A fight over organic

While reading the articles for this post, i was struck by how different the attitudes about organic food were between two articles, "beyond organic" and " attention whole foods shoppers"
While the first article argues for a local, non fertilizer and pesticide use system where you know the farmer you are getting food from, and makes the argument that having everything be authentic would decrease transport costs, and increase nutrients and the health of the food.
whereas the second article attacks that very idea as being worse on the environment. it argues that while the current system is flawed, going back to the old way of not using any of our modern, science and capitalism heavy infrastructure would be disastrous to not only our food production, but our environment as well. it sites study's that show that conventionally grown food has no less nutritional value than organic food, and puts focus on the less developed worlds food system. in subsidence agriculture, there is very little use of genetically modified organisms, fertilizers, or pesticides. farms are local and do not add to a global marketplace, but also there is very little food to go around and there is no upward mobility for these farmers. the food is sold in an open market, un-inspected and free from modern agriculture, but the downside is that many more people get sick in this system compare to food safety in an industrialized nation, the united states.
the articles also differ in how they appeal to their audience. the first article uses more of an appeal to pathos, or an emotional argument conjuring up a romantic image of a different kind of food system, while the second article uses a much more logic based approach, saying that each system will always have downsides, and instead of trying to go completely organic, we should optimize the food production system we have and help other country's do the same.