Hi Dale,
Tuesday, March 14, 2000, 9:32:12 AM, you wrote:
WD> Grace,
>> IMHO, the division of materials into "synthetic" and "natural"
>> is not only NOT useful, but is the root cause of most of the insanity
>> that has dragged the organic discussion down the drain of debating
>> materials lists as opposed to concentrating on assessing a holistic
>> management system.
I have to agree with Grace on this point, substituting "misdirected
attention" for "insanity."
WD> I think you are underestimating a main driving force behind the movement.
WD> Most organic enthusiasts believe that there is a fundamental difference
WD> between synthetic substances and "natural" things.
Dale is not a spokesperson for the organic movement. This is his point
of view and IMHO, more superficial than accurate. This is not to say
there are no "fundamental differences between synthetic and
biological substances derived through evolutionary (not surgical)
processes.
WD> IMO this stems from an essentialist (Platonic) and dualistic
WD> worldview.
A proprietary Procrustean Bed. If it were really that simple, Dale
would not have to learn anything.
WD> I suspect that the committed customer base really is
WD> focused on substances and their essential qualities.
In the end, yes - the results (on and after eating) count. But the
market is label driven.
>> The point is to establish principles for making distinctions that
>> have some relationship to the ecological concepts on which organic
>> was (once upon a time) founded.
OPFA was designed to control the market, nothing more. And that is a
serious flaw. (Grace may disagree).
WD> I don't think we should view this as a scientific issue. There is
WD> a divide between the scientific community and committed organics
WD> people.
Untrue. The scientific community itself is divided on this issue.
WD> The divide reflects deep philosophical differences.
True.
>> Our goal, perhaps naively, was to develop uniform standards for a
>> production process, not product quality--this is very compatible with
>> environmentally minded food buyers.
WD> I think most people buy organic food because they believe there is
WD> a quality difference.
It's a multi-level quality difference: It's in the product and in the
biosphere, as well as in the social values - that drive the organic
consumer.
WD> There may not *really* be any difference in
WD> quality, but the market behaves like there is. It seems like the
WD> USDA was torn between serving the needs of the market, and
WD> producing scientifically defensible recommendations.
US folks seem to need that behind them.
WD> The USDA finally decided to do what the organic farming community
WD> desires rather than make scientific pronouncements. I think that
WD> was the right decision.
The USDA responded to demands from various interested sectors, not all
of which have compatible interests.
The results are as Bart says (dysfunctional).. Grace can speak more
for her own motives than for the results, although I tend to share the
goals she stated.
Douglas
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 05 2000 - 20:00:28 EDT