That isn’t so much an argument as a false dichotomy, predicated on a system of agriculture which allows a near 50% rate of wasteage in the West. The alternative

That isn’t so much an argument as a false dichotomy, predicated on a system of agriculture which allows a near 50% rate of wasteage in the West. The alternatives include less productive, yet still sufficiently productive methods which do not include carcinogenic compounds. Edit: Your state of being persuaded is immaterial, because what I said isn’t really controversial. One known alternative to herbacides is tilling, hardly a radical new invention and notably not carcinogenic. As I said up front, it would take more effort to produce crops, but simply by reducing waste you can more than make up for that. The use of ground cover, litter, and other established techniques all allow for large scale farming without herbacides. There are other alternatives, and adjunct techniques as well, for example: http://plen.ku.dk/english/news/2015/crops/ http://plen.ku.dk/english/news/2015/crops/ Stop wasting so much food because it isn’t pretty enough, and you can stop truffing carcinogens. That seems fair.