From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 16:45:21 MDT
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>
> > (Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>):
> >
> > Genetically modified is not "organic" by definition. I found large
> > amounts of material on the USDA's attempts to redefine "organic" to
> > include genetically modified plants, nuclear irradiation, and bio-
> > solids, to benefit agribusiness.
> >
> > Rather than try to capitalize on someone else terms, agribusiness
> > should create new terms of it's own.
>
> 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 pestcides and fertilizers are probably out, but
> genetic modification is fine, as is irradiation after harvest.
>
Which gives me another idea: hand held irradiation units, so shoppers
can make SURE their food is safe....
> All of those are things that benefit the consumer, and we should
> be fighting for what's good, not what's "organic" by some
> definition that's meaningless.
>
Exactly. And the more we do to make "organic" more meaningless, the
better. It's a stupid term anyways.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:46 MST