Organic food is no healthier, study finds

[surfsatwerk]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Amused
I can say, without a doubt, that modern farming has had only a positive effect on my life... and yours, even though you'd never admit it.

We output more food than we actually consume or give away in the United States. Switching partly to organic farming wouldn't cause the nation to starve. I can see pesticides making economic sense in 3rd world countries, where in the short term growing enough food trumps environmental issues that would arise later. There are techniques for pest control that do not require the use of pesticides, and whenever it is viable to do so, I think it is preferable to use organic and sustainable farming methods.

It took a long time to fully see the damage that pesticides like DDT have done (and continue to do, even now).

DDT wasn't nearly as harmful as it was made out to be. Silent Spring was a fraud and the hysteria snowballed from there. In reality, the banning of DDT has cost tens if not hundreds of millions of lives lost to malaria.

You're a nutjob.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Crono
That's what I'm wondering. No one I know buys organic food for increased nutritional value, but for better taste and no pesticides.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits

Originally posted by: Phokus
Talk about self ownage, OP

Yes, do let's. Show me where it is.

you assumed the "nutritional benefits" was taking place of "health benefits", whereas taking in less chemicals into your body is a "health benefit" and seems smarter than eating chemicals/ pesticides willynilly. at least thats what im assuming he meant.


i dont buy organic foods for the most part, but mainly due to the local stores not having much better quality than the regular stuff, and the prices are definitely higher. a ranch market just opened up near me and is supposed to be more organic friendly, but getting in there is almost impossible at any time during any given day. it has turned into the hang out for quite a few people.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: mb

They taste the same

no they dont. I dont buy organic stuff cuz it just costs too much, but I have tried organic fruits and they do taste better

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Crono

What about the environmental effect of pesticides? What about bioaccumulation and biomagnification? There have been many documented cases in the past of pesticides affecting and killing animal species, many of which affected humans directly or indirectly. You can't say that the manufacturing and use of pesticides, especially on the scale done globally, is harmless.

Pesticides used today (at least here in the States and EU OECD nations) are type called organo-phosphates which do somewhat readily breakdown in the environment (there are still some sanctioned uses of things like DDT, but for the most part they are organ-phosphates). The older chlorinated pesticides (e.g. chlordane, mirex, etc.) are persistent pollutants that can stay in the environment for a hell of a long time. We can still see trace levels of them after they have been banned. I do not believe there is much bio-accumulation of pesticides; usually that is typical a elemental metal problem (e.g. mercury).

What is a new fascinating problem is what can be termed as pharmaceuticals as environmental toxins; all of the drugs (legal and otherwise) that get put into the waste streams which can really screw up animal populations.

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: Amused

DDT wasn't nearly as harmful as it was made out to be. Silent Spring was a fraud and the hysteria snowballed from there. In reality, the banning of DDT has cost tens if not hundreds of millions of lives lost to malaria.

You're a nutjob.

No, "Silent Spring" is sort of a quack-job of a book. Well honestly I wouldn't go so far as to say it was fraud, but the science behind it was very poor and the intentions were more along fear-mongering than anything else. Carson should be somewhat applauded for making the general population aware of potential environmental issues, however her technique may have been less than honest.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SunSamurai


Youd make a great dad. "EAT THE POISON SON WE SAVED 20CENTS!"

Gotta love the fear mongering.

Show me one valid study that shows people who eat "organic" foods live longer or are healthier than people who eat the same diet but non-organic.

Oops!

I see Amused added Monsanto to his corporate master list, what a slave

No masters here, except logic. If anything, the people running to "organic" foods for health reasons are slaves to their own irrational fears.

so you claim you're a strong conservative and a proponent of freedom, yet you ridicule other people exercising their freedom and purchasing certain things they prefer with their own money

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Amused
I can say, without a doubt, that modern farming has had only a positive effect on my life... and yours, even though you'd never admit it.

We output more food than we actually consume or give away in the United States. Switching partly to organic farming wouldn't cause the nation to starve. I can see pesticides making economic sense in 3rd world countries, where in the short term growing enough food trumps environmental issues that would arise later. There are techniques for pest control that do not require the use of pesticides, and whenever it is viable to do so, I think it is preferable to use organic and sustainable farming methods.

It took a long time to fully see the damage that pesticides like DDT have done (and continue to do, even now).

DDT wasn't nearly as harmful as it was made out to be. Silent Spring was a fraud and the hysteria snowballed from there. In reality, the banning of DDT has cost tens if not hundreds of millions of lives lost to malaria.

Yes, DDT wasn't harmful at all... it just almost single handedly wiped out our national symbol the bald eagle and DDE put the peregrine falcon and CA condor on the endangered list. :roll:

Just admit that you know little about ecological systems, biomagnification, and POP's and their effects on the human body and the environment. You're obviously not a very bright individual considering that you admittedly would consume toxic chemicals in low dosages if they added taste to a food.

Like descartes said, just because studies haven't been conducted yet doesn't mean it's safe to consume a PoP at any dosage. How many studies have been conducted on round-up ready foods? Many have already shown that glyphosate is hazardous to the environment and this is a relatively newer farming method:

A recent study concluded that certain amphibians may be at risk from glyphosate use.[26]In other studies nitrogen fixing bacteria have been impaired, and also crop plant susceptibility to disease has been increased.[24][28][29][30][31][32][33].

Text

Yet this is one of the major genetically engineered methods of modern crop production today. If you think anyone knows the full effects of runoff glyphosate on the environment you're crazy. You would have made an excellent lobbyist for Big Tobacco in the 70's: "But there aren't enough definitive studies to link it to lung cancer!"

Last, a study that shows a correlation between POP's and diabetes:

Low-level exposure to some POPs has recently been associated with an increased risk of diabetes (3). Prospective cohort studies of subjects exposed to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), the most potent dioxin congener of POPs, or other POPs in occupational or accidental settings have reported increased risk of diabetes, modified glucose metabolism, or insulin resistance (4,5,6,7,8,9,10). The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs added type 2 diabetes to the list of presumptive diseases associated with the exposure to dioxin-containing Agent Orange in Vietnam (11).

However, whether similar associations exist in the general population with lifetime exposure to very low doses of a mixture of various POPs is not known. Given that almost everyone has measurable amounts of POPs, the public health significance of a relation of mixed dioxins with diabetes may be substantial despite a relatively modest association with any individual dioxin.

Text


Even with the small amount of studies linking POP's to our health and no long term effects known yet, I'm still not stupid enough to say I'd voluntarily ingest them if they made something taste better.

 

[oogabooga]

I didn't think it was healthier cause of the nutritional value but because of the chemicals/etc used while it is grown. Has anyone actually studied that? That would kill the organic movement pretty quickly.

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SunSamurai


Youd make a great dad. "EAT THE POISON SON WE SAVED 20CENTS!"

Gotta love the fear mongering.

Show me one valid study that shows people who eat "organic" foods live longer or are healthier than people who eat the same diet but non-organic.

Oops!

I see Amused added Monsanto to his corporate master list, what a slave

No masters here, except logic. If anything, the people running to "organic" foods for health reasons are slaves to their own irrational fears.

so you claim you're a strong conservative and a proponent of freedom, yet you ridicule other people exercising their freedom and purchasing certain things they prefer with their own money

To be fair : he's not saying we should stop selling that crap, just mocking the people who buy it. I don't see why you can't laugh at the dumb ass choices people make with their freedom.

 

[NaOH]

I'm gonna put in my two cents. My ex was a nutritional sciences major at Berkeley and told me there were studies done on organic fruits and it was shown that they had more natural toxins in them that are used to fight off bugs/pests anyways compared to non-organic. And they are carcinogenic just like pesticides. And it was found that these could be harmful to your health in LARGE amounts as well. Just as regular pesticides.

The people arguing that they would rather not put low dosages of pesticides in their system have no idea because the plants themselves produce their own pesticide anyways...

