a discussion on organics

I had a visit last week at market from an Agronomist who used to work for Monsanto. She said that she doesn't like the company anymore, but she still wouldn't agree with me on some of my points regarding the benefits of organics and the issue of modern wheat varieties causing our modern dietary sensitivities. I have to truly wonder if she isn't still brainwashed by the company she claims not to respect any longer? Hmmm. Anyway, she went on arguing with me on my points regarding modern wheat varieties. Once she started losing that argument, she started in about certain studies she was aware of and whether or not organic agriculture has increased nutrition over conventional, chemical based farming.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me...when they're correct. One thing I cannot stand is uninformed or ignorant opinions. Opinions that lack common sense. Come at me with a point that makes sense and it is probably the right opinion. Here's an example of some of the criteria I use to form my opinions. Usually in the form of questions...so I'll pose some questions to you.

What makes more sense to you?
Organic agriculture is in fact more nutritious because the practice of organics involves the increased health of the soil...micronutrients and microbiology. OR...modern, chemical agriculture produces more nutritious food because it simply injects P, K and N in the form of petroleum based fertilizer and soil-sterilizing Ammonia? 

Which statement makes more sense to you?
Humans have de-evolved in the past 20 years to the point where many of us can no longer safely digest grains and certain nuts. OR
Certain grains and nuts have been biologically changed through intensive breeding practices and chemical and genetic intervention to the point where our bodies can no longer safely digest them?

Don't talk to me about the effectiveness and correctness of certain studies either. We are all aware that any study and almost any statistics can be manipulated to say what we desire them to say. Which study would an intelligent person, concerned about their health and family's well being choose to believe?
A study sponsored by a huge, multi-national corporation with a team of lawyers and scientists at their disposal? OR
A study sponsored by a relatively small University or industry based organization, likely regional, but certainly independent?

People are afraid to believe something other than what they already believe. I do not understand that fear. What if I am wrong about my views on the world? How would my world be negatively effected if somebody more intelligent than I came up to me and made a series of points that made me understand the errors of my ways? Wouldn't that be a good thing? Shouldn't we all wish for that sort of enlightenment? 

While I will always consider the source and choose to form my opinions based on common sense and independent studies, I will always seek out opposing viewpoints and have an open mind. By all means...give me an argument. Just don't be wrong about it.  Comments?