--- begin forwarded text
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 08:55:19 -0500
Subject: FW:Acres, USA: Transitions
From: "Ericka " <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask], CCubillo <[log in to unmask]>,
"Lucy Goodman-Owsley" <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask],
"Rex B. - Sierra" <[log in to unmask]>,
[log in to unmask], june m varner <[log in to unmask]>,
[log in to unmask], Richard Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>,
[log in to unmask], Mark Knapp <[log in to unmask]>
X-Priority: 3
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: B-GE:Transitions
Date: Fri, Apr 28, 2000, 1:57 PM
T R A N S I T I O N S
June 2000
Standards to Grow With
Organic Agriculture will best benefit from strict production and handling
standards while it continues to grow in popularity and acreage. There is no
doubt that Organic will sustain growth of around 20% per year-sometimes
higher in some countries and regions-without amending production standards
in
ways that are contrary to our long-standing determination to consistently
cleave Organic away from all of synthetic agriculture. Wherefore USDA?
Three cases in point brought up during the current national discussion of
the
USDA National Organic Program are how to deal with inert ingredients in
pesticide formulations approved for organic field production, the use of
processing aids in handling and manufacture ( post-harvest), and whether or
not manures from livestock fed GMO feeds or forage should be used on an
organic farm.
Dating back to the mid-1990s, the debate on inert ingredients has been
confined by what the US Environmental Protection Agency has been able to
work
on in identifying the constituents of these inerts. We should back up to
note, for those unfamiliar with the label on the back of a bottle of
pesticide, that perhaps 3 to 5% of the contents of that bottle of neem, Bt,
or pyrethrum are emulsifiers, stabilizers and other chemicals that allow the
product to dissolve in water, keep it from spoiling, or allow it to adhere
to
plant foliage. The EPA remains extremely tardy in reviewing various classes
of inerts, principally because the only folks really interested in a
substantive analysis are a few EPA staffers, organic farmers and their
consumer/public policy advocate-allies and a handful of knowledgeable
environmentalists.
Jay Feldman, the executive director of the National Coalition Against the
Misuse of Pesticides, Caroline Cox at the Northwest Coalition for
Alternative
to Pesticides, and Terry Shistar of the Sierra Club are three professionals
who have maintained vigilance on inert ingredients for many years, and
despite the mystery regarding the percentage of materials by volume in that
bottle of pesticide, few others focus on the mystery and instead deal with
the active ingredient. The revised Proposed Rule on the National Organic
Program does not provide a specific class of substances on the national list
for synthetic inert ingredients, despite the fact that mainstream chemical
companies now manufacture many of these production inputs and we have been
concerned for a long time that these chemical inerts may be pesticides
themselves or synergists or at least something that is antithetical to
organic farming, harmful to the environment and not in the consumers best
interest. The generally held suspicion is that inerts is a euphemism for
dumping ground. When you read " petroleum distillates" think " benzene".
There are four EPA classifications for inert substances, and the first two
are not allowed under any circumstances, the last category includes those of
Minimal Concern ( we hope). Class Three inerts are what are used in organic
formulations. The NOSB has contracted with the Organic Materials Review
Institute ( OMRI) to review these substances. OMRI staff review the inerts
based on the criteria covered in the Organic Foods Production Act. There is
some ground left to be covered between what OMRI has accomplished and what
USDA has proposed, with some specific loopholes in need of closure. I also
recommend the omri.org website as another useful information source which is
very well conceived.
The next deficiency is in organic processed foods, a subject I have brayed
about for some time not so much because I consume a lot of canned goods but
because organic farmers have an obligation to guarantee to consumers that we
husband that product after it leaves the field. No one expected that of us,
however it is in an organic farmer’s best interest to safeguard the
integrity
of their product all the way to the plate, and furthermore, its part of
being
a member of a community. Nearly all of the manufacturers of organic
processed
foods use organic farmers in their promotions, so truth in advertising is
another way to look at it.
The Proposed Rule of 2000 does not establish a National List class that
allows the use of non-synthetic, but not organically produced substances in
up to 5% of processed organic foods. The Organic Foods Production Act (
OFPA)
mandates all synthetic inert substances used in organic farming and all
non-synthetic, but not organically produced substances used in processed
"organic" foods to be itemized on the National List.
