permaculture

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <london@sunsite.unc.edu>]

http://sunSITE.unc.edu/london   InterGarden   
london@sunSITE.unc.edu   llondon@bellsouth.net
Subscribers to the UNC PC List:
This posting ID: permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu
is the one you all will be using when this list is moved 
to our new server. I hope to be able to automate the process of
moving everyone over to the new list but if you want to go ahead and
subscribe to the new one point your web browsers to this (temporary)
URL: (paste this string into your browser's URL dialog box)
http://franklin.oit.unc.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?site=natural-agriculture&page=topic&topic=permaculture&text_mode=0

Onward toward a new New Food Movement, wider use of permaculture methods
and more LOCALLY & CSA - GROWN FOOD!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:29:54 -0700
From: sal <sals@rain.org>
Reply-To: organic-certification@listserv.oit.unc.edu
To: bd-l@biodynamics.com,
    Organic Gardening Discussion List <OGL@LSV.UKY.EDU>,
    Multiple recipients of list OGL <OGL@LSV.UKY.EDU>
Cc: organic-certification@listserv.oit.unc.edu,
Subject: Fwd: A Call For a New Food Movement
>Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:22:23 -0400
>From: BILL DUESING <71042.2023@compuserve.com>
>Subject: A Call For a New Food Movement
>To: SANET-mg <sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu>
>Subject: A Call For a New Food Movement
>Date: April 29, 1998
>From: Paul Fleckenstein <paul.fleckenstein@uvm.edu> and dbriars@sover.net

>Beyond Organic
>Rejecting National Organic Standards and A Call For a New Food Movement

>By Michael Colby

>The U.S. Department of Agricultures (USDA) unseemly foray into the world
>of organic agriculture became official last December with the release of
>its National Organic Standards, a dismal and dumbed down 600 -plus page
>document that has one ultimate purpose: the further industrialization of
>organic agriculture. This USDA power grab set off an unprecedented amount
>of hand-wringing in the safe food and sustainable agriculture communities
>that, unfortunately, focused almost exclusively on how to incrementally
>modify a set of standards that are rotten to the core. Lost amid the flurry
>of "action alerts" demanding that we all "politely and unemotionally" beg
>the USDA to do a little bit better, was any contemplation of the fact that
>so much of the organic-related "movement" has been co-opted by traditional
>market forces and largely reduced to just another business in the nearly
>single-minded pursuit of profits.

>From the beginning, going back to Senator Patrick Leahys original call for
>federal organic standards in 1990, Food & Water has been implacably opposed
>to the very concept of adopting national standards for a form of
>agriculture that has long celebrated its its decentralized roots in the
>local and regional. To attempt to apply a one size fits all strategy to a
>form of agriculture that strives to be sensitive to localized social and
>ecological conditions is misguided and absurd.

>With the very nature of these new standards being grounded in corporate
>attempts to nationalize, globalize and centralize organic food production,
>they cannot be "fixed" as so many people and organizations have mistakenly
>convinced themselves. Instead, we must seize this opportunity and the
>energy it has created to wholeheartedly reject the USDAs corrupt and
>crippling organic standards and begin creating the vision for a new food
>movement that encompasses the social and ecological ideals that are forever
>beyond the grasp of federal bureaucracies.

>Here Come The Feds
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>To understand just how ridiculous the USDAs meddling in organics actually
>is, you can wade through the massive tome of regulations, or, better yet,
>just consider what Secretary Dan Glickman of the USDA had to say before
>unveiling the new standards to an eager press corps: "I want to make it
>clear that these (organic) rules are not about creating a category of
>agriculture that is safer than any other."

>It doesnt get any clearer than that.

>As an agency that has had nothing but disdain for organic agriculture, the
>motives behind the UDSAs new commitment to getting its fingers in the
>organic pie and ensuring that its standards are as low as possible are
>obvious: to pave the way for the pure commodification and centralization of
>organics. As multinational agribusiness corporations increasingly seek an
>entry into the booming organics market, they need plenty of regulatory
>cover, particularly when they get around to "taking organics global."

