GMO and Organic are psychological scams, but anyone who wants to indulge themselves in those labels is welcome to do so.

From Matt Ridley's Green Scare article:
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a case in point. After 20 years and billions of meals, there is still no evidence that they harm human health, and ample evidence of their environmental and humanitarian benefits. Vitamin-enhanced GM “golden rice” has been ready to save lives for years, but opposed at every step by Greenpeace. Bangladeshi eggplant growers spray their crops with insecticides up to 140 times in a season, risking their own health, because the insect-resistant GMO version of the plant is fiercely opposed by environmentalists. Opposition to GMOs has certainly cost lives.

Besides, what did GMOs replace? Before transgenic crop improvement was invented, the main way to breed new varieties was “mutation breeding”: to scramble a plant’s DNA randomly, using gamma rays or chemical mutagens, in the hope that some of the monsters thus produced would have better yields or novel characteristics. Golden Promise barley, for example, a favorite of organic brewers, was produced this way. This method still faces no special regulation, whereas precise transfer of single well known genes, which could not possibly be less safe, does.

Environmentalists are currently opposing neonicotinoid pesticides on the grounds that they may hurt bee populations, even though the European Union notes that honeybee numbers have been rising in the 20 years since they were introduced. The effect in Europe has been to cause farmers to return to much more harmful pyrethroid insecticides, which are sprayed on crops instead of used as seed dressing, hitting innocent bystander insects. And if Europeans had been allowed to grow GMOs, then less pesticide would be necessary. Again, green precaution increases risks.
- See more at: http://rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-...

The full article also addresses global warming and resistance to implementation of nuclear power.

Jan

To me the key word is "choice". If I choose to eat organic or non GMO foods that is my choice. Why are growers of GMO foods so reluctant to label their product? In a free market the consumer would be offered a choice between the two and the sales volume would determine the rest.

I make a point of avoiding things labeled organic and non-GMO. It's good for my pocketbook and good for the world.

If you had truly non-GMO food for sale, no one would buy it. Just take corn for example. What the Indians SORRY! Native Americans taught the Puritans to enjoy were multi-colored stunted looking things with only about half the kernels edible. Tomatoes? In their original form they were so icky looking they were considered poisonous being a relative of the Mandrake plant. I could go on, but you get the point. We have been genetically modifying vegetables since we first discovered the were cookable. The fact that we can do it scientifically, quickly, with good result should be applauded. However, if You don't want to eat it, don't tell Me that I can't.

Genetic modification isn't new. The biggest genetic modification project in human history was the development of corn from a common grass. Pre-Columbian society in Central America created that miracle, and native populations exploded. Corn was the mainstay of the MIssissippian culture, with its mound cities and a continent-wide trading network. The downside of corn is that it returns few nutrients to the soil, which is part of the cause of the collapse of native societies in the Americas, since they didn't entirely understand the crop cycle. There ain't no free lunch.

My wealthy daughter-in-law is a fanatic about organics and non-GMOs since having kids and insists they've made a huge difference in her oldest's mood and behavior.
Poor kid; lives on a steady diet of rabbit food and cardboard.

I don't have a problem with either non-organic or GMO foods in any way shape or form. Modern farming techniques, including chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically modified crops combined are responsible for the fact that we use less arable land and employ fewer people for agriculture, yet produce more food than at any time in our world's history. If those are bad things, then call me crazy.

That being said, I think the labeling of such foods is important for it allows for more consumer choice. Having more choices is ultimately a good thing as well. I don't believe that this sort of labeling should be mandated however.

I think part of the surge in popularity over organics, or non-gmo foods has been driven by a more heightened awareness of where our food comes from. As we all have moved further away from an agrarian existence, a profound disconnect between the consumer and their food supply has formed. Most people really don't have any idea where the foods they consume every day come from, how they got there, how they were processed, etc. Awareness and education are good for the consumer.

As has been stated multiple times so far, it is about the choice. If I want to shell out the extra $ for organic or non-GMO food, it's my choice. If I think it's stupid to do so, that is my choice as well. It doesn't matter whether I'm doing it because I think it's healthy or whether I think the companies who are producing it are evil. It's called "free market". I get to choose what to buy. If enough people choose to buy that product, the producer survives. If not, he has to find another line of work. I don't want the government to tell me that I can only buy non-GMO products and I don't want them to tell me that I can't buy them. Let me decide.

