• In a way John, I am arguing in favor of your original concept of home grown, in that when you grow something yourself, you know what inputs you have put into the product. However, you don't know the chemical state of the soil in most insta...nces. This becomes problematic for example in Trail, famous for its high lead levels in the soil. I am not sure home grown is a good concept there, nor for example whether the debateable toxicity of various pesticides would even be on par with the devastating toxicity of lead. If your soil is native, and you understand the history of the property to know no one dumped PCBs there in the 1960s, then the "home grown" is obviously preferable. The word organic does not actually have anything to do with toxicity. The word has been borrowed and made to mean something different. It has been redefined to mean that no synthetic chemicals have been added. However, there could be dung with chemicals in it. Since that is considered a "natural" fertilizer, usually no one bothers to see if the cow had deposited prions due to its having "mad cow disease" (that is an extreme example) or a toxic form of e-coli contamination. In the previous 2 examples, you have organic toxicity from pretty much accepted organics of microbial form. Forgive me if I sound somewhat argumentative, but I have some big peeves against what is purported to be "environmental science" these days.See More

  
  

  23 minutes ago ·
• 
  

  Owen Abrey ‎2 years ago, on a mineral claim, we had several hundred soil samples taken. Picture a nice old growth forest with trees girthing 6-7 feet in diameter. Vegitation is lush. To the point of being very hard to get through with only a machete in hand. Where we began sampling, everything was in nominal range. However, perhaps 200 metres from that spot, the lead and arsinic values were screaming. I can't help but think, what if this was in someone's back yard. They might have grown a garden here and never known the difference. They may die 20 years before they were supposed to, but no one would likely know it was the garden that killed them.
  

  8 minutes ago ·
• 
  

  Owen Abrey In the mountains of BC, we have thousands and maybe millions of faults beneath the soil. Faults can give rise to exhalatives....that bring poisons to the surface. Arsenic is particularly mobile. But so is Uranium dioxide. It dissolves in water, can come down a mountain stream and deposit itself in soils in the river bank. Uranium dioxide is actually not considered poisonous. The form of radiation is a beta particle I think... however, it has a half-life that causes the original uranium to turn into radon gas... that is very toxic.
  

  4 minutes ago ·
• 
  

  Owen Abrey Or thorium, also toxic. So, if you really want to be certain, a home-grower should do some basic soil samples, send them away and get a laboratory guaranteeing the soils constituence. An organic farmer should do the same, on his soils and on his inputs, and on his product if he wants to certify the safety of the food he is selling you. I don't know if any actually do that.
  

  a few seconds ago ·
  
  

  • 

    Owen Abrey The killer in most science experiments is that you need to know your base-lines. So likewise, if you are going for extremely high quality foods that you grow yourself, you need to start with a soil test. Its about 20.00 a sample at ACME labs in Kamloops. For Eco nuts, who rave about organics like an ostrich with their head in the sand, who boast amazing knowlege of carcinogens, or pesticides or herbicides and call for all the highest standards of science, to rave on this and neglect to start with a soil sample they are crazy

    3 minutes ago ·
  • 

    Owen Abrey Its called scientific rigor.

    3 minutes ago ·
  • 

    Owen Abrey I am frustrated to assert our science, and especially that we teach our kids, is so flacid and lacking rigor, Louise Pasteur must be rolling over in his grave.

    2 minutes ago ·