So I think that, if you like the taste..then sure. I myself love organic ketchup. But don't expect it to make you healthier. Just as with anything else. Moderation is key.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: mb
I think organic food is the new bottled water.

"But it's healthier and tastes better!"

seriously if you can't taste the difference find a better market or learn how to pick fruit/veg

better yet, stick to the shit you get at ralphs and let the people who have gangster taste buds blow their money on the expensive shit at farmers market

maybe he's smoker?

wouldn't be able to taste the difference between a fig and a pig's asshole in that case.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Babbles
I'll put in my two cents since I'm probably uniquely qualified to give it. By way of background I was a Principal Investigator for a study done for a large corporation to do a trace level screen of pesticides in food products. We were looking at somewhere around 400 pesticides in products from North & South America and Europe. I'm probably one of a handful of people in the world to perform the chemical analysis of such a study. Due to NDA I'm going to leave it at that.

Anyhow, long story short the food products identified as "organic" did in fact have lower pesticide concentration than those identified as conventional. However the concentration levels were detected at crazy low fraction of parts per billion (ppb) and as such they were not really high kill-you-dead levels.

On a slightly related note what is interesting is that even if produce is grown under current organic methods, there could still be persistent pesticides (e.g. mirex) that could be in the soil twenty years after it was used. So, in theory, even if a farmer used organic methods, the soil could have been contaminated a long time ago and could (again in theory) have higher levels of really toxic compounds compared to conventional farmers.

ooo, thanks for the info :thumbsup:

as for the bolded, are you referring to the conventional produce? gist of your argument ("However...") seems to suggest that you are, so I'm wondering.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Amused
Look, either provide valid studies showing people who eat identical diets of "organic" vs non-"organic" foods have differences in health or life span or just admit you're giving into irrational fears over unsubstantiated claims.

As for taste, sure, I'll buy whatever tastes better. And that isn't always organic. It may be that more often local produce like Strawberries tastes better, but organic has NOTHING to do with it. Simply being allowed to vine ripen is the difference.

"Organic" has about nothing to do with taste. Boutique produce, no matter how it is grown, will usually be of higher quality simply because of a closer attention to detail and locally grown produce, organic or not, is better because it's fresher and vine ripened.

Two camps of people: those who eat organic because "it tastes better" and those who eat organic to avoid chemicals (with some overlap between the two groups.) Amused addressed the first group perfectly. I'd be willing to wager that no one would be able to detect a difference between locally grown food & organic produce from a grocery store.

The second group - the "oh noooes, it's bad for us!" group - bullshit. Nothing more than fear-mongering. "Hey, you never know" - you're right - you never know. But since that group is so willing to make wild statements with absolutely no evidence concerning the safety of regularly farmed food, here are some statements about their organic produce:
increased risk of e-coli, because manure is used as fertilizer.
increased amount of fungi & other bad critters on the food because of the lack of use of modern pesticides/fungicides.

And, since most people aren't quite aware of what "organic" means - I have apple trees on my property. I do NOT spray the apples with any pesticides or fungicides, ever. All I've ever done is prune the trees back every year or so, so that they'll continue to produce big apples. I've never applied any fertilizer around the apple trees. Can I label the apples "organic"? (Someone earlier in the thread said to make sure they are certified organic.) Nope, I can't. Why? Because my goats eat grain, in addition to their hay. And, the grain isn't certified as organic.

Doesn't matter to me though, I don't sell the apples. Mine mine mine mine!

:thumbsup:

 

[mb]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: mb
I think organic food is the new bottled water.

"But it's healthier and tastes better!"

seriously if you can't taste the difference find a better market or learn how to pick fruit/veg

better yet, stick to the shit you get at ralphs and let the people who have gangster taste buds blow their money on the expensive shit at farmers market

maybe he's smoker?

wouldn't be able to taste the difference between a fig and a pig's asshole in that case.

Nope, never smoked a cigarette in my life.

And, you eat pig's asshole? eww that sounds nasty. May even be worse than tomatoes

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: mb

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: mb
I think organic food is the new bottled water.

