# Genetically modified food is safe to eat **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2019, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953 "2019-09-09T21:12:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/41 "2019-09-12T05:04:18Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > _ **Intelligent environmentalists aren’t concerned about direct safety; the concern is about ecological damage.** _ Or more broadly, our lack of awareness and preparedness about what ecological damage we may be causing. For example, the likely [contribution of herbicides such as Roundup to the massive decline of monarch butterfly populations in North America](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170517143600.htm). Nobody started out planting GMO “Roundup-Ready” herbicide-resistant crops with the thought _“Hey, this will enable us to kill huge numbers of butterflies!”_ ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/42 "2019-09-12T05:13:16Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > ETA: There’s a very great deal more to organic farming than just “grown without artificial pesticides.” What more, exactly? Do you use mule-drawn plows and dig up the weeds with hoes? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/43 "2019-09-12T06:00:11Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > What more, exactly? Do you use mule-drawn plows and dig up the weeds with hoes? Although IANA organic farmer, I found it pretty easy to discover information on organic farming practices by just googling it. One typical [description of organic farming practices](http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/09-077.htm#define) as distinct from modern industrial agriculture listed some of their characteristics as follows: > [@](#): > > protect the environment, minimize soil degradation and erosion, decrease pollution, optimize biological productivity and promote a sound state of health > > maintain long-term soil fertility by optimizing conditions for biological activity within the soil > > maintain biological diversity within the system > > recycle materials and resources to the greatest extent possible within the enterprise > > provide attentive care that promotes the health and meets the behavioural needs of livestock > > prepare organic products, emphasizing careful processing, and handling methods in order to maintain the organic integrity and vital qualities of the products at all stages of production > > rely on renewable resources in locally organized agricultural systems I’m a bit surprised that you weren’t already aware that organic farming is more about these sorts of principles than about either merely eschewing certain pesticides or else using mule-drawn plows and hand hoes. Have you not encountered the concept of organic farming before? ---
**Author:** ![TheKingOfBread](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b5a626/32.png) [@TheKingOfBread](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheKingOfBread)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/44 "2019-09-12T09:56:45Z")
I’d agree with the original post, but I’d say that GMOs CAN be unsafe depending on the modification (obviously). For example, some plants can be modified to express a protein that someone might have an allergy to, but this stuff is usually tested before it hits the market. But yeah it’s hard to seperate the marketing from the reality. ---
**Author:** ![l0k1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bb73d2/32.png) [@l0k1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/l0k1)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/45 "2019-09-12T12:01:46Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > _ **Intelligent environmentalists aren’t concerned about direct safety; the concern is about ecological damage.** _ > hth Exactly. Chicken is safe to eat, beef is safe to eat. I don’t want waterways contaminated with chicken shit. I don’t want wealthy ranchers grazing public lands into deserts. I don’t care if there’s trace amounts of glyphosate in corn-flakes. I don’t care if there are cancer causing amounts of glyphosate in corn-flakes. I don’t want dead waterways. Roundup Ready crops are allowing an increase in the use of glyphosate. Glyphosate is bad for things that live in the water. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/46 "2019-09-12T21:30:19Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > What more, exactly? Do you use mule-drawn plows and dig up the weeds with hoes? Would you actually like your ignorance fought, or would you prefer to revel in it? The central ideas behind organic farming are that the farm is considered as a whole organism that’s part of the larger ecological system; that the farmer works with nature, rather than in opposition to it, to preserve and improve the health of the farm as a whole and of those portions of the larger system that the farm directly interacts with; and that it’s the long-term health of the field, not just of the particular crop growing in it at the moment, which is aimed for. One of the common ways of phrasing this is ‘healthy fields produce healthy crops which produce healthy people.’ Avoiding the use of synthetic chemicals is a tool that’s used in attempting to reach the goal of healthy fields. It’s neither the primary thing being aimed for, nor the only tool in the toolbox. (Organically-permitted pesticides, while we’re at it, are way down near the bottom of the toolbox; which is one reason why I’m suspicious of that Bt-every-week-for-four-months comparison. I don’t raise field corn, but my neighbor raises organic field corn on some of my fields, and while I see him out here fairly often I don’t think I’ve ever seen him applying pesticides; and the only pest I’ve really heard him complain about is squirrels. The main pest problem I’ve got in my vegetables is deer.) Other tools include but are not limited to cover crops; crop rotations; pasture rotations; selection of types of tillage and cultivation which are suitable to the particular operation considering such things as soil types, soil slopes, soil depth, size of operation, number of humans involved, types of crops and/or livestock involved; timing of planting of particular crops; timing of pasture use by particular livestock; selection of species suitable to the general area and to the particular operation; selection of specific cultivars and/or breeds within those species not only for yield, but also for suitability to the location, flavor, nutrition, and pest resistance; selection of livestock housing and pasture so as to allow natural systems and natural behavior to contribute to the health of the animals; selection of added nutrients when and where necessary, in amounts and fashions intended, again, to contribute to the long-term health and fertility of the field; diversity of species raised on the farm; provision of habitat for beneficial organisms both microscopic and macroscopic; provision for protection of banks of ponds and streams; provision for various methods of preventing soil erosion; provision for properly dealing with “waste” products so that if possible they don’t become “waste” but instead become a useful part of the system whether on or off the farm, or if that isn’t possible are disposed of in the least damaging way possible; and I’m sure there are things I’ve left out of this very long sentence. – oh yes, and while the USDA doesn’t allow considering in current organic standards the treatment of any hired farmworkers who might be part of the operation, many private certifying organizations used to do so, and some have developed additional agreements that farmers are encouraged to sign on to. A mule might or might not be involved in there somewhere (some people use them to keep coyote away from sheep); and/or a hoe. And/or a 300 horsepower GPS equipped tractor pulling an experimental cover crop crimping roller followed by a multi-row no-till planter followed by a researcher from Cornell, taking notes. ---
**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:** [September 13, 2019, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/47 "2019-09-13T21:16:52Z")
Most of the opposition in this thread is not directly related to GMOs. Viewing a farm as a whole organism and employing crop rotation can be done with GMO just as easily as non-GMO. Using GMOs just gives you a bigger toolbox. My problem with organic farming is that it’s less efficient; 80% to 66% less efficient, depending on who you believe. If all farms in the US were to go organic we’d need a sizable increase in farmland and that comes with its own environmental impact. I would think it be much better if the principles of organic farming were joined with the latest scientific breakthroughs in agriculture, and that includes GMO. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/48 "2019-09-14T01:20:27Z")
Doing markets. Time and energy for proper reply lacking. Will come back to this, it’ll probably be a day or two. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/49 "2019-09-14T01:21:10Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > How so? Argument from authority is not a fallacy when the authority in question is legitimately expert on the topic in question. While I don’t want to derail this discusion, _right now_ we have a bizarro-world situation where scientific authorities are being deliberately prevented from presenting scientific conclusions as valid for political reasons. I would hesitate to call any scientific agency under the current administration a legitimate expert on anything at all that has any political controversy to it whatsoever. Hopefully soon, we will return to a situation where these agencies can be trusted again, but that trust may take some time to rebuild. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/50 "2019-09-14T01:57:14Z")
I’ll bet that my paid staff of Mad Scientists can genetically engineer some food that is totally bad for your health, so it would seem the answer depends on the nature of the genetic modification in question. ---
**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:** [September 14, 2019, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/51 "2019-09-14T02:14:29Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > Were it not, the FDA, which really does know what it’s doing most of the time, would not have allowed it on the market. Well…yeah. Pretty much. I wouldn’t make sweeping claims, as some of it is bad for you because it is (I’m thinking of stuff like corn syrup but that’s just one example), but it isn’t bad because it’s genetically modified…it’s just overused and cheap. > [@Deeg](#): > > Most of the opposition in this thread is not directly related to GMOs. Viewing a farm as a whole organism and employing crop rotation can be done with GMO just as easily as non-GMO. Using GMOs just gives you a bigger toolbox. > > My problem with organic farming is that it’s less efficient; 80% to 66% less efficient, depending on who you believe. If all farms in the US were to go organic we’d need a sizable increase in farmland and that comes with its own environmental impact. > > I would think it be much better if the principles of organic farming were joined with the latest scientific