I doubt the general public is qualified to decide which practices are better than others. For example, I grew up on a farm, but I couldn't tell you if free-range eggs are safer or healthier than eggs from caged birds. Nor could I tell you if chemical-free produce is safer than organic. Nor could I tell you if antibiotic-free meat is safer or healthier than "regular" meat. I can tell you what I've heard from my pro-GMO family and my anti-GMO friends, but without diving deeply into the studies and counter studies, it would be hard to draw an informed conclusion.

Isn't there a moral aspect of this? Shouldn't you treat the animal you are "consuming" as good as possible?

Probably, but even here I doubt the public is qualified to make this call. The canonical example is a sow pen which has just enough room for a sow to lay down while she nurses her piglets; this is actually better for the animals because it prevents the sow (~800 lbs) from crushing her piglets (~5 lbs); however, laypeople see an animal rights violation.

Sure. But remember the main topic here is plants, and there are no moral considerations there.

What, you don't think plants have feelings?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/12/peter-wo...

I can imagine you have more sympathy for animals than plants since they are more like us, but I suspect bias if you use that as a basis for morality.

> free-range eggs are safer or healthier than eggs from caged birds.

This makes absolutely no sense. "free-range" is a question about chicken health, not egg safety.

Please note that I never made that claim; I simply observed it.