> Bodies had no time to evolve to deal with modern pesticides. Any idea what time evolution takes to do what it does?
Sure, some people can't handle lactose, they have different responses to booze, etc.
But, broadly, our bodies have much more general mechanisms to deal with contaminants, which is why our DNA is vastly simpler than plants that can't simply get up and move but must be able to survive in whatever toxins or pests are around them.
> I think that's besides the point.
> What if, consumers can add 5 years on average to our lives by eating exclusively organic produce...
Say it's smoking, since that probably is on the order of 5 years. No doubt, the smart thing to do is to quit. If you thought organic farming made cows happy, that's a good reason, too. If you think you benefit or you're doing something to make the world better, go for it, that makes sense.
What I noticed is you say "eating exclusively organic" and the GP wrote (sarcastically) "everything is perfect in modern food industry".
I think that binary view indicates an underlying assumption that our bodies must be pure, which dates back to the oldest religious practices; halal, kosher, etc.
That's not crazy, we should obviously keep ourselves clean and avoid poisonous stuff. But your body is a host to all kinds of relatively benign parasites, your own stomach ferments a tiny bit of alcohol, you're stuck eating and breathing in all kinds of crap.
And I think that's my dispute: the world isn't pure, nature isn't pure, our bodies aren't pure.
Which is why I'm more inclined to focus on the time I am alive than worry about a few extra years I could have squeezed out if I'd jumped on the latest health craze.
> ... should we not move on use this wisdom to kill off some cash cows for an ugly-ass "agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation"?
If we can get the prices on organic food down to where we can feed cities without famines, sure.