"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:u447c0thlr74chjuptk2jtalt3ppivnmv6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
Hi Torsten,
Before swallowing the yield claims of organic corn being 94% of
conventional
corn I would like to see the trials. As no other studies by ether organic
or
non organic papers have every pretended to claim yields that high for
nitrogen hungry crops like corn and wheat.
Even the organic papers admit 25 to 33% decrees in grain yield in most
cases.
In a publication that discusses chemotherapy for veterinary uses I would
not
put much stock in the stuff published there. As a chemist you must have
some
standards that publications must meet before using them as sources. Surely
you don't think that dilutions of chemicals where no molecules of the
chemical
is left in the solution that is used for treatment can have any effect.
Try not to dig so deeply in the pig sty for rebuttals.
Best regards
Gordon.
>
>
|
