> Which is virtually everyone.
Perhaps, but its no one that has any ground to be taken seriously on the issue of whether we should selectively abandon one of those techniques (in effect promoting the others.)
This is why we see continuous flip-flopping of scientific research that suggests that red wine is good for you, bad for you, makes no difference. 1 glass a day with dinner is fine, women should avoid it. Men should avoid soy etc. Yesterday salt was bad for you, today I see studies that claim they were wrong and it has little to do with high blood pressure and so the suggestions keep coming. If the science weren't flawed, we wouldn't see this continuous flip-flopping of scientific opinion, yet we do. So should those doing the research be taken any more seriously than those who just have concerns? Perhaps slightly, but I wouldn't offer it a great deal more credence, someone else will do another study tomorrow to prove it wrong and then I'm right back to square one. Until then, I'll stay on the fence eating my home grown heirloom produce that I can be as confident as I am able is safe - at least insofar as I know its providence and I can make an informed decision about it - chemical free. Draw conclusions as you see fit.
Which is virtually everyone.