Organic food not safer than conventional

The term organic has exploded in the last decade in our privileged and health-conscious first world state.

In fact, the global organic industry is now a $50 billion a year industry.

The Canadian arm of this industry, through a six-page “information feature” in the Oct. 14 issue of the Globe and Mail, leveraged that market power and made several assertions that are incorrect and misleading about modern agricultural practice.

First, the assumption that organic production does not use toxic chemical pesticides or antibiotics is misleading.

The organics industry endorses the use of copper and sulfur compounds in its applications. Deemed natural, both of these products are toxic to a broad range of organisms and are long-term soil and environmental contaminants. As well, they are applied at significantly higher rates than synthetic fungicides.

Antibiotics, such as streptomycin and tetracycline, have been used in organic production of orchard crops such as apples for years in the United States.

Antibiotic use is restricted in organic animal production in Canada but can be used when the animal’s life is in jeopardy. In fact, producers are required to do so. No animals with antibiotic residues above a low maximum tolerable level are allowed to be used as food animals, so antibiotics should not be present in the flesh and products of treated animals.


In the case where hormones are used, they essentially cannot be present at levels above those which naturally occur.

Second, a mainstay of organic food propaganda is the insinuation that conventionally grown food or production methods that employ genetically modified crops are unsafe.

Findings in the 2010 A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research report, which was commissioned by the European Commission, did not indicate any increased risk from growing GM crops nor any evidence of risk from consuming food containing GM ingredients.

This does not mean there are no risks because no food is 100 percent safe. Earlier this year, 60 people died and more than 3,000 fell ill after eating organic bean sprouts in the European Union.

It is important to note that organic production methods endorse the use of animal manure as fertilizer for food crops. This “natural” fecal matter is a huge breeding ground for nasty bacteria like salmonella, C. difficile and E.coli.

This leads us to a third myth that organically grown food is the healthier option.


There is no evidence to suggest that organic food is any healthier than conventionally grown food or food containing GM ingredients.

Studies conducted in 2009 and 2010 did not find any consistent nutritional benefits in organic food when compared with conventionally grown food.

No jurisdiction, whether it is the British Food Standards Agency, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Food Standards-Australia New Zealand or Health Canada, permits superior health claims for organic food because there is no scientifically accepted evidence to support them.

The organics industry used the Globe and Mail to launch a creative publicity campaign. It was, essentially, a paid news release meant to generate media attention, which may be readily interpreted by the average consumer as a legitimate journalistic piece.

However, it was really a six-page cluster of misleading information supported by flawed research that disparaged conventional and other agricultural practices.

We cannot continue to assume that organic is the more superior food choice or agricultural practice. The process of bringing food from the farm to the fork is more complex than that.


Ryan is a research associate with the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Agriculture and Bioresources. Wager is a laboratory demonstrator at Vancouver Island University’s biology department.

  • marko

    Talking about misleading statements…. “It is important to note that organic production methods endorse the use of animal manure as fertilizer for food crops.”
    That statement is terribly wrong as Compost is endorsed NOT raw fecal matter. I would suggest that the authors speak with thier own Organic department to learn a bit before publishing. Manure is “cooked” in piles so that the pathogens and weeds are killed. Clean Compost is spread on fields and encorporated into soil.

    • Yes Marko, it’s accurate to say that compost is endorsed in organic production, NOT raw fecal matter. But the problem is that there’s no vertification to ensure proper composting is taking place on organic farms.

      There is no testing of any sort being done in the Canadian organic sector to ensure compliance. none. This means composting is basically a free-for-all, as is the use of prohibited substances like sythentic fertilizer and pesticides.

      The USDA plans to begin testing down South. Meanwhile, up here in Canada, the CFIA finally did some tests on organic farms and found that a whopping 24% of them were in non-compliance. So the CFIA tried to suppress their results.

      Hardly reassuring, is it? Especially when one considers all the problems associated with improperly-composted manure.

  • Kelvin Humenny

    This sounds like a shameless plug of Monsanto propaganda. I hope you were paid well for your attempt to sway the public away from better food, and the people who work hard to provide it.
    Even if your claims were true, organic food still tastes far better than non-organic. That alone would be reason enough for the choice.

    • What makes you think Monsanto cares about any of the propaganda being promulgated by the organic sector? Monsanto is very happy with the current state of affairs in the multi-billion-dollar, global organic industrial complex. It’s a paper-based free-for-all that encourages imports from places like China, Mexico and Brazil which outweigh domestic organic-production almost two-to-one! All Monsanto has to do is wait five or ten years and there won’t be a single organic farmer left in Western Canada.

