Most people I speak to are divided one way or the other about buying organic. There're those who think it's a no-brainer: cutting down on chemicals we don't necessarily know enough about can only be a good thing, both for the environment and our bodies. And then there are those who argue that the chemicals have been in the food chain for long enough without doing any serious damage and don't want to pay extra for what they see as needless caution.

Finally, there's the smaller group that takes a slightly more paranoid attitude, fearing scams and highlighting the relative ease of passing off non-organic food as organic and charging the earth for it (ocasionally with reason). But could the trend towards organics actually be harming the planet? That was a new one on me until I read the Times article today that claims locally grown, organic food may not be as environmentally kosher as it claims to be. (read on after the jump for a synopsis)

The claims have provoked an angry reaction from the Soil Association, and will no doubt re-open the debate once again. So how seriously do you take findings of this sort? Whose authority on organics do you feel you can trust?

We seem to be featuring bags almost daily just now, and having spotted some of the fashionistas queueing up for Christopher Kane's catwalk show with their 'eco bags' yesterday, I think this may be the start of something big...

So today we bring you this stylish clutch bag, courtesy of Love Eco. It's made using leather remnants from the furniture industry, which would otherwise go to waste. There's no doubt in my mind that it's a fab design, and I particularly like the cerise lining and oversized vintage buckle. But how do you guys feel about leather accessories? To those of you who don't wear leather as a rule, do you feel differently about items like this?

E Magazine reports that indoor smoking bans have unexpected negative environmental consequences.  Smokers are sent out without any new provision for what they're going to do with their litter, and smokers (as someone who's chewed a pack or two in her time, I admit, I'm no better) tend to be flick-happy with their butts in the first place.  Result, according to anecdote (which I've also observed myself) is a lot more litter which takes between one and ten years to biodegrade.  Worsted Witch notes a disturbing statistic indicating this is no small amount of trash: it is estimated that cigarette butts account for 50 percent of all litter in the world.  Also, animals eat the butts and suffer various ill effects, from indigestion to suffocation.  The Witch proposes a heavy fine for those who toss their butts in the street.  Yay, Nay or other?  [GT]

COMMENTARY: Indoor Smoking Bans [via Indoor Smoking Ban: Smoke’s on the Environment? at Worsted Witch]

More Yay or Nay

[Don't forget to vote at Trashionista, Bridalwave, Corrie Blog, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny too!]

Exhibiting at the London Science Museum right now is a driverless hybrid bus that you hail with your mobile.  It seats up to 24 people and follows its route based on magnets embedded in the pathway.  It uses considerably less energy than normal cars and buses, and costs half as much as a normal bus does to operate, since it has no driver - making it theoretically possible to double the number of buses available, especially in remote areas.  However, since it has no driver, there have been glitches: an unmanned bus in France ran over a sleeping dog and killed it.  Commenters have also expressed concern about vandalism, thuggery and other unsavory behaviour taking over the buses.  Can these logistical problems be solved easily enough to reap the benefits of expanded public transport at reduced environmental impact?  Vote yay or nay!  [GT]

The driverless bus you hail with your mobile [via BornRich]

[Don't forget to vote at Trashionista, Bridalwave, Corrie Blog, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny too!]

Science has given us the ultimate argument in favour of genetic modification: chicken eggs containing skin-cancer-fighting antibodies. Altering the hens to lay eggs containing the antibody means it can be produced en masse and far more cheaply than through conventional methods. (Simply eating the egg doesn't get you a straight dose of the drug: it gets you the drug in egg form, from which it should be extracted to work properly.) This is the first time an animal has been successfully genetically modified to produce raw prescription medication, and could lead to inexpensive drug distribution in areas where factories are less feasible than chickens. However, what happens if these modified animals get loose in the traditional breeding bloodlines? What do you think, Hippyshoppers? Yay or Nay? [GT]

Skin cancer breakthrough in an egg

[Don't forget to vote at Trashionista, Bridalwave, Corrie Blog, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny too!]

