Funny that you mention DDT. Please do some research and see if you can estimate how many human lives DDT has saved and continues to save in 3rd-world countries (malaria). Given the choice, my guess is that you might put up with the environmental risks if your life was in the balance. (2004 scientific paper on DDT:
http://www.jpshouse.com/DDT.pdf)
By the way, "consensus science" is not science, even if it is a consensus among scientists. Science is based on evidence. There was a time when most scientists believed that the sun rotated around the earth, and that maggots spontaneously generated from dead animals. The folks that found that mad cow disease is caused by a prion (misfolded protein) were also ridiculed for a while. One scientist can overturn the consensus with a single well constructed experiment if it can be repeated in other labs. There are dishonest people in any field, but if you rely on replicated scientific data, its hard to get fooled. The rest is faith. Faith is just fine. We all have faith in something (I hope); just don't call it science.
With regards to organic food, I prefer to have mine grown as far from animal waste as possible to avoid pathogens. I have no problem with others making a different choice, but notice that there are no health claims on organic food. This is because the USDA has the responsibility to enforce truth in labeling. This is why they came up with a set of rules for organic production. Prior to these rules, the consumer could not tell what they were getting when they purchased food labeled as organic (it is also funny that organic producers use mostly inorganic pesticides like copper compounds that never dissapate in the soil). Organic food, like kosher food, ensures that the food was produced in a certain manner, but does not provide any provable health benefit. Lots of folks keep trying to show these benefits, but so far, they have not had any luck.
