as much as possible

but just because they SEEM better, does not mean they necessarily are better.

methods, do not deplete the soil, do not add harmful amendments, sequester carbon and generally leave the ecosystem in better shape than conventional agribusiness practices.

That, I can safely say.

and they make no reference to the fact that produce grown for market are different strains than you would plant at home if you are aiming for better flavor and nutrition.

here's the link to the full article at NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html?_r=1&hp

that reuters piece seems to be a re-hash of the NYT article with all the good stuff pulled out

what I cannot find is who paid for that study--do you happen to know?

anecdotal evidence of my own tells me that organic food tastes better, and I am not supporting the giants in agribusiness. but I guess that isn't important, is it?

And for your purposes, that's all that matters. For me, I cannot discern much, if any, flavor differences, so my anecdotal evidence differs from yours. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence, it is simply not a trustworthy way to get at the truth, but it can point one in the right direction.

but have not been able to find the information.

It is about the land, the chemicals, the taste. It's about freshness and quality. It's about eating local and supporting local farmers. It's about lessening the impact of shipping, pesticides and mega farms on our environment.

But until organic farming figures out how to produce enough food, like commercial farming does, and at the same price point, it's simply not a viaae means to support the worlds food needs.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against organic farming. There is much to be learned from it.

"You cannot produce vegetables without chemicals" "You cannot produce dairy products without chemicals" "You cannot feed the world without chemicals"

This was in the early/mid 70's.

Those of us who did it anyway, produced all these things without chemicals found that we could indeed grow and produce everything without chemicals (darn tricky in many cases), but it cost more $$ to do so. So what our Prof's left out of the sentences was " for the same amount of money" or "for the same profits".

Chemically derived nitrogen was really cheap compared to nitrogen from composted plant and animal waste products. Organically derived fertilizers are the backbone of organic ag. It is the high/big blast of quick growth created by the synthetic nitrogens which create the imbalances that call the pests to come and attack the crops for the most part.

The next big added expenses are the weeding costs. Using herbicides saves a huge amount of labor costs.

Now, if pesticide residues are not an issue to you, eating US grown fruits and veggies is probably just fine. But I sure would not trust any chemically grown stuff from outside of the US- with the exception of Europe and Japan.

As far as meat and dairy, the hormones and antibiotic use makes it a complete no brainer.

Waste of food and greed and profit motives are what cause the problems of food shortages, not the production method itself. I read that 40% of the food produced currently is wasted.

You actually sound as though you have a lot against organic farming; I have a lot against chemical dependency in agriculture which I am not going to deny. IMO the biggest challenge for the chemically dependent farmers is figuring out ways to hire people to do the work these chemical tools replaced. This is not at all an easy problem to solve. Ag labor is rife with problems, and many farmers who have become used to their chemical tools do not want to return to the days of labor crews slaving away in the hot summers hoeing weeds. It is a cultural thing, dealing with lots of people. The veggie and fruit people always employ lots of labor, but the row crop and commodity farmers do not anymore. It is really hard for these people to not view ag labor as exploitive. I see their point. It is not such an easy puzzle to solve. It took about 80 years from chemical tools to become what is considered normal (conventional) in Ag in the US, this is changing now, time will tell what we will see 80 years from now.

What I see as the greatest hurdle towards greater adoption of organic farming is the challenges of higher labor needs. If organically derived compounds became available for weed control, then this could change the equation for the row and commodity farmers.

But as long as the chemically derived nitrogen is cheaper than the organically available nitrogen, the prices will be higher, even if there were no labor differences.

I do take exception to your assertion that I am against organic farming. I'm not. I do not know enough about it to be either for OR against. When it comes to doing things cleaner and healthier, I am all ears. I just don't want the conversation drowned out by screams of "Monsanto is the devil."

We are on the same side.

Agriculture is so important and it continues to change and evolve, like everything else. I am not a fan of simple slogans either. Most of us who actually farm are this way. I have more in common with farmers who use chemicals as tools than with many town people. It is challenging for all of us to figure out how to survive financially. And these folks honestly do bot see harm in the chemicals. And obviously most consumers don't worry about them either.

I can assure anyone who cares to listen to me that the ag chemicals allowed for crops in the US, Europe and Japan break down rapidly and so I feel that residues from US grown crops are not as big of a deal as from produce produced in countries without our regulations. I do not think, however that even these residues are entirely safe. I do think that they effect people, especially those residues that mimic hormones. I would advise men wishing to produce viable sperm to only eat organic fruit and veggies (many commonly used fungicides -used heavily on conventional veggies- depress testosterone levels) and women who wish to avoid the cancers that are correlated with higher estrogen levels should avoid meat or dairy that is not organic ( the estrogen mimics are plentiful in these). just my 2 cents.

But every single chemical tool not used costs more money for the farmer, the chemical tools really do save money for the individual farmer, but society and the environment pay the real costs. In the long run, I do not think that chemically dependent farming is sustainable.

I don't have citations, but I've been hearing this claim for some time. I suspect it's true, and why not? Food is food.

I think organic has two benefits.

First, who wants a tasteless tomato? Organic flavor is much better, IMHO. That's why home grown tastes better, too. If you can afford organic, why not for this reason alone.

Second, there is the lack of pesticides, hormones, etc. That is a good thing, but research indicates that these benefits are moderated due to neighboring farms, etc. Still, if natural processes can moderate pests and blight, that alone is a good thing.

I cannot always afford organic, but sometimes splurge for the first reason alone. I do my part as much as I can.

Half the battle would be won. You're on the right track.

...brought to you by your friends at MONSANTO and CARGILL.

I rarely accept any so-called ''study'' put out by universities and authorized agencies these days because the colleges are bought and paid-for and the government agencies (I'm looking at you FDA!) like the whole fucking system -- is corrupt as hell.

- Always checked your sources for corporate cooties, I always say......

K&R

Organics are the only way to avoid GMOs.