I appreciate Charles Benbrook making available the thoughtful web postings that
he did. I have already contacted the USDA with my comments on the organic
rules. In brief, I do not believe that the organic certification process is the
place to ask for scientific evidence of environmental or soil ecological
degradation. The point of certification is to give consumers what they want, and
the consumers and producers of organic produce are pretty much in agreement on
that.
From a soil degradation basis one could make a good case to allow some
herbicide use rather than allow tillage that leaves the soil surface bare and
exposed to the rain. But this trade-off is beside the point. Everyone knows that
herbicides are not organic, and that is what the certification is supposed to
certify. A "sustainable" or "eco-friendly" certification program would be quite
a different thing.
In many ways, the organic certification program is more analogous to
certifying Kosher foods. The USDA should give the organic community what it
wants, in so far as bona fide organic groups can agree on that (and the NOSB has
done that). Science simply is not the issue here. If it were, if the USDA could
scientifically prove that organic practices were significantly better for the
environment and for human health, then perhaps the USDA would be obligated to
require that ALL food sold in the US be organic!! There would be no need for a
seperate certification program.
Ray Weil
Charles Benbrook wrote:
> Some news of interest. In the USDA press release (see the text at
> <http://www.pmac.net/pr1.htm>) announcing the extension of the organic rule
> comment period, Secretary Glickman went out of his way to reassure the
> organic community that the USDA was listening, and that it would be relying
> heavily on the public comments in the revision of the rule. The press
> release says between the lines that the USDA intends to have an additional
> period of public comment after revising the rule -- a request made by
> several leaders in the community.
>
> The Secretary also said very clearly that the USDA had NOT proposed
> inclusion of GEOs, sludge, and irradiation, and had only requested comments.
> Some 6,000 received so far, with the vast majority against.
>
> Also important -- new leadership for the USDA Nat. Organic Program
> (NOP) is forthcoming. Keith Jones from Texas will be taking over the top
> staff job. Michael Hankin has resigned. Keith will do a good job in this
> new role, and has a long and constructive record of involvement with
> organics. He has the temperament and back-bone needed to move the process
> along in a positive direction despite the efforts of some to dilute or
> divert the integrity of the rule. So recent developments from within USDA
> are positive.
>
> We have placed several new items on the PMAC page relative to the
> organic rule --
>
> * The latest in a series of excellent memos/pieces by Fred Kirschenman, this
> one focusing on the applicability of the precautionary principle to the
> organic rule. Fred's latest piece is at <http://www.pmac.net/nosfk5.htm>
>
> * Hal's insightful SANET post of a couple of days ago
> <http://www.pmac.net/hh1.htm>
>
> * The full text of Benbrook's Guelph University speech on biotech, organics,
> ag is available at <http://www.pmac.net/xroad.htm>
>
> In addition, we posted the excellent comments of Dr. Michael Hansen,
> Consumers Union biotech expert, to the Feb. 9-10 EPA scientific advisory
> panel meeting on Bt-transgenic resistance management plans. Michael's full
> statement is at <http://www.pmac.net/mhremark.htm>
>
> The effort to preserve the efficacy of Bt is emerging as the "main
> event" in determining whether government agencies and academic scientists
> have the ability and collective will to stand up to the commercial
> steamroller that is sweeping across the country. To many, the evidence is
> overwhelming that Bt-transgenic will trigger resistance; even the companies
> admit that resistance is inevitable. The debate is over whether it will
> happen in 3, 5, or maybe 10 years. To many who understand the unique value
> of Bt to mankind and food production, the difference between 3 and 10 years
> is irrelevant. Hopefully the EPA will take strong actions in response to
> the information obtained during the two-day hearing, and will start to act
> in the broader public interest. Once Bt resistance genes gain a foothold in
> major lepodopteran insects, the efficacy of this key tool will be undermined
> for generations, at a minimum, leading to substantial increases in the use
> of high-risk conventional insecticides, and worse problems down the road.
> This is a train wreck that experience and sound science have fully
> predicted, but only courageous and very unpopular action by government can
> now stop.
>
> chuck
>
> Charles Benbrook 208-263-5236 (voice)
> Benbrook Consulting Services 208-263-7342 (fax)
> 5085 Upper Pack River Road benbrook@hillnet.com [e-mail]
> Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 http://www.pmac.net
>
> 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".
--------------90CC9EEE04C402C595EDF07B
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Ray R. Weil
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Ray R. Weil
n: Weil;Ray R.
org: University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
adr: Dept. of Natural Resource Sciences & L.A.;;1103b H.J. Patterson Hall;College Park;Maryland;20742;USA
email;internet: rw17@umail.umd.edu
title: Professor of Soil Science
tel;work: 301 405 1314
tel;fax: 301 314 9041
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------90CC9EEE04C402C595EDF07B--
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".