Well then Jack, write a rebuttal.
On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 12:32 PM, Jack Eastman wrote:

> How devious to use a literal interpretation of the word organic to
> undermine
> legitimate alternative systems of  farming which do not use harmful
> chemicals that damage soil, pollute our water and lace our food with
> toxins.
>
> Jack Eastman
>
>
> Des Moines Register, March 21, 03, Letter-to-the-Editor:
>
> Organic Quackery:
>
> Consumers, don't be fooled. the issue over feed standards for so-called
> "organic" livestock is one of marketing and profit, not of food
> quality.
>
> The movement has succeeded in co-opting the term "organic" by defining
> it in
> a very narrow, inaccurate way. "Organic" simply means pertaining to or
> derived from life. This includes chemicals such as benzene, all manner
> of
> petroleum products and food products of both conventional and
> biotechnological processes.
>
> In short, all food is organic. To be inorganic, a substance must be
> based on
> or consists of non-biological material, such as silicon.
>
> Using the deception, the organic movement has created a very profitable
> market niche. This niche would disappear were it not for the more
> efficient,
> economical, historically safe and increasingly sustainable modern
> food-production methods the movement rails against in its propaganda.
>
> Let me take my turn in redefining so-called "organic" food. It should
> be
> labeled "pricey, over-marketed foodstuffs produced by inefficient,
> labor-intensive means and marketed to the affluent and gullible."
>
> Jeff Clothier
> Altoona
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
>  http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
 http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp