"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:53:25 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:53:52 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

What on earth more could one in fact ask for?

No unpleasant surprises several years down the line, for one.

You ask for the impossible. There are plenty of 'organic' thinsg that are
harmful.
Lettuce contains more carcinogenic chemicals than many artificial
pesticides
(banned or otherwise), for example. What are you going to do if thats one
of
your unpleasant surprises, that you've been happily muching on those for
years whilst avoiding spraying them with pesticides that are less toxic
than
the lettuces!

For sure, I'm well aware that nature has its own arsenal of nasties -
but that's the whole point, it's nature. The biggest killer of all by
far is life itself. Got anything I can put on that?
And bunging yet more chemicals onto an already carcinogenic vegetable
does what, exactly?

It depends on the chemical. But as a rough and ready rule, not much as far
as eating it is concerned. As Tumbleweed pointed out, the pesticide
typically adds to the lettuce's "badness" only slightly in comparison with
its inherent "badness", both of which are in any case pretty well negligible
in practice.

[snip]

Which is perhaps the best reason I've yet seen not to compound the
problem by adding yet more chemicals or otherwise monkeying about with
nature.

But you are adding more chemicals. You (the metaphorical "you") add those
which the afficionados have pronounced to be on the side of the angels.
And you are in fact continuously monkeying about with nature. Otherwise you
would not have had such a plethora of varieties of runner beans or tomatoes
to choose from.

Franz