Fwd: Fw: WashPost Article: Organic Hash In the USDA Kitchen
sal (sals@rain.org)
Mon, 23 Mar 1998 07:15:14 -0800
>Reply-to: bd-l@biodynamics.com
>Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:38:12 -0500
>To: bd-l@biodynamics.com
>From: JSpencer <jspencer@mail1.mnsinc.com> (by way of BIODYNAMIC MAIL LIST)
>Subject: Fw: WashPost Article: Organic Hash In the USDA Kitchen
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by coyote.rain.org id
SAA25003
>
>>From: Ban-GEF <Ban-GEF@lists.txinfinet.com>
>>To: Ban-GEF@lists.txinfinet.com <Ban-GEF@lists.txinfinet.com>
>>Date: Sunday, March 22, 1998 2:07 PM
>>Subject: WashPost Article: Organic Hash In the USDA Kitchen
>>
>>
>>>The following site contains an article written by freelance writer Reed
>>>Karaim in today's Wash. Post. Drawings accompanying the article in the
>>>paper were a chicken with a gas mask/hood & a cracked egg with the label
>>>"USDA GRADE A". --Colleen Spencer
>>>
>>><http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-03/22/130l-032298-idx.
html>www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-03/22/130l-032298-idx.html
>>>
>>>
>WHAT'S IN A LABEL? Organic Hash
> From The USDA Kitchen
>
> By Reed Karaim
>
> Sunday, March 22, 1998; Page C01
>
> Imagine a chicken on its way to the kitchen table. It
>spent its life in
> a huge shed, one of hundreds of thousands of birds stacked
in
> cages in windowless barns. It was fed grain grown on land
> fertilized with sewage from a nearby town. After
>slaughter, it was
> rolled on a conveyor belt past radioactive waste and
>"irradiated"
> to kill bacteria.
>
> Now, you may or may not be bothered by these procedures
>-- all
> of which are part of American agriculture and food
>manufacture.
> But would you label the chicken "organic"?
>
> To the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it's an open
>question. After
> seven years of study, the department issued proposed rules
> recently to define what can be labeled "organic" among the
>fruits,
> vegetables, meat, poultry and even processed foods on
> supermarket shelves. Organic farmers, whose business is
> growing by 20 percent a year, had been awaiting rules they
> hoped would protect their industry. What they got were
> preliminary rulings with loopholes large enough to
>accommodate
> a factory farm, an irradiation plant and a biotech lab.
>
> If you're like me, recently referred to by my fiancee as a
> junk-food-loving couch potato (I really believe she
meant it
> affectionately), you've probably given only occasional
> consideration to organic food. Yet, like a growing number
>of my
> fellow shoppers, I sometimes worry about just what is in
>the plump
> chicken breasts and eerily tasteless tomatoes I toss
into my
> shopping cart. With the choices that consumers face growing
> ever more complicated, the government's commitment to
> plain-spoken, accurate labeling is critical.
>
> That's why USDA's organic rules are so troubling.
>Ignoring the
> recommendation of a board of farmers, environmentalists and
> consumers, the department left open the possibility that
> irradiation, sewage and even genetic engineering could be
>used
> on products labeled organic. In a final twist, the USDA
>included
> provisions that could block labels with specific claims
>such as
> "raised without synthetic chemicals" or "pesticide-free
>farm."
>
> Hit by a storm of criticism since the rule was issued,
>Agriculture
> Secretary Dan Glickman has emphasized that the rules
will be
> revised based on public response. "Our intention is to
>develop a
> final rule that meets the expectation of organic farmers
and
> consumers," says Tom O'Brien, associate administrator of
> USDA's Agriculture Marketing Service.
>
> As they stand now, however, the proposed standards
represent
> something else: an Agriculture Department so entranced by
> conventional agribusiness that it could crush an
alternative
> approach, making it difficult for consumers to make
informed
> choices.
>
> The story of organic farming is the story of a small,
>home-grown
> industry that existed for years below the radar of federal
> regulators and beyond the ideologies of the Farm Belt.
>
> For more than 100 years, conventional agriculture was
>built on a
> determined faith in the virtues of technology and
>chemistry: A
> bigger combine, a better pesticide, a more judicious mix of
> fertilizer and hybrid plant seed could bring forth an ever
>more
> bounteous harvest. And it has led to supermarket shelves
>bulging
> with a cornucopia of every kind of food at amazingly cheap
> prices. It has led to foods that are clean, attractive and
>present no
> immediate health risk.
>
> It also has led to problems -- soil erosion, ground-water
>pollution
> and crop disease. And while government researchers believe
> they pose no danger, debates still continue about chemical
> residues on fruits and vegetables and artificial growth
>hormones
> in meat.
>
> In the 1960s and '70s, a small number of farmers began to
>resist
> the industrial model. The approach they turned to is both
>as old
> as human civilization and a product of today's heightened
> environmental awareness. As Frederick Kirschenmann, an
> organic farmer from Medina, N.D., explains, "You look at
>nature
> as being the production system and try to fit agriculture
>into that."
>
> In practice, this means doing without chemical
>fertilizers and
> pesticides. It means depending on crop rotation and natural
> substances to control disease and pests. For livestock, it
>means
> avoiding artificial growth hormones or antibiotics and
>allowing
> animals access to open air and land.
