Yes you can grow as you like but it seems backwards to me that you have to prove you are /not/ doing unusual things. If any regulation should occur it ought to be in doing the /unusual/ things.
> Furthermore, many modern 'organic' methods
I'm not speaking of newer methods. I would have any new method more strictly regulated until proven.
There’s lies, there’s damned lies, and then there’s studies. Monsanto’s maize study was only done for 90 days and then got approved. When the same study was replicated for two years, significant health issues were discovered.[1]
And by the way, Monsanto was the only one required to confirm that the study showed positive results. Safety testing is not done by the FDA, only required by the company, who may or may not be telling the truth about the results.[2]
Lies, damned lies, and studies.
So the question remains: Why should I if I were farming have to spend a lot of time, effort, and money to prove what I am not doing? Shouldn't it be the other way 'round?
[1] https://www.gmoseralini.org/faq-items/why-this-study-now/
Then welcome the next potato blight...
But then I live in the United States where we do quite a number of backwards things.
I don’t have all day to sit around debating so take my thoughts as they are. You may have the last word. Good day and God bless.
Furthermore, many modern 'organic' methods are anything but centuries old. Heavy use of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin, copper compounds, compost tea, etc. etc. are all quite new. That's not to say they aren't safe; there are a few practices which warrant more scrutiny, but for the most part they're alright. But the point is that many people are terribly mischaracterizing actual farming practices.