I wish to add to Guy's expression of concern about reliance on
organic certification standards as a panacea. I am, frankly,
alarmed by the trend of globalization of trade (especially in
agriculture) and in monetary / financial institutions. I highly
recommend the book by David Korten, When Corporations Rule the
World. It spells out the dangers and the severity of the
challenge of getting the situation turned around.
In this vein, I am very concerned that establishment of national
and international certification standards will draw huge
multinational organizations into that segment of agriculture, and
that countless family farms will become extinct, and many rural
communities will be devastated, and food security will be worsened
in very many places. I am fully aware of the theoretical benefits
of specialization and trading. (I've got a PhD in that stuff.)
But in the real world, people hurt and starve and lose their homes
and societies fall apart while it appears in the economic
accounting that things are getting better. I am also fully aware
of the need for standards to prevent fraud, and the finacial
advantages of trading etc. But the real world isn't that simple,
and many dimensions of human and ecological well-being are beyond
monetary growth measures.
In the 1960, I watched silently as the experts extolled the
virtues of the "Green Revolution," guaranteed to solve all human
hunger problems. At the time I intuited there may be adverse side
effects. But I was not smart enough to foresee the horror to
come. Now I see similar devastation being worked in the name of
economic growth. This time I choose to speak up. Fortunately,
many are already doing it, far more elloquently than I.
It should not be beyond the wits of humanity to devise organic
standards and enforcement processes that gain a balance of
benefits while avoiding devastating costs to humanity and Earth.
A prerequisite is that we recognize there are problems that can
and probably will accompany a strictly market-oriented
certification and standards program. Vigilance, imagination, and
a will to innovate are at the heart of the solution. I do not
pretend to have the answer, or even to know all the questions.
But I remain convinced that a Pollyanna approach that pretends all
is well in the best of all possible worlds will not get us where
we want to be.
Patrick Madden, President
World Sustainable Agriculture Association
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Feb 9 10:27:32
1996
> From: guya@ncatfyv.uark.edu (Guy Ames)
> Subject: Re: the word sustainable
> To: sals@rain.org (Sal Schettino)
> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 09:32:48 -0600 (CST)
> Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
>
> > >
> > Organic farming was the only method of farming for 6000 years
of history.
> > Is it sustainable? I would guess yes. I agree according to
the dictionary
>
> Sal, you really need to get the book I suggested earlier on
> Sanet--Topsoil and Civilization by Carter and Dale (University
> of Oklahoma Press). We (humans) have despoiled the earth far
> and wide with overgrazing, over-cultivation, and just plain
> over-use. Topsoil and Civilization chronicles all these abuses
> and shows how the abuse of the soil by various cultures was
> linked to that culture's downfall. Much of Greece, the site of
the
> cedars of
> Lebanon, Crete, North Africa, the American "Dustbowl", etc.
etc.
> were all sites that have been severely damaged by non-chemical
> agriculture. All these places were once rich, agriculturally
> productive areas. Some of these places are now deserts. So,
if
> that was organic farming, then it was certainly not
sustainable.
>
> That's the style of farming Bart Hall would call "organic by
> neglect," which is the style of farming I fear many large scale
> operators wanting to profit from consumer paranoia and cash in
> on "organic" will employ.
>
> As Bart has pointed out, OCIA and other organic certification
> groups include soil building and prtection as part of their
> certification requirements. But, apparently, the as-yet-to-be-
> finalized federal standards are weak in this area, leaving room
> for abuse by those who might meet the letter of the law but
> not the spirit.
>
> All I'm really trying to say in my postings is that organic
> certification is not THE answer. In fact it may impede
progress
> toward a more sustainable agriculture in two important ways:
> 1) By fostering a belief that it is THE answer and inherently
> sustainable (someone on SANET mentioned that they thought
> organic farming was the "pinnacle" of sustainable agriculture),
> the organic movement is fooling the public (and many farmers)
> into believing that we won't have to do anything else to insure
> agricultures sustainability and a safe food supply. That is,
> once everyone is certified organic (the fellow from the Dana
> Association in Mexico suggested that ALL farmers should be
> certified organic as a requirement for allowing them to farm),
> we will no longer have to worry about the sustainability of
> agriculture. (As many other posters to SANET have pointed out,
> there are many practices that are certifiably "organic" but
> clearly not sustainable. One of my favorites to point out is
> the use of copper fungicides in organic certification programs.
> Not only can copper build up to phytotoxic levels in the soil
> so that plant growth is practically impossible, recent research
> also indicates that much smaller amounts of copper interfere
with
> the flora in worms' guts, effectively killing the worms.)
> I'm seriously concerned that the Federal standards will tend
> to end debate about and stifle further evolution toward a more
> sustainable agriculture. The existence of the Federal program
> will lull people into believing the problem has been solved.
>
> 2) The second major way the Federal standards may actually
impede
> progress toward a more sustainable agriculture is by impugning
> the safety of food produced by farmers who can't or don't want
> to be certified organic but are seriously trying to farm
sustain-
> ably. The simple existence of the FEDERAL standards will imply
> to consumers that the certified stuff is safe while the other
> stuff is suspicious. (In my climate and with my disease and
> pest complex, I sincerely believe that my low-spray apple
> production system is more ecologically sound than what I would
> have to do to produce marketable apples organically. I can and
> do educate my local clientele, but it's impossible to do if
> I can't meet the buyers face-to-face and explain the
complexities
> of the situation. Consumer paranoia is mounting, and I'm
afraid
> that the Federal standards will push me into becoming certified
> organic and I'll have to spray--and I'm not exagerrating here--
> about 10 times what I'm spraying now, including sprays of
copper,
> botanical poisons, sulfur, etc.)
> .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------