Marjorie Bender
Carolina Farm Stewardship Association
Forwarded message:
>>From llengnic@asrr.arsusda.gov Thu Mar 16 19:13:06 1995
>From: llengnic@asrr.arsusda.gov
>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 17:12:13 -0500 (EST)
>To: Robert Stevahn <rstevahn@hpbs669.boi.hp.com>
>Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
>Subject: Re: (fwd) provocative sci.agriculture post
>In-Reply-To: <199503161722.AA048384540@hpbs669.boi.hp.com>
>Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950316170306.9040C-100000@asrr>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Length: 1802
>
>
>
>On Thu, 16 Mar 1995, Robert Stevahn wrote:
>
>> Thought you might enjoy this post I noticed in sci.agriculture. My
>> response should show up soon, but it would be nice to see some other
>> responses (for those of you with Usenet access) countering the point of
>> view of the Hudson Institute.
>> >
>> > There is a new book out by the Hudson Institute called Saving the Planet
>> > with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield
>> > Agriculture. It will make you think, and It will make a die-hard
>> > environmentalist and nature lover think twice about condemning modern,
>> > chemically based agriculture. It basically states that if we commited to
>> > organic agriculture, we'd lose millions of square miles of wildlife
>> > habitat to the plow in order to feed the increasing population. Check it
>> > out. Call 1-800-Hudson-0 or 1-800-876-8011 to order. Keep thinking.
>> >
>> > Think Globally, Act Locally (the key word is think)
>> >
>> >
>> --
>> Robert Stevahn | Ours is not to feed the world. Let's learn
>> rstevahn@boi.hp.com | to feed ourselves, then teach the world.
>> Boise Food Connection | Population: Birth Control xor Death Control.
>>
>That argument is old, wornout, outdated and just plain dumb! You can
>find a 15 year old version of that argument in CAST's (Council on
>Agriculture Science and Technology) response the USDA's Report and
>Recommendation on Organic Farming published in 1980. CAST published a
>response, can't remember the reference.
>
>Of course, I haven't actually *read* the report.....but its probably
>not worth spending the time discussing it. Those that hold the view
>that the plow is the only alternative to chemical agriculture are
>making arguments based on some pretty shaking premises...
>
>Yes, the key word is think.
>