http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618124956.htm

“The high water-volume flows, coupled with nearly triple the nitrogen concentrations in these rivers over the past 50 years from human activities, has led to a dramatic increase in the size of the dead zone,” said Gene Turner, a lead forecast modeler at Louisiana State University.

Northeast of the Gulf, low water flows into the Chesapeake Bay shaped Scavia’s 2009 forecast for that hypoxia zone.

The Bay’s oxygen-starved zone is expected to shrink to between 0.7 and 1.8 cubic miles, with a “most likely” volume of 1.2 cubic miles—the lowest level since 2001 and third-lowest on record. The drop is largely due to a regional dry spell that lasted from January through April, Scavia said. Continued high flows in June, beyond the period used for the forecasts, suggest the actual size may be near the higher end of the forecast range.

“While it’s encouraging to see that this year’s Chesapeake Bay forecast calls for a significant drop in the extent of the dead zone, we must keep in mind that the anticipated reduction is due mainly to decreased precipitation and water runoff into the Bay,” he said.

“The predicted 2009 dead-zone decline does not result from cutbacks in the use of nitrogen, which remains one of the key drivers of hypoxia in the Bay.”

Farmland runoff containing fertilizers and livestock waste—some of it from as far away as the Corn Belt—is the main source of the nitrogen and phosphorus that cause the Gulf of Mexico dead zone.”

http://www.cheaplikemeblog.com/2009/07/01/organic-farming-raises-antioxidants-lowers-impact-on-workers/

“Exposure to pesticides can cause a range of ill effects in humans, from relatively mild effects such as headaches, fatigue, and nausea, to more serious effects such as cancer and neurological disorders. In 1999, EPA estimated that nationwide there were at least 10,000 to 20,000 physician-diagnosed pesticide illnesses and injuries per year in farm work. Environmental effects are evident in the findings of the U.S. Geological Survey, which reported in 1999 that more than 90 percent of water and fish samples from streams and about 50 percent of all sampled wells contained one or more pesticides. The concern about pesticides in water is especially acute in agricultural areas, where most pesticides are used.”
Source: Agricultural Pesticides: Management Improvements Needed to Further Promote Integrated Pest Management, U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO-01-815, Page 4, August 2001].

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paula-crossfield/or…

Also try doing a google search for 'bullshit organic food debunk' for some background on the Penn and Teller organic food episode. It seems they forgot to mention that their “Food Policy Analyst Expert” works for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute who receive funding from Monsanto.

I still say my organic produce is better than anything factory farmed.

Ben

Why is organic more a crusade than other food choices, like high versus low fat milk, for example? The politicisation of the organic brand runs deep and often seems to be completely oppositional – perhaps because organic licensing is so sought after. I wonder what will happen to the premium pricing on organics if this report is widely read.

I have done the research. I am out in the field doing it every day. I study it every night. That is how I ended up in the comments section of this site.

I have read actual peer reviewed papers on this subject. There really isn't that much research to support either side of the argument, at least not yet. As long as the companies that grow organic produce are the same ones that grow industrial produce there is not going to be a definitive answer.

I can tell you though, that in my experience, small scale organic produce is better by any metric you wish to use. Taste, nutrition, yield, sustainability, pleasure, you name it.

I have seen the Penn and Teller program. I have a lot of spare time in the winter. I appreciate the men and their opinions. It is entertaining. It is hardly "actual scientific research."

@ Timothy B. Hurst

I would like to compare a crop grown in Miracle Grow to a crop grown in healthy organic soil. I don't add fertilizer. That is cheating. I till under cover crops and practice intensive rotation. That is more than enough.

The commodification of fruits and vegetables has driven farmers to produce crops that vary little from one place to the next so they may be bought and traded on global markets and that the buyers know exactly what it is they are buying without even seeing it. Producers strive for homogeneity and it is that desire for homogeneity that selects-out taste in favor of other characteristics.

That said, I imagine I could grow heirloom tomatoes with both Miracle Gro and an organic fert and fine very little difference in taste (by avoiding all the reasons alluded to above).

Try season 7 for starters

What are the conditions of your taste test?

I have roma tomatoes out in the field that look exactly like the ones at the grocery store except that mine are a little redder. I pick some of them just before they are ripe so that they will last a little longer on the shelf at a store I sell to. Even those taste different. They taste like a tomato. Even though they are normally for paste and not meant to be eaten out of hand, I often do. I can't say the same for the flavorless non-organic romas at the store.

My spinach tastes better. My radishes taste better. My corn tastes better. I only grow a few non-heirloom varieties, so I don't have many things to compare. It wouldn't be fair to compare my heirloom tomatoes picked at the peak of the season to anything non-organic picked up off of the shelf at the store.