breakthroughs in agriculture, and that includes GMO. Pretty much this as far as the secondary discussion goes. Organic is, IMHO, just a rich person affectation. There isn’t any evidence that it’s better (i.e. healthier) for a person than it’s GMO (and cheaper) alternatives, just that it costs more and fits with a certain demographic who think it helps the earth or something. What it generally does is just be less efficient and cost more, though, again, I wouldn’t say that’s across the board. But the whole GMO bugaboo has probably cost lives in the 3rd world, just like the anti-vaxers message. It’s all about 1st world exceptionalism and, frankly, an overly rich society that can afford the affectation. Again, IMHO (and realizing the irony that I AM actually making sweeping claims here :p). Anyway, doesn’t seem much of a debate. I don’t think we have any really rabid anti-GMO types, just a few 'dopers who have mildly bought into the organic hype and have mild aversions to the thought of GMO and large mega-agricultural corporations. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/52 "2019-09-14T03:31:00Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Organic is, IMHO, just a rich person affectation. […] > > It’s all about 1st world exceptionalism and, frankly, an overly rich society that can afford the affectation. Depends what you call “a rich person” and “1st world”. As far as American consumers are concerned, studies suggest that [over two-thirds of consumers routinely buy organic foods of some kind](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/12/01/americans-views-about-and-consumption-of-organic-foods/), although very few consume **only** organic foods. And while the US as a whole is certainly among the global “rich people”, a country like India is not, but India too has been [experiencing a rapid rise in both demand for organic food and organic farming practices](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/pesticides-helped-bring-modern-farming-to-india-one-tiny-state-is-leading-the-charge-to-ban-them/2018/05/29/95c7e594-3da6-11e8-955b-7d2e19b79966_story.html?noredirect=on). Of course, India contains a lot of rich people even by global standards, and even by domestic standards it’s the relatively richer people who initially drive the interest in organic foods. But similarly to the US, the appeal soon spreads beyond the wealthy elites: > [@](#): > > Experts say that India’s organic product market has been driven by health-conscious, middle-class urbanites alarmed by the overuse of pesticides. But that’s changing. India is encouraging farmers to engage in a self-regulating organic certification process that is cheaper than outside consultants and will make organic food more accessible for the domestic market. > > Choitresh Kumar Ganguly, an organic farmer from India who sits on board of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, said Sikkim can be a model for other states, such as Kerala and Meghalaya, that are planning to go all-organic. Sikkim’s neighbor, the kingdom of Bhutan, aspires to do so by 2020. Finally, it’s silly to call concern for the environment and integration of food production into environmental sustainability an “affectation”. Sure, a lot of people who are concerned about this issue know very little about its practicalities and aren’t really doing anything effective to support it. But that doesn’t mean that the issue itself isn’t real. The environmental impacts of industrial agriculture practices really are a problem, even if consumers’ vague notions about “organic farming” aren’t an adequate solution to it. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/53 "2019-09-14T08:44:11Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Depends what you call “a rich person” and “1st world”. As far as American consumers are concerned, studies suggest that [over two-thirds of consumers routinely buy organic foods of some kind](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/12/01/americans-views-about-and-consumption-of-organic-foods/), although very few consume **only** organic foods. Well, I buy “organic mushrooms” because I _can’t find_ any other sort around here. It’s not because I think they’re better somehow. At least in the US, “organic” has no legal definition so I view it as a largely meaningless term. Like the word “lite” in a food label. ---
**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:** [September 14, 2019, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/54 "2019-09-14T14:44:53Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Finally, it’s silly to call concern for the environment and integration of food production into environmental sustainability an “affectation”. Sure, a lot of people who are concerned about this issue know very little about its practicalities and aren’t really doing anything effective to support it. But that doesn’t mean that the issue itself isn’t real. The environmental impacts of industrial agriculture practices really are a problem, even if consumers’ vague notions about “organic farming” aren’t an adequate solution to it. Speaking of vague notions, do those demanding a massive switch to organic farming realize the environmental degradation that would cause, both through loss of habitat (organic farming being considerably less efficient, necessitating much more land under cultivation) and harm from toxic organic pesticides including copper and sulfur-based treatments? ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/55 "2019-09-14T15:09:13Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > …I always like Bill Nye’s response to “If something is a GMO, should it be labeled as such”, to which he says “Yes, they should be labeled, they should say ‘_Proudly_ GMO’” That is about to happen, at least for apples: > **[Home - Arctic Apples](https://arcticapples.com/)** > > World’s Best Tasting Sliced Apple I haven’t seen them on the market, yet, but I expect to. Perhaps this fall. ---
**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:** [September 14, 2019, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/56 "2019-09-14T15:29:56Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Depends what you call “a rich person” and “1st world”. As far as American consumers are concerned, studies suggest that over two-thirds of consumers routinely buy organic foods of some kind, although very few consume only organic foods. Well, 1st world is clear enough I’d say. ‘A rich person’ would be…someone living in one of those countries OR anyone who has the money to afford to indulge in buying organic food just because they can. A non-rich person is someone who has to worry about food security (as well as a host of other things) from any source and can’t afford to indulge in such extravagance. > [@](#): > > And while the US as a whole is certainly among the global “rich people”, a country like India is not, but India too has been experiencing a rapid rise in both demand for organic food and organic farming practices. Of course, India contains a lot of rich people even by global standards, and even by domestic standards it’s the relatively richer people who initially drive the interest in organic foods. But similarly to the US, the appeal soon spreads beyond the wealthy elites: Interesting. As it happens, I’ve been to India. I’m sure you have as well. I’m not surprised that India has been using organic practices, and I could make a good guess at who it is that are their market too. As a hint, it won’t be the poorer 1/3 to 1/2 of their population…nor the poor 1/3 to 1/2 of other countries that aren’t in that ‘1st world’ category. Sorry, but your idea of who are ‘wealthy elites’ is skewed with my own. The average poor person in the US is, IMHO, a ‘wealthy elite’ on global standards, even in countries like India and China, let alone really poor countries. > [@](#): > > Finally, it’s silly to call concern for the environment and integration of food production into environmental sustainability an “affectation”. Sure, a lot of people who are concerned about this issue know very little about its practicalities and aren’t really doing anything effective to support it. But that doesn’t mean that the issue itself isn’t real. The environmental impacts of industrial agriculture practices really are a problem, even if consumers’ vague notions about “organic farming” aren’t an adequate solution to it. Not at all. Show me some real evidence that it DOES help the planet, uses less resources, is more efficient AND that it’s actually better for you and I promise to change my tune. From what I’ve read in the past you can’t, sadly, so it is an ‘affectation’ that basically costs more and appeals to ‘wealthy elites’. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/57 "2019-09-14T17:10:29Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Speaking of vague notions, do those demanding a massive switch to organic farming realize the environmental degradation that would cause […] :dubious: I assume that’s a rhetorical question and you’re not actually asking me to provide a factual answer about what some unidentified group of people do or don’t “realize”. I think you (and also **XT** , as per post #56) may also be a bit out of date in believing that there’s a clear demarcation between “efficient” industrial agriculture that the world relies on for most of its food and “inefficient” “organic” agriculture that is essentially a boutique luxury product for the wealthy. Most of the actual food production in the world does not fall exclusively into one camp or the other, and a lot of their categories overlap in practice. As [this 2017 _Scientific American_ article notes](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-big-myths-about-modern-agriculture1/), > [@](#): > > One of the biggest modern myths about agriculture is that organic farming is inherently sustainable. It can be, but it isn’t necessarily. […] Other agricultural myths hinder recognizing the potential to restore degraded soils to feed the world using fewer agrochemicals. […] > > MYTH 1: LARGE-SCALE AGRICULTURE FEEDS THE WORLD TODAY > > According to a recent U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report, family farms produce over three-quarters of the world’s food. The FAO also estimates that almost three-quarters of all farms worldwide are smaller than one hectare […] > > So while conventional industrialized agriculture feeds the developed world, most of the world’s farmers work small family farms. A 2016 Environmental Working Group report found that almost 90 percent of U.S. agricultural exports went to developed countries with few hungry people. […] > > MYTH 2: LARGE FARMS ARE MORE EFFICIENT > > Many high-volume industrial processes exhibit efficiencies at large scale that decrease inputs per unit of production. […] But agriculture is different. A 1989 National Research Council study concluded that “well-managed alternative farming systems nearly always use less synthetic chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and antibiotics per unit of production than conventional farms.” […] > > According to a 1992 agricultural census report, small, diversified farms produce more than twice as much food per acre than large farms do. > > Even the World