Golden Site Home

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

This is the claim made by those who support these methods with them accusing those of do not agree with them of being unpatriotic, not caring that people are starving, etc. But do these claims stand up to scrutiny? If they do not then we all have problems, particularly if they have convinced the government that they are the answer.

Philip Conford writing in the latest edition of ‘Living Earth’, the Soil Associations magazine says:

“In pursuit of profits, agricultural and biotech industries have a vested interest in discrediting the organic movement, whose methods render their products unnecessary.” And their followers can be relied on to follow in their footsteps. They do this by, in the name of rationalism, accusing them of having “faith in “muck and mystery” and” being “hopelessly primitive”. What they are saying is Old is Bad and New is Good, and Change always = Progress. But this is not true as can be demonstrated by the that much of what has been tried recently has proved to be really detrimental to people and nature.

The Organic Movement were accused during the war of being unpatriotic for not believing that “bagged fertilizer could prevent Britain from starving.” Now they are being accused of being “indifferent to those who await the bountiful blessings of GM crops.” The question has to be asked do they give the benefits claimed for them? Another article in the magazine provides the answer. They say that a new 3 year authoritative study carried out at the “University of Kansas shows that GM crops are producing lower yield than their non-GM counterparts, undermining claims that a switch to the controversial technology will solve the growing world food crisis.”

The study showed that GM crops produced up to 9% less crops than non-GM. But it improved when “extra manganese was added, leading to the suggestions that genetic modification hindered the crop’s take-up of the essential element from the soil.” Which means that those who eat GM foods are not going to get it either. Plants only contain what is in the soil they are grown in and what they take up from it. If something is done, or happens to them to stop them taking a specific element then they will not contain it.

Philip Conford asks: “What lessons can we learn?” The answer is that “The organic movement survived the propaganda onslaught, attracted new adherents and eventually flourished. With the optimistic glow of technological agriculture having dimmed, the organic movement must again display its founders’ tenacity in advocating a sustainable alternative.”

Here it has been demonstrated that the claims of the Technological Industry does not stand up to scrutiny and that the opposite is true to what they claim. But what about the other side? Are they drawbacks that most people know nothing about? There are and they will be the subject of another post. You are asked to note that the Organic Movement just present the facts, providing the source they used to obtain them and leaving us to make up our own mind.