Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: scientific method

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "jay gee" <jgj23 AT mindspring.com>
  • To: "Market Farming" <market-farming AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: scientific method
  • Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:29:15 +0000


Rick Williams >><< wrote:

Rainbow's End Farms & Orchards wrote:

>>>>Is this not in itself one of the most inexcusable perversities in an age
when so many industries such as big tobacco (et. al.), the automotive
industry, drug industry, pesticides, and a host of others ad nauseum have
continually and purposely committed crimes against the public through
exactly such activities? To mask such findings, much less to subsidize such
activities, whether commonly done or not is inexcusable whether at the level
of society as a whole or the individual.<<<<

>> Not sharing proprietary information is the logical position to take if your
findings show that the product is not performing as expected. Example would
be testing for a new organic pesticide let's say. It would be wrong for the
scientists of a company to announce that their product direction ended in
something that did not work, was unsatisfactory, had side effects that make
it unwise to market. You would just not discuss it. Otherwise you would have
serious breach of ethics in your own organization. It is no different than a
farmer not announcing an error in managment to the public. No one is
perfect, and it happens, but you ought not be sharing that information.
<<

This is erroneous thinking Rick. One example should suffice:

Had tobacco companies come clean to the public and their
customers when their research demonstrated with certainty
that smoking was dangerous to the health, they would have
negated their future liability to their then present customers
by invoking the implied consent rule. That waiver of liability
would have been reinforced had the tobacco companies
voluntarily labeled their products with a statement such as
"Scientific studies demonstrate conclusively that smoking
these cigarettes over an extended period of time causes
numerous health problems, including but not limited to
cancer. Smoking is dangerous to your health. Do it
at your own risk."

Had that been done, those who wanted to smoke would
have had no excuse, no "conflicting research," etc. The
only question remaining would have been the morality of
selling cigarettes -- a question that still exists.

>> If you have something that does prove to have definite public danger or
liability, you will need to act upon that information. Just as the
automotive industry has done time after time. It takes some very strong
evidence of a problem before one can be sure they are doing the right thing
by doing recalls, or announcements that show problems. You don't take it
lightly. <<

I am not familiar with a single instance of a U.S. auto maker initiating
a nationwide product recall voluntarily. All that I am aware of have come
as a result of warnings from the NHTSA telling auto makers to recall
or be ordered to recall.

Perhaps you can point me to some reliable information to the contrary?

>> Look what has happened with recalls on contaminated meat products. One day
you have a company and practically the next day you are ruined and absorbed
into yet another larger entity. Look what has happened to direct marketing
dairy farmers who have had contamination of their unpasteurized milk and
caused serious illness in their customers. (Have just heard some talk about
yet another such farm in Wisconsin). Are these farmers corrupt in some way
or morally perverse? I don't think so personally, but they may be misguided
in their marketing liabilities.<<

Congress, in its infinite wisdom, specifically denied the USDA the power
to order tainted meat recalls. Meat recalls are voluntary and come months
after the meat has been sold, generally too late to do any good. See the
PBS Frontline program "Modern Meat" for more info on this particular subject.

>> Sometimes we have had some make extremely unwise decisions or had serious
ethical problems such as Enron, and it appears Arthur Andersen as well.
These folks and everyone connected with them have been severely punished ...
namely, total, or near total destruction of their organizations ... in other
words corporate death. They become excellent object lessons for others who
might be tempted to do similar things. But no matter what system you have
there will always be some who are dishonest.

Again, put this in perspective: 99% + ? are doing the right thing and acting
appropriately. My criticism is that it seems like the impression is given
that corporations are in themselves evil or the people who work there. We
should not broad brush everyone in science, industry, academe, etc. as
somehow linked to a few bad decisions by a few organizations or individuals
of companies. Most people ARE moral and do the right thing. We need to put
it in perspective. Just like there are some dishonest farmers. But as a
percentage they are in the minority.<<

Where do you get your 99% + figure Rick?

I think it is entirely too optimistic.

I'm going to shut up on this subject now.


Jay Gee
not a farmer -- but interested in farming







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page