From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Fri May 03 2002 - 08:14:47 MDT
>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.
>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.
"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".
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:47 MST