MoJo Forum: Is Organic and Local So 2008?

That's all well and good, Lisa, but I had trouble making it through the rest of your argument, when a quick internet search revealed that there are five REAP zones: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/ezec/Communit/reap.html Also, recommending an organic only positioning will only slow this effort down. Even after being co-opted by industry, organics are still an incredibly small proportion of overall agricultural output. There is some, although not yet conclusive info out there that direct sales can be less expensive than grocery. But, that will have to change as the demand you mention grows ... at the end of the day farmers want to farm, not sell face-to-face or drive a delivery truck. Not that the farm couldn't hire someone to perform that function as demand grew, but either way the local food types will need to act much more business-like for growth to happen at any level.

Thanks for mentioning us and all our work here. Just a minor correction. Granite was processed in Hardwick - we have no mines! But we do have organic farms today, and the Center has bought the old granite sheds and fields near the center of town.

W/r/t "Nevertheless, we were alarmed by the misleading headlines attached to anti-HR 875 alerts. Even if this bill were passed as is today, it wouldn't criminalize organic farming. The bill would require farms to have a food safety plan, allow their records to be inspected, and comply with food safety regulations. To say this is tantamount to criminalization doesn't give organic farmers enough credit." This is simplistic, uninformed and misleading opinion, it does not bear out given basic scrutiny Ryan. Although I don't believe that you are one of the paid soothesayers (whom in the past M-insano has boasted about having scientist shills to perform like trained monkeys and have large p.r. firms on standby) intent on paving the way for implementation of global seed domination and control. And although I can't attest to the headlines of which you speak, but having just watched: 'The world according to Monsanto' you are grossly understating the significance of a connection to those who direct M-insano and big pharma. Big pharma knows that M-insano's food like substances are great for business. M-insano has let slip their knowledge that round-up ready (G.M.O.) soyabean is damaging honeybees and we know that coupled with mono-culture that our birds and other pollinators are in serious jeopardy. Einstein who didn't need to be Einstein recognized the folly of harming pollinators (he gave us 4 years left of survival, should we lose them). There are some predicting as much as a 30% decline in fruit and food production this year alone due to the losses incurred in the bee population. I join with Gina Green above and Vandana Shiva of Navdanya and encourage all to read the bill and heed the warning given by those who will be hit with this 'Orwellian like' legislation. What hasn't been discussed is that this is the U.S.'s implementation of 'Codex Alimentarus' (latin for food code) which passed and came into effect at the w.t.o. seeks to criminalize and put out of business,health food stores, and demand prescriptions for vitamins (since they interfere with pharmaceutical sales and help to gain control over seeds.) The way that they put the small farmers out of business is with the prescription for what they deem to be necessary to provide 'safe' food which almost never has anything really to do with food safety. It is just creating what economists call 'barriers to entry', and is intended to get rid of competition, as the costs of compliance exceed the ability of the farmer to meet the requirement. This is a global attack on small farmers orchestrated by a group of pariahs. The real purpose for the N.A.I.S. is so that when the large feed lots poison the animals that when a problem shows up they can point the finger at the small farm from where that cow came from and evade responsibility. So actually offloading their irresponsible and criminal behavior onto those that would behaving correctly. A simple barrier to entry for small organic farmers is the certification requirements. Following along with the demand that organic farmers be 'certified' (as everyone knows you can't trust 'organic' farmers). How about since we know via repeated fines and convictions that since Monsanto continually behaves in a deceitful manner that they be forced to pay certification fee's for every pint of poison they sell. After-all how can we be sure that we are getting genuine poison? Failing to understand that what sounds like 'reasonable' safety requirements demanded by this proposed safety legislation will only lead to less choice of safe food, as many farmers will not be able to comply with the open ended requirements. The general public who is genuinely concerned, see's any suggestion of increased safety as being positive, is being duped to serve the interests of those who will create the predictable situation where their will be fewer choices and much less safe food. An example of how this kind of b.s. plays out, a small bakery was told that they needed to register their recipes, (for compliance) the fees (really a tax) would amount to in excess of $25,000. which for a small bakery would have put them out of business. There are thousands of ways to create misery that have nothing to do with food safety, so if you really believe that enabling this nightmare will lead to increased food safety and supply of safe food then enjoy your cancer because you won't have any choice. When they are finished with the small farmers they will come for your gardens.

The misinformation on GMOs is astounding. And it really based upon fear of science. Chemicals are bad. Gene manipulation is bad. Not at all. There's no proof that GMOs are harmful at all. There's no proof that organic is better than non-organic. Unless you look at pathogens on your produce, then your organic is covered with bacteria and viruses from all that good ole organic fertilizer.

A significant part of the equation is the way less healthy and commercial grade foods are gov't subsidized, often in a myriad of hidden ways. The system of monetary support for corn is one good example (see the movie King Corn for details). Corn is highly refined and broken down into hundreds of constituent parts which are used in many fast and packaged foods, HFCS or high fructose corn syrup being just one example. I'd recommend you read Michael Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma" for more background research on the subject of true food production costs and how they are skewed by policy and subsidy. The 'bottom line' is that if current subsidies were simply removed, the true food production cost picture would shift dramatically. And if gov't subsidies were designed to support organic food production and farming practices that protect the health and integrity of the soil .... In terms of 'action items,' then, part of it could involve citizen involvement in changing agricultural policy. If you want to know what to do, educating your neighbors on the true costs of food production, and the 'externalized' costs of petrochemical foods in terms of our health and environmental damage is a good first step. Then motivating them to ask for a change in government policy would be a logical next step.

Here's the rub, your definition of sensible and mine might be very different. Regulations, especially federal regs, promote conformity, and less diversity, it's simply the nature of such things. If we want this diverse food system then why not start with a diverse regulatory structure? Let state certifications count at the national level. A loaf of bread could have a few state certifications that it has met, the consumer could then decide if it's safe. Or better yet, why not private certifications, say via grocery chains? "This chicken has been Whole Foods certified." Whole Foods (or any grocery, say Wal Mart) would have more at stake to make sure that food bearing their stamp is safe, and have the money and incentive to put inspection boots on the ground. And if you don't trust the grocer's inspection service, then you don't buy! A myriad of solutions like this could help keep more distribution networks local, instead of the ever increasing centralization demanded by federal oversight. Not too mention take power out of federal hands and put it into local institutions, and most importantly, consumers.