# Is "going organic" too political?



## suzanne (May 26, 2001)

This is what I got when I Googled "pesticide association Obama". Apparently, the pesticide manufacturers think it's un-American that the new White House kitchen garden will be organic. 

Discuss.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Don't know why this should shock anybody. The synthetic chemicals industry has been fully supported for 50 years by every government agency from USDA to EPA to the Commerce Department---all tacitly in cahoots to help Monsanto achieve world agricultural domination. 

Now the first lady comes along and dumb slaps them all across the face. 

Good for her! I say. But I don't expect the agri-chemicals industry to roll over and play dead. Nor do think her garden will make any realistic changes in the global agricultural structure.


----------



## oregonyeti (Jun 16, 2007)

How dare she . . . :lol:

The more attention the garden gets, the better


----------



## happyfood (Feb 24, 2009)

If Mrs. Obama's vegetable garden encourages others to grow more of their own food, then she's doing everyone a big favor and leading by example. If the garden is grown using organic techniques, then it's safer for everyone who works it, plays in it, sits next to it.

Anyone taking offense at her actions speaks volumes about their selfish motivations and shows that her actions are the more noble. 

On a lighter note, have you ever read "The $64 Tomato?"


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

Huh? My basil grows fine without pesticides. So do my tomatoes and lettuce. I mean, who at home really uses pesticides? It's the deer we gotta worry about over here.


----------



## kcz (Dec 14, 2006)

I think the "local/homegrown" message she is conveying is more important than the organic aspect. Most of the organic produce you see in the supermarket is grown by large agribusiness just like the non-organic stuff. In my opinion, convincing people just to go organic really doesn't address a lot of the issues surrounding how our food is grown, transported, and marketed.


----------



## oregonyeti (Jun 16, 2007)

I agree, KCZ, that both those aspects are important, and I think it's great for the children as a learning experience. I hope that it will encourage at least a few more families to do the same. I'm looking forward to sharing gardening with my kids this year, or (if they don't want to do some of the work growing things) at least the fruits of it.


----------



## ed buchanan (May 29, 2006)

The whole organic thing is a crock. It gives the manufacturers the right to overcharge and gouge the public. MY opinion is ,eat a well balanced diet of protein, fruits and veges. Exersise,Avoid excess sugars and salts and you will be fine.


----------



## foodnfoto (Jan 1, 2001)

The value of organic is not just in the food produced (which can be debatable), but in the benefits to long term environmental sustainability and safety for farm workers (and gardeners).

In many cases farm workers who speak little English are required to apply pesticides, herbicides, soil enhancers and such without proper instruction and safety protection. Imagine a farm worker with only shorts and shoes on spreading pesticide with no face mask or protection to their exposed skin. They are inhaling all those poisons and getting it all over themselves. They have little opportunity to wash it off even before eating meals. This is an especially dangerous scenario on tea plantations where children are often used as workers. 

If you are a tea drinker, be warned. In 99 cases of 100, the only time herbicides, fertilizers, and pesticides are washed from the tea is when you pour water over it in your cup or teapot. Same goes for coffee, but to a lesser degree.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Well, Ed, once again you're making ex officio pronouncements without understanding the subject.

There is no "whole organic thing." There are various interested parties, in the "organic thing", each with it's own agenda and set of goals. 

There are gardeners, for instance, who use organic methods for a whole list of reasons, ranging from seeing themselves as stewards of the land to growing healthier produce. Primarily, this group uses organic methods because they're tired of having themselves and their families poisioned by "chemicals." They tend to grow heirlooms, because they're interested in vegetables with flavor (and, in some cases, have a political antipathy to hybrids as well). 

A subset of this group are consumers who do not grow their own, but who make a point of purchasing organically grown fruits and vegetables (and, to a growing extent, meat proteins). Their point of view often parallels, but isn't necessarily in lock step, with those who grow their own. When feasible, this group is more likely to shop at farmers markets and to join CSAs rather than shop at supermarkets. And there is a greater tendency for this group to be typified as "liberal" and "activist," than those who grow their own. 

There are the small, diverse market growers, who kept the organics message alive until it became a mainstream trend, and who most of us think of when the very word organic is used. They have a greater tendency to grow heirlooms and other open pollinated varieties, and market locally. Their produce is picked when ripe and delivered almost immediately after picking. Their prices are often higher because their production costs are higher. But the same can often be said about any direct grower-to-consumer farmer. 

Many of these cannot even legally call themselves organic growers anymore, because they cannot afford either the time to do the paperwork, or the cost of inspections, mandated by the federal government. The rules, you see, were essentially written by Monsanto and it's clones, and are designed to support the factory farms to the detriment of the true organic grower.

Then there is the organic produce you see in the supermarkets. Despite the implication that this is somehow different than the conventionally grown stuff, it is produced by the organics divisions of the same factory farms producing the other crap. They use essentially the same mono-cultural factory farming systems, grow the exact same varieties (almost always hybrids with little taste), and use precisely the same food storage and distribution system. Their prices are always higher (even though their production costs are lower) for no other reason than they can get away with charging more. This is the only part of the organics rubric that even comes close to your "It gives the manufacturers the right to overcharge and gouge the public."

Are the factory farms overcharging for their organic production? No question. But they don't have a "right" to do that. Anybody who doesn't like those prices is perfectly free to not buy the stuff. It's called dollar-voting, Ed, and is a fundemental part of our free enterprise system. 

As with anything else, you have the right to choose. You can choose to eat organic produce, or choose not to. But if you're going to get on a soapbox about it, it behooves you to learn a little about the subject first. Something you obviously haven't bothered to do.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>I mean, who at home really uses pesticides?<

Unfortunately, Kuan, the vast majority of home gardeners use synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, fungicides, etc. 

Just go to any garden center and look at the shelvesful of such products. They're not being stocked there to be decorative.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>If Mrs. Obama's vegetable garden encourages others to grow more of their own food, then she's doing everyone a big favor and leading by example.<

HappyFood, if her garden serves as a way to teach people that they can grow wholesome veggies without expensive (and potentially dangerous) synthetic chemicals, than she'll have, indeed, done the country a big favor.

I doubt, however, that she'll actually encourage others to grow more of their own food. The economic climate is taking care of that all by itself.

Anytime there is economic uncertainty, the number of people who grow all or part of their own food goes up exponentially. You may have noticed, for instance, the greater number of seeds and gardening supplies available everywhere; and the number of TV ads for gardening related products (many of which are shucks, it's true), etc. That's because the folks who produce such things were already aware that gardening would explode this year. 

I've seen it myself, with the incredible increase in folks calling me about buying heirloom seed. And with the numbers who appear at any of my gardening and heirlooms seminars and presentations. 

But it's not a new phenomanon. Home gardening has been an economic trailing indicator for a long, long time.


----------



## chefhow (Oct 16, 2008)

I have to agree with you Ed, techinically it should be cheaper to grow "organic" foods, you dont need the pesticides to make them grow and we are being charged for filing and paperwork. Its a way for smaller farms to make a greater profit. If ppl were just smart about what they ate we wouldnt have the problems we have today with obesity. 

What really makes me laugh with the idea of organic is that many vegetables are cross pollentated and when this happens it happens across farms that may or maynot be "organic". This means that the non organic has now pollenated the organic and thus contaminating it. What about the water table? Most farms draw from the same water table thus watering nonorganic water to organic farms. To me the organic, GMO and IP arguments are about making more money which makes most farmers no better than the crooks who are constantly changing the rules...


