[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Food rage (fwd)
I totally agree with this writer, but I do also pause at my
situation, where I supply very wonderful food, grown as consumers would
want it grown, but my prices are too high for ME to purchase...Am I too
low income to buy good food? Is it enough that I grow and can eat this
food myself? With land prices and taxes so high, I use what I need to get
by, as the basis for my pricing, but ethically it offends me...I would
prefer to make what I grow affordable to all, but that would make my farm
fail and I would not grow for anyone... I am sure this is a common
problem, but any insights?? Thanks, Michelle
Michelle Crawford, Pacific Potager, organic farm and nursery,
27918 Vashon Hwy SW Vashon, WA 98070
On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote:
> http://sunSITE.unc.edu/london InterGarden
> london@sunSITE.unc.edu llondon@bellsouth.net
> --------
> Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 17:44:11 EDT
> From: Aquatfs@aol.com
> To: WILSONDO@phibred.com, sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu
> Subject: Re: Food rage
>
> In a message dated 98-05-28 14:44:44 EDT, WILSONDO@phibred.com writes:
>
> << Dragging food
> safety into this is too murky an issue, and very prone to political
> manipulation. >>
>
> Talk about losing sight of reality! What's the point of having approved
> methods of producing food if the product is not safe and wholesome? There are
> several reasons for adopting a method of producing food:
>
> 1. To make money, or more money
> 2. To mitigate environmental impact
> 3. To improve product quality
> 4. To improve product safety
>
> As a consumer, I would like the producer to adopt production methods that:
>
> 1. Allow the producer to realize a fair return on investment
> 2. Allow me to purchase food at a price that reconciles externalities (read:
> optimal not cheapest price)
> 3. Allow me to consume food that actually tastes and smells the way it was
> intended to
> 4. Allow me to consume food that does not endanger my health.
>
> There is no point in having food production standards that don't incorporate
> all 4 attributes. Frankly, all 4 attributes are inseparable. To say that to
> include these attributes in food production standards is too confusing or
> political is *not* a good reason to exclude any of them. That's like me
> telling the farmer that I can only pay him 99 cents for anything that I buy
> because I can't count any higher than 99. The farmer isn't going to buy it
> anymore than we, as consumers, should buy into production methods that short
> change us.
>
> Let's stop fence sitting. Different farming methods have different impacts on
> the 4 attributes that I outlined. Either the organic standards will result in
> safer food or they won't. Let's decide which it is. If we feel that we need
> more research, wouldn't it be in the interest of the U.S. government to funnel
> just a little more money into the area of food safety versus farm production
> methods? Maybe then we can finally put the issue of production standards and
> food quality and safety to rest. From the point of view of protecting the
> health of Americans, you would think that this would be good policy. However,
> from the point of view of politics and lobbying, I suspect that there are
> opposing forces to this kind of research. Perhaps this is where the alleged
> political manipulation is occuring.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alan Ismond, P.Eng.
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
References: