Index
Home
About
Blog
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.agriculture.misc,alt.sustainable.agriculture,sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: "True cost" of large-scale organic farming
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 17:56:42 +0100
In article <872177972.6898@dejanews.com>, rv@sierranet.net writes
>
>I think it should be noted, though, that a number of crops under
>conventional systems producing commercially still have to employ these
>labor inputs. In your own state of Washington, for instance, apple
>harvest draws thousands of people every year for employment - I suppose
>since they've found no way to mechanize the harvest. There's a number of
>such seasonal work in agricultural commodities at different points in the
>year - apple harvest in Wentanachee and Yakima, beet harvest in
>Minneapolis, blackberry harvest in Vermont, etc. etc. Blackberries might
>be a poor example, since they are extraordinarily expensive for the
>volume or the calories produced ..... but something like, say, beets
>don't seem to represent some unusually high price for the calories or
>food value provided.
I guess you have a good source of cheap labour in the US. In Europe this
is not really the case and mechanical harvesters are available for most
crops including apples, raspberries, blackcurrents, green beans, grapes
etc.
It should be noted that the cost of these machines is very high and the
breakeven point against manual labour is probably only a bit lower than
current UK labour rates. In fact one of the main reason for the
harvesters may be less the labour cost, and more that nobody wants to do
the job.
>Just thought I'd bring it up. Offhand I don't have statistics for what
>volumes of what crops are harvested mechanically and what volume is
>harvested by manual labor - just that at least some agricultural
>commodities are still produced under traditional no-machinery methods
>simply because there's no other way to do it, and they don't seem to
>reflect an exclusively high price in market.
Generally they DO reflect a high price at market for the minor products
(often astronomically high). Just consider the yields per acre and the
value of the crop on an acreage basis and you can easily see it. Just
compare it to grain.
The main manual requirement for an organic system is weeding. This has
proven to be very hard indeed to automate, and it's dreadfully hard and
boring work and proceeds at a snails pace. Believe me.
--
'Oz "Is it better to seem ignorant and learn,
- or seem wise and stay ignorant?"
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,misc.survivalism,misc.rural
Subject: Re: Farming - How Much Acreage Necessary?
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 07:59:09 +0000
In article <85874.iaotb@inet.uni2.dk>, Torsten Brinch
<iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> writes
>Since the early 90s produce can only be
>marketed as organically produced in a EU country, if it can be documented
>to have been produced according to one of the EU national laws
Which are presumably all different.
> or according
>to some international convention.
Similarly.
>These options do not open up for
>marketing anything genetically engineered as organic.
It would only take one EU state to pass laws, say on a limited range of
GM organic crops, for this to be broken. Similarly for 'some
International Convention' to do the same.
I have to say that comparing UK organic produce [complete with pale
nitrogen deficient colour, blemishes, distortions due to insect damage
and often with evidence of disease] to imported 'organic' produce that
is utterly perfect and dark green illustrates the doubts I have about
comparing 'organic' produce across national boundaries. The fact that
routine pesticide testing finds a lot of pesticide residues in 'organic'
produce merely reinforces it.
The conditions for organic food production in the UK (monitored by 'The
Soil Association') is very stringent. You have to follow the full
organic routine for three years before you are allowed to call your
produce 'organic' (so the yields are very low, but so are your prices
during this time) and there is a *very* limited range of crop protection
products permitted. Animals are supposed to be fed on organically
produced feed and antibiotics are not allowed.
BUT there are get-outs for using antibiotics for 'animal welfare' so the
effect on dairying at least is small. There are get-out's if you run out
of silage/hay and there is no organic silage/hay to be found and there
are probably quite a lot of other get-outs I haven't heard about (I bet
you don't need to use organic manure for example).
So even the tightest 'organic' production system has it's holes and is
probably not what the public thinks it is getting. Having crops dosed
with highly toxic and persistant copper oxychloride (or nicotine)
instead of far safer modern pesticides is not what I, personally, would
like to eat.
--
Oz
From: animaux@ix.netcom.com(M & V)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.agriculture.sustainable,rec.gardens
Subject: Re: High Plains Journal editorial on Organic Farming
Date: 15 Feb 1998 20:35:58 GMT
In <taquilla.1237954796A@news.erols.com> taquilla@SPAMOFF.erols.com
(Tracy Aquilla) writes:
-snip-
>
>Which natural pesticides are actually prohibited by law in the US, of
>which you are aware? Perhaps a few, but many?
>Tracy
Excuse any words spelled incorrectly, I typed it all in, in great
haste. I did not check spelling. If you find any, let me know.
This is the:
Materials list for Production, Processing and Handling Organic or
Transitional Food and Fiber:
For an application write to:
Texas Department of Agriculture
Organically Produced Certified
Organic Cert Program
Regulatory Div.
PO Box 12847
Austin Texas 78711
Materials not listed by name are prohibited:
Allowed:
acetic acid
adhesives (natural)
agar (carageenen, kombu, nori)
alcohol (natural)
alfalfa meal
alginates
antitranspirants (natural)
ascorbic acid
attapulgite clay (Fuller's Earth)
bacillus thruingiensis (Bt)
balloons & other inflatable traps
barriers or repellents
banana oil
beauveria species
beeswax
beneficial organisms
biodynamic preparations
biological controls
bird traps or netting (mechanical)
blue0green algae
borax (sodium borate)
boric acid
boron products
calcium carbonate (aragonite)
calcium phosphate (dibasic, monobasic, and tribasic)
calcium sulfate (anhydrite and gypsum)
carbon dioxide gas
'citric acid
citrus oil
coconut oil
composts
compost tea
copper copper sulfate
corn starch
cytokinins
detergents
diatomaceous earth
dolomite
dormant oils
earthworm castings
feather meal feldspar (potassium aluminosilicate)
enzymes (natural, amylase, protease,lipase and cullase)
garlic
gelatin waxes
glycerin
granite dust
grape and other pomaces
greensand (glauconite)
growth enhancers
guano (bat or bird)
guns
gypsum
herbal preparations hoof and horn meal
humates
humic acid derivatives
hydrogen peroxide
insect extracts
insect feeding stimulants
kelp extracts
kelp meal
kieserite (magnesium sulfate and epsonite)
kiln dust
langbeinite
lignite
lime
lime (fluid limestone)
magnesium carbonate (magnesite)
malic acid
manures (animal)
manure tea
marl
mechanical and cultural controls
microbial diseases
microbial plant, soil compost and seed inoculants
mined minerals
mineral salts
mulches
nematocides (natural)
menatodes
newspaper mulch
nosema species
nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV)
oystershell lime
peanut meal
peatmoss
pectin
perlite
pH buffers (natural)
phosphate rock (phosphorite)
pine (tall) oil
plant extracts
potato starch
propolis
protozoa
rodnet traps
salt
sand
saw dust
seaweed and seaweed extracts
sea animal wastes
seeds (untreated)
soaps
sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)
sodium gluconate
sodium hypochlorite
soybean meal
sticky barriers
straw
sulfate of potash magnesia
summer oils
surfactants (anionic, cationic, and non-ionic)
tallow wax
tartaric acid (cream of tartar)
transplants (certified organically produced)
traps
tree seals
vegetable oil adjuvants (surfactants and carriers)
vermiculite (magnesium mica)
virus sprays
vitamins
wetting agents (natural)
worm castings
yeast
ALLOWED WITH RESTRICTION:
alcohol (synthetic)
ammonium carbonate
ammonium soaps
antibiotics
arsenic
ash (natural)
bleach (sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite)
bone meal
bordeaux mixes
botanical insecticides
calcium chloride
calcium lignosulfate (ligninosulfonate)
caustic soda
chelates
chilean nitrate (mined nitriae of soda and Chile saltpeter)
cocoa beanhulls (cocoa shell meal)
copper hydroxide
corn calcium
cotton gin trash
cotton seed meal
deer and rabbit repellents
epsom salts (magnesium sulfate)
fish emulsions
fish meal
fulvic acid
gibberelic acid (sugar carrier based)
hydrated lime (slaked lime)
lime sulfur (calcium polysulfide)
micronutrient sprays
muriate of potash (potassium chloride)
magnesium chloride
mushroom compost
neem extracts (powder and seeds)
menatocides (sea animal based)
niter
nitrite of soda-potash
nitrogen gas
oleic acid
ortho-phosphoric acid
oxalic acid
petroleum distillates (mineral oils and paraffinic oil)
petroluem oil spray adjuvants (spreader-stickers and carriers)
pheromones (mating disruption)
piperonyl butoxide (PBO)
polyvinyl alcohol
potassium chloride
pyrethrums
quasia
rotenone
tyania
sabadilla
seeds (treated with synthetic materials)
soda ash
sodium molybdate
sodium nitrate
sodium silicate
stearic acid
sugar beet lime
sulfate of potash
sulfates of zinc or iron
sulfur (brimstone or flowers of sulfur)
transplants (non-certified organically grown)
wood ash
zeolite (natural)
vitamin D3
PROHIBITED:
adhesives (synthetic)
ammonium nitrate
ammonium products
ammonium sulfate
anhydrous ammonia
anti-coagulant rodent baits
antitranspirants (synthetic)
basicslag
bird baits or poisons (synthetic)
calcium carbonate (synthetic)
calcium nitrate
calcium oxide (quicklime, burnt lime, unslaked lime, and fluxing lime)
calcium sulfate (synthetic)
carbamate fungicides
carbamate insecticides
carrot oil
chilean nitrate (synthetic)
chlorinated hydrocarbons
copper sulfate ammoniated (cupric ammonia sulfate)
creosote
cryolite
di0methyl sulfate
drip irrigation cleaners (synthetic)
ethylene gas
formaldehyde
formaldehyde urea resins
fortified humic acid derivatives
fumigants (synthetic)
fungicides (synthetic)
growth regulators (synthetic)
gypsum byproduct
herbicides (synthetic)
ionizing radiation
leather meal tankage and dust
magnesium carbonate (magnesia alba)
methyl bromide
methyl sulfoxide
moth balls and moth crystals
nematocides (synthetic)
nicotine
nicotine sulfate
nitrates
nitrites
organophosphates
perborater bleaches
pesticides (non-botanical and non biological)
petroleum solvents (aromatic)
phosphate (ordinary and triple superphosphate
phosphoric acid
potassium hydroxide (lye)
potassium nitrate (saltpeter)
pyrethroids (synthetic)
sweage sludge and sludge compost
sodium chlorite
sodium fluoaluminate
sodium hydroxide
sodium monopersulfate
sodkum perborate
soil fumigants (synthetic)
spray adjuvants (synthetic)
sulfites
sulfur dioxide
super phosphate
triple phosphate
urea
weed oils
wetting agents (synthetic)
zeolite (synthetic)
Victoria
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.agriculture.sustainable,rec.gardens
Subject: Re: High Plains Journal editorial on Organic Farming
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 21:20:00 +0000
In article <6c7jje$r3f@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, M & V
<animaux@ix.netcom.com> writes
>Excuse any words spelled incorrectly, I typed it all in, in great
>haste. I did not check spelling. If you find any, let me know.
