Dale, Bart and Grace,
I think you are dead wrong on this.
>is still a damn shame to have to accept that what consumers want in this
>case is at odds with scientific (or philosophic) defensibility. Once upon
>a time we thought we could have both.
The American consumer is sensible enough to know that industrialized
agriculture has produced quantity and sacrificed quality. Anyone who
thinks the average American diet based on processed food, fast food and the
like is remotely "healthy" just because modern food science refuses to
really address the issues is involved in a colossal self-delusion.
Consumers are concerned with the environmental effects of agriculture as
well as the health effects. They buy organics becasue they believe most
organic farmers are struggling to build an alternative, healthy agriculture
and they want to support them. This is no "science' that contradicts them,
although of course the "solid science" in the service of the food industry
a la Avery uses millions of dollars to create smoke screens.
Organic agriculture is the agriculture of the future. Academics have just
never been able to swallow that; as the organic commerce grew to over 5
billion dollars they continue to huff and grump and say there's 'no
scientific evidence'. Only on this list, at the ag colleges and at the
Hudson Institute et al do you find this attitude.
If 'science' can't or won't show the differences between responsible
organic agriculture and factory farming then it's science that's off base,
simply refusing to look at the issues.
Mexico, D.F. & San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas
Tel. y FAX 525-666-73-66 (DF)
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 05 2000 - 20:00:28 EDT