On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:02:37 -0500, Grace Gershuny wrote:
>Dale,
>
>Your comments are, as usual perceptive--to a large extent I agree that the
>battle for a rational foundation of organic rulemaking has been lost. It
>is still a damn shame to have to accept that what consumers want in this
>case is at odds with scientific (or philosophic) defensibility. Once upon
>a time we thought we could have both.
>>> IMHO, the division of materials into "synthetic" and "natural"
>>> is not only NOT useful, but is the root cause of most of the insanity
>>> that has dragged the organic discussion down the drain of debating
>>> materials lists as opposed to concentrating on assessing a holistic
>>> management system.
The ultimate endpoint of this whole particular titration will probably,
and unfortunately, be the disintegration of the organic industry as a
meaningful participant in the development of 21st century agriculture.
Consumers will get what they think they want --- for awhile --- during
which time most of the profits will be garnered by processors and
distributors, rather than growers. This is especially true for
cash-crop grain and beans.
The consumer (and grower) preoccupation with materials, however,
strikes me as *the* flaw that is both innate and fatal to the industry
and its promoters. At *best,* it is extremely difficult to inspect for
materials usage or its absence. Consumers' primary expectation of
organic food is, therefore, inherently non-verifiable. Extreme
disillusion is consequently inevitable.
In the meantime, growers taking proper agronomic care of their land ---
which is more expensive than simple non-use of taboo materials --- find
themselves at an increasing disadvantage in the marketplace. The
materials focus of organic agriculture has meant that most organic
farmers are now exploiting their systems every bit as much as most
chemical growers. Over the short to medium term, miners are almost
invariably at a competitive advantage compared to stewards.
Sadly, the real stewardship components of organic agronomy --- which
are generally *easy* to inspect (if you can ever figure out how to
codify them) --- could provide consumers with both better food and a
better environment.
So here organic agriculture sits, concentrating on its *least*
important, most easily cheated aspect, while it virtually ignores its
most important, impossible-to-cheat, most easily inspected strength.
And in the process they are punishing the very growers that should be
rewarded, and rewarding those who should be forced to do much better
before they can earn the right to call their products organic.
Multi-million dollar federal bureaucracies are no more appropriate for
dealing with the problems of the organic industry than a Rolex watch is
suitable for keeping you dry in a driving rain.
Bart
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 : Wed Apr 05 2000 - 20:00:27 EDT