> Sal, at present I do not think that this will impact your situation, these
authorities already exist, the bill, as I currently understand it, is
intended to streamline and clarify the authority and issues involved and is
more aimed at invasive species and plant pests. We have a long history of
creating pests by importing species either intentionally or by accident that
get out side of their native habitat and run amuck.
the reason I asked is because this is what I heard "there are folks in the
Federal government who have been hostile and obstructionist to sustainable
agriculture in the past, the legal authority to cause immeasurable grief to
organic agriculture by interpreting these new rules and regulations in
exceptional and creative ways. It is probably not true but I heard "the
actual purpose of these Proposed Plant protection Act is to slow or stop the
growth of the organic food industry by restricting availability of the
necessary biological controls tools. thanks for making me feel safe. I
thought I read where H.R 1504 and S 910 could cause repression of biological
> There are also APHIS rules pending that speak to quality standards for
bio-control agents. These are intended to assure that when you purchase any
of these agents that they will arrive in a viable state and at least in
theory will perform as expected if properly used. I will try to get on top
of these issues and get back to you. We are working on so many pest
management issues that the bio-control issues seem to take the back seat,
though most of us recognize their importance to all of agriculture as well
as the small organic community. Unfortunately, and I will leave it to you
to rant on this one, in the U.S. very little is expended on bio-control
research compared to Europe.
.I thought I read where H.R 1504 and S 910 could cause repression of
biological control technology. is this a law that will protect the
environment from the environment. looks like the same old same old these
laws do not make any distinction between beneficial biological control
organisms and harmful "plant pests" just thought some folks in the
biocontrol may want to keep a out on these two proposals.
> The natural essential oils that have been mentioned have I believe all
been registered as active ingredients either individually or under a blanket
registration by EPA. The problem comes with getting anyone with the
capacity to deliver a technically standardized product with a legal EPA
label to the market in quantity for a reasonable cost. The efficacy issue
is a whole other problem and it is difficult to get demand till you
demonstrate efficacy in a wide variety of applications and it is difficult
to pay for such work unless you have a high potential demand.
> Your nematode example, the encapsulated Bt issue, the Spinosad example
that came up recently, and what we see coming with the reduced risk
pesticides (where a great deal is being spent on research in this country)
are a pet peeve of mine. They also define one of the poison pill issues
that the perversion of the organic theory and philosophy to center on
non-use of synthetic inputs in general and pesticides specifically has
presented to the organic industry.
What does that mean "perversion of the organic theory " u have to keep it
simple for me to understand ? I don't know if I understand u yet I feel the
idea that organic means non-use of synthetic inputs in general and
pesticides specifically is what makes the organic industry what it is.
that's the whole organic idea summed up in 1 line. I don't see that as a
poison pill I see it as a healing. biology. IMHO soil food web biocontrol
not chemical control. a better life through biology etc.
> The 1/110 of 1% in the nematode formulation that has been rejected by the
organic community is an anti-microbial and allowed the delivery of a dry
medium with a high predatory nematode count that had a shelf life of several
months, it was very easy to handle compared to a damp sponge with nematodes
that has a shelf life of fifteen minutes to several days depending on
handling. As Bart often says "go figure". As I often say "the organic
community shoots them selves in the foot again" no news here. The other two
are virtually the same issue. The encapsulated Bts are a Biotech product,
at one time we thought that all the topical Bts would go this route. The Bt
gene is spliced into another bacterium that is then vat-cultured, killed and
the resultant Bt crystals encapsulated in the dead engineered bacterium are
a technically superior method of delivering topically applied Bt toxin.
Well the organic issue first appeared to center around the viability of the
*dead* bacteria. T!
I think the reason the organic folks said no to the nematode deal is because
there was a organic source that did not have the biocide. guess where there
is a will there is a way
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: