off topic, but important (fwd)
dkendra at mr.net
Sun May 31 16:38:14 EDT 1998
Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote:
> http://sunSITE.unc.edu/london InterGarden
> london at sunSITE.unc.edu llondon at bellsouth.net
> This is, simply put, an unnecessary distraction
Why is it a distraction? A poison is a poison is it not? Mycotoxins are some of the
most potent carcingogens and poisons known. The carcinogenic and teratogenic potential
of most synthetic chemicals pale in comparison. According to the folks at the Vet
diagnositics lab at the University of Missouri, the highest levels of mycotoxins come
from organic produce. Those are the facts.
> Most people are already
> aware of the risks from naturally-occuring toxins in the food they eat and
> are capable of harvesting/shopping/cooking/storing/eating in an informed
> and wise way.
This is not true. The USDA has a great deal of data suggesting just the opposite.
Where did you get your information? As I said in my post, those activists in the
organic farming and sustainable ag movement fail to point this out in their propaganda.
> This is controllable.
Actually it is controllable by lowering levels of disease which the chemicals you
criticise do a good job of controlling.
> My advice to you is to pick one side of the debate and stick with it
> instead of taking both sides, mugwump-style.
I am entitled to my opinions just as are you. But thanks for the advice.
> We all know what pesticides can do to natural systems;
What can they do that naturally-occuring toxins do not?
> naturally-occuring toxins are...natural and can be easily dealt with.
How does being "natural" make it any less of an environmental problem? Please give me
some concrete examples of where this issue is easily being dealt with as you claim. I
would like some examles of where information is being distributed to the general
consumer. Our local organic coop couldn't!
More information about the permaculture