Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - RE: [Market-farming] Why I can't believe a word out of Dennis Avery's mouth

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rick Williams" <mrfarm AT frontiernet.net>
  • To: <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [Market-farming] Why I can't believe a word out of Dennis Avery's mouth
  • Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 19:06:00 -0600

Dorene Pasekoff wrote:
> Um, Rick, when did you join the list? I published my article on Dennis
> Avery and Rebecca Goldberg debating GMOs at the Food & Farming Conference
> in December, 2000. It's rather infamous, because although it showed that
> Dennis Avery had *no* understanding of what organics was all about and
> could quote no reputable studies to back up any of his arguements, the
> original owner of this list was so angry that he suspended the entire
> listserve and Liz had to find another organization to host the list.

You have me at a bit of a disadvantage since I am not very familiar with
Avery other than his debate with Joel Salatin and the mostly negative
comments from people involved in organic agriculture. But I have not heard
of any specifics as to where he is wrong. I am sure he is well aware of what
so-called organic agriculture is all about since he has to take an opposing
view to support conventional agriculture. I expect that he considers organic
to be nonsense. And it is not easy to defend organic from a science
perspective at this time because the science is not very convincing, or one
could say it is close to non-existent.

There is a desire to want to believe that not having pesticides and other
substances that are not naturally occuring in the food, is better for
health. Even though it may be true, it is not possible at this time to point
to anything that really answers the question. Considerning how many decades
that the debate has gone on, one would think that there would be something
more conclusive at this time.

As an example, it is possible to due studies on specific groups and their
diet and determine such factors as longevity and overall health. A good
example would be Seventh Day Adventists. So one would expect to see much
better health among those who eat foods without any residues of
non-naturally occuring substances. But it doesn't seem like this shows up.

In fact, we SHOULD be seeing greatly decreased health and dramatically
shorter life spans today, compared to those who lived say 50 years ago, when
you consider the huge increase in herbicides, pesticides, hormones in some
foods, over the decades we see what ... an increase in longevity. Some of
that is from medicine but does that explain all the increase?

> Dr. Bill Liebhardt of the University of California at Davis was
> so angry at
> Avery's inability to use science to back up his tirades that he
> later did a
> review comparing conventional and organic yields over the past 20
> years. I
> don't have the URL, but he's not hard to find and I believe the study he
> did was widely published -- I know I saw it in several different
> publications.

I would suggest easing the tone. Getting angry because someone could not use
science to back them up is more typical of the folks opposed to chemicals.
Avery somehow has "tirades"?

By doing a search for Dr. Bill Liebhardt, I did come across the web story on
the debate.

Sincerely,

Rick Williams





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page