"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ...
> Bill wrote:

> <snip>
> > You KNOW that animals are killed in the course of producing your food.
>
> Actually, unless it is meat, or unless you kill the animals
> yourself, you do NOT know; you only know there is a certain
> degree of probability. That is why meat is a certainty and
> CDs are only a probability.
>
Which at best, even if we were to totally concede and
accept full responsibility for every death associated with
our particular basket of veg, it would only mean we are
"probably" guilty killers, showing a contempt for our
stated belief in animal rights. That, by any standards is
a weak argument on their part.

> <snip>
> > She will continue to buy goods which have been produced in a way she
> > finds unethical. She has done nothing to stop so far, and nothing will
> > change.
>
> I have done things to reduce.
>
Abstaining from farmed meat will reduce the collateral
deaths associated with its feed, so it fair to say that a
meat free diet reducing them.

> <snip>
> >>> she's waiting for the unethical production and distribution methods
> >>> to disappear on their own, with no concrete action from her.
>
> Not true, as I have made clear several times.
>
> >> What concrete action can she or anyone take to stop
> >> them if she isn't already causing them?
>
> > She is causing them, Dreck; so are you.
>
> Neither of us are.
>
At least not by any logic, rule or mechanism I'm aware
of, apart from their buck passing.

> > She knows how not to do so; so
> > do you, Derek.
>
> Actually, I do not know how to stop CDs, since I do NOT
> cause them directly, and I can do nothing to stop them.
>
In a word: 'impuissance.'

> The Anti side, in its consistent strategy of personal
> attack, confuses ( deliberately or not) two separate
> things: causation and what you are calling "complicity,"
> which I think is too strong a term. The purchaser of
> any product does not _cause_ the producer to produce it,
> and certainly does not cause the producer to use any
> particular methods of producing it.
>
> To take the example of purchasing stolen goods: the
> purchaser does not cause the thief to steal, nor is he
> complicit in the theft; he merely provides a market.
> If the purchaser really _caused_ the thief to steal,
> then every person in a community where purchasers of
> stolen goods buy stolen goods would become a thief.

My complaint is that their argument on this point rests
on the assumption that farmers are analogous to car
thieves.

A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P.
(Where the analogy between A and B is weak.)

(A) buying from a farmer causing collateral deaths
is like
(B) buying from a crook stealing cars.
(B) has the property (P), a responsibility for car theft.

Therefore, (A) buying from a farmer causing collateral
deaths has the property (P), a responsibility for
collateral deaths.

But the analogy between (A) and (B) is weak because
customers buying from farmers have no choice but to
buy from them, while there are two markets open for
cars; the black market (stolen) or retail outlets.

The potential car buyer has the choice NOT to buy
from the crook thereby avoiding responsibility for
car theft personally and generally, but the customer
buying food doesn't have this privilege because all
food is provided by a single market; the farmer.

> If addicts _caused_ people to become drug dealers, then
> every person in a neighborhood where there are addicts
> would become a drug dealer. Yet we know that even in
> inner-city areas where there are many addicts to buy,
> large numbers of people do not become drug dealers. It
> is the choice of the producer to produce, and his choice
> to use specific methods of production.
>
Absolutely. I don't like to keep throwing Aristotle in
every time this question of external pressure arises, but;
[According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has two
distinctive features. First, there is a control condition: the
action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That is, it
must be up to the agent whether to perform that action
or possess the trait -- it cannot be compelled externally]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mo...ponsibility/#2

> <snip>
> >>> her equally self-serving decision to
> >>> eat the cheapest, most easily obtainable vegetables she can get.
>
> You have no evidence for this claim; I choose among existing
> sources of vegetables; I do not choose, necessarily, the
> cheapest or the most easily obtainable. I doubt Derek does
> either.
>
Definitely not.

> <snip>
> >>> for the same reason that the buyer of stolen
> >>> property is guilty of a crime: without their participation, the
> >>> original crime doesn't happen.
>
> This is not necessarily true. A thief may steal things for his
> own use or consumption, not for sale. A purchaser is not
> _necessary_ for robbery.
>
> <snip>
>
> >>>> Am I to assume that all my goods are produced using unethical
> >>>> means to satisfy your argument?
>
> That is what he would like you to assume, but it is not
> necessarily true. I know it is not true in my case.
>
> Rat
>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message .. .
> Ipse dreck wrote:
> > For the umpteenth time; extend your line wrap, you
> > scruffy, sloppy slob, or at least use your "Enter" key
> > to drop down a line.
>
> Why don't you just stop your little charade instead?
>
When are you going to stop yours:

"I am vegan"
usual suspect 2002-05-09

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect 2003-06-10

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
usual suspect 2003-08-14

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
usual suspect 2003-09-05

Sorry for not replying sooner. I have only just noticed this post.

Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...
> Purple wrote:
>
> > Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Thou shalt not eat vegetables which have been sprayed with
> >>>>pesticides doesn't.
>
> >>Not in and of itself. I prefer organic, non-agribusiness veggies
> >>for other reasons of health and social justice for humans, but,
> >>again, that is another issue from AR.
>
> > Why is spraying a crop field with pesticides, knowing that it will
> > lead to animal deaths, not in and of itself an immoral act?
>
> Because spraying with pesticides may not result in animal deaths --
> the application of pesticides is not inherently wrong, because it
> does not _in itself_ cause any harm to a being with rights.

I understand where you are coming from but I am a firm believer that
it is the consequences that matter. If you knowingly endanger life's than
I consider that you are morally responsible for the number of life's
you endanger*the probability of that life being lost. Thus the morality
of spraying a crop with pesticides and slaughtering a farm animal
is quantitatively different but not qualitatively different.

> When
> you add "crop field" to the question, you add another aspect: the
> side effect of the action. If I were to grow a vegetable or other
> plant in a greenhouse or in my home, and spray it with pesticide to
> kill a fungus or an insect infestation (I don't believe insects
> have rights), that would not, IMO, be wrong.

I believe there is enough evidence of sentience among insects that they
shouldn't be totally disregarded from any moral decision.

> If there is another
> option, such as the use of ladybugs to eat harmful insect pests,
> that would, of course, be preferable to using chemical poisons.
> Enclosing the vegetables to keep out animals would be another
> possible option. IMO, the farmer has an obligation to use the least
> destructive methods to protect his crop that he can, whether against
> humans, non-human animals, or "weeds" -- not only so as
> to avoid poisoning humans or animals, but to avoid polluting the
> environment.

I agree wholeheartedly.

> Humans becomes CDs too, either directly, or through
> environmental pollution. That is why I buy locally-grown organic
> produce whenever possible.

Good for you!

> <snip>
>
> >>>>Personally
> >>>>I don't see what difference it makes whether or not the action which
> >>>>causes death and suffering is targetted at a specific victim or not,
>
> >> Probably because you don't view animals and agriculture the way I
> >> do.
>
> > I view animals as sentient beings with the capacity to experience
> > a range of emotions, whose lives are important to them, any in many
> > cases to their friends as well. I see agriculture as a way of growing
> > food to keep us alive with. How do you view animals and agriculture?
>
> Much the same. But I see a difference between a system which defines
> animals as things, as objects, as property, and which controls their
> entire lives from conception to death, often in ways which frustrate
> most of their natural behaviors and cause them great suffering, and
> accidental death.

I see this difference too but I prefer some sort of middle way whereby
animals have a much higher status than machines but can still be bought
sold and used responsibly.

> The analogy I often use is between slavery and
> bad labor conditions. That workers died in the Triangle Waist fire,
> or in mines and mills was indeed tragic. That they still die in
> sweatshops and chicken processing plants and pesticide-poisoned fields
> is still tragic. We need to change the methods in those sweatshops,
> mines, mills, and chicken-processing plants. But, except for the
> chicken-processing plants, there's no reason to stop producing the
> product. Slavery, no matter how pleasant, remains inherently immoral.

This is where we disagree. I say slavery is OK so long as the slave is
happy to be a slave. A human is likely to feel the emotional need to
own themselves and design their own life but if an animal is given the
freedom to express their natural behaviours, friends to socialise with,
is well fed, has good veterinary care and a comfortable place to rest
they won't care that they are enslaved so why should we?

> Obviously, it is better for the slave to be well-treated, just as it
> is better for the chicken to scratch around in a comfortable barnyard
> than to spend her life in a battery cage. But treating slaves well
> does not make slavery just.
>
> > [snip]
> > I strongly believe that animals have the right to be treated compassionately.
> > Would you disagree with this?
>
> Not I.
>
> Rat

"Purple" > wrote in message om...
>
> This is where we disagree. I say slavery is OK so long
> as the slave is happy to be a slave.

