Organic Agriculture Is Key to Helping Feed the World Sustainably

John Reganold, , UCS | February 3, 2016, 6:31 pm EDT
Bookmark and Share

Organic agriculture is a relatively untapped resource for feeding the Earth’s population, especially in the face of climate change and other global challenges. That’s the conclusion my doctoral candidate Jonathan Wachter and I reached in reviewing 40 years of science comparing the long-term prospects of organic and conventional farming.

Hundreds of scientific studies now show that organic agriculture can produce sufficient yields, be profitable for farmers, protect and improve the environment, and be safer for farm workers. Thirty years ago, there were just a couple handfuls of studies comparing organic with conventional agriculture. In the last 15 years, the number of these kinds of studies has skyrocketed.

The review study, “Organic Agriculture in the 21st Century,” is featured as the cover story for the February issue of the journal Nature Plants. It is the first to compare organic and conventional agriculture across the four goals of sustainability identified by the National Academy of Sciences: productivity, economics, environment, and social wellbeing.

The yield question

Critics have long argued that organic agriculture is inefficient, requiring more land to yield the same amount of food. It’s true that organic farming produces lower yields, averaging 10 to 20 percent less than conventional. Proponents contend that the environmental advantages of organic agriculture far outweigh the lower yields, and that increasing research and breeding resources for organic systems would reduce the yield gap. Sometimes excluded from these arguments is the fact that we already produce enough food to more than feed the world’s 7.4 billion people but do not provide adequate access to all individuals.

In some cases, organic yields can be higher than conventional. For example, in severe drought conditions, which are expected to increase with climate change in many areas, organic farms can produce as good, if not better, yields because of the higher water-holding capacity of organically farmed soils.

What science does tell us is that mainstream conventional farming systems have provided growing supplies of food and other products but often at the expense of other sustainability goals.

Environmental benefits

Conventional agriculture may produce more food, but it often comes at a cost to the environment. Biodiversity loss, environmental degradation, and severe impacts on ecosystem services have not only accompanied conventional farming systems but have often extended well beyond their field boundaries. With organic agriculture, environmental costs tend to be lower and the benefits greater.

Overall, organic farms tend to store more soil carbon, have better soil quality, and reduce soil erosion compared to their conventional counterparts. Organic agriculture also creates less soil and water pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions.  And it’s more energy-efficient because it doesn’t rely on synthetic fertilizers or pesticides.

Organic agriculture is also associated with greater biodiversity of plants, animals, insects and microbes as well as genetic diversity. Biodiversity increases the services that nature provides, like pollination, and improves the ability of farming systems to adapt to changing conditions.

Profitability

Despite lower yields, organic agriculture is more profitable for farmers because consumers are willing to pay more. Higher prices, called price premiums, can be justified as way to compensate farmers for providing ecosystem services and avoiding environmental damage or external costs.

Wellbeing

Although studies that evaluate social equity and quality of life for farm communities are few, what is available suggests that both organic and conventional farming leave room for improvement. Still, organic farming comes out ahead when it comes to providing jobs for workers and reducing farmworkers’ exposure to pesticides and other chemicals. Many organic certification programs also have wellbeing goals for farmworkers, as well as animals.

Graphic comparing sustainability benefits of organic and conventional farming.

An assessment of organic farming relative to conventional farming illustrates that organic systems better balance the four areas of sustainability: production (orange), environment (blue), economics (red), and social wellbeing (green). Source: Nature Plants

Beyond organic

Organic agriculture has been able to provide jobs, be profitable, benefit the soil and environment, and support social interactions between farmers and consumers. Yet, no single type of farming can feed the world. Rather, what’s needed is a blend of organic and other innovative farming systems, including agroforestry, integrated farming, conservation agriculture, mixed crop/livestock, and still undiscovered systems.

Policy changes needed

With only 1% of global agricultural land in organic production, organic agriculture can contribute a larger share in feeding the world.  Yet, significant barriers to farmers adopting organic agriculture hinder its expansion. Such hurdles include existing policies, the costs of transitioning to organic certification, lack of access to labor and markets, and lack of appropriate infrastructure for storing and transporting food. Governments should focus on creating policies that help develop not just organic but also other innovative and more sustainable farming systems. Specifically, agricultural policies should:

  • Offer greater financial incentives for farmers to adopt conservation measures and scientifically sound sustainable, organic, and integrated crop or livestock production practices.
  • Expand outreach and technical assistance that will provide farmers with better information about these transformative practices.
  • Increase publicly funded research to improve and expand modern sustainable farming.