Hey, you deserve a meal for typing this lot in.
I gather from Tracy that there are various different 'organic' groups.
Which one does this apply to or is it pretty much standard amongst all
of them.
--
Oz
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.agriculture.sustainable,rec.gardens
Subject: Re: High Plains Journal editorial on Organic Farming
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 22:35:56 +0000
In article <6c7jje$r3f@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, M & V
<animaux@ix.netcom.com> writes
> This is the:
>Materials list for Production, Processing and Handling Organic or
>Transitional Food and Fiber:
>
>
>Materials not listed by name are prohibited:
>
>Allowed:
>antitranspirants (natural)
What are these?
>ascorbic acid
>boron products
Why are these regarded as 'natural' whilst mined muriate of potash is
not?
>calcium phosphate (dibasic, monobasic, and tribasic)
Clearly these are manufactured (as against 'in natural state') products
so why are they allowed?
>copper copper sulfate
Again, a manufactrued product (very).
>detergents
This is what the anti-glyphosate boys are so against. Tallow amine is a
surfactant=detergant.
>greensand (glauconite)
Intriguing. What is this used for, it's a not uncommon soil type round
here.
>growth enhancers
Covers a multitude of potential sins. What sort of growth promoter?
>guano (bat or bird)
Nasty. I hope it's sterilised.
>hydrogen peroxide
Indisputably manufactured. Safe though.
>insect extracts
A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY. Quite a few insects concentrate some really
nasty plant toxins which ought to be superior insect repellants/bird
repellants. Really nasty stuff, but legal here.
>plant extracts
Pleased to see that strychnine is still allowed. :-)
>sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)
A typical industrial chemical.
>sodium hypochlorite
A typical really nasty industrial chemical. Good way to make dioxins.
>ALLOWED WITH RESTRICTION:
>
>ammonium carbonate
>ammonium soaps
>antibiotics
Given the fuss UK 'organic' farmers make about antibiotics, I'm always
amused to note that this is 'allowd with restriction'. Of course it is
only 'allowed with restriction' by conventional farmers also.
>arsenic
>bleach (sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite)
>bone meal
Ahh, BSE!
>bordeaux mixes
>calcium chloride
>caustic soda
>chelates
>copper hydroxide
>epsom salts (magnesium sulfate)
Another bunch of industrial chemicals.
>fulvic acid
Is this griseofulvi, the fungicide that used to be used for ringworm?
>gibberelic acid (sugar carrier based)
You have got to be joking. Not dangerous but a complex bio-industrial
chemical, I can't see any excuse for using this in a claimed 'natural'
farming/foodengineering system.
>lime sulfur (calcium polysulfide)
Presumably for making H2S as a rodenticide. H2S is one of the most toxic
substances known and CaS is an manufactured product.
>muriate of potash (potassium chloride)
Why is this under restriction?
>magnesium chloride
Industrial.
>nitrite of soda-potash
What is this used for?
>ortho-phosphoric acid
>oxalic acid
>petroleum distillates (mineral oils and paraffinic oil)
>petroluem oil spray adjuvants (spreader-stickers and carriers)
Industrial.
>piperonyl butoxide (PBO)
What is this used for?
>pyrethrums
Oh hurrah. An insecticide of industrial proportions.
>rotenone
Isn't this supposed to be really toxic?
>sodium molybdate
>sodium nitrate
But not ammonium nitrate. Strange.
>sodium silicate
Industrial.
>sulfates of zinc or iron
>sulfur (brimstone or flowers of sulfur)
>PROHIBITED:
>
>adhesives (synthetic)
>ammonium nitrate
>ammonium products
(Except presumably as stated above)
>basicslag
Odd. In the UK it's considered a fine organic product packed with
natural trace elements and one of the very first fertilisers ever used
in bulk.
>calcium carbonate (synthetic)
Ha, ha. What's the difference between synthetic CaCO3 and how can it be
'synthetic'?
>calcium nitrate
>calcium oxide (quicklime, burnt lime, unslaked lime, and fluxing lime)
Jeez. The first ever fertiliser. It's why adding calcium is called
'liming' to this day. Considering all the other industrial chemicals
(many highly toxic and going through numerous industrial steps) that are
allowed, they ban this one!! Absolutely amazing.
>carrot oil
What would this be used for?
>nicotine
>nicotine sulfate
Pleased to see this is banned.
>nitrates
>nitrites
Except as permitted above, of course.
>sweage sludge and sludge compost
Utterly disgraceful. The most important item that needs recycling for
sustainable agriculture and it's BANNED! Speechless. So organic farming
under this syetm is NOT NOT NOT sustainable. Great god alive.
=================================
Well, what an abortion of mixed up products. I'm speechless.
--
Oz
From: taquilla@SPAMOFF.erols.com (Tracy Aquilla)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.agriculture.sustainable,rec.gardens
Subject: Re: High Plains Journal editorial on Organic Farming
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 98 00:54:50 GMT
In Article <LnWHUCAM3250EwjG@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
<Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6c7jje$r3f@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, M & V
><animaux@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
>> This is the:
>>Materials list for Production, Processing and Handling Organic or
>>Transitional Food and Fiber:
>>
>>
>>Materials not listed by name are prohibited:
>>
>>Allowed:
>>antitranspirants (natural)
>What are these?
CO2 perhaps?
>>greensand (glauconite)
>Intriguing. What is this used for, it's a not uncommon soil type round
>here.
'Natural' fertilizer - slow release potassium.
>>hydrogen peroxide
>Indisputably manufactured. Safe though.
Not if it's ingested!
>>piperonyl butoxide (PBO)
>What is this used for?
A synthetic compound, used as a synergist in many insecticide formulations.
>>rotenone
>Isn't this supposed to be really toxic?
You bet! Acute mammalian oral LD50 is from 10-30 mg/kg - very high indeed.
Estimated fatal dose for a 70kg human is from 10-100 g. Inhalation of the
dust is more hazardous.
>>sweage sludge and sludge compost
>Utterly disgraceful. The most important item that needs recycling for
>sustainable agriculture and it's BANNED! Speechless. So organic farming
>under this syetm is NOT NOT NOT sustainable. Great god alive.
Agreed. The list also illustrates a common fallacy: clearly, organic does
not mean natural or non-toxic!
Tracy
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: What percent of total farm product is organic??
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 08:29:58 +0000
In article <3687c84d.776585@news.earthlink.net>, Michael M Milligan
<mmmilligan@nospam.earthlink.net> writes
>I wonder what parts of agriculture are going organic? Across the board
>or primarily crops that had few chemical inputs to start with?
IN the UK leeks and carrots (quite easily grown at moderate scales
organically) are the main 'organic' vegetables.
Beef, and increasingly milk, is following suit because there is
essentially no difference in management and no real restrictions (other
than nitrogen use) on organic over conventional. For the relatively
extensive dairy farmer who has (probably due to quotas and the total
collapse of the beef market) more land than stock it is quite easy to
farm milk under 'organic' restrictions. One only loses the use of dry
cow therapy, which is of little loss given the deductions for
bacteriological quality are minute compared to the organic premium. In
effect all other drugs (and enough non-organic feed) are permitted under
the system.
--
Oz
From: taquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: CDC finds killer E. coli 0157 on 'natural' produce
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 99 15:05:14 GMT
In Article <76icur$ebu$3@news1.epix.net>, Harold Lindaberry
<harlind@epix.net> wrote:
>Dennis G. wrote:
>
>> As you say, a scary piece !
The alarmist tone reminds me of the typical Green propaganda. I guess the
idea is to fight fire with fire.
>> However, I wonder if a reasonable approach might be to have a lab test
>> manures for pathogen levels prior to using it for fertilizer. Couldn't that
>> remove or reduce the danger posited by the CDC results ?
>
> IMO being able to adequately to obtain a meaningful representative sample
>of X tons of manure would be almost impossible and the cost of running the
>tests would probably offset any economic advantages in its use.
I do not believe sampling is a problem, although the expense might be.
Anyway, such testing is probably unnecessary (see below).
>A better approach might be to
>restrict its use from vegetables and other crops where direct consumption is
>likely occur ie. grains, corn, dry beans, and of course dairy operations (
>where its use is already a well established farming technique ) and / or
>restrict applications allowing sufficient time for the normal soil organisms to
>do their job
Agreed, this would be a good idea. Current organic standards (eg., IFOAM)
allow not only raw animal manures to be used, but human sewage sludge as
well. The IFOAM standard also allows the use of manure from non-organic
sources. However, there is currently no organic standard that restricts
manure applications as Harold suggests. None of the standards list a maximum
application rate for raw animal manures, nor is any minimum time interval
required between application and harvest. For example, the EU regs do not
require manures to be composted, and do not require any post-application
harvest interval for manured crops. Clearly, this presents potentially
significant health risks.
Interestingly, the USDA proposed organic standard was highly criticized for
proposing to allow the use of sewage, even though the most widely accepted
organic standards allow it. It is also interesting that the USDA proposal is
unique in imposing a minimum 60 day interval before the harvest of crops for
human consumption. In fact, I have mentioned this several times this past
year, but the issue has never gotten much attention from either 'camp'.
I have also mentioned several times that certain Bt insecticide formulations
commonly used by organic farmers are known to contain enterotoxins that can
cause illness in humans, yet again, the issue has essentially been ignored
by all.
Tracy
From: taquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: What percent of total farm product is organic??
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 99 00:18:42 GMT
In Article <368D2180.74C6FF23@infinet.com>, Lucy Goodman-Owsley
<goodows@infinet.com> wrote:
>Michael M Milligan wrote:
>
>> If you want further reading try:
>> http://www.hudson.org/American_Outlook/articles_fa98/avery.htm
>>
>> Not too reassuring for organic affincianados . . .
>> --Mike
>
>I read the article on that link and it's the old arguement about putting raw
>manures ( and true some are carriers of both e-coli(s) and samonella) I would
>buy this arguement if i didn't know better
>
>FACT: Certified organic growers under the rules of the 1990 OPFA (organic foods
>protection act) which most of the 44 certifiers follow cannot apply raw manure
>within 6 months of harvest for leaf crops such as spinach and lettuce or any
>root crops.
This fact is not quite correct. Presumably you are referring to the US
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). The federal statute contains no
such guidelines whatsoever, and in fact this law has yet to actually be
implemented, so growers and certifiers are not legally bound by it yet.
Congress assigned the drafting and enforcement of specific regulations to
the USDA. The USDA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register last
year, which does contain detailed guidelines, but "most of the 44
certifiers" do not follow those guidelines. In fact, the proposed rule was
highly criticized by organic certifiers, and USDA is currently drafting a
revised proposal for a second round of public comment.
>If raw manure residue is being found on certified farms than they should be
>fined in accordance of the law in their state and have their certifacation
>revoked.
