Some people will say I'm being pedantic, but I'm by nature a splitter, not a lumper, and there are at least two wildly different technologies getting conflated into "green revolution" agriculture here, namely agriculture chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) and recombinant genetics.

One of the things that might actually make organic farming viable on a large scale IS biotechnology in the form of transgenic crops. I.e., one way of reducing our dependence on chemical fertilizer is the development of crops that are better suited to their environment, and recombinant genetics provides a tool that is unavailable with conventional hybridization. We might not like the idea of plants that include DNA from other unrelated species (possibly not even plants) but there is nothing inorganic about them. (Actually that's one reason they're potentially dangerous, since they might out-compete wild forms.)

There are potential dangers both in the use of chemicals and in the use of genetic engineering. There is also a cultural objection to the latter that looks like it is going to hold back deployment for some time, at least in those parts of the world where food is relatively cheap, so I'm not holding my breath.

But politics aside, I don't see why it is necessary to reject the whole "green revolution" package. While I would like my food labeled clearly, I'm perfectly willing to eat any GMO food that's been proven safe. I don't trust agribusiness to do the certification, but I am in principle a supporter of biotechnology. I am not against the judicious use of chemicals for that matter, but I dislike how they require centralized resources and tie us to a fossil-fuel economy. So I do consider chemicals and biotech to be quite distinct issues with biotech a potential way out of chemical dependency.

I grant that it's possible that organic agriculture with naturally hybridized crops can feed the world. If so, I still believe that combining the best organic techniques with other technologies will feed the world even cheaper, leaving us resources for other endeavors.

It's unnecessary. There's nothing wrong with using artificial fertilizer. It's basically just ammonia. Pesticides aren't really dangerous to an average human. If used SPARINGLY! That's been the problem with industrial agriculture. When it started people overused the stuff. Now we know better.

Pesticides aren't really dangerous to an average human. If used SPARINGLY! That's been the problem with industrial agriculture. When it started people overused the stuff. Now we know better.

Would that this were true. The problem with artifical pesticides is that they will always have a less than 100% kill ratio, which means they become a selection pressure influencing the evolution of the targeted species. In later and later generations, it begins to take more and more to kill the same number of bugs. Given long enough, and the pesticide can start to lose any effect it had whatsoever. At which point, you'd better hope you have another pesticide on hand. Of course, even if you do, you're just starting the cycle all over again.

Any strategy that depends on infinite innovation is highly risky and almost certainly doomed to failure in the long run. Organic farming is a good strategy because it doesn't depend on magic bullets. Instead, if there are innovations, then huzzah, but if not, we still have these techniques that we know work and that are accessible to people at any level of technology.

The biotech revolution may someday produce supercrops that will feed the world with minimal effort. But just ask Scott Rosenberg about how hard developing new software is and then think about what it means when that software is living.

In the April 2005 issue of HARPER'S Bill McKibben published "The Cuban Diet," a report on agriculture in Cuba today. Seems that the loss of Soviet subsidies forced Cuban farmers to start using mostly agricultural methods, and they've learned this way well enough that production levels haven't suffered.

Most people who use cannabis know that cannabis grown with chemical ferts can have a nasty harsh taste, whereas organically grown cannabis tastes much smoother. This is because synthetic ferts can leave harsh salt residues in the soil that have to be washed out by hand, and usually aren't washed out well enough.

Scientists have claimed that organic fertilizers can improve the taste of food. Apparently there are some interesting trace molecules present in organic fertilizers that somehow end up adding richness and complexity to the flavor of the produce being grown.

Synthetic fertilizers are very simple. They don't add any trace anything. Well, maybe magnesium and stuff. But just very simple molecules, nothing complex.

I think some people like them because they're so simple. And others despise chemical fertilizers for that same reason.

This isn't just a debate about yield -- this is a kind of war between cultures.

Back when I was a cocky engineering student who couldn't grow a tomato to save her life -- I would have stood resolutely on the chemical side.

But I've defected. I'm 100% organic now. As far as I'm concerned, MiracleGrow is crystal meth for plants.

Of the this post and the previous one. Plastics aren't the only source of endocrine-disrupters, pesticides are too. And there is some argument that the epidemic of obesity is related to to the abundant use of inexpensive high fructose corn syrup -- inexpensive because of the subsidies for producing corn.

I have long felt that agricultural policy was a good place to start to try to get to sustainability. Too bad it's not a very glamorous issue -- too few people see how important it is and those who benefit from the status quo are very powerful.

In the conversation about "chemical" additions to agriculture versus "organic" methods, it is critical to understand the larger picture, including soil chemistry and health.

The problems of chemical (petroleum-based) fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides are multiple and complex.

For one thing, they depend for raw materials on imports of oil, and at a time when we're trying to limit our dependence on petroleum generally, it is folly to ignore the impact of relying on oil for our foodstuffs.

Secondly, chemical-based ag products do nothing to improve the fundamental health of the soil. They may be convenient, but do nothing to improve tilth or friability necessary for a plant to develop strong root systems and, ultimately, plant strength and health. Healthy soil and healthy plants are much better able to fend off attack from pests and disease than depleted soils and chemical-dependent crops. As such, their demand for more chemicals either for plant nutrition or pest-alleviation is significantly less.

Further, pesticides and fungicides kill off beneficial micro-organisms as well as the targeted pests, and as a result, also deplete the population of birds and bees, both critical in the functioning biology of agricultural lands. (Does the recent and sudden depletion of our bee population not raise red flags?)

Too, reliance on chemicals for agriculture is an addiction by any definition. Once a farmer starts down that road, his land demands increased amounts of chemicals just to maintain the ability of the soil to support any crops at all. If he decides to return to organic methods, it takes years of significant effort to return the soil to a point where it can sustain healthy crops without chemicals. Can you say "slippery slope"?

None of this includes the cost in simple dollars for the purchase, storage and use of massive (and increasing) amounts of chemicals, nor the cost to the economy of family farms, nor the real dangers to ag workers from the handling and use of these chemicals, nor the long-term toll on the environment not only from the use of these chemicals but also from their manufacture, nor the threat posed by massive monoculture (think "Dust Bowl" for just one example of this threat). Nor does this include the demand for produce that sacrifices taste and nutrition in favor of shipping and marketplace concerns.

We also have to ask who benefits from the flow of chemicals into our national soil. Is it the health of our population or the bank accounts of the petroleum industries, the chemical companies, the bean-counters (and we're not talking about navy beans or pinto beans or stringbeans).

It is vital to reduce wherever possible our reliance on easy and quick solutions (literally and figuratively) with regard to agriculture, and to pay attention to the much larger picture that includes the health of our soils, our ecosystems and ultimately the health of our people and our nation.