The self-righteous organic movement got under my skin again today when I read a story in the Toronto Globe and Mail about the movement’s opposition to the marketing of genetically-modified alfalfa.
Nowhere does the article say why the organic movement is opposed to genetically-modified crops. I have yet to find the movement offering any reason based in fact.
The organic movement relies on anecdotes from the faithful to promote its products. I have no doubt that fields farmed organically and including hay and pastures in rotation will differ from fields that have been no-till farmed to grow only corn, soybeans and wheat. That, however, does not constitute reasonable grounds to reject commercial fertilizers and synthetic pesticides.
None of the claims that organic products are better from a food safety or human nutrition basis can be substantiated. Again, the evidence is anecdotal, offered by true believers.
I recall a time when the North American organic movement was seriously debating whether it ought, or ought not, to allow genetically-modified crops. And I recall an American leader of the movement, speaking at an organic conference at the University of Guelph, arguing that the genetic approach to improving crops was safe, effective and beneficial for farmers and the public.
The decision to ban genetically-modified crops from the organic movement was made largely on the basis that key patents were held by large, multi-national corporations such as Monsanto. Big and commercial was painted as the enemy of small and organic.
This is a phony basis for rejecting a beneficial idea, technology or product. It’s what philosophers call an “ad hominem” argument where the attack is on the person, not the idea.
Where was the organic movement’s outrage when the first genetically-modified alfalfa was developed by a plant breeder at the University of Guelph? I haven’t heard a peep from them about that alfalfa’s enhanced ability to survive winters.
The organic movement strikes me as an unreasonable sect of zealots.
