Isn't the GM food issue where the foodie/food-reform crowd's arguments are weakest? I have yet to see a strong science-based argument against GM foods as a category. It usually comes down to vague references to things being "unnatural," which is the kind of reasoning you usually hear from religious wackos talking about various sex practices. Are there better-informed discussions of the GM issue out there?

"I heard her speak once (about genetically modified foods) and was disappointed. She’s been at Tufts since 2001 but hasn’t published much, which for an academic is a worry. And she’s yet another Clinton appointee."

This is supposed to be a substantive criticism? "I didn't like some speech she once gave, she's hasn't published a whole lot, and she's associated with the last Democratic president." Quelle horreure!

My near-namesake beat me to the punch here. Was Marion Nestle (any relation to the food corporation?) disappointed because Merrigan *was* unscientifically opposed to GM foods, or because she *wasn't*?

I don't think there's necessarily much benefit to food being "organic", either; if people want to pay extra for that label, that's fine, but imposing that extra cost on, say, the public school lunch system strikes me as a lousy idea. Organic farming doesn't and probably can't have the kind of yield to feed the whole country - the higher modern yields that make us capable of feeding a larger population than in previous centuries are a *result* of food production technologies, and we can't abandon one without abandoning the other. So being involved in "developing the organic standards" is not necessarily "a good sign" depending on the parameters of that involvement.

In response to Chris:
The Big Ag-Pharm-Farm folks would love to have you believe that "Organic farming doesn't and probably can't have the kind of yield to feed the whole country" and so on--that's the spiel that Monsanto has been feeding us for years. Trouble is, it's BS. Organic farming can feed the world--indeed, it always used to--and the only reason Big Ag has had the upper hand for so long is that it's so heavily subsidized by a series of false prop-ups and controls. Not to mention that the long-term costs of Big Ag are finally coming home to roost. Organics not only can feed the world, in the near future, they are going to.

Organic farming can feed the world--indeed, it always used to

The world used to have a lot fewer people in it, in part because the population was regularly cut down by mass starvation. There's a *reason* Famine used to rank up there with War and Pestilence as apocalyptic figures. If you're going to invoke history as organic farming's track record of feeding the world, it's not a very impressive track record.

And again, GM foods can dramatically reduce the amount of pesticides used, or in conjunction with organic farming, make for much higher yields because of built in pest resistance. That's before we get into increasing nutritional content, etc.

The safety/"franken food" argument has even less scientific basis than "vaccines cause autism".

Hmmm. The GMO issue. Well, from what I know, Kathleen Merrigan believes the technology holds potential, but there's insufficient research on potential problems, mostly because the only research is sponsored by biotech companies - and it's all proprietary, of course. So there might be safety issues (around, say, allergic reactions, or effects on ecological systems), but we really don't know. There also might be great benefits in the technology, though as it currently stands, Monsanto has shown very little interest in improving nutritional value of crops, and lots of interest in convincing everyone to grow the same Round-Up Ready corn.

As for Merrigan's involvement in the organic standards, she drafted the rules that apply to using the certified organic label to make sure the label meant what consumers paying for that label thought it meant. Nothing to do with procurement of food for school programs. (Though, speaking of which, she did increase food safety standards for companies selling ground beef to the school lunch program.)

In terms of organics and yield, I think it's important for organic-skeptics to keep up on the newer research. Organic farming of 2008 is not the organic farming of 1967. It's far more sophisticated. The question of yields is not straightforward, but in most cases organic farming matches yields and in many cases it outperforms conventional systems. Results are, of course, dependent on what crop you're trying to grow and where. But integrated organic animal-crop systems are generally the most productive per acre. These systems can also be more labor-intensive, but they are less dependent on fossil fuels, and tend to result in better overall soil health and better water retention. And, of course, lowered/less toxic pesticide use, which is good for farm workers who suffer from exposure, and good for beneficial insects, fish in nearby waterways, etc. It may well be true that organic isn't healthier for the consumer (a question for debate, with multiple factors to consider), but organics have some major benefits for the environment.

I really believe that these social networks will have a huge impact on what we can accomplish as groups, it'll help us be very organized and communicate.