Subject: Organic einsmal
From: [email-masked] (Bowman, Bruce)
Date: 15 Jul 1994 13:51:19 -0000
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture

>>Gullible or not, the fact remains that there is a sector of the populace
>>who wants to purchase foodstuffs that have not had things sprayed on them.
>
>	But that's the thing -- you can't contrast 'organic' farmers with
>farmers who 'spray things'.  There are plenty of nasty chemicals employed
>in organic farming too.  The important distinction, IMHO, is between
>responsible agariculture and irresponsible agriculture.  Everything else
>is just marketing, to me.  I agree that the guy you're replying to is kinda
>crazy, but at the same time I think it's time to question the benefits of
>organic practices, restrictions, and claims.

I couldn't agree more. This is the very reason why the responsible growers
are seeking regulation. A responsible organic grower does not make health 
claims for his product; although in practice I believe it is a safe bet that 
the less of *anything* you put on your produce, the more likely it is to be 
"safe." 

However, saying that your product is healthier implies a danger in 
conventionally-grown products that may not (probably doesn't?) exist for
most people; and without thorough scientific study does indeed amount to 
self-serving hype. Therefore, caveat emptor -- the consumer should develop 
a relationship with the grower and find out for themselves what is going on, 
don't be taken in by packaging and unfounded health claims.

My main problem is many people lump all organic growers together into a bunch
of rapidly-aging brain-dead hippies out to make a quick buck on a fad. This 
is simply not true. 

I am going to re-post (if I can find it) a message I sent on this topic about 
a month ago. It pretty much summarizes the state of things in organics at 
this time.

Regards,
Bruce

From: BOWMAN BRUCE E                (MCVAX0::RC30906)

To:   VMS MAIL ADDRESSEE            (IN::"[email-masked]")