This of course doesn’t mean you should not do your part for the cause but does it it not frighten you sometimes that perhaps the rest of the world do not subscribe to the same beliefs? I know I can identify with the apathetic attitude and sometimes even would go so far as to be what is reprimanded as ’selfish’. Yet there is a liberating and exhilarating feeling for me and many others in simply consuming. Drinking Coca Cola, eating McDonalds etc. with no regard for anyone but Mr. Appetite.

And I hear people asking what those contingency methods are going to be when the fabled apocalypse finally arrives at our doorstep. Truth is I don’t know but I have faith in the resourcefulness of humans in times of pressure and genuinely believe that when it time, the species will pull back from the brink. Not very good news for the polar bears-but Coca Cola for us in the meantime.

Yes yes I know this is ‘inconsiderate’ and ’selfish’ but these moral judgements don’t mean much to those who have decided to practice such a lifestyle because they are much more hermeneutically aware than that. They know of the consequences and they know that the moral framework will label them selfish…but if the majority of society is acting similarly, such outdated modes of judgement do not count one jot.

I agree that it’s down to the individual to decide whether to do anything about it. There’s no way anyone can support all the different causes in the world! But don’t reject something just because a few people don’t have enough evidence to hand to back up what they’re saying.

Another argument which i happen to think is quite acceptable is that people don’t give a shit and shouldn’t have to. I can sympathise with that even though I do not subscribe to it. If someone doesn’t recycle, it’s not because they don’t know about it’s existence, it’s because they don’t care enough. Who am I to judge them? We each have areas of our life in which we could be more concerned. Go ahead and eat your organic food with a plastic fork, go ahead and shop fairtrade in your gap sweater but do NOT lecture those not following suit, because they very well may know more about it than you do.

Indeed, I think genetic engineering is a rather major campaign victim (as proof, “GM” is actually a media mistake, everything is genetically modified – unfortunately the phrase has now stuck =P..). I definitely support it as a principle. If managed properly (ie. not all about the profits), it could have a whole range of fabulous applications, and many of the negative impacts (such as gene transfer into weeds, or “terminator genes” affecting poor farmers) would be avoided/minimised. However, there are still associated risks (beyond “argh frankenfood will kill us all” I mean), so it needs careful management.

There was a good long-term scientific trial of GM crops in the UK a couple of years back – I’ll have to look up the details.

In terms of GM and organic specifically, I think it’s because pesticide/herbicide-resistant crops are a major focus of GM, hence encouraging increased use of pesticides and broad spectrum herbicides. The main pest-resistant crop type is Bt, and several pest species have shown resistance to it.

Organic farming originated as a response to the shift to modern intensive farming (and the associated wide-ranging environmental impacts). The procedures used in organic farming are all principally to do with environmental benefits (pesticides are only used as a last resort). Just because people have latched on to possible health benefits doesn’t mean you should reject the whole system (although if there are any health benefits, I’ll be sorted ..).

Specific farm management techniques are definitely the key in terms of impacts on wildlife (I’ve seen the proof in real life), but will only work if enough farms take part, to provide large, connected habitats. At the moment, supporting organic farms is still the best option – I’m willing Defra to get their environmental stewardship schemes right, but it’s not all going according to plan yet. Also, there are other issues such as watercourse contamination and soil quality to consider.

In terms of animal welfare – Defra says: “…intensive pig and poultry units are not permitted in organic farming. This means that organic systems avoid the large-scale production units with a heavy reliance on imported feed and limited land on which to spread the manure (Table 1.6). For poultry, the UKROFS state that poultry must be reared in open-range conditions and cannot be kept in cages… Also, all mammals (i.e. including pigs) must have access to pasturage or an open-air exercise area or an open-air run which may be partially covered”

Choosing food can indeed be a hideously complicated process – particularly as large companies are now buying into the whole ‘organic’ thing. If people care about animal welfare, environment etc. the best way of covering as many factors as possible is probably to support small, local farms (through farm shops and farmers’ markets). And get an organic vegetable box delivered

Nevermind the media-led waffle about health risks, climate change and peak oil are reasons enough to promote organic agriculture where it is appropriate!