Quote Originally Posted by tyger View Post
Read all about "organic" and the soil association here:

http://www.soilassociation.org/

Not to go off-topic, but here you have the presently fashionable "climate change" awareness orientation applied to agriculture. It really got its start in the 1960s. There will be a lot more of this in years to come. Don't get hung up on the fact that predictable and cyclic climate change that has been going on for at least 300 billion years (see footnote). Most folks just don't want to hear about that!

But the "organic" orientation does have merit in that farmers should be encouraged to prevention errosion, minimalize pollution, and maximize sustainable small-plot production. They also should be encouraged to earn a profit, and charge a premium for a quality product whose supply is limited. Those facets of operation are are worthy of reward. We did that quite naturally not all that many years ago.
Soil conservation, as least as a named government program in the USA started in the 30's with the "Soil Bank" after the Dust Bowl years.

People did it then, NOT, because they had some imagined benefit to humans to be "organic" but to the sustainability of their major asset: THE LAND. The question is to my mind is NOT whether some practices could be called "organic" or any other invented or misused term but whether there is an advantage to us humans in the long run.
Should people pay more for food that is no better for them? Perhaps not. Should people be rewarded for preserving a resource for future generations to exploit. Perhaps.
Is there a benefit to "organic food;" Is it BETTER in some way. Not that has ever been shown.
Finding trace contaminants does not constitute a defect in the food. Were that so, they would have been banned. I lament the fuzzy thinking that has people convinced without evidence that "organic" (whatever that may actually mean) has a benefit for those who are asked to pay more to keep from starving.