Donna,
I'm sure you'll draw some fire for this, but I
guess, for my part, I'm not yet burned out on the topic, although like
politics, I'm not foolish enough to think anyone's mind will be changed (expect
perhaps those on the fence). I think your analysis is interesting.
After participating in multiple posts on this issue, and reading many more in
the archives. I've summarized the thinking of both sides below. I
tried to be fair, even though my own opinion is in support of modern
chemistry. I'm sorry, but I see nature (and the universe in general) as
not nice, and generally works against one's goals of survival. Here is how
I see both sides:
Organic says,"How can petroleum sustain modern
agriculture?" Conventional says, "How can organic sustain a
people?"
Conventional says,"Modern agriculture is more
efficient." Organic says, "Define efficient."
Organic says, "Agriculture is poisoning food,
people and the environment." Conventional says, "Technology is
advancing. Chemicals are becoming safer for people and the environment and
targeted toward specific pests." Organic replies, "We've heard that old
saw before."
Conventional says, "Organic is more labor intensive
and would therefore require a larger percentage of the population to
farm." Organic responds, "What's wrong with that." Conventional
replies, "More labor equals more costly food for everyone, including the
poor."
Organic says, "Modern agriculture burns up a
fixed amount of fossil fuels and contributes to greenhouse gases."
Conventional says, "Agriculture is unfairly scrutinized on this point.
Every modern industry is energy intensive. Watch any show on how things
are manufactured, on the Modern Marvels channel, and you will recognize
everything is made trading energy for labor. Everything from houses, down
to shoelaces, down to he transportation to get the goods there." Organic
replies, "We do not necessarily approve of those practices either.
Additionally these are not black and white issues. Compromises are a part
of life. There are shades of gray."
Conventional says,"Organically grown food simply
can't be grown in many locations." Organic says, "Some things can be grown
organically in every location. The problem is people want to grow things
not suited to their location. Additionally, organic technology is
improving to make it easier in all locations." Conventional responds,
"Chemical technology will also continue to improve making chemicals safer, and
more targeted to specific pests. Dry locations are more suited to
organics, but those locations generally must use supplemental water,
which is expensive, and a valuable resource in those locations.
Stuff that can be grown organically in wetter climates (some minor fruits)
doesn't taste that good to me. Some organic folks will eat grass and
like it.
Organic says, "Your standards for perfect fruit are
too high. A little cosmetic damage never hurt anyone. Cut out the
wormy half of the apple and eat the good." Conventional says, "It's
more than just cosmetic here. The fruit is unusable, it doesn't ripen
properly with worm damage." Organic replies, "Then grow things like
persimmon and pawpaw. At least you won't be eating dangerous
chemicals." Conventional responds, "Not all synthetic chemicals are
equally dangerous. There are shades of gray."
Organic says, "Because organically grown food uses
natural fertilizer and has more soil microbes, it tastes better, and
is more nutritious." Conventional says, "It's not organic that
makes it taste better, but that it's locally grown. Local conventionally
grown food tastes just as good, and perhaps better since there some varieties
taste outstanding but can't be grown organically."
Organic says, "The problem with conventional is
monoculture. Plant a diversity and you won't have the pest
pressure." Conventional responds, "When everyone in town has a diversified
garden, it essentially becomes like a monoculture. When there's a
paw paw tree in every yard, the swallow tail butterfly larvae, or some new pest
will eventually become a problem."
"And the band played on"
The Temptations - Ball of Confusion
Mark
KS
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 11:13
AM
Subject: Re: [NAFEX] chemical vs
organic
Someone, I think it was Fluffy or maybe Alan who
said organic people are "unscientific". That's not entirely
true. Most of us are simply naive idealists who really believe that God
or Nature is benign and nice. We have read that if we just improve
our soil enough, that the bugs and disease will go away.
That generally seems to hold true for truck crops. I haven't seen a
bean beetle in years. Fruit trees seem much harder to deal
with. The borer for every species thing doesn't
help. The curculio seem to have developed the perfect system, simply
ruin all the fruit for any other creature but let a few fruits hang on
long enough to make a few seeds for the trees to reproduce. Codling
moths aren't nearly as efficient. Someone asked me at work
about what was eating the leaves on various species of veggies
in her first ever garden. Two of us were interrogating her, as she
was obviously describing rabbit or deer damage. the same bug does not
attack all those species, and each one does it's own very specific
thing. The older men in the family had simply gone out and dusted
Sevin to deal with all those other pests. Here our worlds divide.