Bank endorses small farms as the way to increase agricultural output in developing nations where food security remains a pressing issue. […] > > MYTH 3: CONVENTIONAL FARMING IS NECESSARY TO FEED THE WORLD > > We’ve all heard proponents of conventional agriculture claim that organic farming is a recipe for global starvation because it produces lower yields. The most extensive yield comparison to date, a 2015 meta-analysis of 115 studies, found that organic production averaged almost 20 percent less than conventionally grown crops […] But the study went a step further, comparing crop yields on conventional farms to those on organic farms where cover crops were planted and crops were rotated to build soil health. These techniques shrank the yield gap to below 10 percent. > > The authors concluded that the actual gap may be much smaller, as they found “evidence of bias in the meta-dataset toward studies reporting higher conventional yields.” > > Consider too that about a quarter of all food produced worldwide is never eaten. […] So even taken at face value, the oft-cited yield gap between conventional and organic farming is smaller than the amount of food we routinely throw away. […] > > Conventional farming practices that degrade soil health undermine humanity’s ability to continue feeding everyone over the long run. Regenerative practices like those used on the farms and ranches I visited show that we can readily improve soil fertility on both large farms in the U.S. and on small subsistence farms in the tropics. > > I no longer see debates about the future of agriculture as simply conventional versus organic. In my view, we’ve oversimplified the complexity of the land and underutilized the ingenuity of farmers. I now see adopting farming practices that build soil health as the key to a stable and resilient agriculture. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/58 "2019-09-14T20:05:47Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > At least in the US, “organic” has no legal definition so I view it as a largely meaningless term. Like the word “lite” in a food label. Absolutely not true. The term “organic” as applied to food and agriculture has been legally defined in the USA since 2001, when the [National Organic Program](https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/national-organic-program) went into effect. A lot of additional comments in this thread are also based on inaccurate or at best misleading information, but spelling out in detail why this is so, at least in a fashion likely to convince anybody, will take a fair amount of typing and also requires my sorting out cites from my records and updating some of them with newer information. I am too tired right now after markets to deal with this properly and will probably come back to it tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2019, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/59 "2019-09-14T20:25:57Z")
Understandable. We all have lives outside this forum (or at least I hope we do). However, if you would make the effort (when convenient for you, of course) I would very much appreciate the effort. ---
**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:** [September 15, 2019, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953/60 "2019-09-15T15:54:05Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > as per post #56) may also be a bit out of date in believing that there’s a clear demarcation between “efficient” industrial agriculture that the world relies on for most of its food and “inefficient” “organic” agriculture that is essentially a boutique luxury product for the wealthy. There’s good evidence that greatly enlarging the percentage of farming that’s done “organically” would have a detrimental environmental effect. \*…because organic farming tends to have significantly lower crop yields, far more land is required to grow the same amount of food that intensive agriculture can produce, according to a recent study. To feed the billions of hungry mouths on the planet, going fully organic would entail reclaiming vast swathes of additional land for agriculture. Much of that extra land would have to be taken from forests, which would harm the environment. A new study, published in the journal Nature, now underlines the same point. An international team of researchers studied peas and wheat cultivated organically in an area of Sweden. They found that organically farmed food has a bigger climate impact than the conventionally farmed variety because organic farming requires significantly more land. As a result, organic farming can also lead to much higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions. “Our study shows that organic peas, farmed in Sweden, have around a 50 percent bigger climate impact than conventionally farmed peas,” says Stefan Wirsenius, an associate professor from Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden who was an author of the study. “For some foodstuffs, there is an even bigger difference – for example, with organic Swedish winter wheat the difference is closer to 70 percent.”\* [http://sustainability-times.com/environmental-protection/organic-farming-isnt-all-that-sustainable-a-new-study-says/](http://sustainability-times.com/environmental-protection/organic-farming-isnt-all-that-sustainable-a-new-study-says/) This doesn’t mean there’s no role for organic farming (even though its health and environmental claims appear vastly overstated). But a major expansion in this area will have serious costs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetically-modified-food-is-safe-to-eat/839953.md?page=4)