I have studied this for many years and developed a small list of 'who do you listen to' together with personal experience.
The results have been in for quite a while now.
Eat organic non GMO food; however, not all organic is organic in the true sense thanks to the government regulations and yes, some do charge a premium for the privilege. (thanks a lot).
I also follow the right4yourtype bloodtype diet and it has change my life and allowed me to live past Everyone in my family.
The best body of work on GMO's I have found thus far is: Altered Genes, Twisted Truth by Steven M. Drunker. It gives you the whole story from the beginning and the mindless sets involved. It's very detailed.

From Liberty Voice: "While Monsanto is celebrating increased profits and earnings results, those concerned about the health and well-being of bee colonies remain troubled about the company’s track record of killing bees. We all depend on bees to pollinate our plant food, as does Monsanto. Yet the agribusiness colossus continues to undertake activities which appear to be decimating bee populations throughout the world.

Colony Collapse Disorder is a major threat to all of us. Studies estimate that nearly one-third of the honeybee population has been wiped out." -- http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/monsant...

From ProLiberty (reprinted from the Idaho Observer)"
"In July, 2007, the German corn crop was infested with the rootworm. The German government ordered that every possible method should be used to eradicate this pest, including the use of clothianidin. Shortly after the seeds were planted, in May of 2008, some 330-million bees abruptly died.

According to the German Research Center for Cultivated Plants, 29 out of 30 dead bees had been killed by direct contact with clothianidin." -- http://proliberty.com/observer/200904...

From Prison Planet / Infowars:
"The Illinois Ag Dept. illegally seized privately owned bees from renowned naturalist, Terrence Ingram, without providing him with a search warrant and before the court hearing on the matter, reports Prairie Advocate News.
Behind the obvious violations of his Constitutional rights is Monsanto. Ingram was researching Roundup’s effects on bees, which he’s raised for 58 years. “They ruined 15 years of my research,” he told Prairie Advocate, by stealing most of his stock." -- http://planet.infowars.com/health/bee...

Motley Fool remains cautious:
"At this point, we cannot say that neonics alone are the leading contributor to honey bee population declines. That doesn't necessarily let Bayer and Syngenta off the hook for their use of neonics, or Monsanto for its use of pesticides that could have unintended effects on honey bees, but investors and consumers need to remember that multiple factors play a role in fluctuating bee populations. Parasitic fungi, parasitic mites, pesticides, temperature, and more likely combine to put pressure on honey bee colonies -- so it's irresponsible to focus on any one culprit in this case. For now, it appears that neonics are as risky as their current labels suggest. Nothing more, and nothing less." -- http://www.fool.com/investing/general...

The crop in question is corn (maize). While corn does have a place at the table, most of it is grown to produce high fructose corn syrup, perhaps the worst of all common "food" products.

Personally, I buy organic products when they are available, especially if they are grown and harvested to be sold locally. Healthy food is the medicine of my family. We are all healthy and happy w/o any pharmaceutical intervention. Hope to continue this saga for the rest of our lives. Time will tell if I was correct, yes?

Yes this movement is real I have studied this for well over three years and the facts are the facts Gmos are killing us So the organic food movement is real!

I don't give a hoot about organic, it's just another word to make Liberals feel good about themselves.

It’s a nice idea to develop crops that are disease and pestilence free. We could feed the world. The problem is GMO food crops have become so prevalent and are becoming our primary source of food --what happens if an unforeseeable disease comes along that only affects GMO crops? It could literally wipe out the world’s ability to feed people overnight.

Silly or serious --choice is always good.

I typically haven't cared much about the Organic label but in researching some stuff yesterday about early puberty I came across some articles about "Endocrine Disruptors" which makes me want to give it some more thought and research.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art...

Much of it is raising prices for a fad driven by zealots and conspiracy theorists, but sometimes there is food coming from dubious sources grown by dubious methods for which "organic" is a healthier substitute. Consumer Reports May 2015, p 31 published a table of fruits and vegetables to what to watch out for and what reputable sources to look for.

"Non-GMO" is for anti-technology phobics opposed to genetic variations that produce superior food in taste, storage, etc. Most seeds you buy for a vegetable garden are hybrid varieties, dogs are bred for superior traits and special breeds (but don't eat them!), etc. They are all "genetically modified".