I adore bugs, except for the ones I hate with a passion. I could never
spray my garden with an insecticide, it would kill too many of my miniature
wildlife. ( I don't have to go on safari to Africa or even use
binoculars to observe amazing creatures and great drama. Try
watching one of those special spider wasps in action. You know, the
blackish ones with the orange curly antennae. Know what they use those
antennae for? They feel the spider very carefully with them to find
the right spot to sting. It's rather obscene to watch, esp as I am
so fond of wolf spiders. ) I know a great deal about all kinds of
bugs, including those that have no economic impact on me. Tennessee
oldtimers don't know these things, they kill everything with Sevin. That
is scientific? I get a big kick out of explaining to oldtimers
about why the blister beetles they hate so much are only a mixed curse,
because their young feed on grasshopper eggs. Once we got banties
running loose eating grasshoppers, the blister beetles became rare.
Sevin is one of the 4 food
groups in Tennessee. Never mind that it
is a neurotoxin that mammals can break down in their livers because they have
an enzyme that insects don't have. Never mind that this enzyme can be
used up by repeated exposure or that certain medications can use it up.
Never mind the reports in Organic Gardening, that magazine for superstitious
organic gardeners about how Sevin can last 40 days in the garden in certain
conditions. Never mind the final conclusion in the book A PLAGUE OF
FROGS that it was the breakdown product of a pesticide that interfered
with the thyroid function in the developing frogs and caused the limb
deformities. The researchers working with the pesticide itself did not
get these results, giving the impression that it would not affect frogs.
Yes, there is also some kind of amphibian infection running around that can do
this, but the Canadian researcher said flatly that in his years of sampling,
that only farm ponds with lots of pesticides produced deformities. Is it
truly scientific to assume that chemicals don't break down into intermediate
products out in Nature? Some of us organic nuts are now bitter
and twisted, having realised that the world consists mostly of creatures
saying gimme. We watch longingly the simple lives of chemical
users, but are still only too aware that the miracle of modern
chemistry is biting America's backside in the rates of cancer
and other health problems.
This is not intended as an
attack on anyone on this group, I am merely addressing the great divide in
Nafex. Never mind politics, we don't go to Nafex meetings and then
immediately try to figure out whether we are talking to a Dem or Rep, we want
to know if we are talking with someone who grows resistant stuff or who grows
the best of everything and sprays. Both groups start out naive, but one
trusts the chemical companies and sprays, the other puts their faith in Nature
and doesn't spray. Both get rewards, but often the organic bunch have to
do a whole lot more learning first. Personally, I would love to see the
concept of IPM agriculture blossom. I would love to be able to buy IPM
produce in my local grocery. But somehow the concept has never gotten
major attention among consumers and publications to consumers. IPM is
definitely the most scientific form of agriculture in my opinion. It is
based on the intersection of 3 realities, economic reality, and the knowlege
of biology and chemistry.
I suppose this is the
foundation for an article I have long wanted to write for Pomona but never
could quite figure out how to approach. The divide in Nafex between the
organic and the chemical people is quite deep. People have their minds
as made up already as they did in the last election. I soon discovered
last year that I could only discuss politics with like minded people, that
there were no discussions between sides, only arguments. I think the
divide is addressed by the Meyers-Briggs, Kiersey-Bates personality
tests. The division is between the 25% of the population who see the
forest, and the 75% who see the trees. Between the big
picture and the details. The big picture people think the detail
people are idiots because they can't grasp the implications of what they
do. The detail people think the big picture people are idiots because
they are vague. For the extremes of either type, there is sudden glazing
over of the eyes when forced to converse with someone of the other brain
type. I have watched it happen, I have experienced it myself. My
husband once endured an excruciating conversation between a brother
and BIL of mine, 15 full minutes regarding a scratch on a car and what to do
about it. Our attitude is, the car is transportation, a scratch means
nothing to that purpose. To detail people, a scratch is a very real
thing.
For the purposes of this
discussion, ask yourself which type you are, and would you please report in
which type you are and whether you think organic gardening is stupid and
chemicals are fine. Remember there are people in the middle, more
versatile people than the ones at the ends of the spectrum. If you are
in the middle, what is your opinion re chemicals, in 25 words or
less? Thank you. Any input regarding an article for Pomona
on this subject would be very much appreciated. A group effort will
produce a better balanced article. Some details, some theory, something
for everyone. Donna
_______________________________________________ nafex mailing list
nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
Reproduction of list messages or archives
is not allowed. This includes distribution on other email lists or
reproduction on web sites. Permission to reproduce is NEVER granted, so
don't claim you have permission!
**YOU MUST BE SUBSCRIBED TO
POST!** Posts from email addresses that are not subscribed are
discarded. No exceptions. ---- To subscribe or unsubscribe, go
to the bottom of this page (also can be used to change other email
options): http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
File
attachments are NOT stripped by this list. TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT YOURSELF
FROM COMPUTER VIRUSES! Please do not send binary files. Use plain text
ONLY in emails!
NAFEX web site:
http://www.nafex.org/
|