Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: [Market-farming] Organic vs conventional agriculture production

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: STEVE GILMAN <stevegilman AT verizon.net>
  • To: market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Market-farming] Organic vs conventional agriculture production
  • Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:32:28 -0400

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@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






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page