[NAFEX] science vs organic?

Alan Haigh alandhaigh at gmail.com
Fri Jun 12 20:55:29 EDT 2009


I suppose it was my contribution that led to this flurry of discussion but
my original statement was misrepresented entirely.  I never said that
orgnanic growers are unscientific.  I said that the organic orthodoxy is at
its core anti-science.  Not because some chemicals aren't in fact terrible
for the environment and perhaps the human organism, but the idea that they
all are.  That is to say that the absolutist position that all synthetic
molecules are taboo for an agriculture to be correct and fully virtuous is a
naive and arbitrary concept- the more so when it is held by the same people
who depend on man-made chemicals in every other aspect of their existence.

If organic agriculture was instead defined as a method of growing food
without the use of any poisons, I would at least consider the concept less
abrasive to my sense of logic.

That said, I originally made my statement as an example of the kind of thing
that usually ends badly when discussed on this list- in the same general
category as the climate-change, global warming blah, blah, blah.  (I'm not
dismissing either side of the argument with the blah, blah blah- just
expressing my boredom with the discussion as practiced on this site).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/private/nafex/attachments/20090612/2a31c9e7/attachment.html 


More information about the nafex mailing list