Then, assuming you had a retarded daughter, and
I'm not for one moment suggesting you have or trying
to flame, it's quite possible she would be content while
being held as a slave. That being so, what objection
would you offer to your daughter's slaver who uses her
as a prostitute for his own personal sexual satisfaction
and economic gain as her pimp?

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message >...
> "Purple" > wrote in message om...
> >
> > This is where we disagree. I say slavery is OK so long
> > as the slave is happy to be a slave.
>
> Then, assuming you had a retarded daughter, and
> I'm not for one moment suggesting you have or trying
> to flame, it's quite possible she would be content while
> being held as a slave. That being so, what objection
> would you offer to your daughter's slaver who uses her
> as a prostitute for his own personal sexual satisfaction
> and economic gain as her pimp?

This is a very contrived example since it is unlikely that
my daughter's best interests would be served by such a scenario
but if my daughter was keen or indifferent and there were no
serious negative long term risks or consequences, which she
needed to be protected from then what reasonable objection
could I offer?

Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...
<snip>
> Because spraying with pesticides may not result in animal deaths --

It will most certainly result in animal deaths, as insects are
animals. Frogs, lizards, birds, and other small animals in the field
may also die. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but I think we
have to be honest here.

> the application of pesticides is not inherently wrong, because it
> does not _in itself_ cause any harm to a being with rights. When
> you add "crop field" to the question, you add another aspect: the
> side effect of the action. If I were to grow a vegetable or other
> plant in a greenhouse or in my home, and spray it with pesticide to
> kill a fungus or an insect infestation (I don't believe insects
> have rights), that would not, IMO, be wrong.

I don't think it would be wrong either. Fungi aren't animals or
plants, by the way. They're in a separate kingdom. BTW does your
comment in regards to insects mean you eat honey? I'm just curious
because many vegans don't eat honey.

> If there is another
> option, such as the use of ladybugs to eat harmful insect pests,
> that would, of course, be preferable to using chemical poisons.

At least the damage would be more targeted toward the insects.

> Enclosing the vegetables to keep out animals would be another
> possible option. IMO, the farmer has an obligation to use the least
> destructive methods to protect his crop that he can, whether against
> humans, non-human animals, or "weeds" -- not only so as
> to avoid poisoning humans or animals, but to avoid polluting the
> environment. Humans becomes CDs too, either directly, or through
> environmental pollution. That is why I buy locally-grown organic
> produce whenever possible.

Of course, you realize that organic produce actually produces less per
farm than mass-produced fruits and vegetables, right? It may be more
healthy or tasty for an individual to eat organic, but if all farmers
followed these methods, there would be massive crop losses, and that
would result in more world hunger.

I'm not against organic farming though at all, I think it's a good
thing, but I don't think that most farms should take it up.

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
m...

> Of course, you realize that organic produce actually produces less per
> farm than mass-produced fruits and vegetables, right? It may be more
> healthy or tasty for an individual to eat organic, but if all farmers
> followed these methods, there would be massive crop losses, and that
> would result in more world hunger.

Compare the yields here; http://tinyurl.com/uvdi , bearing in mind;

'2. Lower yields are experienced during the transition to organic production

Most researchers agree that yields tend to drop for three to five
years during the conversion from industrial to organic approaches (Dabbert
and Madden, 1986; US Congress, 1983; Hanson et al, 1990; Lampkin,
1989; Smolik and Dobbs, 1991). This is because it takes time for the soil
to develop the positive attributes associated with organic agriculture. It
also takes time for operators to learn organic crop management techniques.
Some of the lower organic crop yield estimates cited in Exhibit III-1
may have been from industrial farms in transition to organic production.

Given that organic production relies on soil fertility and a healthy,
diverse soil ecosystem, the yield reductions experienced in the initial
phases of transition from industrial practices tend to be eliminated over
time (Sparling et al, 1992; pers. comm. Cornwoman; pers. comm. Tourte).
We note that the economic transition time can be twice as long as the
biological transition time; it can take an extra four years for the
farmer to fully recoup the financial losses that occurred during the
transition (Hanson et al, 1990). This transition period can be shortened
significantly with creativity (e.g. substituting crops, enhancing farm
gate sales efforts).

3. Organic crop yields are less variable than industrial yields

Organic crop yields are reportedly less variable than industrial
methods (Hanson et al, 1990). As well, growing season precipitation is
an important factor influencing crop yields and organic crop production
systems appear to perform better than industrial farming systems under
drought conditions (Smolik and Dobbs, 1991). Thus, sustainable crop
production provides a benefit to risk-averse farmers.

Based on the above, it appears that with strong farm management, small
scale, organic crop production can produce competitive and even superior
yields to industrially grown crops. Furthermore, just as research has
resulted in an improvement in yields for industrial crops (e.g. winter
wheat), there is likely to be similar improvement in yields for organic
crops as more research is conducted and organic farming methods
become more commonplace (Lampkin, 1989).
...'
http://www.manyfoldfarm.com/comfoosy...er3.htm#eiii-1

Also;

Farmers Throw Away Ploughs - Crop Yields Soar
1-17-01

Farmers across the developing world are throwing
away their ploughs in a dramatic example of "sustainable"
farming, a practice that is now sending crop yields soaring
on millions of farms.

The findings come from the largest ever study of sustainable
agriculture, released at a conference in London on Monday
The report's author, Jules Pretty of the University of Essex,
says sustainable agriculture is now defying its reputation as
a worthy enterprise with little chance of feeding millions
of starving people. He says sustainable farming has been
the most effective way of raising farm yields in the past
decade and that farming without tilling is among the most
widely adopted forms.

Pretty says the growth is very exciting: "If it spreads we
can make substantial inroads in reducing hunger."

Nature versus nurture

Sustainable agriculture deliberately lowers manmade
inputs such as chemicals, while maximising nature's input.
It replaces fertilisers with plants that fix nitrogen in the
soil and pesticides with natural enemies of pests.

And it is catching on. It now covers three per cent of third
world fields, an area the size of Italy. Its methods are
having big impacts on farm yields, with typical increases
of 40 to 100 per cent.

"Sustainable farming has grown in the past decade from
being the preserve of a few enthusiasts into a broad
movement involving governments and the private sector",
says Pretty, whose study collected data on 200 projects
in 52 countries and was commissioned by the UK
government's Department for International Development.
"It is cheap, uses locally available technology and often
improves the environment," he says. "Above all it most
helps the people who need it - poor farmers and their
families, who make up the majority of the world's hungry
people."

Weed killer

In Latin America, small farmers left behind by past
farming revolutions have seen yields of grain and beans
rise by two-thirds using "green" methods, says Miguel
Altieri of the University of California, Berkeley.

The most widespread new technique is farming without
ploughing. In Argentina a third of fields now never see
a plough - farmers get rid of weeds by planting off-season
crops that kill them.

Besides relieving them of one of the most tedious jobs
on the farm, abandoning the plough improves soil quality
and raises crop yields. It even helps curb global warming
by accumulating carbon in the soil.

"In a short time, farmers saw reduced costs and greater
productivity, increased income and a better environment,"
said Lauro Bassi, an agronomist from Santa Catarina in
southern Brazil, where zero-tillage has been widely
adopted "For us zero-tillage is like a social movement."

Correspondence about this story should be directed to


https://www.newscientist.com/dailyne...p?id=ns9999325

> I'm not against organic farming though at all, I think it's a good
> thing, but I don't think that most farms should take it up.

Think again.

"pearl" > wrote in message >...
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> m...
<Snip>
> Given that organic production relies on soil fertility and a healthy,
> diverse soil ecosystem,

If it relies on soil fertility how does that help people around the
world who have to grow food in poor quality soil?


>the yield reductions experienced in the initial
> phases of transition from industrial practices tend to be eliminated over
> time (Sparling et al, 1992; pers. comm. Cornwoman; pers. comm. Tourte).

"Tend to be eliminated" doesn't mean always eliminated. In other
words, there's the initial loss through a few years, and then possibly
a longer term loss.

> We note that the economic transition time can be twice as long as the
> biological transition time; it can take an extra four years for the
> farmer to fully recoup the financial losses that occurred during the
> transition (Hanson et al, 1990). This transition period can be shortened
> significantly with creativity (e.g. substituting crops, enhancing farm
> gate sales efforts).

All that effort just to get enough yield and to turn a profit, instead
of an efficient way of producing plenty of produce, whether the soil
is perfect or not.

<snip>
> Based on the above, it appears that with strong farm management, small
> scale, organic crop production can produce competitive and even superior
> yields to industrially grown crops.

Small scale? That might work if most people stop eating. I'm not sure
how small scale farming is supposed to produce the same amount of food
as large scale farming.

<snip>>
> Think again.

Most people in the world don't have the luxury to say no to food. It's
a luxury to even be able to be a principled (and not by necessity)
vegetarian, vegan, or to eat "organic only".

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
om...
> "pearl" > wrote in message >...
> > "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> > m...
> <Snip>

Why? <restore for context>

Compare the yields here; http://tinyurl.com/uvdi , bearing in mind;

'2. Lower yields are experienced during the transition to organic production

Most researchers agree that yields tend to drop for three to five
years during the conversion from industrial to organic approaches (Dabbert
and Madden, 1986; US Congress, 1983; Hanson et al, 1990; Lampkin,
1989; Smolik and Dobbs, 1991). This is because it takes time for the soil
to develop the positive attributes associated with organic agriculture. It
also takes time for operators to learn organic crop management techniques.
Some of the lower organic crop yield estimates cited in Exhibit III-1
may have been from industrial farms in transition to organic production.
<end restore>

> > Given that organic production relies on soil fertility and a healthy,
> > diverse soil ecosystem,
>
> If it relies on soil fertility how does that help people around the
> world who have to grow food in poor quality soil?

If those people have been growing their food in a sustainable manner
the soil should be fertile.

'yields tend to drop for three to five years during the conversion from
*industrial* to organic approaches .. because it takes time for the soil
to develop the positive attributes associated with organic agriculture.'

Why?

1. Industrial pesticides and herbicides sterilize agricultural soil,
destroying beneficial and harmful bacteria alike.

'THE LIVING SOIL: BACTERIA
...
Bacteria fall into four functional groups. Most are decomposers that
consume simple carbon compounds, such as root exudates and fresh
plant litter. By this process, bacteria convert energy in soil organic
matter into forms useful to the rest of the organisms in the soil food
web.
...
Bacteria from all four groups perform important services
related to water dynamics, nutrient cycling, and disease
suppression. Some bacteria affect water movement by
producing substances that help bind soil particles into
small aggregates (those with diameters of 1/10,000-1/100
of an inch or 2-200µm). Stable aggregates improve water
infiltration and the soil's water-holding ability. In a diverse
bacterial community, many organisms will compete with
disease-causing organisms in roots and on above ground
surfaces of plants. ..'
http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/soil_quali.../bacteria.html

2. Industrial fertilizers do not replace trace minerals, resulting in
nutritionally poor soil, compromising plants' health, as well as ours.

'An American study found that organically grown food contained
much higher average levels of minerals than non-organic food. For
example, there was 63 per cent more calcium, 73 per cent more iron,
125 per cent more potassium and 60 per cent more zinc in the
organically produced foods. There was also 29 per cent less of the
toxic element mercury.'
http://www.ekolantbruk.se/PDFer/Myth...%20reality.pdf

3. Organic matter levels have declined 30% to 50% in many
areas since the introduction of agriculture, primarily based on
short rotations and aggressive tillage and cultivation.
http://ohioline.osu.edu/b898/b898_7.html.

> >the yield reductions experienced in the initial
> > phases of transition from industrial practices tend to be eliminated over
> > time (Sparling et al, 1992; pers. comm. Cornwoman; pers. comm. Tourte).
>
> "Tend to be eliminated" doesn't mean always eliminated. In other
> words, there's the initial loss through a few years, and then possibly
> a longer term loss.

The opposite tends to be the case.

> > We note that the economic transition time can be twice as long as the
> > biological transition time; it can take an extra four years for the
> > farmer to fully recoup the financial losses that occurred during the
> > transition (Hanson et al, 1990). This transition period can be shortened
> > significantly with creativity (e.g. substituting crops, enhancing farm
> > gate sales efforts).
>
> All that effort just to get enough yield and to turn a profit, instead
> of an efficient way of producing plenty of produce, whether the soil
> is perfect or not.

All that effort to maintain, long-term, healthy productive soil, a clean
water-table and water-courses, a bio-diverse environment, and not
least, ag-'cide-free, nutritionally superior, taste superior, healthy food.