  • Amy

    So there’s no difference between organic products and regular products?

    I’m not an expert in agriculture, so I might be off-base here, but I think we should make a distinction between what organic norms allow and what farmers actually choose to use.

    Small farmers will prefer to use the safest products, even though the regulations might be looser, because that’s what they and their families eat. But once large corporations get involved in organic farming, we can’t count on their good intentions.

    Amy @ OrganicShops

    • Dean

      Amy, there definitely is a difference between organic and conventional products. Certified organic producers follow a strict list of rules, and get audited every year by an independent certification company.

      It’s true that there are a few items like antibiotics that are allowed under organic rules, but it’s use is extremely restricted, and in this particular case, when the animal’s life is threatened. Whereas, there are no restrictions to using antibiotics in a conventional system. The same restrictions apply to the use of products such as sulfur and copper, an organic farmer can’t spray these compounds with wild abandon, to say otherwise is completely false. Synthetic chemicals are not allowed under any circumstance.

      • Hey Dean, I’ve got some bad news for you… Bernie Madoff was audited once a year just like organic farmers are. nothing is more useless than reviewing someone’s records to see if they’re following the rules.

        Paperwork and all the regulations being “enforced” by the CFIA don’t amount to a hill of beans.

  • A. Coast

    This article is an absolute joke… and it is hilarious that they refer to GM/chemical based agriculture as “conventional” when organic agriculture has been the conventional method for thousands of years, and GM agro is only decades old…. blatant lunacy.

  • Leora

    Such a weakly supported article that it is ludicrous to think that a thinking person would believe what was published here.

    I recall reading about an orchard in Washington state that slipped from top quality to fruit that was unable to withstand any shipping and that was poorest quality–all because of a long period of “conventional” farming with sprays and fertilizers. One who felt that the orchard could be restored dedicated part of it to “organic” methods, thus building up the soil and restoring the balance in it and allowing the teeming bacterial life to activate again. That part of the orchard thus cared for flourished, and ultimately whe whole orchard was restored to production of top quality fruit–simply from building up the soil in natural methods and refraining from robbing the soil and breaking it down by fertilizer (that contains only three elements of the scores of elements that are needed in the soil)and of the poisonous sprays.

    My husband is an organic farmer for more than twenty years and owes his life to moving away from conventional farming after his life was spared when he was sprayed with grasshopper poison. He is seeing his land being restored to the quality of virgin prairie soil by simple, innovative methods that are exciting him greatly after 60 years of farming.

    You cannot convince us that there is no difference between properly grown organic and conventionally grown produce. As to the GMO information in the article there are lecturers and books that unveil the great deception that is pawned off on Americans and Canadians by the big chemical companies that have millions to spend on spin talk. GMO IS DANGEROUS. PERIOD. Hopefully, GMO products will soon be banned when the larger percentage of the public becomes aware of how their lives, and the lives of the children, their animals, and the soil is being undermined and sacrificed for the almighty dollar that the big companies pocket.

    • Mischa Popoff

      Now wait just a minute here Leora… how on earth do you return something to its “virgin” state? I think what you mean to say is that you and your husband are returning your land to a more natural state. And that’s commendable.

      It’s important, you see, that we don’t overstate the aims and goals of organic farming. As long as you plan on making some sort of living off your land, even if you’re just planning to let livestock graze it, it will not be virgin. We have to admit that all forms of agriculture are completely and distinctly UN-natural, even organic agriculture.

      With that said, you’re quite right that there is indeed “a difference between properly grown organic and conventionally grown produce.” And good for you for inserting the phrase “properly grown”! The problem is that so much certified-organic food is not being properly grown. Not even close.

      As long as certifying bodies only insist on their inspectors looking at a farmers records for 3 hours once a year, and then having a quick look at a few fields before moving on to the next farm, we will never ensure that all organic farmers are properly growing their organic crops and livestock. A simple once-annual test would do wonders to ensure that everyone, not just people like you and your husband, are following the rules in law and in spirit.

      ‘Til then, it’s a free-for-all I’m afraid. And China is cashing in!

