RE: sanet-mg-digest V1 #1012

Harold Reetz (hreetz@ppi-far.org)
Wed, 12 May 1999 23:43:45 -0500

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Previous message: Douglas M. Hinds: "Re: information, extension, biotech, philosophy"

After 25+ years in Extension and Industry agronomist positions, I find it
difficult to sit back and read the attacks on the "system" that are included
in this "list" without responding. It appears that this is really a forum
for the anti-science, anti-industry people to post their ideas and their
attacks on science and industry. Comments such as the importance of
"values" in addition to science....implying that the progress we have made
in agriculture has been at the expense of values. There also seems to be a
general trend in this thread to looking for any negatives about GMOs and
other technology.....implying that GMO is a BAD thing.

I had hoped this was a forum for a more balanced discussion and assessment
of facts. I guess that is asking too much. But I am concerned about the
comments that the new technologies in agriculture are creating hazards and
quality problems when there is no evidence to support such claims.
Agriculture has changed and will never be the same as we remember in the
"good old days", but the cause/effect relationship is not nearly so much a
result of technology as it is our nations desire to have cheap, abundant and
healthy food. We use technology to accomplish that better than any other
nation in the world. Our success makes it possible for 98% of our
population to NOT live on the farm and grow their own food. Were it not for
the science and technology and the large-scale intensive production systems
we have implemented over the past 50+ years, more people would be forced
into growing food and thus would have less time to attack those who do grow
it.

I am proud of the progress we have made in attacking pest and disease
problems with reduced reliance on pesticides. Doing it with GMOs, with
cultural practices, and overall systems management, we have a great story to
tell. There is apparently a certain population who feel obliged to attack
progress. They fought pesticides and when we replaced pesticide use with
GMOs, many of the same people jumped from the anti-pesticide bandwagon to
the anti-GMO bandwagon.

Another comment in this thread points out that many of the world's food
problems are political, rather than production problems. That is true. And
the kind of discussions this thread is fostering help to support those
political problems.

There are also some anti-Avery comments that I am concerned about. Dennis
has a pretty solid story that if it weren't for our use of technology, much
more of the world's natural forest ecosystems would be turned into food
production. Our high yield management systems in the US can do much more to
help save the rain forests and deserts and to protect fragile ecosystems
than any other option we have before us. Most of our food crops could not
survive in nature. Most of our agriculture could not survive without
continuous infusion of technology. It is our success with technology that
gives us the abundance and efficiency that allows more people to NOT be
involved in food production. I doubt that you will find a large percentage
of the 98% non-producers who would trade their life styles with going back
to producing their own food.

Maybe instead of complaining about the direction of this list, I should just
remove my name from it. For now, thanks for letting me vent my concerns.

Harold Reetz

Dr. Harold F. Reetz, Jr.
Midwest Director, Potash & Phosphate Institute
Vice President, Foundation for Agronomic Research
111 East Washington Street
Monticello, Illinois 61856-1640

Phone: 217-762-2074
FAX: 217-762-8655
e-mail: hreetz@ppi-far.org
PPI Home Page: http://www.ppi-far.org
InfoAg99: http://www.ppi-far.org/infoag99
Site-Specific Project: http://www.farmresearch.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sanet-mg-digest@ces.ncsu.edu
[mailto:owner-sanet-mg-digest@ces.ncsu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 12:03 PM
To: sanet-mg-digest@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: sanet-mg-digest V1 #1012

sanet-mg-digest Wednesday, May 12 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1012

In this issue:

RE: information and extension's role
Research into Community Supported Agriculture in the UK
Spain's Largest Retailer Blocks Biotech Foods
Re: information, extension, biotech, philosophy
health insurance
FW: For Real: A Store-Bought Tomato with Vine-Ripened Taste
Credit where credit is due department ...
Bt Resistance: HELP PLEASE
Re: health insurance
Re: Research into Community Supported Agriculture in the UK
New book on community-supported agriculture (CSA)
Re: information, extension, biotech, philosophy