Maybe so, but standards vary between certifiers, and some states do not even
have laws regulating organic production. Anyway, I doubt you can cite a
specific standard anywhere that prohibits "manure residue", and almost
certainly no organic grower would ever be fined by the state or lose organic
certification just because manure residue was found on a certified farm.
>FACT: Certified growers are much more likely to use composted manure, that has
>been composted a minimum of 3 months at 145F and than cold composted another 3
>to 6 months before application.
In my personal experience, this is not true. Have you any support for this
'fact'? Because there are so many different certification standards, I am
not familiar with all of them. However, I am somewhat familiar with the OFPA
and the USDA proposed rule, and recently published a comparison with the
organic production standards of IFOAM (currently the most widely accepted
standard worldwide), the Codex Alimentarius (likely to be the prevailing
standard worldwide in the near future), and the EU organic regulations.
All of these organic production standards allow the application of raw,
uncomposted animal manures. The EU standard does not require manure to be
composted, but it must be from organic sources. The IFOAM standard allows
raw manure from organic sources, but manure from non-organic sources must be
composted. The Codex guidelines allow raw, uncomposted, non-organic sources.
None of the standards list a maximum application rate for raw animal
manures, nor is any minimum time interval required between application and
harvest, except in the USDA proposed rule, where a minimum 60 day interval
is required before the harvest of crops for human consumption. See Thomas T.
Aquilla, Public Takes Genetic Engineering Out Of The USDA National Organic
Program 17 (5) Biotechnology Law Report 610 (1998).
>FACT: There has never been a case of e-coli or samonella directly linked to a
>certified organic product ("natural" is NOT organic).
True perhaps, I am not familiar with the CDC data. The article did not
affirmatively state that any cases of infection were known to originate from
organic foods, but I imagine Mr. Avery would have made it quite clear if
that were really the case.
>FACT: Big produce growers rarely have sanitary facilities in the fields.
>Pickers urinate or defecate and do not wash their hands before returning to
>work. Sometimes there are no bathroom facilities for the pickers and they work
>over 12 hours in the fields, where do you think they go?
Well of course, they don't have to do it right on the lettuce. Actually, I
have seen many fields with facilities.
>I dunno... I have been raising my own food organically and buying organic
>what I don't raise. I haven't had any food born illness during this whole time.
Certainly that does not mean there is no risk of infection from organic
foods. Organic foods are probably just as likely as any other food to carry
food-borne pathogens, possibly moreso.
Back in the early '80s when I was growing and selling organic produce, I
also worked at a university food micro research lab where we did some work
in this area. Our experiments consistently found significantly higher fecal
coliform counts from organic carrots vs. 'conventional'. I do not know if
those results were ever published, but since then other labs have published
data to similar effect.
Tracy
From: taquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: CDC finds killer E. coli 0157 on 'natural' produce
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 99 03:52:43 GMT
In Article <x4h90fmwl8x.fsf@Steam.Stanford.EDU>, John McCarthy
<jmc@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>taquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla) writes:
>
>> In Article <x4hd84ywntx.fsf@Steam.Stanford.EDU>, John McCarthy
>> <jmc@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>> >
>> >Query: Does your own kind of organic certification require that
>> >the food not come from genetically modified organisms and not be
>> >sterilized by ionizing radiation?
>>
>> Both are prohibited by all of the standards with which I am familiar.
>> Tracy
>
>Why are they prohibited?
Generally because they are universally considered to be non-natural. The
IFOAM standard states that genetic engineering is inherently incompatible
with organic agriculture, because manipulations at the molecular level
bypass the holistic approach on which organic agriculture is based.
Ideally, all organic production standards strive to prohibit all non-natural
or synthetically produced inputs. However, production standards have
practical limits, and current organic standards reflect a balance between
what is pure and natural on one hand, and what is practical and sustainable
on the other. Therefore, numerous toxic compounds are approved for use in
organic production, because they are naturally occurring, or are extracted
from natural sources. Furthermore, all the standards permit the use of
certain synthetically produced inputs, although not without some
restrictions. Such exceptions are necessary when suitable organic
substitutes are unavailable, to accommodate the practical needs of organic
producers who must operate under the regulations.
The exceptions for synthetic inputs exemplify the recognition that all
production systems have practical limitations, and occasionally, sustainable
production is dependent upon inputs that are impossible or difficult to
obtain in practice. For example, various inorganic forms of elemental plant
nutrients are allowed in organic production, even though most are
synthetically produced, because it is sometimes difficult or impossible for
organic producers to successfully maintain plant and agroecosystem health
without such products. Other exceptions rationalized on similar grounds
include the allowance of synthetically produced pheromones, copper and
sulfur based pesticides, and even certain synthetic pyrethroids. The EU
regulations even allow the use of hormones in animal breeding programs
(interesting in light of its trade policy).
The EU standard and the USDA proposed rule also allow the use of piperonyl
butoxide, a toxic synthetic compound, which acts as a synergist in
combination with certain botanical insecticides. Use of the synergist
allows lower application rates of the botanical pesticides. In this case,
organic producers may substitute a synthetically produced compound for a
greater portion of the natural pesticide, because this practice is
considered safe, economical, and contributes to ecosystem health by
encouraging decreased pesticide use.
As can be seen in the foregoing examples, organic production standards have
traditionally balanced what is natural with what is sustainable. Whether a
particular synthetic input should be allowed in organic production requires
an examination of the specific factors that support the exceptions allowed
for other synthetic inputs, such as their effects on human health, crops,
livestock, and soil organisms, toxicity and environmental persistence,
environmental impact of use, potential interactions with other materials,
and need.
Although the exclusion of synthetic inputs is one of the fundamentals of
organic production, various exceptions are made in cases of bona fide need,
as long as the ecological principles underlying organic agriculture are
achieved through the use of such materials. However, each specific case
requires a thorough analysis of whether the particular synthetic material in
question will promote the sustainable health and productivity of the
agroecosystem.
Perhaps when full consideration is given to all of these factors, certain
GEOs could potentially advance the goals of organic production in some
cases, particularly when suitable alternatives are unavailable. While
organic agriculture is based entirely on the manner in which the product is
produced, the manner of production of GEOs is relevant only to the issue of
whether they are synthetic. Of course, once it is agreed that GEOs are
synthetic, the analysis should move on to the factors listed above to
evaluate whether the specific synthetic material should be allowed.
Some GEOs or related products of biotechnology, whether currently existing
or developed in the future, might have limited uses in organic agriculture.
For example, such products of biotechnology might be acceptable if they meet
specific needs, or decrease the use of pesticides, minimize health and
safety hazards to consumers, farm workers and animals, or promote nutrient
cycling and the long-term biological activity and productivity of the soil.
Based on the permitted use of synthetic pheromones and synthetically
produced attractants in organic production, biotechnology applications that
do not require the on site use or release of GEOs into the ecosystem might
be acceptable synthetic inputs, if their use would also meet the underlying
goal of promoting the sustainable maintenance of agroecosystem health.
GEOs and related products of biotechnology could be used to detect plant and
animal diseases, or human pathogens in organic food products. Such use of
biotechnology is analogous to chemical testing (already accepted), and might
be acceptable on this basis. Because testing can be confined, no GEOs need
be released into the agroecosystem. Based on this safety factor, the use of
biotechnology diagnostic tools is similar to the use of synthetic
pheromones. Such synthetic tools can promote overall agroecosystem health
without releasing any deleterious substances into the ecosystem, which is
one of the main goals of organic agriculture.
GEOs might also be acceptable for certain uses in plant and animal pest
control, where suitable organic alternatives are unavailable. Biocontrols
and beneficial organisms are already widely accepted in organic production,
and if a particular biotechnology product can sustainably and ecologically
control pests or promote recycling and soil activity, it might be acceptable
in organic production. However, GE biopesticides have already been highly
criticized, although the EPA and technical experts to the NOSB agree that
these products do not negatively impact the ecosystem. Unless there is a
critical need, GE biopesticides may not be acceptable for use in organic
production, but similar applications of biotechnology that are more
acceptable could develop in the future.
The currently available GE plants are also criticized, however it is
possible that some GE plants with sustainable traits could become acceptable
in organic production. Traits that might be acceptable include lower
nutrient and water requirements, or tolerance to saline soils or various
pests. Products of biotechnology that result in foods with higher
nutritional value may also be acceptable, such as rice or tomatoes with
higher levels of natural anti-cancer compounds.
>Separate question:
>
>Do you personally consider them harmful?
No, I do not worry about risks from any of these foods.
Tracy
From: taquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: CDC finds killer E. coli 0157 on 'natural' produce
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 99 17:23:28 GMT
In Article <x4h4sqaw7z7.fsf@Steam.Stanford.EDU>, John McCarthy
<jmc@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>Thanks Tracy for the exposition of organic doctrine. The idea of a
>compromise between natural and sustainable is one I hadn't heard
>before.
This idea of compromise appears to originate with the relatively recent
growth of the organic industry and the establishment of certification
standards. Particularly when making organic standards the law, it became
necessary to make some exceptions for certain synthetic inputs. The various
lists of acceptable synthetic materials are based on this rationale.
>The doctrine as a whole seems much closer to religion than to
>science.
I would agree that organic farming embraces a certain 'holistic philosophy'
that goes beyond science, but I would hesitate to go so far as to call it
religion, (although some advocates do seem rather evangelical). The essence
of organic farming is a preference for ecology over technology. Ecology is a
rather well established science, but I think we agree that the rejection of
technology per se is irrational.
>Therefore, it seems that sects are likely to exist or to
>come into being.
>1.How is the doctrine established, and who presides over the exceptions
>that are made?
The doctrine is primarily established by the authors of popular books and
scholarly publications on organic agriculture. Some standards are state law
(eg., Cal.), while others are implemented by private or non-profit
organizations, but most certification standards are generally based on the
IFOAM standard. Currently, the organic producers themselves generally
preside over the exceptions. However, USDA will eventually enforce a
universal standard, based on both industry and public input. There are
numerous forces shaping these standards, not the least of which are economic
factors.
>2. Why should the U.S. Government recognize these standards rather than
>some others?
The US government has not yet decided exactly which standard to use. IMO,
the the Feds should probably recognize the standard that is most widely
accepted on the international market, in order to facilitate US growers'
access to foreign markets for organic products. The US is not the only
player in the organic game, and the market for exported organic products is
growing fast. If US products are not up to foreign standards, the US
industry will likely suffer negative consequences.
>3. Are there any sects that consider other people's organic food not
>organic enough or not natural enough.
Presumably that is why the Feds decided to set a single standard nationwide.
Currently there are 33 private and 11 State organic certification agencies
in the US alone, which Congress believes has a negative impact on interstate
commerce.
>4. If you have no fears of eating radiation sterilized or genetically
>modified organisms, why do you defend the doctrine - or were you
>merely explaining it?