Scientists found that the carcinogen acrylamide forms in deep fried foods, particularly chips.  Another problem with potatoes is that the longer they're stored, the more they break down, becoming mushy and unpalatable.  Simplot in Idaho hopes to change that, with their GM potato that 'rebuffs' acrylamide when fried, and stays firm and fresh longer in storage.  Would you eat this superior-tasting, less-carcinogenic, but genetically-modified, potato?  Post yay or nay in comments.  [GT]

Genetically modified spud healthier, creators say

Related stories: Yay or Nay: Should Al Gore give it away? | Yay or Nay: Would you eat a grey squirrel? | Organic, humanely grown veal: Yay or Nay?

Michael Eakes is a geek who knows his stuff, so it's not surprising he hit on a good way to get more people to see An Inconvenient Truth: he wrote a letter asking Al Gore to give the movie away free via BitTorrent.  "The film should be free (as in beer)," he wrote.  "Any fee is an economic inconvenience that guarantees a limited distribution.  You must reach everyone, in a way only “free” can.  I humbly urge you to give it away."  What do you think, Hippyshoppers?  Yay or Nay?  [GT]

An Inconvenient Distribution: A Web 2.0 Geek’s Letter to Al Gore

Related stories: An Inconvenient Truth nears theatres | Tuesday blog roundup: Inconvenient truth 2 et al | Schools Reject Free Copies of An Inconvenient Truth

While the techniques described probably go beyond home application, the latest issue of Cold Spring Harbor Protocols includes techniques for the creation of transgenic plants, which includes rice spliced to yield extra vitamin A, coffee plants designed to be naturally decaf, and cotton that resists being eaten by pests.  Obviously seeds like this would obviate the need for pesticides and enable us to hustle over to much cleaner growing methods tout suite, but what are the long term implications?  Would you drink black tea spliced with cinnamon to be a natural chai?  Post yay or nay in comments.  [GT]

Decaffeinated Coffee Plants? New Methods Permit Functional Gene Studies In Plants [via Futurismic]

[Don't forget to vote at Trashionista, Bridalwave, Corrie Blog, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny too!]

[A] risk/benefit analysis of nuclear power indicates that it is a safer choice than the fossil options that now dominate electricity generation.

In a nutshell, the proposition is that given no large-scale alternatives to current fossil fuel energy generation, the long-term risks posed by nuclear waste are not as serious as the present damage being done.  If fossil fuels burned today result in global climate change in 50 or 100 years, there will be no way to reverse these effects.   So should we switch over to nuclear power today, positing that it will fix today's problems, and stave off tomorrow's to a point where we can figure out what to do about them?  Is that a step toward responsible behaviour, or continuation of a trend of robbing Peter to pay Paul?  Read Nuclear Waste and the Distant Future and also how the IEA Energy agency backs nuclear power and post your responses.  [GT]

Nuclear Waste and the Distant Future | Energy agency backs nuclear power

Related stories: Is recycling utter rubbish? | Yay or Nay: Boycott Breast Cancer Awareness Month? | Alternate Energy Sources For A Flourishing Future

[Don't forget to vote at Trashionista, Bridalwave, Corrie Blog, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny too!]

It's impossible not to have seen the tidal wave of pink gear that's part of breast cancer fundraising, especially with October, Breast Cancer Awareness month, having just passed.  However, The Assertive Cancer Patient, a breast cancer survivor, says she simply feels exploited and many other breast cancer survivors feel the same way.  She says often only a small percentage of the pink product cash goes to the cancer fighting efforts, so it's really just a way for companies to sell more stuff.  We need health care, she argues, not junk with a feel-good pink paint job.

The thing I've always wondered about the whole pink campaign is, why do feminists tolerate it?  There are hundreds of kinds of cancer, yet the one that gets the most airtime is breast cancer.  How is that not objectification of women?  The implication has always been to me that our breasts are the most important part of us, therefore let's not bother to address brain cancer, heart disease, AIDS, etc.  How can splintering types of cancer research, and forcing breast cancer to compete for public attention (therefore, funds) against other kinds of cancer, be desirable?  Why doesn't October apply to all kinds of cancer - at the very least?