----------



## dillbert (Jul 2, 2008)

<deleted, obvious user error>


----------



## chefhow (Oct 16, 2008)

Saying that plowing a 200 acre farm by hand, which is rediculous, is what they do than they should find a better more effective way, like a small combine or tractor with a tiller on the back. 

Cross pollination and water tables is 1/2 the arguement for growing organic. If you have 2 farms across the road from each other and one is organic and one isnt than the one that isnt is infecting and fertilizing the organic one without doing it knowingly via the water they use, its from the same place unless they use potable water, and via the pollination of crops. Taking pollen from one feild and taking it to another while they are growiing.

Its more expensive because the farmer feels that they need to be one with the earth and do it by hand, hence my reason in the begining. Get caught up with the times and make it more effeceint, hence making it more cost effective. We already "bailout" farmers that are efficeint in the way they grow, soon we are going to have to bail out the in effecient ones, like the car companies. Streamline the process and bring it back inline and ppl will buy it regularly. In todays economy who can afford to pay $.97 for a pound of organic banana's when regular ones are $.49 and look exactly the same?

Nobody said you had to ship it across the country, I regularly go to the farmers market, almost weekly and buy my produce locally and seasonally from the farmers there. Most will tell you that it isnt Organic but its as chemically free as it can be and is sold at a reasonable price.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>via the water they use, its from the same place <

Chefhow, if this is indeed true, then you are saying that the conventional farm has contaminated the water table with its use of synthetic chemicals. Your argument is therefore an admission that conventional farming poisons the environment.

Putting aside the public health issues that infers, it's also a good argument for using organic methods.

And how do you justify something being a poison when it's in the water, but being safe and beneficial when it coats your tomatoes?

And for those who care about facts rather than emotional pronouncements and urban legends: the cross-contamination issue isn't about ground water. It's about run-off. What happens when a conventional farmer uphill waters his crops, and the chemical residue runs off into the fields of an organic grower?

This is a very real problem in the agricultural community right now.

>Its more expensive because the farmer feels that they need to be one with the earth and do it by hand, hence my reason in the begining. <

It would be nice if you didn't confuse back-to-the-land activists with real market growers.

I suggest that you visit a couple of organic farms---both small diverse ones, and the organic divisions of factory farms---and see how things are being done. It's obvious that you have no idea how things are grown in either case. I know all kinds of organic market growers, all across the country. Every one of them owns tractors, and cultivators, and all the other necessary accountrements of market growing. If you're impressed with equipment you need to check out the self-propelled, multi-row vacumns used by the factory farms to "control" insect pests. Talk about gee-whiz technology! But it sure ain't doing things by hand.

It's bad enough that the average consumer has no idea where his food comes from or how it gets to the market. It's positively scary when a so-called professional is equally in the dark.

There are all sorts of reasons why produce grown on diverse organic farms is more expensive to produce, none of which include doing things as if we were back in the early 19th century.

>.....and via the pollination of crops. Taking pollen from one field and taking it to another while they are growiing.<

Here, again, you demonstrate ignorance of agricultural issues. Trans-genetic cross-pollination is an issue involving GMOs and conventional crops. It has little to do with organic vs non-organic---which refers to growing methods, not what's being grown.


----------



## chefhow (Oct 16, 2008)

*My whole post was in reference to Dillberts post which interestingly enough has been deleted. Go figure....*


----------



## hippysandy (Jul 22, 2009)

It's not surprising that the pesticide company would be the one to criticize the First Lady's organic garden. After all, it is the one to be affected by the rise in popularity of organic products.


----------



## oregonyeti (Jun 16, 2007)

You don't have to be a radical to love an organic garden. You only have to love good veges and fruits, and to prefer to grow them without unnecessary manufactured help.

Chemical fertilizers and pesticides etc are not totally evil, but I would rather be good at growing my produce without all that. 

I'm glad the White House's organic gardening is getting some press But what's the big deal? It's not like they are communists because of it.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>But what's the big deal?<

It's potentially a very big deal, Yeti. Not so much because of the organics, but because of the message it sends.

For 60 years we've been steadily moving towards controlled agriculture. Hybrids were the opening salvo (who controls the seed controls the feed, doncha see), and, so far, the culmination has been the agricultural imperialism of GMOs. To the point whereby Monsanto could actually realize its goal of dominating world agriculture.

No effort has been too large or too small for Monsanto to take a hand in self-protection. Did you know, for instance, that it is virtually illegal for an heirloom seed collector to import a packet of seed from other countries?

All of this has been with both the tacit and active support of virtually every government agency, ranging from USDA and the EPA, to Commerce and even Immigration.

Now comes the First Lady who tells the world the official White House garden is going to throw that support away. That organics, and open pollinated varieites, and sustainability are actually the way to go. That message is 180 degrees from the one that the government has been sending until now.

If the White House garden was, indeed, a major personal issue for Mrs. Obama, it would have grave repurcussions for the agri-chemical industry. And it's very aware of it. Which is why it reacted the way it did. And will always react that way over any perceived threat to its control of what we eat.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Well, yes and no, hippysandy.

For most people, those who shop in supermarkets and the like, it's the same company.

Agriculture is the most integrated and concentrated industry in America. We don't say "Monsanto" merely as a symbol. Between Monsanto, its partners, and its wholy owned subsidiaries and divisions, it really does control much of the world agriculture. 

This includes organic divisions of its factory farms. And the thing to understand is that unlike the small, diverse farmers we like to think are supplying those organics you see in the market, they actually come from those factory farms.

Among other differeces between them and the small, diverse famer: the organic divisions of the factory farms use the same non-sustainable methods as they've always used. The practice mono-culture rather than diversity. The flood the land with chemicals (albeit, ones acceptible to the law). They use specialized equipment that rather than helping sustain the land continues their tradition of pillaging it. And they grow the same vegetable varieties (almost always hybrids), and treat them the same, and put them through the same food distribution system as their more conventional crops. Thus, other than price (which is artificial), the organic tomato you see in the supermarket is precisely the same as the conventional one you see in the next bin. 

If you pick a tomato when it isn't ripe, hold it in cold storage, then gas it just before delivery so it develops color, it doesn't matter how it was grown. It will still be tasteless and all but nutrient free. 

It isn't so much organics that concerns the agri-giants. After all, they wrote the rules, so "organic" means whatever they want it to. It's the sustainability message that has them scared. Just imagine if that caught on with the consuming public. Oh my God! People will be demanding chemcial free vegetables (and, more and more, protein animals), raised locally, using sustainable methods. And that would have a serious effect on their bottom line.


----------



## chefhow (Oct 16, 2008)

Well for all of you, and that includes me that thinks WalMart is the devil especially in the food industry wait till you read this. It was announced on Monday and put forth to all its suppliers who want to go under the label or "Organic". Site Login

And for the record I supply them with product thru other suppliers, they are very difficult to work with.


----------



## maryb (Mar 21, 2008)

The farmer who has land on 2 sides of my lot is organic. It doesn't mean he shuns the use of fertilizer or pesticides because there are organic versions that he can use. One is a bacteria that attacks certain pests and he also uses a liquid fertilizer that is fish based (it stinks trust me :lol. He wants to maximize his yield just like any other farmer.


----------



## oregonyeti (Jun 16, 2007)

That's very enlightening. Thanks, KY. I wonder if the Obamas realized it was a very political message. Whether they did realize or not, I'm glad they are doing it.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>I wonder if the Obamas realized it was a very political message.<

I suspect not, Yeti. Or if they did, it wasn't the motivating factor. Rather, I believe, Mrs Obama was demonstrating that in tight economic climes, growing part of your own food was one way of stretching the food budget. Producing healthier food was, I'm sure, part of the message. But it wasn't the consuming point of it. 

