gwl-g@lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: gardenwriters-on-gardening
List archive
- From: "Miranda Smith" <mirandaconstance@gmail.com>
- To: gardenwriters-on-gardening <gwl-g@lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [gwl-g] Organic?
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 12:22:43 -0400
Yes, they are weakening the standards.
In my opinion, there has been a lot of misunderstanding about the National List (of Approved Materials) and Standards ever since the first version came out.
Some of this is due to philosophical differences. A portion of those initially involved wanted to create standards that would encourage the adoption of organic techniques by farmers who were not yet using them, while other people wanted to make the standards and national list so tight that only the most committed could be certified.
And long before that, before the standards were even written, there was a lot of controversy based on more technical aspects. Two of the many examples are early banding of Chilean nitrate or Super Phosphate along the row. Chilean nitrate is a natural substance, so on the face of it, it falls within the definition of "organic." But it's extremely soluble, so a lot of people dislike it on the same grounds they dislike synthetics. On the other hand, Super Phospate is rock phosphate that has been treated with sulfuric acid, so it doesn't fit within the definition of "organic." Because of the sulfuric acid, more P in the material is immediately available, especially in cold spring soils with little microbial activity, than is available in rock phosphate. But it reverts almost immediately--within a day or so--to normal old insoluble P that must be broken down by microbes to be available. (Triple Phosphate does not do this, incidentally.) At any rate, Super is a lot less expensive than fish emulsion, the other common source of early P, so some organic farmers wanted to be able to use it.
Long story short--after years and years of wrangling, a set of standards and the national list were proposed. I believe that it's generally agreed that they were meant to be a marketing tool, so they were written to exclude materials that might confuse John Q Public--the belief was that matters such as soluble and insoluble P were only going to confuse the consumer, so it was better to exclude things of this nature.
There was a huge outcry against the initial proposal because of the "dirty three." The first standards asked for comments, but did not suggest approving: 1) sewage sludge applications, 2) genetically modified materials, and 3) irradiated products. Rather than simply express horror at the idea of approving these materials/techniques, people demanded that the standards be scrapped. Heads at USDA immediately rolled and a new staff wrote new standards and a new list.
Since then, there have been changes and at this point, they seem to be answering not to the interests of John Q. Public but to those of Well-Heeled Corporate.
If you are interested in the Standards and the National List, google them. If nothing else, you may come away from reading them wishing that all farmers were required to keep such extensive records of inputs and applications, especially in view of things such as Mad Cow.
Miranda
On 7/1/07, apismno@aol.com <apismno@aol.com> wrote:
My understanding of the USDA label "Organic" has definitions and standards for everything that might be labeled thusly. Are they veering from the original defs and standards? Can someone verify this story?
Barbara Emeneau
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Maxcy <larrymaxcy@earthlink.net>
To: gwl-g@lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:28 pm
Subject: [gwl-g] Organic?
=
On Jun 30, 2007, at 5:49 PM, gwl-g-request@lists.ibiblio.org wrote:
ALERT:USDA IGNORES PUBLIC REJECTION OF PROPOOSAL TO ALLOW 38 NON-ORGANICINGREDIENTS & TOXIC FISH OIL IN FOODS LABELED AS "USDA ORGANIC"
I'm certainly willing to write and call the USDA. However, I have been searching the USDA web site, and can't find any information on whom to call and write. Also, the title of what I'm calling about would be helpful.Does anyone have some specifics?Larry_______________________________________________
gwl-g mailing list
gwl-g@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gwl-g
_______________________________________________
gwl-g mailing list
gwl-g@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gwl-g
-
Re: [gwl-g] Organic?,
apismno, 07/01/2007
- Re: [gwl-g] Organic?, Miranda Smith, 07/01/2007
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.