See the end of the digest for information about sanet-mg-digest.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 09:31:51 -0500
From: Andrew McGuire <AMCGUIRE1@UNL.EDU>
Subject: RE: information and extension's role

Thank you Bill for your post. I agree with it and support your position.
As a relative newcomer to extension, I have learned quickly that any
questions about where the technology will lead us is soon countered with
"that is your opinion" or "stick to science-based information." The idea
that we can present information with no values attached, the neutral
science argument, seems to be prevalent in extension. I believe that it is
impossible to not bring in values to our work. If we try to eliminate
values, then they will sneak into the vacuum and we have values by default,
which are the worst kind, because we do not even recognize them.

Here in Nebraska, there is lots of talk about listening to the people and
designing an extension program to serve their needs. Well, it seems to me
that the land grant universities have been doing that for many years and
rural areas, at least the rural area I live in, has been declining in turn.
Maybe it is because extension, even more so than the population they
serve, resists the change needed to make real progress in those areas that
come up over and over in their need assessments, such as ag profitability,
rural quality of life, and natural resource conservation. Extension and
the university see themselves as mainstream and mainstreet, and so find it
hard to take any action that will direct them away from the current food
system, Walmart, and McDonalds.

Again, I concur with what Bill has said, we must decide where we want to
go, then decide which tools have the most potential to take us there, and
use them.

Respectfully,

Andy McGuire, Extension Educator
AMCGUIRE1@UNL.EDU
P.O. Box 736 office 402-254-2280
Hartington NE 68739 fax 402-254-6891
University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension

On Tuesday, May 11, 1999 6:18 PM, Bill Liebhardt
[SMTP:wcliebhardt@ucdavis.edu] wrote:
>
> As a native of Wisconsin I found the posts of Julie and Laura raising
> questions that are at the core of what it is to be in the land grant
system
> and what our role is in developing information and getting it out. I
have
> often raised questions about where we are going with GMO's and that whole
>

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 14:37:01 +0000
From: "Paul Cook (COUNTRYSIDE)" <Paul.Cook@countryside.gov.uk>
Subject: Research into Community Supported Agriculture in the UK

Dear All,

I am currently conducting research into the CSA experience in the US, with a
view to looking at whether the principle would translate to the UK farming
system.

Through conducting various word searches on the internet I have managed to
obtain some very interesting background information on the CSA experience in
US, this included articles by Robyn Van En, UMass and MISA. I am also in
the
process of obtaining a report entitled "Facing a Watershed: Managing
Profitable
and Sustainable Landscapes in the 21st Century" from the University of
Nebraska, and also a report which showcases ten years of SARE entitled "Ten
Years of SARE: A Decade of Programs, Partnerships and Progress" from Andy
Clark
Ph.D, at the National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, MD.

Do you know of any other reports/publications that provide an overview of
the
CSA experience in the US so far?. Highlights, problems, legalities etc. (I
already hold details of UMass Extension reading list, shown on the website).
If applicable I would also be grateful if you could point me in the
direction
of any actual or planned research that considers the translation of the CSA
approach to the UK farming system. I have searched the internet for UK
examples but as yet have had no luck.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Kind Regards

Paul

PAUL COOK
Farming & Forestry Branch
Countryside Agency
John Dower House
Crescent Place
Cheltenham
Gloucestershire
GL50 3RA
England
UK

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 07:53:40 -0800
From: colibri@west.net
Subject: Spain's Largest Retailer Blocks Biotech Foods

Spain's Largest Retailer Blocks Biotech Foods

MADRID, Spain, May 11, 1999 (ENS) - Spain's largest supermarket chain,
Pryca, announced Monday that it is phasing out the use of genetically
modified (GM) ingredients in own-brand food products sold in its 58 stores.

Genetically modified foodstuffs include some varieties of soy beans, canola
oil, corn, cottonseed oil, potatoes, squash and tomatoes.

Describing the decision as "a response to public fears," a Pryca
spokesperson said that the company had instructed suppliers to stop using GM
ingredients in products which carry the company trademark by the end of this
year.