  • Bill

    In response to Marko, compost may be used on small farms and gardens, but when you get Organic producers of several thousand acres then they use manure, that can indeed carry potentially deadly diseases, and Amy, large organic producers don’t eat the wheat that they grow do they? Every farm family (whether organic or conventional) has a family garden where they eat food from, don’t start saying that conventional farmers don’t care about what they do when they spray herbicides on their crops, farmers are always thinking about what is going to be best for their crops and sustainability.
    GMO products are the way of the future, and I’m sorry you people don’t see that, the GM industry has the ability to add fibre and essential nutrients to crops grown now, not just herbicide resistance. Wouldn’t you say that crops like that could greatly help starving people in Africa? I think so, Greenpeace destroyed plots in Australia of a high-fibre wheat that could have helped those people, all because that gene was inserted into the plant, organic propoganda is funded by eco-terrorists, any study that comes out touting organic as healthier is almost certainly funded by those in the organic industry that stand to make money off people paying $3.00 more for organic milk or apples or anything

  • Dayton

    Bill, sorry you don’t see the value in Organic production. $50 billion dollars annually and counting. That’s reason enough for me. If people are willing to pay a premium and I can profit from it so be it. Better than supporting your foreign grain buyers and chemical companies. My money is spent in Canada, how is yours?

    • Bill

      Yeah sure Dayton, the richest 15% of the developed world buys organic because it makes them feel better and they can afford to pay that extra $3.50 for a loaf of bread. What about the other 85%? Where the heck do you think I live? I farm here for gods sakes! You think that Organic companies don’t bring in produce from other countries like Mexico? I can almost guarantee that they do! Where do you get organic tomatoes from in the middle of January? I love how all of you people who are against GMO’s think everyone who sees their benefit works for Monsanto. Its really funny by the way. Maybe they just realize the benefits that can be achieved with growing these crops, higher yields, higher profits, being able to feed more people! Our population could never be sustained under organic production, conventional farming is why so many more people are alive today.

      • Dean

        Bill, my organic products are the same price as my conventionally products who are my competitors; even though my costs are higher, I want people to be able to have safe food.

        Of course some organic produce is brought in from countries like Mexico; what is your point? As long as it is certified organic, it has been grown using internationally recognized rules. I would rather purchase organic fruit from Mexico than locally grown fruit that uses herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides.

        I get my organic tomatoes from a local organic greenhouse in the middle of January.

        Higher yields and higher profits, yep that sounds like people whose #1 concern is the safety of the food they grow. As for being able to feed more people, yes I am sure that is why companies like Monsanto created GMO’s, because they were concerned that there would be a lack of food in the world.

        • Dean… certified-organic food from Mexico is most definitely NOT even close to being organic. Why would you give your foreign competition a free hand like that?

          As long as organic certification is done on paper, with a once-annual “looksee” around an organic farm by an organic “inspector,” cheap Mexican and Chinese “organic” product will continue undercutting your product at the store shelf.

          Have you ever considered how much better you might fair if organic crops and livestock were tested once-annually instead?

    • Mischa Popoff

      Wait just a second Dayton. $50-billion per annum might sound lucrative, but you should really be asking your Member of Parliament to find out how much of the certified-organic food sold in Canada is actually domestically-produced. You’ll be sorely disappointed I’m afraid. the majority of certified-organic food sold in grocery stores is not even domestic, let alone local.

  • Average Joe

    Such a shame that peer reviewed scienctific research is considered to be unsupported.

    A bigger shame that ancient methods of agriculture can’t feed the growing global population on a shrinking land base.

    Those that wish to pay a premium to eat organics and feel better about themselves can. They are not the poor of this world, and their RRSP’s are probably full of companies on the leading edge of technology.

    I don’t work for Monsanto, but I think I should invest in them… Just imagine owning stocks in a company that controlled everything from the media to the government…. That is an even bigger fantasy than thinking organic is healthier, safer, or more sustainable!

    • Nightowl

      Whether organic or not organic wheat. There is no shortage of food to feed the world. There is only poverty that does not let some people buy their share. Organic farmers do not overproduce and ruin their own markets in most cases. The same cannot be said for non organic farmers. Countries like Africa must learn to grow their own food. There is no doubt they have the land base. They must first correct their corruption and lack of good governments.

      • Mischa Popoff

        It’s not the shortage of food that we should worry about Nightowl; it’s the shortage of land.

        No matter how you cut it, organic production requires more land… a LOT more. Which is fine, as long as the organic industry remains a viable niche-market. But feed the world? Fugget-about-it!