In short, the White House garden is just a symbol. I'm not knocking it. During times of crisis people need such symbols; indications that their leaders understand their problems and are working towards a solution.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>It doesn't mean he shuns the use of fertilizer or pesticides.......<

The confusion here, Mary, is that most of us tend to use the word "chemical" as shorthand to mean "synthetic chemical." The fact is, of course, that without chemicals none of us, least of all vegetable plants, can survive. Furthermore, we tend to think that fertilizer, pesticide, fungicide, etc. are all words that are synonymous with the word chemical, which we've already misconstrued. 

To put a point on it, plants require a group of 16 nutrients for healthy growth; nitrogen, phosphorus, and potasium are the big three, and the rest in trace amounts. So long as those nutrients are available in soluble forms that they can use, the plants don't care whether those "chemicals" come from compost or from a powder you buy at the garden center.

The real point of organic growing methods is that it's concerned with sustainability, and preservation of the land. Thus the difference between "organic chemicals" and "synthetic chemicals." The former doesn not have long-term negative effects on the soil or its micro-herd, and the latter does. Organic growing concerns itself with much more than what is or is not put in the ground and on the plants. 

One example. I referred, above, to the giant, multi-row vacuum machines the factory farms use to control insects. Real gee-whiz technology that impressed the **** out of me the first time I saw one in operation. 

Their idea of control is to suck up every critter on or near the plants. True organic growers, however, realize that there are beneficial insects as well as harmful ones, and that throwing the baby out with the bathwater does not show good stewardship of the land. 

Similarly, a true organic grower, if he has to use Bt (that's the least destructive of the natural insecticides you referred to), does so selectively, rather than flooding the crop with it on some artificial shedule. 

Unfortunately, we do that sort of thing a lot. For instance, any crossing of two plant varieties produces a biological hybrid. But when we say "hybrid" it's shorthand for the proprietary F1 varieties produced by seed companies. You can see the potential for confusion there.


----------



## dc sunshine (Feb 26, 2007)

I don't for one moment pretend to undestand the scope and true definition of the term "organic" farming.

My entry into this debate is that could Hydroponics be suitably produced and economically viable as a farming concern? If you had a sufficiently powerful enough water filtration system (using reverse osmosis), and organically acceptable nutrients, could a producer compete with others, without having the problems of water run-off from other non-organic farmers in the area? I am imagining it may even be necessary to set this up in a covered, sealed environment to stop cross-pollinaion from nearby growers. It would most probably take a large set up cost, so that could break the back of that donkey before it was born.

Just a thought.


----------



## epi (Apr 29, 2009)

I always notice the organic section at the supermarket but pass it because of the price. as for taste, sometimes I can't tell the difference between organic and non organic.

TGIF


----------



## dillbert (Jul 2, 2008)

hydroponic growing is a viable method - the Netherlands has acres and acres under glass.

costs are higher than using "the back forty" - but if you want a tomato in Holland in December, it's not coming out of the kitchen garden....

there is a lot chemistry to it - and since it usually is done "indoors" pest / disease issues can wipe out a entire greenhouse before you can blink.

I have no clue whether hydroponics can be done "organically" - everything I've ever read about commercial operations - especially pest control - does not qualify for organic.

as mentioned above, today's definition of "organic" is variable and being stretched in a lot of directions - commercial operations want the marketing advantage of labeling their stuff "organic" hence all the legal & definition flappola.

I've been kitchen gardening organically for decades. when our kids were young they would wander into the garden and start picking/eating stuff. that's what got me buying lady bugs to eat the aphids rather than malathion/<& misc. pesticides>

my personal take on "organic" fruits & vegetables is less about "what's on that broccoli?" but more about "what is not on that broccoli?"

for the home gardener, as KYHeirloomer mentioned, there's another aspect to organic - and that is creating / maintaining a good soil for the plants to grow in. lousy soil, even concrete, doesn't produce good crops regardless of how much fertilizer you pour on it.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>sometimes I can't tell the difference between organic and non organic.<

Epi, if you can ever taste the difference there are factors at work other than the growing method. 

Indeed, one of the mythis perpetrated by organic activists is that organic produce tastes better. It's both untrue, and counterproductive to their message. Once I can demonstrate that there is no taste difference it calls the entire organics thing into question. Many anti-organics people have used that vary argument. 

As noted above, plants need 16 nutrients. So long as they have them available they will grow and produce to their full potential. Indeed, that's what hydroponics is all about. 

If you can actually discern flavor differences I'd suggest any of the following:

1. The taste difference is in your head. You expect organic produce to taste better, so it does. The open question is, would you still tell the difference in a blind taste test?

2. Sourcing. If you purchase your produce at a farmer's market, it was harvested when ripe. If you buy it at the supermarket it wasn't. So the farmer's market tomato, say, will taste better---regardless of how it was grown. Vegetables produce their full flavor profile when ripe, and not before. That's why, for instance, red or yellow bell peppers taste so much better than green ones. 
This difference, btw, is one of the many reasons for the locovore movement. 

3. Variatal differences. Let's posit, for the sake of discussion, that the organically grown veggie was an heirloom variety, and the conventional one was the same old tired hybrid. There will, most of the time, be a dramatic flavor difference. But, again, it wasn't the growing method but the choice of variety. 
Why the flavor differences? Has to do with the characterisitics looked for when developing a hybrid. Virtually all of them are choosen to meet the needs of the food distribution system. Flavor is never one of the characteristics selected for. So, any time a hybrid has flavor it's because it snuck in by accident.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>I don't for one moment pretend to undestand the scope and true definition of the term "organic" farming.<

DC, our discussions re: the definition of organics doesn't apply to you. Here in the U.S., however, there is a federal law spelling out exactly what organics means. That law includes everything from a listing of what is or is not an organic chemical (i.e., it isn't enough that a pesticide, or fertilizer, etc. is a natural product. The product is either approved by the law, or you can't use it and call what you grow organic), to the condition of your soil, to a whole slew of other requirements. 

The law also specifies that you have to use organic seed, unless you can demonstrate that it isn't available for that veggie. The onus of proof is on the grower. This is one of the dumbest legal requirements the world has ever seen, because the growing method has, from a horticultural viewpoint, absolutely no effect on the seed. 

With one minor exception*, any market grower who wants to use the term organic must be certified as an organic grower, and is subject to continual inspections to assure complience. There's also an incredible amount of onerous paperwork involved. And, of course, application fees, and inspection fees, etc.

What this law did was all but drive out the legitimate organic growers, most of whom are relatively small, diverse farmers who cannot afford either the costs, or the time it takes to do the paperwork. Each vegetable you grow requires this paperwork. A friend of mine once figured out that the paperwork entailed maintaining her certification would take 26 hours each season---unless she added new veggies, in which case the time would increase. 

If you had been around when the law was first proposed you'd have seen that the major inputs to the law came from the factory farmers---big surprise. And they made sure that it would favor them to the detriment of the true organic grower.

This, in turn, led to some awkward phraseology on the part of growers, who would identify their produce as being "grown using organic methods, but not certified," and similar terms. Consumers, who by and large do not understand the law, naturally looked on such phrases with suspicion. So organizations sprang up, such as CNG (Certified Naturally Grown) which gave members a logo that was more acceptible. 

If you think this sounds like an incredibly politicalized situation, you don't know the half of it. 

*The exception is if you earn less than $5,000 from all agricultural products annually, in which case you can claim to be an organic grower without earning certification.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Just to clarify a bit, the federal organics law did spring up out of good intentions. The idea was to create a consistent, evenly applied certification system. 

