Are We Really Eating Healthy with GMOs in Place?

Options
24

Replies

  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    Options
    Honestly if people want to avoid this stuff, they have every right to do so.
    Wholesale banning of this stuff is a death sentence to a lot of the world. Without modern agricultural techniques the Earth wouldn't support the current population.

    Actually, on a per acre basis, organic and traditional farming methods produce more food than modern agricultural techniques.

    Didn't need to read the rest of this post when BS of this magnitude started it right off the bat.
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    Options

    Don't get me wrong I'm all for accurate labeling requirements and all that. And I completely agree with you on the fiduciary duty thing (I honestly wish more people WOULD realize this too).

    However the per acre yield thing didn't sit well. For various economic reasons it doesn't make sense; organic stuff is more expensive because OF lesser yields, and smaller supply.

    I'm in grad school so I'm kind of lucky that I have "free" access to journal repositories.

    Anyway I found some articles from journals (free abstracts, full reports cost) here:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html


    If anything there's plenty of variables including geographic location, methods, which crop,etc. In any case organic yields ARE lower on a per-acre basis then standard though. How much lower is dependent upon the variable.

    Edit:
    word choice

    For a conventional farmer, the soil is seen as almost irrelevant, just a medium to hold roots, nutrients, water, and pesticides.

    Another grossly inaccurate statement.
  • sweetiecorn
    sweetiecorn Posts: 115 Member
    Options
    Quite funny how I am studying for this topic at university right now, and I came on MFP to take a break and here it is haha.

    On a more serious note, I believe that GMOs are the future, research well and let them lead the way...

    Because we're not doing well as a globe to feed 7 billion now, and it's only going to get harder. The small scale organic farm is a romantic and lovely little idea, but we are probably going to develop a lot more diseases and won't be able to produce an amount large enough that will be sustainable for such a population.

    My vision: GMO, diverse range of crops, an increase in the use of CAM plants (such as desert cactai) because water is going to be even more scarce, and the land more desertified, these do better than your standard maize monocultures, and as for meat production, free ranges of big herds used for pooping all over that land surface to make it fertile. NB: organic meat animals can't be treated with antibiotics, and my veterinarian friend tells me that is a shame because so animals just get left sick/disease spreads. The benefits of administering the antibiotics outweighs the cons.

    And before anyone cries to me that the only solution is to go vegan, have a little look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI and let me know what you think.
  • macybean
    macybean Posts: 258 Member
    Options
    Let's not forget that Monsanto's seeds were approved illegally.

    And, as others have mentioned, it is unstudied. We're basically subsidizing a great experiment that, even if it turns out all wrong, there won't be anything we can do. It's unstoppable.

    So while non-GMO, organic or sustainably raised food may not be better for you (but the jury's still out on that), it's certainly better for the animals we're raising and the planet we have to live on.
  • sweetiecorn
    sweetiecorn Posts: 115 Member
    Options
    Also, got sidetracked in the GMO argument, but let it be known, I think GMOs are a great idea. HOWEVER I think a big company such as Monsanto placing a monopoly on the whole gene copyrighting thing is a very bad thing indeed.
  • sweetiecorn
    sweetiecorn Posts: 115 Member
    Options
    Any farmers/peeps in agri feel free to add me I would love love love to discuss further!
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    Also, got sidetracked in the GMO argument, but let it be known, I think GMOs are a great idea. HOWEVER I think a big company such as Monsanto placing a monopoly on the whole gene copyrighting thing is a very bad thing indeed.

    the idea on its own certainly has merit. just a shame they aren't tested before being released to the public.
  • medic2038
    medic2038 Posts: 434 Member
    Options
    Also, got sidetracked in the GMO argument, but let it be known, I think GMOs are a great idea. HOWEVER I think a big company such as Monsanto placing a monopoly on the whole gene copyrighting thing is a very bad thing indeed.

    I definitely agree here.
    Granted I don't know much about IP/patent/copyright law (that's its own little world), I think the whole idea of them suing individual farmers is insane.

    If I had to speculate I'd say it's probably because the big agricultural companies are able to fund politicians better. Most people don't think of judges as being politicians, but they are.

