NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/sustaina/agricult/248

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 7.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!DIALix!Gilsys!gil
From: [e-mail] (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Organic Farming: As good as they say?
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 06:36:07 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents
Lines: 127


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

 >   Mr. Hardwick states that Americans often expect more than
 > the rest of the world because of their typical luxurious
 > lifestyle, specifically using the request for organic food
 > as an example.

The long established decription is *affluent*, interestingly the
systemic counterpart to *effluent*.

 > I do get a little weary of the U.S. being portrayed in such
 > a simplistic, scapegoat-like manner.  There are quite a number
 > of wealthy countries as rated by the usual factors, including
 > Europe and even such places as the Middle East, etc.
 > The U.S. has some problems unique to its politic
 > political and social situation, but it also has had a tradi-
 > tion of a deep understanding of democracy and humanistic
 > institutions (our constitution is a model for the world).
 > Australia is no poverty stricken third world country.  The
 > problems are similar.

Mike, there is little point telling me all this since I have made
no comparison between the US, Europe or the Middle East. You might
like to address your concerns about food quality rather to Chinese,
Indians, and Africans. I doubt they worry over much about whether
what they manage to get is "organic" or otherwise, and it is far more
of a problem getting enough food to them than it is to you.

You simply do not matter in the global scheme of things, although I
doubt that they appreciate very much your being overly selective of
the vast abundance made available to you when they are obliged to
scrape the very dregs from the barrel.

Australia for one has not adopted your constitution. Our own is modelled
on the Westminster parliamentary tradition supported by a Constitutional
Monarchy, only to some extent influenced by the same European thinkers
who also influenced the US Constitution. Believe me, we shopped around
to satisfy our own needs, not yours.

You own "deep understanding of democracy and humanistic institutions"
are demonstrably not shared by other cultures. Li Peng quite publicly
told George Bush in 1989 not to interfere in China, and the British
are having a real problem right now with Beijing over reforms to the
Hong Kong constitution. Further, you have nowhere near begun to come
to grips with the steady capturing of American markets by the Japanese.

You might also ask Ghaddafi and Hussein for their thoughts on your
deep humanity, or are they of another world entirely?

Most of the rest of the world I doubt cares two hoots about your
Constitution, and as your armies withdraw further from international
affairs I do believe you will find nations reverting increasingly to
more appropriate constitutions capable of being sustained by their
own social and cultural norms, instead of your highly problematic
and untenable foreign ideas.

 > The demand for organic is similar to the demand for a basic
 > civil right; it is the demand to have ==safe== food on the
 > grocery shelf.

Sorry, but you do not appear to understand that relatively few people
are even in a position to demand grocery shelves, much less shops where
the highest quality organic produce is trucked in from a refrigerated
warehouse to be compared and fussed over before a selection is made.

I do admit to being concerned with your shrill demands for such things
you call civil rights. Any demand for rights anywere can only be read
as a demand for a standing army to underwrite them; regardless of your
ideals the issue at hand is how the US (and Europe and the Middle East,
or whoever) is able to summon sufficient resources to protect you and
your expectations in a world obviously alien to you.

Mao Tsedong was only being pragmatic when he pointed out that power is
in the hands of those who hold the guns, and regardless of their model
Constitution and deep humanitarian understanding US citizens themselves
hold onto their right to bear arms with a singular determination.

 > This is not some whim for the ==boutique== crowd.
 > People here in the U.S., Europe, Australia and everywhere
 > else who are informed sufficiently, do ==not== want to
 > eat food that causes cancer.
 > It's as simple as that.

I have never said anything about whim, merely that organic food is not
of high priority against world demand for any food at all, given that
there is a demand here for such product met by niche growers supplying
an established market. The simple solution to your problem, since you
are in a position to do so, is simply ==not== to eat food that causes
cancer. Eat something else, for heaven's sake; whatever else you want.

Beyond that, however well one may be informed about which foods cause
cancer and which do not, knowing about it demonstrably does not *supply*
such foods. In many countries sufficient to influence world production
strategies, I repeat, the risk of developing cancer from food is of so
miniscule proportion against the risk of simply starving, or being shot,
or contracting polio, or amoebic dysentry, or God only knows how many
other evils are the lot of humanity to endure, it is not even an issue.

Life's a bitch, Mike, and then you die. Perhaps you find such an idea
quite appalling, but you might help the situation a little by working
with us instead of investing so much energy striving after the very
marginal returns which might be offered by organic gardens, which in
"Third World" countries probably have to be fertilised with recycled
human faeces anyway.

BTW, since you had earlier mailed me about Permaculture, I should point
out that Bill Mollison, the Australian who developed the Permaculture
design program, is by no means an idealist. He is very much from the
tough old school raised during the Great Depression, and his strategy
is a hard nosed, pragmatic way of getting a continuous and sustainable
supply of food to people without worrying too much about its quality
as such. I find it interesting that he has so often been shunned and
repudiated by the bourgeois counter-culture which demands the organic
quality standard you are pursuing here.

Anyway, if you want to just keep having a go at me about this business
I will continue to endeavour to point out your child-like confusion
between humanity and luxury. Also, while you are at it please do edit
out the rest of the verbiage as already read; flooding the channel
with unnecessary material only wastes resources, yes?

--
Gil Hardwick                                      [e-mail]
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 ([phone]
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *