Scientific arguments for eating Organic/non-GMO food?

[Alex K]

My main hope in buying organic animal products is that maybe the animals have it nicer. If that's not the case, I'm not really motivated to buy it any more. If there is a choice I tend to buy the GMO food out of protest against the mindless arguments against it.

[CapnAwesome]

If you value healthy soil, and soil conservation - than organics may appeal to you on those grounds.  Conventionals -could- focus on soil and achieve similar results..but the focus with conventionals is currently in extracting as much as possible -from- the soil, not building up superdirt.  

(I know that's not directly an argument for -eating- organic food.....but it's on the periphery, I think - and many others seem to think.   Time it hits the table there's no difference, eat the organic, eat the conventional, eat the gmo..it's all the same.  Before the table, though, you might be able to get your food to do work you're interested in.)

Not quite, even on the table the residual pesticides and such can be a good reason to avoid conventional. As you noted, conventional and GMO is basically more business friendly do to a higher production value, however that is also translates to many producers using really harmful methods to increase yield, which in turn effects the consumer's health.

So as far as I know, conventional raises both environmental and health concerns. Organic raises financial concerns

Well people say for the consumer health, but it all seems kind of vague. I know that the American Cancer society said that Conventional produce isn't more likely to cause cancer, and that a simply washing gets off any of the trace residual pesticides. So I'm not really sure about the whole 'more poison' on convention agriculture or that it matters at all. Unless I saw specific and scientific research on the real dangers of modern pesticides, I'd remain unconvinced.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you value healthy soil, and soil conservation - than organics may appeal to you on those grounds.  Conventionals -could- focus on soil and achieve similar results..but the focus with conventionals is currently in extracting as much as possible -from- the soil, not building up superdirt.  

(I know that's not directly an argument for -eating- organic food.....but it's on the periphery, I think - and many others seem to think.   Time it hits the table there's no difference, eat the organic, eat the conventional, eat the gmo..it's all the same.  Before the table, though, you might be able to get your food to do work you're interested in.)

Not quite, even on the table the residual pesticides and such can be a good reason to avoid conventional. As you noted, conventional and GMO is basically more business friendly do to a higher production value, however that is also translates to many producers using really harmful methods to increase yield, which in turn effects the consumer's health.

So as far as I know, conventional raises both environmental and health concerns. Organic raises financial concerns

Organics have lower levels of -synthetic- pesticide residues.  This is true almost by default (I say almost because organic farms, like conventional farms, don't always follow the rules).  The level of production residue on -any- crop is a wash, because the same post-harvest handling standards apply to -all- produce equally.  Organic pesticide residues are not safe.  If they were safe they would not kill pests.   Some organics are more acutely toxic than conventionals, and vv.  

You aren't getting -less- residue /w organics, you're getting a different -kind- of residue...which is equally toxic, and equally well regulated.  This is simply an effect of the same same production equipment and techniques being used interchangeably by producers.

I'm sure you could -find- an organic farm that has less residue than conventionals....there are certainly people who make that their selling point. It just doesn't have anything to do with them being organic. They're using different equipment, different procedures, as above. Unfortunately, a farm like that isn't stocking anyone's grocery store. You'll have to go local.

[Alex K]

In my neck of the woods, the "ecological" wine growers aren't allowed to use synthetic poison and instead throw copper sulfate on it (the actual vitriol). To me that sounds like a farce.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, that's a rough one.  organic grapes are -super- expensive to produce, and you have very few options for pesticide management.  It's within the letter of the Organic Cert. entirely, of course.

[Pyrrho]

In my neck of the woods, the "ecological" wine growers aren't allowed to use synthetic poison and instead throw copper sulfate on it (the actual vitriol). To me that sounds like a farce.

Alex, copper sulfate is not jut used as an herbicide, fungicide, and pesticide.  It is actually an additive put into wine.  See:

http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/em016/EM016.pdf

http://www.winebusiness.com/tools/?go=wi...alc&cid=50

http://www.wineadds.com/faq/copper

http://morebeer.com/public/wine/Product%.../CuSO4.pdf

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/wine/si...trial1.pdf

http://www.vintessential.com.au/resource...-wine.html

The majority of copper sulfate in wine is not likely due to any residue from spraying the grapes, but from adding it directly into the wine.