IMHO you are both right - and both a farm and an army need diverse
Saturday, April 15, 2000, 1:02:00 PM, you responded to Mary-Howell's
>> However, my question is part of the research/background I'm doing for an
>> article I'm writing, attempting to answer some of the questions
>> frequently launched at organic food/farming (by the likes of Dennis
>> Avery) in a non-confrontational manner.
MM> If we have learned anything for the political season so far, it is that
MM> dealing with people who launch smear campaigns cannnot be done by taking
MM> the high road. Just reference Bill Bradley or John McCain.
By taking both the high road and gut level road, we'll get to Dublin
before ye (where ye is understood as the likes of Dennis Avery - i.e.
With Mike on the firing line and Mary-Howell helping to send up the
ammunition, the odds are improved.
MM> If the Organic Industry is to survive, it has to have enough fire
MM> in its' belly ... This is not a fight about what is right or who
MM> is telling the truth. It is a Propaganda War, period! You don't
MM> win wars by playing defense and responding to the attacks of your
It's not *just* a war. The truth IS involved and so is strategy and
tactics. But the truth is what we stand on, and it's what anybody and
everybody stands on in the long run. Myself, I hate to fight. In fact,
there's only one thing I hate more than fighting: Losing. Either way,
to fight there must be a defined cause to fight for.
MM> The organic industry should be tracking the sources of funding for
MM> these right wing and corporate front group and making that the
That's an important part of it. And it's not just the organic
industry's fight - the future of the human race and the planet earth
is on the line.
MM> They should be exposing the percentage of corporately
MM> funded research projects that yield "favorable" results compared
MM> to nonbiased research studies.
MM> If you run "an issue oriented campaign", the recent primary
MM> election results presage your result. The right wingers have a lot
MM> more money than the organic industry and will buy the needed
MM> research to obfuscate any claim you make, true or not.
Properly conducted and peer reviewed research published in respected
professional journals is needed for various reasons. There is a saying
in Spanish: Rio revolcado, ganancia de pescadores. Meaning: A roiling
river is to a fisherman's benefit. I say that because in critical
times of change like these, major advances can be made - logarithmical
advances. Which is why both tacks must be taken.
MM> Don't let them make You and Your Products the issue. Cut these
MM> liars off at the knees by exposing the "bought and paid for"
MM> nature of their research and operation. An operation that is
MM> conducted in the best interest of the few, not the consuming
You are right, but so is she. I would like to read the Benbrook /
Avery debate transcript. Has it been posted yet? Chuck Benbrook is a
scientist, with impeccable credentials and a serious, tranquil
demeanor; while Avery a street fighter, a hired gun. Much depends on
the moderator and the rules of the debate.
MM> Distasteful? Yes. Necessary? Absolutely! Expecially if you want to
MM> own your farm when 2010 rolls around instead of being a minimum
MM> wage tractor jockey working for Mega Farm Corporation - part time.
Once again, I'd say it takes all kinds; and the truth must be
presented in a substantial and substantiated way. This *includes* who
pays the bills, what quality research was done for the money and what
the results or properly conducted research show.
It's not an either / or situation - both roads are compatible & useful
when sending troops to the front (to use your analogy).
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 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:02:09 EDT