market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Market Farming
List archive
- From: "R. Harrill" <brixman AT erols.com>
- To: market farming <market-farming AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: [Fwd: organic is dangerous in USA Today]
- Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:52:29 -0800
The following note from another list (posted here by permission) will give
you an idea of the mind-set in my lovely Maryland.
=========================
From: "Julie Meyer" <northeastfood AT tufts.edu>
Reply-To: northeastfood AT tufts.edu
To: NE community food systems <nefood-l AT listproc.tufts.edu>
Hi everyone,
Has anyone who reads USA Today seen any response in the editorial pages
since the article, "Keep eyes open if you go organic, " which came out on
January 24th?
Written by David Longtin and David Lineback, the latter author is director of
the Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the University
of
Maryland.
They laid out the argument why "organic foods offer no special culinary,
health or safety benefits, and growing them carries its own ecological
burdens."
The environmental problems posed by organic agriculture methods include
problems with organic insecticide (rotenone) and contrast their example with
a synthetic example that seems far safer. They also mention copper sulfate,
a "broad-spectrum poison that can threaten field workers' safety,
render soil infertile and contaminate groundwater. " Conventional farmers
use the new synthetic fungicides that "seem readily biodegradable and
almost completely non-toxic to plants and animals. Such eco-friendly
pesticides gradually will replace more noxious ones." Yikes, anything but
biodegradable non-toxic pesticides, please.
The authors discuss how organic growers, by using the "same pest-control
techniques for decades," such as organic pesticides and crop rotation, can
and have tempted pest resistance. In sum, they paint a portrait of dogmatic,
zombie farmers and consumers who are earnestly concerned but behind the
times and misled. Obviously this is not the case.
I wonder (hmm) who the authors were trying to help by writing that article.
Were they hoping to convey some wisdom to consumers about how we
make choices as a society? I thank them for reminding me to always think
critically about the complexity of how and what we eat. I also agree that
the
USDA's creation of "organic standards" is not going to "save the planet -- or
yourself merely...."
But I was left hanging at that last point. I would have appreciated it if
they
could have also left me with a sense of hope and not derision about how
indeed to move us along to a more humane, sustainable, nutritious and life-
enhancing food system. There are hundreds of example of communities,
regions, farms, and restaurants who are doing just that. If no-one has
written
USA Today, I just might. If anyone wishes to join me in signing this note,
let
me know.
Julie
Julie Meyer, list serve administrator
northeastfood AT tufts.edu
http://northeastfood.tufts.edu
(413) 665-7725
-
[Fwd: organic is dangerous in USA Today],
R. Harrill, 02/07/2001
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [Fwd: organic is dangerous in USA Today], UGARDEN, 02/07/2001
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.