Heres part of what a Canadian researcher had to say about "organic" food.
A comprehensive report published earlier this year in the the journal, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition by researchers at Otago University in New Zealand concluded there is no convincing evidence to back claims that organically grown foods were healthier or tastier than those grown using chemicals. The nutritional value of food was influenced by the time of harvest, freshness, storage, and weather, but many studies claiming organic food had more vitamins and minerals did not take proper account of these factors.One year ago, the U.K. Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld four complaints against claims in a Soil Association leaflet entitled, Five Reasons To Eat Organic, similar to the 10 Reasons to Eat Organic being flogged by Whole Foods. The ASA ruled there was no evidence, contrary to the assertions of the Soil Association, that consumers could taste the difference, organic was healthy, it was better for the environment, and organic meant healthy, happy animals. On one claim, the Soil Association responded that 53 per cent of people buying organic produce did so because they thought it was healthy. The ASA rightly ruled this did not constitute any sort of clinical or scientific evidence. The New Zealand reviewers and others have concluded there were environmental benefits from growing organically and that organic products had lower residues of synthetic pesticides. And many consumers believe that organic is a more sustainable way of farming.
Yet contrary to public opinion, organic produce does contain natural pesticides; in fact, there is a whole list of naturally-occurring chemicals that are regularly used in organic production.
Further, organic often has lower yields, which means that more land is required to provide the same amount of food. Dr. Norman Borlaug, 1970 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, was recently quoted as saying, "Growing more crops and tree per acre leaves more land for Nature.
Without higher yields, peasant farmers will destroy the wildlands and species to keep their children from starving. Sustainably higher yields of crops and trees are the only visible way to save both. Right now, too many environmental groups are pushing low-yielding, low-input systems -- such as organic farming -- in the belief that environmental purity is the primary goal. But what good is pure farming if it takes over all of the planet's land area? We need a balance of responsible, high-yielding technologies on our farms so we can produce the food we need and leave more of the natural landscape for wildlife."
Like most of Liberalism, "orgainic" food is just about what feels better, not about what actually is better.
Look, if you had any taste and sense of smell you could not eat a chicken raised in the concentration camp and fed on chemicals with antibiotics. Have you ever wondered where all those cases of cancer come from?