permaculture

[Lawrence London <lfljvenaura@gmail.com>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steven McFadden <chiron@chiron-communications.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] NOP was SCIENTIFIC SUPPRESSION
To: sanet-mg@googlegroups.com


Wed, 2 Mar 2016

Kim wrote:   "...Again we are back at the beginning, where those who like
to eat healthy have found you have to know your farmer."


In my view Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) stands out among the most
promising pathways for actually "knowing (*and supporting*) your farmer."

Knowing – rather than believing in the industry, the government or a third
party –  is the ultimate certification.

To the extent that any CSA farm strives toward the ideals of Associative
Economics rather than competitive capitalism, they have potential to escape
what Grace appropriately identifies as an “economic treadmill.”

I regard CSA as a 21st Century agrarian initiative with tremendous
potential in different cultures to organize human beings – out of their
free will choices – around the essential matter of a renewed relationship
with the land that sustains them, as well as renewed relationships with
each other, and the basic health of land, animals and people that has
always been at the true heart of the organic movement.

~ Steven


Steven McFadden

*Chiron Communications
<http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chiron-communications.com>*

402-304-6580




On 3/2/16 5:51 AM, Kim wrote:

Yes, I know many organic farmers, and also know many who are dropping their
organic certification for the same reason I didn't take it in the first
place.  This doesn't mean we don't meet or exceed organic standards, but
that the paperwork and cost of being organic is too high.  I am a very
mixed farm, we use permaculture methods now and frankly explaining that to
the idiot that does certifications in this area is a lost cause.

The best movement we can get is the Know Your Farmer, movement.  No third
party certifications needed.  Bring people and farmers back together, so
people have some idea what it takes to grow food.

As for the quality of organic food, some is great, most is lacking.  Yes,
if I have to buy food, I do buy organic because I won't eat the chemicals.
But the rules are stupid.  They can't grow the quality I grow, because I
use rabbit manure in my gardens, I run my chickens through my gardens in
the off season to clear my bug problems, etc.  I have customers that tell
me they can tell who grew the food by how they feel.  For example, one lady
loves to take a head of my lettuce, add some dressing and use it as a
meal.  But when she does the same with store bought organic lettuce, she is
left hungry.  Something is missing.  Just one example of many.

Over and over again, many of us are having this experience, so there is a
problem.  The certified natural grown tried to circumvent the cost of
organic, but too many people cheated, the label became meaningless in a
hurry.  Organic is known for what is not in the food, no pesticides,
herbicides and lower GMO content.  Bio-dynamically grown food is know not
only for that, but for what is in the food, because it is grown taking into
account the soil food web, and uses natural ways to feed the soil so it can
feed the plants.  The certified organic label was a start in the right
direction, then it became a bureaucratic nightmare that ended it's
usefulness.  Again we are back at the beginning, where those who like to
eat healthy have found you have to know your farmer.

On 3/1/2016 9:11 PM, Jane Sooby wrote:

Sanet Community:

It's disappointing to see how fringe sanet has gotten over the almost 20
years I've been a member. The shrill voices that repeat the same holier
than thou, anti-organic mantras over and over, that engage in lengthy and
non-substantive debate, even in bullying--I can see how these voices have
driven away most people with something positive to contribute. Not only am
I disappointed in it, I am tired of it and will unsubscribe soon. But I'll
stick around long enough to find out what the responses are to my current,
admitted rant.

I hope Andy reads this, because he has so faithfully shepherded this list
for all these years, only for it to come to this.

I look forward to reading Grace's book specifically because of the passage
that Douglas cites because in the 20 years that I've been involved in
organic ag research, education, and activism, I have arrived to the same
conclusion: it is people who present themselves as organic "advocates" or
watchdogs that have done the most harm to the public perception of organic
than Monsanto could possibly hope for. In fact, it's been such an effective
strategy, sometimes I wonder who really funds these groups.

What other form of agriculture has taken 5 million + acres of U.S. farmland
out of chemical-intensive production? Those of you who jab at organic at
every opportunity, do you even know any certified organic farmers or
manufacturers? They work extremely hard to maintain very high, legally
mandated standards of production. What do you have to offer?

