The evidence suggests (try http://whfoods.org/genpage.php?tname=faq&dbid=37#disctopics) that it is healthier to consume 'organic' over conventional. As has already been commented, toxic contaminants via agricultural chemicals are measurably damaging to our health. In addition, it appears that 'organic' produce has different levels of micro nutrients that were not part of the UK study. Flavonoids, polyphenols, etc., are becoming increasingly in the spotlight for the health supportive role they play.
If it's cheaper and has the same nutritional value, that's a good thing for everyone who can't afford (or isn't pretentious enough to want) organic foods. It is always good to drive costs down, if it means feeding those who are going hungry.
What about those that are hungry in the future? When the food supply dwindles because of mono and genetically engineered crops that are only adapted to perform under the artificial conditions of Big Agriculture? The current farming crisis in India is a good example of this. Many farmers in India traded their traditional local varieties of crops for the promised high yield of patented, engineered varieties. The trap was the farmers then had to buy seed every year and spend much more money for fertilizer, pesticide and fungicide. Hybrid seeds have no chance to adapt to the locale, and the farmers have no chance to save and improve them by selected breeding. They must fight to maintain an artificial environment for these 'improved' crops.
Since these 'technical advancments' the farmer suicide rate in India is incredible.
As geeks, we should understand concepts such as 'single point of failure' and 'redundancy'. It may take more units of energy, time and work to produce 'organic' items. At least it is a step in the right direction, even if it is being hijacked by the large companies that pervade the current commercial interests.
Slashdot Mirror
You say they themselves are to blame for the state they are in.
So yes, if that is the case then they should certainly pay for their choice!
The evidence suggests (try http://whfoods.org/genpage.php?tname=faq&dbid=37#disctopics) that it is healthier to consume 'organic' over conventional. As has already been commented, toxic contaminants via agricultural chemicals are measurably damaging to our health. In addition, it appears that 'organic' produce has different levels of micro nutrients that were not part of the UK study. Flavonoids, polyphenols, etc., are becoming increasingly in the spotlight for the health supportive role they play.
If it's cheaper and has the same nutritional value, that's a good thing for everyone who can't afford (or isn't pretentious enough to want) organic foods. It is always good to drive costs down, if it means feeding those who are going hungry.
What about those that are hungry in the future? When the food supply dwindles because of mono and genetically engineered crops that are only adapted to perform under the artificial conditions of Big Agriculture? The current farming crisis in India is a good example of this. Many farmers in India traded their traditional local varieties of crops for the promised high yield of patented, engineered varieties. The trap was the farmers then had to buy seed every year and spend much more money for fertilizer, pesticide and fungicide. Hybrid seeds have no chance to adapt to the locale, and the farmers have no chance to save and improve them by selected breeding. They must fight to maintain an artificial environment for these 'improved' crops.
Since these 'technical advancments' the farmer suicide rate in India is incredible.
As geeks, we should understand concepts such as 'single point of failure' and 'redundancy'. It may take more units of energy, time and work to produce 'organic' items. At least it is a step in the right direction, even if it is being hijacked by the large companies that pervade the current commercial interests.