I appreciate your post, and am in agreement with the NOSB position on
this. This endless argument on whether something is "scientifically"
valid or not is simply diversionary. The one thing which remains
unclear is the use of feedstocks for composting, with respect to
synthetic materials. There is good reason to believe that many
synthetic materials will be decomposed in a composting system, and
"recomposed" into something natural again. It would be best to find a
way to allow this favorable outcome.
There are also many synthetics which will not degrade in a composting
system over any reasonable time scale, and they should be excluded and
the processes which produced them be exposed for what they are: linear
systems, by definition unsustainable.
What are the thoughts of everyone on this? Is the linear vs. cyclic
paradigm a useful one to discussion of sustainability? Obviously the
time scale should be specified to preclude some adolescent mind from
arguing how plate tectonics is cyclic, and therefore......
It would seem that them question of whether, or not, the synthetic
product GMO canola meal would biodegrade readily or not would be pretty
easy to ascertain experimentally. The question of using the meal for
feed (in organic ag.) is completely different, and should not be
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: