[Pil-pc-oceania] Russia's "Private Garden-plot Act" (July 2003)

[jedd]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, permiecaz at bigpond.com wrote:
> Thank you for your comments on Linda's view of science not being willing to
> admit that organic food is better for us as I have tended to agree with
> her, from what I've read and from personal experience.

 My problem with Linda's statement is that she was asserting that
 something she claimed science said was wrong was right, when my
 understanding was that science wasn't saying it was wrong in the
 first place.  Using this to demonstrate how we can 'know' some things
 despite what we're told is a bit disingenuous (towards science).

 Yes, we're always going to have idiots out there with their own
 agendas, and that's why we're blessed with the ability to think
 critically.  Your scientist, for example (and without wanting to sound
 too patronising -- I think it's really sweet that Queensland has their
 own scientist now) was, as you describe, unable to support your
 claims because it wasn't the official Dep.Health's position, not
 necessarily because they personally didn't subscribe to that view.

 The official fed.gov position was, up until only a couple of years
 ago, and one they shared unsurprisingly with the USA, that there's
 no indication of global warming, and even if there was it's nothing
 to do with humans.  Danged tootin'.

 I think we're all agreed that most government types are, if not
 wantonly dumb, then certainly moronic in their short-sightedness
 and insistence on presenting a common message.  Staying on page.
 The herd instinct as often seen with herbivores.  Et cetera.

 While we're lumbered, here in the beautiful land, with the
 questionable musings of John Kent [1] (a lecturer at Charles Sturt)
 that includes such gems as :

 "Modern pesticides are sophisticated compounds which are very
  carefully researched to ensure they are effective against target
  organisms, are safe to the environment and can be used without
  undue hazards to the operators or consumers ..."

 and 

 "Farm chemicals are important because they enable us to
  produce sufficient high quality, wholesome food for a growing
  population ..."

 (Apart from being unsubstantiated and contraindicated by any number
 of papers from a large number of other researches from other
 institutions around the planet, the ambiguity of the word 'chemical'
 here, given he goes to great pains elsewhere to emphasise the fact
 that organic and inorganic chemicals are 'all just chemicals', with
 the implication that they're all equally safe / dangerous is a tad
 unfortunate.)

 He ends with this breathtaking claim:

 "In our free society there is a place for people to grow and
  consume organic food, but if all our farmers decided against
  using farm chemicals, we would soon find ourselves in a
  grave situation."

 A beautiful combination of FUD and condescension -- makes my
 Queensland jibe appear [even more] amateurish in comparison.
 I have so much to learn.


 And then on the other end we've got people like Catherine Badgley
 and Ivette Perfecto doing research [2] that concludes we can grow
 just as much food as we do now, if we all shifted to organic farming,
 possibly even more, possibly even with a reduction in the amount
 of land set aside for farming.   Which is nice.


 I think science - or the nebulous construct that that word attempts
 to identify - has been pretty wary about the industrialisation of
 food for quite some time.  I'd guess the dioxin revelations were one
 of the major turning points for a lot of people (including scientists)
 as it brought into focus so many facets -- political, chemical,
 biological, legislative, industry, corporation -- that we should
 be far more cautious giving our unbridled trust to.

 Certainly in my readings over the past decade or so there's been
 a heavy leaning towards organic being better (nutrition, soil,
 ethics, etc) than industrial farming.  What may have been the case
 prior to that might be attributable to a misinterpretation of the
 science community's request for / observation of a lack of any
 substantive analysis done to back up these claims.  Certainly the
 kind of large research work necessary to prove these claims have
 only really picked up in the last decade or two.  Science, almost
 by definition, likes facts before it comments.  The claim of any lack
 of facts in one direction may have been seen to be an advocacy
 of the other.

 cheers,
 Jedd.


 [1] http://www.regional.org.au/au/roc/1992/roc1992031.htm
 [2] 
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=1195108&jid=RAF&volumeId=22&issueId=02&aid=1195100