In context, I garden and I don't tend to fertilize with much more than compost and traditional additives, though this has more to do with the game, achieve maximum results with X method, rather than any dislike for fertilizer or pesticides.



It is slightly safer in terms of pesticide risk, if we also include livestock there are antibiotic issues too, as for more nutritious? No, probably the reverse unless one is eating principally self grown or locally grown stuff. Depending on the nutrient - iron is one and obviously does not decay in transport for instance - lag time on transport and storage concerns can decrease nutrient content, macro and micro.



Well for organic gardening a certain stress relief and feeling of independence and control. For organic farming though, society benefits from alternative methods being tried out that are often out of the box and the general increase in health and agricultural knowledge many have gotten from paying attention. Additionally it is in our long term advantage while transport remains a major constraining value to encourage a marked preference for high-proximity crops. Otherwise, there are none, organic farming is wasteful, in most cases ecological neutral or even negative, and often promotes pseudo-science.



Not much, it is a fad, now many of the techniques might continue and new ones be introduced but it's strictly a mind game and the increased price will limit expansion.



To a degree yes, though in most respects no, our world-wide famine issues mostly have to do not with a shortage of food but distribution issues, many of the organic growth methods are actually useful to subsistence farmers in distant poorer places and the more importantly the methods they seek to develop and pursue are better.

Let us keep in mind there are some 50 million square miles of land, some 32 billion acres, of which at least a third is readily convertible to reasonably arable land and most readily converted in those low-wealth places by such methods. 10 billion acres can easily feed 20 billion people even with the most half-assed of organic growth methods. Truthfully one should be able to derive 10-20 man-years of food per acre year, and while high-tech heavy infrastructure is more profitable and efficient, it is only so when the logistics of distribution permit it... those are not an issue if the person is doing it with hoe and shovel in their backyard.



That's more of a product issue, I don't care if polyester is better than cotton, you can't have it in a 100% cotton shirt. If the places are attempting to market themselves as low-drift heirloom crops only, GMO obviously has no business in it. As for GMO's themselves, like polyester they are of inestimable value.




Well 'bio-diversity' is more applicable to polyculture, which falls under the heading of 'organic' but like a lot of this stuff predates the fad. It's true that you get higher net calorie yields per area and better soil health from polyculture but single-crop yields tends to maximize production of X for a minimum expenditure of time/labor.