That's a good point, Lion, and I'll keep it in mind as I write about
this. It was clearly an ambush, and no effort was made to stay within
the narrow bounds of truth. Recently there was post on a BBC bulletin
board commenting how ludicrious it is to see senior scientists sniping at
organic food/farming in a desperate effort to make biotech palatable.
You'd think they would have better things to do with their time (and
money). However, Norman Borlaug was quoted last week in the Wall Street
Journal as saying "If some consumers believe that its better from their
point of view to have organic food, God bless them, let then buy it." It
is indeed reassuring that a senior scientist like Dr. Borlaug believes
that God will bless those who buy organic food!
So, we must go on. Certainly it would be inappropriate to make claims
such as 'organic foods prevent cancer' - that would be a clear 'health'
But stating that "several research studies have shown that organic food
produces higher levels of key nutrient elements and other secondary
metabolites" - no health claims, no sweeping claims of superiority, just
summarizing data - let the consumers reach their own conclusions.
But we mustn't be timid about providing to the average
agriculturally-challenged public the detailed information - information
that does indeed exist - that is necessary for them to be able to answer
in their own minds the most prevalent question.
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