Your Organic Foods Are NOT Helping Us Feed 9 Billion By 2050
Start writing a post
Family Friends

Your Organic Foods Are NOT Helping Us Feed 9 Billion By 2050

We cannot feed a growing population exclusively with organically farmed produce.

Your Organic Foods Are NOT Helping Us Feed 9 Billion By 2050

The other day I was sitting at lunch. I was reading a book and eating a chicken, sweet potato, vegetable combination. One of my coworkers sat down at the table next to me, with her lunch, and another coworker joined her moments later. They started discussing the health benefits of buying organic, how they did not have to wash their vegetables any more, and how much they loved knowing exactly what they were putting into their bodies.

It won't surprise most people who know me well to discover that the vegetables in my little thermos were far from organic. For me, it's traditional or not at all. My family does not buy organic, never mind anything with that non GMO butterfly label.

People who know us well know this. I've had a lot of friends, coworkers, family, and even strangers argue with me about it though. I'm not sure why it brings out such strong opinions in people, but I guess it probably has something to do with the fact that we all live in a society obsessed with health. In a lot of ways, this is a very good thing. Exercise! Eat right! Get healthy! That's the goal we all seek to attain.

Here's the thing though: organic produce is not healthier for you. An apple is an apple is an apple. There is minimal, if any evidence, to present signs of danger related to traditionally farmed produce. In a lot of cases, there's evidence on the other side too. As for potentially causing cancer: almost anything might cause cancer. We don't know what it is for sure. That's not a good reason.

But the real reason, above all else, that I do not shop organic is this: it is not ethical, and it is not sustainable.

We cannot feed a growing population exclusively with organically farmed and non-genetically modified produce. Let me say that again.

We cannot feed a growing population exclusively with organically farmed and non-genetically modified farmed produce.

Look, it's a privilege for you, to be able to walk into a supermarket and choose whatever product you feel best supports your needs. Fine. I actually support you having those freedoms and that power to choose.

What I cannot support is the fact that your choice is inevitably going to make it more difficult for people in countries without those choices to get food. While it's fine for you to make those choices, by making those choices you are changing the demand.

By saying, "No, even though my research comes from unreliable sources and I honestly haven't done that much, I believe that GMOs are killing us" you are also reducing the demand for products that will not be safe to eat or at least will not be produced in a large enough quantity without genetic modification.

By saying, "I buy organic because I want produce without chemicals" you are making the incorrect assumption that organic means untreated, and you are also deciding on behalf of a person in some far off land that they don't need that particular type of produce, because it cannot be produced in a large enough quantity to go around without traditional agriculture.

At my lunch the other day, I wasn't going to say any of this. But then they asked. They asked if I had strong opinions about this. I do. I have very strong opinions about the organic and genetic modification debate. While I am all for people in the so-called Western World having whatever choices they want, I think it needs to be recognized that there are ethical dilemmas presented by the choice to lower demand for traditional agriculture. By choosing to buy all organic and all non-GMO, we are using our money to limit the availability of produce, because yields are simply not as large as they could be with traditional agriculture and genetic modification.

So no. Your organics aren't helping. If anything, they are hurting the quest to feed a population of 9 billion by 2050.

Report this Content
This article has not been reviewed by Odyssey HQ and solely reflects the ideas and opinions of the creator.

Sex And The Church

A letter to fellow believers.

Amanda Hayes

I know many of you just read that title and thought it was scandalous to see something so “risque” in the same setting as something holy. Well guess what – sex is part of that. Everyone seems to think they are separate, which makes since because most people treat them as though they are complete polar opposites. Shall we think this through?

Keep Reading... Show less

Chick-fil-A, I love you.

Keep Reading... Show less

An open letter to my father

What you did sounds dumb to me

An open letter to my father
The Truth About My Parents' Divorce

Considering im 18 now & you're one of the best men i've ever met since you have a child; me. I want you to know that I love you, more than anyone, I love you. I don't forgive you for the way you hurt my mother. I'm hurt because you broke our family. Thing went down hill the day you found Laquita. You we're distant & shortly after my mother turned into the coldest, saddest women to walk past me. She's my best friend & so are you. Not one day goes by where I don't wonder what she did wrong. How on earth could you trade your family & the women who loved you unconditionally for a home wrecker? Sounds dumb to me.

Keep Reading... Show less

Is God Reckless?

Exploring the controversy behind the popular worship song "Reckless Love"

Is God Reckless?

First things first I do not agree with people getting so caught up in the specific theology of a song that they forget who they are singing the song to. I normally don't pay attention to negative things that people say about worship music, but the things that people were saying caught my attention. For example, that the song was not biblical and should not be sung in churches. Worship was created to glorify God, and not to argue over what kind of theology the artist used to write the song. I was not made aware of the controversy surrounding the popular song "Reckless Love" by Cory Asbury until about a week ago, but now that I am aware this is what I have concluded.The controversy surrounding the song is how the term reckless is used to describe God's love. This is the statement that Cory Asbury released after many people questioned his theology regarding his lyrics. I think that by trying to clarify what the song was saying he added to the confusion behind the controversy.This is what he had to say,
"Many have asked me for clarity on the phrase, "reckless love". Many have wondered why I'd use a "negative" word to describe God. I've taken some time to write out my thoughts here. I hope it brings answers to your questions. But more than that, I hope it brings you into an encounter with the wildness of His love.When I use the phrase, "the reckless love of God", I'm not saying that God Himself is reckless. I am, however, saying that the way He loves, is in many regards, quite so. What I mean is this: He is utterly unconcerned with the consequences of His actions with regards to His own safety, comfort, and well-being. His love isn't crafty or slick. It's not cunning or shrewd. In fact, all things considered, it's quite childlike, and might I even suggest, sometimes downright ridiculous. His love bankrupted heaven for you. His love doesn't consider Himself first. His love isn't selfish or self-serving. He doesn't wonder what He'll gain or lose by putting Himself out there. He simply gives Himself away on the off-chance that one of us might look back at Him and offer ourselves in return.His love leaves the ninety-nine to find the one every time."
Some people are arguing that song is biblical because it makes reference to the scripture from Matthew 28:12-14 and Luke 15. Both of these scriptures talk about the parable of the lost sheep and the shepherd. The shepherd symbolizes God and the lost sheep are people that do not have a relationship with God. On the other hand some people are arguing that using the term reckless, referring to God's character is heretical and not biblical. I found two articles that discuss the controversy about the song.The first article is called, "Reckless Love" By Cory Asbury - "Song Meaning, Review, and Worship Leading Tips." The writer of the article, Jake Gosselin argues that people are "Making a mountain out of a molehill" and that the argument is foolish. The second article, "God's Love is not Reckless, Contrary to What You Might Sing" by author Andrew Gabriel argues that using the term reckless is irresponsible and that you cannot separate Gods character traits from God himself. For example, saying that God's love is reckless could also be argued that God himself is reckless. Reckless is typically not a word that someone would use to describe God and his love for us. The term reckless is defined as (of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action. However, Cory Asbury is not talking about a person, he is talking about God's passionate and relentless pursuit of the lost. While I would not have chosen the word reckless, I understand what he was trying to communicate through the song. Down below I have linked two articles that might be helpful if you are interested in reading more about the controversy.

Keep Reading... Show less
Student Life

10 Signs You Grew Up In A Small Town

Whether you admit it or not, that tiny town will always have your heart.

The Odyssey

1. You still talk to people that you went to elementary school with.

These are the people you grew up with and the people you graduated high school with. The faces you see in kindergarten are the same faces you’ll see for the rest of your life.

Keep Reading... Show less

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Facebook Comments