> <snip>
> > Based on the above, it appears that with strong farm management, small
> > scale, organic crop production can produce competitive and even superior
> > yields to industrially grown crops.
>
> Small scale? That might work if most people stop eating. I'm not sure
> how small scale farming is supposed to produce the same amount of food
> as large scale farming.

The issue is method.

> <snip>>

> > Think again.
>
> Most people in the world don't have the luxury to say no to food. It's
> a luxury to even be able to be a principled (and not by necessity)
> vegetarian, vegan, or to eat "organic only".

<restoring what you just snipped>

Farmers Throw Away Ploughs - Crop Yields Soar
1-17-01

Farmers across the developing world are throwing
away their ploughs in a dramatic example of "sustainable"
farming, a practice that is now sending crop yields soaring
on millions of farms.

The findings come from the largest ever study of sustainable
agriculture, released at a conference in London on Monday
The report's author, Jules Pretty of the University of Essex,
says sustainable agriculture is now defying its reputation as
a worthy enterprise with little chance of feeding millions
of starving people. He says sustainable farming has been
the most effective way of raising farm yields in the past
decade and that farming without tilling is among the most
widely adopted forms.

Pretty says the growth is very exciting: "If it spreads we
can make substantial inroads in reducing hunger."

Nature versus nurture

Sustainable agriculture deliberately lowers manmade
inputs such as chemicals, while maximising nature's input.
It replaces fertilisers with plants that fix nitrogen in the
soil and pesticides with natural enemies of pests.

And it is catching on. It now covers three per cent of third
world fields, an area the size of Italy. Its methods are
having big impacts on farm yields, with typical increases
of 40 to 100 per cent.

"Sustainable farming has grown in the past decade from
being the preserve of a few enthusiasts into a broad
movement involving governments and the private sector",
says Pretty, whose study collected data on 200 projects
in 52 countries and was commissioned by the UK
government's Department for International Development.
"It is cheap, uses locally available technology and often
improves the environment," he says. "Above all it most
helps the people who need it - poor farmers and their
families, who make up the majority of the world's hungry
people."

Weed killer

In Latin America, small farmers left behind by past
farming revolutions have seen yields of grain and beans
rise by two-thirds using "green" methods, says Miguel
Altieri of the University of California, Berkeley.

The most widespread new technique is farming without
ploughing. In Argentina a third of fields now never see
a plough - farmers get rid of weeds by planting off-season
crops that kill them.

Besides relieving them of one of the most tedious jobs
on the farm, abandoning the plough improves soil quality
and raises crop yields. It even helps curb global warming
by accumulating carbon in the soil.

"In a short time, farmers saw reduced costs and greater
productivity, increased income and a better environment,"
said Lauro Bassi, an agronomist from Santa Catarina in
southern Brazil, where zero-tillage has been widely
adopted "For us zero-tillage is like a social movement."

Correspondence about this story should be directed to


https://www.newscientist.com/dailyne...p?id=ns9999325

> I'm not against organic farming though at all, I think it's a good
> thing, but I don't think that most farms should take it up.

<end restore>

Seven Deadly Myths of Industrial Agriculture

Industrial agriculture is devastating our land, water and air, and is now
threatening the sustainability of the biosphere. Its massive chemical and
biological inputs cause widespread environmental havoc as well as human
disease and death. Its monoculturing reduces the diversity of our plants and
animals. Its habitat destruction endangers wildlife. Its factory farming
practices cause untold animal suffering. Its centralized corporate ownership
destroys farm communities around the world, leading to mass poverty and
hunger. The industrial agriculture system is clearly unsustainable. It has
truly become a fatal harvest.

http://www.keepmainefree.org/corporatelies.html

THE MYTH:
Industrial food is safe, healthy, and nutritious.
THE TRUTH:
Industrial agriculture contaminates our vegetables and fruits with
pesticides, slips dangerous bacteria into our lettuce, and puts genetically
engineered growth hormones into our milk. It is not surprising that cancer,
food-borne illnesses, and obesity are at an all-time high.

http://www.keepmainefree.org/myth1.html

THE MYTH:
Industrial food is cheap.
THE TRUTH:
If you added the real cost of industrial food - its health, environmental,
and social costs - to the current supermarket price, not even our wealthiest
citizens could afford to buy it.

http://www.keepmainefree.org/myth2.html

THE MYTH:
Industrial agriculture is efficient.
THE TRUTH:
Small farms produce more agricultural output per unit area than large farms.
Moreover, larger, less diverse farms require far more mechanical and
chemical inputs. These ever increasing inputs are devastating to the
environment and make these farms far less efficient than smaller, more
sustainable farms.

http://www.keepmainefree.org/myth3.html

THE MYTH:
Biotechnology will solve the problems of industrial agriculture.
THE TRUTH:
New biotech crops will not solve industrial agriculture's problems, but will
compound them and consolidate control of the world's food supply in the
hands of a few large corporations. Biotechnology will destroy biodiversity
and food security, and drive self-sufficient farmers off their land.