For a copy of the study, please email John Reganold.

Dr. John Reganold is Regents Professor of Soil Science and Agroecology at Washington State University and has spent 30-plus years bringing a blend of innovative research and teaching on sustainable farming systems into the mainstream of higher education and food production. His research has measured the effects of organic, integrated, and conventional farming systems on productivity, financial performance, environmental quality, and social wellbeing on five continents. His former students are on the front lines of sustainability around the world, bringing food security to sub-Saharan Africa for the U.S. Agency for International Development, adapting quinoa to the salty soils of Utah, working on agroecology for Pacific Foods in Oregon, and turning wastes into resources in Haiti.

 

Posted in: Food and Agriculture Tags: ,

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments


Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

  • Daniel

    I wonder how come the National Academy of
    Sciences has identified *four* goals of sustainability (productivity, economics, environment, and social well-being), when the sustainability concept normally only includes three, namely ecological, economical and social sustainability. (Recently, some parties also suggest to include cultural sustainability.) In the graph from the study shown above, “yield” is naturally a part of economical sustainability through “profitability”, “nutritional quality” should be part of social sustainability, and “minimize pesticide residues” part of ecological sustainability.
    Is there any value in productivity per se? When extensive farming is more profitable than intensive, it is in the interest of farmers. If consumers perceive an added value in crops grown with a lower yield, why is that a problem? Eating meat by far adds more to the agricultural area needed, as do popular diets where starch-rich staples are replaced by nuts, seeds and vegetables. The issue of affordability of food for the poorest is certainly crucial, but should be included anyhow through social sustainability.
    The addition of productivity as a separate goal, seems influenced by agro-industrial considerations.

    • alan2102

      “Eating meat by far adds more to the agricultural area needed, as do
      popular diets where starch-rich staples are replaced by nuts, seeds and
      vegetables.”

      Daniel: You sure about that? I mean with respect to nuts — tree crops. From my studies a few years back I recall that tree nuts had caloric output per unit area under cultivation comfortably or even greatly in excess of any other known crop. That is apart from the fact that tree nuts are very nutritious and desirable in other ways, aside from calories. I’ll have to re-check my findings on that. Thanks for reminding me. But you might want to check it yourself.

      • Daniel

        I admit I only supposed the differences in price to some extent reflected lower yield. The higher cost (even before nuts became trendy) must reflect higher demand for resources of some kind.

      • alan2102

        Very good point. I suspect it has to do with labor intensivity. Nut harvesting is semi-automated but still requires human hands to some extent. That, combined with volume (grains = MUCH higher volume than nuts, and hence efficiencies of scale), plus possibly because some grain and legume farming is subsidized.
        The yields are in the vicinity of 2000-6000 pounds per acre. Compare with grain yields of 60-80 bushels (~40lbs per bushel) per acre, i.e. about 2500-3000 pounds per acre. Note that nuts are much higher in calories than grains.
        A single nut tree might yield 50-100 pounds per year. That is a lot of nuts, a lot of calories!

        PS: I want to understand your point about the definition of “sustainability” (3 factors versus 4). Could you express it again, in different words? I just did not get it. But I want to.

  • Marcia DeLonge

    As Reganold and Wachter covered in their new review, current organic systems do tend to have lower yields than conventional systems, although the size of this so-called “yield gap” depends on many factors, such as the specific crops, weather, soils, and management decisions. The newest studies (referenced by Reganold & Wachter) indicate that yields are 8-25% lower in organic as compared to conventional systems on average. The most recent of these (Ponisio et al. 2015, which you can read more about in my blog post – see link below) found that the average yield gap was 19.2% but that diverse farms had a much smaller yield gap (8-9%). While these studies synthesize research to determine average figures, it is also true that higher yields have been documented on organically versus conventionally managed farms in several specific cases. The ones highlighted by Reganold & Wachter were focused on yields during drought (Lockeretz et al. 1981, Letter et al. 2003), but there are other cases as well.

