I have only a few short comments on your last letter on this subject.
> But I don't think it's appropriate to get upset if we
>don't get exactly what we want and insult those who didn't meet our
needs
>(most particularly when one asks a question that isn't really the focus
of
>the list), but rather to appreciate what we do get, and to keep this a
>pleasant and respectful space to participate in.
From reading the list for several weeks, I got the distinct impression
that all of the various methods used in the handling, storing, shipping,
and sale, of agricultural products WAS a large part of the focus of the
Sanet group. Maybe be the most important part, but certainly a large
part of it. I got that impression from the fact that there was, and is,
a lot of discussion of the treatment with chemical compounds of the food
available in the nation's supermarkets; starting with the addition (or
non-addition) of artificial fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides in
the growing process through the spraying of chemical compounds on produce
to treat it for storage and shipment, to how it is packaged and displayed
for sale. The latter having much less attention than the others, but
some comment at least
Since you seem to be defining the focus of the list in different terms,
it appears I came to the wrong conclusion.
The letter you posted was a response to my original question and I did
appreciate the effort you went to in order to get and post it. The fact
that I disagreed with it should have no bearing on that and I thought I
said that.
I did read through it completely and I did see two facts stated that I
questioned merely because of the tenor of the entire piece. I later
found those two facts to be true; but of a considerable less import than
the letter implied. But true, nonetheless.
Upset? Yes, maybe. Angry, no.
--Dan in Sunny Puerto Rico--