If you are going to make such unequivocal statements you should back them up with sources, otherwise you are just adding more noise than signal.

>If you are going to make such unequivocal statements you should back them up with sources, otherwise you are just adding more noise than signal.

You're correct. But as I am not on my personal machine, my catalog isn't available to me and the time it would take to recall all those URLs I don't have. There's good news, however, my statements aren't novel and are very easily backed by less than 3 minutes between a web search and Wikipedia. I hope you hold the author of this article, as well as those within the group mentioned, to the same standard as they have also supplied no reputable sources.

> With "organic" food, you are getting the same exact thing grown by conventional methods but at a higher price.

But thats the problem: you have no way of knowing if "conventional methods" (i.e. no pesticides) were used to grow the produce unless there is a label signaling it. That label is called "organic".

>But thats the problem: you have no way of knowing if "conventional methods" (i.e. no pesticides) were used to grow the produce unless there is a label signaling it. That label is called "organic".

I don't follow. Both "organic" and conventional agriculture use pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.

Not synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-....

USDA certified organic foods are grown and processed according to federal guidelines addressing, among many factors, soil quality, animal raising practices, pest and weed control, and use of additives. Organic producers rely on natural substances and physical, mechanical, or biologically based farming methods to the fullest extent possible.

Produce can be called organic if it’s certified to have grown on soil that had no prohibited substances applied for three years prior to harvest. Prohibited substances include most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. In instances when a grower has to use a synthetic substance to achieve a specific purpose, the substance must first be approved according to criteria that examine its effects on human health and the environment (see other considerations in “Organic 101: Allowed and Prohibited Substances”).

Conventional pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are more effective and sustainable. Conventional products require less of the substance to be applied and less frequently. If the concern is about the impact on the environment and humans, then the logical choice between the organic method and conventional is conventional.

Even if that is accurate(source?), quantity applied says nothing about the danger of the substance to humans.

>Even if that is accurate(source?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming

>quantity applied says nothing about the danger of the substance to humans.

Quantity is the deciding factor when talking about toxicity to humans. If I've misunderstood your comment, please correct me.

Let’s just take one example:

Sodium Bicarbonate, commonly known as Baking Soda works well as an efficient and cost effective fungicide and insecticide. It is actually registered with the EPA for use against certain plant fungi, powdery mildew. As a foliar spray used in the garden, it works wonders against fungus and bugs.

There’s approximately no amount of sodium bicarbonate a person could reasonably ingest, in this context or any other, that would be either immediately harmful or prove to be detrimental long term.

You’d have to really try.

The point is that if a product is twice as toxic to humans (or bees, or some other off-target species) but four times as toxic to the target pest, then the grower can use a quarter as much and the adverse impact is half. The relevant factor is that "therapeutic index", not toxicity per gram. By that standard some organic pesticides are better than the conventional average (e.g. azadirachtin), while others are worse (e.g. pyrethrin, or rotenone until it was banned).

Also, please don't take gardening advice from whatever website you're quoting. Sodium bicarbonate is not an effective insecticide. It's a marginally effective fungicide, though potassium bicarbonate would be less toxic to the plants. It's indeed pretty safe for humans, but the dose makes the poison even there and people have died from sodium bicarbonate overdose:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24734306.2020.1...

Unfortunately consumer gardening advice seems to be the domain of SEO specialists, not gardening specialists. University extension offices publish high-quality information with much less visibility, like:

https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/

Might apply to vinegar, too, another insecticide, although I don’t know if consuming huge quantities of vinegar is bad for you. I’m guessing not as bad as the same quantity of Round-up or a variety of other synthetics.

Many plants would die quickly if you use vinegar and it gets in the soil, same with baling soda. Thats stuff that will work for house plants but not really in a field unless you have a lot of people with tiny brushes...

Sodium bicarbonate isn't actually used in farming like this. Copper pesticides[1] are though, and they are not without their own downsides and consequences.

This article touches on pesticide use in organic farming[2].

I like organic farming, but a lot of what passes for "organic" in the US is far from ideal and feels more like regulator-sanctioned scam. I'd feel more confident buying organic produce if there were stricter guidelines and enforcement.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_pesticide

[2] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogs...