<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Let&#8217;s not make it personal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.organicfarmers.org.uk/blog/2009/08/06/lets-not-make-it-personal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.organicfarmers.org.uk/blog/science/lets-not-make-it-personal/</link>
	<description>Professional Practical Certification</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:09:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Manson</title>
		<link>http://www.organicfarmers.org.uk/blog/science/lets-not-make-it-personal/comment-page-1/#comment-102</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Manson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:01:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.organicfarmers.org.uk/?p=2023#comment-102</guid>
		<description>Agreed. 

The organic industry and its supporters are absolutely right to be angry that the FSA commissioned a study with such a narrow research criteria and a cut-off date that meant the positive findings of the 5-year QLIF study could not be included. 

The sector is also right to be deeply suspicious of the complete unwillingness by government to conduct joined up research into organic food and farming. The status quo (and all the big food and pharma conglomerates who benefit from it) is brilliantly served by the FSA saying “we can’t look at pesticides, that’s the up to the Department of Health”, the DOH saying “we know a healthy environment directly benefits human health but that’s the Defra’s patch”, and Defra declaring “organic is just a lifestyle choice and not worth researching”. 

But resorting to abuse is not only ethically wrong, it’s inevitably counterproductive and makes the organic sector just look nasty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed. </p>
<p>The organic industry and its supporters are absolutely right to be angry that the FSA commissioned a study with such a narrow research criteria and a cut-off date that meant the positive findings of the 5-year QLIF study could not be included. </p>
<p>The sector is also right to be deeply suspicious of the complete unwillingness by government to conduct joined up research into organic food and farming. The status quo (and all the big food and pharma conglomerates who benefit from it) is brilliantly served by the FSA saying “we can’t look at pesticides, that’s the up to the Department of Health”, the DOH saying “we know a healthy environment directly benefits human health but that’s the Defra’s patch”, and Defra declaring “organic is just a lifestyle choice and not worth researching”. </p>
<p>But resorting to abuse is not only ethically wrong, it’s inevitably counterproductive and makes the organic sector just look nasty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