    One of the most important things to consider here is not the estimated size of the yield gap, but rather that the high yields of conventional systems are a direct result of significant research (and research investment). Notably, organic and agroecological methods of farming have received much less investment than conventional systems (in other words, there is also an “investment gap”, you can read more in our fact sheet – see link below). Thus, there is good reason to believe that this yield gap could be reduced with additional research, and a better understanding of what makes some organically-managed systems perform particularly well will be critical to supporting a food system that delivers needed healthy food while also reducing undesirable outcomes. Reganold and Wachter’s review is an important contribution in that it has not only summarized the state of the science on the advantages and tradeoffs of organic farming systems, but it has also identified several promising areas for future research that could contribute to improving our food and agricultural systems.

    – Blog post on Ponisio et al. 2015 paper: http://blog.ucsusa.org/marcia-delonge/groundbreaking-study-shows-how-sustainable-farming-practices-can-improve-yields-755
    – Fact sheet on the need for more funding for agroecology: http://www.ucsusa.org/food-agriculture/advance-sustainable-agriculture/counting-on-agroecology

    • alan2102

      “Notably, organic and agroecological methods of farming have received much less investment than conventional system”

      Well, surprise surprise! Not.

      Thanks for your post.

  • We’re glad to see that this post has generated a lively discussion. Please keep it civil and on-topic, and refrain from personal attacks and name-calling. We’ll be deleting or editing posts that violate our policy. Thanks!

  • AgrSci1

    “It’s true that organic farming produces lower yields, averaging 10 to 20 percent less than conventional.”
    The correct figure is 25-50% less.

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    The article ignores many simple facts. The most important of which is that there are not enough organic inputs to replace synthetic agriculture. If a large segment of farmers switched to organic. the price of such inputs would rise. This would be followed by a rise in prices. And this would cause poor folks to have to spend a larger proportion of their income on food. Try calculating the tons or cubic yards of compost or manure it would take to fertilize just the farms in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas. then start multiplying for the rest of the world. The commentor below me is wrong about virtually every point he attempts to make. Here is an example. http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/organic-food-no-more-nutritious-than-conventionally-grown-food-201209055264

    • hyperzombie

      Plus all the additional area that would be required if farmers went all Organic, millions of additional acres would need to be plowed under.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Plus, if you were to actually employ this suggestion. “Increase publicly funded research to improve and expand modern sustainable farming.” You would end up encouraging farmers to use more g.e. crops and no till. The only problem would be that you hired gov’t employees and had to pay them to “discover” what most farmers already know.

      • Aimer

        Did you miss the part where it said: Yet, no single type of farming can feed the world. Rather, what’s needed is a blend of organic and other innovative farming systems, including agroforestry, integrated farming, conservation agriculture, mixed crop/livestock, and still undiscovered systems.

      • hyperzombie

        “Yet, no single type of farming can feed the world.2”
        Really? Other than producing very expensive food that uses far more land, what has Organic contributed?

      • JoeFarmer

        Good point.

        Organic advocates are trying to claim that consciousness of soil health has been and still is their exclusive thing. Which is complete nonsense.

        I don’t think they’ll ever let go of that claim. Because if they did, their ideology-based set of farming rules would be exposed for what it is.

      • hyperzombie

        I know, How can Organic say with a straight face that they are all about “Natural” and “sustainability” when they allow antibiotics to be used on a fruit crop, but not a cow?
        All there decisions are based on marketing, not best practice.
        And all the morons that say ” the Gov should invest more in Organic research” should be smacked up the side of the head, the Gov should not spend any money helping them with marketing.

      • JoeFarmer

        I guess what irks me the most is that the faith-based ag bunch has co-opted, “agroecology” and turned it into a “movement”, which totally removes any kind of science-based progress from the definition.

        That kind of stuff doesn’t play well with me.

      • Rob Bright

        Hey, fake farmer, how’s your pro-GMO activism going for you?

      • JoeFarmer

        What are you babbling about, Rob?

        When are you going to point out any ag-related post that I’ve made that is incorrect? Oh wait, you can’t! That’s why you generate mindless drivel.

      • Rob Bright

        Said the well known pro-GMO activist and troll…

      • AgrSci1

        “Hyperzombie Scores!!!!!” Whenever someone resorts to a “troll. . .” comment, it means they have no scientific, rational, or logical argument.

