Bringing up the subject as a serious question that needs serious answers.
Since this will lead the headlines for the rest of 2014, having a good grounding in science rather than loud voices seems to be a better way of deciding what is right (or wrong).
A recent New York Time editorial opened the question for me. After spending a year being on the wrong side of an issue regarding lake algae, I have decided to be more circumspect in my support of environmental issues. Sometimes Save the People
comes before Save the Planet
"Natural" isn't always right. The "Black Plague" was natural. "Polio" was natural. "Tuberculosis" and "Measles" were natural.
Putting "Global Warming" in a sentence with almost any type of energy is an invitation to violent argument. Saving the snail darter caused a ruckus not too too long ago.
A long preface to a subject that we are already addressing with our pocketbooks. With a 20% to 50% premium on basic foods the money/health question comes with bias against less wealthy persons if in fact non organic foods are unhealthy. Likewise with Genetically altered products, if... if they do scientifically prove to be a long term health risk.
At the other end of the spectrum, are smaller crops, failed crops, and naturally altered crops such as oranges, that go by the wayside, never to be recovered.
Are we sure that the bee colonies are dying because of insecticides?
At this point I'm not ready to weigh in, but since it's going to be important, think I'll wait and find out who the legitimate scientists are, try to separate fact and surmise, and not to destroy Monsanto until I'm sure it's necessary.
...but I am mad that DW bought Organic Bananas for $.79/lb. at Aldi's rather than the plain old $.44/lb ones in the next box. Way to wake the sleeping tiger!