  • Dayton

    Joe, ever heard the saying. ” you can lead a horse to water…”. That’s the mentality surrounding Monsanto. The general public isn’t buying it. Thankfully they still buy organic as they know it has the benefits of not supporting agribusiness as you obviously do. You don’t work for Monsanto? LOL!

  • Welderone

    There is no doubt organic food is a more healthy choice. But I just today bought organic bread at Safeways. The organic bread was $4.39 for 680 grams and 100% whole wheat nonorganic was $2.99 for 570 grams. But when one adjusts for the extra 120 grams with the organic bread. A loaf of organic bread then would be about $3.80. So a difference of about 80 cents. This is long ways from being a difference of $3.50. Both breads were another 50 cents off about with a club membership.

    • Bill

      I would like to see a report from a NON-organic lobbying group or source that supports your claim.

      • Welderone

        Bill, you do not need a non organic lobbing group to show all the facts are correct in my letter. Just go to Safeways yourself!

        • Bill

          What would safeway prove? That organic costs more and generally the produce is smaller?

  • neil

    Consumers have a right to buy and pay for whatever food they want. But please don’t make false claims that organic food is healthier than the food I produce. It has been scientifically tested and proven for decades that the use of fertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, GM crops etc.improve our quality and quantity of food. This has taken place in all of the developed countries in the world (and most of the developing and underdevloped countries as well), not just in Canada and the USA. It has been done with the most modern analytical testing equipment available in the world. We live longer and healthier in part due to our food quality and variety. I agree we need to make sure that our food system is not controlled by a few multinational companies but that is why we have impartial government testing done on a continous basis in countries all over the world. Most consumers don’t know that agricultural products such as pesticides and antibiotics go through as much or more years of testing as a new pharmaceutical drug you can buy in your local pharmacy. These tests are not controlled by Monsanto or any other private corporation. So don’t accuse me of working for any private company. I’m a consumer who happens to produce safe and healthy food for my family and other Canadians and am proud to do it.

    • Dean

      GM crops have been scientifically tested and proven to improve our quality and quantity of food? I’d like to see that report! Tell that to the growers in Arkansas who are having to hire people to cut down roundup resistant weeds in their cotton fields. How efficient is that? GM drought resistant corn is no better than conventional corn. Pesticides safe? If so, why can we not go into an orchard for 4 days after spraying? Why do we have to wear protective clothing and breathing apparatus to spray? Let’s call a spade a spade; it’s poison. DDT was once considered “safe”, until it was determined that it’s residue almost wiped out the bald eagle. How many once considered safe chemicals are now banned? As for GM testing, Monsanto does the testing and submits it’s results to the government for approval; the USDA does not test for it’s safety, and the CFIA follows the USDA lead.

      In the end it comes down to who you believe; the high powered corporations/governments or the tree huggers. The biggest problem is that GM crops will take the choice away from people, with the transferring of GM pollen to conventional plants. In a few years, we may not have any GM free food, and if in the future something terrible is identified with GM food, what would our society do when our entire food system is based on a technology? Very, very risky, we need to maintain our plant diversity as mother nature abhors polyculture.

  • Kris

    I would like to address one of the big problems facing the claims of organic food that is the lack of national/global certification and population education.

    Can crops be organic without a physical or temporal land buffer? A temporal buffer would address amendments done to the soil prior to an organic crop, where as a physical buffer would address adjacent crops management techniques where contamination would occur from overland water runoff, infiltration, or even spray drift. Regulations need to be in place to state how this affect an organic crop.

    As stated in the article, ‘natural’ amendments or biological controls have inherent risks such as salmonella, E coli or bioaccumulation of coppers and sulfur compounds. Chemical research has found a way to make amendments and controls available to the farmer and reducing the harm to the consumer. Therefore its use should continue to be encouraged within set parameters.

    I agree with the need to reduce the pesticide/herbicide residue on vegetables and fruit packaged and sold. As Rachel Carson and many after her showed us, we are not fully cognizant of the affects of chemicals on our bodies. But, we do know the affects of salmonella and E coli. A happy medium needs to be found, but with the consumers demand for cheep food how can the farmer produce enough at a low enough cost to make it worthwhile to keep farming?

    I think that more education is necessary for the vast majority of the population, as they have lost the link and the understanding between the land and food as well as regulations or national certifications of organic.

