From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: Organic Farming: As good as they say?
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:29:21 GMT

In article <1dfjbrINNdop@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
>
>Mr. Kilen states that there is no difference between organic
>and factory produced, similar products, such as nitrogen,
>potash, etc.  There is a difference in efficiency, having an
>entire factory to produce what a herd of cows, etc. could do
>nicely instead.
>But beyond this issue, the much more urgent was has to do with
>the chemicals used as pesticides and other special additives
>such as hormones, antibiotics, etc.  I am not concerned about
>the N P K business at this point when there is so much else to
>be concerned about.
>
>Mr. Kilen states:
>
>"Agrochemicals are not inherently dangerous to humans."
>This is a simple statement, easy to comprehend and all inclusive.
>Pesticides are agrochemicals.
>Many pesticides have been banned over the last few decades by
>agencies of the US government, being deemed a serious cancer or
>other health risk.
>However...many of these same "agrochemicals" are still allowed
>to be produced legally here in the US and then sold to other
>countries which then use them on their crops and the crops are
>==legally== again sold back to consumers in the US market.
>
>Is there a problem here?
>
>Or should we just stop worrrying.  Everything is as it should be.
>Let's stop criticizing the farmers:
>Kilen:
>"Instead of the criticism that a farmer is usually subjected to,
>they should be admired for the great job they are doing."
>
>I find the reasoning here very simplistic.  I certainly do not
>isolate the farmer to be criticized, since the system of using
>agrochemicals has been promoted from all sides, agrochemical
>companies, government, journals, universities, until only 
>recently, why should I blame the farmer for trusting the
>experts?
>I would never be that simple minded.
>Still there is a serious problem.  There are a myriad of synthetic
>chemicals available for use in agriculture, there is not the
>rigorous examination of these that Mr. Kilen suggests, and there
>are ==most definitely== a number of these agrochemicals which
>have been banned yet are still making their  way back to the
>shelves on our tomatoes, cucumbers, canteloupe, etc.
>
>
>-- 
>Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
>            looks promising.... |-)

there is a difference between being concerned about the effects
of agro chemicals and being hysterical about them... in the same 
way that you say many of these chemnicals are not properly tested
before being foisted upon the unsuspecting public, it could be
reasonably stated that some of the evidence the anti-chemical
lobby presents as "evidence" that chemicals cause damage is also
tainted.... 

chemicals will remain an integral part of modern agriculture 
until the time we develop other ways to produce food... in some
cases organic may indeed be the solution, but in many others,
it is just as bad as anything else we have devised. We have to
adopt an integrated system of agriculture... using the elements
of a broad range of sciences. Those who are studying those 
sciences today will be the farmers of tomorrow.


//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture