Regarding insurance and organics - I would guess that organic farmers would
have reduced costs and risks by not using highly toxic materials on their
land, including reduced risk of health harm to workers and neighbors
(including acute incidents for both, and ongoing health costs for workers),
and reduced risk of liability for harming other crops with drift. I don't
know the specifics, but it'd be good if this reduced liability/risk could
be worked into an insurer's equation. I also believe that, as time goes
on, the real estate market is going to reflect land toxicity more and more,
and that every toxic used on land now will reduce that land's resale/market
value in the future.
Best regards -
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command