Have you J-curves in hand for glyphosphate and some of the heavy metals to which we often expose ourselves? Or antibiotic-resistant pathogens?

There is no evidence GMO foods are dangerous. I'm open to new evidence, but for right now I don't see the point in avoiding them.

With organic, my understanding is it depends on the food. The standards for making something organic are not necessarily the best standards for quality food or protecting the environment, although they often overlap. My wife researched this a little and thinks she knows which products are best. Sometimes their "organic", but not always. It's not as simple as just buying all organic.

If you want a real example of a dangerous fraud take a look behind the curtain at "organic" foods. There's a great book on food called The Omnivorous Dilemma that I would recommend. Not a treatise on GMO, but a good insight into our food supply which is becoming more fragile every day. The bottom line is that with our current population growth, and without significant continued productivity improvements in crop production, famine will solve the problem in a most brutal fashion. I'm an Agronomist and have an above average understanding of the GMO process. While there are some legitimate concerns they are controllable. The objections I see trotted out in opposition to GMOs seem to be driven by a bunch of ill informed Luddites. These people have ancestors who riled against electricity and the wheel. Let's see how many starving children turn down a bowl of rice because it contains GMOs.

I have a small farm and I think there are some differences to organic, not sure they really make a difference.

GMO is nothing new really. We just went from splicing trees together to grow a new apple, or grape to doing it in a lab. More technological but the same basic premise.

In a non-organic farm we test the PH levels in soil and water to get just the right nutrients to maximise production. Nothing wrong with this but the byproduct is that differences in the chemical makeup of the food will lesson or be completely gone. Carrot A will be identical in what its got in it with the rest of the carrots, or at least much closer. In organic farming the variations in nutritional value will be there within the same batch of carrots far more so. Does that have any effect on the value of the food to our body? It could if the variations in the foods we eat are what keep us from developing allergies, like variations in the gloves doctors use keep from developing latex allergies as much. It is a stretch but its the only thing I have come up with that may make a difference.

Basically its a marketing gimmick

Organic foods primary purpose is to help the upper middle class differentiate themselves from poor and "less educated" people. Keep in mind that food choices are as close if not closer to a person than their sex choices or religion. Religion and Sex play a fairly small part in a persons life when compared to their eating choices. While yes, Doritos might be killing people. The only role GMO has played there is by making corn abundant and cheap, which has made Doritos abundant and cheap.. Which is why we now have a friggen Doritos isle in the grocery store..

I was once in full favor of GMO crops. Then, as is the case with many topics in my life, I decided to study it on my own. This habit...independent study...really has paid dividends in my life. This is another example. I have a really diverse background that exposed me to all kids of things. A stint in agricultural aviation was very informative in terms of learning about our food.

I am not opposed to GMO crops. But, I am opposed to eating what is sprayed on GMO crops. And, a lot of people mischaracterize GMO as basic, old-school, hybridization. That's not what it is.

A few years back we had a GMO labeling proposition here in California. Even in leftist, granola-eating California it was defeated. I asked a (fellow conservative) buddy why he voted against it. His answer, "Because the trial lawyers will make a lot of money filing suits around it." My answer - "Well, they started labeling trans fats a few years back and it didn't happen then." (crickets chirping). He got his science education from the same place most people do, talk radio. GMO is a highly-politicized topic. Therefore, the science behind it will be mostly ignored as the media whips the public into its standard partisan, anti-science froth.

The same can be said for people who don't eat pork. Can we now say that hot dog labelers should or should not be allowed to label whether a product contains chicken, or turkey, or beef, or pork? I do not care nor do I want to argue whether pork is a healthful meat or isn't. Whether it is rational to eat bacon or irrational. It is crispy and delicious. The point is that people have different preferences and that those preferences are subject to the market mechanism, as is any other non-compulsive economic interaction. This has already been explained. And no I am not a Rothbardian Austrian.

The biggest advantage you will find with organic is it probably grew more locally, and so has been on the shelf for less time. That alone makes it better for you.
But if you can buy direct from a grower anyway (from a farm, or farmers market) then ignore whether it is organic or not.

Of course, most importantly is that we all have the freedom to choose what we consume w/o governmental invention AND be given truth regarding ingredients!