Carrefour, the supermarket giant which owns the largest shareholding in
Pryca, has already introduced a similar measure in its French stores.

Pryca's decision was described by the Spanish Consumers' Union as "a
marketing exercise" and "ineffective because GM ingredients are so
widespread and difficult to identify."

Laurate canola is a proprietary product marketed by Calgene Oils under the
brand name LAURICAL(r). Approved in the U.S. and Canada, it is used in
confectionery coatings, coffee whiteners, icings and whipped toppings as
well as in soaps. However, Diego Herranz of the environmental group
Ecologists in Action welcomed the move and said his organisation expected
the decision to cause "a chain reaction against GM ingredients." The group
has been pressing for a similar undertaking from other major Spanish food
retailers.

Marks and Spencer Espaqa and Nestli Espaqa said that their companies' policy
was neither to sell nor produce foods containing genetically-modified
ingredients.

Spain is the biggest importer of GM soya and the European Union's only
significant producer of GM maize.

Some 19,000 hectares of GM maize (corn) were planted last year, according to
government figures. The upper house of the Spanish parliament today begins
debating a new law on the production and sale of foods which will include
the issue of genetically modified ingredients.

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 08:57:59 -0600
From: Jane Sooby <phrc031@unlvm.unl.edu>
Subject: Re: information, extension, biotech, philosophy

Dear Bart,

Your observations are very timely and to the point. Dale used the industry
arguments that agricultural products may be "improved" by genetic
manipulation so that fruits may be designed to carry certain medications;
grains will be designed to have particular nutritional compositions; etc.

Does this approach strike anyone else as back-asswards? Is not the bounty of
nature enough to suit our needs? Have we not co-evolved with the plants and
animals that share this planet with us? Even the Avery-esque arguments about
increasing yields with intensive chemical production techniques fail when
you consider that hunger is such a political phenomenon, a result of
mis-distribution rather than low production.

The blinders that result in tunnel vision are firmly in place in many
sectors of society, and agriculture is certainly no exception. Yes, friends,
we have a *universe* of alternatives if only we would allow ourselves to see
them. How about using an ecological approach, working with the cycles of
nature, the complex dynamics of soil, and the miraculous natural
capabilities of plants to attempt to improve the nutritional value of our
food and feed by utilizing what is already there? Sir Albert Howard was
advocating such a holistic approach 50 years ago or more.

The simple answer is that the profit potential from this approach is very
limited as it relies not on chemical or biotechnological inputs but on
intensive system management, therefore industry would not be very interested
in it.

But what is really important: profit or authentically feeding and nourishing
the world? Learning how apathetic the majority of American consumers are
compared to their European counterparts is discouraging. Without external
pressure from consumers, industry is free to set the terms of discussion and
sell the illusion that maximizing control of natural processes is equivalent
to maximizing human benefit. I dispute this equation.

>We are so slow to learn.
<snip>
>Thirteen years later, Rachel Carson had quite cogently outlined the
>degree to which Pickett had been correct. Nevertheless, almost 40 years
>after Carson's work the devastation continues, as we apply (in the USA
>alone) nearly 500 million kg of active material, over 99% of which
>misses the target organism, while overall percentage losses of crop to
>disease, insects, and weeds is actually *higher* that it was in the
>1930s.

You are right on, Bart. Thanks for sharing the fruits of your knowledge.

Jane Sooby

University of Nebraska-Lincoln alternative crops research technician
Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society western organizer

High Plains Ag Lab
3257 Rd. 109
Sidney, NE 69162

308-254-3918
308-254-2402 (FAX)
308-254-0725 (HOME)

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 17:36:46 -0500
From: "Michelle M. Miller" <mmmille6@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Subject: health insurance

Mark was looking for information on health insurance for farmers....
National Farmers Union offers health insurance, usually through its state
affiliates. They have a website where you can access the state offices - I
think MA has one, Mark.

The National Farmers Union is a progressive, grass roots family farm
organization concerned about all aspects of life on farms and all members
of farm families. There are sister NFUs in other countries, as well. Here
in the US, NFU started in Point, Texas in 1903. In the 40s / 50s it worked
with the Highlander Institute. The organization has benefited family
farmers since its beginning as a voice in the national and state policy
arenas, in helpping farmers start cooperatives, and keeping its members
and their children educated on farm issues. I went through the youth
program, where I learned how to start a coop, self-govern, and write my
legislators, and where I learned about concentration in agriculture and
corporate control of the food system. Lots of the organic growers in
Wisconsin purchase their insurance through Farmers Union. NFU also
participates in the Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture.

The NFU site, which represents 300,000 US family farmers and ranchers in 24
states, takes on farmers' issues and legislation from the average farmer's
point of view. The organization also works for rural community legislation.
You can find out about the organization, browse the newsletter, and have a
look at the issues it is currently
dealing with. Included is a state-by-state organization directory.

The URL is http://www.nfu.org.

Progressive Farmer listed this as a "best of the internet" site.

Best -

Michelle Miller
Pesticide Use and Risk Reduction Project
Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems
University of Wisconsin - Madison

U.S. Mail: 146 Agriculture Hall 608.262.7135
Campus: 1535 Observatory Drive 608.262.5200
Madison, WI 53706 fax 265.3020
www.wisc.edu/cias/ mmmille6@facstaff.wisc.edu

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 08:42:08 -0700
From: "Lon J. Rombough" <lonrom@hevanet.com>
Subject: FW: For Real: A Store-Bought Tomato with Vine-Ripened Taste

- ----------
From: "ARS News Service" <isnv@ars-grin.gov>
To: "ARS News List" <ars-news@ars-grin.gov>
Subject: For Real: A Store-Bought Tomato with Vine-Ripened Taste
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999, 6:58 AM

STORY LEAD:
For Real: A Store-Bought Tomato with Vine-Ripened Taste

- -----------
ARS News Service
Agricultural Research Service, USDA
May 12, 1999
Doris Stanley Lowe, (301) 893-6727, dstanley@asrr.arsusda.gov
- -----------

Changing the levels of a key hormone in tomatoes could lead to fruit that
tastes better and lasts longer, Agricultural Research Service scientists
report. Research shows such a tomato to be only a few years away.

ARS plant physiologist Jerry D. Cohen and colleagues have genetically
altered the levels of auxin, a hormone which causes a tomato to grow and
ripen. It's the best known-and probably the most important-of the five major
plant hormones.

Scientists have been studying auxin for more than 120 years. They've been
able to change auxin levels, but the changes were expressed throughout the
plant, not just in the fruit. The aim is to control the hormone production
so that it can be introduced into specific, targeted tissues--such as the
fruit-- without affecting the growth processes in other parts of the plant.

At the ARS Horticultural Crops Quality Laboratory in Beltsville, Md., Cohen
and colleagues inserted a backwards copy of iaglu-a gene from corn-into a
tomato to turn this gene off. Because the gene was put in with a
fruit-specific promoter, only the tomato fruit was affected. The resultant
fruit ripened more slowly. This work is in collaboration with scientists in
the ARS Climate Stress Laboratory in Beltsville. ARS is the chief scientific
agency in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Another plus for auxin: Decreasing the gene's level of expression throughout
receptor plants caused them to easily form large numbers of roots from
cuttings and spurred rapid root growth in germinating seedlings. This could
be significant for plants that are difficult to root from cuttings and could
increase the survival rate of seeds planted in dry soils.

Cohen expects this research to produce a store-bought tomato with
vine-ripened taste in about 3 years.

----------
Scientific contact: Jerry D. Cohen, ARS Horticultural Crops Quality
Laboratory, Beltsville, Md., phone (703) 306-1442, fax (703) 306-0355,
jdcohen@NSF.gov (on detail to the National Science Foundation until October
1999).
- ----------
This item is one of the news releases and story leads that ARS Information
distributes on weekdays to fax and e-mail subscribers. You can also get the
latest ARS news on the World Wide Web at
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/thelatest.htm.
* Feedback and questions to ARS News Service via e-mail: isnv@ars-grin.gov.
* ARS Information Staff, 5601 Sunnyside Ave., Room 1-2251, Beltsville MD
20705-5128, (301) 504-1617, fax 504-1648.

