Hacker News Reader

> We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet

That, too, is debatable. Google "Do we have enough food" - we could feed 10B people with what we produce. Feeding the world is currently more a matter of donating (who pays?) and distributing it, not so much of producing the food in the first place.

> namely the lack of pesticides, of which some may be dangerous (but often regulated)

There is also overfertilization, which puts nitrates into ground and ultimately drinking water, and the over-use of herbicide, which massively strains local ecosystems to their collapse. The farmer revolts in Europe over the last 1-2 years have shown how politically difficult any kind of regulation in this area is. The EU is now backing down. It seems to be very difficult to find a middle ground in the "excessive vs. organic" spectrum.

Distribution is in itself a problem, yes, but there's also the geopolitical angle of depending on foreign imports to feed a nation.

> Feeding the world is currently more a matter of donating (who pays?) and distributing it, not so much of producing the food in the first place.

Yes, but if food can become X% more abundant do to increased yield or survivability in previously unsurvivable climates, distribution and costs can become that much less of an issue.

Yeah this is a complex problem. It does seem the case that we probably have enough food globally, but not at a national level. Also it seems that we don't have sufficient food for everyone to live at the level of the average American or European, so arguably there's benefit there in increasing food production. Also a large population still farm every day, being able to reduce the time input for farming could increase productivity by freeing people up to do other things.

>In reality, organic crops use more land, more water, and produce less for sale, in many ways making them worse for the environment than (responsible) pesticide usage.

The issue I refer to as "conventional organic" involves attempting to farm like a conventional farm but without using pesticides. This approach is naturally problematic. However, there are alternative farming methods that can significantly boost productivity while also valuing biodiversity. For instance, permaculture is an excellent option for small farms in developing countries, and agroforestry enhances climate resilience. And crop mixing, such as planting wheat with broad beans, can increase yields by 16%. This method also improves soil fertility by fixing nitrogen and reduces the risk of pest infestations and diseases.

> organic crops use more land, more water, and produce less for sale

You could say the same thing about grass grazing cows and free range chickens.

But anyone who’s had fresh home grown eggs, milk, or a 1/4 cow out in the country knows how much of a difference there is.

Just because something is maximally efficient, doesn’t mean it’s healthier. Just like Coca Cola isn’t healthier than Kefir.

That’s a strawman’s argument though. You can produce healthy kefir and cabbage at scale, which is healthier than any organic craft soda.

The reality is that free range animals take up an incredible amount of resources for a small percentage of the population who can afford such luxury.

Of course you can produce healthy kefir and cabbage at scale, just as you can organic produce.

But you can’t produce as much as Coca Cola and non-organic.

Which is why I’m specifically refuting

> organic crops use more land, more water, and produce less for sale

Because it’s still true that no matter how much scale your Kefir has, those properties apply to it more than Coke.

So let’s not talk about purely that you can make more non-organic, but about the tradeoff and what get from organic when you’re not making quite as much.

> in many ways making them worse for the environment

Not really, for refence I'm in a rural grain growing area with farm size averaging 4500 hectares.

Grain yields can be increased by many means, as they are, along with breeding for changing climate conditions, which they are (many thousands of ANOVA plots are grown about the region here every year) but the overwhelming practical attraction of GMO crops is glyphosate resistance .. this allows the application of weedkiller during seeding times in sufficient amounts to kill all plants save the crop.

Killing every plant across hundreds of thousands of hectares (with the exception of a very few desired by humans as food for humans) isn't exactly widely considered to be an environmental plus.

Near monoculture has knock on effects on the diversity of animal life, general environmental robustness, etc.

We already produce way more food than is needed to feed the all the people in the world. It's not about the amount of production but how we distribute the food and what are the intensives when doing that. Giving more power to ag-corporations haven't worked past 30 years and I have no reason to believe it will in the future.

> Giving more power to ag-corporations haven't worked past 30 years

On the contrary. World hunger has declined dramatically ever since the dawn of the industrial revolution, due almost entirely to large-scale mechanized agriculture and modern plant breeding.

It did take a jump in the last few years, but that was due to the pandemic, not a failure of agriculture.

Pretty much the only thing that can produce famine nowadays is war or a completely fucked-up government (sometimes war and a completely fucked-up government). Again, that's not the fault of modern agriculture.

We aren't going to go back to a world where guys with shovels and buckets of manure produce all the food. For one, they couldn't possibly produce enough food for the current population. For another, the "guy with shovel and bucket of manure" model was dependent on the guys being some type of unfree labor (serfs or outright slaves).

I like living in a world where 90% of the human race isn't digging turnips by hand, with an overseer standing nearby with a whip.

In addition to corporate control, I believe that consumer consent is a major issue. Sure, labelling something as a GMO is going to have a short term impact. Yet it is a fairly safe bet that the vast majority of people simply won't care whether a given product contains GMOs or not within a decade. And those who do care would have been choosing things like organic produce anyway.

Instead we have a situation where people feel compelled to lobby governments to place more stringent regulations on the industry simply because they are left with no meaningful choice in what they buy. Worse yet, it breeds suspicion not only of corporate motivation but of product safety. The latter of which is of greater concern over the long term viability of GMOs.

+300, it’s kind of tragic that the general public’s concern around GMOs seems centered on the perceived dangers of ingesting them, rather than Monsanto’s relentless track record of predatory litigation and their apparent mission to monopolize global agriculture.

I’d be interested to hear examples of large-scale industry players voluntarily accepting the costs of their externalities to any meaningful degree (i.e. more than just-enough-to-make-a-good-PR-campaign). My belief is that in the absence of regulation, the survival advantages conferred by socializing costs and privatizing losses are sufficient to eliminate larger conscientious (or so-called “socially responsible”) organizations.

Organic crops aren't free of pesticides. They can use organic pesticides. As if something organic must be healthier/ecological.

Arsenic is organic.

> namely the lack of pesticides

lack of synthetic pesticides, you can use as much organic pesticides as you want.

Sure, theoretically. But what does the reality on the ground actually mean for choosing organic rather than “”they could use 100x organic pesticides”, therefore no point.

“Consumption of organically produced food reduces pesticide exposure and is linked to a variety of health benefits, according to multiple studies, especially according to a large study from France.

Clinical trials continue to show that people who switch from non-organic to organic foods see a rapid and dramatic reduction in their urinary pesticide concentrations, a marker of pesticide exposure.

Other studies have linked higher consumption of organic foods to lower urinary pesticide levels, improved health outcomes, including reductions in maternal obesity and pregnancy-associated preeclampsia risks, lower BMI and reduced risk of Type 2 diabetes.”

https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/faq.php#

Completely anecdotal but still legit question: why the organic version of a product is usually more tasty?

This is a purely anecdotal response so I don't think anyone should draw big conclusions from my answer. In my experience, the farms and outlets that adhere to organic labeling tend to care more about the quality of the product. Obviously in theory, being organic is orthogonal to being tasty. But if you're going for "air-chilled, organic, free range chicken breast" you're probably just shopping for a tastier product than regular chicken breast. Do be careful about which organic labeling is on the product as there's subtle differences to different organic labels.

Thank you, I suspected something along those lines because the reality in the mind of the consumer organic = tastier product, so in a certain way companies aiming for organic are aiming to appear "tastier"

Typically because they're varieties that need a lot of hand-babying, which the higher prices of organic foods can support. The cheap stuff consists of varieties bred for productivity and shipping ruggedness.

That's fine if you're privileged enough to afford the organic stuff. Not so much if you're a poor person in need of raw calories.