"But it's healthier and tastes better!"

seriously if you can't taste the difference find a better market or learn how to pick fruit/veg

better yet, stick to the shit you get at ralphs and let the people who have gangster taste buds blow their money on the expensive shit at farmers market

maybe he's smoker?

wouldn't be able to taste the difference between a fig and a pig's asshole in that case.

Nope, never smoked a cigarette in my life.

And, you eat pig's asshole? eww that sounds nasty. May even be worse than tomatoes

what, you've never eaten a hotdog?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Crusty
So they compared it only on nutritional value? What about taste or other chemicals found?

That's what I'm wondering. No one I know buys organic food for increased nutritional value, but for better taste and no pesticides.

yup. never had anything to do with nutrition...so what's the point of study?

also, organic means a variety of things. Not simply how the food is produced, but very much how it is transported. what is the actual cost based on distance from farm/fuel used in transport/amount produced/etc to consumer. -- thats just plain BS!!! I laughed when i read your BS comment!!
"Organic" is a very nebulous description these days.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Crusty
So they compared it only on nutritional value? What about taste or other chemicals found?

That's what I'm wondering. No one I know buys organic food for increased nutritional value, but for better taste and no pesticides.

yup. never had anything to do with nutrition...so what's the point of study?

also, organic means a variety of things. Not simply how the food is produced, but very much how it is transported. what is the actual cost based on distance from farm/fuel used in transport/amount produced/etc to consumer. -- thats just plain BS!!! I laughed when i read your BS comment!!
"Organic" is a very nebulous description these days.

oh, do tell, oh purveyor of all things un-knowledgeable.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: zoiks

I disagree. At least for meats, the chicken that I purchase (organic/free range) are so much more tastier than the safeway variety.

In the case of meat, the organic animals are usually treated better than they are from corporate farms.

OH NOES!!! Really, honestly, why the hell do you care how an animal was treated if you still support it being killed so you can eat it. Kind of hypocritical don't ya think?
"Oh, I care about you and your well being." Lights up grill "Now time to humanely kill you so I can eat your tasty flesh"

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Crusty
So they compared it only on nutritional value? What about taste or other chemicals found?

That's what I'm wondering. No one I know buys organic food for increased nutritional value, but for better taste and no pesticides.

^^ This.

bullshit. come to boulder CO and shop whole foods. the propaganda that organic is healthier in nutrition is all over the place.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SunSamurai


Youd make a great dad. "EAT THE POISON SON WE SAVED 20CENTS!"

Gotta love the fear mongering.

Show me one valid study that shows people who eat "organic" foods live longer or are healthier than people who eat the same diet but non-organic.

Oops!

I see Amused added Monsanto to his corporate master list, what a slave

No masters here, except logic. If anything, the people running to "organic" foods for health reasons are slaves to their own irrational fears.

so you claim you're a strong conservative and a proponent of freedom, yet you ridicule other people exercising their freedom and purchasing certain things they prefer with their own money

I've been saying that for a long time about that joker.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: mb

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Crusty
So they compared it only on nutritional value? What about taste or other chemicals found?

That's what I'm wondering. No one I know buys organic food for increased nutritional value, but for better taste and no pesticides.

They taste the same and you should always rinse fruit/veggies before eating anyway.

No they don't.. Ever have organic milk? AWESOME.. now, i'm cheap so i buy whatever's on sale, bet ever notice how girls are getting boobs faster? Hormones, yo

There is no valid evidence that links BGH to earlier puberty in humans.

this^^^ just more brain washing and scare tactics used by the organic nutsjobs

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Crusty
So they compared it only on nutritional value? What about taste or other chemicals found?

That's what I'm wondering. No one I know buys organic food for increased nutritional value, but for better taste and no pesticides.

idk, it seems to me like organic food is always being marketed as if it's somehow inherently more nutritious and healthier than non-organic.