Until then, every state had it's own organic regs and definitions, ranging from virtually none (Kentucky), to some very fine systems such as those found in California and Oregon. 

Indeed, if the feds had merely used either the California or Oregon Tilth certification systems as models, nobody would have been overly upset.

BTW, none of this has anything to do with home gardeners. For instance, I only use organic methods (and, fwiw, won't put a hybrid in the ground). But I'm not concerned about certification, so it doesn't matter what I call the veggies from my gardens.


----------



## oregonyeti (Jun 16, 2007)

Wow, KYHeirloomer, you are a great source of information. I didn't know anything about most of what you said. Apparently it is a passion of yours to know what's what in horticulture. I'm getting a lot of great information from you, straight up, no kidding.

It's really screwed up that big money can buy that economic advantage, at the expense of the consumer. I hope that the Obamas are making a difference in this, whether they were trying to make a big point of it or not.


----------



## bughut (Aug 18, 2007)

I dont think anyone's daft enough to believe that mrs Obamas family will be eating brocolli she has lovingly tended all through the summer. Going out on slug and snail patrol. Or laying awake nights worrying about how to keep the pigeons off her peas and strawberries.

But good on her for encouraging folk to be more aware.

You can argue the pros and cons of organic till the grass fed sourcable cows come home. But surely, If theres a way (And i'm talking small growers here. Including thee n me) to produce fruit, veg and blooms without pouring poison into the ground, shouldnt we at least give it a go.

On a grander scale. I dont have enough knowledge to diss the supermarket organic produce, but as always my cynicism gets the better of me, and like politicians, i dont trust any of them. No mater how much they try to sell us their magic solutions.

I do feel sorry for the small commercial producers who simply cannot afford to legally print "organic" on their packaging. Surely they should be encouraged.

We've become so de-sensitised to the plight of the third world growers. Some are maimed or even killed by the poisons they are forced to ingest while treating crops.
At home too, locals are suffering the effects of phosphates being sprayed on carrot feilds and so ad infinitum.

I swore years ago to always be organic. My husband persists in using weedkiller. I cant stop him.
My greenhouse that he has almost finished building will be completely organic. I've just been sent a list from the royal horticultural society, of organic predator suppliers and using them doesnt seem much more expensive than the chemical method.

As far as taste goes, I've had some absolute rubbish organic food. No-one ever gave any guarentees did they. On the whole though, its good stuff and the joy i get from my home grown is worth all the extra trouble it takes to look after the crops the "right" way.


----------



## oregonyeti (Jun 16, 2007)

Maybe one motivation of the gardening was for their children to have a somewhat "normal" life as much as possible.


----------



## bughut (Aug 18, 2007)

You think? Yes, I can see that.

Maybe she really loves gardening. I would miss it sooo much if i was too busy to really give it my time, and her spare time must be at a premium eh?

Its bad enough my next door neighbour scutinises my efforts without the world press. OOh! now that made me smile. Just imagine...


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Bughut, although the Royal Hort is an ok source, organics (and, indeed, vegetable growing overall) is just a small part of what they do.

You really should be involved with HDRA (Henry Doubleday Research Assn.) It's really the leading voice of organic growing in the British Isles.

In addition to its work with organic growing it also maintains the Heritage Seed Library, which makes otherwise unavailable seed (i.e., heirlooms and non-white-list open pollinated varieites) available to the gardening public.

Contact info on HDRA: Ryton Organic Gardens, Coventry CV8 3LG, Great Britain, 024 7630 8210, [email protected].


----------



## bughut (Aug 18, 2007)

I'll look into it. Thanks for the info.

I expect you use them a lot. Is it just heirloom tomatoes you grow, or other produce and is there a big marKet for it in America.

Cant say i've ever seen heirlooms for sale in any markets i've been to over here. Our loss i guess


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Everything I grow is an heirloom, Bughut. I won't put a hybrid in the ground, as much for political reasons as horticultural ones. 

I try to specialize in growing Kentucky heirlooms whenever possible. If there are no Kentuckies available I broaden out to varities from other Appalachian states. There's no particular virtue in this. Trouble is, once the heirloom bug bites you start collecting like crazy. Pretty soon, unless you limit yourself somehow, you have so many seeds you'd have to bid on Rhode Island to have enough room to grow them.

Even as a regional specialist I have to alternate among the varieties. Plus there are "new" ones added every season. In a typical year, for instance, I'll grow two or three tomatoes, six legumes, etc. 

Among the veggie types I grow regularly are tomatoes, beans (I'm known in the heirlooms community as a bean guy, and have more than a hundred varieites), chilis and sweet peppers, cowpeas (the oldest seed in my collection is a cowpea, in fact. Been in the same family since 1820) okra, cucumbers, summer and winter squashes, lettuces and other greens, brassicas of all types, all sorts of alliums, root veggies of several kinds, and I'm sure I'm leaving something out. 

Doesn't surprise me that you don't see heirlooms for sale in Great Britain. Two reasons for that. First off, they're called "heritage varieties" over there. Second, and more important, is that if they're not on the white-list (and few are), then market growers cannot produce them, nor shops sell them. 

Due to the white-list, it's even difficult for home gardeners to obtain heritage seed, because the commercial seed houses aren't allowed to sell them. So you have to obtain them from specially licensed groups, like HDRA, or by trading with other home growers. 

If you want. let's talk privately about getting you some seed. I know many of my varieties will grow in England (I used to trade seed with some folks there), but don't know if they'll do well as far north as you are. So we'd have to focus on the kinds of things you can grow, length of your growing season, etc.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>is there a big marKet for it in America.<

Potentially there's a huge market for them. Heirlooms have become mainstream over here, and everybody wants them. Especially chefs.

Until recently, however, it was hard to get the chefs and growers together. Heirlooms, by and large, do not travel well. But the locovore movement, along with several organizations that exist to set up grower/user partnerships, plus the exponential growth in farmers markets and CSAs has changed that. 

One of the unfortunate problems, though, is that many of the people who tout heirlooms do not really know what they are. You see TV chefs, for instance, talking about "good heirloom tomatoes" as if "heirloom" was a specific variety. And most of them do not realize that there is more to the heirloom veggie thing than just tomatoes. 

In addition, the mainstream seed houses all offer seed for at least some heirlooms. But, again, they don't always know what they're talking about. Many modern open pollinated varieties, for instance, are touted as heirlooms. And, marketing people being what they are, there are an awful lot of phony stories being promulgated about them.

If I here one more sappy, made-up story about the origination of Cherokee Purple tomatoes, for instance, I think I'll go in the corner and spit up. 

The sad thing about that is that many heirlooms really do have great stories associated with them. And collecting the stories is as interesting, and as much fun, as collecting the seed itself.


----------



## oregonyeti (Jun 16, 2007)

I am wondering if this is a rebuttal for the political message.

Organic food is no healthier, study finds - Yahoo! News

It addresses the comparative nutritional value of organically grown foods versus others, but not the possible negative of the other stuff you might be eating along with the produce. It's a popular article in Yahoo news.

From my point of view, the nutritive value as measured by vitamins and minerals and all was not the point. The point, to me, was first of all what stuff am I eating along with the produce than might be not so good, and second, is this a more reliable way of maintaining crops for many years . . .l

It looks to me like a strong PR message avoiding certain questions.


