[Market-farming] Organic vs conventional agriculture production

STEVE GILMAN stevegilman at verizon.net
Tue Sep 11 13:32:28 EDT 2007


Hi All,

	This is a hearty second to Steve Diver's post about Dennis Avery.  
But I'd say Steve is being charitable...

	Honest dissent, pointing out flaws and proffering authentic  
alternative points of view are very valuable -- they make you all the  
stronger and better for dealing with them. But Dennis Avery (and son  
Alex who has followed in the family business) are employed as anti- 
organic P.R. hatchetmen propagandists, pure and simple in an  
inherently dishonest enterprise. As we've seen in the tactics of the  
Climate Change naysayers, all you really have to do is (1) cast doubt  
using mixtures of a little truth and a lot of falsehoods, (2.) hijack  
the debate by moving its frame of reference into unverified polemical  
territory and (3.) claim some sort of scientific/moral/expert high  
ground. Oh, and (4) get paid for doing so... Thanks to a worldwide  
open and honest scientific inquiry, the Climate Deniers don't have  
much standing anymore, but in the case of the Avery's they still have  
the Organic Disinformation field to themselves, until a Jim Riddle  
takes the time from positive endeavors to shovel through their manure  
and present the truth.

	The Avery's employer is the Hudson Institute, a longtime extreme  
rightest "think-tank" that at one time boasted former Vice President  
(under Reagan) Dan Quayle  as a Board Member. Year's back they  
proudly published a huge list of their corporate supporters, which in  
the ag sector read like an Agribusiness Who's Who. They've since  
learned to keep this list to themselves to avoid the charges of  
blantent conflict of interest, but according to Sourcewatch.com they  
and their wire services like Bridge News are still backed by the same  
major players.

	Why? Because Organic is extremely threatening to the highly  
subsidized Agribusiness input establishment. With comparable yields  
and a host of other beneficent environmental and nutritional studies  
to back it up (see the Organic Center, www.organic-center.org as well  
as Rivka's citations) the question is: why would clear-thinking  
citizens choose a highly toxic industrial method to produce our daily  
food and fiber in a way that continuously erodes our soil; pollutes  
our air and water and creates ocean deadzones; is totally dependent  
on petrochemicals (the US is now a net importer of N fertilizer); is  
a major generator of greenhouse gases (including nitrous oxide from  
chemical fertilizers which is 300 times more virulent per pound than  
carbon dioxide); continually puts small scale farmers, ranchers and  
producers out of business through Farm Bill policy and subsidies and  
ETC???

	The answer comes down to the vested interests doing everything in  
their economic and political power they possibly can to keep the  
questions from being asked to begin with...

	I met Dennis Avery a number of years ago when he was hired by nearby  
Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, NY to speak to various  
environmental and economics classes, along with a lecture open to the  
public. I scrounged around ahead of time and printed up 50 packets of  
articles and research papers that directly countered what he had been  
putting into print and handed them out at the door. When Dennis  
walked in I handed a packet to him, too and introduced myself as a  
local organic farmer. I also remarked good-naturedly that I was  
amazed to find that he didn't have horns. He was nice about it,  
saying he could understand why I might think so. There was an  
opportunity at the end of his lecture for people to come to the  
microphone and when I called a number of his assertions into question  
he weasled out and sloughed them off as a difference in opinion.

	The funny thing about all this is the Agribuiz Corporations really  
aren't getting very much for their money. The Avery's (and their ilk)  
really aren't very clever -- and their multi-layered disinformation  
pronouncements don't ring true, even to eaters who don't know much  
about the issues in question. The True Believers in the Choir lap it  
up, however, wildly saluting anything and everything hauled up the  
flagpole -- so I guess that's what it's really all about. No matter.  
Ecological Reality trumps Corporate Dishonesty every time. Of course,  
in the context of our warming planet -- how much time to we have?

Steve
Ruckytucks Farm




On Sep 11, 2007, at 12:00 PM, market-farming- 
request at lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:27:39 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Steve Diver <steved at ipa.net>
> Subject: Re: [Market-farming] Organic vs conventional agriculture
> 	production
> To: Market Farming <market-farming at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<1621203.1189448860068.JavaMail.root at mswamui- 
> blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Thanks, Bill.
>
> Illinois growers are fortunate to have you working up there.
>
> Ya'll keep in mind that Avery knows exactly what he's doing.
>
> It's no mistake of misperception on his part.  He employs
> advanced media manipulation with spin and smoke to advance
> the cause of corporate agriculture.
>
> The Hudson Institute is a well oiled machine, paid handsomely.
>
> Steve Diver
>




More information about the Market-farming mailing list