From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Fri May 03 2002 - 12:09:46 MDT
Brian D Williams wrote:
>
> >From: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com>
>
> >But one should define things in ways that are useful. To me,
> >"organic" means, or at least should mean, "grown with long-term
> >sustainable methods that don't deplete soil, pollute water, etc."
> >So chemical pesticides and fertilizers are probably out, but
> >genetic modification is fine, as is irradiation after harvest.
>
> As I pointed out in another post, the term "organic" in this
> context has a socially accepted meaning. Neither gene-splicing nor
> irradiation (which alters nutritional content) is part of that
> accepted definition. Hybridization or cross breeding is an accepted
> part.
>
> "Organic" has a predetermined definition. I thought the essence of
> our philosophy is that it is an individuals right to determine what
> is best for themselves. Let the consumer decide.
>
> Trying to force a procrustean fit on to these terms is like third
> world dictators calling their governments "democracies".
By the standard of the definition of "organic" that you say is accepted,
a country is a "democracy" even if it doesn't allow a subgroup, like
blacks or jews, to vote....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:48 MST