On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:17:55 -0800, Loren Muldowney wrote:
>I seem to be the only person here who cares to defend the
>"synthetic/natural" division as useful. Not necessarily as "scientific,"
>not that a native material is itself different from a synthesized one,
>but useful nevertheless. I don't find the sweeping worldview statements
One example of why it is *not* useful ... ammonium sulphate, ordinary
superphosphate (0-20-0), and hydrated lime have each been shown to
increase soil microbial activity, and thereby (presumably) soil health.
We'll ignore, for now, that certain herbicides and even some
insecticides *also* increase soil microbial activity. Each of the three
fertilisers just mentioned is a synthetic, and therefore prohibited in
Organic bureaucrats even try to differentiate between *mined* potassium
sulphate (allowed) and 'other' types of potassium sulphate
(prohibited), while discriminating (with reason, IMO) against *mined*
potassium chloride. There is no other word for the mined vs
'manufactured' distinction with potassium sulphate than "idiotic."
Talk about a non-verifiable distinction in the field!
In Quebec we used to say "s'enfarger sur les fleurs du tapis" --- to
trip over the flowers in the carpet pattern --- and I have yet to find
a better descriptor for where the organic industry seems to be heading
with this synthetic / natural distinction.
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