From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Jun 16 2002 - 22:30:42 MDT
spike66 wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>> This should really be overturned...
>
>
> I agree with Samantha. (Oh dear. {8^D)
>
From the below, you don't really agree so don't worry about it.
:-)
I don't think the state should be in the business of susidizing
agriculter of any kind so there we agree. However, I do have a
lot of respect for organic farming where you can just possibly
know what went into the food you eat and what didn't.
- samantha
> I have a friend who is an organic rice grower in the
> central valley of Taxifornia. He regales me with stories
> about how he cannot use certain fertilizers and pesticides,
> otherwise he would lose his organic subsidy, which is the
> only thing making it profitable. (Hiiighly profitable. The
> list of rules and regs regarding certified organic produce
> is so complicated, any farmer smart enough and diligent
> enough to follow them all makes a handsome reward.
> The profit per acre is far higher in this racket than anything
> else in the agrobusiness.) He lists the absurdities his
> own government perpetuates with the current system.
> Then he cheerfully deposits his subsidy check and
> continues to produce rice this way, since it maximizes
> the profit he can make on this property. He himself agrees
> that this silliness should be ended, but until it does, organic
> rice it is. I cannot find fault in his logic.
>
> spike
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:50 MST