I have been dismayed by the infighting concerning what is "organic" and now I
see that the same problem has arisen in the "biodynamic" arena. For those of
us who are consumers without a connection to the farmer that produced the
food that we buy, the labeling of the food is our only assurance of what we
are buying.
I can understand that everything in life changes, and hopefully for the
better. Methods and practices evolve. The difficulty is in determining
whether new practices and methods improve or deteriorate the vitality or
quality of the produced food. This is why I have emphatically stated in
previous postings that we must urgently develop or redevelop some means of
assessing the quality and vitality of foods. This would put an end to the
baseless arguments of which methods, practices, or preparations are "better".
It would also give the consumers the assurance that the food they are buying,
regardless of the certification, provides the highest health benefits
possible in a sustainable fashion.
I don't care if my food is certified "Bobo's bonzo-dynamics", USDA sanforized
and deodorized certified B.S. organic, or Steiner Select. I want some kind of
qualitative and/or quantitative measure of the quality and vitality of what
lies under the seal or sticker. Clearly, based on the recent postings
concerning the misquoted benefits of organic crops, methods and studies that
expose the quality and vitality of foods are sadly lacking.
But then, maybe there is a reason why these are lacking. For in the end, if
these test methods are developed, I suspect that the veils would be lifted
and many "experts" and "best" farming methods would be exposed. I, for one,
am dedicating my efforts to developing these test methods. To me, it is
pointless to find the right trail to reach your destination if you do not
have a compass (or, in this day and age, a GPS) and a map. This is one case
where the ends justify the means.
Until we have a means of assessing the end product of the various farming
methods, we will only have, at best, a lively discussion, and at worst,
infighting that will leave the consumer confused and then apathetic. The
latest posting on the Biodynamic bungling places yet another nail in the
coffin of consumer confidence. Factions in the farming community will win the
battle and lose the war.
In an age where consumers are being told that salt, butter, cholesterol,
fiber, eggs, etc. are good for them, and then bad for them, and then good for
them, the end result is unfortunate. Ultimately, consumers lose all
confidence in any research, and develop a hardened apathy. If the alternative
farming community is exposing the general public to the same kind of
conflicting information, the end result will be the same.
Methods may differ for producing foods, but there can be only ONE outcomes
from consuming the food. The food either ENHANCES my well being or it
doesn't. Poor experimental design and testing methods yield conflicting, self
interested, test results as in the cholesterol debacle. If we are to give the
consumer useful and reliable information about the food that they are eating,
we must have useful and reliable test methods to identify the quality and
vitality of the food. After all, it is not the label that people consume, but
the food that lies underneath.........
Alan Ismond, P.Eng.
Aqua-Terra Consultants
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.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@cals.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 : Fri Jul 21 2000 - 09:00:31 EDT