>Many in the mainstream have deluded themselves into believing that such
>growth in the production and consumption of organic food products is
>nothing but positive, regardless of whether the results of such growth mean
>the same kind of industrialization and centralization that has been so
>socially and ecologically unjust and destructive to rural cultures. Food &
>Water finds nothing redeeming in the fact that H.J. Heinz now owns Earths
>Best Baby Foods, M&M-Mars owns Seeds of Change, and Whole Foods is running
>roughshod over a once thriving cooperative food movement.

>If the question is whether or not H.J. Heinz. M&M-Mars, and Whole Foods
>should use toxic pesticides, the answer is obviously "no", they should not.
>And if we had a federal government and a democracy that truly reflected the
>will of the people, policies outlawing the use of those poisons would be in
>place. 

>But we must go deeper than that. In the pursuit of sane and sustainable
>food systems, we must take into account factors that go so far beyond the
>simple list of what chemicals a farmer can and cannot use in all 50 states.
>Rather, in addition to banning toxic pesticides, we must demand that our
>food supply does not become another weapon used for the benefit of the
>multinational corporations against the best interests of individuals,
>communities, the land, and the environment. Issues of scale, economic
>concentration, transportation, resource conservation, animal welfare,
>farmer and farm-worker justice, and environmental stewardship, as well as a
>much needed emphasis on local production and consumption, must be the
>centerpieces of a real and politicized food movement.

>Unfortunately, the sad truth is that organic agriculture and the emaciated
>movement that surrounds it have been cleansed of many of their original
>radical roots in favor of being mere businesses. The conservative produce
>trade publication "The Packer" provided the best analysis of the new
>organic standards:

>"Is organics a movement or a business?" asked The Packers Larry Waterfield
>in an editorial shortly after the organic standards announcement. "Well, it
>used to be a movement towards environmentally friendly food production, now
>its a business." And its the business side of organic agriculture that
>seems delighted with the prospects of an organic Twinky or Pepsi-Cola;
>whatever it takes for almighty growth, it contends. But its a fixation on
>the growth imperative that is inherently destructive.

>The industrialization of organics through national standards promotes
>anonymous consumption, not knowing or even caring--who produced the food or
>where it was produced. And its this kind of thinking that has hijack the
>mainstream organic food industry. Just take a look at the shiny,
>neon-supercenters in nearly every suburban neighborhood featuring "health
>food" and the same old message that your happiness is only the next
>purchase away.

>As for where the food was grown, how the farmworkers were treated, the
>enormous amounts of fossil fuels used to produce and transport food on that
>scale, and any connection or support for the struggling local farmers, we
>are seduced into not worrying about it. God forbid that the happy organic
>shopping experience be interrupted by a bit of reality.

>Chasing Their Tails (Again)
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Perhaps the most distressing aspect of the USDAs organic standards were
>the pathetic responses that permeated the activist community. Almost
>without exception, groups went into a frenzy and issued one action alert
>after another calling for the lowest of the lowest common denominator of
>activism: call or write the the USDA and beg them to make it a little
>better. Worse, many of the action alerts counseled people to be "polite,
>and unemotional" when communicating with the USDA. Its apparently not
>enough for them to be under the organic-hating boot of the USDA, but they
>also want to be content and compliant about it too.

>Most of the action alerts sent out by activist groups centered around the
>USDAs potential inclusion of irradiation , sewage sludge, and
>genetic-engineering in the standards. But to get lost in the undertow of
>wrangling about irradiation, sludge, and genetic engineering is to fall for
>these red-herring issues meant to distract us from the realization that the
>entire concept of "national organic standards" is destructive. It puts us
>in the demeaning position of begging for insignificant changes to something
>we shouldnt be asking for in the first place.

>Food & Waters initial reaction to the news that irradiation may be
>included in the National Organic Standards was a not too facetious
>statement that "they deserve each other". In the peculiar reasoning of the
>USDA, it makes sense that irradiation would be included in any attempt to
>industrialize organics. Putting organic agriculture on the well-greased
>path of unchecked growth and corporate concentration inevitably means the
>organic industry will get bigger, and as a result, dirtier and less
>accountable. But with nuclear waste powered irradiation units waiting at
>the end of the line for organically produced commodities--Presto!--the
>problem of dirty organics will be "solved". Sadly, that is Glickmans and
>the USDAs great "vision" for the future of organics.

>It doesnt even help to contact the USDA and tell them to "get out" of
>organics; they dont understand that language. The USDA is a bureaucracy
>that maintains its existence through such programs. At a gathering of
>organic farmers in Vermont last February, USDA officials heard hundreds of
>comments demanding that the USDA "get out" of organics. One of the USDAs
>officials on hand, Grace Gershuny, the author of the first draft of the
>standards, arrogantly responded in a newspaper article that "there were
>practically no helpful comments on anything' since 'most of the comments
>focused on we dont want it, get rid of it and are not substantive about
>what should be".

>Creating The New Movement
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>The USDA is here to stay with organics and it appears from our perspective
>that were faced with two distinct possibilities: beg and whine for the
>standards to be a little bit better, or get on with the necessary work of
>building real food security.

>It seems obvious that when the ideals of a movement become the fodder for
>federal bureaucracies, its time to move on. When the so-called food
>revolution, formerly known as organic agriculture, becomes just another
>opportunity for economic expansion, devoid of any of its political roots,
>it ceases to be a revolution. Just as the word "natural" has been so
>disturbingly devalued and rendered meaningless , "organic" is on the same
>path.

>To adequately attack the industrialization of organic agriculture and begin
>to re-envision the "next food movement" we need to first abandon the notion
>that anything of substance can be accomplished through overly simplified
>actions. Calls to our legislators, letters to our federal agencies, and
>meetings with our representatives might make some of us feel warm and fuzzy
>about democracys theories, but in the long run, it merely gives
>credibility to the corruption.

>Simple actions inevitably lead to false solutions, as evidenced by the
>decades of foot dragging and deceitful acts of congress to address the
>problems of unnecessarily applying toxic pesticides to our food supply.
>Sure, the industrial-congressional partnership can point to laws with names
>like "The Food Quality Protection Act" but what have they actually done
>besides distracting us all and giving corporate barons plenty of time to
>take their money and run. 

>We need to challenge basic assumptions of a purely market-based food
>system. that is incapable of comprehending all of its destructive
>tendencies. A cheap organic carrot shipped in from South America may make a
>Vermonter feel pretty good about his or her own health, but what about the
>related issues regarding scale, transportation, and resource conservation?
>And if were at all serious about "saving the family farm" shouldnt we
>start by rooting our diets in the foods produced locally?

>Ultimately, combating an industrial food supply--organic or not--is about
>challenging the anonymity of consumption, the destructive notion that
>suggests that we dont have to care where anything came from or who
>produced it as long as its cheap and available. The more that we strive to
>shorten the distance between ourselves and our food supply, the less
>anonymous it becomes and the more direct accountability there is between
>producer and consumer.

>The ultimate certifier for the manner in which food products are produced
>should not be a monolithic federal government, but rather a mutually
>trusting and celebrated relationship between the producer and the consumer,
>the community, or, at the very least, local or regional certifiers,  with
>an understanding of localized social, ecological, and economic needs. In
>other words, what we should be striving for is assurance of familiarity.

>No, these are not "simple" actions you can take. Producing your own food,
>getting "to know:" your farmer, visiting farmers markets, being actively
>involved in meaningful co-ops, or being diligent in shunning a monopolized
>food supply is certainly not easy. But its necessary if our goal is to not
>only fundamentally change a very destructive food system, but the
>underlying culture that makes it all possible. 

>Be assured: you wont find Food & Water playing in the regulatory quicksand
>of attempting to modify the USDAs National Organic Standards. Because its
>now time to shed such incrementalism and begin to create a destiny the
>public can get excited about. And it all has to start with the realization
>that what we thought was an organic "movement" is now dead; it has sadly
>been co-opted by market forces, federal bureaucracy, and a culture
>hell-bent on false convenience.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>From the Spring 98 edition of the Food & Water Journal.  $25/yr from
>Food & Water 
>389 Rt 215
>Walden VT 05873
>802-563-3300

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>U.S. McLibel Support Campaign                   Email dbriars@sover.net
>PO Box 62                                        Phone/Fax 802-586-9628
>Craftsbury VT 05826-0062                   
<http://www.mcspotlight.org/>http://www.mcspotlight.org/
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe to the "mclibel" electronic mailing list, send email 

>     To: majordomo@world.std.com
>Subject: <not needed>
>Message: subscribe mclibel

>To unsubscribe, change the message to: "unsubscribe mclibel"

>To Unsubscribe:  Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
>To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
 
An organic growers homepage check out
http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html