| ▲ | bluGill an hour ago | |
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 an hour 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 an hour 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. | ||