Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture





“Is gene manipulation really harmful in agriculture?”

“With the huge world population organic farming is not sustainable to feed everybody where drought, diseases can kill entire crops or herds. True or false?”

You have a couple of questions here, let me start with “Is gene manipulation really harmful in agriculture?”

It could be either but Gene Manipulation has never been proven to be safe.

Let’s start there, where we are today.

Excerpted from an article by Dr. Thierry Vrain

I know well that Canada does not perform long term feeding studies as they do in Europe. The only study I am aware of from Canada is from the Sherbrooke Hospital in 2011, when doctors found that 93% of pregnant women and 82% of the fetuses tested had the protein pesticide in their blood. This is a protein recognized in its many forms as mildly to severely allergenic. There is no information on the role played by rogue proteins created by the process of inserting transgenes in the middle of a genome. But there is a lot of long term feeding studies reporting serious health problems in mice and rats. The results of the first long term feeding studies of lab rats reported last year in Food and Chemical Toxicology show that they developed breast cancer in mid life and showed kidney and liver damage. The current statistic I read is that North Americans are eating 193 lbs of GMO food on average annually. That includes the children I assume, not that I would use that as a scare tactic. But obviously I wrote at length because I think there is cause for alarm and it is my duty to educate the public.

Dr. Thierry Vrain, Former Pro-GMO Scientist, Speaks Up Against Glyphosate

Monsanto Investigation 5


Evidence of GMO harm in pig study – GMO Judy Carman

Animal Evidence | GMO EVIDENCE

Human Evidence | GMO EVIDENCE

Lab Evidence | GMO EVIDENCE

Genetically Modified Food, panacea or poison? Full documentary

Next you claim – “organic farming is not sustainable” Organic farming is sustainable AND, it might be able to feed the planet, though I acknowledge that some conventional farming practices may require the use of some petrochemicals, that’s not what GMO has brought us, chemical use has sky rocketed as have our autism and cancer rates.

NAS Report Shows GM Crops ‘Clearly Not the Answer to World Hunger’ – Sustainable Pulse – excerpt – The report also found there was no evidence that GMO crops have improved yields. The report found “no significant change in the rate at which crop yields increase could be discerned from the data.”

Even if it’s true that 100% organic cannot, at this time, sustain the planet, even though we use chemicals in conventional farming, they are not causing the health problems that Genetically Modified Organisms are, so that would still be no valid reason to continue to produce foods known to be toxic, never proven safe by the corporations who now control almost all the seeds.

Our current practices are unsustainable and Genetically Modified Organisms are a complete failure.

Losing Ground Uploaded on 6 Apr 2011

GM Crops Farmer to Farmer – Uploaded on 14 Jun 2011

Uploaded on 3 Mar 2009 Willie Smits: How to restore a rainforest

Farmers using Genetically Modified Organisms, which have never been proven to be safe, are allowed to STEAL LAND AND CROPS from organic and conventional farmers!!

Genetically Modified Organism are not sustainable!

The Future of Food – Introduction Uploaded on 12 Nov 2007



Can we feed 10 billion people on organic farming alone?

EXCERPT: Scaling up organic agriculture with appropriate public policies and private investment is an important step for global food and ecosystem security. The challenge facing policymakers is to develop government policies that support conventional farmers converting to organic systems.

Can we feed 10 billion people on organic farming alone?

John Reganold
The Guardian, 14 Aug 2016
[links to sources are at the URL above]

* Organic farming creates more profit and yields healthier produce. It’s time it played the role it deserves in feeding a rapidly growing world population

In 1971, then US Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz uttered these unsympathetic words: “Before we go back to organic agriculture in this country, somebody must decide which 50 million Americans we are going to let starve or go hungry.” Since then, critics have continued to argue that organic agriculture is inefficient, requiring more land than conventional agriculture to yield the same amount of food. Proponents have countered that increasing research could reduce the yield gap, and organic agriculture generates environmental, health and socioeconomic benefits that can’t be found with conventional farming.

Organic agriculture occupies only 1% of global agricultural land, making it a relatively untapped resource for one of the greatest challenges facing humanity: producing enough food for a population that could reach 10 billion by 2050, without the extensive deforestation and harm to the wider environment.

That’s the conclusion my doctoral student Jonathan Wachter and I reached in reviewing 40 years of science and hundreds of scientific studies comparing the long term prospects of organic and conventional farming. The study, Organic Agriculture in the 21st Century, published in Nature Plants, is the first to compare organic and conventional agriculture across the four main metrics of sustainability identified by the US National Academy of Sciences: be productive, economically profitable, environmentally sound and socially just. Like a chair, for a farm to be sustainable, it needs to be stable, with all four legs being managed so they are in balance.

We found that although organic farming systems produce yields that average 10-20% less than conventional agriculture, they are more profitable and environmentally friendly. Historically, conventional agriculture has focused on increasing yields at the expense of the other three sustainability metrics.

In addition, organic farming delivers equally or more nutritious foods that contain less or no pesticide residues, and provide greater social benefits than their conventional counterparts.

With organic agriculture, environmental costs tend to be lower and the benefits greater. Biodiversity loss, environmental degradation and severe impacts on ecosystem services – which refer to nature’s support of wildlife habitat, crop pollination, soil health and other benefits – have not only accompanied conventional farming systems, but have often extended well beyond the boundaries of their fields, such as fertilizer runoff into rivers.

Overall, organic farms tend to have better soil quality and reduce soil erosion compared to their conventional counterparts. Organic agriculture generally creates less soil and water pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions, and is more energy efficient. Organic agriculture is also associated with greater biodiversity of plants, animals, insects and microbes as well as genetic diversity.

Despite lower yields, organic agriculture is more profitable (by 22–35%) for farmers because consumers are willing to pay more. These higher prices essentially compensate farmers for preserving the quality of their land.

Studies that evaluate social equity and quality of life for farm communities are few. Still, organic farming has been shown to create more jobs and reduce farm workers’ exposure to pesticides and other chemicals.

Organic farming can help to both feed the world and preserve wildland. In a study published this year, researchers modeled 500 food production scenarios to see if we can feed an estimated world population of 9.6 billion people in 2050 without expanding the area of farmland we already use. They found that enough food could be produced with lower-yielding organic farming, if people become vegetarians or eat a more plant-based diet with lower meat consumption. The existing farmland can feed that many people if they are all vegan, a 94% success rate if they are vegetarian, 39% with a completely organic diet, and 15% with the Western-style diet based on meat.

Realistically, we can’t expect everyone to forgo meat. Organic isn’t the only sustainable option to conventional farming either. Other viable types of farming exist, such as integrated farming where you blend organic with conventional practices or grass-fed livestock systems.

More than 40 years after Earl Butz’s comment, we are in a new era of agriculture. During this period, the number of organic farms, the extent of organically farmed land, the amount of research funding devoted to organic farming and the market size for organic foods have steadily increased. Sales of organic foods and beverages are rapidly growing in the world, increasing almost fivefold between 1999 and 2013 to $72bn. This 2013 figure is projected to double by 2018. Closer to home, organic food and beverage sales in 2015 represented almost 5% of US food and beverage sales, up from 0.8% in 1997.

Scaling up organic agriculture with appropriate public policies and private investment is an important step for global food and ecosystem security. The challenge facing policymakers is to develop government policies that support conventional farmers converting to organic systems. For the private business sector, investing in organics offers a lot of entrepreneurial opportunities and is an area of budding growth that will likely continue for years to come.

In a time of increasing population growth, climate change and environmental degradation, we need agricultural systems that come with a more balanced portfolio of sustainability benefits. Organic farming is one of the healthiest and strongest sectors in agriculture today and will continue to grow and play a larger part in feeding the world. It produces adequate yields and better unites human health, environment and socioeconomic objectives than conventional farming.

John Reganold is a Regents Professor of Soil Science & Agroecology at the Washington State University.



Continue reading “Can we feed 10 billion people on organic farming alone?”

Blog at

Up ↑