I was explaining it. I see no need to defend 'the doctrine'. However, I do
support organic farmers as much as any other farmer. While I do not
necessarily believe organic is 'better', I think there is clearly a place
for it, particularly considering the increasing demand. Currently, IMO
organic products should not contain GEOs because allowing GEOs in organic
foods could devastate the market and potentially even destroy the industry.
So far, I think the organic industry has generally helped many farmers'
bottom lines, and I particularly like that aspect.
These are just my personal opinions. Currently I have no connection with the
organic food industry, although I was an independent organic produce grower
some years ago.
Tracy
From: taquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: CDC finds killer E. coli 0157 on 'natural' produce
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 99 20:47:24 GMT
In Article <x4hww354fs6.fsf@Steam.Stanford.EDU>, John McCarthy
<jmc@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>I asked Tracy what IFOAM stands for,
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements.
http://www.ecoweb.dk/ifoam/
Tracy
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: CDC finds killer E. coli 0157 on 'natural' produce
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 06:20:56 +0000
In article <36902C02.65F@earthlink.net>, phil <jorge2@earthlink.net>
writes
>
>You used the term sterility.
I used the term 'virtual sterility'. The implication being that the
pathogens were no longer a problem.
>Care to provide a reference for these statements?
Ploughing in come from the UK regulations on the control of pathogens
for untreated sewage (references and abstracts were provided by the
water company). Similar work for treated sewages for application to
grazing interval for the UV deactivation (although here there can be a
crust a few mm thick).
I looked into it very hard a decade ago because for 23 years we used
over 2Mg of treated sewage annually. Now they have moved to pressed we
can't use it.
--
Oz
From: taquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: CDC finds killer E. coli 0157 on 'natural' produce
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 99 20:55:06 GMT
In Article <369665F6.5488CFA5@infinet.com>, Lucy Goodman-Owsley
<goodows@infinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well are you aware of an organic standard anywhere that does not allow
>> pesticides? Natural pesticides can be both very toxic and non-selective,
>> nevertheless, organic standards do not ban their use.
>> Tracy
>
>Sure I am
Please tell, which organic standard does not allow any pesticides (including
natural)? Certainly not IFOAM, the EU regs, or Codex - they all allow them.
>and in all cases the botanical pesticides are restricted.
Again, by which standards are the botanical pesticides restricted? All of
the organic standards I have studied to date allow the use of natural (but
toxic) pesticides.
>Organic folks are allowed to use poisons but they come from non synthetic
>sources
Not all of them are from natural sources either. For example, in the EU, the
use of piperonyl butoxide and certain synthetic pyrethroids (eg.,
deltamethrin and lambdacyhalothrin) are allowed in organic production. Other
common exceptions to the 'non-synthetic' rule include the allowance of
synthetically produced pheromones, and copper and sulfur based pesticides. I
imagine your OEFFA allows these?
>(dormant oil being the 1 exception and parafin oil is used instead of the
>traditional heavy mineral oil) and break down to inerts within 12 hours. True
That sounds like rationalizing to me. Is that really appropriate to the
organic philosophy? Personally, I think it might be, but I am not such a
purist. I am more of a pragmatist.
>big difference is the grower perspective. The organic person will observe the
>situation before bringing out the poisons. If the plants aren't stressed and
>there are benificials in the area let nature do the work and don't even spray.
Most 'conventional' growers observe the same policy (particularly if they
are interested in earning an income).
>The conventional person tends to think a good bug is a dead bug and brings on
>the sprays when only a few are spotted (and yes I do know about sampling a
Have you any evidence to support your assertion? In my experience as an
entomologist, growers do not apply pesticides until the pest approaches the
economic threshold.
>I swear you must think organic farmers are just a step out of the stoneage.
I have been studying and using organic methods for more than 15 years,
although currently I do not choose to grow enough excess to sell my produce.
However, I have encountered a few organic farmers (and some conventional
too) who do appear to be "just a step out of the stoneage".
>Yes we
>use pesticides to some degree and always as part of a good IPM program.
IPM is not organic, and it is becoming quite popular with conventional growers.
>is your living you need some safety nets and botanicals is one if the insects
>really get too bad.
Ah, rationalizing again, on economic grounds now? It's OK though, I do not
have a problem with that. Note however that this is compromising. Apparently
organic farmers are not all that different from conventional farmers.
>We just look at agriculture very differently...
Me too. I have not met many people on either side of the organic fence who
share my perspective. I guess I'm just too rational or too practical.
Tracy
From: "Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: CDC finds killer E. coli 0157 on 'natural' produce
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 15:11:00 +0100
Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>In Article <369665F6.5488CFA5@infinet.com>, Lucy Goodman-Owsley
><goodows@infinet.com> wrote:
>><..>
>Again, by which standards are the botanical pesticides restricted? All of
>the organic standards I have studied to date allow the use of natural (but
>toxic) pesticides.
>
>>Organic folks are allowed to use poisons but they come from non synthetic
>>sources
>
>Not all of them are from natural sources either. For example, in the EU, the
>use of piperonyl butoxide
This is wonderful. Tracy, you have had time to check up, that PBO is
indeed a synthetic! I remember you were somewhat undetermined
on that one, when the USDA organic national standard proposal came
out. -- it had the hilarous rationalization, remember, that piperonyl
butoxide
should be allowed because it is derived from non-synthetic sources,
But of course Everything is derived from non-synthetic sources.
BTW, I stumbled across an infobit indicating that some
fused natural compound in sesame? oil is a suitable
rawmaterial for the synthesis of piperonyl butoxide.
That's probably what USDA made a reference to,
when it implied that PBO is _almost_ a nonsynthetic.chemical.
:-)
>and certain synthetic pyrethroids (eg.,
>deltamethrin and lambdacyhalothrin) are allowed in organic production
<snip
Deltamethrin and lambda cyhalothrin? Maybe you are misinformed.
These are quite persistent synthetic insecticides
and they are not, afaik, allowed in EU organic production.
>exceptions to the 'non-synthetic' rule
Exceptions to a rule. Hmm -- you and Lucy appears to me
to be in agreement then,. that generally speaking
non-synthetic pesticides are not used in organic farming.
It is sligtly too American to me, this stressing
of the synthetic/natural issue.
I suppose there must be a difference across
that ocean. The common ground is the rule
that any use of pesticides on organic land
should be restricted, kept low as possible,
and as a last resort only.
In the USDA proposed rules I've seen,
apparently _all_ natural pesticides should be
allowed, unless they are expressly forbidden.
by being included on a 'forbidden naturals' list.
This is so very much different from the EU law, where
a pesticide -- natural or synthetic -- can only be used
if it is explicitly included under the (20) headings of a
short list of allowed pesticides product types.
>include the allowance of synthetically produced pheromones,
You are a bug expert aren't you? I wonder which pheromones
are _actually_ used? The relevant header of the EU rules just says
'Pheromone preparations'. I think your point is that such
preparations may be identical to natural pheromones, but that
they are likely to be produced synthetically.
>and copper
2 specific preparations of copper(II) ions are allowed.
Now Copper(II) ion does not strike me as that
much of a synthetic. Enough hairsplitting.
>and sulfur based pesticides.
Mm. Elemental sulphur is allowed.
>>(dormant oil being the 1 exception and parafin oil is used instead of the
>>traditional heavy mineral oil) and break down to inerts within 12 hours.
True
>That sounds like rationalizing to me. Is that really appropriate to the
>organic philosophy?
Whoah! Lucy, Tracy! Consider that paraffine oil is not a synthetic.
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
From: taquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: CDC finds killer E. coli 0157 on 'natural' produce
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 99 16:28:37 GMT
In Article <BsJl2.8039$lR.730@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
<iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>
>>Not all of them are from natural sources either. For example, in the EU,
>>the use of piperonyl butoxide
>
>This is wonderful. Tracy, you have had time to check up, that PBO is
>indeed a synthetic! I remember you were somewhat undetermined
>on that one, when the USDA organic national standard proposal came
>out.
I was not really on the fence mind you, I just pointed out the rationale
given by USDA.
> -- it had the hilarous rationalization, remember, that piperonyl
>butoxide
>should be allowed because it is derived from non-synthetic sources,
If you read carefully, you might find there is a bit more to it. Use of the
synergist allows lower application rates of the botanical pesticides.
Organic producers may substitute this synthetically produced compound for a
greater portion of natural pesticide, because this practice is considered
safe, economical, and contributes to ecosystem health by encouraging
decreased pesticide use. Rational perhaps, but nevertheless a compromise
from the 'all-natural' rule. I do not recall seeing any rationale in the EU
regs for making this compromise.
>But of course Everything is derived from non-synthetic sources.
Yes, and all plants and animals are both natural and organic. ;-)
>BTW, I stumbled across an infobit indicating that some
>fused natural compound in sesame? oil is a suitable
>rawmaterial for the synthesis of piperonyl butoxide.
>That's probably what USDA made a reference to,
>when it implied that PBO is _almost_ a nonsynthetic.chemical.
>:-)
Thanks for the infobit.
>>and certain synthetic pyrethroids (eg.,
>>deltamethrin and lambdacyhalothrin) are allowed in organic production
><snip
>
>Deltamethrin and lambda cyhalothrin? Maybe you are misinformed.
>These are quite persistent synthetic insecticides
>and they are not, afaik, allowed in EU organic production.
Not misinformed, as I said, I have carefully reviewed these standards. See
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1488/97 of 29 July 1997 amending Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products
and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs
(note particularly the amendments to Section B of Annex II).
In addition to deltamethrin and lambdacyhalothrin, this amendment also
allows the following: diammonium phospate, metaldehyde, pheromones, copper
in the form of copper hydroxide, copper oxychloride, copper sulphate,
cuprous oxide, ethylene, etc.
>>exceptions to the 'non-synthetic' rule
>
>Exceptions to a rule. Hmm -- you and Lucy appears to me
>to be in agreement then,. that generally speaking
>non-synthetic pesticides are not used in organic farming.
How's that? Maybe you meant synthetic pesticides are generally not used?
Non-synthetic pesticides = natural pesticides, which are indeed used in
organic farming. The exceptions I was referring to are those that allow
synthetically produced pesticides in organic production.
>It is sligtly too American to me, this stressing
>of the synthetic/natural issue.
Well I don't really think IFOAM is an American institution, is it?
>I suppose there must be a difference across
>that ocean. The common ground is the rule
>that any use of pesticides on organic land
>should be restricted, kept low as possible,
>and as a last resort only.
Well this is a fundamental of every organic standard I have ever seen,
including the USDA proposed rule.
>In the USDA proposed rules I've seen,
>apparently _all_ natural pesticides should be
>allowed, unless they are expressly forbidden.
>by being included on a 'forbidden naturals' list.
Merely a matter of trying to keep the lists as short as possible. It is
simpler to allow all the known natural pesticides than to list them all
one-by-one, but there is no real practical difference. If you compare the
allowed and prohibited substances between the standards, the differences are
essentially insignificant.