    • Dean

      Kris, there isn’t an issue with national/global certification as any food grown in Canada that is Certified organic has to follow the same rules. The producer is audited by an independent certification company that insures that everything is on the up and up.

      Of course, crops can be organic even though their next door farmer grows conventionally with chemicals. Being organic is not a guarantee that there isn’t chemical residue on the produce(organic growers don’t live in a bubble), but it is a guarantee that the farmer did not apply the chemical himself, and followed a strict set of internationally recognized standards. But, being organic isn’t just about chemical use, there are plenty of rules that apply to the environment that are much higher standards than governments.

      It’s true that improper use of natural amendments could cause problems, which is why they are heavily restricted; organic farmers don’t get a free ticket to apply them at anytime and in any quantity they want. Conventional farmers don’t have those restrictions, they can apply pesticides anytime they want.

      I agree, education is necessary so consumers can see how “cheap” food made with subsidized corn is not cheap in the end when their health suffers.

      • Mischa Popoff

        Dean… how exactly does an “audit” by an independent certification company ensure that everything is on the up and up? Bernie Madoff showed how easy it is to comply with an audit but flaut the law. Wouldn’t a field test be better? You make it sound so officious, but an audit is just a review of a farmer’s records.

        I know what you might say… that there’s more to being organic than not using prohibited chemicals. But there’s no other way to cheat on organic certification than to use prohibited chemicals, now is there?

        Another objection you might try to make is that an honest organic farmer might someday get a false positive on a test because of spray drifting from his neighbor’s conventional fields. But as an organic inspector I’ve performed many organic field tests, and this was never a problem.

        Why complicate what it means to be organic with a bunch of useless record-keeping? Test the crop!

        • Dean

          Micha. Wow, you were busy on May 17th with all those pesticide residue testing comments!

          Can organic farmers cheat the system? As with anything, if someone wants to go to the great lengths required, you can certainly cheat the system.

          I am not against having my crops being tested for pesticide residue, because if there was residue found, I would want to know where this is coming from and eliminate this. However, as I mentioned previously, being organic is so much more than just not using pesticides. What about erosion control, proper water use, the use of GMO’s, poisons, etc., nothing in a pesticide residue test would give any intelligence in these areas. These are important factors in the spirit of being organic, and should not be minimized.

          Yes, there are other ways besides using prohibitive chemicals to get in trouble in an organic inspection. Improper cleanup of spills, poor inventory control, improper water/wind erosion, soil fertility plans, proper use of manure, proper compost maintenance, lack of daily log of activities, improper seed purchases, improper storage facilities, just to name a few. If you are/was an organic inspector, I am surprised why you limit your discussion to just the pesticide use? The record keeping required in an organic system is indeed a pain in the butt, but because of all of the work involved, it reduces the chance of people trying to cheat the system.

          Again, I am not against this kind of testing, but not as a replacement of the current system, but in addition to it. By the way, who would pay for all these tests? The organic farmer already has enough additional costs, and the consumer says that organic food is too expensive already. There could be subterfuge in these test results as well. You using the ludicrous example of Bernie Mader as proof that the system can be beat, well it is just as likely that the person involved with the pesticide test results could be paid off to give a negative result. Anything can happen.

          Do any tests get done on Kosher certification, how about fair trade certification, gluten free certification, nutritional facts on product labels? No. How can you tell that someone, somewhere down the line didn’t cut corners just to make a buck in any of these areas?

          You can’t, at least not in a way that economically viable. In the end, it comes down to trust; trust in the governments, corporations, farmers, which are all made up of people. Each of us has to choose whom and how much trust can be given out to these people. This is why I tell my customers to come visit my farm and to see how and why I grow using the internationally recognized rules of being organic. After spending an hour with me, people know that I am in this business not to make a quick buck, nor to exploit a loophole in the system. I am in this business because I honestly believe in the spirit of organic growing, for myself and my family.

  • JimD

    Its pretty sad that some folks on here don’t see Monsanto for what it is. If GM technology were used to speed up the process of conventional selective breeding within single families of plants and animals, and the results were not patented, I could see a value to it, but that hasn’t been the case. We have genetic combinations that could never arise naturally, even with centuries of selective breeding, and the effects of their long-term consumption is totally unknown. The precautionary principle has rightfully been adopted by Europe.

    Monsanto has long had a revolving-door realtionship with the USDA, which is the only reason GMOs were approved in the first place. The former Monsanto execs within the USDA arbitraily decided that GMO crops were “substantially equivalent” to traditional crops, and as a result Monsanto, Syngenta and the other GMO players have never had to prove the safety of their technology.

