The Instigator
Hlinnerooth
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Garsot
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Worldwide Organic Food is a bad idea

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Hlinnerooth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 888 times Debate No: 61122
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

Hlinnerooth

Pro

I will argue that trying to grow food "organically" worldwide is a bad idea.
Organic will be used out of context and will mean plants that are not genetically altered or sprayed with chemicals.
I look foreword to your opinions.
Garsot

Con

I will argue that growing food organically is healthier and more beneficial to both those that eat it as well as the environment that the food grows in(the entire planet's ecosystem really.(

I look forward to the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Hlinnerooth

Pro

I agree that it is healthier (only by being richer in nutrients), but not beneficial.

Each year our crops are genetically altered for the following predicted season, and region. Without this we couldn't guarantee a good growing season. We can create plants that grow during drought, or years of too much rainfall. Because of this we can create crops that will grow in places they normally do extremely bad, like desert regions or regions known for flooding.

I will list why organic farming and foods are bad on global scale

1. Organic foods have fewer turn over compared to conventional farming. In other words the produce less crops. Which means less food worldwide.

2. Organic foods cost more. With people pinching pennies as it is, it makes it harder to buy healthier foods. It's a choice between produce and processed. And a lot of families cannot afford the difference to supplement their diets correctly.

3. Because in some areas there is a higher demand for organic foods they have to look further then the local organic farm. This means more transportation costs. Plus allot of the imported comes from places that don't regulate what they call organic, like China. http://www.organicconsumers.org...

4. It takes more time and therefore cannot be produced on a massive scale. They need to be tended to more (example: weeding)

5. Organic foods spoil at a much quicker rate and therefore cannot be transported to far away regions that have a lack of food. So it would raise world hunger.

6. If they have a bad year it would be a disaster. Great Example: The Great Potato Famine of Ireland. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(Ireland)

7. The pesticides kill things like roundworms, and help to deter plant diseases that can cause you to loose your entire crop. The help control invasive species, and help protect us from disease causing pests.

Overall the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to today's commercial farming methods.

I look foreword to your response.
Garsot

Con

Thank you for accepting me to debate and I will try to keep my points short and comprehensible as I tend to ramble on a bit and end up making no sense to even myself sometimes.

Although I do believe that genetically modifying crops to be able to handle harsher climates is a great idea, there are safe organic ways to do this that do not involve science labs or spraying chemicals which have the added factor of human error to go horribly wrong. More so, I believe the issue regarding crops, organic food pricing, starvation, etc., has more to do with unfair distribution of product rather than how a crop grows. But I feel that goes into another topic for debate and will do my best to stay on the point of this debate, whether or not organic is better for the planet.

I will go through your points and give a rebuttal for each.

"1. Organic foods have fewer turn over compared to conventional farming. In other words the produce less crops. Which means less food worldwide."

This one is definitely difficult to refute, as the number I am sure speak for themselves and I am not familiar with the exact numbers myself, so it would be pointless to try and debate this. The only thing I can say to it is that perhaps if more people grew individual crops that the yield on a world wide scale would not be a factor.

"2. Organic foods cost more. With people pinching pennies as it is, it makes it harder to buy healthier foods. It's a choice between produce and processed. And a lot of families cannot afford the difference to supplement their diets correctly."

As I said in my opening remarks, I believe this has more to do with who has the crops rather than how they are grown. So, to me, this does not factor in whether or not organic is better. Again, if people were to grow crops individually then the cost would be labor. Also, I think a huge factor for this is picky eaters. You can literally find fruit plants and different types of wheat grasses growing all over the place for free, but people seem to overlook this all the time in favor of store bought or "farm raised" foods.

"3. Because in some areas there is a higher demand for organic foods they have to look further then the local organic farm. This means more transportation costs. Plus allot of the imported comes from places that don't regulate what they call organic, like China. http://www.organicconsumers.org...;

You can go to my last two rebuttals as far as the demand for organic foods point goes. As for what China is doing to the food they export to America, I have my own reasons for believing why this happens and again this has more to do with who is managing the crops. The thing is the demand for a government to tackle a thing like food for a whole country full of people is pretty outrageous to begin with. Asking for a mass solution to smaller, more individual, need such as having food for people to eat is of course going to yield some less than desirable results. This world has been turned into a business world thanks to poor management of the industrialization where protecting the bottom line is more important than protecting the health of the masses. But I feel I'm going into another topic again so I'll cut that short.

"4. It takes more time and therefore cannot be produced on a massive scale. They need to be tended to more (example: weeding)"

This is perhaps another huge factor when it comes to conventional vs organic farming, and a very important one indeed. Just with the yield of crops, I am unfamiliar with the exact numbers as far as how long it takes, but I am sure conventional growing has shown to be much faster. This is another point that is hard to debate. I would imagine though that having a plant mature too fast could end up in it loosing some of its nutritional value.

"5. Organic foods spoil at a much quicker rate and therefore cannot be transported to far away regions that have a lack of food. So it would raise world hunger."

This may be true but there are ways to slow the spoiling of food that will allow for them to be able to be transported in well enough time to still be able to eat them, especially with the current technology. You can put vegetation into vacuumed sealed containers and have them shipped to a place without food in a matter of hours. If the technology available was utilized better and the priorities of people were a little better placed we could easily feed everybody in the world. There are literally hundreds of thousands of planes flying each day in the world.

"6. If they have a bad year it would be a disaster. Great Example: The Great Potato Famine of Ireland. http://en.m.wikipedia.org......(Ireland)"

This is to assume that modified crops cannot have a disastrous event occur, which with how nature is with the added factor of human error, I don't like to go off assumptions such as that.

"7. The pesticides kill things like roundworms, and help to deter plant diseases that can cause you to loose your entire crop. The help control invasive species, and help protect us from disease causing pests."

The pesticides not only kill the roundworms but they have been shown to cause harmful side effects to humans who eat the food including death. Not to mention that these pesticides are also killing off bees and birds that are vital to the overall ecosystem of the planet.
http://www.nursingdegree.net...

I do believe that, with proper management, genetically altered foods could end up being a great thing for humans but in a world that's currently run by greed and profit the health factors of these foods are questionable at best and it would be better suited for people to learn how to cultivate their own foods.
Debate Round No. 2
Hlinnerooth

Pro

Ok round 3. The final round.

Growing Crops in Harsh Climates:
Whether it is high or low deserts, or humid and wet tropical areas each has its downfall. Yes there are some crops that naturally grow in these areas, and few that can be raised with little to some difficulty. However if you want to raise Organic foods, that have little to no impact on the soil and surrounding areas as well has being rich in nutrients to give the people of the region a healthy and balanced diet, you might find it difficult to impossible to do. The hardest and pretty much impossible area to raise crops would be high deserts with little to no rainfall. For further information and some not so light reading please see: http://c.ymcdn.com...
It goes into more depth then I have room to write.

The Numbers:
Studies from 2012 show that an average of 25% less yields for Organic farmers vs Conventional Farming. Granted I'm sure they are doing what they can to help in this area, but 1/4 less food is a lot. Especially when you consider that our world population just keeps growing! For more information on the numbers: http://www.cnn.com...

Growing Your Own Crops:
This is solely my speculation, but I am an American and we have some of the laziest people in our country. I myself love to grow my own food in my backyard and freeze it for later use (because fresh just tastes so much better, and that includes fresh from a conventional farm for me), but I find it hard to believe that one of the laziest country's in the world would get up to make any real difference. I think of it more as a Utopian Idea, and without some Drastic Armageddon crisis going on, I doubt it will change any time soon. Again this is only my opinion, but I feel allot of people would agree.

Organic Food Transportation:
The main idea of organic food is to 1. Eat healthier, and 2. Have less of an impact n the earth.
Yes we could vacuum seal it and fly it right to the places that need the food, but
A) jet fuel
B) plastic to seal it in
If you want to freeze it:
C) freezing requires Tetrafluoroethane and sometimes still CFC's. For more information on Tetrafluoroethane see: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
I could go on... But I'll stop there

Pesticides:
Yes there have been and continue to have ill effects from pesticides, although studies are still being done for the most part. There are Agency's that study chemicals in pesticides to find out the effects on both animals (including us humans) and the environment, in order to stop or regulate the said chemicals if needed. Anything that is new comes with possible unforeseen effects, we see this everywhere we look. The point that some pesticides have been known to cause danger and they are being taken care of. It is human nature to try new things, and we fail more them we win sometimes.
For example: http://www.epa.gov...
The EPA does studies all the time to try and stop any potential risks to our environment including today's conventional farming methods, and are trying to figure out how to make it work for the better.

