Truly Pathetic

by: Miep

Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 21:03:09 PM PDT

Forbes, 9/2
by Tim Worstall, who writes for "business and technology."

This short piece "argues" that, since land sparing is better for biodiversity than land usage, that GM crops are better than organic farming.

Intensive farming of less land, leaving more land for wildlife, protects biodiversity better.

This is firstly something of a death knell for organic farming: we know that that is more land hungry than conventional farming.

Who is that "we," Tim? You got fleas?

Do you have any idea how much land it takes to grow all that corn that is then used to make junk food?

No? Didn't think so.

Or how about how all this GM stuff is pretty much designed to make money for Monsanto, et al? Buy our patented seed that is bred to resist our patented herbicides!

Also, the study you cite refers specifically to northern India and southwest Ghana. I'm not an expert on these places; I doubt you are either. Who is an expert on sustainable biointensive agriculture is yet another question. Your total failure to include any data in your (very short piece) doesn't argue well for your expertise on the subject, though. A link is not enough. You are writing for Forbes. Isn't that supposed to be a serious publication? This is like a badly done blog piece.

Perhaps the study you cite includes some useful data. But your using it in such a cavalier manner to demonstrate your clearly pre-existing prejudice towards GM technology, via all this talk about "proof," and random and extremely vague dissing of sustainable agriculture, is far from impressive on your part.

Does Forbes publish a lot of cheap stuff like this? Remind me not to subscribe.

(crossposted from Right of Assembly)