----------



## chefhow (Oct 16, 2008)

I read the article a couple of days ago in one of online trade magazines and I was speaking with some of the scientists that I work with about it. A vegetable is what it is and its nutrtional value is what it is whether its organic or grown in a huge commerical farm. PPl need to see the truth for what it is, I personally support some of the small local farms in the central Pa area where I live and buy most of my produce and meats weekly at one of the farmers markets. I dont think they are organic but they certainly arent large scale farms. That is where ppl should be concerned, not with how its grown but how far it has to travel to get to you. I'm sure most of you know that more harm is done to the environment via the OTR freight that most of our food travels than the fertilizers that are used to grow them yet we continue to focus on the farmer and not the distance at which it travels. I think we need to open our eyes to the real problem and begin to support the local guy.

*Until recently, however, it was hard to get the chefs and growers together. Heirlooms, by and large, do not travel well. But the locovore movement, along with several organizations that exist to set up grower/user partnerships, plus the exponential growth in farmers markets and CSAs has changed that. 
*
KY, I have a ton of respect for you and the wealth of knowlege that you bring to the table, but with the exception of the big box chains many of us little independent owners have been supporting and working with the small local farmers for years, at least in the circles I have been in over the past 15 years. The owner/farmer coops have been around in the SE, in particular TN, GA and FL since I opened my first place in 1995. I bought ALL my meats and produce every few days according to what was on the truck and made menu changes accordingly.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>I am wondering if this is a rebuttal for the political message.<

Certainly it's part of the anti-organics message. And it's precisely the point I made earlier; that so long as organics activists make false claims that are easy to refute it just provides ammo to the opposite camp.

Keep in mind that the activists aren't lying, per se. They really believe some of the things they spout about flavor and nutritional benefits. Which, in turn, leads others to believe it. 

But, as I've said before, if you provide the nutrients that a plant needs for healthy growth, the fruit will be the same---same taste, same nutritional value, same everything---whether you grow conventionally or organically. 

Organic growing has to do with long-term concern for the land, and for not adding poisons and adulterants to the food supply.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>A vegetable is what it is and its nutrtional value is what it is whether its organic or grown in a huge commerical farm.<

Isn't that what I said? Several times?

>not with how its grown but how far it has to travel to get to you.<

The two tend to be interrelated. So long as varieties are choosen to meet the needs of the food distribution system other things---like flavor and nutritional value---can suffer. The closer one is to the food supply, the more the farmer can concentrate on growing the best vegetable possible.

The classic example: You buy tomatoes at a farmers market where a member grows the same hybrid you buy at the supermarket. But the one from the farmer's market tastes so much better. Why? Because the local farmer waited until it was ripe before he picked it to sell to you. The supermarket 'maters were never ripe nor ever will be.

>many of us little independent owners have been supporting and working with the small local farmers for years,<

Certainly you have, and I laud your efforts (although you, as a chef, probably never heard of heirlooms 15 years ago, let alone bought them). And there are even stronger efforts. Among others: The Blackberry Inn is one of several resorts with it's own working farm on the property to provide produce for its kitchens. MiLa, down in New Orleans, has a contract with a farm for exclusive rights to its entire production. Mario Batalli gets his eggs directly from a grower who raises free-range chickens. I could provide numerous other examples.

But that doesn't detract from what I said. The fact is, it _is _difficult, even today, for the average chef to connect with a local grower. Surely it's easier than it was ten years ago, and exponentially easier than it was 30 years ago when Alice Waters turned a sensible approach into a movement. And the number of channels that facilitate grower/user relationships is also growing. So it gets easier every day.

>owner/farmer coops have been around in the SE,<

One thing we should beware of is attributing certain characteristics to groups that exist for other reasons. Agricultural co-ops are marketing organizations that allow a group of smaller farmers the economy of scale enjoyed by factory farmers. They do not, necessarily, reflect a local-sales bias. For the most part, just the opposite is true; co-ops form so that the farming community can broaden its marketing reach, either regionally or locally.

Examples: Until the foreign invasion changed it, all the garlic you bought came from Gilroy, a co-op. Virtually all the white rice sold in America comes from a handful of huge co-ops. Citrus products are marketed through a number of co-ops. So, too, are avocadoes (and, indeed, almost everything grown in California's central valley) and most nut products.

Chances are, if there's a X Council or Assn, there is at least one co-op involved marketing that agricultural product on a national or international level. "Beef--It's What's For Dinner" did not originate with a local farmer raising half a dozen grass-fed steers.

The downside is that once a co-op is successful it has to follow many of the same food-distribution-system constraints as the factory farms. Which puts the chef back where he was; scrambling around for locally grown produce.


----------



## epi (Apr 29, 2009)

Wow! Thank you very much for your knowledgeable response.


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

The "really interesting thing" is the essential nutrients for plants MUST be in an inorganic form for the plants to absorb them. Plants cannot absorb "organic compounds" so manure etal must be broken down into the inorganic components to be used by plants.


----------



## oregonyeti (Jun 16, 2007)

In chemistry, organic basically means molecules that contain carbon . . . well this is my understanding at least. Carbon tetrachloride can be called organic. Is that ok to eat?

It's kind of the same for the term "natural". Hydrogen cyanide is natural, since it occurs in nature, so it must be good. Or maybe not. Radon occurs in nature, and therefore is "natural" too.

My point is that the whole idea of "organic" is like a cloud with no defined edges. The only thing defining "organic" produce is the laws in place, which may be manipulated for someone's benefit.

As long as the regulations are loosely defined, very localized, or tailored to fit particular interests, we have meaningless labeling. I don't have the answer, but when people talk about "natural" or "organic" stuff being better, I just wish the laws had some teeth, and the right kind of teeth, so people wouldn't be misled. I am no expert on the regulations, myself, and not claiming to be. I'm not happy with the regulation.


----------



## chefhow (Oct 16, 2008)

I am a member of our Regulatory Committee with the company I work with and I will tell you first hand that I can take ANY govt regulation to suit my needs. There are so many loop holes that its like dealing with Swiss Cheese. As a result we have to work our way thru these loop holes to meet the needs of our customers on a regular basis and we are constantly in contact with the FDA and the USDA to stay ontop of any changes that are being made. 

Currently we arent seeing as many requests for Organic as we are for GMO free, IP and Natural. Organic is a HUGE expense on our end and in turn our customers end, it isnt growing at the rate it had in the past and the quality isnt any better while the micro counts are much higher since you cant Irradiate, treat with BT or ETO to control your bad micro organisms. From a manufacturers point of view it makes me twitch when I hear Organic but you gotta give the customer what they want.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>I can take ANY govt regulation to suit my needs. <

When I was editing Package Engineering magazine we did a lot of work with those same agencies. One thing I learned is that the smart money does not manipulate the written law. It starts long before that, by manipulating the TACs.

The members of TACs rarely know much about the subject they are studying. Instead, they rely on input from "outside experts." Which almost always translates as representatives from the industry the new rules are going to control.

Kind of a vicious cycle. But, from a manufacturer's viewpoint, it makes sense: We don't really wan't to be regulated. But if we're going to be, we should write the regulations to make sure they aren't onerous.

Even after the fact, you don't have to convince lawmakers, or even the administrators at the agency, to make changes. You only have to convince the TAC members, because their recomendations almost always prevail---especially after the fact, when public input is no longer part of the regulatory process.

That, to bring this back home to the discussion, is precisely what happened with the organics regulations. And continues happening as the industry (i.e., factory farmers) constantly seek to water it down even further as conditions change.

>since you cant Irradiate, treat with BT or ETO to control your bad micro organisms.<

Haven't read it lately, but so far as I know, Bt remains on the approved list of organic products. It certainly was approved originally. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if Monsanto managed to get it banned. Bt is affordable by the real organic growers, whereas a giant vacumn cleaner isn't.

