It seems my comments on "Self" magazines' article have stirred up
questions as to whether I am sufficiently enlightened and/or connected
with the correct people to comment on public perceptions of the organic
movement.
Mr. Benbrook (whom I have never met but have always found his posts to be
thoughtful and well-constructed) made comments about an article on
organic foods' credibility in a national magazine. I also happened to see
the magazine cover. Isn't the point of online forums to communicate with
each other? Just because others on the forum were commenting on one
topic, does this mean we all HAVE to discuss the same thing at the same
time, or face derision? Isn't this a little hardline? And for that
matter, discussion on issues of cost, paperwork, licensing the term
"organic" and small farm exemption all DO have to do with that Self
article, and it certainly would have been a better article if all of
those topics had been included in it. That would have brought the
"ignorant" public into the discussion from "organics" point of view,
instead of excluding them from it. Including this public would even -
dare I say it - put them into the "loop" of the discussion.
So how do I fit into the loop? I have served as certification coordinator
for the North Coast CCOF chapter for 5 1/2 years. I have been CCOF and
IOIA inspector-trained, have been in the field accompanying inspectors,
and have edited and published the IOIA newsletter, The Inspectors'
Report, since 1994. I also am an estate gardener, which means that I care
for a very few large private ornamental and vegetable gardens, and
actually DO have a clue how hard it is to do this organically. I also
served as president of the Redwood Empire Chapter of the California
Association of Nurserymen (wholesale & retail) for 4 of the past 10
years, and have consistently promoted non-chemical use and provided
information to members in our 5 county area in Northern California via
chapter newsletter (which I have published since 1986), besides going to
battle with our parent organization in Sacramento over methyl bromide use
and alternatives. Last but not least, I have been aware of the need for
sustainable agriculture since my tender high school years when I did a
report on pesticides and read everything I could get my hands on, which
at that time was nowhere near what is available now, but was nonetheless
just as damning. I certainly do not claim to know it all, have not read
the OFPA cover to cover, and leave plenty of room for increasing my
knowledge on all matters organic. But I am not "out of the loop".
I still maintain that the organic community would be better served by
finding a stance that we can be united on, instead of picking ourselves
apart like a bunch of chickens.
A friend from the Headwaters neighborhood showed up yesterday for a
visit, and he told me, "You can't win a battle if your enemy doesn't
respect you. There are a bunch of hippie, slacker kids hanging out in the
forest, being emotional, saying to these big corporations 'please don't
cut down these trees, because they are beautiful.' The corporations don't
care about emotional [whether it's accurate or not], what they want is a
better business deal. And until someone gives it to them, the trees will
continue to get cut down. It's pretty simple."
At this point, I see the media, to a large extent the USDA, and by
extension the chemical companies, as the enemy, because they ALL
consistently ask organic to justify itself. No mention is made of the
corporate/chemical farming issues that we all know about. What is it
going to take to get this issue out in the mainstream? I'm not saying
that "Self" doesn't have the right to their say. I'm saying that, while
on the most part it was a positive discussion, it would have been better
if they had included this idea that chemical farming is no good. Or
mentioned corporate welfare re: conventional farming. Etc., etc. Their
headline inflamed paranoia, and their article, from what I saw, did not
encourage consumers to contact the USDA with their opinions. These two
points are what I consider to be "real" issues. In addition, I don't see
where the USDA would ACT on what those consumers expressed as their
desires, since I don't recall any historic precedents where the USDA
listened to the public. The other "real" issues facing SANETters are
simply [but importantly] fine points of the Federal Rule.
Finally, I would like to address Sal's post on the "Self" article. He
says he disagrees with me. I reread my post, and I just don't get what
there is to agree OR disagree with. When I read HIS post, I find that I
agree with his position on using the press to get the word out re: small
organic growers burden.
To Eric I say, get off your organic high horse; there are many people on
this service that have valid points to be made, and just because they
haven't been involved from the inception of OFPA doesn't mean that their
opinions and observations don't count. Instead of deriding people that
want to get involved in the dialog, why not try enlightening them kindly
instead and see if anything positive happens. You should know that
insulating yourselves with your cause and gnawing on the governments'
intervention is only going to be frustrating.
To Sal I say, quit being so angry with everyone and do something
constructive with it instead, as many have urged you to. We all know how
you feel - tell the USDA.
Or maybe you should send a letter to Self magazine.
Diane on Mt. Jackson, overlooking what's left of beautiful Sonoma County
that hasn't been logged or covered with winegrapes, dairycattle or
subdivisions. Yet.
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".