Sal:
Growers would do just fine without these and many other pesticides. What
costs them money is the fuzzy thinking that comes when they try to fight
change (often passed off as "conservatism"). If it was clear and certain
that these chemicals would be gone, for everyone, at the same time, growers
would focus on alternatives, make a graceful transition and move on. Now,
the pesticide companies strategy is to throw a little doubt here and a
little big-government scare there and get the growers to think the EPA is
out to take their god given right to bear pesticides.
As you know, most of the nasties are economically unsound because they just
build more dependence. They kill natural enemies (buy more smack), kill
soil life (hey, we got a special blend fertilizer for ya, its a little
expensive...), kill pollinators (these peppers are self pollinated, but here
buy some of these here gibberellins for INsurance and use our new STRUTT
insecticide to keep that tarnished plant bug from stealing your fruitlets).
Unfortunately, the growers don't know they're being had, or at least, don't
know by whom. That's where the communication skills come into play.
Farmers would grow more "Roxbury russets" and less "red (un)delicious", and
nutrition and pleasure of eating just might make us happy to pay more for
our food. Perhaps much of the nutritional decline recently cited might be
due to the change from cultivars bred for pest resistance and taste
(nutrition follows) to those bred only for yield and eye appeal (helping to
promote, of course, the use of all "appropriate crop protection tools">>
from SPUDMAN- voice of the potato industry>>). Any thoughts on that theory,
Saneters, esp. heirloom experts and agronomists?
D.S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sanet-mg@cals.ncsu.edu
[mailto:owner-sanet-mg@cals.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of sal
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 8:18 PM
To: sanet; OGL@LSV.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: Re: EPA raises risk estimate for pesticide
great so they say it causes brain damage I wonder how may people got brain
damage from it . maybe my mom??? that was sure nice of them to band it
now. hummm AND bromidmethyl e band yet allowed to be used till 2005
what's that about. no don't tell me the growers will lose money. I
understand but my mom don't because she has brain damage. they say they
don't know where it came from. Alzheimer's Parkinson's etc. well that's
part of sustainable ag.U KNOW farmers have to make money. farmers have to
make a living. I understand .
check out an organic farmers homepage
http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html
sals@rain.,org
----- Original Message -----
From: "kasmiller" <kasmiller@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
To: <OGL@LSV.UKY.EDU>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: EPA raises risk estimate for pesticide
> This is part of what the EPA was supposed to have finished last year under
> orders from Congress in 1966 to review and reevaluate 10,000 pesticides,
> herbicides, and fungicides on the market today. Thus far they have
evidently
> finished the reevaluation of 2, bromidmethyl e which was banned last year
> but can remain in the market until 2005 and chlorpyrifos, Dursban,
Lorsban,
> etc. I guess we are making progress.
>
> Kimm
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.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@cals.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@cals.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@cals.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 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 12:00:38 EDT