I wonder how we survived for 10,000 years without irridation, and pasturization, and all the "necessary" things we do to food nowadays so that it's safe to eat.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>In chemistry, organic basically means molecules that contain carbon.....<

Essentially correct, Yeti. But we're talking about another one of those code words, such as hybrid. "Organic" as it's used by gardeners, farmers, and others involved with the food industries is merely shorthand for a method of growing food crops.

What's under discussion is precisely what that method entails---on both practical and legal levels.

>It's kind of the same for the term "natural". <

The problem is that the general public remains unaware that most labeling terms are strictly controlled by the government. And that the terms, therefore, do not mean what they think they do.

Take the term "vine ripened." You would naturally think that it applied to a tomato which had been allowed to ripen on the plant before being harvested. Such is not the case. A tomato which shows no red at all can, legally, be classed as vine-ripened if you pick it at the right point.

BTW, under the law, the word "natual" has no meaning whatsoever. Nor does the word "organic" when applied to anything other than produce.

You are so right about the use of the word "natural" though, and how people react to it. The worst instance has to do with the New Agers and their view of herbs. Their general philosophy is, "it's natural, so it has to be good for you."

I happen to be a practicing herbalist, and that attitude scares the bejebers out of me. Herbs can have just as many contraindications as any other medicine. As I like to point out, it don't come any more "natural" than heroin---which is a lot of things, but good for you ain't one of them.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

> The "really interesting thing" is the essential nutrients for plants MUST be in an inorganic form for the plants to absorb them. Plants cannot absorb "organic compounds" so manure etal must be broken down into the inorganic components to be used by plants. <

Pete,

I don't understand your use of the words "organic" and "inorganic" in this context. If you're using them as chemical terms, then they're really irrelevent to this discussion. 

Could you clarify, please, what you're trying to say? Thanx.


----------



## chefhow (Oct 16, 2008)

Since Whole Foods decided that they were going to be the be all and end all in the Organic industry they lobbied to have ANY and ALL chemical type treatments removed from the list of things that could be "Certified Organc". Now the only way to get product into them or any company that wants to supply them is to either have higher micro counts or Steam Treat the products which is costly, ruins the appearance and breaks down the essential oils in the product resulting in a less flavorful product that has to be reinforced with oleoresins and natural flavors. Now there is nothing wrong with resins and flavors but then you run into problems with flavors since they are made up of chemical compounds to emulate the flavor of the natural product and not every thing on the earth has enough oil in it to make resins. Its a nasty cycle that is being turned by a money hungry company that is trying to protect its image more than anything. 

As to how we survived, we ate our foods raw and our bodies were used to it. We didnt eat as much and we exercized constantly. The American Industrial Revolution was the best and worst thing to happen to us, it made us more effeicent and lazy all in one broad stroke.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>Since Whole Foods decided that they were going to be the be all and end all in the Organic industry they lobbied to have ANY and ALL chemical type treatments removed from the list of things that could be "Certified Organc".<

You've either said too much here or far too little.

I wasn't aware that Whole Foods had any particular place in determining what was or was not allowed by organic growers. Nor that they're a particularly important player. Maybe in their corporate mind they are, but not in the real world.

They may have their own rules as to what they will or will not allow in their stores; but that's a business decision, not a legal one. And it flies in the face of the whole purpose of the federal law: to have one consistent set of rules that were enforced equally. 

Any company can do that, but it doesn't make it the law of the land. For instance, the Good Foods Co-Op, in Lexington, used to have an internal regulation that in order for something to be labeled organic in that store the grower had to meet or exceed the California organics standards. But that didn't make the California standards the law in Kentucky. 

Virtually anything you apply to the plants or soil is a chemical. So I'd like to see exactly how Whole Foods phrases that rule. Does it mean I can't water my plants (you know, that dangerous chemical oxydihydride)?

Bt is a naturally occuring insecticide that can also be applied by the grower. The big brand name is Dipel, but there are others. 

Not all natural products are permitted. Roetenone (sp?), for instance, was never allowed on the list because it's too indiscriminate a killer. Bt (which is a bacteria) and pyritheryne (sp?) (which is derived from a marigold-like plant) were on the approved list. As far as I know they still are.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

For anyone interested, the list of approved and unapproved products, both synthetic and nonsynthetic, can be found here: Agricultural Marketing Service - National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances

I just went over it, and there is nothing in the amended list banning the use of Bt.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>As to how we survived, we ate our foods raw and our bodies were used to it.<

Really? Hmmmmmmmm, let's see.

Government control of what we eat, how it is grown, what additives can or cannot be used, how it's packaged, etc. etc. is, essentially, about 75years old. But let's extend that to the beginning of the 20th century.

So you're saying that nobody cooked their food before that? Or canned it? Or otherwise modified it? Comes the year 1901 and suddenly everybody, who has until now been eating everything raw, has jumped on this new-fangled bandwagon called "cooking." Gimme a break. We have always cooked our food, or processed it. 

Fermentation, to pick just one example, is either the second or third oldest form of food preservation, depending on which authority you accept. We could, until USDA and FDA (you know, those Johnny-come-latelies) told us otherwise, take raw whole milk and preserve it by fementing it. The result was called cheese. Now we can't do that, because whole milk has suddenly become unsafe. 

In the 17-19th centuries, when cuisine as we think of it was being developed (you know, by cooking), there were no expiration dates; no "best if used by" dates; no "do not eat this after Tuesday" rules. But somehow we cooked food, and ate it, and survived. 

For most of man's history he has cooked his food, or processesed it one way or another. And most of the world continues to produce its food, and prepare it, using rules that are incredibly less stringent than those propulgated by our regulatory agencies. Many, perhaps most, of those rules are based on nothing more than our ability to dream them up and impose them. 

Here's an example, one I've used before. When I started as editor of Package Engineering, parts per million were the common small measurement used for government standards. When I left, parts per billion were coming on strong. Now we casually talk about parts per trillion. 

All this reflects is that our technological ability to measure nothing gets better every day. But are the standards established by FDA and USDA meaningful? Does a standard that started as ppm but is now espressed in a fraction of ppb reflect clinical evidence? I submit, knowing how those agencies work, that it does not. That the standards are established primarily because we can measure that small, not because there is any more or less danger. 

Regulatory agencies exist to promulgate regulations. Doesn't matter to them how much their rules fly in the face of common sense. Look at the history of canning tomatoes for the best example of how this works. Or examine the reasons why the United States, for all practical purposes, has no merchant fleet.


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

Interesting article: Organic Food Not Nutritionally Better Than Conventionally-produced Food, Review Of Literature Shows


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

Oregon Yeti posted that here several days ago, Pete. 

As I said then, the findings should be no surprise to anyone except organics activists who insist that if you yell a falsehood long enough and loud enough it will make it true. What is true is that plants who's needs have been met will reach their full nutritional and flavor potential, whether those needs are met naturally or synthetically. 

Again, the difference between organic growing and conventional growing has more to do with attitude than final result. Organic growers are concerned with the long-term effects their actions have on the land. Conventional growers are not. One is a steward of the land, the other an exploiter. But if each follows the respective rules of the game he's playing, their end results will be the same.


----------



## oregonyeti (Jun 16, 2007)

I'm wondering about the timing of this. I check out Yahoo's most popular news online every day, and I don't recall another article about organically grown vs conventional produce, at least not in a long time.

By the way, that title makes me ask . . . what is "conventional"? It depends on how far back you go. If you go back about 100 years, "conventional" was something very different from what it is now. 100 years is a very short span of time compared to how long humans have practiced agriculture.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

And even at the same time, "conventional" could mean different things depending on where you farmed. 

