Can this be posted on SANET? Thank you.
Friends -
After seeing Dennis Avery speak on 20/20, on the videotaped speech that
he made at to the PA Corn and Soybean Growers Association at Penn State
on Feb. 8, and after reading a 14 page statement handed out at this
second talk, I feel that the organic community must address this attack
in the context that while Dennis Avery may be at this point the current
appointed spokesperson of the chemical/biotech/agribusiness community's
attack on alternative agriculture, we must be able and prepared to
confront this as a larger and more complex issue.
To borrow a phrase from Avery, I fear that we in the organic community
are asking the wrong question when it comes to Avery's attack on organic
food. We need to ask what are the questions that consumers are likely to
be asking when they hear or read his rhetoric. I honestly do not think
that they are asking "Where is that ugly guy getting his funding?". I
think it is more likely that they are asking "Well, how much truth is
there in what he is saying? Is organic food safe to feed to my children?
Are pesticide residues worth worrying about in food? Are organic
farmers really sloppy and unproductive?"
For this reason, I feel that the organic community must respond not by
merely saying "of course he is a liar" but instead by presenting
convincing and coherent data and information to show that he is.
As a frequent contributor to Acres USA, as an organic farmer, and as a
scientist, I would be interested in preparing an explanation that could
help everyone in the organic community understand and explain the
fallacies in Avery's 'logic' - if I could get some help assembling the
necessary information. I am very frustrated by Avery's false and
distorted claims that contain just enough grains of truth to be
convincing to people to either do not have enough of as agricultural or
scientific background to evaluate the information accurately or who do
not bother to listen clearly. But I know that I do not have enough
information or expertise to fully explain why his claims are lies. Can
you help me find answers to the following questions? If you know where I
can find this information or if you have informed constructive opinions
or information you would like to contribute (you will be credited if you
wish), please respond as soon as possible. If you would like to
collaborate with me with this project, let me know! Its a big one, the
more hands and minds the better! Each one of us may have a piece of what
is needed, but we must bring it all together now.
1. Have there been recent studies that have compiled yield from a fairly
large number of commercial-scale organic farms and compared it side by
side with yield from similar conventional farms for major agricultural
crops? We can say that there is no yield reduction in organic farming,
but until we have data to prove this, our assertions are unsubstantiated.
2. Have there been side by side tests, done by an independent third party
testing lab, of organic and conventional produce that show that there is
no difference in bacteriological contamination? Again - we can point to
the stringency of organic standards, how only composted manure is
permitted on certified organic farms etc, but until we have independent
data proving that organic produce, purchased in similar markets, is not
more contaminated, our claims are unsupported.
3. The 1948 study done at Rutgers Univ showing that organic produce has a
higher nutritional content, particularly in trace elements, is certainly
a useful and interesting study - but has it been followed up more
recently with more sophisticated, modern testing techniques? Certainly
it would be reasonable to assume that the differences in nutritional
content may indeed be even greater today, with changes in conventional
agriculture. I have recently seen reference to another more recent study
by the British Soil Association. Can someone help me find more detail on
this second study, and any others on this topic. If there isn't a good
comprehensive recent study on mineral, vitamin and secondary metabolite
content of organic vs. conventional food, this is one area of research
that should be repeated by an independent, third party lab as soon as
possible.
Certainly the style of organic production would make a difference -
whether intensive input substitution, organic by neglect, or carefully
planned organic systems approach - but there probably is just as much
variation in commercial produce too depending on cultural methods. This
variable should be definitely evaluated, but for right now, can we get
any general information comparing nutritional value of organic (as a
representative group) to conventional (as a representative group).
4. I have seen references in consumers publications recently about
pesticide residues on various types of conventional produce. Could
someone help me find more quantitative detail on this information - what
pesticides were detected, at what levels, what was the country of origin
on the produce tested etc? Can someone help me find hard information on
the application of raw manure, raw sewage or sewage sludge onto produce
grown in other countries that is then exported to the US - we all hear
'oh it is being done' - but where, at what rate, how long before harvest
etc.? I have also read some references by Charles Benbrook citing
Consumer Union studies that showed pesticide residue in produce that had
been actually labeled organic. Has there been any follow up on this?
5. Avery and his kind are trying hard to prove that cancer has never
been linked to pesticide exposure. Of course the causes of most kinds of
cancer are hard to prove. However, would it be possible for selected
reputable scientists to help us prepare a succinct summary of what has
actually been proven about this subject - either with laboratory animals
or with human exposure. The World Health Organization has also put out a
statement that 2.5 - 5m people each year suffer acute pesticide
poisoning. Could someone help me find more information on this study -
where are the pesticide poisoning hot spots around the world, which
specific pesticides are most often involved, how are these people being
exposed? How much fresh produce from pesticide hot spots is making it
back to the North American market?