I will say that I have no personal problem with Organic food, I even grow some of my own, but in today's society we cannot switch to Organic Farming. We can only hope that are collective knowledge will lead us in a healthier and more environmentally friendlier direction when it comes to our food. In a perfect world we could live side by side with Nature and have no ill effects on the world around us, unfortunately we live here, and we must do what we can to preserve what we have left.

I look foreword to your conclusion of our debate, and would like to thank you for the discussion (I refuse to call it an argument), because an exchange of ideas is what will help us in the end. Thank you.
Garsot

Con

Growing Crops in Harsh Climates:
This is probably the most ideal reason to have GMO crops. I often imagine that when we finally get to explore space en masse that GMO crops are going to be handy. But on a planet that is covered in roughly 70% water and all the transportation devices we have, there is no reason to risk the health of the environment as well as those who eat the nutritionally inferior crops. I say environment because who knows what kind of effect GMO seeds and crops will have on the surrounding area that is used to interacting with naturally growing vegetation. Just like the human body rejects foreign materials, the earth could do the same thing, but this is just speculation and theory. Only time will tell.

The Numbers:
This is where I tend to go towards the cliche of "how reliable is that information" especially from a mainstream source like CNN who is paid by the huge corporation to promote one way or another. In fact I don't even like that I used the webmd article i did in the last round because honestly this is the internet, I can find a thousand articles for both my point and yours and the only way to verify credibility would be to literally go to the people who wrote it or go to the crops themselves. So I'm going off more personal experience than second or third hand information.

Growing Your Own Crops:
I admit that growing crops would definitely conflict with the lifestyle that Americans are supposed to have but honestly I doubt that claim of Americans being lazy. I have personally seen many people in America with multiple jobs, raising children, growing their own gardens and farms, and busting their bottoms to make ends meet. If that same effort were put towards self sufficiency we could literally see a utopian society in no time flat. The biggest obstacle is that there is a government that literally wants them not to be self-sufficient. You try to do your own thing and the government will tax you heavily and then find every little reason to make your life hell throughout the process. A person I know had to literally wait months to do some work on their own roof because they needed permission from the county, have county inspectors, pay a fee to get permission to do their own roof, wait for inspectors to come out and check on their work, have the right blue prints, etc. It's such a hassle to do anything that people literally just say screw it and try not to deal with it. And if people don't want to grow their own crops, they can either go pick berries or starve. That may sound harsh but there is no point in wasting resources or effort on those who are not going to try and fend for themselves anyways. That's a huge issue we have is trying to help those who refuse to help themselves.

Organic Food Transportation:
You are right that transportation would be a heavy cost, but I am not talking about having more planes flying about. I am saying that instead of using the planes to fly people around all the time, sacrifice that travel in order to transport food and water. We could literally end world hunger in a matter of days or weeks, maybe months if we utilized the technology we got in a more productive manner.

Pesticides:
Yeah its not just human nature to try new things, but its an issue when you're trying new things that deal with the health and safety of an ecosystem. When you're putting the lives of entire environments at risk in order to try new things, that has to be stopped. Especially when the new thing is spraying a chemical meant to kill small bugs on food that larger animals are going to eat that depend on microscopic functions. You could always argue that you can wash the chemicals but that does not guarantee that it would be clean and it doesn't matter when they create a seed that has the chemical bound to its DNA. If the chemicals are strong enough to kill bugs you can see with the naked eye, then they are definitely strong enough to kill blood cells and other microscopic things in the body.( I cant really think of the word that they are called.)

