On 6 Jun 2004 09:20:43 -0700, ta33@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(ta) wrote:
>Torsten Brinch <iaotb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:<l8e5c0d9g62ltit1rbcg54onkkjuu401c2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 20:01:30 -0400, "ta" <ta33@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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_pubs/Natures_Toxic_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
sup****ts
>> >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.
It is crude propaganda (as so much is, that come out of the Averys
at Hudson Institute.) Nancy Creamer has an article on it in OFRF
Information Bulletin, summer 2001, which you may be interested in
reading.
http://www.ofrf.org/publications/news/IB10.pdf
|