    • Never Ending Food

      We have yet to even scratch the surface of food production on the planet. There are currently huge amounts of wasted resources (e.g. runoff water, post-harvest crop residues, market waste, food scraps, mulching materials, manure, open-pollinated seeds, etc) which could easily be used to produce abundant and organic production systems at homes, farms, cities, schools, businesses, churches, hospitals, and any other available land. This year in Malawi, we are experiencing great fluctuations in the rainfall (which is exactly what climate change specialists and meteorologists have been predicting for the Southern African region). Despite these periods of ‘drought’, as many farmers struggle to monocrop their chemical-dependent maize crops within depleted soils, we have been able to demonstrate incredible results with our 100% organic production systems. As seen in the picture below, our diversified, mulched, and composted fields are thriving. We use of combination of sustainable technologies such as the intercropping of leguminous plants, integrated pest management, liquid manure, worm farm castings, composting toilet refuse, the use of free open-pollinated seeds, and many other ideas which are readily available to local farmers in our area at no-to-low cost. Our biggest challenge is not access to inputs, but rather a reluctance by many people to internalize behavior change.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        “easily produced” No, that requires work and shipping to farms. Both expensive chores. The crop residues already remain on the fields right where they are needed. So, no gain by doing anything with them. Most open pollinated seeds are outdated lower in yield or have less disease resistance.That is why farmers buy hybrids. The fact that you even use the word “easily” in your comments shows me that you have no clue about the amount of work needed to us such products I get dump truck loads of horse stall muck to mulch my greenhouses before planting them. It is a lot of work.

      • Rob Bright

        Thank you for your thoughtful, science-based approach and explanations of what is going on in Malawi. Pay no mind to the corporate trolls attacking you. Apparently, the biotech/ agri-chemical industry has enough funding to hire these meat-puppets to spread misinformation and pseudoscience on their behalf. (I guess they have to make a living somehow…) Eric, hyperzombie, and Joe Farmer spend hours each day trolling articles like this on behalf of their corporate masters in order to discourage people like you, misinform the public,and spread pseudoscience and propaganda supporting biotechnology and the agri-chemical industry.

        Good luck to you!

      • Never Ending Food

        Thank you for your supportive words.

  • Never Ending Food

    When ‘productivity’ is measured only in calories-per-hectare at a single harvest season, monocropped agriculture may be erroneously labeled as ‘efficient’, but when we look at the diverse benefits of agroecological and polycultural systems (e.g. nutritional diversity, access to seasonal and year-round harvests, resilience in the face of climate change, safeguarding of biological interactions, superior soil and water management, lower economic inputs, etc.) then we find that these types of sustainable agricultural systems far ‘out-produce’ the current conventional systems.

    A great example is what we find here in Malawi, Africa. Farmers have been encouraged to monocrop maize (a Central American crop) to meet all of their food needs for the entire year. Despite 8 consecutive growing seasons (2006-2013) of surplus maize harvests, it did nothing to reduce the nutritional ‘stunting’ which affects 47% of Malawi’s children. This crop is now harvested in one month of the year (generally April or May) and then the majority of the land lies unproductive for the next 11 months. When the maize reserves from the previous growing season run short and the newly planted maize is unavailable until harvest time, this has become our annual and chronic ‘hungry season’. Ironically, this occurs in the midst of Malawi’s most agriculturally productive time of the year–the rainy season. When farmers diversify, they quickly find that they move into abundance and surplus. Last year, the nation saw floods and drought that greatly impacted the growth of maize, and now, because one crop failed, the newspapers are reporting that 2.8 million are facing food insecurity. Meanwhile, on our sustainable and diversified farm here at ‘Never Ending Food’ we have access to over 200 foods, building supplies, natural medicines, fuel sources, income generating opportunities, and so much more. As people are lining up to buy maize from the government at record-high prices, we literally have food dropping to the ground all around us. Solutions exist, but we need to get over the idea that all the world’s ‘food’ should come from the monocropping of a small handful of high-carbohydrate, low-nutrient crops.

    • Eric Bjerregaard

      Your Malawi example doesn’t hold water. Your remark about the stunting would only be true if the farmers were stupid enough to follow the advice and than abstain from growing subsistence crops to feed their families a more balanced diet. They are not that stupid. I do not trust your claim.

