Torsten Brinch wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 20:01:30 -0400, "ta" wrote:
rick etter wrote:
And that means also not cruelty-free. Just what I've been saying...
"...some organic pesticides have mammalian toxicities that are far
higher than many synthetic pesticides..."
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf
Wow, I can't *believe* CFGI, which is funded by the right-wing think tank
Hudson Institute, could possibly be promoting information that supports
their big agribusiness clients like Monsanto, ConAgra, and Archer Daniels
Midland, who have everything to lose by the success of organic farming.
But to be fair, I can't answer the specific charges as I'm not an expert, so
I'm expanding the thread to get a wider range of input.
The quoted statement is rather vacuous, ta, but not controversial..
Of course, you're right. I wasn't referring to the claim about the
toxicity of non-synthetic pesticides per se; everyone knows that
organic farming employs non-synthetic pesticides. I was referring to
CFGI's critique of organic farming in general, as laid out in the
referenced PDF file. I was questioning the overall conclusions drawn
about organic farming. For example, they conclude that:
"Obviously, a switch to organic farming by a large number of U.S.
farmers—the
recommendation of several prominent environmental groups—would result
in a massive increase in U.S. fungicide use and significantly
increased soil contamination."
and . . .
"The prospect of significantly increased organic pesticide use raises
another question: What are the social and ecological costs of
producing the additional organic pesticides? Many organic insecticides
are extracts of plants. Pyrethrum is extracted from the flowers of
pyrethrum chrysanthemums, much of it produced in Kenya and Peru. In
1981, Levy estimated that global demand for pyrethrum flowers exceeded
25,000 tons annually, satisfied by an estimated 150 million flowers
hand-harvested daily.5 In 1995, USDA statistics indicate that Kenya
produced over 100,000 tons of dry flower petals, indicating a
significant increase in pyrethrum production since 1981. How much land
is required to meet current pyrethrum production and how much land
would be needed to increase organic pesticide production if all U.S.
farmers went organic? What are the social costs of large populations
of agricultural workers—most of them poor women and children in
developing countries—hand-picking flowers for organic pesticide
production? Is this not analogous to a sweatshop?"
and . . .
"The only category of pesticide use that would decrease under an
all-organic scenario is herbicides. But this decline in herbicide use
would be accompanied by lower crop yields and higher soil erosion."
and of course the big one . . .
"A major U.S. shift to organic agriculture would mean more pesticide
use, not less; more toxicity, not less; and higher pressures on
agricultural and other natural resources without any apparent
offsetting benefits."
This is really the heart of the argument that I am looking to explore,
not this silly straw man argument about organic farming using
pesticides. This is just rick etter beating on his drum to try to
"win" an argument that no one has even presented. I'm interested in
the overarching issue of whether organic farming is a viable,
desirable altnerative to chemical-based agriculture. My feeling is
that in order to account for some of the issues raised in the article
that organic is not enough - that organic combined with
*smaill-scale* farming is more likely a better solution. Of course
these large-scale organic operations, like the ones out in California,
have ecological problems of their own to deal with. My sense is that
organic + small = best.
If you make two lists, one of organic approved pesticides, another
of synthetic pesticides not approved for organic farming, you will
find 'some' on either list, which have mammalian toxicities far
higher than 'many' on the other list.