"ta" <ta33@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> "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."
by weight there could well be an increase in fungicide use. Soil
contamination is more difficult, modern pesticides are designed to be
broken
down and not be persistant.
>
> 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?"
>
more pertinant is the fact that a lot of organic farming replaces sprays
with labour. To get the price of organic produce down to the level of
conventional you probably would have a lot more hand labour, and it
couldn't
be paid for at EU pay rates or food would be unaffordable
> 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."
>
lower crop yields are accepted in an organic scenario, the soil
association
will tell you that, however I cannot see higher soil erosian. It may be
the
author is looking at a dry land scenario where no-till is a possibility
> 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."
>
again he could well be using weight of pesticide which is disingenuous at
best. Also a lot of 'organic' pesticides are more toxic than modern
conventional ones.
> 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.
the problem with small scale farming is you need a lot of people willing
to
do the physical work. I hate to say it but in Europe at any rate we see no
real enthusiasm among the general population for field work. The number of
migrant labourers from outside the EU who are shipped in to do it is
probably proof of that.
To be fair, if you want organic food then the rational thing is to set
about
growing your own.
Jim Webster
|