    Despite being a libertarian I don't actually have a good answer (or even a theory) regarding regulatory oversight. It's kind of a catch-22 in that over-regulation and laissez faire are essentially the same thing (neither of which are ideal). Federal regulators are "industry experts" which means they came from private business in the sector that's being regulated. Many still have financial stakes in their said industry, defeating the purpose of regulation.
  • lillypadstudio
    lillypadstudio Posts: 31 Member
    Options
    I got chills reading your post. The last time I went to the grocery store I decided not to get any cereals for my boys because of GMOs. But really it is in so much it is difficult to eat healthy. I guess if you just eat out of your own garden it is healthy but them there are also chemtrails(geo-engineering) falling on everything too. Just do what you can to eat as least processed foods as you can. Stay Fit-Angela
  • chadgard
    chadgard Posts: 102 Member
    Options


    For a conventional farmer, the soil is seen as almost irrelevant, just a medium to hold roots, nutrients, water, and pesticides.

    Another grossly inaccurate statement.

    Let me quote a conversation from two days ago:

    Me: Hey, Larry. Saw you spraying yet again yesterday, and you haven't even planted yet. Whatchagonna plant in that field this year?
    Larry: Popcorn
    Me: Really? Two years in a row?
    Larry: I got a 10 year lease. I'm going to plant popcorn until the lease is up. Longer if I can renew.
    Me: Won't that cause problems with weavils and nitrogen depletion? We're already on nutrient-poor sand
    Larry: Doesn't matter. It's all about the inputs.

    Very typical conversation here in the state that grows more Monsanto crops than any other in the country. That explains why another neighbor crop-dusts his potatoes 3 times a week all summer. His rotation (potatoes-corn-soy) is the exact opposite of what an organic farmer would choose if growing those three crops (soy-corn-potatoes would make more sense, though organic soy and field corn are money loosers, so you'd probably sub peas or a different edible bean for the soy, and sweet corn for the corn. The beans fix nitrogen, which corn consumes massive quantities of. The corn residues inhibit several nematodes that are damaging to potatoes, and the soil work involved in the potatoes reduces weed issues for the beans. The potatoes also provide a decent amount of organic matter for the soil, helpful for the beans.)

    While it's not true of every conventional farmer, it is far from a "grossly inaccurate statement," which is obvious to anyone who spends some time as an organic farmer surrounded by a sea of conventional farmers.
  • lazatin
    lazatin Posts: 452 Member
    Options
    I'm wondering if the OP was more interested in something like this.

    http://www.snopes.com/food/prepare/produce.asp

    Plu codes starting with 8 means GMO
    PLU starting with 9 means organically grown
    PLU starting with 0 means conventioanl grown

    These are of course for fruits and vegetables. There is more info on the web page
  • slkehl
    slkehl Posts: 3,801 Member
    Options
    Please note that the Obama Administration, leading regulators, the American Medical Association and many of the most influential and independent science organizations in the country are against labeling because of its inherent deceptive nature when it comes to labeling a product in which there are no known health issues–as is the case with GM foods.

    Just about all the published research so far shows GM food and crops to be safe and nutritionally equivalent or even superior (as a result of vitamin enhancement) to conventional and organic foods. There haven't been any problems found to date. Scientists do not pursue long term studies on GM food because you can’t prove a negative. It’s generally a waste of time and money. Scientists from around the world have found that GM foods are biologically equivalent to non-GMO foods. A tomato is a tomato-there isn't any "scary stuff" that's different and added in to make its profile any different. You may have a hard time believing that GM foods are not harmful but you’d feel differently if you understood genetics. Unfortunately, that often requires college level chemistry and biology study. Funny how people are okay to leave it up to the researchers when it comes to complex treatments for diseases but when it comes to their food, suddenly they are the expert.
  • lawkat
    lawkat Posts: 538 Member
    Options
  • chadgard
    chadgard Posts: 102 Member
    Options


    Actually, on a per acre basis, organic and traditional farming methods produce more food than modern agricultural techniques.

    Didn't need to read the rest of this post when BS of this magnitude started it right off the bat.

    Wanted to have some data to back up my BS claim that would be much more equivalent than some of the published studies. So here we go.

    112 acre field across the ditch from my organic farm, farmed by Jeff, vs. 2.5 acres in veggie production on my farm. 2012. Some Background:

    It was the worst drought in 62 years. Jeff had put in a $514,000 center pivot irrigation system. He ran it using a diesel generator, because our REMC charges an absurd rate to hook up 3-phase electric. It ran about 22 hours a day, 7 days a week for most of the summer, meaning the whole field was watered daily Jeff grew Monsanto's Genuity VT Double PRO RIB Complete corn, which stacks 2 different major genetic modifications: Roundup Ready 2 for herbicide resistance, and BT toxin production to kill a slew of insects (which includes honey bees, for what that's worth).

