See the 2011 E. Coli outbreak in Germany that killed 50 people, caused by organic sprout: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_ou...

And all bacteria is not equal, so it's doesn't matter how much there is - it matters what kind. Cheese is just full of bacteria, so are pickles, and yogurt. Food grown using antibiotics will have more of the dangerous resistant kind, rather than the beneficial kind.

With the sprouts it was not the organic that was the issue - it's simply that it's sprouts. Sprouts are wet, not cooked, and not washed. It's a perfect environment for bacteria if you are not careful.

I don't think non-organic sprouts even exists - they grow in less than a week, why would you put pesticides on it?

Nonsense.

Animal dung can carry everything from tapeworms to salmonella to E. coli.

Update: added link.

http://umaine.edu/publications/2510e/

Sorry if that sounds too Michael Pollan for you but I think it passes as both common sense and historically accurate.

You may be right about it being safe, but I'd be careful about using this logic. Over "thousands of years", we had a life expectancy at birth of 30 years, indicating that among other things the food supply may not have been very safe.

Going back to low-tech, low-energy, localized production is a recipe for the return of large-scale famine.

Animals raised without antibiotics and vaccinations carry a horde of diseases.

First of all, "organic farming" doesn't preclude you from treating sick animals with antibiotics, if necessary, nor does it prevent you from vaccinating. (Sick animals are required to be held back for a specified period before entering the food chain.) What it does attempt to prevent is animals being fed prophylactic antibiotics, which is a major cause of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains.

Second, organically raised animals are not festering with disease. My wife and I have hundreds of healthy, organically raised animals on our farm. For example, in the last summer we have grown, processed and sold over 500 chickens which we have lost ZERO to illness.

Animals raised in humane, low stress (and the low stress is key) situations GET SICK VERY INFREQUENTLY. It's in situations where they are concentrated in industrial settings (ie. chicken broiler barns or cattle feed lots) that the stress kicks in, suppresses immune system function and you end up with sick animals that get fed antibiotics to cover up the symptoms.

Sorry.

I'm far from an expert but this has been an interest of mine for years -- deeper than just watching Food, Inc.

You're right that livestock in feedlots carry awful diseases. But in proper conditions--you could even say humane conditions--they don't inherently carry any more diseases than you or I.

I mean, what are you arguing for exactly? That we shouldn't use natural sources of NPK? Try your hand at explaining that.

I don't eat crops fertilized with human feces, either.

"That we shouldn't use natural sources of NPK? Try your hand at explaining that."

I don't like famines that kill millions of people.

A couple more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

Note how few of these occurred in countries with industrialized agriculture (the exceptions being cause by war devastation or the like).

https://www.google.com/search?q=percentage+of+population+in+...

Numerous sources demonstrating that pre-industrial farming resulted in 90-odd percent of the population being peasants.

That was the norm essentially everywhere on the planet right up until the development of modern, mechanized agriculture.

Click through a few of these and note how many of them are spread by animals in living in a low density, no antibiotics, natural diet environment.

Both of which will kill the harmful organisms.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_American_E._coli_O157:H7_outbreaks

It's that chemical fertilizers don't potentially introduce disease organisms into the field the way that manure does.

You don't just take fresh manure that throw it on the field.