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



John, I keep seeing wishy washy definitions of what is considered as
being
"organic" by organic gardeners. None of them stand up to any detailed
scrutiny.

Talk to the Soil Assoc. people then - I'm sure they'll be only too
pleased to debate the issue on the scientific level you aspire
to....us lot are just 'umble gardeners.

I have read much of the literature produced by the Soil Association. I am
sure that its heart is essentially in the right place, but I have
nevertheless not yet seen a definition of what constitiutes "organic
gardening", except perhaps for one along the lines "organic gardening is
gardening conducted according to the rules laid down by the Soil
Association". If that is the case, they have hijacked the meaning of the
word "organic".

Surely there are only beneficient and deleterious substances as far as
gardening is concerned. Keep on using the beneficient substances and
cease
to use a substance as soon as it is proven to be sufficiently deleterious
to
warrant such action.

Might be too late then....DDT, Creosote etc..

It is never too late.

What on earth more could one in fact ask for?

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

So we must sit on our hands because even pyrethrum, which was once an
organically acceptable chemical, is no longer amongst the good things of
life? And Bordeaux Mixture is a non-poisonous substance?

I'm perfectly happy to stick with my 'wishy washy' definition of
organic gardening - it renders the need for concern about the use of
this and that academic. If, in future years, I see a report on the
telly that says such-and-such a chemical is implicated in
such-and-such an illness I can just shrug my shoulders and get on with
my dinner.
If I don't see such a report then everyone's happy.

Franz