    We used a combination of drip irrigation, small sprinkler heads, and hand watering out of a 55 gallon drum, all fed off of the 4" well that serves our house. Ours ran about 18 hours a day, 7 days a week (we couldn't water every plot on the same day, due to limitations of water flow rate and pressure from the well, elevation change, etc). Our harvest figures do not include what we harvested and ate or canned/froze for our own use, or culled veggies (blemished, over-ripe, insect damaged, etc.) - only what we actually delivered via CSA or took to market. Also, spring was very warm, very early, followed by a late 3 weeks of freezing weather. Consequently, we (as with all growers in our area) lost all of our apples, peaches, nectarines, pears, raspberries, strawberries, cherries, and almonds, which normally make up a good deal of our harvest totals.

    we have similar soil - ours has slightly more organic matter because we've been farming it organically, but we've only been doing so for 3 years, so it's moderate. We had the same weather. His property taxes are 12% lower because he's on the other side of the county line (we are the corner of the county...).

    Jeff harvested 10,976 bushels from his 112 acres. 56 pounds/bushel for corn = 614,656 pounds of "*food," or, 5,488 pounds per acre.

    We harvested:
    Green Beans - Haricots Verts: 568 lbs
    Green Beans: 912 lbs
    Broccoli: 423 lbs
    Cauliflower: 110 lbs
    Brussels Sprouts: 47 lbs
    Green Cabbage: 82 lbs
    Red Cabbage: 40 lbs
    Kohlrabi: 21 lbs
    Kale: 92 lbs
    Sweet Corn: -crop failure-
    Flint Corn: -low yield, used all for ourselves-
    Sunflower Seeds (for oil production - experimental): 24 lbs
    Basil: 33 lbs
    Bee Balm: 18 lbs
    Calendula: 12 lbs
    Chamomile: 13 lbs
    Cilantro: 21 lbs
    cumin: 41 lbs
    Sweet Marjoram: 23 lbs
    Oregano: 38 lbs
    Chile peppers (21 varieties): 87 lbs
    Eggplant: 51 lbs
    Sweet Peppers: 109 lbs
    Bell Peppers: 87 lbs
    Tomatillos: 50 lbs
    Snow Peas: 103 lbs
    Sugar Snap Peas: 192 lbs
    Potatoes (11 varieties, 9 endangered): 3,423 pounds
    Beets: 312 lbs
    Carrots: 34 lbs
    onions: 219 lbs
    Leeks: 34 lbs
    Radishes: 306 lbs
    Shallots: 23 lbs
    Turnips: 451 lbs
    Rutabaga: 101 lbs
    Arugula: 98 lbs
    Chard: 12 lbs
    Lettuce (14 varieties, 8 endangered): 712 lbs
    Spinach: 117 lbs
    Mustard greens: 22 lbs
    Mache: 8 lbs
    Claytonia: 3 lbs
    Tomatoes: 2, 923 lbs
    Cucumber - slicing/salad: 1003 lbs
    Cucumber - pickling (double-cropped the potato field, sold wholesale): 981 lbs
    Watermelon: 902 lbs
    Cantaloupe: 602 lbs
    Honeydew: 238 lbs
    Pumpkin: 2,103 lbs
    Zucchini: 2004 lbs
    Oats: 103 lbs

    19,419 lbs of food, or 7,767.6 lbs/acre
    I didn't count the 103 lbs of honey we produced, because the bees travel off our farm to do that.

    So, conventional 5,488 lbs/acre < organic 7,767.6 lbs/acre.

    But, then, his corn was sold into the commodity trade, where 17% of it on average (Indiana is much higher, but I couldn't find the figure quickly) went to production of ethanol (and most went to feed, but that will eventually come food, even if it is used to feed animals which are not meant to eat corn, so we'll call it food).

    Also worth noting, diversified organic farming in the traditional manner like we do is very labor intensive, but we do it only part time. Our land could have produced much higher yields if we had sufficient time to keep up with it. We could easily employ 3 people full time without expanding the area we're growing in, if the economics and our risk tolerance would support it, so in addition to all that food, we -could- have produced 3 jobs. Jeff, employing only himself part time (he also runs an excavation business), farms a total of over 10,000 acres. Alas, we got no subsidies, no crop insurance, etc. Jeff got a lot of both.

