[drakaal]

The health benefits of Organics are often less about the process and more about the seeds. Heirloom tomatoes as an example tend to be smaller, and squishier, and more flavorful.

The smaller means you can't produce as many per acre.

The squishier means you lose more in shipping.

The Tastier often accompanies more nutritious.

The Pesticide issue is two fold. (same with herbicides) You could dust your plants with arsenic and call them Organic. That would work well, (and is used in certain organic farms often for strawberries) but the residue would be more harmful even in lower amounts than say a Coal-Tar Pesticide (basically an artificial flavor sprayed on to mimic the smell of a predator, or the flavor of something an insect doesn't like)

Organic != Safe

Traditional != Dangerous

My biggest concern is that we cannot produce enough food via organic farming to feed everyone. If we move too much of the market to Organics, we may end up like the places where 40% of their income goes to food, instead of 4% that we currently enjoy in the US.

My secondary concern is that too many people think "all-natural" or "organic" means safe. NightShade is an all natural herb. Doesn't mean I should brew tea of it and have it at bed time.

[SoftwareMaven]

we may end up like the places where 40% of their income goes to food, instead of 4% that we currently enjoy in the US

Given the level of diet-related illness in the US, much of it a result of ultra cheap (through subsidies) sugars and grains, I can't help but wonder, "if people were paying 25% of their paychecks for food, would they make better choices?"

Of course, the issue there has nothing to do with organics and everything to do with subsidies.

[hueving]

"if people were paying 25% of their paychecks for food, would they make better choices?"

No. They will still choose the cheapest/most-convenient.

[neona]

4% is an average anyway. There are absolutely people in the US that must spend a notable portion of their income on food. I'm not in the best of situations, and I generally end up spending 20-30% on food, and I don't even eat enough.

Food is already hard enough to get for many Americans.

[SeanLuke]

> You could dust your plants with arsenic and call them Organic.

Support this claim.

[shadowmint]

Well, you can call your plants organic, but you can't label them organic; at least in the US you're required to be certified to use that term in labeling.

...and actually the claim is explicitly false.

    205.602 Non-synthetic substances prohibited for use in 
            organic crop production

      This is the National List of natural, or nonsynthetic,
      materials that are specifically prohibited in organic 
      crop production. This list includes natural—but highly 
      toxic—materials, *such as arsenic*

See www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5101542

[drakaal]

My bad. I don't farm anymore, and am out of date. 2009 they changed the rules. Previously you could use Arsenic in Organic farming.

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/organic_arsenical...

[Swizec]

> My secondary concern is that too many people think "all-natural" or "organic" means safe.

Too many? I have yet to meet a local-grown organic all-natural afficionado who wasn't convinced this means they are automagically eating healthy and safe produce [and possibly saving small underdog farmers' lives] to boot.

Very few people realise that most (or at least a lot) of the time organic and all-natural is just a marketing ploy.

[jader201]

There are three types of people in the world: those that aren't convinced that organic is safer and eat traditional, those that are convinced but don't care/can't afford organic and eat traditional, and those that eat organic -- and are convinced.

That is, nobody eats organic that isn't convinced of its benefits -- why else would they opt for the more costly of the two?