      • Never Ending Food

        There is a psychological factor to Malawi’s over-reliance on maize. Despite it being a crop that was introduced from the Americas, it is now often seen as the ‘only’ food. People are not making decisions based upon good nutritional choices, but rather going to extreme measures to procure wall-to-wall maize production (even at the cost of removing other foods, trees, and natural resources from fields to clear more land for maize production). This maize is not generally eaten in its ‘whole grain’ form, but rather over-milled into a white flour. This processing reduces even more of the nutritional content. Our bodies need approximately 50 different nutrients for proper growth and development, but this over-refined white maize flour is predominately a source of carbohydrate. The current diet (as seen in the attached picture) now has about 3/4 of a plate being devoted to carbohydrate with the majority of diversified nutritional content limited generally to a small portion of beans or greens. In 2001, the Ministry of Agriculture came out with a 6-food group model (as compared to the previous 3-food group model) to promote nutritional diversity. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Agricultural policies do not follow this model in terms of diversified systems of production, but rather only an emphasis on maize production. Millions of dollars are spent on the subsidization of synthetic fertilizers, corporations like Monsanto (which bought Malawi’s National Seed Company in 1999) are promoting–selling and donating–hybridized maize seeds, and government programs have been set up to allow farmers to access loans for agricultural ‘inputs’ (like seeds, fertilizers, and chemicals). It has nothing to do with ‘stupidity’, but everything to do with a very limited and short-sighted focus on one crop to meet the majority of the nation’s nutritional, agricultural, and economic needs. This over-reliance on a single crop has left the nation extremely susceptible to fluctuations in climate, market prices, pest and disease outbreaks, and malnutrition.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Wow, a photo as evidence. Your arguments are actually good ones for getting g.e. crops to the farmers there more quickly. This would increase their choices and likely yields. Further what is done with crops after the farmers sell it is not relevant to the crop choices that farmers make. These folks are doing what they need to . Economic survival is necessary to keep their farms. Doing so is not shortsighted. What you are actually referring to is supply and demand market pressures. Factors that are out of the farmers control. “disease outbreaks and malnutrition” More arguments for g.e. seeds. Go ahead use the organic inputs that can be obtained locally and cost effectively. that is good recycling. Just do not pretend that such will feed your whole nation. BTW I know about cover crops.

    • hyperzombie

      “then we find that these types of sustainable agricultural systems far ‘out-produce’ the current conventional systems”
      Do you have any evidence of this? Or is it just a nice story?

      • Never Ending Food

        We have empirical evidence from our own farm here in Malawi. We may not get the same total yield of maize in one season due to the fact that we don’t monocrop our entire field with one crop, but we do grow maize, which we harvest in the normal season of April or May. Then, because we have diversified our crops we can harvest things like millet and sorghum around June-July, then sweet potatoes in Aug-Sept., then cassava in Oct-Nov., which brings us back into the rainy season crops like taro (coco yam), green bananas, etc. (and that’s just staple foods, we achieve the same seasonal availability with legumes, fruits, vegetables, fats, and animal foods). The total yields of all these crops combined far out-produces the current 2,000-3,000 kgs/hectare in productive maize fields, plus we end up with a far greater nutritional diversity. A great example is the use of local yam (Dioscorea species), which we grow on our farm. This year we dug up one yam plant which was estimated to weigh about 20 kgs. Given a growing area of about 2 meters by 2 meters (four meters squared), this means that a farmer could fit about 2,500 yams on a hectare, at 20 kgs each this means that just with yams alone one could push harvest yields upwards of 50,000 kgs/hectare while still leaving room for the integration of other nutritious crops. The attached picture is one of the local yams that we dug up this year, they can be eaten like any other starchy root crop, but due to a stigmatization of local resources (often only seen a ‘poor people’s food’), an over-promotion of monocropped maize, and a growing loss of traditional knowledge, many of these incredible resources are now being ignored by conventional agricultural systems. This yam is only one of about 200 different foods that we grow on a year-round basis on our farm.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        That is not empirical. It is anecdotal at best.

