|
| Well there's much more than health issues, and even that is dubious, only if you compare organic megafarms to conventional megafarms. I don't put much faith on this study of studies, none of this is even remotely related to my actual diet.
Anyway, as I said, it's a personal choice, not saying it's the ultimate solution to the world's problem. Being more costly doesn't make it less efficient, just costlier, at least until the automated weeders arrive. But saying it's much worse for the environment is total BS. Organic farming does not even cover the same areas as conventional, there's no organic corn participating in the ethanol mandate, or producing HFCS, not much used as animal feed, etc. so it's hard to compare. It's just not the same type of agriculture, and is more geared toward feeding humans directly and reducing the consumption of inefficient livestock such as beef, and toward a healthier diet in general. In that way, organic farming also goes together with less processed food. Conventional farming could do that too, but it's part of a food production system that does not, and promotes obesity and a ton of other health and environmental issues, like in our groundwater or algae blooms, etc. The cost of the health issues alone is probably much more than the whole revenue of agriculture. Not sure there are any studies about the actual costs and benefits of the whole comparison, it sounds like something that requires about the same level of complexity than the one involved in atomic, biological and astronomical sciences... | |
|
Organic/non-gmo farming
