Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: Why We Need Standards and Market Rules MAKING WORK FOR OURSELVES

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lflondon AT mindspring.com>
  • To: market-farming
  • Subject: Re: Why We Need Standards and Market Rules MAKING WORK FOR OURSELVES
  • Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:42:58 -0500


On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 03:07:51 -0800 (PST), Lucy Goodman-Owsley
<goodows AT excite.com> wrote:

>Anyone who runs their chickens before their vegetables is not using
>standards higher than the NOP. No, instead they are making up their own
>rules as to what is organic. Which is one of Bart's points. If you don't pay
>the money, keep the paper trail and get the inspection how can anyone be
>sure you are really organic?
>
>Remember this certification is not for us growers but for the consumer. They
>want to know what they are buying and with the current system of using 44+
>different organic regulations the consumer has become confused. A confused
>consumer tends not to buy.

Lucy:

This recent response by Bart to sanet perfectly sums up my feeling
about the current state of organic certification and verification of
the authenticity of products sold as "organic" by growers for the
benefit of discerning consumers: I think this is the hightlight of the
current debate on this topic in sanet with brilliant commentary by
Grace Gershuny, Dale Wilson and Bart Hall-Beyer. There are definitely
practical, hands-on lessons to be learned by market farmers from this
piece of commentary. My apologies to all preferring not to see sanet
posts here but I thought this one might be especially appreciated
here. I will not Xpost any more of them here except for ag/eco tech
stuff.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:09:50
From: Bluestem Associates <bluestem AT webserf.net>
To: sanet-mg AT ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: being a heretic

On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:02:37 -0500, Grace Gershuny wrote:

>Dale,
>
>Your comments are, as usual perceptive--to a large extent I agree that the
>battle for a rational foundation of organic rulemaking has been lost. It
>is still a damn shame to have to accept that what consumers want in this
>case is at odds with scientific (or philosophic) defensibility. Once upon
>a time we thought we could have both.

>>> IMHO, the division of materials into "synthetic" and "natural"
>>> is not only NOT useful, but is the root cause of most of the insanity
>>> that has dragged the organic discussion down the drain of debating
>>> materials lists as opposed to concentrating on assessing a holistic
>>> management system.

The ultimate endpoint of this whole particular titration will
probably, and unfortunately, be the disintegration of the organic
industry as a meaningful participant in the development of 21st
century agriculture. Consumers will get what they think they want ---
for awhile --- during which time most of the profits will be garnered
by processors and distributors, rather than growers. This is
especially true for cash-crop grain and beans.

The consumer (and grower) preoccupation with materials, however,
strikes me as *the* flaw that is both innate and fatal to the industry
and its promoters. At *best,* it is extremely difficult to inspect for
materials usage or its absence. Consumers' primary expectation of
organic food is, therefore, inherently non-verifiable. Extreme
disillusion is consequently inevitable.

In the meantime, growers taking proper agronomic care of their land -
--- which is more expensive than simple non-use of taboo materials ---
find themselves at an increasing disadvantage in the marketplace. The
materials focus of organic agriculture has meant that most organic
farmers are now exploiting their systems every bit as much as most
chemical growers. Over the short to medium term, miners are almost
invariably at a competitive advantage compared to stewards.

Sadly, the real stewardship components of organic agronomy --- which
are generally *easy* to inspect (if you can ever figure out how to
codify them) --- could provide consumers with both better food and a
better environment.

So here organic agriculture sits, concentrating on its *least*
important, most easily cheated aspect, while it virtually ignores its
most important, impossible-to-cheat, most easily inspected strength.
And in the process they are punishing the very growers that should be
rewarded, and rewarding those who should be forced to do much better
before they can earn the right to call their products organic.

Multi-million dollar federal bureaucracies are no more appropriate for
dealing with the problems of the organic industry than a Rolex watch
is suitable for keeping you dry in a driving rain.

Bart

Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm
intergarden.com InterGarden
metalab.unc.edu/intergarden InterGarden
metalab.unc.edu/permaculture PermaSphere
metalab.unc.edu/intergarden/orgfarm AGINFO
lflondon AT mindspring.com london AT metalab.unc.edu




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page