And the point about vulnerability to blight is simply flat-out wrong. The second biggest single point of failure in the food supply of industrialised countries is the fact that we use monocultures with a very low genetic diversity. If you want to know what that gives you, look no further than the Irish Potato Plague in the mid-1800s. (The biggest single point of failure in industrial agriculture is that it requires ridiculous amounts of fossil fuels.)

- Jake

But please don’t fall into the trap of quackery yourself… or at least being less specific in your ideas than is ideal. You say that there is no evidence that organic food is better or tastier. But is that becasue there is a lack of research? My hunch would say yes, as I understand how difficult it is to get impartial funding for medical or biological research outside of cancer, heart disease etc etc.

Leaving aside the specific organic vs non-organic debate, it does seem to be true that there is a general belief that ‘Natural’ always equals ‘better for you’. On the basis of the purely chemical structure of natural vs man-made substances, theoretically there should be no difference.

I just want tasty food reared or grown with condsideration to welfare and/or environment.

The bullets are a very quick summary of Dick Tavern’s book which has an excellent chapter on Organic food.

He cites a number of sources including:

Basker D, 1992, ‘Comparison of taste quality between organically and conventionally grown fruits and vegetables’, American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 7(3), p 129–136

Hansen H, 1981, ‘Comparison of chemical composition and taste of biodynamically and conventionally grown vegetables’, Qualitas
Plantarum – Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 30(3/4), p 203–211

… Do you have a cite for that?

I’d give you credit, of course, and link back here.