From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Jan 2 18:05:48 2000 Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 18:05:48 -0500 (EST) From: Mail System Internal Data Subject: DON'T DELETE THIS MESSAGE -- FOLDER INTERNAL DATA X-IMAP: 0941183004 0000000919 Status: RO This text is part of the internal format of your mail folder, and is not a real message. It is created automatically by the mail system software. If deleted, important folder data will be lost, and it will be re-created with the data reset to initial values. From london@metalab.unc.edu Thu Oct 28 10:24:37 1999 -0400 Received: from franklin.oit.unc.edu (franklin.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.59]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA28922 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:24:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:24:39 -0600 From: Skye Reply-To: "permaculture" Organization: Instituto de Permacultura de Mexico AC, http://www.tortuga.com/permacultura MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "permaculture" Subject: New Web Pages Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 1 Hola tod@s Just a quick note to let everyone know that there is now a Permaculture WEB Page covering what is happening in Mexico - some of it is in spanish and some in English - maybe you'd like to check it out http://www.tortuga.com/permacultura And I have also put up the start of a page for those interested in Participatory Processes - ie for those who feel to work with people, rather than play the know-it-all-PC-expert. To me this is the People Care part of our ethics - but I won't get into that rave here - it is not quite complete - and if anyone wants to add further articles, links etc let me know - if could build into the Permaculture People (Zone 0) page!!!! http://www.tortuga.com/participation Thats enough for now Keep growing Skye -- Skye - Sevilla #312, Col. Portales, CP 03300, DF México. 5539 0716 http//www.tortuga.com/permacultura Profesor y diseñador en Permacultura Director del Instituto de Permacultura de México A.C. Talleres de desarrollo humano, planeación participativa y economía comunitaria. --- You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: london@metalab.unc.edu To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-permaculture-75156P@franklin.oit.unc.edu From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 04:53:11 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA15599 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 04:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24834 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 04:11:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp.ncc-mannheim.net (smtp.ncc-mannheim.net [62.104.117.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24634 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 04:11:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (lufa-sp.vdlufa.de [62.132.27.12] (may be forged)) by smtp.ncc-mannheim.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA31973 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:10:37 +0200 Received: from lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (LUFA.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de [192.168.3.254]) by www.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07422 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:11:24 +0200 Received: from LUFA/SpoolDir by lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (Mercury 1.44); 29 Oct 99 10:03:50 +0100 Received: from SpoolDir by LUFA (Mercury 1.44); 29 Oct 99 10:03:50 +0100 From: "Klaus Wiegand" Organization: Landw. U.-& Forsch.-Anstalt Speyer To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:03:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: BSE update Reply-to: Wiegand@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <14F8061F83@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de> Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2 just for info: PARIS, Oct 25, (AFP) - A new case of madcow disease, probably due to cross contamination between animal feed, has been detected in a herd of cattle in western French region of Mayenne, the Agriculture Ministry announces Monday. The ministry said in a communique that the animal infected in Mayenne was born in 1994, four years after the ban imposed on animal feed using meat and bones which were considered the main reason for madcow disease or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Officials said France has shown a rise in the number of madcow cases since 1991 -- a total of 71 cases -- probably due to cross contamination between feed for cattle, pigs and fowl. They said that as late as August of 1996, animal feed for pigs and fowl still included such ingredients as remains of a cow's central nervous system, considered a high risk for madcow disease. Although such matter is now destroyed, it has an incubation period of five years and scientists say they expect new cases of madcow disease in France until the end of 2001. The latest case detected in Mayenne brings to 22 the number of cows infected since the start of the year in France. As in each case, the entire herd was destroyed to prevent the disease spreading. klaus To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 05:30:43 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA15824 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 05:30:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA03564 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 05:08:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from saffron.propagation.net (saffron.propagation.net [216.221.160.23]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA03477 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 05:08:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 204.149.164.43 (mx3-29.ilhawaii.net [204.149.164.43]) by saffron.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA24087; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 04:05:24 -0500 Message-ID: <381966FB.362B@smallfarms.com> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 23:21:00 -1000 From: Glenn Reply-To: glenn@smallfarms.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Subsidies and Priorities Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3 Yesterday Steve Suppan of IATP sent me a short piece by a Montana wheat farmer, Jerry Sikorski entitled "Oversupply or Monopoly?". It includes this passage: "Tiger Woods gets paid ten cents for having his picture on each box of Wheaties, and the farmer gets five cents for raising the wheat." Can this really be true? I hope someone will pursue this further. chuck Dear Chuck: With apologies to my fellow farmer Mr. Sikorski and the excellent people at IATP (http://www.iatp.org). Tiger Woods had a better year than we did.... Further apologies to Mr. Woods, the fine Asian American golfer. What if we did find that the figures are accurate? In my opinion, it will only confirm that General Mills and other major food labels are doing a better job of marketing our food than we are. I'm concerned that we would, to use a golf analogy, suffer paralysis by analysis. And apologies to Babe Ruth, too. Chuck, they out marketed, out promoted and out smiled us again, as they've done for the last thirty years. (Please don't research this one.) If anyone knows Mr. Sikorski, please tell him I owe him a free farm registration at smallfarms.com. If any farmer out there has a smile like Tiger Woods', you have a free registration for life! For regular small farmers who think they have little to smile about these days, the free registrations are still available. Register your farm today! glenn Buy from the Farmer http://www.smallfarms.com Tiger Woods simply had a better year than we did.... To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 08:36:57 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17268 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:36:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13503 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:09:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13452 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:09:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailcore0.oh.voyager.net (mailcore0.oh.voyager.net [207.0.229.17]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25965 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:07:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer (d70.as0.gnvl.oh.voyager.net [207.90.122.198]) by mailcore0.oh.voyager.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA71516 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:07:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008501bf2209$00b9f460$c67a5acf@oemcomputer> From: "Paul Schmitmeyer" To: "Sanet" Subject: chlorpyrifos Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:27:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4 Hi all, Just what is chloropyrifos? Thanks Paul To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 09:11:52 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17651 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:11:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14370 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:51:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14284 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:51:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cwb.ca ([205.200.215.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA26850 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:49:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mint.cwb.ca id <26882>; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:00:29 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: CWB From: "Pat Elazar" To: "Paul Schmitmeyer" cc: "Sanet" Message-Id: <99Oct29.080029cdt.26882@mint.cwb.ca> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:49:16 -0500 Subject: Re: chlorpyrifos Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5 Paul asked: Just what is chloropyrifos? Pat replies: Chlorpyorphos is a broad spectrum, non-systemic insecticide sold by Dow-Elanco as Lorsban or Dursban. It works by contact, ingestion & vapour action (inhalant). It is used for control; of mites; aphids; cutworms; army worms; corn maggots; tarnish bugs; 'hoppers; diamondback moths & others in cereals, oilseeds, corn, sugar beets, sunflowers & potatoes. From Saskatchewan dept of Agriculture guide to chemical control. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 09:42:11 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18268 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:42:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01047 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:22:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01034 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fw1.phibred.com (firewall-user@fw1.phibred.com [204.233.143.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA27702 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:20:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fw1.phibred.com; id IAA23607; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:20:56 -0500 Received: from orion.phibred.com(170.54.241.13) by fw1.phibred.com via smap (V4.2) id xma021959; Fri, 29 Oct 99 08:19:49 -0500 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:19:49 -0500 Message-ID: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC2@vela.phibred.com> From: "Wilson, Dale" To: "'Paul Schmitmeyer'" Cc: Sanet Subject: RE: chlorpyrifos Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:19:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 6 Paul, > Just what is chloropyrifos? Chlorpyrifos (Lorsban, Dursban) is a moderately toxic, moderately persistent (in the environment, not in the body) organophosphate insecticide that is very widely used for many things like termite control, flea collars, foliar application, lawn insect control, in-furrow application (eg for rootworms), and indoors for ant and roach control. http://ace.orst.edu/cgi-bin/mfs/01/pips/chlorpyr.htm http://www.dowagro.com/main/product_results.asp Chlorpyrifos has been around for a long time, and has a good safety record, although a few people claim to be highly sensitive to it. The fact that traces of this can be found in human urine is not, in itself, indication of a problem. In fact, this is so widely used, it would be a surprise if you couldn't find it in your urine. Dale To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 10:00:58 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18687 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:00:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12126 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:40:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov (cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov [199.146.249.191]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12047 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:40:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tn.nrcs.usda.gov by cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov with ESMTP (8.7.6/itc-cust.Revision: 1.11 $) id NAA02677; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:06:19 GMT Message-ID: <38199B7D.ACB41EC0@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:05:02 -0500 From: mike richardson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; UNIX_SV 4.2MP i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: RE: Free range chickens Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 7 To: Mike Miller Yes, predation will be a factor in raising free range chickens. However, all is not hopeless. Big chickens w/broods and dutiful roosters can be pretty fiesty when it comes to the cat. If not, then try the .22 solution. A good dog (or 2) will help against ground varmits such as 'coons and 'possums. Plenty of cover in the form of evergreens, holly type bushes, etc. will help the chickens hide from owls and hawks (not to mention hiding from you). The 12 ga. solution, or a good dog (or 3) is often used to control the problems with coyotes and dump dogs. And yes, I speak from experience. Son of Richard To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 10:13:05 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18935 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:13:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA19974 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:49:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19963 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:49:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fw1.phibred.com (firewall-user@fw1.phibred.com [204.233.143.