> You're ignorant. Thanks for the ad-hominen - it really advances your position and lends credibility to your argument. > Mate there is no scientific consensu

> You're ignorant. Thanks for the ad-hominen - it really advances your position and lends credibility to your argument. > Mate there is no scientific consensus that organic is more nutritional than non-organic. By moving the goalposts this way, you have ensured both that your statement is technically accurate and that it is irrelevant to this discussion. Needless to say (and it has been rehashed over and over), nothing in the world enjoys scientific consensus. Not climate change, not vaccination efficacy. Nevertheless, reasonable people make decisions based in part on positions that overwhelm, with solid evidence, the contrary position. Organic food is not designed to be more nutritious, although it often is (at least according to the EU study which came out this month and which is by far the largest and most rigorous study on the matter - http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2016/02/15/more-omega-3-in-organic-meat-and-milk-review-of-studies-says/ http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2016/02/15/more-omega-3...). It is designed to be less toxic, not only for the consumer but for the farm workers and the land. There is overwhelming evidence that organic farming achieves these goals. The one major study (the Stanford study, linked above) which deviates from this position is quite controversial (for the reasons I have also linked above). On the other hand, hundreds of studies around the world have shown that organic farming is effective. Here's one from two weeks ago: http://blog.journals.cambridge.org/2016/02/16/health-benefits-of-organic-milk-and-meat/ http://blog.journals.cambridge.org/2016/02/16/health-benefit...