Conclusion:
I will say that I have no problem with GMOs if they are done right. By done right I mean with minimum side-effects, thorough testing to ensure this, and used strictly in environments that need it (like high deserts or other planets that do not have water). Otherwise it is another unnecessary thing that expends more resources than it puts out. Yes you can potentially have more crops, but the damage it does to those who eat it and to the environment around it hardly makes it worth the effort. Self-sufficiency is the key to universal survival and the advancement of the human species as well as the rest of the planet as a whole, at least being self-sufficient in maintaining the basics of food. drink, and shelter.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Comrade_Silly_Otter 2 years ago
Comrade_Silly_Otter
yes
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
@papadoi13 you don't believe in conspiracy theories yet you just literally described one. Data being manipulated in order for corporations to promote their products is the very definition of conspiracy.

conspiracy[kuh n-spir-uh-see]
noun, plural conspiracies.
1.the act of conspiring.
2.an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose:
4.Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

http://dictionary.reference.com...
Posted by papadoi1 2 years ago
papadoi1
I don't believe in conspiracy theories at all. In fact I believe that the reality is much simpler than that. I think that the main logic behind it is this:

If I am a multinational corporation with lots of money and resources, then I will try to promote my products in such a way that they are seen as "attractive" and the alternatives as "inferior". So If I can afford to hire people to post comments, write articles or any other kind of targeted advertisement and publicity, then that's what I am going to do. There is no conspiracy behind it, just a business practice.

The problem arises when data are manipulated and access to different viewpoints is purposely limited. Moreover a scientist with a financial backing from a large corporation is more easily seen as an expert rather than a scientist with solid evidence but no financial backing.....I know its crazy, but that's what happens.
Posted by Hlinnerooth 2 years ago
Hlinnerooth
Don't get me started on the GMO thing... I was reading a article the other day about spoiled produce, and it stated so etching about it still being rich in nutrients. Check it out: http://www.webmd.com...
They can make you more than a little sick sometimes though depending on how spoiled it is and what you do with it. My Grandmother, like many, was one of those that cut the bad parts off if her food was a little spoiled (like the mould growing on cheese), and she never got sick from it. I myself will cut the bad parts off of a partially spoiled onion (because I really love onions), and still eat the rest. So I can agree with you on the most part with that. Sadly though I don't think most teenagers in the "developed" world would even touch them... My own Mother would just throw it all away...
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
I was trying to go through the debate avoiding conspiracy theories regarding controlling the mass food supply in order to control the population but its kinda hard when thats what I believe this whole GMO thing is gearing towards. Because really a good farmer has many different techniques for growing crops that do not need resource exhausting lab equipment to do. A good farmer can manipulate how a crop grows in a way that can make greater yields, faster growth with minimum loss, etc. I have seen it done and it could be done on world wide scale if people had better understanding of how plants grow. The biggest issues would of course be droughts, spoiled food, and diseases but the latter two can be easily discussed. Spoiled foods may get a person a little sick but this can help their immune system to get stronger and if cooked the foods can then still be good to eat. The same can be said about diseases but thats a bit harder to justify as diseases are a bit stronger and deadlier than just a faint sickness.
http://www.webmd.com...

Either way, there is no such thing as organic food anymore anyways. The world's soil has been contaminated with chemical agents for a long long time. Way before the whole chemtrail stuff started springing up.
Posted by Hlinnerooth 2 years ago
Hlinnerooth
Thank you for posting you comments :)
Posted by papadoi1 2 years ago
papadoi1
Thanks for acknowledging the comment....I'll wait to see how this debate turns out.
Posted by Hlinnerooth 2 years ago
Hlinnerooth
Over population is an issue, and over consumption. I live in the United States and we over consume a lot! If we did currently spread the food out it would be enough for everyone with today's farming methods. If we switched to completly organic farming methods it would be a problem. Just with the fewer yields alone.
Posted by papadoi1 2 years ago
papadoi1
You link the problem of organic food to world population, why isn't world population itself an issue? In the same line of thinking... why isn't overconsumption an issue?
Posted by Hlinnerooth 2 years ago
Hlinnerooth
I have no problem with organic foods. I always have a veggie garden in my back yard, but on a global scale it would not work. If I have a bad year and my veggies die at least I can go to the store and by more.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
HlinneroothGarsotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: IMO con did not have a very good rebuttal especially to pro's points about the negative effects of organic food being world wide.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
HlinneroothGarsotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides agreed to health benefits of "organic" produce. But Pro used real world objections to worldwide organic food, including less efficient crops and higher costs. Con did not present a good plan to fix this problem, so arguments to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.