>This is so very much different from the EU law, where
>a pesticide -- natural or synthetic -- can only be used
>if it is explicitly included under the (20) headings of a
>short list of allowed pesticides product types.
A difference in approach to writing the rules perhaps, but not a substantive
difference in the products that are actually allowed in practice.
>>include the allowance of synthetically produced pheromones,
>
>You are a bug expert aren't you? I wonder which pheromones
>are _actually_ used?
I know many are available, but I am not sure how many are actually used.
Considering their general utility and ecologically sound character, I would
expect them to be used widely.
>I think your point is that such
>preparations may be identical to natural pheromones, but that
>they are likely to be produced synthetically.
Yes, another compromise allowing synthetically produced compounds in organic
production. Under this rationale, maybe they will eventually allow nitrogen
fixed through the Haber process, once it is realized that it is 'sustainable'?
>>and copper
>
>2 specific preparations of copper(II) ions are allowed.
>Now Copper(II) ion does not strike me as that
>much of a synthetic. Enough hairsplitting.
How about copper hydroxide, copper oxychloride, copper sulphate, and cuprous
oxide? Even Cu(II) is synthetically produced, no?
>>and sulfur based pesticides.
>
>Mm. Elemental sulphur is allowed.
Don't forget copper sulfate.
>>>(dormant oil being the 1 exception and parafin oil is used instead of the
>>>traditional heavy mineral oil) and break down to inerts within 12 hours.
>True
>
>>That sounds like rationalizing to me. Is that really appropriate to the
>>organic philosophy?
>
>Whoah! Lucy, Tracy! Consider that paraffine oil is not a synthetic.
Well how about mineral oils? Aren't these chemically processed?
Tracy
From: "Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: CDC finds killer E. coli 0157 on 'natural' produce
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 20:37:52 +0100
Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>In Article <BsJl2.8039$lR.730@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
><iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>>Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>>This is wonderful. Tracy, you have had time to check up, that PBO is
>>indeed a synthetic! I remember you were somewhat undetermined
>>on that one, when the USDA organic national standard proposal came
>>out.
>
>I was not really on the fence mind you, I just pointed out the rationale
>given by USDA.
True. As I read it you just hesitated to make the conclusion that
such bull could be found in a USDA proposal for public comment.
>> -- it had the hilarous rationalization, remember, that piperonyl
>>butoxide
>>should be allowed because it is derived from non-synthetic sources,
>
>If you read carefully, you might find there is a bit more to it. Use of the
>synergist allows lower application rates of the botanical pesticides.
> producers may substitute this synthetically produced compound for a
>greater portion of natural pesticide, because this practice is considered
>safe, economical, and contributes to ecosystem health by encouraging
>decreased pesticide use.
That may be, but it is just speculation. It is charming to hear that
'ol USDA melody again :-) Remember that PBO acts by increasing the
persistence of insecticidal activity. Using it is not per se beneficial.
>Rational perhaps, but nevertheless a compromise
>from the 'all-natural' rule. I do not recall seeing any rationale in the EU
>regs for making this compromise.
The all natural rule is not very prominent in the EU regs. Any compromises
with it should not be expected to be very prominent either.
<..>l
>>>and certain synthetic pyrethroids (eg.,
>>>deltamethrin and lambdacyhalothrin) are allowed in organic production
>><snip
>>
>>Deltamethrin and lambda cyhalothrin? Maybe you are misinformed.
<..>
>Not misinformed, as I said, I have carefully reviewed these standards. See
>COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1488/97 of 29 July 1997 amending Council
>Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products
>and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs
>(note particularly the amendments to Section B of Annex II).
>In addition to deltamethrin and lambdacyhalothrin, this amendment also
>allows the following: diammonium phospate, metaldehyde, pheromones, copper
>in the form of copper hydroxide, copper oxychloride, copper sulphate,
>cuprous oxide, ethylene, etc.
Deltamethrin and lamdacyhalothrin. My,my.
I have checked, and you are right.
I am surprised and appalled. Bastards.
Thanks for the information.
As far as I have been able to find out,
the Danish national organic standard has
not adopted their use, but imported organic produce
may have been produced with those
substances. It runs counterface to the
stated object of the EU standard: to facilitate
community trade.
>>It is sligtly too American to me, this stressing
>>of the synthetic/natural issue.
>Well I don't really think IFOAM is an American institution, is it?
>>I suppose there must be a difference across
>>that ocean. The common ground is the rule
>>that any use of pesticides on organic land
>>should be restricted, kept low as possible,
>>and as a last resort only.
>Well this is a fundamental of every organic standard I have ever seen,
>including the USDA proposed rule.
It seems to be difficult to imagine an organic farming system
making exceptions to _that_ fundamental, then.
>>In the USDA proposed rules I've seen,
>>apparently _all_ natural pesticides should be
>>allowed, unless they are expressly forbidden.
>>by being included on a 'forbidden naturals' list.
>Merely a matter of trying to keep the lists as short as possible. It is
>simpler to allow all the known natural pesticides than to list them all
>one-by-one, but there is no real practical difference. If you compare the
>allowed and prohibited substances between the standards, the differences
>are essentially insignificant.
When ends meet, that may be very true, the effect
of a limited supply and spectrum of useful natural substances.
>>This is so very much different from the EU law, where
>>a pesticide -- natural or synthetic -- can only be used
>>if it is explicitly included under the (20) headings of a
>>short list of allowed pesticides product types.
>
>A difference in approach to writing the rules perhaps, but not a
>substantive difference in the products that are actually allowed in
>practice.
The position that all natural pesticides by default are allowed
(except..) is different from the EU law, which rather takes the position
that pesticides per se are _not_ allowed (except..) I still think this
is the saner approach, when the basic idea is to keep pesticide use at a
minimum.
>>You are a bug expert aren't you? I wonder which pheromones
>>are _actually_ used?
>I know many are available, but I am not sure how many are actually used.
>Considering their general utility and ecologically sound character, I would
>expect them to be used widely.
I understand that they would be technically used in traps and such,
not on the crop or the land?
>>I think your point is that such
>>preparations may be identical to natural pheromones, but that
>>they are likely to be produced synthetically.
>
>Yes, another compromise allowing synthetically produced compounds in organic
>production. Under this rationale, maybe they will eventually allow nitrogen
>fixed through the Haber process, once it is realized that it is
'sustainable'?
Well.
It is hardly the most sustainable of processes feeding modern farming,
rather the least sustainable. Were we to abolish all manure recycling
(as the article offsetting this thread suggested) an alternative to the
present source of molecular hydrogen to the Haber process would
be needed not too far into the future.
>>>and copper
>>
>>2 specific preparations of copper(II) ions are allowed.
>>Now Copper(II) ion does not strike me as that
>>much of a synthetic. Enough hairsplitting.
>
>How about copper hydroxide, copper oxychloride, copper sulphate, and
>cuprous oxide? Even Cu(II) is synthetically produced, no?
OK let's hairsplit. :^)
No, Tracy. Cu(II) is not necessarily synthetically produced. And
neither are anions like hydroxide, oxide, or sulphate. These ions have
been here since the dawn of everything, and they are everywhere in
nature. They are as natural as anything.
>>>and sulfur based pesticides.
>>Mm. Elemental sulphur is allowed.
>Don't forget copper sulfate.
Ahem. I trusted that you'd remember it for me ;-)
Here's one for you: Deltamethrin, the compound
which you've told me has now been permitted in the
EU community organic standard, is actually
an _organochlorine_ insecticide, and
chemically related to DDT.
>>Whoah! Lucy, Tracy! Consider that paraffine oil is not a synthetic.
>
>Well how about mineral oils? Aren't these chemically processed?
As the name suggests, they are minerals, i.e. they are found in nature.
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
From: taquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: CDC finds killer E. coli 0157 on 'natural' produce
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 99 16:51:17 GMT
In Article <2fOl2.8295$lR.980@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
<iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>>In Article <BsJl2.8039$lR.730@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
>><iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>
>>>This is wonderful. Tracy, you have had time to check up, that PBO is
>>>indeed a synthetic! I remember you were somewhat undetermined
>>>on that one, when the USDA organic national standard proposal came
>>>out.
>>
>>I was not really on the fence mind you, I just pointed out the rationale
>>given by USDA.
>
>True. As I read it you just hesitated to make the conclusion that
>such bull could be found in a USDA proposal for public comment.
Actually IIRC, I pointed out the so-called 'bull' found in the USDA proposal
in the first place.
>>> -- it had the hilarous rationalization, remember, that piperonyl
>>>butoxide
>>>should be allowed because it is derived from non-synthetic sources,
Just like your rationalization below re use of Cu(II) and mineral oils! I
suppose whether it is hilarious depends on one's perspective, and apparently
also on which particular compound is being discussed.
>'ol USDA melody again :-) Remember that PBO acts by increasing the
>persistence of insecticidal activity. Using it is not per se beneficial.
I wonder why the EU regulations allow it then? The USDA has at least made
its position clear, however weak you may find its argument. From my reading
of the EU regulations, the reason for allowing this per se non-beneficial
synthetic compound is not clear at all. BTW, PBO is also known to inhibit
the cytochrome P450 system and to potentiate some pesticides, so it actually
does more than just act by increasing persistence of activity.
>>Rational perhaps, but nevertheless a compromise
>>from the 'all-natural' rule. I do not recall seeing any rationale in the EU
>>regs for making this compromise.
>
>The all natural rule is not very prominent in the EU regs. Any compromises
>with it should not be expected to be very prominent either.
Oh no? The goal of avoiding the use of synthetic chemicals is as prominent
in the EU regs as in any other organic standards. It is simply one of the
fundamentals of organic agriculture, which appears to serve as a starting
point for making the rules, even in the case of the EU regs.
>Deltamethrin and lamdacyhalothrin. My,my.
>I have checked, and you are right.
>I am surprised and appalled. Bastards.
>Thanks for the information.
Presumably the EU regs would never make such a compromise without a very
good reason. It is not clear to me what that reason is, but most likely
these compounds are perceived to fulfill an important need that cannot be
met with the available natural products.
>As far as I have been able to find out,
>the Danish national organic standard has
>not adopted their use, but imported organic produce
>may have been produced with those
>substances. It runs counterface to the
>stated object of the EU standard: to facilitate
>community trade.
No problem, as long as each member country eventually ratifies the
amendments. ;-) If they careful, the EU could wind up having several
different standards (as is currently the case in the US). This does create
potential trade barriers, which are not very popular these days.
>>>I suppose there must be a difference across
>>>that ocean. The common ground is the rule
>>>that any use of pesticides on organic land
>>>should be restricted, kept low as possible,
>>>and as a last resort only.
>
>>Well this is a fundamental of every organic standard I have ever seen,
>>including the USDA proposed rule.
>
>It seems to be difficult to imagine an organic farming system
>making exceptions to _that_ fundamental, then.
Yes, in fact, I do not know of of any organic standard that makes such an
exception.
>>>In the USDA proposed rules I've seen,
>>>apparently _all_ natural pesticides should be
>>>allowed, unless they are expressly forbidden.
>>>by being included on a 'forbidden naturals' list.
>
>>Merely a matter of trying to keep the lists as short as possible. It is
>>simpler to allow all the known natural pesticides than to list them all
>>one-by-one, but there is no real practical difference. If you compare the
>>allowed and prohibited substances between the standards, the differences
>>are essentially insignificant.
>
>When ends meet, that may be very true, the effect
>of a limited supply and spectrum of useful natural substances.
The limited supply and spectrum of useful natural substances is also the
reason why certain synthetics are allowed by all organic standards. While
the goal of being 'all natural' may be attractive, it has practical
drawbacks that must be addressed - hence the compromises and exceptions to
the general rule.
>>>You are a bug expert aren't you? I wonder which pheromones
>>>are _actually_ used?
>
>>I know many are available, but I am not sure how many are actually used.
>>Considering their general utility and ecologically sound character, I would
>>expect them to be used widely.
>
>I understand that they would be technically used in traps and such,
>not on the crop or the land?
Technically correct, however pheromones tend to be rather volatile
compounds. They are effective because they disperse throughout a field and
stimulate insects from a distance. IMO, pheromones are probably the most
safe/environmentally benign form of chemical insect management in current
use, however, they are nevertheless synthetically produced, and in fact they
are released directly into the environment when they volatilize into the
air, as intended. This example illustrates the point that organic standards
in practice strike a balance between all natural on the one hand and the
practical needs of farmers on the other.
>>>I think your point is that such
>>>preparations may be identical to natural pheromones, but that
>>>they are likely to be produced synthetically.
>>
>>Yes, another compromise allowing synthetically produced compounds in
>>organic production. Under this rationale, maybe they will eventually allow
>>nitrogen fixed through the Haber process, once it is realized that it is
>>'sustainable'?
>
>It is hardly the most sustainable of processes feeding modern farming,
>rather the least sustainable. Were we to abolish all manure recycling
>(as the article offsetting this thread suggested) an alternative to the
>present source of molecular hydrogen to the Haber process would
>be needed not too far into the future.
Damn, and we were making such progress up to this point. I see nothing
inherently 'unsustainable' about obtaining soluble nitrogen through the
Haber process (except perhaps that it makes so much nitrogen available it
allows a larger human population to thrive).
I certainly do not advocate the abolition of manure recycling; that would be
stupid, although apparently there are many organic advocates who are indeed
opposed to the recycling of certain manures (i.e. human). I am quite in
favor of recycling all of this stuff back to the soil where it belongs,
instead of putting it into the waterways.
>>>>and copper
>>>
>>>2 specific preparations of copper(II) ions are allowed.
>>>Now Copper(II) ion does not strike me as that
>>>much of a synthetic. Enough hairsplitting.
>>
>>How about copper hydroxide, copper oxychloride, copper sulphate, and
>cuprous
>>oxide? Even Cu(II) is synthetically produced, no?
>
>OK let's hairsplit. :^)
>
>No, Tracy. Cu(II) is not necessarily synthetically produced.
Well these compounds as applied in agriculture are in practice synthetically
produced, no? Are any of the above compounds used in organic production
derived directly from natural sources (eg. copper ion or copper oxychloride
mines)?
>And neither are anions like hydroxide, oxide, or sulphate. These ions have
>been here since the dawn of everything, and they are everywhere in nature.
>They are as natural as anything.
Yes, and the same can be said of nitrate and ammonia. However, there are
natural sources and there are synthetic sources, and this is relevant in the
present context.
>Here's one for you: Deltamethrin, the compound
>which you've told me has now been permitted in the
>EU community organic standard, is actually
>an _organochlorine_ insecticide, and
>chemically related to DDT.
Yes, IIRC it also interacts with the same target site.
>>>Whoah! Lucy, Tracy! Consider that paraffine oil is not a synthetic.
>>
>>Well how about mineral oils? Aren't these chemically processed?
>
>As the name suggests, they are minerals, i.e. they are found in nature.
But in the exact same form that is applied to the plants? Are these products
as used in organic agriculture not derived through chemical processing of
natural materials found in the earth? Is this not analagous to deriving PBO
through chemical processing of a natural compound found in plants, or NH3
from N2 in the air? I guess I can see why you did not want to split those
hairs. ;-)
Tracy
From: taquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: CDC finds killer E. coli 0157 on 'natural' produce
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 99 17:00:49 GMT
In Article <cE%l2.675$Qy.501@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
<iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>
>[>>>Well how about mineral oils? Aren't these chemically processed?]
>[>>As the name suggests, they are minerals, i.e. they are found in nature.]
>
>Oz wrote:
>
>>Hey, Torsten, be careful that's my argument. Not so many steps from
>>crude oil and mineral oils but neither from crude oil to pesticides ..
>>[And only one step from N2 to NH3 in Haber ...!]
>
>Don't worry, if it is your argument. I am not taking it away from you.
>
>As I read the argument it is saying that a product is almost natural,
>if it can be derived by only one (or a few) synthetic step(s) from
>a natural compound.
IMO, something is either natural or synthetic (i.e., man made); 'almost
natural' just doesn't cut it with me. Apparently however, some synthetic
compounds are acceptable and some are not, and that is where we have a
slight problem. Just how do we decide which synthetic compounds are acceptable?
>The argument also seems to say that being natural or almost natural
>implies being better than being less natural or not natural at all.
No, that is a different argument (although tangentially related). IMO, this
particular argument is one of the fundamentals of organic farming (i.e.,
natural is better), however irrational. I particularly find the exceptions
very interesting.
>The language use here is at best fuzzy, and the whole
>argument looks contentiously nonsensical to me.
Well then, why did you use that argument re mineral oils, NH3 and copper
ions? It seems the argument suits you when it supports your conclusion, but
does not suit you when it does not support your conclusion.
Tracy
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: CDC finds killer E. coli 0157 on 'natural' produce
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:02:33 GMT
taquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla) wrote:
>In Article <BsJl2.8039$lR.730@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
><iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>>Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>>>> (dormant oil being the 1 exception and parafin oil is used instead
>>>> of the traditional heavy mineral oil) and break down to inerts
>>>> within 12 hours.
>>True
>>>That sounds like rationalizing to me. Is that really appropriate to the
>>>organic philosophy?
>>Whoah! Lucy, Tracy! Consider that paraffine oil is not a synthetic.
>
>Well how about mineral oils? Aren't these chemically processed?
This discussion is rapidly approaching AIW ( Alice in Wonderland )
territory - where any word can mean whatever the poster wants it to
mean.
Paraffin oils and Heavy/light mineral oils are typically sold to
a specification. Virtually all specifications require that the oil
be "treated" to remove undesirable components, usually defining
some of the following - acidity, colour, sulfur, aromatics, waxes
or carbonisible compounds. This has been the case since at least
the 1940s - my oldest reference.
These "treatments" are chemical processes that usually occur after
the distillation to ensure the product is safe and stable. There is
little doubt that mineral oils and paraffin oils are subjected to
chemical and physical processes that remove undesirable compounds
after the distillation stages have fractionated the crude oil.
These processes fundamentally change the hydrocarbon fraction to
make it suitable for intended use, and usually involve chemical
treatment. As crude oil is derived from ancient plant material,
I suppose it could be considered as natural in AIW language, but
it would contain some residues from the processing.
Whilst checking my older text, I came across the following data
for Insecticides and Fungicides used in the USA in 1939 or 1940.
Lead arsenate 59,568,596 lb.
Calcium arsenate 39,281,788 lb.
Lime-sulfur solution 9,491,068 gal.
Pyrethrum flowers (1940 imports) 12,591,220 lb.
Rotenone-bearing roots (1940 imports) 6,556,815 lb.
The compressed bales of pyrethrum flowers were broken up, ground
to a fine powder and extracted several times with chlorinated
solvent ( carbon tetrachloride was often used ).
The rotenone-bearing roots ( such as derris ) were ground and
extracted with chlorinated solvent ( carbon terachloride or
chloroform were often used ).
I assume grades for "organic" use don't involve "synthetic"
solvent extractions - but then again I suppose that in this
AIW world chloroform and carbon tetrachloride could be considered
natural, as they are produced by nature as well, but they
would contain some solvent residues from the extraction processes.
Bruce Hamilton
From: "Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: CDC finds killer E. coli 0157 on 'natural' produce
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:06:57 +0100
Bruce Hamilton skrev i meddelelsen
<369afde3.222380986@Newshost.comnet.co.nz>...
>taquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla) wrote:
>>In Article <BsJl2.8039$lR.730@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
>><iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>>>Whoah! Lucy, Tracy! Consider that paraffine oil is not a synthetic.
>>Well how about mineral oils? Aren't these chemically processed?
>This discussion is rapidly approaching AIW ( Alice in Wonderland )
>territory - where any word can mean whatever the poster wants it to
>mean. <..>
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean
so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master ---
that's all."
Bruce, please watch the context of this joyful word game:
The USDA proposed National Organic Standard -- is the word
master around here. The proposed rule has a definition-of-terms
section which includes definitions of such key terms as
synthetic , non synthetic, and genetic engineering.
Thusly defining the grey area between play and foul play,
when a whistle may sound, and when it definitely will:
"Synthetic.
A substance that is formulated or manufactured by a chemical process or
by a process that chemically changes a substance extracted from naturally
occurring plant, animal, or mineral sources, except that such term shall
not apply to substances created by naturally occurring biological
processes."
"Non-synthetic (natural).
A substance that is derived from mineral, plant or animal matter and does
not undergo a synthetic process as defined in section 2103(21) of the
OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6502(21)). For the purposes of this part, non-synthetic is
used as a synonym for natural as the term is used in the Act."
"Genetic engineering.
Genetic modification of organisms by recombinant DNA techniques."
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
From: "Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inetdotuni2.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.agriculture,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Organic food is probably temporary
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:16:37 +0100
Oz wrote:
>In article <MPG.11044d1792426b48989dd4@news.teleport.com>, Larry
>Caldwell <larryc@teleport.com> writes
>
>>Nothing like the good old days. What was in Paris Green?
>
>Wasn't it one of the copper compounds? Judging by the hyper-toxic stuff
>used then it could have been copper arsenate!
That's close.
Paris Green is copper acetoarsenite.
Cu4(CH3COO)2(AsO2)6 for the chemically bent.
The acute toxicity of the compound is not exceedingly impressive, Oz,
compared to more recent insecticides say pyrethroid insecticides,
carbamates or OPs.
It is a carcinogen (IARC 1, evidence of carcinogenicity in humans).
It is a quite broadspectred biocide, control of bacteria, fungi, insects,
molluscs, wood preservation, being among it's technological virtues.
