I have been watching the thread, and although I see it's mostly about GMO vs. Organic, I feel that this very question ties into much of the USA economy and health care system.
Now, since we are speaking about GMO foods, in a nutshell, I would say they are bad, and I mean bad as in traditionally unhealthy for you. Now, I'm usually a Bill Maher nut-head who agrees with his stance on that our GMO food we are buying is horse-shit, and it makes us sick and obese, and that it drives us to go to the doctor.
Now that I have said that, I have been watching his show Real Time, and for a couple weeks in economic times, they go and talk about our food processing.
Our food processing is directly going into the problems of the poor health of people and the way our government takes care of it. Because of our growing population, our food is going to become more and more processed and less organic, which is understandable.
Concerning the people saying organic is a word to slap on a double price-tag as opposed to actually being healthier is both right and wrong. They are correct in that with the way food works, organic is an excuse for a higher price tag. The problem is, that doesn't mean it is not healthier for you, and in the long run, it's better to go organic than GMO. What is going on in the USA's market where we are selling shit, er I mean food, we consume the stuff like no other, and we go out and get fat, get the health problems and get sick and thus into the debt we go. The reasoning for this is because of Government subsidiaries. Our government itself promotes GMO, things that would tear up cows and chickens to be fed, and punishes Organic crop growers, because they receive no subsidiaries. Behind the scenes, we are in the land of McDonalds and fast food as opposed to healthy, delicious, organic alternatives is because this is what our government wants. Corn farms have far more pensions and leeway than growers of the healthy foods and other vegetables.
Honestly though, I think the reasonings for such are because of some of the people from the far-right who are demanding less government over food, where as Maher said, eating a can of lard is seen as virtuous since it's our freedom and right to eat that. The problem is, that can of lard they eat, everybody ends up paying for in the end because of the lard eaters getting sick and having to go into the hospital under our current system. However though, I disagree with the left attempting to ban any and all foods they deem unhealthy, like soda for example.
I think what is best for the system is, although sadly we are going to need more processing, it would be better for the government to not necessarily ban foods that they deem unhealthy, but rather, force everybody to tell us everything they put into the meat or whatever, give tougher regulation as to what Nutrition information and it's accuracy can be printed, and instead of promoting unhealthy processing and boosting mass production of corn instead, let us give leeway and promotion to local, organic, and healthy farmers who give us assorted variety and natural-fed cows and chickens and pigs instead of all this processing with chemicals, preservatives etc.
If we allow our government to come in and alter our methods of mass production properly, I think we could acheive a win-win-win situation where everybody will be eating healthier, cleaner food without obesity or the harmful side effects, and we aren't having food banned left and right like sodas or king-sized candy bars, all while the healthy food is cheaper unlike now where it costs an arm and a leg for organic products. Junk food is still junk food, but it is better to alter the processing of it so that way it's not as harmful or even a unique way of healthy as opposed to the chemicals etc.
This is my overall view of organic vs. GMO in a nutshell.