Moreover, when the organic leadership acknowledged a few years ago that the
OFPA did not provide for the use of FDA approved processing substances the
road forked at that point: one way said, if its organic, then allow none of
those things for which there is not a lawful review process ( Section 2118
of
OFPA), and the other way lead to creating a new methodology for review.
To a dwindling few idealists, a comprehensive prohibition against all
synthetics in organic farming and handling goes right to the heart of one of
the most empowering portions of the authorizing legislation: that the
Secretary of Agriculture should determine the legality of placing a
substance
on the national list if it would not be harmful to human health or the
environment, is necessary to the production or handling of the agricultural
product because of the unavailability of wholly natural substitute products;
and is consistent with organic farming and handling. While the
manufacturing
sector claims need based on the "unavailability" of a natural substitute,
many now firmly respond that processors and marketers ask for fresh water in
the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Those stabilizers, emulsifiers and
manufacturing aids just don’t occur naturally. Therefore, it is consistent
with organic farming and handling that one would eat a fresh and unprocessed
product. Social engineering? Call it what you want, but there is a
brilliance
that shines here, as seen in Community Supported Agriculture, farmers
markets, and the marvelous growth in new small farms, better diversified
farms, and land stewardship. Those things are Organic.
The idealist camp claims that reviewing practices and substances "consistent
with organic farming and handling" provides to the community the power to
exclude that which is intuitively wrong, not just based on subjective
science. I would also strongly suggest that this intuition, this
clear-minded, almost spiritually inspired way of thinking and farming and
living is a principal reason why genetic engineering did not become part of
the organic farm plan. We called the shot before the Monarchs started to
drop.
The Farm Practices Committee of the Organic Trade Association, in drawing up
its response to the Rule, went wading into that mysterious slurry of manure
coming out of conventional farming wondering: Should organic farms use
manures or composts made from animal waste where GMOs are fed or utilized?
The USDA’s Proposed Rule was vague or non-committal when dealing with such
nuances, however the organic community has been openly discussing how to
shut
down the GMO-stream wherever a valve remains open. And we will deal with
manures, composts, livestock supplements, vitamins and even vaccines and
medicines one day. The list of inputs in production now prohibited now
includes GMO cotton seed and cotton gin trash, for example, and the science
of it is not absolutely proven, so why not condemn conventional manure?
Well, to begin with, there are not enough fish in the sea to process into
the
nitrogen organic farmers need for production. Manures and composts sourced
off-farm used in organic production now is measured in the millions of tons.
The amount that is from an organic livestock source is but a small
percentage. A strong case was made within the committee to preclude the use
of manures and composts from the Conventional/GMO-stream, however we all
knew
that a Draconian cut-off would stop most of use dead in our tracks.
Elsewhere
in the Organic community, other folks have imposed a prohibition on the use
of GMO-stream manures and composts. However, when the Soil Association, the
leading authority in the United Kingdom required non-GMO composts and
manures, farmers there were dealing with experimental crops grown on very
little land compared with the US, with over one hundred million acres of
corn, soybeans and cotton. Feeds and forage purchased from overseas are more
rapidly going non-GMO in the UK as well, driven by market preference rather
than by government regulation.
The most vexing question for US exporters of organic products is: Will
USDA-certified products grown with un-differentiated manures and composts be
allowed to carry the organic label in market environments where their use is
prohibited? As of January 2000, the Soil Association in the United Kingdom
has done so. Please, let’s not leave it to the Foreign Agricultural Service
to impose retaliatory tariffs should we leave this door closed. Setting a
firm date to exclude GMO-based manures and composts is only " consistent
with
organic farming and handling".
IF USDA does not condemn GMO-stream manures, what if an independent
certifier
elects to do so to conform with the Soil Association? Its been difficult for
a few idealists like Fred Kirschenmann, the founder of Farm Verified Organic
and an outgoing member of the National Organic Standards Board himself, to
accept the USDA as The Standard: Mr. Kirschenmann once wrote:
" Proponents of the uniform standard argue that the Organic Foods Production
Act mandates it. But the Senate Report, which interprets the Act calls for
a
"consistent" standard, rather than a "uniform" standard. Consistency is
different from uniformity. Consistency has to do with coherence and
reliability, not homogeneity. Despite this clear difference in definition
USDA, in the new rule, uses the word "consistent" to mean "uniformity."