The dry-land practices of the American plains, for instance, were conventional there. But far from the conventional terraced, intensive gardens that supplied Paris during the same time frame. 

But, if we forego common meaning then we won't be communicating at all. It's hard enough, as we've seen in this thread, when we all think we're using the same language. 

"Conventional," as I use it here, means planting in rows utilizing vast amounts of synthetic chemicals. Taking it a step further, when discussing factory farms it also includes concepts such as monoculture.

By the same token, "organic" meant something different as little as ten years ago, because there was a patchkwork of definations, approaches, and metodology used.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

In one of my replies on this thread I wrote: "But are the standards established by FDA and USDA meaningful?"

Further evidence that they are often not meaningful, and are established capriciously with little or no clinical evidence, comes to us from the recent furor over lead found in the White House garden. 

Apprently, recent soil testing indicates that Mrs. Obama's garden soil contains lead levels of 93 parts per million. Some media made a big deal out of this, even going so far as to turn it into a polical football by claiming it was a legacy from the Clinton days. 

So, let's examine what that 93 ppm means.

At the federal level, our standards for lead presence are 400 ppm in area where children play, but 1,200 ppm elsewhere (as in a garden). By that standard, the White House Garden is perfectly safe. 

The question is, does 1,200 ppm represent a clinically tested safe level? Or was it picked randomly? Other areas of the world have much stiffer protocols. For instance, in the Netherlands, only 40 ppm is allowable. 

Even locally, in the U.S., there are more stringent protocols. In Minneapolis, for instance, the protocols only allow 100 ppm. Under those standards, the White House Garden is almost at risk. 

Everybody "knows" that injested lead is dangerous, and related to all sorts of medical problems, including death. But it's a long way between 40 ppm and 1,200 ppm. The question is, with all the studies that have been done, surely there must be some clinical evidence as to what constitutes a dangerous level. Yet, the vast spread in these allowable levels indicates that the standards are, to put it mildly, arbitrary. 

Extend this out to all standards prolmulgated by EPA, FDA, USDA, etc., and you have to wonder are they established out of true concerns with our safety, or are they just paternalistic, bearing no relationship to actual clinical evidence?


----------



## oregonyeti (Jun 16, 2007)

Regulations for safety can be very different from regulations for other reasons, which is your point, of course. How many of us have had our garden soil tested and critiqued?


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>Regulations for safety can be very different from regulations for other reasons....<

The question is, if there's not a health and safety factor, why are any regulations necessary in the general run of things? More to the point, any regulation, no matter the reason for it, should be established on measurable reasons. I'm suggesting that such is not the case; that many regs and standards are pure paternalism on the part of the government.

I've had this same argument with regulations promulgated by various fish & wildlife departments. There are only two reasons for a regulation: one is concern with health and safety issues, the other is protection of the resource. A rule established for any other reason is, by definition, a bad rule. At the federal level many regs are established only because the FWS presumes that all outdoor enthusiasts, and particularly hunters (especially waterfowlers), are outlaws.

Rules based on such presumptions seem to dominate all federal regulations from all regulatory agencies. But I digress.

FWIW, with lead specifically, the soil background levels, in America, range from 7-20 ppm, and average 10 ppm. Anything higher is presummed to be from contamination---which is one reason for the concern with the White House garden. If the levels are 4+ times the highest background levels, then the White House grounds were somehow contaminated in the past.

In actual studies involving risk factors to children injesting soil, 300 ppm are considered the danger level. One question that requires further study: What is the corrolation, if any, between ambient levels and the levels absorbed by plants (and therefore transferred to the people who eat those plants)? That is, let's say your soil, for whatever reason, contains 500 ppm of lead. If your kids actually eat the soil, they are in clear danger. But what if they merely eat the veggies you grow in that soil. What is their actual ingested level? Obviously, something less than 500 ppm.

Ambient levels are not the whole story, of course. For instance, by raising the pH of the soil you can mitigate the transference of lead into plants. Which means given the proper pH, it doesn't matter what the ambient levels are, because none of it gets into the snap beans. But, again, the standards do not take these things into account.

>How many of us have had our garden soil tested and critiqued? <

Actually, a surprisingly high number of home gardeners have had their soil tested. You cannot establish a good balance if you don't know about imbalances. Soil testing is one of the things the Extension Service does (depending on your local, either for free or for a nominal fee). And there are home testing kits available on the market as well.

And, of course, if you're trying to get certified as an organic grower, you have to have soil tests done.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

KY Heirloomer, 

In response to your well written post on July 31, I think it was Upton Sinclair's 1904 novel "The Jungle" that really started the whole ball rolling. The book basically was about the meat packing industry in the U.S. Sinclair was quoted about the book as : "I aimed at the public's heart and by accident I hit it in the stomach".

The book started a near riot, and by the following year, Congress had rushed through the first national food law, "The pure food and drug act of 1906".

It was only then that Gov'ts (U.S. and others) actually started giving a hoot about the food industry. Prior to that it was "Caveat Emporium", coffee, tea, and spices adultarated with floor sweepings, rodent droppings; brick dust in cocoa, water in the milk, the usual stuff. Where there's a will to cheat, there's a way.

So, yes, people could surivive thousands of years without food preservation and all the legal baggage, but it WAS Caveat Emporium, and lets face it, life expectancy probably wasn't over 50 years of age anyway.

When I read the article "Organic food not nutritionally.....", I was reminded of my last strata meeting in the condo tower in which I reside. An issue was broiling about installing energy efficient lighting in the common areas, motion sensor or light sensing switches, etc which would require new wiring. The cost was very high. I, being the cynical old fart that I am, reminded the Strata that they had previously banned the practice of drying clothes outside the suites. After the groaning stopped, I then asked how many kilowatts a dryer used per load (Bldg has 48 units, each with a w/d) and how many kilowatts of energy would be saved by installing the new lighting and wiring. Gawd, those guys hate me! 

So what?

Whether "Conventional" or "organic" the only difference is in the fertilizer. The whole marketing structure and transport structure is the same. In order to be protfitable, you must grow on a large scale, and distribute all over N.America. A semi tralier and tractor unit going from Fla, or Cal, or Texas to say, Washington State or Nebraska will still burn the same amount of diesel regardless of whether the product is conventionally grown or organic. The items grown still require the same amount of water and diesel fuel. And I'm unclear if organic produce is irradiated when it crosses the border.

What are we acomplishing with organics? Less fertilizers and pesticides, sure, but with the current marketing and transport practices, we're not getting ahead of the game.

It's the big businesses that scare me. As a small business guy, I see the advantages of growing on a large scale--there are many, with practicality being one of the first. A large grower/supplier has tremendous clout. The temptations to control market share, pricing, transport, and mess around with GMO are all there, and it scares the living bejesus outta me--organics or not.


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>Whether "Conventional" or "organic" the only difference is in the fertilizer. The whole marketing structure and transport structure is the same.<

Only partially, Foodpump.

One of the points I've tried to make throughout this thread is that your comment (or what it represents, as there is more to it than just fertilizer) is true for the organic produce sold at mass markets. It is grown by the same factory farms that are providing the conventional produce, using essentially the same methods, and inserted into the same food distribution system. Costs of production are actually lower, but they charge more because of the "organics" label.

On the other hand, organic produce sold through other venues is totally different. That comes from small, diverse farmers, using true organic growing methods, who harvest their produce when its ripe, and deliver to local outlets. Costs of production (compared to both conventional and the factory-farm organics) is actually higher, which is why their produce costs more.