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
From: taquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.econ,sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Government gives in to organic superstitions
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 99 20:36:53 GMT
In Article <36b1e618.252978766@news.psnw.com>, shawk@hawk..dot (Studebaker
Hawk) wrote:
>"Durk Oosterhof" <d.oosterhof@tref.nl> wrote:
>>Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>>>
>>>In fact the US FDA does not support mandatory labelling of GE products
>>>either, because a GE potato is not materially different from a non-GE
>>>potato.
>
>Perhaps that question is for the "organic" lable?
This is a good point. The food safety laws enforced by FDA are based on
science and the focus is on the product. Organic standards, on the other
hand, focus on the process (method of production), and are not based on food
safety. Considering these differences in approach, it is not inconsistent to
require no GE label on non-organic foods, while nevertheless excluding GE
from the inherently process-based organic production methods.
>>> If the government were to require labelling based on consumer whims
>>>or mere curiosity, imagine how many things would be required on labels.
>
>If a reasonable number of people are concerned about it,
>it should be their right to choose.
Maybe so, but the problem is, mandatory labeling laws affect others than
merely those who "are concerned about it". Any mandatory labeling scheme
would force necessarily the majority of citizens to subsidize labels
required by the minority who seek foods that they perceive to be 'natural'
(watch out - who knows what politically correct labels will come next).
However, it is economically inefficient to force the majority of the
population to subsidize labels required by the minority. This issue
illustrates the need for balancing the public cost of well-intended
regulations against the actual benefits of those regulations. When there is
greater risk of public harm, there is a greater justification for
restrictive regulations, however, when the risk is negligible or
non-existent, burdensome regulation is unjustified. Voluntary labelling
schemes, such as the organic label, are easier to justify on that basis alone.
>The foundation of
>capitalism is an informed consumer. The solution may be
>in the "organic" lable. No other products need carry that
>info. But it is important that there be choice available,
>and the FDA may be needed to set those standards/definitions.
We agree here, but note that it is the USDA that is handling the organic
standards in the US.
>>>>>OK, so exactly which products did you have in mind?
>>>>
>>>>Soja and mais used in human and animal food.
>
>So an "organic" or a non-GE lable might be all that is needed.
>Totally voluntary, but if you put that lable on your product,
>it should have meaning.
We agree.
>The question of "organic superstitions" is none of our
>business. What is our buisness is the freedom to choose.
Indeed. I support organic standards simply because the market exists (for
better or worse) and the labels should apply consistent definitions. It also
appears to have developed into a thriving industry, and is a reasonable
alternative for many producers, as there can be substantial financial
returns. This is not a bad thing (for some farmers anyway).
>"Organic superstitions" like religious superstition
>has no validity in restricting choice or making laws.
Agreed. I believe John's complaint was that subsidizing labels for the
minority (mentioned above) is economically inefficient, and in this case is
also 'un-scientific'. While this is true to an extent, nevertheless, there
is a significant population buying and selling organic foods, and our
government has the duty and authority to prevent fraudulent or misleading
labelling, particularly on food products. It is simply a cost of living in
our society that virtually everyone must subsidize some public projects they
do not want to support. It is reasonable to set certification standards for
organic products, even if for no other reason than that the people want
them. Note also that while the food safety regulations enforced by FDA are
based on science, many agro-industry regulations are based on socio-economic
policies aimed at promoting or stabilizing the industry. Rather than
foisting a mandatory GE label on all foods, it is more efficient to simply
exclude GE from organic products. IMO, this is a pretty fair policy all around.
What troubles me a bit, and perhaps this is John's beef as well, is the idea
that standards for regulating food safety might eventually be based on the
kinds of non-scientific or socio-economic factors that are used to set
organic standards and the like, thus turning food safety on its head by
making it into a political issue. The EU has been pushing in this direction
for some time, particularly in regard to international trade policy. For
example, consumer advocate groups in the EU are currently using the Codex
Alimentarius to block rBST and the development of GE crops. The ban on US
beef is another example. Apparently, the EU would like the WTO to ignore
science completely when settling trade disputes, even when the real issue
boils down to one of food safety. Hopefully this will not develop into a
major trend world-wide, but it is something worth keeping an eye on.
Tracy
From: taquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.econ,sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Government gives in to organic superstitions
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 99 21:50:48 GMT
In Article <36B22545.39FD65BB@erols.com>, Bill Terrell <wterrell@erols.com>
wrote:
>Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>> In Article <36B1D732.E92B1F3@erols.com>, Bill Terrell <wterrell@erols.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >If the FDA says so, it must be true.???
>>
>> Not necessarily, however I am confident that numerous FDA scientists have
>> looked at this issue much more closely than either you or I have, and based
>> on my experience as a geneticist I agree with FDA on this point.
>> Tracy
>
>They may have looked at it more closely, but they have not looked at it long
>enough, broadly enough, or deeply enough to even begin to compete with the
>level of testing that non-genetically engineered foods have undergone.
That is plainly untrue. There has not been much scientific study of either
the genetics or the chemistry of plants until fairly recently. In fact, very
few food plants were ever tested for carcinogenicity, until Bruce Ames found
that virtually all plants produce abundant natural carcinogens. The fact
that we have been eating plants for millions of years does not imply that we
know much about their toxic properties. Such knowledge is actually quite recent.
>That's not even
>getting into the question of how objective the FDA can be under what must be
>considerable pressure from commerical interests.
FDA is under much greater pressure from public interests, as the purpose of
FDA is to protect public health, not to promote industry (that is left to
other agencies).
Tracy
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Interesting slant on organic productivity - plus thoughts on abuse
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 10:04:06 +0100
margaret.ballast wrote on Wed, 6 Sep 2000
>what I find particularly thought provoking
>is the reference towards the end of the quote to the unrelenting propaganda
>campaign waged against organic production. in the normal scheme of things
>I've never understood why organic methods and those who practice them
>provoke such antagonism and often personal abuse. It only makes sense when
>it's seen in terms of big business attempts to control and monopolise food
>supplies.
It has nothing to do with 'big business' whatsoever. They will happily
profit from organic farmers as they do for conventional. It's their job.
The problem, at least as far as the UK is concerned, is that organic
farming organisations have promoted their products by lying about
conventional products and condemning conventional farmers by using
mistruths and downright lies.
Eventually the worm turns.
We had an example of TV only a few days ago where the spokeswoman of the
soil association said that no organic farm had ever had bse (incorrect,
purdey did for one) and that organic beef was guaranteed safe for bse
(again incorrect) and that there was a huge and proven risk of v-cjd
from non-organic pig and poultry (almost certainly utter garbage).
Last week an article in the times said that because of the high 60%
forage use in organic dairy rations then the cholesterol-beneficial
fatty acids in organic milk products positively aided high cholesterol
people (incorrect, actually, it helps the normal population) quite
unlike the high-concentrate-use in all non-organic dairy farms where the
levels were very low (also incorrect for the UK). In fact most non-
organic UK dairy farms feed a HIGHER percentage of forage than the 60%
for organic (presumably because the use of nitrogen means higher forage
yields and thus better availability of forage) so in fact the reality is
that the case is reversed, non-organic milk should be BETTER in this
case than organic milk.
Get this sort of stuff for 20 years and eventually you get fed up with
being publically misrepresented for financial gain (ie promotion of
luxury, high-price brand-name products).
--
Oz
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Interesting slant on organic productivity - plus thoughts on abuse
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 09:01:13 +0100
margaret.ballast wrote on Wed, 6 Sep 2000
>
>Both sides are claiming foul and I wonder what's going on. The kind of
>claims you talk about below I find chilling and I've never known the SA make
>exaggerated claims - when I was a member they always erred on the side of
>caution.
That's certainly NOT been the case in the last 5 or 10 years.
Let's face it if you are trying to sell a product with a huge premium
then you have to rationalise why consumers should pay the premium. Then
you have a problem:
1) They aren't in fact any 'safer' and may indeed be more hazardous due
to assorted toxins. [Try paper available on www.foodstandards.gov.uk,
although I haven't read it.]
2) They aren't better 'quality' in fact they should show more blemishes
and due to poor supply things like milling wheat are accepted at a MUCH
lower spec than conventional. Milk hygiene specification for organic is
way below conventional.
3) All the double blind trials of flavour I have seen shows no
difference.
4) The methods used are by no means all more beneficial to the
environment, high organic manuring, comb harrows and late ploughing for
example. For ruminants (UK) the difference is pretty well confined to
the use or not of bag fertiliser. I would expect arable operations to be
generally more wildlife-friendly within the field though.
5) They cannot claim they are antibiotic free, since antibiotics are
permitted. They cannot claim they are pesticide free, since approved
pesticides are permitted. They can claim their animals are not given
hormones, but then that's true of ALL EU animals.
So the differences are marginal. They could be sold as being from 'small
family farms', although with some of the veg corporates (about the only
real UK corporates) moving some production to organic even this is
doubtful.
They have a problem.
>I think organic people would say they have also been misrepresented.
Examples?
>I think its farmers whether conventional or organic who are under attack and
>that a more or less concerted effort is underway to put them out of farming,
>call them environmental guardians or something and import as much food as
>possible.
Correct. This is the problem, and it will last until there is a world
food shortage due some poor harvests and then farmers will be blamed for
that too.
--
Oz
From: Tracy Aquilla <aquilla@bpmlegal.com>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Interesting slant on organic productivity - plus thoughts on abuse
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 09:47:37 -0400
Oz wrote:
> [snip]
> 5) They cannot claim they are antibiotic free, since antibiotics are
> permitted. They cannot claim they are pesticide free, since approved
> pesticides are permitted. They can claim their animals are not given
> hormones, but then that's true of ALL EU animals.
Not exactly. From reading the EU organic production regulations, it appears that
use of certain reproductive hormones is allowed. Has this been changed recently,
or is there another regulation that over-rides here?
[snip]
> >I think organic people would say they have also been misrepresented.
>
> Examples?
I would say that organic growers and consumers are at least occasionally
misrepresented by people like Chive, who leave a bad taste in the mouth of
everyone who reads their BS, and also possibly certain activist groups.
Tracy
From: Tracy Aquilla <aquilla@bpmlegal.com>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Interesting slant on organic productivity - plus thoughts on abuse
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 09:51:25 -0400
Ian Alexander wrote:
> [snip]
> (Now not everyone will know this, and it might be changing with the new
> EU organic livestock regs but was certainly true for many years in the
> UK. For an animal to be sold as organic beef it has to be born into a
> fully organic system. For an animal to produce organic milk it must
> have been fed fully organic rations on an organic farm for at least 12
> weeks.
From reading the EU organic production regulations, it is my understanding that
100% organic feed is _preferable_, but the regs also recognize that this is not
always practical, and thus allow some conventional feeds, particularly during the
transition period. Currently, I believe that the EU standards allow for up to 20%
non-organic feed, at least under certain circumstances.
Tracy
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Interesting slant on organic productivity - plus thoughts on abuse
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 18:27:53 +0100
Tracy Aquilla wrote on Thu, 7 Sep 2000
>Oz wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>
>> 5) They cannot claim they are antibiotic free, since antibiotics are
>> permitted. They cannot claim they are pesticide free, since approved
>> pesticides are permitted. They can claim their animals are not given
>> hormones, but then that's true of ALL EU animals.
>
>Not exactly. From reading the EU organic production regulations, it appears that
>use of certain reproductive hormones is allowed. Has this been changed recently,
>or is there another regulation that over-rides here?
Er, yes you are right. It's not something we use except for a clinical
case, is it PMS for cystic ovaries?
--
Oz
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: chivey has just heard of watergate
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 12:59:35 +0100
gcouger wrote on Fri, 8 Sep 2000
>If they continue there rapid rise in popularity I am afraid that you will
>have fruad at every leve fromthe farmer to the store mixing regular
>produce with organic to cash in on the price advantage.
Farming news has reported what seems to be a blatant scam converting
eggs into 'organic' eggs. Apparently they arrive in the UK with no
proper documentation and are packed as 'organic'. Apparently the govt
bodies concerned with this don't care a hoot.
I expect there are a lot of places where this sort of thing is
happening, it's just too easy and too profitable.
--
Oz
From: Tracy Aquilla <aquilla@bpmlegal.com>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Interesting slant on organic productivity - plus thoughts on abuse
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 10:10:53 -0400
Oz wrote:
> Ian Alexander wrote on Thu, 7 Sep 2000
> [snip]
> >The sort of buildings which your grandfather used (well you
> >might still be using them for all I know) but they would look a bit
> >dated on most farms now, organic or conventional.
Ah, you mean modern technology and its gadgets. I rather though your reference was
to the _methods_. Of course, today's organic farmer has access to new technologies
that granddad did not have. But what are they actually _doing_ differently?
Certainly you must be aware that the use of cultural, biological and mechanical
methods, such as crop rotations, crop residues, animal manures, legumes, green
manures, off-farm organic wastes, mechanical cultivation, and mineral bearing
rocks, as opposed to using "substances", to maintain long-term soil fertility,
increase soil biological activity, ensure effective pest management, recycle
wastes to return nutrients to the land, and provide attentive care for farm
animals is nothing new!
> That is more a matter of scale and changes in building practice. There
> are a surprising number of victorian farm buildings still in use today.
> We have an 18C wooden barn in constant use and my neighbour has a VAST
> range of 17C and 18C buildings that are also in constant use. One big
> reason for this is that both have good access and both are of reasonable
> size. There is no doubt that mine was jerrybuilt as cheaply as possible
> and clearly reused old timbers from other buildings.
The situation is the same throughout most of the US. Most farm buildings I have
seen, particularly in the northeast, are between 100 and 200 years old. My family
farmed the same land for over three hundred years. All of the buildings were built
well before I was born. They did buy a new tractor every generation or so, but
most of the old tractors were still kept and used regularly. When my uncle gave up
the farm a few years ago, I don't believe he hand anything on hand that was less
than 10 or 20 years old. I believe he was typical in this regard. The organic
growers around here (there are MANY) typically buy their equipment used, usually
at auctions. Rarely do they have the cash to buy the latest technologies or put up
new buildings or buy new equipment. Virtually everyone seems to make do with the
old stuff we have available.
Tracy
From: Tracy Aquilla <aquilla@bpmlegal.com>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Interesting slant on organic productivity - plus thoughts on abuse
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 10:17:40 -0400
Ian Alexander wrote:
> In article <R1zhADAJt0t5EwUo@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
> <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
> [snip]
> >For ruminants (UK) the difference is pretty well confined to
> >the use or not of bag fertiliser.
>
> Plus lower stocking density, less intensive vet & med, less uniform
> grass growth (so some less dense areas for my skylarks to nest in), more
> species diverse swards in permanent pasture. Oh and of course a
> generally more profitable farm.
All of the above depend entirely on the individual operation. Not all
conventional farmers use vet & med services to the same extent. Same for
stocking density, species diversity and profitability. And of course,
less uniform grass growth, more species diverse swards in permanent
pasture, and higher profitability are not required of organic producers.
> [snip]
> >5) They cannot claim they are antibiotic free, since antibiotics are
> >permitted.
>
> But they can claim that they never abuse antibiotics as growth promoters
> or alow them to be used profilactically.
Well I suppose they could claim that, but claiming so does not make it
true. Are you saying that conventional farmers are less honest than
organic farmers? Don't organic farmers sometimes lose certification for
breaking these rules?
> >They cannot claim they are pesticide free, since approved
> >pesticides are permitted.
>
> They do not claim they are pesticide free - they do say they do not use
> modern sythetic pesticides.
Oh, but that would not be true either. In the EU, even certain synthetic
pyrethroids are allowed in organic production! Shame, shame.
> However I have never known an instance of
> an organic farmer using any pesticide in grassland or combinable crop
> management ie most of the UK countryside.
Have you never heard of an organic grower losing certification for
violating the standards?
> >They can claim their animals are not given
> >hormones, but then that's true of ALL EU animals.
> >
> >So the differences are marginal.
>
> Oz, just to satisfy my curiosity how many established organic farms have
> you visited in the last five years?
>
> >They could be sold as being from 'small
> >family farms', although with some of the veg corporates (about the only
> >real UK corporates) moving some production to organic even this is
> >doubtful.
> >
> >They have a problem.
>
> Certainly - how to supply a market where demand is consistantly growing
> faster than supply.
That is mostly a local phenomenon, I believe. Where I live, supply
appears to meet or exceed demand for many, if not most organic products.
Note that I choose to use organic methods myself and purchase organic
products from others, when they appear to be the best quality for the
price. But quite often, I choose conventionally produced because the
products are often of greater quality and generally there is much more
variety available. These days, there is seldom any significant price
difference to consider, at least where I live.
> >>I think organic people would say they have also been misrepresented.
> >
> >Examples?
>
> Lord, just look at your postings, but if you want two other well
> documented examples try the claim that you are more likely to get E coli
> from organic food because organic farmers use FYM for fertiliser - as if
> conventional farmers don't. There has never been any evidence for this
> whatever. Then there was a chap called Avery in the US who cited a
> report from the Centre for Disease Control (or some similar institute)
> showing that this was true.
Actually, that is not quite what happened. He rather stated that, based
on his analysis of CDC data, consumers were more likely to be exposed to
0157:H7 through consuming organic products than conventionally produced.
At the time he did the analysis, I believe there were relatively few
confirmed cases and the numbers were quite low, but more people had been
made sick from the Odwalla apple juice than from the beef. But I agree
entirely that the data at the time were insufficient to allow one to make
a conclusion that the increased risk was statistically significant,
simple because the sample size was so small.
> Only CDC totally denied this. Turned out
> that Avery had done some real junk science on their raw data to produce
> a totally spurious result.
Not really, although I do not believe his analysis and conclusion would
withstand a rigorous statistical analysis. On the other hand, I don't
think it is wise to just shrug this off as totally spurious.
> Not some off the cuff misrepresentation - a
> cold and deliberate attempt to mislead the public.
This I disagree with quite strongly. While the sample size was too small
to make any conclusion one way or the other, it seems clear that the risk
is at least as great for organic products, and could possibly be higher,
particularly on farms where manure is applied. Tracy
From: Tracy Aquilla <aquilla@bpmlegal.com>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Interesting slant on organic productivity - plus thoughts on abuse
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:33:42 -0400
Torsten Brinch wrote:
> Tracy Aquilla skrev i meddelelsen <39BE31CC.C2B69C00@bpmlegal.com>...
> >Ian Alexander wrote:
> >><..>
> >> Organic standards make allowance for a small number of traditional and
> >> naturally derived products which are used in intensive vegetable
> >> production and protected croping.
>
> >Organic standards allow virtually all naturally derived products on all
> >crops. The exceptions I referred to were the exceptions that are made
> >for _synthetic_ products.
>
> You two won't be able to agree on this, unless you start
> talking about the same thing. Here Ian is talking about
> EU standards, and Tracy about US standards. See NB below.
Actually, Torsten, I was referring to organic standards in general (of which
there are currently about 100 globally), while Ian was apparently talking about
the UK Soil Association standard only. Note that if referring to a specific
standard, such as the EU standard, I will generally state so explicitly. Note
also that currently, there is no "US standard", rather, at last count, there
were 33 private and 11 State organic certification agencies in the US, each
using their own standard.
> >> Even some of this limited list,
> >> including the oft quoted copper fungicides, are soon to be banned from
> >> UK organic units.
>
> >Well I do not believe that the EU regs are in the process of being amended,
> >so this may be a problem for the UK, if what you say is true.
>
> Ian knows what he is talking about and Tracy don't.
As Ian was talking about the UK Soil Association standard, he certainly ought to
know what he is talking about (as he appears to be a UK organic farmer). I do
not purport to know anything at all about that particular standard. But I am
somewhat familiar with many other standards. If the EU statute has been amended
to prohibit copper by 2002, I have not heard about it (until now) or seen the
revised statute yet.
> Copper will be removed by 2002 -- together with several other items --
> from the already very short list of allowed organic pesticides
> in the EU.
If this becomes the law in the EU, then the UK should not have a problem. Can
you please provide a citation to the current EU law that forbids the use of
copper by 2002? The last version I saw indicated that the prohibition of copper
was a goal to be addressed by the statute in the future.
BTW, what is your definition of a "very short list"? I do not consider my weekly
grocery list to be "very short", but it is usually shorter than the EU list of
allowed pesticides!
> NB!:
>
> There is to become a very big difference between EU
> and US organic standards re the use of chemicals for pesticidal
> purposes.
Perhaps, if the US ever implements a federal standard. But that has not happened
yet. And I am not of the opinion that the difference you have latched onto is as
big as you make it out to be.
> Whereas the US general rule is to be that -everything
> natural- is allowed, unless specifically -excluded- from use --
Presumably, your statement is based on the currently proposed USDA standard,
which has not yet been implemented?
> the EU general rule is that -no- substance -- be it natural or synthetic --
> can be used unless it is specifically listed as an allowed substance.
Yes, the EU standard seems to be out of line in this regard with the rest of the
world, and in particular, the IFOAM standard.
> IOW the 'naturalness' of a chemical is given great significance by
> the proposed US organic standards, but not at all by the
> EU organic standards.
Actually, the "naturalness" of a compound is of great significance to all
organic standards.
In every organic standard I have seen, the definition of "organic" is based
essentially on lists of allowed, restricted, and prohibited inputs and cultural
practices, and an underlying holistic or naturalist philosophy recognizing that
maintenance of the overall health of the agroecosystem is the primary goal of
organic agriculture. All of these standards ultimately strive to prohibit all
non-natural or synthetically produced materials from use in organic production,
however, all the standards nevertheless make certain limited exceptions, to
rationally achieve the underlying goals of organic agriculture.
Tracy
Index
Home
About
Blog