    So, in a world with high unemployment, high government debt, and a desire to feed more people using less land... Why was my comment about traditional farming producing more per acre a comment of such high BS?
  • Carnivor0us
    Carnivor0us Posts: 1,752 Member
    Options


    Actually, on a per acre basis, organic and traditional farming methods produce more food than modern agricultural techniques.

    Didn't need to read the rest of this post when BS of this magnitude started it right off the bat.

    Wanted to have some data to back up my BS claim that would be much more equivalent than some of the published studies. So here we go.

    112 acre field across the ditch from my organic farm, farmed by Jeff, vs. 2.5 acres in veggie production on my farm. 2012. Some Background:

    It was the worst drought in 62 years. Jeff had put in a $514,000 center pivot irrigation system. He ran it using a diesel generator, because our REMC charges an absurd rate to hook up 3-phase electric. It ran about 22 hours a day, 7 days a week for most of the summer, meaning the whole field was watered daily Jeff grew Monsanto's Genuity VT Double PRO RIB Complete corn, which stacks 2 different major genetic modifications: Roundup Ready 2 for herbicide resistance, and BT toxin production to kill a slew of insects (which includes honey bees, for what that's worth).

    We used a combination of drip irrigation, small sprinkler heads, and hand watering out of a 55 gallon drum, all fed off of the 4" well that serves our house. Ours ran about 18 hours a day, 7 days a week (we couldn't water every plot on the same day, due to limitations of water flow rate and pressure from the well, elevation change, etc). Our harvest figures do not include what we harvested and ate or canned/froze for our own use, or culled veggies (blemished, over-ripe, insect damaged, etc.) - only what we actually delivered via CSA or took to market. Also, spring was very warm, very early, followed by a late 3 weeks of freezing weather. Consequently, we (as with all growers in our area) lost all of our apples, peaches, nectarines, pears, raspberries, strawberries, cherries, and almonds, which normally make up a good deal of our harvest totals.

    we have similar soil - ours has slightly more organic matter because we've been farming it organically, but we've only been doing so for 3 years, so it's moderate. We had the same weather. His property taxes are 12% lower because he's on the other side of the county line (we are the corner of the county...).

    Jeff harvested 10,976 bushels from his 112 acres. 56 pounds/bushel for corn = 614,656 pounds of "*food," or, 5,488 pounds per acre.

    We harvested:
    Green Beans - Haricots Verts: 568 lbs
    Green Beans: 912 lbs
    Broccoli: 423 lbs
    Cauliflower: 110 lbs
    Brussels Sprouts: 47 lbs
    Green Cabbage: 82 lbs
    Red Cabbage: 40 lbs
    Kohlrabi: 21 lbs
    Kale: 92 lbs
    Sweet Corn: -crop failure-
    Flint Corn: -low yield, used all for ourselves-
    Sunflower Seeds (for oil production - experimental): 24 lbs
    Basil: 33 lbs
    Bee Balm: 18 lbs
    Calendula: 12 lbs
    Chamomile: 13 lbs
    Cilantro: 21 lbs
    cumin: 41 lbs
    Sweet Marjoram: 23 lbs
    Oregano: 38 lbs
    Chile peppers (21 varieties): 87 lbs
    Eggplant: 51 lbs
    Sweet Peppers: 109 lbs
    Bell Peppers: 87 lbs
    Tomatillos: 50 lbs
    Snow Peas: 103 lbs
    Sugar Snap Peas: 192 lbs
    Potatoes (11 varieties, 9 endangered): 3,423 pounds
    Beets: 312 lbs
    Carrots: 34 lbs
    onions: 219 lbs
    Leeks: 34 lbs
    Radishes: 306 lbs
    Shallots: 23 lbs
    Turnips: 451 lbs
    Rutabaga: 101 lbs
    Arugula: 98 lbs
    Chard: 12 lbs
    Lettuce (14 varieties, 8 endangered): 712 lbs
    Spinach: 117 lbs
    Mustard greens: 22 lbs
    Mache: 8 lbs
    Claytonia: 3 lbs
    Tomatoes: 2, 923 lbs
    Cucumber - slicing/salad: 1003 lbs
    Cucumber - pickling (double-cropped the potato field, sold wholesale): 981 lbs
    Watermelon: 902 lbs
    Cantaloupe: 602 lbs
    Honeydew: 238 lbs
    Pumpkin: 2,103 lbs
    Zucchini: 2004 lbs
    Oats: 103 lbs

    19,419 lbs of food, or 7,767.6 lbs/acre
    I didn't count the 103 lbs of honey we produced, because the bees travel off our farm to do that.

    So, conventional 5,488 lbs/acre < organic 7,767.6 lbs/acre.

    But, then, his corn was sold into the commodity trade, where 17% of it on average (Indiana is much higher, but I couldn't find the figure quickly) went to production of ethanol (and most went to feed, but that will eventually come food, even if it is used to feed animals which are not meant to eat corn, so we'll call it food).

    Also worth noting, diversified organic farming in the traditional manner like we do is very labor intensive, but we do it only part time. Our land could have produced much higher yields if we had sufficient time to keep up with it. We could easily employ 3 people full time without expanding the area we're growing in, if the economics and our risk tolerance would support it, so in addition to all that food, we -could- have produced 3 jobs. Jeff, employing only himself part time (he also runs an excavation business), farms a total of over 10,000 acres. Alas, we got no subsidies, no crop insurance, etc. Jeff got a lot of both.

    So, in a world with high unemployment, high government debt, and a desire to feed more people using less land... Why was my comment about traditional farming producing more per acre a comment of such high BS?

    I think your story is awesome, and I'd love to do what you do someday.

    However, do you have links to published studies that support what your anecdotal evidence claims? I can believe it happening in one locale, with one situation, but I honestly find it hard to believe that organic and traditional farming, *overall* produces more food.

    Additionally, if Jeff had mimicked all your methods save for the gmo seeds (as in, he didn't just plant one crop, and he used the same watering system that you did) wouldn't it likely be a different outcome? There are just too many variables to compare you both.
  • chadgard
    chadgard Posts: 102 Member
    Options

    I think your story is awesome, and I'd love to do what you do someday.

    However, do you have links to published studies that support what your anecdotal evidence claims? I can believe it happening in one locale, with one situation, but I honestly find it hard to believe that organic and traditional farming, *overall* produces more food.

    Additionally, if Jeff had mimicked all your methods save for the gmo seeds (as in, he didn't just plant one crop, and he used the same watering system that you did) wouldn't it likely be a different outcome? There are just too many variables to compare you both.

    There is a lot of similar anecdotal evidence from throughout the world, but, alas, I'm not aware of any published studies. Most of the studies that try to compare conventional farming to organic follow the typical scientific principle of having only one independent variable. Thus, it typically means they plant large areas of monocrop, use chemicals all over one, and only organically permitted controls on the other. It's much like the political cartoon often used as commentary on standardized testing - a picture of an elephant, a fish, and a monkey next to a tree: "to be fair, we are going to evaluate everyone the same way. The test will be how well you climb that tree."

    The reason traditional farming techniques yield more per acre is because they are diverse. Each crop supports the others, lack of monoculture means the fields are less attractive to insects and disease, etc.

    As for Jeff mimicking my methods but using GMO seeds... Much of what I grow doesn't have GMO seeds available. For that which does, I'm not sure what would come of it. It would be tough to test, economically speaking. If I were to plant GMO seeds in my farm, I'd loose my organic certification. If Jeff wanted to grow in an organic fashion, he'd have to do so for 3 years without the chemicals and such. Most of the GMO crops that farmers are most excited to plant are resistant to herbicides (mostly roundup, with 2-4-D in the works). If you don't spray roundup, you won't gain anything from the GMO.

    So basically, the need for GMO crops comes from using large-scale monocultures. Nature doesn't like large-scale monocultures, so you're going to be fighting that continually. Large scale monocultures come from agricultural policies that direct our farms to producing commodities for processing, rather than food to be eaten directly.

    I am sure if Jeff used my watering system, he would have had far lower yields. Our yields were lower than normal due to our inadequate watering system. I would have used an earlier year, but Jeff just bought the field last winter, so last year was his first growing on that field. While I know who the previous owner is, he grew Christmas trees rather than food, and I'm not really in contact with him (his name, though, is also Jeff...).