There is no other form of agriculture that even comes close to the good
that the organic food and farming movement does for this country. Maybe
Grace is right, maybe we're seeing a new generation of people who are able
to take certified organic for granted and then diminish and minimize its
importance because of that.

But that doesn't explain those of you who weigh in over and over again,
bashing organic because of some perceived capitulation to corporations. You
know what, it's corporate involvement that has helped organic grow from 2
million acres in 2002 to over 5 million acres today, that has raised
organic to 4% of all food sales in the U.S. when only a few years ago it
was around 1%.

I know the stories, I've read the rants, and it doesn't amount to a
meaningful critique of organic. But it creates controversy, it scares
people, and I'm sure it makes lots of people think they should donate to
fight against "the organic elite."

Full disclosure: I now work for a certification agency, and I see
first-hand how rigorous the evaluation process is, how every detail is
weighed against the standards, how careful the certification process is,
and how dedicated both the certification staff and those being certified
are to organic ideals.

John d'Hondt, where do you get your misinformation about organic? There is
no allowable level of transgenes in organic, nor is there a non-allowable
level. They simply aren't allowed in organic production. To interpret
efforts to establish a threshold for GM contamination in organic foods as
somehow giving in to Monsanto or inviting GMOs is insulting. The reality is
it's there. What are we going to do about it? At the moment, we don't do
anything about it and, consequently, 6% of organic farmers in the midwest
have shipments of their organic grain turned away due to GM contamination.
(See new ERS report on "coexistence.") Is refusing to acknowledge the
problem the preferable course?

As for the nanotech, it's not allowed. There is a process for petitioning
synthetic materials on the National List but it's highly unlikely that any
nanotech material would survive that process.

People can wring their hands worrying about trace processing materials or
the few and ever-decreasing number of synthetics that are allowed in
organic, only after a great deal of scrutiny to ensure that they are
harmless. They can think that it's better to keep organic chickens in a
malnourished state than provide them with the synthetic form of a vital
nutrient. They can lay awake at night fearful of the imagined negative
health effects of trace amounts of GM crops in their conventional foods,
demanding that they be labeled when there already is a non-GMO label in
place, the certified organic label.

Or they can recognize what the organic standards are: an ever-evolving
balancing act between ideals and the pragmatic realities of producing food.

Organic is not perfect but it's really, really good. One unique and seldom
mentioned aspect is that the standards are living standards, particularly
the materials. They undergo continual review and change based on scientific
review by an advisory committee that represents the organic community.
(Please spare me any rebuttal that NOSB has been infiltrated and influenced
by corporate interests, too.)

A long time ago I decided to dedicate my career to supporting a positive
alternative for the world, and the organic path opened before me. I am
proud of the organic movement, of the National Organic Program, of organic
certification, and everyone--from the small scale farmer to the corporate
processor to the materials reviewers and administrators-- that play a role
in it. We are part of a global movement that is making the world a better
place.

As for Sanet, maybe it can become a useful resource again one day, but
based on what I've seen for the past few years, I doubt it.

