-1552379-2019-06-20)). I occasionally buy organic produce and would purchase it more often if it wasn’t so much more expensive, but am wary of pro-organic propaganda. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/33 "2019-10-03T23:44:44Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > I get it that Climate Change deniers will have a huge impact on Humankind’s future. Maybe the hoax of Organic foods has less impact (it has some impact on increased land and water usage) on the overall eco-system. > > Since both the groups are unscientific in their beliefs, do scientists detest both the groups equally ? Should they ? > > Maybe detest is strong word. If so, does the scientific community believe that both these groups need more education ? Should they ? They aren’t even close. And FWIW, I think ‘organic’ is made up, at least often, of woo, crystal power and unicorn tears (not all of it, but certainly a lot of it). The hysteria of GMO is probably more of an issue, but even that doesn’t rise to the level of climate denial. The only thing that comes close, IMHO, is the anti-vaxxer crowd, who are nearly as vile, and who cause a whole lot more deaths than climate denialists…at least, so far. But that is probably going to change in the next decade or so. At any rate, that’s the only thing that comes close, at least on the XT scale of scorn…and even there, I’d still give it to the climate denialists by a nose. It’s sort of like comparing communists to fascists…it’s really hard to tell which is most vile, but both ARE vile. Organic farming? Not even in the same universe. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/34 "2019-10-04T01:31:44Z")
Since organic seems to have morphed into anti-GMO, I would like to explain my take on that. First place, except for wild caught fish, virtually everything we eat has been genetically modified, often for millennia. The difference is that now it is done by people who actually know what their doing. And the results have been vetted, unlike the old way of plant breeding. Nonetheless, there are two points that can be made. First the big seed companies have essentially captured the process to the detriment of farmers. I didn’t know that golden rice was not subject to such restrictions. Second, one of the main uses has been to create crops that tolerant of weed killers, at least some of which (Roundup) are known carcinogens. That said, I am all in favor of GMOs in general. But even so, the anti-GMOers are not doing nearly as much damage as the anti-vaxxers and even they are not comparable to the climate change deniers who are mortgaging the future of our children in order to make a few more dollars. They are beneath contempt. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/35 "2019-10-04T03:10:58Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Pro-organic != anti-GMO. And as I said, I’m unaware of organic food proponents who want to ban non-organic farming. > I’m pro-GMO, btw, though I worry about the monoculture issue and the increased control by the seed companies - neither of which means GMO foods are Frankenfood. > We seem to be more organic than we used to be with little impact on the food supply. [“A key characteristic of organic farming is the rejection of genetically engineered plants and animals”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/36 "2019-10-04T07:04:37Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > [“A key characteristic of organic farming is the rejection of genetically engineered plants and animals”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming) So they think, but pretty much anything we grow has been genetically modified. However since buying GMOs means buying from seed companies, I think they have some basis for what they are really doing. Or do you want to force them to buy GMOs? I voted against the proposition in California to force GMO labeling because it was scare mongering. But let’s not pretend the big seed companies are charitable organizations out for the good of the world. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/37 "2019-10-04T07:17:46Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > So they think, but pretty much anything we grow has been genetically modified. > However since buying GMOs means buying from seed companies, I think they have some basis for what they are really doing. > Or do you want to force them to buy GMOs? > I voted against the proposition in California to force GMO labeling because it was scare mongering. But let’s not pretend the big seed companies are charitable organizations out for the good of the world. Indeed, I don’t have much time now, but I have looked at the issue and that bit about the golden rice patent holders as being humanitarian is not so clear. Also, not clear that people mind misguided environmentalists, in the case of golden rise there are more mundane reasons for the rice not being used a lot now like other crops before. > **[Genetically modified Golden Rice falls short on lifesaving promises - The...](https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises/)** > > Heralded on the cover of Time magazine in 2000 as a genetically modified (GMO) crop with the potential to save millions of lives in the Third World, Golden Rice is still years away from field introduction and even then, may fall short of lofty health... > [@](#): > > “Destroying test plots is a dubious way to express opposition, but this was only one small plot out of many plots in multiple locations over many years,” he said. “Moreover, they have been calling Golden Rice critics ‘murderers’ for over a decade.” > > Stone, an internationally recognized expert on the human side of global agricultural trends, was an early advocate for keeping an open mind about “humanitarian” GMO crops, such as Golden Rice. > > He has also supported the development of a genetically modified strain of cassava, a starchy root crop eaten by subsistence farmers across much of Africa. Unfortunately, efforts to develop a genetically improved, more productive and disease-resistant strain of cassava also appear to be a long way from practical field introduction, he notes. > > “Golden Rice was a promising idea backed by good intentions,” Stone said. “In contrast to anti-GMO activists, I argued that it deserved a chance to succeed. But if we are actually interested in the welfare of poor children — instead of just fighting over GMOs — then we have to make unbiased assessments of possible solutions. The simple fact is that after 24 years of research and breeding, Golden Rice is still years away from being ready for release.” > > Since 2013, Stone has directed a major Templeton Foundation-funded research project on rice in the Philippines. His research compares Golden Rice to other types of rice developed and cultivated in the Philippines. These include high-yield “Green Revolution” rice strains developed in the 1960s in an effort to industrialize rice farming, and ‘‘heirloom’’ landrace varieties long cultivated on the spectacular terraces of the Cordillera mountains of northern Luzon. AFAIK, those rice strains did come from research that was freely distributed and with no restrictions, that is what humanitarianism is supposed to be. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/38 "2019-10-04T08:42:03Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > artificial fertilizer (what known health risk is here? The nitrogen compounds are very similar to the “natural” kind) for the organic label is counterproductive. Some people seem to think that any fertilizer made in a fertilizer factory is “artificial” (well, they tend to think anything made in a factory is “artificial”). They’re a mixture of minerals: there’s some changes of phase (dissolution and drying), but no reactions. And the nitrogen compounds’ main source is semi-fossilized bird shit, which is organic as all get-go. That said, I’m in favor of using only as much fertilizer as is needed (as defined by testing) and of the types needed (don’t add potassium to your plants when you’re already sitting on top of a potash mine). > [@SamuelA](#): > > “Corinthian leather” is a marketing term. It means nothing. The actual leather came from new Jersey. Yes it means something: it refers (or should) to a specific decorative technique. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/39 "2019-10-04T11:01:16Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > [“A key characteristic of organic farming is the rejection of genetically engineered plants and animals”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming) Again: it’s not about outlawing genetically engineered plants. I’ve been involved in, or interested in, organic agriculture for about three decades now. I’ve attended FDA events, read articles, worked on organic farms before national certification existed. In all that time, I have never heard an organic agriculture advocate call for outlawing GMO crops. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119/40 "2019-10-04T12:11:20Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > I’m not sure there is a consensus on organic foods. Certain pesticides (Roundup, I am looking at you) and known carcinogens so why not avoid them. Show me a cite that claims that organic food is nonsense. As it happens, this afternoon I baked a zucchini bread using some that came from an organic community garden and some from the supermarket. Guess which ones I peeled the skin from. Neither, I’d hope. You need the flecks of dark green for that authentic zucchini bread look. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-scientific-community-find-organic-foodies-and-climate-change-deniers-equally-ignoble/841119.md?page=3)