From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Organic Farming: As good as they say?
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 04:25:34 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1dfjbrINNdop@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu 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.

This is a point well taken, although the more general problem arises
from issues concerned with highly capitalised monoculture designed to
produce bulk crops to feed an essentially urban industrial society.

 > 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.

Neither positions make much sense without clarifying what is meant by
use of the term "agrochemicals". Very many chemicals are in fact plant
nutrients, not toxins, again developed to increase the monocultural
production. We don't know what to do about side-effects given the risk
of mass hunger and urban instability from abandoning them just yet.

So many city people providing for themselves from their own gardens
would certainly take the pressure off the farmers somewhat, but then a
different production strategy has to be developed for them that they
themselves can stay in business.

 > 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."

How about the new alt.sustainable.agriculture take this opportunity
to set an example for constructive and informed discussion on such
important issues, the science forums having bogged down already?

I do not like cross-posting from a quite different context anyway,
with the same activists chasing the same reactionaries all over the
Internet to argue the same pitch and toss. I fail to see how this
material adds to the debate here.

 > 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.

Mike, please, give it a break.

 > 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.

It is just not that easy to solve the problem. We need some room to
work on it here, yes?

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *