Yes, I get this argument. But everybody intuitively understands the basic proposition of organic. Namely: "We have not added anything to your food for which you don't have many thousands of years of evolutionary preparation." That is not pseudoscience, it's rational circumspection. Or, as the European Commission calls it, the "precautionary principle". Speaking for myself, I find it convincing.

▲

bluGill 33 minutes ago | parent [-]

Problem is we have modern science which in same cases has proven that the modern chemicals are less harmful. Remember lead was considered normal for many thousands of years

	▲	kube-system 24 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes, but we understand modern science as it pertains to both... which is why lead is controlled for both organic and non-organic farming. Honestly curious, which of these is more harmful than the non-organic alternatives? https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-I/su...
	▲	bluebarbet 25 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Modern science can only "prove" that something is not harmful on a timescale of a year or perhaps a decade, not a generation or more. If the precautionary principle had been applied in Roman times, lead would not have been considered safe. Nor asbestos, nor thalidomide, nor microplastics, nor a bunch of synthetic molecules - "proven safe" - that are routinely added to non-organic food in order to improve its yield or its cosmetic aspect or whatever. That was my point.