Hacker News Reader

That's the thing... they still use fertilizers and pesticides. They're just "natural", but copper sulfate, pyrethrins, and rotenone don't strike me as all that natural. They, too, could have effects that take decades to come together. Indeed, some "natural" pesticides, like arsenic and nicotine, are already banned.

My problem here is largely with the industrializing of the "organic" label. The things that you're really hoping for -- crop rotation, co-planting, mulching, no-till, etc -- don't really scale well. The organic farms look a lot like conventional farms, enormous monocultures. The names on the labels are just different.

I'm presenting the negative case here, just to point out that I'm really not certain. I'm a big supporter of what JI Rodale was doing when he popularized the term "organic", but that's not what you get in the grocery store. I have hopes that the grocery store is in fact ultimately a little better for the planet, but I wish I could be more certain.

It appears that rotenone (a powerful piscicide) is actually banned [0]. Same document also indicated that copper sulfate use is limited to specific situations/crops. Though, of course, conventional crops also have restriction on the use of pesticides, presumably they are less restricted.

[0] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1...

edit: This, of course, only applies to the USDA organic program. Products produced elsewhere may have different rules.

I'm kind of fascinated by cattle-washing of fertilizer.

Spread ammonium based fertilizer, you aren't organic.

Spread manure from cattle raised on crops grown using ammonium based fertilizer, you are good to go.

> It's probably healthier for you,

that isn't true, see below

>in that there's less chance of trace chemicals that might have one effect or another that won't be understood or documented for decades

You often trade a trace chemical that has been well studied and found mostly harmless for a much higher concentration of some other chemical that is known as somewhat toxic but has been used for hundreds of years.

> It's almost certainly healthier for the planet, as it requires a growing process that's more holistic than just regularly spraying down fields with various fertilizers and pesticides.

It is worse for the planet in other ways. You can't use chemicals to destroy weeds, so instead you plow which destroys soil microbes, and the tractor pulling the plow emits for more CO2 than the whole process of making and applying the chemical.

Remember, organic processes that research shows are better are adopted by non-organic farmers. The opposite is not allowed.

It is not clearly healthier for the planet, at least not in terms of greenhouse gas emissions [1].

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12622-7