>The items grown still require the same amount of water and diesel fuel. <

And a whole list of other negatives, such as loss of nutrition, lack of flavor, maintenance of cold-storage facilities each with their own carbon footprints, etc. All of which is a major contributing factor in the growth of the locovore movement.

>In order to be protfitable, you must grow on a large scale,<

Not so! According to the Sustainable Mountain Agriculture Center, a small farm can be self-sustaining on as little as 38 acres. By "self-sustaining" they mean that nobody has to take a job in town to support the farm.

Self-sustainability is not achieved, however, by trying to compete with the factory farms.

Reminds me of some comments made by a guy on another list. He has a 78 acre farm he inherited that is surrounded by monsters. Of the two farms that touch his property, one is 4,000 acres, the other slightly larger. Both those factory farms engage in the monocultural rotation of corn and soy typical of the American and Canadian plains.

He constantly whined about how he couldn't make money from that farm. And I kept pointing out that so long as he insisted on growing the same corn they were, that he got no sympathy from me. There's no way he could ever match the economies of scale enjoyed by the other two farms. His costs of growing would always be higher, and the profit margins lower.

On the other hand, if he changed direction there was hope. 78 acres, for instance, could be a very strong base for a CSA. Or a highly profitable captive farm of an upscale resort. Or any of a dozen other alternatives.

He kept coming up with untested reasons why none of the alternatives would work. Me, I think he was just one of those people who was only happy when whining. But if he continued growing corn (this was several years ago), I have no doubt that one of those factory farms now owns that 78 acres.

> I think it was Upton Sinclair's 1904 novel "The Jungle" that really started the whole ball rolling.<

I could argue, based on recent events with tainted and recalled meats, that the ball never rolled very far. But I'll leave that to somebody else.

Upton Sinclair was just one of a group of writers collectively known as muckrackers. They wrote primarily from about the turn of the century into the '30s. Because it is used as an example in school, _The Jungle _is the most well known of the muckracking books, but there are others that actually had more of an impact.

The muckrackers fell out of favor because they were, by and large, socialists. And Socialism was confused with communisim, and the muckrackers fell into that social rubric during the days of the red scare.

Muckracking was used by writers on and off after that. But it wasn't until Nader's _Unsafe At Any Speed _was published that it returned as a viable former of public policy.

Bringing this all home to the discussion. Assuming _The Jungle _actually was single-handedly responsible for the pure food and drug act (evidence indicates it was the final nail in that coffin, btw, not the only cause), what do we have? As a result of people suddenly being made aware of health hazards in the meat packing industry, the government steps in to establish standards.

In the early 20th century standards for allowable levels of rodent hair and feces were established. Today we still have allowable levels, which are considerably lower. But what level of rodent hair and feces is actually dangerous to our health? And how do the standards relate to that?

What I'm saying is that nowhere along the line was any real work done to establish toxicity levels. Instead, the reasoning goes: Rodent hair and feces is obviously unhealthy in our food. In practical terms, a certain amount of these contaminents will enter the food supply. So let's control that level based on our ability to detect them.

As I've said before, as our ability to detect ever decreasing amounts improves so, too, do the standards change to reflect that. But I have yet to see any justification of allowable levels based on toxicity studies.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Thanks.

So if I understand correctly, the only way we can feed ourselves with healthy, nutritional produce with the minimum carbon footprint, is to grow the maximum amount of varieties on small farms, as close to urban centers as possible?

Makes a whole lot of sense, we've been doing it for quite some time now... 

I'm just programmed to see the trees and not the forest--I see mega-growers, transport co.'s, seed and fertilizer conglomerates, and especially purveyors fighting hard to keep things the way they are. 

Don't get me wrong, I buy as much locally as I can, especially for my business. I'm just wondering what kind of push it will take to encourage people to go back to small farming--as close to urban centers as possible, and to curb the demand for tomatoes, romaine lettuce and strawberries in January...


----------



## kyheirloomer (Feb 1, 2007)

>is to grow the maximum amount of varieties on small farms, as close to urban centers as possible?<

That would be the goal. Unfortunately, from a practical viewpoint, it's a doubtful scenario at best. 

If you're as old as me, you remember the term "truck farmer." That's how things were done through the second half of the 19th century and more than the first half of the 20th. Cities were ringed by farms, and ripe produce was trucked in daily. Depending on conditions, it was either delivered to a terminal market (the most usual) for further distribution, a central market, or directly to retailers. 

As an example, New Jersey's state motto, "The Garden State," refers to the fact that it essentially fed New York City it's produce.

Over time several factors mitigated against this practice. One, of course, was the suburban sprawl. Folks do need places to live, there's no getting around that. Rather quickly after WWII, subdivisions became the number one cash crop in America. This made it too costly to use the land for farming, as the taxes alone can kill you. The further out suburbia spread, the further out farms had to move, sometimes all but disappearing from their traditional location. I think, for instance, of the Long Island potato farms. 

Another influence was the concept of America being the breadbasket of the world. Putting aside whether or not that ever was true, the only way it could be done was through economies of scale. Monoculture and large farms were the norm long before our concern with 1,500 mile tomatoes. But even there, practices have changed. Used to be even wheat and corn farms were relatively small. A couple of hundred acres on average, and family operated. At harvest time, the combine owner/operators became gypsies, moving in a steady convoy south to north. When they were due in an area farmers dropped their fences, and the combines ran nonstop from Kansas to Alberta. 

Accepted as a truism was that you could not afford to own the land and own the equipment both. 

With the advent of the factory farms, that became mute. If you are harvesting 20-, 
30-, 50,000 acres at one time, equipment cost is quickly amortized. 

Add in the post-war concentration of hybrids, and synthetic chemical use, and acricultural technology advances, and the fact that transportation is the smallest element contributing to retail cost, and there's just no reversing the current food distribution system. Especially since most people actually like the idea of "fresh" strawberries in January, and aren't willing to give us such luxuries. 

What we are discovering, however, is that small farms, using alternative marketing methods, can fill at least part of our food needs. Farmers markets and CSAs are growing at an exponential rate, for instance. And groups like SMAC are showing how even close to cities, with high-cost land, small acrage can be profitably used for acricultural purposes. 

But, alas, all these efforts will never produce but a small percentage of our food requirements.


----------



## oregonyeti (Jun 16, 2007)

Interesting e-mail I got, and I thought of this thread:
____________________________

* Take that, Monsanto!* 

 
 Join us on Facebook and we'll plant a tree!  
Join us on Facebook, and we'll plant a tree.  Do you ever wonder how we choose which actions to write about here at CREDO? Have you ever wanted to be part of the process and let your opinions shape our work?
A few months ago we asked our Facebook fans to tell us what they thought was the worst company. Monsanto was at the top of their list.

We realized that a great way to harness this kind of enthusiasm for stopping Monsanto was to prod the Department of Justice to investigate the company for antitrust violations. So we took action and delivered a petition with over 45,000 signatures to Christine Varney, Asst. Atty. General for Antitrust. Recently, news broke that the DOJ is questioning Monsanto in an antitrust probe!

Every day, the political team at CREDO posts the articles we're reading to our Facebook page. Then we look to our Facebook fans - that's you! - for thoughts on the issues, and we often take your opinions into account when we decide what campaign to pursue next. To celebrate our victory over Monsanto and to encourage more of you to become part of our Facebook activism community, *we're going to plant a tree for every new fan who joins our Facebook page by Oct. 31. *
Please join us on Facebook - we can't wait to hear more about what you think of the issues.

Becky Bond, 
Political Director, CREDO Action 
P.S. Not on Facebook? You can still get involved with our political process by emailing me directly at [email protected]. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the issues of the day.


----------