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA28442 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:48:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fw1.phibred.com; id IAA09261; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:48:01 -0500 Received: from orion.phibred.com(170.54.241.13) by fw1.phibred.com via smap (V4.2) id xma008185; Fri, 29 Oct 99 08:47:33 -0500 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:47:33 -0500 Message-ID: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC3@vela.phibred.com> From: "Wilson, Dale" To: "'Paul Schmitmeyer'" Cc: Sanet Subject: RE: chlorpyrifos Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:47:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 8 One of the URL's I posted doesn't work. Try this instead. Look under "U.S. label & MSDS System" for information about Lorsban and Dursban. http://www.dowelanco.com/ Dale To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 10:47:59 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19572 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29026 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:06:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.pcsia.com (mail.pcsia.com [206.162.14.3]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28884 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:06:25 -0400 (EDT) From: mmiller@pcsia.com Received: from www.pcsia.com (unverified [206.162.14.2]) by mail.pcsia.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:02:45 -0500 X-ROUTED: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:02:44 -0600 X-TCP-IDENTITY: MMiller Received: from [206.162.14.250] by www.pcsia.com with smtp id 091e283c ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:02:40 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991029085015.008f4560@pcsia.com> X-Sender: mmiller@pcsia.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:50:15 -0500 To: Subject: Hybrid to OP Corn? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 9 >From: dmhinds@acnet.net >Date: 29 Oct 99 01:44:50 -0600 >Subject: Re[2]: Time and the "Benefit" of BT Corn You are saying then that with some work/?luck? I can take my hybrid and turn it into a stable Open-Pollinated variety with the same characteristics. Then why are we spending all this money on hybrid seeds? The farmers have no margin left to spend on unnecessary expenses. If true, it seems this would be a money saving way to go. After all farmers have the equipment, the land and the know-how to grow and harvest the crop, so why not develop our own open pollinated types that works best in our own area? What if every farmer devoted, say 2 acres to his own research? You would not lose the odd 20-70 dollars an acre from growing a regular crop and with a little of your own work, you would have the potential to save money in the long run. Another benefit would be mental. At least you would be doing something so save your farm from the inevitable fate that awaits you if you just go along with the current system. I would not hold my breath waiting for the congress et al to break up the grain/packing house monoplies so the expense reduction is going to have to come on the input side. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Mike Miller major snip >AMcG> This led us to hybrids > >Hybrids are simply the results of natural breeding methods (cross >pollination) that happen to NOT reproduce true to seed, due the >instability of the particular genetic cross. > >Further cross breeding (continued seed selection) can sometimes revert >this reversion to type. In other words, if the cross proves stable and >reproduces true to type, you've got a new OP variety on your hands, >which is harder to make proprietary. It has also been found that the >tension involved in a genetic cross that is inherently unstable can >sometimes introduce a kind of temporary (since it doesn't reproduce) >vigor in the progeny. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 10:51:39 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19620 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02292 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:11:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02197 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:11:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from node11e64.a2000.nl ([24.132.30.100] helo=zap.a2000.nl) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11hCiO-00062B-00 for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:09:12 +0200 Message-ID: <3819AF32.540BCC1A@zap.a2000.nl> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:29:06 +0200 From: wytze X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: rediscovery of old way of plant breeding Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 10 Hi, This is my first posting on this list. It is a summary of an article I found in today's Dutch Agrarian Journal. Wytze de Lange Heading: Old method of Plantbreeding rediscovered. By: Joost van Winsen Introduction: Can a plant adapt to its environment? If that appeared to be true, than it offers (huge) breedingpossibilities for organic agriculture and agriculture in poor areas. Trials at the Russian Timirasov-University show that winterwheat adapts itself to growthcircumstances and can be selected on this. Wageningen:- Sonja Temirbikova is a Russian doctor in plantbreeding and cropprotection. Since ten years she is testing winterwheat on their capacity to adapt to circumstances of growth. The research started after meeting with Jan Diek van Mansvelt from the Agricultural University Wageningen in the Netherlands. Van Mansvelt visited Russia ten years ago to see what the possibilities are for organic agriculture in Russia. In the first year of the research Temirbikova planted Dutch wheat between Russian wheat of the same variety.Ten percent of the Dutch wheat appeared to be suitable for the extreme cold circumstances in Russia. Also the second year the Dutch wheat proved resistent to the Russian frost. "A quality of which we knew nothing in the Netherlands" says van Mansvelt. This finding is in itself not new. Temirbikova: "plantbreeding in former times was based on this principle. In grainshippings there were several sisterlines which were used