Quote:
Yeah, but that doesn't make it smart for me to intentionally eat them or fling them around the environment in quantities RADICALLY more vast than in the plants etc they came from
Plus which, modern chemistry can come up with much more toxic and persistant products than exist in nature.
Yeah, but that doesn't make it smart for me to intentionally eat them or fling them around the environment in quantities RADICALLY more vast than in the plants etc they came from

Plus which, modern chemistry can come up with much more toxic and persistant products than exist in nature.
So, what is "organic" other than a label for a nostalgic simple lifestyle of the past that some are advocating to market their products produced in a disadvantaged manner that is less efficient in the use of extra steps for the input of raw materials and more costly in time and labor than other more modern methods , and certifications all in the name of being "more healthy"?.
Let's look at that.
"produced in a disadvantaged manner": nope. Costs way less to produce, in some respects (since you don't have to buy all them chemicals to make it happen, for a large variety of reasons, not all of them obvious). Cost on the market has a much to do with demand as anything. For home-grown small-scale stuff, the difference is even smaller. Studies have REPEATEDLY shown that organic crops have equal or sometimes superior yields to fertilizer-and-pesticide-grown crops, the difference tending to be greatest in droughty years.
"that is less efficient in the use of extra steps for the input of raw materials": nope. All the chemistry, mining, transportation and big machinery used in typical industrial agriculture are MORE extra steps and MORE energy used, not less. For commercial crops, it does often require somewhat more man-hours in the field to grow them organically, but still, not less efficient overall.
"more costly in time and labor": why stop there, why not also add in the OTHER costs, like costs of reduced future harvest as the soil is ruined and farmland made PERMANENTLY unusable by typical modern agricultural practices, the cost of all the health problems caused by fertilizers and pesticides, the cost of putting all your production eggs in just one or a few baskets, the cost of having many MORE pest problems to deal with in a great big monoculture than with a greater diversity of crops (as is done in organic farming/gardening), etc etc.
"all in the name of being more healthy": well, if you look at the statistics on the health problems experienced by agricultural workers, you'll see that 'more healthy' is not imaginary; and why is more healthy *bad*; but remember that's NOT the only, nor necessarily even the major, reason for wanting to raise things organically. SUSTAINABILITY is, to me, the biggie. Organic methods are much, much more sustainable in the long run. I don't think trading very short-term gain for long-term disaster is smart, and that's where modern agricultural methods tend to go.
It is unfortunate that the whole "organic" thing is so poorly understood by its opponents. It really is NOT mainly about 'I don't want to eat pesticides so I won't spray'. You need to do FAR more than that to garden/farm organically (building up the soil's health is a real biggie, also raising diversified crops), and there are FAR more benefits than just 'no spray on my apples'.
Pat
Let's look at that.
"produced in a disadvantaged manner": nope. Costs way less to produce, in some respects (since you don't have to buy all them chemicals to make it happen, for a large variety of reasons, not all of them obvious). Cost on the market has a much to do with demand as anything. For home-grown small-scale stuff, the difference is even smaller. Studies have REPEATEDLY shown that organic crops have equal or sometimes superior yields to fertilizer-and-pesticide-grown crops, the difference tending to be greatest in droughty years.
"that is less efficient in the use of extra steps for the input of raw materials": nope. All the chemistry, mining, transportation and big machinery used in typical industrial agriculture are MORE extra steps and MORE energy used, not less. For commercial crops, it does often require somewhat more man-hours in the field to grow them organically, but still, not less efficient overall.
"more costly in time and labor": why stop there, why not also add in the OTHER costs, like costs of reduced future harvest as the soil is ruined and farmland made PERMANENTLY unusable by typical modern agricultural practices, the cost of all the health problems caused by fertilizers and pesticides, the cost of putting all your production eggs in just one or a few baskets, the cost of having many MORE pest problems to deal with in a great big monoculture than with a greater diversity of crops (as is done in organic farming/gardening), etc etc.
"all in the name of being more healthy": well, if you look at the statistics on the health problems experienced by agricultural workers, you'll see that 'more healthy' is not imaginary; and why is more healthy *bad*; but remember that's NOT the only, nor necessarily even the major, reason for wanting to raise things organically. SUSTAINABILITY is, to me, the biggie. Organic methods are much, much more sustainable in the long run. I don't think trading very short-term gain for long-term disaster is smart, and that's where modern agricultural methods tend to go.
It is unfortunate that the whole "organic" thing is so poorly understood by its opponents. It really is NOT mainly about 'I don't want to eat pesticides so I won't spray'. You need to do FAR more than that to garden/farm organically (building up the soil's health is a real biggie, also raising diversified crops), and there are FAR more benefits than just 'no spray on my apples'.
Pat
Last edited: