vision2020
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] [Subject Index]

Re: Fwd: Re: Speaking of "Toxic Palouse"



I'm going to edit out some of the previous comments, and simply 
address a couple of questions to Mr. Willard:

> How can you call poisoning your neighbors (and your customers for that
> matter) responsible????????

You've used the word "poison" repeatedly in this discussion.  What 
chemicals, specifically, are you referring to, and in what dose, that 
justifies the use of this term?

> >The people who are applying them have families living in this area, and
> >they do not do things that will be harmful to people. 
> 
> Yes they do! Of course they don't want to, or intend to, but nevertheless
> they ARE doing things which are very harmful to people (and themselves). 

What, specifically, is being done to harm people?  Is it your belief 
that any synthetically-produced compound, used for any reason, and 
present in any amount, is harmful?

> >Such measures are
> >needed to supply good food that is free of natural toxic substances at an
> >economically realistic price in large quantity.    Malcolm Renfrew
> >
> 
> So you are saying you have to apply artificial toxic substances in order to
> reduce natural toxic substances????  What natural toxic substances are you
> talking about?  

I believe Dr. Renfrew's point is that one of the ways that plants 
protect themselves from insect predation is by producing chemicals 
that are toxic to insects.  While it is possible to breed for 
increased levels of those substances, those levels of "natural" 
compounds might present a human health hazard if consumed.  Please 
don't confuse "natural" with "safe".  

As far as the chemical nature of the naturally-occuring plant 
substances that may be toxic, I'll defer to others with more 
knowledge (or better references) at hand.

> There are many organic farms which survive quite well (they would survive
> even better if the other farmers weren't screwing up the ecosystem), they
> provide food that is truly good (i.e. not low level poison in disguise). And
> if you count the hidden costs of the current system (like most cancer
> treatments among others) then it's much cheeper to grow food without these
> chemicals.

Can anyone point out a truly unbiased discussion of the economics of 
"organic" farming vs ... well, "non-organic" farming?  Does anyone 
have a handle on what kinds of differences in labor would be 
required?  Is there enough "organic" fertilizer available to 
adequately fertilize the number of acres currently in production in 
the United States?  

 

Jeff Griffin  jeffg@turbonet.com
Affirmative Technologies  http://www.affirmnet.com/ 
Affirmative Technologies provides complete solutions to the 
electronic publishing needs of small businesses and organizations.  




Back to TOC