      • Never Ending Food

        ‘Empirical evidence’: a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. If you want hard data, you can have a read of the Doctoral Thesis–“We are Farmers: Agriculture, Food Security, and Adaptive Capacity among Permaculture and Conventional Farmers in Central Africa” (by Dr. Conrad)–which was released in March of last year and analyzed data from community members in our surrounding area who are adopting agroecological practices. Some of the papers conclusions include:
        –“Permaculture farmers grew three times more crops overall, and more crop varieties per food group than conventional farmers.”
        –“Permaculture farmers had higher agrobiodiversity and lower purchased input requirements on average compared to conventional farmers. In addition, the permaculture farmers all reported improvements in food access since beginning to use permaculture. Permaculture farmers also on average had higher food security and diet diversity scores than conventional farmers.”
        –“This analysis showed that farmers who used permaculture experienced agricultural, environmental, livelihood, and food and nutrition security benefits in comparison to farmers who solely used conventional agriculture.”
        –“Conventional farmers had limited ability to apply conventional techniques given their cost and conventional techniques did not improve their farm system in the long term. Permaculture farmers faced the same overall problems as conventional farmers, however, permaculture education and practices expanded farmers‟ skills and available strategies to contend with some constraints and improvise in response to problems. Permaculture farmers also faced social challenges and material, environmental, and knowledge constraints when implementing permaculture. However, farmers were able to use permaculture practices in a way that provided them with agricultural, environmental, and livelihood benefits.”
        –“Primary findings suggest that permaculture farmers experienced multifaceted benefits from implementing permaculture because the farmers used permaculture practices that addressed specific household constraints and expanded their adaptive capacity.”…“The multi-functional benefits farmers experienced from using permaculture supports the growing call for “triple-win solutions” for agriculture, health, and environmental sustainability by donors and policy-makers that promote low external agriculture (IFPRI 2013a:13).”

        The full thesis may be downloaded through the following link: http://www.neverendingfood.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Conrad-FINAL-Dissertation-We-are-farmers.pdf

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Another Wow, Agroecological supporters say that agroecological farming works. And one guy even got a thesis approved. https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/04/27/has-agroecology-been-hijacked-by-activists-more-concerned-about-anti-gmo-purity-than-sustainability/ Also, you have not mentioned what will eventually happen if you continue to ship food to urban areas and use so little in the way of off farm inputs. Why? because you do not want to admit that you are mining your soil and will eventually need those inputs. Please explain how combines work on a permaculture farm. Hippies will not feed the world. And sometimes imitating nature is not efficient. http://www.colintudge.com/articles/article18.php I am waiting for you to address economies of scale and how you will get needed organic inputs to millions of acres of farm land without prices going way up.

      • patzagame

        Eric,do you realize how inane you sound? Are you insinuating Never Ending Food is a hippie? You are truly a pathetic Big Agrichemical paid troll.You have your head so far up bio tech’s genetically engineered ass,you wouldn’t know sustainability if it hit you square in the rear.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Well Patty has a foul mouth instead of facts again. I am saying I do not believe much, if any of what Never said. I am also saying that you know even less as is evidenced by the ignorance revealing troll/shill nonsense you continually vomit forth. The path followed by these types has some old hippy origins and is not practical on a large scale basis.

      • Rob Bright

        You have no “facts” Eric. We all know you’re a biotech shill… Citing the GLP only confirms you’re an anti-science, propagandist.

      • Rob Bright

        Imagine that — a well known, pro-GMO activist and spokesperson citing the industry-funded, astroturf group (GLP — aka, genetic lunacy project) to spread misinformation and pseudoscience on behalf of the biotech/ agri-chemical industry. Give it up, Eric. You have no credibility. Everyone knows you’re a corporate meat puppet…

      • razorjack

        The Genetic Literacy Project is a wholly controlled GMO pesticide industry disinformation astro-turf site. The GLP has a reputation for bad writing, GMO pesticide industry enemy hit pieces, and controlled tightly managed public participation.. All you will find there is GMO pesticide industry PR based talking points and cherry picked agenda driven GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science. Any real science that doesn’t support the GMO pesticide industry agenda will be attacked or ignored. The GLP can not be considered in the same universe with any credible ethical scientific publication. http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/05/genetic-literacy-project-crosses-ethical-line/

      • Lively exchange of views is fine, but please keep the conversation civil and focused on facts. Posts featuring personal attacks and name-calling will be edited and/or deleted. Thank you.

      • patzagame

        Amazing job,keep up the good work in Malawi! I feel the need to apologize for the ignorant paid Big AG BioTech souless trolls who infest this comment thread.They will stop at nothing to insult and torment all who don’t believe their ideology that G.E. monocropped unsustainable agriculture is whats needed to feed the world.They embarrass the people in the U.S. who want better food to feed their families,not the pesticide residual G.E. crops that are found in 80% of the processed foods in our markets today.There is a better way to grow food and you are spot on.Best wishes.

      • Never Ending Food

        Thank you.

      • hyperzombie

        Like I said, Nice story.. Do you have any actual evidence?