THE MYTH:
Industrial agriculture benefits the environment and wildlife.
THE TRUTH:
Industrial agriculture is the largest single threat to the earth's
biodiversity. Fence-row-to-fence-row plowing, planting, and harvesting
techniques decimate wildlife habitats, while massive chemical use poisons
the soil and water, and kills off countless plant and animal communities.

http://www.keepmainefree.org/myth5.html

THE MYTH:
Industrial agriculture will feed the world.
THE TRUTH:
World hunger is not created by lack of food but by poverty and landlessness,
which deny people access to food. Industrial agriculture actually increases
hunger by raising the cost of farming, by forcing tens of millions of
farmers off the land, and by growing primarily high-profit export and luxury
crops.

http://www.keepmainefree.org/myth6.html

THE MYTH:
Industrial food offers more choices.
THE TRUTH:
What the consumer actually gets in the supermarket is an illusion of choice.
Food labeling does not tell us what pesticides are on our food or what
products have been genetically engineered. Most importantly, the myth of
choice masks the tragic loss of tens of thousands of crop varieties caused
by industrial agriculture.

http://www.keepmainefree.org/myth7.html

"pearl" > wrote in message
...

I hope you're right that organic farming can produce similar yields.

There's another thing I'd like to say though. Genetically modified crops can
grow in poor soil and produce higher yields per plant. Would those be
considered "organic?" Certainly they can be used to feed hungry people.

I saw a guy on tv who was working with the genetics of a certain game fish
that is considered a "poor man's fish" in many parts of the world to make it
grow larger, so that people who caught it would have more food to eat.

I just hope the push toward "organic" won't be harming this important work.

-Rubystars

Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...
> Purple wrote:
>
> > Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Thou shalt not eat vegetables which have been sprayed with
> >>>>pesticides doesn't.
>
> >>Not in and of itself. I prefer organic, non-agribusiness veggies
> >>for other reasons of health and social justice for humans, but,
> >>again, that is another issue from AR.
>
> > Why is spraying a crop field with pesticides, knowing that it will
> > lead to animal deaths, not in and of itself an immoral act?
>
> Because spraying with pesticides may not result in animal deaths --
> the application of pesticides is not inherently wrong, because it
> does not _in itself_ cause any harm to a being with rights. When
> you add "crop field" to the question, you add another aspect: the
> side effect of the action. If I were to grow a vegetable or other
> plant in a greenhouse or in my home, and spray it with pesticide to
> kill a fungus or an insect infestation (I don't believe insects
> have rights), that would not, IMO, be wrong

If you saw tox tests performed on agri chemicals, you would realize
exactly how "wrong" it is. I worked developing agrichemicals, and
alternatives for them, for 15 years. The ultimate tox tests were done
on beagles and rhesus monkeys. There is absolutely *nothing* "right"
about pesticides.

-L.

Dear Mr Suspect...
Again, I must request that you stop posting your personal squabbles to
alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE.
Thank you


--
Laurie Forti
Moderator
alt.food.vegan.science



"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .
> Ipse dreck wrote:
> > For the umpteenth time; extend your line wrap, you
> > scruffy, sloppy slob, or at least use your "Enter" key
> > to drop down a line.
>
> Why don't you just stop your little charade instead?
>

Laurie wrote:
> Dear Mr Suspect...
> Again, I must request that you stop posting your personal squabbles to
> alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE.

Shut up, Larry. His post was related to science,
unlike everything you've ever posted in that
notoriously misnamed newsgroups of which you are NOT
the moderator.

Shut up.

Laurie wrote:
> Dear Mr Suspect...
> Again, I must request that you stop posting your personal squabbles to
> alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE.
> Thank you

Stop masquerading as (a) a scientist, (b) a moderator, and (c) a woman.
You're none of the above, Larry.