And this is why I treasure Sal.
> > Dale says:
> > > Most organic enthusiasts believe that there is a fundamental difference
> > > between synthetic substances and "natural" things.
> Down with this one law fits all. When we started growing food we did so
> because we wanted food grown without synthetic substances. Your right we
> did not trust the USDA and their DDT and other so called science shit.
This is the heart of the matter. I just think Sal shoudl use a capital
The "DDT is safe" is Science, the precautionary approach is science.
science with a lower case "s," i.e., knowledge, = good
science is servant and friend, where we admit we don't know everything.
Science with an upper case "S," as institutionalized by the Chemical
Manufacturers Association? Bah. Science is Master, masquaerading as
the voice of reason. It is always necessary to read between the lines.
Wide gulfs between theory and practice, between regulations and
enforcement, one term after another legally defined in ways completely
counter to the expectations that a reasonable person should be able to
expect. If all else fails, the powers that be make sure that budget
cuts assure that compliance with reasonable regs. cannot be meaningfully
Do I "trust" the USDA? Good grief, of course not! Folks, do not get
your feelings hurt over this. I know and value many, many of its fine
employees, who are committed and competent scientists trying their very
best and often succeeding to conduct research in the public interest.
However, the label "USDA organic" is a contradiction in terms. Ditto
with EPA, ditto with FDA, ditto the AMA, ditto with plenty of university
scientists. Trustworthiness is a property of the entire system, of the
weakest link in the chain, just as with any other system. The best hope
is to make the chain as short as possible. Making federal these local
standards CAN ONLY serve to lengthen the chain.
Technology happens faster than science. Way back when, many people
thought about the system for screening chemicals and concluded that its
deficiencies were too vast to be fixed. The perverse incentives are
what they are, and can only lead to one kind of predictable result. The
idea occurred to these folks that the only way to avoid unwillingly
supporting a certain industry is to avoid purchasing its products or
anything made using those products. Food being one consumer item which
is not really optional, part of the organic "movement" was born, of
those who had decided that their only real vote is with a dollar spent
or not spent.
So, one can reject "synthetic" without giving a damn about whether the
"natural" is really different from an analytical frame of reference, all
while simultaneously being aware of the facts is not contradiction at
all. This isn't a matter of science, and if you insist on interpreting
lack of faith in the regulatory, social, political, economic system as
evidence that a person doesn't understand the scientific facts then this
gap can never be bridged. If you "organic industry" folks didn't know
about this motivation then I really am at a loss for words. Anybody
want to argue that it is unscientific to not have any confidence in big
> $5000 as a small
> farm is a joke and this law will burden small growers .
It sure as hell will. And undermine local growers for the purpose of
subsidizing long distance food transport. And undermine consumer
confidence in organic ag., and depress and disgust practically everybody
who actually cares.
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 05 2000 - 20:00:29 EDT