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 15:52:00 +0100
From: "Bluestem Associates" <bluestem@webserf.net>
Subject: Credit where credit is due department ...

On Wed, 12 May 1999 08:57:59 -0600, Jane Sooby wrote:

>>Thirteen years later, Rachel Carson had quite cogently outlined the
>>degree to which Pickett had been correct. Nevertheless, almost 40 years
>>after Carson's work the devastation continues, as we apply (in the USA
>>alone) nearly 500 million kg of active material, over 99% of which
>>misses the target organism, while overall percentage losses of crop to
>>disease, insects, and weeds is actually *higher* that it was in the
>>1930s.
>
>You are right on, Bart. Thanks for sharing the fruits of your knowledge.

For those not familiar with it, this "knowledge" is the result of work
by David Pimentel, entomologist at Cornell.

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 09:30:54 -0700
From: Charles Benbrook <benbrook@hillnet.com>
Subject: Bt Resistance: HELP PLEASE

The May 7, 1999 Science has a critical article on the genetics of Bt
resistance in European corn borer (F. Huang, L.L. Buschman, Higgins,
McGaughey, "Inheritance of Resistance to Bt Toxin (Dipel ES) in the ECB,"
page 965-967).

The new finding is that one or a few genes account for resistance
observed in the lab, and that the gene is "incompletely dominant autosomal."
Heretofore, most people thought the gene was recessive; the high
dose/refugia resistance management strategy depends upon this gene being
recessive. The author's state that if their finding holds, there will be
need to rethink ECB resistance management plans.

BTW, this is a good example of the scientific surprises that can be
expected as we move into the ag biotech era. This is part because genetic
changes unleashed across millions of acres (or in a backyard) can cause so
many horrendously complex secondary and tertiary responses in ecosystems,
and secondarily because the science has not been done -- Ann Clark's point
that there has been a systematic effort to NOT look under certain rocks.
Wouldn't one think that the genetics of resistance in the ECB would be a
subject of serious analysis well before 20 million acres are being planted
in the U.S. corn belt. But clearly it was not; it is my sense (someone
correct me if I am wrong) that the work these scientists did could have been
done before had the funding and commitment been present to look under that
rock.

For the non-geneticists among us, would someone please post a
lay-person's explanation of what an "incompletely dominant autosomal gene"
is; along with an explanation of why this matters so much in designing a
resistance management strategy. If someone would be willing to talk me
through it, I'll write it up for the list.

Another relatively urgent request -- I am working on an assessment
of the ECB Bt-corn resistance management plan that is under EPA review now.
I, and others, need very quick help on a key issue. What insects spend some
time in corn fields, and might develop resistance to Bt, that in other
life-stages spend time in fruit and vegetable crops where growers are now
largely reliant on foliar Bts for Lepidopteran control? If you know of
people who have thought about this and could help create a list, and provide
some sense of the potential for insect migration carrying resistance genes
into other regions, please be in touch. I am willing to provide a modest
level of $$ for anyone that can turn something out quickly (i.e. about 2
weeks). I will also eventually share what we learn with the list. So you
bug-flow experts out there, please be in touch.

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

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 13:56:15 -0400
From: Bob MacGregor <rdmacgregor@gov.pe.ca>
Subject: Re: health insurance

Insurers are usually a pretty hard-nose, practical bunch who stick to what
their actuarial tables tell them. I was idly wondering whether organic
farmers might get a lower insurance rate (for health or life insurance) than
conventional, chemical farmers. If the actuarial tables suggest that the
risk of health affects is less for organic farmers, lower rates would
certainly be justified. On the other hand, maybe the risk of injury or
death from machinery use is so overwhelming (relatively speaking) that it
masks any effect of chemical exposure. Does anyone on the list know?
BOB

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 12:59:32 -0400
From: Susan Smalley <smalley@msue.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Research into Community Supported Agriculture in the UK

Paul,

Your inquiry provides a wonderful opportunity to share a new publication
with you and the SANET world -- The Many Faces of Community Supported
Agriculture (CSA): A Guide to Community Supported Agriculture in Indiana,
Michigan, & Ohio. The guide profiles CSA farms, their philosophy and
activitey within all three states. "Many Faces" is the result of a
year-long collaborative effort among the Michigan Organic Food and Farm
Alliance (MOFFA), the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association (OEFFA),
and Sustainable Earth, Inc., and was supported by a Professional
Development Program grant from the North Central Region Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Extension program (NCR SARE).

Dr. Laura Delind, anthropologist and CSA member, coordinated the project
and edited the 107-page book. Each of the 35 CSA's it profiles is unique,
and reading about them is a great way to get "the feel" of CSA life and
meet the people who are involved. They share both the opportunities and
the challenges they have experienced.

Copies of the book have been sent to county Extension offices in Michigan,
Ohio and Indiana. Additional copies are available for $10/copy including
shipping and handling, from MOFFA, PO Box 530, Hartland, MI 48353,
810-632-7952; OEFFA, PO Box 82234, Columbus, OH 43202, 614-267-3663;
Sustainable Earth, Inc., 100 Georgeton Ct., West Lafayette, IN 47906,
765-463-9366. You may also contact Dr. DeLind directly at
delind@pilot.msu.edu or 517-355-7490.

Susan B. Smalley
Extension Specialist
Sustainable Food & Farming Systems smalley@msue.msu.edu
Michigan State University 517-432-0049 Voice
Department of Crop & Soil Sciences 517-353-3834 Fax
270 Plant & Soil Science Building
East Lansing, MI 48824-1325

>02:37 PM 5/12/99 +0000, Paul Cook (COUNTRYSIDE) wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>I am currently conducting research into the CSA experience in the US, with
a
>view to looking at whether the principle would translate to the UK farming
>system.

>Do you know of any other reports/publications that provide an overview of
the
>CSA experience in the US so far?. Highlights, problems, legalities etc.
>
>PAUL COOK
>Farming & Forestry Branch
>Countryside Agency
>John Dower House
>Crescent Place
>Cheltenham
>Gloucestershire
>GL50 3RA
>England
>UK

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 13:05:32 -0400
From: Andy Clark <aclark@nal.usda.gov>
Subject: New book on community-supported agriculture (CSA)

Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 08:51:30 -0500
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
From: Helen Husher <hhusher@zoo.uvm.edu>
Subject: new book on community-supported agriculture

Sharing the Harvest:
A Guide to Community-Supported Agriculture

A new guide to community-supported agriculture is now available, written
in part by Robyn Van En, who founded Induan Line Farm, the first
community-supported farm in The United States, and in part by Elizabeth
Henderson, co-author of The Real Dirt and a leader in
community-supported agriculture, or CSA, for more than a decade.

Sharing the Harvest questions what it means to have
grapes from Chile, apples from New Zealand, and tomatoes from Holland
in U.S. grocery stores. Fresh food can be surprisingly difficult to
find in our culture of abundance, and the search for it is close to the
heart of the CSA movement. CSA allows consumers to buy shares in a
farm's produce before it is planted, thus giving the farmer cash flow
when cash is needed; the CSA model also allows farmers to work directly
with consumers, allowing more of the consumer food dollar to stay on
the local farm.

Sharing the Harvest offers case histories, pointers,
models, and strategies for starting and running a CSA. The risks and
satisfactions of production, labor, and management vary greatly from
farm to farm, and the book captures the wide range of choices available
to people interested in starting a CSA operation. With charts, photos,
and a resource section, Sharing the Harvest is for
anyone interested in alternative farming. The book, which is the
product of a partnership with Northeast SARE and Chelsea Green
Publishing, can be ordered from Chelsea Green at 800/639-4099.

*************************************

Helen Husher

Writer/Editor
Northeast Region Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education (SARE) Program
Hills Building -- Carrigan Drive
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT 05405-0082

Phone: 802-656-0554
Fax: 802-656-4656

**************************************

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 11:58:58 -0600
From: "Douglas M. Hinds" <dmhinds@acnet.net>
Subject: Re: information, extension, biotech, philosophy

I haven't been giving full attention to this thread. The "value added"
logic of those
who support / defend the use of GMO's in daily life (rather to correct
serious
pathologies in limited situations) ignores the counter-evolutionary and
invasive
implications of the **methodology** (emphasis intended) and the discrepancy
between
intrinsic and implied ("added") value. The problem is intensified as GMO's
themselves
reproduce genetically, what didn't begin genetically (at least in that
species).

The crux of the issue is that of accountability, risk calculation and the
where the burden
of evidence should lie. With DDT and cigarettes, the promoters also denied
any negative
results and many deaths occurred as a result, before the record was set
straight.
The GMO issue is both more complex and more insidious.

No agreement will be reached as the motivation behind the promoting group is
clearly
mercenary, despite the veil of "value added". The only solution will be
legislative and
since legislators themselves are generated by (and therefore subject to)
marketing
and the public's response, and therefore: Someone's ass WILL have to get
kicked,
and the sooner the better.

I will not respond to further comments on this thread (for now).

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 12/05/99 at 8:57 AM Jane Sooby wrote:

>Dear Bart,
>
>Your observations are very timely and to the point. Dale used the industry
>arguments that agricultural products may be "improved" by genetic
>manipulation so that fruits may be designed to carry certain medications;
>grains will be designed to have particular nutritional compositions; etc.
>
>Does this approach strike anyone else as back-asswards? Is not the bounty
of
>nature enough to suit our needs? Have we not co-evolved with the plants and
>animals that share this planet with us? Even the Avery-esque arguments
about
>increasing yields with intensive chemical production techniques fail when
>you consider that hunger is such a political phenomenon, a result of
>mis-distribution rather than low production.
>
>The blinders that result in tunnel vision are firmly in place in many
>sectors of society, and agriculture is certainly no exception. Yes,
friends,
>we have a *universe* of alternatives if only we would allow ourselves to
see
>them. How about using an ecological approach, working with the cycles of
>nature, the complex dynamics of soil, and the miraculous natural
>capabilities of plants to attempt to improve the nutritional value of our
>food and feed by utilizing what is already there? Sir Albert Howard was
>advocating such a holistic approach 50 years ago or more.
>
>The simple answer is that the profit potential from this approach is very
>limited as it relies not on chemical or biotechnological inputs but on
>intensive system management, therefore industry would not be very
interested
>in it.
>
>But what is really important: profit or authentically feeding and
nourishing
>the world? Learning how apathetic the majority of American consumers are
>compared to their European counterparts is discouraging. Without external
>pressure from consumers, industry is free to set the terms of discussion
and
>sell the illusion that maximizing control of natural processes is
equivalent
>to maximizing human benefit. I dispute this equation.
>
>>We are so slow to learn.
><snip>
>>Thirteen years later, Rachel Carson had quite cogently outlined the
>>degree to which Pickett had been correct. Nevertheless, almost 40 years
>>after Carson's work the devastation continues, as we apply (in the USA
>>alone) nearly 500 million kg of active material, over 99% of which
>>misses the target organism, while overall percentage losses of crop to
>>disease, insects, and weeds is actually *higher* that it was in the
>>1930s.
>
>You are right on, Bart. Thanks for sharing the fruits of your knowledge.
>
>Jane Sooby
>
>University of Nebraska-Lincoln alternative crops research technician
>Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society western organizer
>
>High Plains Ag Lab
>3257 Rd. 109
>Sidney, NE 69162
>
>308-254-3918
>308-254-2402 (FAX)
>308-254-0725 (HOME)
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
>All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
>http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

------------------------------

End of sanet-mg-digest V1 #1012
*******************************

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the comannd
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

Previous message: Douglas M. Hinds: "Re: information, extension, biotech, philosophy"