Along with «exponentially higher» yields, the CropBox promises that their complete growing system also uses 90 % less water and 80 % less fertilizer than
conventional agriculture does.
Not exact matches
Organic marketers and anti-GMO activists exaggerate these efforts, making claims that organics are «pesticide - free» and don't use «harmful» chemicals that they claim are the mainstay of
conventional agriculture, and often linked in their campaigns to genetically modified crops.
For example, the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) doesn't allow producers to feed stock
conventional feed, whereas the Australian Certified Organic Standard makes exceptions for producers in drought declared areas who can't source certified organic feed.
«We identify the situations where organic
does well and we also identify the situations where it
does not
do so well, for example under irrigated conditions where the
conventional yields can be just so high that organic
agriculture can't match these yields.»
Why
do we need to choose between taking the organic high road to healthy vitality versus the slippery slide down, poisoning our foods and fibers through
conventional agriculture?
Current prices for conventionally grown foods
do not reflect the costs of federal subsidies to
conventional agriculture, the cost of contaminated drinking water, loss of wildlife habitat and soil erosion, or the cost of the disposal and clean up of hazardous wastes generated by the manufacturing of pesticides.
If the human safety of farming with bugs and flowers versus deadly chemicals seems clear, why
do you think growers maintain
conventional agriculture?
The banning of GMOs hasn't led to a transformation of
agriculture because GM seed was never a linchpin supporting the
conventional food system: Farmers could always
do fine without it.