Sure there's an environmental trade-off. But one wonders if those suffering from health issues arising from damp, poorly heated homes could well outnumber those who are prone to the respiratory illnesses associated with PM10.
Fruit wood pyres also offer us some legislative hypocrisy.
Last week we ran a photo taken by local lensman Tim Whittaker who shot an alarming photo of one said fire that got caught in the inversion layer of the atmosphere.
My colleagues remarked it looked like a mushrooming A-bomb.
Hawke's Bay Regional Council chairman Rex Graham, a former grower himself, admitted the current legislation as it applied to urban and rural areas, was injudicious.
He referred to the horticultural habit as "primitive". "They're polluting the atmosphere with what could be very serious carcinogenic material . . . you can't do this in Europe".
It's not just green or diseased wood being burnt. Old or unprofitable stock, regardless of its condition, goes by way of fire as it makes way for new varieties.
Some have also raised concerns about burning trees that have for decades been sprayed with chemicals. Should that wood be burnt at all? Should it be used to smoke food at all?
The problem is the definition of "carcinogenic". Surely this entails the spray used on the very fruit we ingest from these trees (as opposed to the smoke which seems to be getting all the attention).
Hence, it'd be handy if council could qualify its legislation with some solid science.
Either way, burnoffs are a common Flintstonian practice on these plains and Mr Graham should be applauded for the courageous new direction.
It's a bold vision for the Fruit Bowl - an imperative that will no doubt upset the apple cart.