6. Could someone suggest sociologists or economists that I could talk to
in order to get better figures on world population growth projections -
at what rate is world population increasing, what are the projected food
needs for 2000,2010, 2050 etc? What is the current estimated starvation
and malnutrition rate, as compared to 10 years ago. What are reasonable
projections - given current food availability - for
starvation/malnutrition 10 years from now? Are there any sociologists
who could offer reasonable alternative suggestions on how food
availability/distribution inequalities can be handled? Since the crops
derived from GM technology on the market today do not show increased
yield - they often show yield reductions - what is a more reasonable,
reality based and sustainable approach to solving this crisis - not only
for producing MORE food, but also producing more nutritious food? Can
someone get information on the vitamin A and other nutrient content of
brown rice vs. white rice in order to counter the claim that transgenic
rice plants are necessary to produce enough vitamin A to protect Third
World children against blindness? What are other effective alternative
approaches? Also - could someone supply objective yield trial data on GM
soy, corn, and other crops, comparing their yield to non-GM crops of
similar varieties?
7. Avery claims that " the modern food system is currently saving
something on the order of 18-20 million square miles of wildlands from
being plowed for low yield production". The sounds like a lie or at the
very minimum, a totally unsupported and incorrect guess to me - but what
is a reasonable response here? Given the projected world population
growth for the next 10 years, how much more land would be needed with the
current rate of commercial agricultural production? Would more or less
land be needed if a substantial portion of that land was farmed
organically - using sound organic practices? Would more or less land be
needed if 3rd World countries concentrated on planting their adapted
landrace varieties rather than adopting the varieties, chemicals and
technology of American agribusiness? I have heard Raoul Robinson speak
somewhat to this point - could a few recognized experts be able to
provide some scientifically and reality based statements concerning how
the world's population could be fed in the future without the use high
input agriculture - or why high input agriculture is
appropriate/inappropriate to Third World areas.
8. Is there any good estimate of how much of labeled 'organic' products
currently on the North American market are actually 'certified organic' -
other than the rather disturbing estimate given on the 20/20 program?
Any constructive suggestions on how we can control and limit the sale of
uncertified products - or some informed comments from NOSB members about
how National Standards will help here?
9. Are there other pertinent questions I have not thought of?
As an organic farmer, I feel strongly that the best way to counter
Avery's type of propaganda is to offer education to conventional farmers
about how organic practices can work for them - even if they are not
interested in becoming fully certified organic. Showing Avery to be a
liar is more effective than telling people he is one. We in the organic
community must to figure out how to actively reach out to the
conventional farmers - using positive and inclusive language and
approaches that conventional farmers can understand and be comfortable
with, demonstrating that organic principles and methods are productive on
a scale that they would want to use. But how to reach them? That is
the challenge.
We need to brainstorm on how to specifically reach out to conventional
farmers in a positive, non-critical manner. But, and this is a very
important point, we must first try our upmost to be the most excellent
organic farmers possible, taking every opportunity to learn improved
techniques of weed control and soil fertility management - so no one can
cite organic crops as being unproductive or weed infested. As part of
their mission, we should insist that our certifiers help and encourage us
to learn and share improved crop production techniques, not simply
enforce standards. We must also find ways to encourage conventional
farmers to see organic farmers both as allies and friends AND as good
farmers, not as the image of unproductive enemies like Avery and his kind
are trying so hard to promote. We should have signs for our fields this
summer - identifying the field as a CERTIFIED ORGANIC field, especially
good fields on busy roads - signs that do not specifically identify us by
our particular certifying agency or trade organization (that only
confuses most non-organic farmers), but more generically identifying the
crop as 'Certified Organic'. We must actively invite key conventional
farmers, ag consultants, ag loan officers, leaders in Farm Bureau and
other groups, editors of key farming magazines - anyone who is capable of
influencing the ways farmers think - to organic informational events and
have then events they will be interested in and feel comfortable with.
What else can we do?
Responding directly to Avery like a pack of angry but uncoordinated
mosquitoes is what he wants - it makes the organic community look less
professional, less influential - we can not afford to perpetuate the myth
that organic farmers are somehow not 'real farmers' and those that choose
to buy organic food are acting emotionally without good scientific basis.
We should first make sure that we, as organic farmers and processors,
are doing the absolute best job as we can possibly do to produce the most
excellent product possible. When we say that Avery's claims are lies, we
have to be right - and have information to prove it. Then, we must go to
our neighbors, armed with good solid information to counter the lies, and
work cooperatively. We must do this as a unified coherent group - The
Organic Community - leaving rivalries, loyalties and differences between
certification agencies, between farmers vs. processors etc. out of it.
We must speak directly as farmers to other farmers, as consumers to other
consumers, and we must be prepared to answer the questions that consumers
are actually asking.
Please help me collect the information that we - as a unified community -
need to prepare for this project.
Thanks.
Mary-Howell Martens
kandmhfarm@sprintmail.com
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/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 12 2000 - 14:00:27 EST