I'll take my fish-gene strawberries and glow in the dark tomatoes any day.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Babbles
I'll put in my two cents since I'm probably uniquely qualified to give it. By way of background I was a Principal Investigator for a study done for a large corporation to do a trace level screen of pesticides in food products. We were looking at somewhere around 400 pesticides in products from North & South America and Europe. I'm probably one of a handful of people in the world to perform the chemical analysis of such a study. Due to NDA I'm going to leave it at that.

Anyhow, long story short the food products identified as "organic" did in fact have lower pesticide concentration than those identified as conventional. However the concentration levels were detected at crazy low fraction of parts per billion (ppb) and as such they were not really high kill-you-dead levels.

On a slightly related note what is interesting is that even if produce is grown under current organic methods, there could still be persistent pesticides (e.g. mirex) that could be in the soil twenty years after it was used. So, in theory, even if a farmer used organic methods, the soil could have been contaminated a long time ago and could (again in theory) have higher levels of really toxic compounds compared to conventional farmers.

ooo, thanks for the info :thumbsup:

as for the bolded, are you referring to the conventional produce? gist of your argument ("However...") seems to suggest that you are, so I'm wondering.

You are correct, I was referring to conventionally grown produce. I apologize for not making that clear. Basically conventional stuff had, for the most part, very low trace levels of pesticides. Organic produce had even lower levels.

I personally am not too terribly concerned with the use of modern conventional pesticides. Somebody mentioned dioxins, and those are indeed some real bad shit. Along those lines there are some crazy bad stuff out in the environment (e.g. PCBs, dioxins) but in terms of strictly pesticides I can't concern myself with them. There are far worse things to worry about in life.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Jack Ryan

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SunSamurai


Youd make a great dad. "EAT THE POISON SON WE SAVED 20CENTS!"

Gotta love the fear mongering.

Show me one valid study that shows people who eat "organic" foods live longer or are healthier than people who eat the same diet but non-organic.

Oops!

I see Amused added Monsanto to his corporate master list, what a slave

No masters here, except logic. If anything, the people running to "organic" foods for health reasons are slaves to their own irrational fears.

so you claim you're a strong conservative and a proponent of freedom, yet you ridicule other people exercising their freedom and purchasing certain things they prefer with their own money

I've been saying that for a long time about that joker.

You are free to buy whatever you want and believe whatever you want. And I'm free to call you out for the irrational fool you are for it.

See how that works?

And I'm NOT a "strong conservative." I'm libertarian. I'm classically liberal. About as 180 degrees one can get from "strong conservative."

You see, freedom do to as one pleases so long as one does no harm to others only means freedom from laws forbidding it. It does NOT mean freedom from social consequence. Get used to it.

Funny how you see my opinion as oppression. Shows just how much people in comfortable first world countries have no idea what real oppression is like.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Amused
I can say, without a doubt, that modern farming has had only a positive effect on my life... and yours, even though you'd never admit it.

We output more food than we actually consume or give away in the United States. Switching partly to organic farming wouldn't cause the nation to starve. I can see pesticides making economic sense in 3rd world countries, where in the short term growing enough food trumps environmental issues that would arise later. There are techniques for pest control that do not require the use of pesticides, and whenever it is viable to do so, I think it is preferable to use organic and sustainable farming methods.

It took a long time to fully see the damage that pesticides like DDT have done (and continue to do, even now).

DDT wasn't nearly as harmful as it was made out to be. Silent Spring was a fraud and the hysteria snowballed from there. In reality, the banning of DDT has cost tens if not hundreds of millions of lives lost to malaria.

You're a nutjob.

No, the author of Silent Spring was a nutjob. Check it out. The science behind her book is totally flawed.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Amused
I can say, without a doubt, that modern farming has had only a positive effect on my life... and yours, even though you'd never admit it.

We output more food than we actually consume or give away in the United States. Switching partly to organic farming wouldn't cause the nation to starve. I can see pesticides making economic sense in 3rd world countries, where in the short term growing enough food trumps environmental issues that would arise later. There are techniques for pest control that do not require the use of pesticides, and whenever it is viable to do so, I think it is preferable to use organic and sustainable farming methods.

It took a long time to fully see the damage that pesticides like DDT have done (and continue to do, even now).

DDT wasn't nearly as harmful as it was made out to be. Silent Spring was a fraud and the hysteria snowballed from there. In reality, the banning of DDT has cost tens if not hundreds of millions of lives lost to malaria.

Yes, DDT wasn't harmful at all... it just almost single handedly wiped out our national symbol the bald eagle and DDE put the peregrine falcon and CA condor on the endangered list. :roll:

Just admit that you know little about ecological systems, biomagnification, and POP's and their effects on the human body and the environment. You're obviously not a very bright individual considering that you admittedly would consume toxic chemicals in low dosages if they added taste to a food.

Like descartes said, just because studies haven't been conducted yet doesn't mean it's safe to consume a PoP at any dosage. How many studies have been conducted on round-up ready foods? Many have already shown that glyphosate is hazardous to the environment and this is a relatively newer farming method:

A recent study concluded that certain amphibians may be at risk from glyphosate use.[26]In other studies nitrogen fixing bacteria have been impaired, and also crop plant susceptibility to disease has been increased.[24][28][29][30][31][32][33].

Text

Yet this is one of the major genetically engineered methods of modern crop production today. If you think anyone knows the full effects of runoff glyphosate on the environment you're crazy. You would have made an excellent lobbyist for Big Tobacco in the 70's: "But there aren't enough definitive studies to link it to lung cancer!"

Last, a study that shows a correlation between POP's and diabetes:

Low-level exposure to some POPs has recently been associated with an increased risk of diabetes (3). Prospective cohort studies of subjects exposed to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), the most potent dioxin congener of POPs, or other POPs in occupational or accidental settings have reported increased risk of diabetes, modified glucose metabolism, or insulin resistance (4,5,6,7,8,9,10). The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs added type 2 diabetes to the list of presumptive diseases associated with the exposure to dioxin-containing Agent Orange in Vietnam (11).

However, whether similar associations exist in the general population with lifetime exposure to very low doses of a mixture of various POPs is not known. Given that almost everyone has measurable amounts of POPs, the public health significance of a relation of mixed dioxins with diabetes may be substantial despite a relatively modest association with any individual dioxin.

Text


Even with the small amount of studies linking POP's to our health and no long term effects known yet, I'm still not stupid enough to say I'd voluntarily ingest them if they made something taste better.

Good lord. And the rise in Rap Music directly correlates to the rise in obesity. Shall we say obesity is caused by Rap Music?

Type 2 dibetes is caused chiefly by obesity. Obesity has risen as food has become more plentiful and cheaper due to modern farming.

As for DDT. Come on. The science behind Silent Spring was so biased and flawed it's been completely discredited. The bitch outright lied and fabricated shit.

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

 

[surfsatwerk]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Amused
I can say, without a doubt, that modern farming has had only a positive effect on my life... and yours, even though you'd never admit it.

We output more food than we actually consume or give away in the United States. Switching partly to organic farming wouldn't cause the nation to starve. I can see pesticides making economic sense in 3rd world countries, where in the short term growing enough food trumps environmental issues that would arise later. There are techniques for pest control that do not require the use of pesticides, and whenever it is viable to do so, I think it is preferable to use organic and sustainable farming methods.

It took a long time to fully see the damage that pesticides like DDT have done (and continue to do, even now).

DDT wasn't nearly as harmful as it was made out to be. Silent Spring was a fraud and the hysteria snowballed from there. In reality, the banning of DDT has cost tens if not hundreds of millions of lives lost to malaria.

You're a nutjob.

No, the author of Silent Spring was a nutjob. Check it out. The science behind her book is totally flawed.

I talked to one of the professors I work with over lunch, he specializes in corn genetics. And he did say that in his opinion Silent Spring was never intended as a work of pure science like a paper he would publish in peer reviewed literature. Rather it was a wake up call piece of literature like Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. In his opinion, most of the blacklash against the book was sponsored by chemical companies concerned about protecting their profits, and the thesis proposed by the book is generally accepted by the scientific community.