Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[Dan Conine <dconine@bertramwireless.com>]

> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:50:33 -0700
> From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
>  Re: [Livingontheland] certified organic was: growing own food
>
> Not to be picky but to make a point - the organic standards don't actually
> allow a percentage of residuals or disallow them. Certification simply does
> not involve routine testing for banned substances. It's all about the
> paperwork, showing you got seeds, materials, etc. from approved sources,
> and claiming not to have used non-organic pesticides and fertilizers. They
> cannot test your produce for chemical fertilizers. There isn't any such
> test. Testing for various pesticides would be outrageously expensive and
> unreliable, and it just isn't part of organic certification.
>
> In addition, there are huge loopholes in the existing rules, as you point
> out with soy lecithin. All so the multinationals can make off with the
> profits from unsuspecting customers. 
>
> paul 
This is covered very well in this month's AcresUSA magazine. In a 
sidebar on page 14, Mark Keating explains that organic certification is 
about the process, not the product. In a way, it has to be, because 
testing after the product is already grown would be the hard way to 
eliminate pesticides, etc. In a perfect world, both the process and the 
product would be monitored, but that would mean higher costs and a 
change in philosophy from "always low prices"....
Testing after the fact is the way that corporations get away with 
dumping 'x' amount of pollutants per year or per day. Eliminating the 
pollutants up front means the intrusion of authority into the process. 
Farmers can be forced to accept this, factories buy their way out of it.

Dan C.