LOL, in this excellent blog via "The Times", we get an article that's less of an article providing facts and more of a podium for bio-tech propaganda. Here we have Michael Mack, the chief executive of the Swiss agribusiness firm Syngenta telling us that petrol based and GM based agriculture is better for the environment and human health than organic or "eco-logical" type farming and that if we doubt so, then we doubt our government, and if we doubt our all knowing government then of course we are way off course. Yeah, 'cause they never lie do they?
Here are some of his points:
1. “Organic food is not only not better for the planet,” he said, in an interview at The New York Times building on Tuesday. “It is categorically worse.”
2. The problem, Mr. Mack said, is that organic farming takes up about 30 percent more land, on average, than nonorganic farming for the same yield.
3. “If the whole planet were to suddenly switch to organic farming tomorrow, it would be an ecological disaster,” he said.
4. organic food is the “productive equivalent of driving an S.U.V.”
5. Pesticides that help crops to grow more efficiently in this country, he argued, “have been proven safe and effective and absolutely not harmful to the environment or to humans” and have been certified as such by the Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency.
The implication of not believing that pesticides are safe, he said, is that you don’t trust the government’s findings.
6. “It underplays the significance of agricultural productivity,” he said.
1. Yeah, a guy with a major investment in a 12 billion dollar is only telling you what is "true" out of the deep love in his heart. Organic food being worse for the planet is categorically false. Even just looking at livestock operations and the underlying eugenics ideas and control ideas expressed in articles such as this one, we can see quite clearly that runoff from industrial farming are far more harmful to the larger environment than the tiny amount of organic runoff from a small sustainable farm, the bit of dangerous runoff and toxic material that ends up on organic farms is usually only found on USDA certified farms where 30 odd inorganic compounds are allowed to be used in production and where certain natural substances which shouldn't be used in production are (ie. copper). But this alone is a big step away from say the toxicity of synthetic chemical compounds sprayed in ever increasing doses on "genetically improved" crops.
3. It's true, there can be no sudden switch or overnight switch to organic, it had to be transitional and it takes time to learn and educate ourselves and one another. In time though, when the economic and petrol based system fails (and fail it will) it may be too late indeed to learn. The transition needs to start now, South Africa, Cuba, and Native American agriculture is a good starting point. This statement is a threatening one, one which equates a switch to organic as dangerous, that's called fear mongering, the underlying emphasis of which is basically; "Well if you want organic some people are going to have to go". That's called Eugenics.
4. The SUV comment is the dumbest tripe I've heard recently. The comparison is moot, our agricultural system doesn't run on crude.
5. Yeah, 'cause the government always has the environment and cosumers best interest at heart. As long as fucks like this guy and his company and their big ag. friends have an open door with the FDA and USDA there will always be doubt as to the veracity of any study done on industrial agriculture.
6. hahahhahahahhahaha, Son, we can do more with less than you can with all your petty toys. Wait and see, your gonna learn soon enough, hope you know exactly what a bushel of your worthless gm corn is worth in silver in a few years.
Now if you wan't to read a terrific article, check this out!