As one that began farming organically in the U.S. (where I am still a
citizen) in 1968 and one who has NEVER used a synthetic agrochemical,
your comments appear not only astute and timely but sorely needed, much
as the child's comments were in "The Emperor's New Clothes" (his was the
only comment not reflecting intimidation by the powers that be and those
both in their hire or too cowardly to do other than pay them lip service
- the one who came out and said " But the Emperor's naked"). In other
words, they show a fresh, intelligent and truthful point of view (even
if somewhat misinformed on a few minor points discussed further on).
> As a
> requirement for the course we have to do a term project and my project
> entails researching the process of Organic Certification. It seems to
> me that this is a very long, tiring and especially expensive process.
Very true, and needlessly so. (Some may disagree).
> I
> also noticed that there really is no federal certification but rather it
> is done from state to state. This is of concern to me because one
> state's definition of organic could be different from that of another
> state's.
The Federal "Organic Foods Organic Production Act" of 1990 (but not yet
fully implemented) would provide national standards, but would do so at
a needlessly high expense - in terms of the process mandated but
ESPECIALLY in terms of the Civil Rights issues involved, i.e. those
related to freedom of speech, free association and access to a gainful
livelihood. (That's your cue, Sal, Lawrence and others). Once again,
some may disagree (That's you, Eric. Steve S?).
> Another issue that concerns me is whether or not "Organic"
> farming is "sustainable" or not--although, who knows what sustainable
> really means? I am not just considering environmental sustainability but
> economic sustainability as well.
Sustainable logically means that the methods used will permit the
survival of life supporting ecosystems that include mankind, for as long
as possible. In other words, methos that are compatible with the
biological processes that gave rise to evolution as we know it -
generation, as distinct from degeneration - health as distinct from
sickness. (Here, I submit that none should disagree, although more can
be said on the matter).
> For example, it seems to me that if
> "biological" pesticides are marketed as safe when they really are not so
> safe, then farmers who switch to those "safe" pesticides are really not
> doing much of a service to the environment. Furthermore, I am under the
> impression that these non-synthetic pesticides are outrageously
> expensive.
This is a far more complex issue. Homo Sapiens is not a disinterested
party and different substances may give rise to different environments
whic in turn give rise to different organisms. Once again, the
distinguising criteria to be applied may be that of universality and
generative force: that which gives rise to the greatest number and
diversification of organisms. (If any of you academics care to object
here, I'll be happy to provide my credentials).
As for economic sustainability, this will not occur until the costs of
cleaning the environment is calculated in the cost of production and
placed squarely on the shoulders of the contaminators. The
responsibility for this lies with government and the academic community
on who government must rely on for input. (Any comments from the
research community? Chuck)? Then too, issues included with the context
of economic sustainability are those related to the pay scale provided
farm workers and the sometimes excessive profits realized by brokers,
ditributors and retailers as distinct from farmworkers and small scale
growers.
> When reading the NOSB's recommendations for organic crop
> production standards, I noticed the lengthy Organic Farm Plan that
> farmers must fill out before they can become certified. I am curious to
> know how farmers feel about this.
(Hey Sal, Lawrence, Dan and others).
> I hope that the small farmers, as difficult as it may be, can
> stay small and not get sucked in to the false glory of being a factory
> grower or lose your land because of the increased costs (TAXES).Those of
> you that love the land and are a steward to the environment as well as
> to the local communities surrounding you, keep it up because we want you
> around. In fact, we need you.
You are getting to the heart of the matter. It appears that there some
former champions of small community and family farms have sold out and
that farmers are doing so or feeling the pressure to do so. If the OFPA
is implemented as written it may well get worse, since the farmer's (or
distributor's) freedom to differentiate his offering to the consumer is
compromised - limited to the terms of the OFPA, even though a given
aspect or aspects of his product may be significantly difference from
other offerings also labeled as "organic" or "natural", words which be
appropriated by the USDA in the terms of the Act and limited to
CERTIFIED organic products, certified by certifiers registered with the
USDA, even when a product was cultivated under conditions that otherwise
adhere to a traditional and legitamate definition of organic
agricultural practices.
There are economic interests motivating some of those who insist that
the "public" owns the word and that government is the "publics"
appropriate watchdog. Others believe that more and greater abuses than
otherwise occur will be (and already are being) perpetrated in the name
of the "public good" if the law is implemented as now written, and I
myself for one promise to try to get the matter on the Supreeme Court
agenda if that happens (no small feat but there's no lack of conviction
behind that statement).
susan wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am a senior at the University of Maryland, College Park and I am
> studying Natural Resources Management, not Agriculture. However, I am
> currently taking a class on Sustainable Agriculture. This is a topic I
> am just learning about and it is of significant interest to me.
As one that began farming organically in the U.S. (where I am still a
citizen) in 1968 and one who has NEVER used a synthetic agrochemical,
your comments appear not only astute and timely but sorely needed, much
as the child's comments were in "The Emperor's New Clothes" (his was the
only comment not reflecting intimidation by the powers that be and those
both in their hire or too cowardly to do other than pay them lip service
- the one who came out and said " But the Emperor's naked"). In other
words, they show a fresh, intelligent and truthful point of view (even
if somewhat misinformed on a few minor points discussed further on).
> As a
> requirement for the course we have to do a term project and my project
> entails researching the process of Organic Certification. It seems to
> me that this is a very long, tiring and especially expensive process.
Very true, and needlessly so (some may disagree), especially if
certified organic products are to be competitive with convertional ones.
