No more nutritious, no, but it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out food is safer and healthier if NOT sprayed with poison or adulterated with foreign DNA that has unknown and unpredictable side effects. It is certainly not safe for the public to cede control of our food supply to companies who sell farmers seed genetically modified to be sterile, requiring them to annually buy whatever seed at whatever price those companies offer.


Health and safety is a big one, but its extent is hard to ascertain. Ironically, despite observations from others about organic foods expense, its greatest benefit may be the sustainability and savings from supporting local farmers and buying produce that need not be refrigerated/frozen and shipped hundreds or thousands of miles to markets. A tomato bought from a neighbors garden is almost inevitably cheaper than one grown on the other side of the continent and trucked to a grocer who cannot stay in business without charging more than he paid for it. If each person grows different things they can be traded for each other rather than purchased from chain grocery stores at the additional expense of pesticides, chemical fertilizer, R&D for GMOs, shipping and retail markup.


Hard to say; it probably depends more than anything on the popularity of people growing their own food and/or buying it from neighbors.


As long as US subsidies to factory farms keep global food prices so low exploding Third World populations cannot make any money farming, yes.


Sure, to the extent that natural crossbreeding is organic. Species created in a lab, however, are only organic in the sense of being carbon based, not in the sense of being even slightly natural.


Bear in mind that EU restrictions on GMOs severely curtail the market for them outside the few Western European non-members. I do not know how it is here, but in the US very little organic farming is industrial, though organic farmers do sell much of their harvest to retailers seeking profits from the market for organic food.