    In order to be sustainable, our agriculture sector has to return to the family farm model, and that model can certainly produce enough food for the world despite what the biotech propaganda machine would have you beileve. Large corporations producing food, even if its organic, is dangerous, because profit always comes first.

  • Paul

    JimD, and many others, have excellent comments. The ignorance, propaganda, and outright lies spewed by this council, and specifically its members ( The member companies of CBI Canada are: BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta. ) is insulting, and reason for us rioting in the streets over this, such as they have done in Poland, Nepal to block monsanto’s invasion.

    The title itself is simply misleading, and arrogant “Organic food not safer than conventional”

    “Conventional” … Since when did conventional become genetically modified seeds… Wouldn’t it be considered unconventional vs organic ?

    • Mischa Popoff

      Hey Paul… I think you have just provided a salient example of the kind of enmity that Wager and Ryan are trying to push back against.

      If everything that anyone who supports GM technology “spewed” was nothing more than ignorant propaganda and outright lies, don’t you think farmers are smart enough that they would’ve stopped buying these products by now?

      This idea that a farmer is just a dumb lout, susceptible to any flashy marketing campaign, flies in the face of over 100 years of Canadian history. Farmers buy GM seed and pesticides because they feel those technologies work for them. Others, like my grandparents, chose to go organic instead. But we can still respect one another, can’t we?

      • Dean

        Micha. No, farmers who use GMO’s & pesticides are not dumb louts buying into the marketing hype. If I had to guess, it would be that many of these farmers believe they are not doing any harm to the environment, nor the safety of the food supply. Although I vehemently disagree with their opinion, I can respect it. The problem is that some farmers have little choice in many areas of the world, where Monsanto owns all of the seed companies; so while these farmers may not agree with GMO’s, they can’t find any non GMO seed to plant. This is where the bile of many organic growers and activists is directed against.

        Food should not be monopolized.

  • jim

    This article leads me to ask who is the Paymaster.
    For a start simply one cannot simply write off the Whole worlds Organic sectors as corrupt just because the US Organic certification is rotten to the core (Canadian organic is tag along because of NAFTA)
    Cargil Heinz and Pepsi etc dominate US Organic the board is loaded by corporate monsters who vote without morals and are just as criminal as the US Financial Sector..
    To say that there are substances in Organic which are toxic to organisms is just disgraceful even if it is true.
    Plants carry out biological warfare all the time and Organic plants are no different plants are still streets ahead of humans at biological warfare.

    No one really imagines that Organic produce is not wash and cleaned Organic food operations are not allowed to sell dirty food.

    Now if one looks at the standards for organic production in Europe or Japan it is a completely different story. Only manure (fecal material) produced by the farms own animals is allowed in many countries provided food is grown locally and washed there is actually very little chance of any serious infection.
    Google the Soil Association in the UK for their standards they are much nearer purism.

    The US list of non organic additives has been increased to 250 unlabeled additives why in North America do we need to have such a huge list of things we the free are not allowed to know about what we eat.
    It would be better if the Headline read “US Organic standards a sick Joke” beware what you are buying.
    Drinks packed in clear plastic bottle using a plastic banned for baby food even in the USA. Everything shrink wrapped you do not need to be very smart to know all is not well with North American Organic.
    Country of Origin Labeling a US idea is good because it does allow the customer to discriminate even if the rest of the label is garbage.
    Canada needs address the problems of what is basically criminal action in the US organic market and upgrade standards for entry to Canada.
    Oh! by the way I am not an Organic nut I am a Farmer who grows GMO crops but I still do not believe that the consumer needs to be lied to about what is in their food and that include GMO labeling we simply cannot continue trying to ram this stuff down everyone throats, literally

  • Dean: Do you really think Monsanto cares about feeding the world? They only care about feeding their bottom line. They are laughing all the way to the bank. Our farmers are being manipulated by these corps. Fear and greed work well together.
    The consumers are waking up and realizing they are the guinea pigs for big agribusiness. You don’t think there is a connection between Bt corn being inserted in to just about all the processed food we eat and overweight people?
    Organic farmers are gaining ground. I just hope it’s not too late, as Monsanto et al. are destroying our precious life giving soil.

  • Mmm

    Organic FOOD 30% less pesticides-enough said!