    Anyway, remember that what I said was that traditional organic farming produces more food per acre, which is not the same as producing more food period. Conventional, chemical farming produces far, far more food per man hour. But when people use the "the population is growing, so we have to use more GMOs to feed everyone because we're going to run out of land otherwise" argument, it's a shortsighted, contradictory argument. We also have problems of not enough jobs for people, but we run people out of ag jobs by going ever more mechanized and chemical-laden. Go smaller, more diversified, and you can support more people both in terms of food and meaningful employment. Particularly when you consider all of the oil and natural gas used to produce those chemicals, which simply won't be available at some point in the future. If the world's population were shrinking, more large scale farming would make sense, as land would be widely available, but people to work it would be in short supply
  • monicarcaro
    monicarcaro Posts: 60
    Options
    hang on
  • monicarcaro
    monicarcaro Posts: 60
    Options
    Quite funny how I am studying for this topic at university right now, and I came on MFP to take a break and here it is haha.

    On a more serious note, I believe that GMOs are the future, research well and let them lead the way...

    Because we're not doing well as a globe to feed 7 billion now, and it's only going to get harder. The small scale organic farm is a romantic and lovely little idea, but we are probably going to develop a lot more diseases and won't be able to produce an amount large enough that will be sustainable for such a population.

    My vision: GMO, diverse range of crops, an increase in the use of CAM plants (such as desert cactai) because water is going to be even more scarce, and the land more desertified, these do better than your standard maize monocultures, and as for meat production, free ranges of big herds used for pooping all over that land surface to make it fertile. NB: organic meat animals can't be treated with antibiotics, and my veterinarian friend tells me that is a shame because so animals just get left sick/disease spreads. The benefits of administering the antibiotics outweighs the cons.

    And before anyone cries to me that the only solution is to go vegan, have a little look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI and let me know what you think.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Someone who works for Bayer CropScience
  • DatMurse
    DatMurse Posts: 1,501 Member
    Options
    There is a current lack of evidence that GMOs are unhealthy. Also organic fruits and veggies seem to be no better than non organic in terms of nutrient density or pesticides used

    There is a current lack of evidence that GMOs are healthy. There is a growing body of evidence that there needs to be more study on the impacts of GMOs, but we're rapidly passing a tipping point where if we're wrong about them being safe, we won't be able to go back. It's Monsanto's stated goal to have their patented genes dominate all life on Earth, and through the use of GMOs combined with their heavy-handed treatment of farmers, we're rapidly losing the basic genetic diversity upon which all of agriculture has been based for years 93% of veggie varieties available in 1903 had gone extinct by 1983, and since then Monsanto has actively purchased and then liquidated many traditional seed vendors (Seminis being the worst loss). So, while it remains to be seen that GMOs are unhealthy, it also has yet to be proven that they are safe, and that combined with their business practices, yields an untenable situation where if the company that promised us DDT, Agent Orange, 24D, and Roundup were all safe is wrong about this one, or nature does what it always does when there's too much of one genetic line and brings in a pest/disease/whatever that takes it out, we're utterly screwed. It seems unwise to dive head first off a cliff without first checking to see if the water is more than a couple of inches deep...

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/07/food-ark/food-variety-graphic


    There is considerable evidence that organic fruits and veggies are better nutritionally. The USDA's own nutritional data shows an amazing drop in the nutrient density of foods. For example, Broccoli in 1950 had 5.8% more phosphorus, 14.3% more vitamin C, 26.7% more iron, 37.4% more riboflavin, and 59.9% more calcium than broccoli in 1999. However, the nutritional value of organic broccoli has remained unchanged.
    Broccoli_Nutrient_Decline.png

    There are similar reports for a slew of fruits and veggies here:
    http://www.traditional-foods.com/nutrient-decline/

    In terms of pesticides used, while organic is not the same as no pesticides (as there are some that are approved), for the most part they're less toxic, less damaging to the environment, and less likely to be used in the first place. One of the tenets of organic farming is minimal use of even organic-certified pesticides, and they're so flipping expensive, and profit margins so low, that few organic farmers apply pesticides unless there is ongoing damage that is worse than the cost of the pesticide, as opposed to, say, the conventional potato farmers near me (growing for potato chip companies), that crop dust their fields with Chlorothalonil as often as 3 times per week with no visible damage of any kind. Chlorothalonil causes liver and kidney damage, eye damage, skin irritation, loss of embryos in early pregnancy, DNA damage, kidney and stomach cancer; kills fish, frogs, beneficial soil microbes, and worms. In our region, beekeepers with hives within 2 miles of one of these potato fields have lost 70% of their hives on average (we lucked out and only lost 66% of ours!) each year.

    Instruments to measure macronutrients and things in general in the 1950s were not that accurate or effective.

    They still thought eggs were bad and even in the old protein studies they said it was bad for our kidneys because it increased our GFR.