Re: Limes-synthetics-Common sense is the compendium of experience.

Craig Lanoye (lanoye@together.net)
Sun, 30 Nov 1997 13:26:19 +0000

Erorganic@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Common sense is the compendium of experience.
> In reference to the toxic effect of limes as sited below, people in a country
> that grows limes know that contact of their juice with the skin and a minimum
> amount of sunlight will dramatically effect you by discoloring the skin and
> creating boils. I can likewise name two plants in Alaska and a couple in
> Arkansas that do the same. Humans through history passed that wisdom on to
> their children. Natural toxicity exists all over.
>
> No one has ever contended that natural plant or animal pesticide defenses
> would not effect humans. Try a brown recluse, snapdragons or too many fava
> beans. It took centuries of trial and error learning to develop a cultural
> wisdom on the dangers under differing circumstances to natural toxins. Does
> anyone really know really anything about synthetic pesticides under differing
> circumstances, in real life? In creating new, synthetic defenses for plants
> and animals, we have not passed onto our children and society any real life
> knowledge.
>
> My childish question is very clear. Why would we want to introduce synthetic
> or natural biocide substances into living forms? The only reason I know is
> to sustain life longer or better the quality of life. To my knowledge and
> experience regarding synthetic pesticides, nothing has confirmed that
> synthetic pesticides in agriculture or life in general have done either one
> of these. They may have kept the ticks down on my lawn or stop athletes foot
> in my boots, or knocked mosquitoes out of my swamp out back or purged me from
> some disease or parasite, but all these things could have been done by humans
> gaining the knowledge on how the ecosystem works and blending with the
> ecosystem for common goals. In agricultural synthetic pesticides have made
> life easier for the farmer, and some might contend they cut down on bacteria
> and fungal problems that actually were created by intensive agricultural
> production itself--like intensive hog production or pipeline milkers, mass
> drying of peanuts or bovine mastitis.
>
> I once got a piece of steel in my eye, chipped while tapping hardened steel
> against hardened steel without glasses on. In utter amazement, Wells Eye
> Hospital in Philadelphia removed it with an 8-hour surgery-using eye piercing
> minute electromagnets. The surgical equipment was developed for just such a
> problem. Minute pieces of steel penetrating the eye. The three physicians
> that operated told me the equipment was only invented after hardened steel
> was perfected and started ending up in eyes. Likewise, we perfected
> synthetic pesticides to take care of the pest problems we have invented by an
> economy driven to expand sales without taking a common sense look at the
> consequences.
>
> First there was only a few synthetic pesticides, now we are dealing with the
> complexity of many variations of synthetic pesticides, used, without
> identification, in everything from the insole of your shoes, all shoes, to
> your mouthwash, in lawn care, at the public school, in the water supply,
> toothpaste and shampoo, mixed with the unknowns of all the synthetic plastics
> found everywhere we live, transport ourselves and work. There is the unknown
> content of synthetic food additives, growth hormones in livestock and fruit,
> processing aids, enzymes, natural colorings and flavorings, endocrine
> interrupting pesticides, carrots that are treated with a substance to kill
> the adjoining weeds because it grows so slow, then are subsequently run
> through a hydrocooler treated with fungicides and bactericides. Now mix all
> that with what you call potent natural pesticides in foods and you are
> getting a dose that may have chemical interactions completely unrecognized in
> scientific studies. Is it any wonder folks would rather not have GMO
> modified plants, that are developed to withstand doses of pesticides that
> formerly the plants never could, as the basis for their diet in the near
> future. It is just common sense to say no.
>
> Plus, we are buying meat, dairy, produce, grain, bean and fiber products not
> from a single farm that we might understand how the food and fiber was
> raised, but that are blended from many farms in which we have no idea what
> synthetic substances were applied and than being mixed with the processing
> aids, enzymes and food additives for the next salsa and chips we eat.
>
> I simply do not panic, I buy organic. Actually, I raise almost everything
> organic, and I also work to make sure all consumers know what they are
> getting when they buy an organic product. The Organic Foods Production Act
> (OFPA) sets forth standards that offer a direction. No synthetics are
> allowed to contact or be part of processed food products labeled and sold as
> "organically produced." Only a very short list of active synthetic
> substances can be considered for allowance for use on organic certified
> farms. These are subject to extensive and intensive multidisciplinary review
> and evaluation before they can be used--plus they must make common sense.
> That evaluation is critical. Not with standing the possibility, and it is
> only a possibility, of a synthetic being used in organic farming, OFPA
> clearly states, no synthetic substances can be used on a certified organic
> farm. OFPA also allows for prohibiting natural substances in the farm
> production and in the content of processed organic food. And further yet,
> OFPA mandates the review of every inert synthetic ingredient used in any
> natural pesticide used in organic farming. For me there is no question. I
> want organic food for my children, for my loves, for myself. Cheap health
> insurance in this chemical risk prone world.
>
> I encourage everyone to seek full implementation of all the details of the
> Organic Foods Production Act during the Proposed Organic Rule public comment
> period. The comment period will begin sometime in this month of December.
> Email commenting to the USDA is possible.
>
> Best regards, Eric Kindberg
>
> sanet-mg-digest Friday, November 28 1997 Volume 01 : Number 082
>
> Thank you Eric and all who have taken the time to give their thoughts. Im sorry for throwing my struggle on the group, I needed to get some more experienced views to expand the issues. As it stands, Im not the most obvious person to expound the virtues of organic and sustainable production systems, but I know most of you are.

Thanks,
Craig

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".