> I
> also noticed that there really is no federal certification but rather it
> is done from state to state. This is of concern to me because one
> state's definition of organic could be different from that of another
> state's.
The Federal "Organic Foods Organic Production Act" of 1990 (but not yet
fully implemented) would provide national standards, but would do so at
a needlessly high expense - in terms of the process mandated but
ESPECIALLY in terms of the Civil Rights issues involved, i.e. those
related to freedom of speech, free association and access to a gainful
livelihood. (That's your cue, Sal, Lawrence and others). Once again,
some may disagree (That's you, Eric. Steve S?).
> Another issue that concerns me is whether or not "Organic"
> farming is "sustainable" or not--although, who knows what sustainable
> really means? I am not just considering environmental sustainability but
> economic sustainability as well.
Sustainable etymologically and logically means that the methods used
will permit the survival of life supporting ecosystems that include
mankind, for as long as possible. In other words, methods that are
compatible with the biological processes that gave rise to evolution as
we know it - generation, as distinct from degeneration - health as
distinct from sickness. (Here, I submit that none should disagree,
although more can be said on the matter).
> For example, it seems to me that if
> "biological" pesticides are marketed as safe when they really are not so
> safe, then farmers who switch to those "safe" pesticides are really not
> doing much of a service to the environment. Furthermore, I am under the
> impression that these non-synthetic pesticides are outrageously
> expensive.
This is a far more complex issue. Homo Sapiens is not a disinterested
party and different substances may give rise to different environments
which in turn give rise to different organisms. Once again, the
distinguishing criteria to be applied may be that of universality and
generative force: That which gives rise to the greatest number and
diversification of organisms. (If any of you academics care to object
here, I'll be happy to provide my credentials).
As for economic sustainability, this will not occur until the costs of
cleaning the environment is calculated in the cost of production and
placed squarely on the shoulders of the contaminators. The
responsibility for this lies with government and the academic community
on whom government must rely for input. (Any comments from the research
community? Chuck)? Then too, issues included within the context of
economic sustainability are those related to the pay scale provided farm
workers and the sometimes excessive profits realized by brokers,
distributors and retailers as distinct from farm workers and small scale
growers.
> When reading the NOSB's recommendations for organic crop
> production standards, I noticed the lengthy Organic Farm Plan that
> farmers must fill out before they can become certified. I am curious to
> know how farmers feel about this.
(Hey Sal, Lawrence, Dan and others).
> I hope that the small farmers, as difficult as it may be, can
> stay small and not get sucked in to the false glory of being a factory
> grower or lose your land because of the increased costs (TAXES). Those of
> you that love the land and are a steward to the environment as well as
> to the local communities surrounding you, keep it up because we want you
> around. In fact, we need you.
You are getting to the heart of the matter. It appears that there some
former champions of small community and family farms have sold out and
that farmers are literally doing so or feeling the pressure to do so.
If the OFPA is implemented as written it may well get worse, since the
farmer's (or distributor's) freedom to differentiate his offering to the
consumer is compromised - limited to the terms of the OFPA, even though
a given aspect or aspects of his product may be significantly different
from other offerings also labeled as "organic" or "natural", words which
be appropriated by the USDA in the terms of the Act and limited to
CERTIFIED organic products, certified by certifiers registered with the
USDA, even when a product was cultivated under conditions that otherwise
adhere to a traditional and legitimate definition of organic
agricultural practices.
There are economic interests motivating some of those who insist that
the "public" owns the word and that government is the "public's"
appropriate watchdog. Others believe that more and greater abuses than
otherwise occur will be (and already are being) perpetrated in the name
of the "public good" if the law is implemented as now written, and I
myself for one promise to try to get the matter on the Supreme Court
agenda if that happens (no small feat but there's no lack of conviction
behind that statement).
> Living in Maryland, local produce is
> unfortunately only available during the summer and early fall. However,
> as some of you may know, more and more corporate farms are entering the
> picture. Especially chicken farms. Not only are they polluting our
> rivers but they are polluting the Chesapeake Bay. How can these farms
> benefit from organic. It seems to me that the only way to preserve our
> land and become sustainable is to create more small farms--that sell and
> market their product locally--from these large scale industrial farms.
> Can anyone clear up my confusions and perhaps give me some insights for
> my project.
Hope this has helped. Undoubtedly there will be other comments
elaborating in greater detail on some of the points I've touched on
lightly or not at all.
> What is the most important aspect of organic certification that
> needs to be addressed?
The insistence of the OFPA as written that ONLY certified products be
permitted to use the words organic and / or natural and that no further
or distinct differentiation will be tolerated.
Do you feel that "organic" as we understand it
> or according to NOSB is "sustainable?"
Those are two different things. The OFPA will change things. The issue
is: Sustainable for who? For certifiers, distributors, big business
interests (and their cohorts), or for the definition given above?
("Once again, the distinguishing criteria to be applied may be that of
universality and generative force: That which gives rise to the
greatest number and diversification of organisms").
> Do you feel that using
> "biological" pesticides is a safe alternative to using those that are
> synthetic? Do you feel that it is fair that you as an organic or
> potential organic farmer has to live next to a farm that uses (or
> probably overuses) synthetic pesticides and fertilizers? They do drift
> and get into your "pure" soils. What if lethal doses of your neighbor's
> pesticide or fertilizer application disrupt your organic ecosystem? How
> is this regulated? How do you feel about the NOSB farm plan?
I'm sure others will cover these points in a more than adequate way.
>
> Thank you for your time and understanding,
> Susan Haebler
Thank you too, Susan.
--Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address) Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked) U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked) Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".