>
> The farmers who first adopted the organic method were
> frequently derided in rural America as muzzy-headed,
> pseudo-hippies. But as health-conscious Americans became
> increasingly suspicious of food additives and chemically
>intensive
> farming practices, the organic business won a following.
>
> "Nationally, it's about a $4 billion a year industry,"
>says Kathleen
> Merrigan, of the Henry Wallace Institute for Alternative
>Agriculture.
> That's only a small part of the total food business, but
>it has been
> growing rapidly enough to make cashing in on the trend a
real
> temptation. Vermont, for example, had 17 certified organic
>farms
> in 1987 with a total of 138 acres in production. By 1997,
>the state
> had 170 certified farms with 13,900 acres in production.
>But with
> no national standard in place, false claims multiplied
>over the
> same period. "Organic" threatened to become as hip and
> meaningless a label as "healthy."
>
> Then, in the late '80s, organic farmers asked Congress to
>write a
> law that would create a minimum national standard. It
was an
> unusual event -- a grass-roots movement seeking out
>government
> regulation. Merrigan, then on the staff of Sen. Patrick
Leahy
> (D-Vt.), remembers the drafting process as a collaboration
> between lawmakers, consumers, environmentalists and organic
> farmers. "It was really democracy at its best," she said.
>
> The law created a special board that was to establish a
>list of
> accepted substances for organic farming. The law's authors
> argue that it did not give the agriculture secretary
>authority to add
> items to the list.
>
> The lawyers at USDA saw things differently. Glickman
>ignored the
> board's recommendations on several items, allowing
substances
> that organic farmers consider "synthetic" (including two
> bioengineered products). He also made it easier for meat
from
> animals treated with drugs to be sold as organic.
>
> The net result, say those who followed the process from the
> beginning, has been to water down the standards so that
> conventional agribusiness could slap an organic label on
some
> products with only minimal changes in the way it operates.
>"Our
> whole intent was to help," said Merrigan, "and if this is
>how it
> comes out, we won't have helped the industry. We might have
> destroyed it."
>
> There are those who see the fingerprints of agribusiness
> lobbyists and imagine quiet conspiracies to undo a small
but
> growing industry before it becomes a real threat. In
>truth, the
> USDA -- indeed the entire U.S. government -- has such a
>vested
> interest in convincing you and the rest of the world that
> conventional farming is the best possible approach, that
>it's hard
> to see how things could have gone differently. Export sales
> depend on it. Consumer peace of mind depends on it. Organic
> farming is inevitably seen as an implicit criticism of that
> approach.
>
> What's more, each of the controversial items that USDA
>allowed
> into the organic standards has its defenders. The biotech
>industry
> insists that genetically manipulated products are as
>natural as
> any. The food-processing industry and the Food and Drug
> Administration support the use of irradiation. (The
>government's
> concern about food safety, in general, is warranted. Recent
> episodes of tainted meat and unpasteurized apple juice
>left many
> sick and some dead.)
>
> The Environmental Protection Agency likes the idea of
>sewage --
> they prefer the term "biosolids" -- being recycled through
> agricultural use. Animal confinement and the use of
>hormones are
> supported by agribusiness and producer groups.
>
> But there are opposing views. Irradiation, for example,
does
> slightly change the color and taste of meat and is viewed
>as a
> food safety treatment of last resort by the Center for
>Science in
> the Public Interest. Environmental experts have raised
>concerns
> about heavy metals that may be present in sewage. Others
> believe the implications of introducing genetically
>engineered
> species into nature may take generations to determine.
>
> Organic farmers are not proposing that these practices be
> outlawed. They are only asking that their industry be
>allowed to
> remain free of them -- at least for now.
>
> The underlying notion is a respect for the complexity of
>nature, a
> belief that it's hard to assess all the risks that change
>can bring to
> an ecosystem. "Organic," said Kirschenmann, "has always
> operated on the old wisdom that it is better to be safe
>than sorry."
>
> And, indeed, science has brought us wonderful things. But
the
> history of scientific progress is full of false steps and
>hideous
> results, from DDT poisoning to thalidomide babies.
Consumers
> may embrace the notion of better broccoli through
>chemistry, or
> they may decide to take a wait-and-see attitude. The
>question is
> not whether the practices of conventional agriculture are
>good for
> you or whether they are humane for animals. The question is
> whether we should have a choice.
>
> We may buy white bread sold by Sweetheart and produce with
an
> organic label. Some of us may decide we care enough about
how
> animals are raised or how much chemicals seep into ground
> water to pay more for food that avoids these practices.
>Others
> may say the heck with it, and shop at a huge food warehouse
> looking for nothing but bargains.
>
> But the question remains whether the USDA will give us
enough
> information about those alternatives so we can make
informed
> choices, or whether it will subvert anything that
>challenges the
> status quo. In its preliminary rule on organic farming,
>USDA has
> passed judgment on itself. The product it has delivered to
> American consumers is tainted.
>
> Reed Karaim is a freelance writer who has reported on the
> farming industry.
>
> © Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company>>
>>
>>
>>
>
An organic growers homepage check out
http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html
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".