05-24-2014, 01:09 PM
After 15 pages of posts, the debate still goes on! I earlier made comments on how my personal health has improved since switching over to organic, but as everything, there is two sides to the coin, as they say. I come from a family with over 5 generations of farmers in the Sacramento valley of Ca, one of the most fertile areas on this earth. Even once was a world leader in rice production! Making a "profit" after paying raising labor costs (why do you think farmers have large families?), higher material costs, (tractors, fuel, seed, fertilizers, etc.) have always been an extreme challenge to the "independent" farmer to survive against the big corporation farms. GMO gives the small farmer ("small" is a relative term, to a grocer 1000 acres is a small farm, 5 acres is a garden plot) a higher yield, a more consistent yield in size and shape (has to be "perfect" for the consumer to buy it) and cuts labor costs by the impregnation of pesticides to eliminate non crop vegetation. This is the " make or break it" consideration a farmer is faced with to survive when dealing with huge volume amounts grocers want to buy. The new problem that was discovered is that yes, you do get a higher yield, but you still have to add the "new" seed cost to the final tab, so still not the higher profit the farmer had hoped for. The worlds population is expanding faster than we can grow food, and the rising population is consuming more and more fertile land for their homes, so what are we to do? That is the reason that GMO is important to big business and governments, to produce a constantly expanding food source for the ever expanding population. I personally purchase organic produce from small local farmers to supplement what I can grow, but the majority of the worlds population does not have the space, or the time to do this, hence the introduction of GMO product to this world. A double edged sword it is indeed, and I feel this debate will go on as it has for a looong time.