Billed as INCHworm shoes, the shoe that grows, these are shoes that, with the push of a button, can be extended up to one full size larger.  Made for kids aged 3-9 (before they're old enough to need the support that a near-adult does) the idea is to give parents an option beyond either buying shoes that are too big and making the kid grow into them, or having to throw them out.  That said, will the tyke wear them?  Kids are notoriously picky when it comes to wearing anything that deviates too far from their perceived norm.  Also, at the price (only £10 per pair) it's hard to feel certain about the quality (yes, I am indeed complaining that something reusable might be too cheap!).  Are the green children out there sophisticated enough to accept arguments about waste as a good reason to be different?  Post Yay or Nay in comments!  [GT]

INCHworm shoes, the shoe that grows [via UberReview]

Related stories: Put on your recycled dancing shoes | Green Shoes with Vegan option | Shumidor biodegradable shoe freshener

Unlike most digital cameras, the prototype Olympus 3D Wooden Camera has a wooden body (which is the 3D part, since most digital cameras are also flat).  The camera is made of a single piece of molded Japanese cypress, the wood used to build Shinto temples.  Does this broaden awareness of the need for disposable gadgets to be made of renewable resources, or does it show disrespect for a precious material by making it into something for which there is no realistic reuse once it becomes obsolete?  When are we going to see a merger of Moore's Law with green thinking?  Post yay or nay in comments.

Olympus 3D Wooden Camera [via Luxist]

Related stories: Nokia protoypes easy-disassembly mobiles | The world's greatest green gadgets | TAKEGTF2 SuSu Bamboo Speakers | Popoutz recycled plastic bird feeders in glam colors

The good: The Independent did an "Africa" issue on 21 September where half the revenues were donated to fight AIDS in Africa.  The curious: they put a blackened Kate Moss on the cover and included a free black Kate Moss poster.  This is a thornier moral question than last week's about Ashton Kutcher.  Is The Independent right to use Kate Moss in order to sell more issues, to generate more revenue, resulting in more money to fight AIDS - even though they've used her in a very peculiar fashion, instead of using either an African model (or perhaps even someone who was not a model in the first place) or a cover celebrity who is, er, genuinely dark skinned?  Crass for cash (for a good cause) or just plain wrong?   Or is there a deep artistic statement here that I, despite spending a lifetime in art criticism, just ain't getting?  Post your Yay or Nay in comments.  [GT]

Sign up for the (Red) campaign and save lives at The Independent [via Sepia Mutiny]

[Don't forget to vote at Trashionista, Bridalwave, Corrie Blog, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny too!]

As part of promotion for his new movie, The Guardian, Ashton Kutcher has promised he'll donate $1 USD to Habitat for Humanity for every MySpace user that becomes a friend of his, up to 50,000 friends.  It's hardly a pledge drive; Kutcher clearly has the celebrity necessary to get 50,000 people (or that many fake accounts) to sign up.  And $50,000 isn't a whole lot of money to somebody in his position.  On the other hand, Habitat for Humanity is an international organization, supremely neutral, and this move draws positive attention to them (as well as positive attention to the value of a $1 donation if there are enough of them).  Is Kutcher doing enough to justify his showboating?  Post your comments: yay or nay.    [GT]

BE A FRIEND [of Ashton Kutcher] NOW AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

[Don't forget to vote at Trashionista, Bridalwave, Corrie Blog, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny too!]

The Association of Fashion Designers of Spain said it wanted to project "an image of beauty and health" for the Madrid show - so they banned overly thin models.  The World Health Organization recommends a BMI between 18.5 and 25, so the Association had medics on hand and rejected all would-be models who fell under 18 (which would, for instance, ban the depicted Kate Moss). Does this change your interest in Spanish fashion?  Do the designers have the right to depict their creations exactly as they wish, or should they have to do so within socially constructive parameters?  Should the ultra-thin models be allowed on the Madrid runway?  Post your Yay or Nay in comments.  [GT]

Spanish fashion show bans underweight models

[Don't forget to vote at Trashionista, Bridalwave, Corrie Blog, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny too!]