Ronald,
> 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'.
I agree that "organic" foods have a bright future, and I admire the good
quality organic produce that has begun to appear in the supermarket. What
irritates me is your tendency to lump all these practices into a single
monolithic entity that we are supposed to accept unquestioningly. Isn't
this a common political tactic? Like a party that formulates a platform,
the organic true believers try to execute a power play. You seek to
establish the terms of the debate in expansive, emotive vocabulary, words
that are actually quite empty of biological meaning.
Rubbing shoulders with mainstream agricultural research people, I never see
anybody huff and grump or dismiss "organic" agriculture en toto. Most
people in the research establishment are too focused on the biology at hand,
and the social dynamics of their peer group, to pay much attention to
elaborations of folk-culture.
Lots of researchers (including myself) routinely evaluate specific practices
associated with "organic" agriculture. Many of these things are not real
practical or efficacious, and people at the universities tell it like it is.
This doesn't mean that they are ideologically opposed to these practices.
What you call "organic" agriculture is an identifiable entity in a
political, not a biological sense. Your intense partisanship and glib
rejection of their rather hallowed institutions is what raises the ire of
agricultural scientists.
> 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.
And this represents the rest of the partisanship you exhibit, raising the
straw-man of "factory farming." I don't believe there is any reasonable
place to draw a line between "responsible" agriculture and "factory"
farming. Many large-scale operations are environmentally responsible, while
many small farmers are not. Your real agenda is social not biological, a
vision of egalitarian pastoral bliss informed by the ideology of the
academic left, rather than a firm grasp of history or biology.
Nevertheless, I agree that agricultural scientists do need to try harder to
look at the larger issues, political, as well as biological. But I doubt
they will jump on the organic ag bandwagon, because it is an unwieldy
contrivance.
Dale
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