>What is interesting to me is the vitriolic response of the >sustainable
ag folks. It is almost like this is (along with >pesticides and maybe
GMO's) a sort of litmus test. Like you
>can't be an authentic sustainable ag person if you accept it.
>I think that there is a political root to all of this.
Just as there is a political root to those who see irradiation as the
best solution to poor management through the food chain, pesticides as
the only way to protect crops and GMOs as the last great hope to "feed
>Wouldn't you say that the real driving force is resistance to
>globalization and industrialization of agriculture, and that
>"high-tech" ag is villified because it is a product of global
I'm not sure this polarized debate is really necessary. When
globalization and industrialization harm people and deplete resources,
then we need to find alternatives that can feed people and protect the
land. Technology (some of it "high") is OK when it helps people and
It's not black and white, one or the other. One of the strengths of
"sustainable ag folks" is that we cherish diversity of thought as well
as diversity in the field.
Don't lump all sustainable ag folks together, Dale. We'll try to do the
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command