Jane Sooby

Organic Science and Consulting
Santa Cruz, CA

There's work to be done, so let's do it little by little. --Bob Marley

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Grace Gershuny < <gracegershuny@gmail.com>
gracegershuny@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Douglas & All,
>
> I've been writing about this for 20 years or so, and frankly need to move
> on now that I've finally got it out in a form that I think is
> comprehensible. I'm not expecting to get rich on book sales, and really
> don't have time to engage in these conversations while I'm in the midst of
> working with my on-line students.
>
> There are several articles posted on my web site, which will elaborate
> more on what I'm talking about without having to buy the book. I'm all for
> open and rational debate - don't claim to have the answers. But I'm not
> willing to put up with name-calling even if it's not directed at me
> personally.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Grace
>
> Grace Gershuny
> GAIA Services
> Barnet, VT - USA
> 802-633-4152
> gracegershuny@gmail.com
>
> Author of Organic Revolutionary: A Memoir of the Movement for Real Food,
> Planetary Healing & Human Liberation
> www.organic-revolutionary.com
> On Mar 1, 2016 8:35 PM, "Douglas Hinds" <cedecor@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> On 03/01/2016 06:57 AM, Grace Gershuny wrote:
>>
>> Grace Gershuny
>> GAIA Services
>> Barnet, VT - USA
>> 802-633-4152
>> gracegershuny@gmail.com
>>
>> Author of Organic Revolutionary: A Memoir of the Movement for Real Food,
>> Planetary Healing & Human Liberation
>> www.organic-revolutionary.com
>>
>>
>> The following citation was copied from the above url, a dot com created
>> to promote Graces' book: Organic Revolutionary: A Memoir of the Movement
>> for Real Food, Planetary Healing & Human Liberation
>>
>> At the time the organic law was passed in 1990, I saw the federal
>> government sanctioning of organic farming as a turning point in the radical
>> transformation of American agriculture—the leading edge of a potentially
>> revolutionary social and political shift. It may have been a naively
>> ambitious vision, but ironically enough, it was undermined in the end not
>> so much by the barriers erected by a recalcitrant establishment, but by the
>> community of organic activists themselves.
>>
>>
>> Are you sure about that, Grace?  Perhaps "the community of organic
>> activists themselves" were simply reflected the culture that spawned them
>> (but then maybe you are too - maybe you don't want to discuss this issue
>> but rather, sell your book).  I'm not knocking it - I simply consider it a
>> problem that has to be dealt with.
>>
>>  Today’s young food activists and aspiring farmers often accept as a
>> given that the organic label has lost its meaning. They believe that
>> ‘industrial organic’ is no better than conventional agriculture, and that
>> ‘local is the new organic.’ Those assumptions must be challenged, without
>> defusing the passion and commitment of this burgeoning movement for real
>> food.
>>
>>
>> You are describing the reactions that your encountered here - but rather
>> than deal with it constructively within the context of sanet, you insist
>> that saneters purchase your book.
>>
>>  So I have persisted in polishing this story, offered in the hope that
>> the growing revolution in producing, preserving and distributing food will
>> continue picking up steam--without picking fights that could ultimately
>> undermine its success. What will it take to bring this about?
>>
>>
>> Your statement assumes that gradual changes will lead to a healthier and
>> more equitable society. However - the damage already done is so profound
>> and pervasive that more radical approaches may well be required (at least,
>> more radical approaches have been attracting considerable subscribers, of
>> late - and the Internet is playing an important role within that context.
>> But you seem to insist on selling your book rather than sharing any
>> insights contained in it here).
>>
>>
>> Do you consider that to be an unfair observation, Grace? Are you even
>> going to participate in this discussion?
>>
>> Douglas
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ecoponderosa <3cedarsfarm@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] NOP was SCIENTIFIC SUPPRESSION
To: sanet-mg@googlegroups.com


<><><><>
Thank you Grace and Jane for providing saneters with your takes from the
perspective of the professional Organic Consultants.

Apparently this means no in-depth dialogue will be forthcoming (which
must seem reasonable to anyone characterizing the points of view raised
as "fringe", rants and more damaging than Monsanto unless it is paid for.

Good luck with that.

Douglas
<><><><><><>

It is the nanny state thing revisited ad nauseum. Government tells the
public that it can't trust independent
small/medium/large/family/cooperative/organic/natural/biointensive/regenerative/permaculture
farms and gardens to self describe their farm products as organic
because some of them might be cheating, so government needs to take
ownership, control and regulation of organic labelling through
their certification system regardless of cost to the farmer. If you
took a poll of farms using natural methods in any locale with farmers
markets
you would find a large percentage of operations that would qualify as
certified or near certified organic opting out of certification
because of cost, time, money and reorganization of their farming
system. Then they use straw man examples of big operations flooding
markets with fake organics, a very rare occurence. It is fear tactics
and intimidation not only of the farmers but the public. They should
take a lesson from Latvian organic farmers. After the fall of the
USSR, Latvian farms were returned to their original owners to continue
production as before the
unfortunate interruption. The de facto standard and assumed fact was
that all farm products were organic. Expansion of sales was by word of
mouth. Anyone caught selling products grown using chemicals was
instantly outed and banned from the marketplace. Talk about voting
with your pocketbook. I heard this during a brief conversation with a
Latvian Krishna follower living at a center near me. This is real
progress.




-- 
Lawrence F. London
lfljvenaura@gmail.com
https://sites.google.com/site/avantgeared/