As Missouri agronomist John Ikerd warned in 1998: "Organic production cannot
become fully industrialized until there are uniform national and
international standards that will accommodate large-scale, specialized,
centrally controlled methods of production."And while the private sector can
impose such standards, "government sanctioned standards make the process far
easier."
And unless we impose these ideas within the given framework at the federal
level such concerns stand the chance of an ice-cube in the Mojave Desert.
Geemo the Brute
I’ve taken to calling it ( and them) Geemo, the thing being Genetically
Engineered Agriculture, and them being the salespeople, public relations
flacks, hacks, hustlers and greed-heads aiming to make Geemo stick to the
wall somehow. Against all odds, we, the antagonists, have government and
manufacturers reeling and rocky, but they are regrouping with a mad zeal fed
by an awful lot of money.
What Geemo is doing with the press is essentially bribery. Despite the
occasional straightforwardly curious reporting, on balance, the spew of
words associating Geemo with all that is good for our future covers the
globe
like a tsunami of slime. One recent exception was a short but comprehensive
piece on NBC-TV’s Today Show one recent April morning.
NBC reporter Phil Lembert discussed GMO foods and farming with Today host
Matt Lauer behind a layout displaying fresh produce and processed foods.
Lembert quickly covered the array of Geemo-enhanced products, including
vitamin enhancement, insect resistance, shipping benefits, shelf-life and
other claims. Mr. Lauer asked: " If these things are so good, what is the
controversy?"
" Concern about neutraceuticals, allergies, and potential "severe
problems"
that have not been reviewed competently, religious and ethical perspectives
that are not provided the status they deserve…And basically, we just don't
know! Because a multitude of questions have never been asked until recently.
" Mr. Lauer asked about environmental problems, and Lembert reminded him
about the Monarch butterfly issue of last summer.
" How does one know if this broccoli is GMO and what if you didn't want to
buy A GMO product?" Lembert said 25% crops were GMO last season, including
35% corn and 55% soy, of which none are labeled so we won't know, and the
way
to avoid GMO is to buy certified organic. He also noted that Frito-Lay,
Gerber, and others report that they won't use GMO ingredients, and will
continue to respond to consumer concern.
Holding up a box of Nature's Path cereal with a No GMOs label, Mr. Lembert
said that we'll notice more products will have these. He then reiterated
that
the solution is to purchase certified organic and to look for the
certification label on the package.
On The Other Hand
Elsewhere, like a tide slowly coaxed ashore, we note Geemo infiltrating our
society with an all-out genetically modified sales pitch aimed at consumers,
even grade-schoolers. One correspondent wrote to warn of an
industry-sponsored all-expense paid seminar that he had been invited to
called " Field Of Dreams" intended to provide teachers at the K-12
level with a "curriculum" on genetically engineered agriculture.
At a national seed producers show earlier this year, another underground
campaigner came back with a slick CD show-and-tell program for the computer
called " A Short Course on Biotechnology", featuring all the usual
humanitarian benefits of playing God with the genepool. I researched the CD,
and found that there was no copyright, authorship, responsibility or
ownership listed anywhere within the presentation nor on the file’s internal
data. I guess no one was proud enough of it to own up to having made it.
These efforts are but the tip of the iceberg. Coming this spring and summer
to trade and equipment shows, county fairs, and crop and livestock shows
will
be an army of sales and promotion people trained this winter to sell the
good
news of Biotech Ag. Be ready to ask them a few questions yourself, when the
opportunity presents itself.
----
For instructions on joining, leaving, or otherwise using the Ban-GEF list,
send email to [log in to unmask] with HELP in the SUBJECT line.
Search the archives (since '97) at http://www.txinfinet.com/ban-gef/, or go
to a recent day's digest at http://www.txinfinet.com/ban-gef/00/. Updated
weekly.
----
--- end forwarded text
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rex L. Bavousett
Photographer
University of Iowa
Our old name: University Relations - Publications
Our new name: University Communications & Outreach - Publications
100 OPL, Iowa City, IA 52242
http://www.uiowa.edu/~urpubs/
mailto:[log in to unmask]
voice: 319 384-0053
fax: 319 384-0055
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
|