for selection. Nowadays, this principle is being judged as a negative phenomena. It disturbs the homogenicity. According to van Mansvelt, breeding on the basis of sisterlines was in Scandinavian countries common practice till the end of the last century. Also farmers in 'developing' countries use this principle in breeding. Knwoledge about it is not very much present. It was lost with breeders who selected this way. Breeding is for some length of time a matter of crosses and since recent times of genetic engineering. The lack of knowledge is one of the reasons why Temirbikova went on with the research. She used three varieties: the Russian Mironowskaja 808, Okapi and Rector. After ten years of research she concludes that without crossing in five to six years a new biotype can be selected from a population. "With crossing this would take twelve years". she says. Points taken into consideration were yields and tolerances, but the wheats also could be selected for diseaseresistance. Russian Ministery of Science saw enough reason to continue subsidizing the research. The research opens possibilities for organic agriculture."Farmers can take up breeding themselves and do not need to be dependant on big breeding companies. This can work cost reducing". The research is still young but promising. "The principle can also be used with potatos and vegetables" concludes Temirbikova. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 10:55:43 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19668 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:55:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03574 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:14:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from torrex1.theitgroup.com (itcrp.com [207.247.16.114]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03538 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:14:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by torrex1.theitgroup.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:12:22 -0700 Message-ID: <9940D59A824BD31196EB00902798D1AE4943A2@KNOXEX1> From: "Cole, Ralph" To: "'mmiller@pcsia.com'" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: free range eggs Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:12:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 11 Mike- Here's what we did: bought an old school bus ($150+towing), cut the floor out and replaced it with 2"x2" wire, installed roosts, nesting boxes, and a feed hopper. Screened out the cab area for feed/utility storage. Hung a bell waterer off the side. I open up the emergency exit every morning for the girls to come down a ramp. I collect eggs and close the bus every evening. Move the bus every week or so with the tractor to a new spot on the pasture. All the hens are protected at night when the varmints are out. During the day, they can dive for cover under the bus if they see a hawk. We had trouble with a coyote last year, but he didn't get too many, and haven't seen him this year though there are plenty of coyotes around. Domestic animals, well, we cull our barn cats if they show too much favor for chasing chickens. Some do, some don't. This setup has worked real well for us and was cheap to build. You could adapt the concept to your flock size by using whatever vehicle fits your plans. Could be a van, minibus, or greyhound. Our unit houses 75 heavy breed layers easily. Could go higher. Roosting space is the limiting factor. Visit the PasturePoultry list for all your poultry Q's and A's. Grace to you, Ralph > -----Original Message----- > > Alright, you all have me convinced. I have wanted to start with a few > chickens here on the farm but how do free range birds hold up with the > red-tailed hawks, raccoons, possums, owls and my major worry, my barn cat To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 10:56:43 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19694 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01889 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:09:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from ncatark.uark.edu ([130.184.56.248]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01868 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from REXD.uark.edu ([130.184.56.55]) by ncatark.uark.edu (8.8.7/UW7.1.0) with SMTP id JAA11873; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:06:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199910291406.JAA11873@ncatark.uark.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rex Dufour" To: jaweaver@epix.net Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:03:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Check this out Reply-to: rexd@ncatark.uark.edu CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu In-reply-to: <3818F316.18B99D9C@epix.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 12 Jim, Well, at least Ed Shonsey, President of Novartis Seeds, got this part right--, "Ignorance on the part of a group of people, who... have imperiled the near-term future of agricultural biotechnology" Yup, there was an ignorant group of people that chose to ignore input from an important group of stakeholders. The stakeholders had legitimate concerns about the risks of a new biotechnology (some of which (the concerns) have since been born out) being widely dispersed in the environment. The heads of the companies in question chose to ignore (root of ignorant) these legitimate concerns, tactically focusing instead on the gleam of large short-term profits. This turned out to be a large strategic blunder. Now, an interesting and possibly useful technology has been tainted in the public mind due to the haste and greed of company leaders too willing to externalize environmental/social costs upon the rest of society. I'm not sure the idea of "terminator technology" improved biotech companies' corporate images, either... The analogies of adoption of biotech with the widespread use of pesticide technology (and the resulting environmental side effects) should've been obvious to even company CEO's--after all, the companies pushing biotech are many of the same companies that manufactured and sold synthetic pesticides--at least the parallels were obvious to the European public... The biotech companies have only themselves to blame for the present cloud of distrust and suspicion which hovers over them and their products. Rex Dufour > Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:06:30 -0400 > From: Jim Weaver > Reply-to: jaweaver@epix.net > Organization: GCES > To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Check this out > Ignorance imperils future of agriculture > > Farmers are in fight or flee mode; they are confused, > scared and angry, observed Ed Shonsey, the president and > CEO of Novartis Seeds, Thursday in an Iowa speech. "And > you know what bothers them the most?" he asked. "It's not > the government. Or the weather. Or even the seed > companies. What has farmers upset -- so upset their > eternal optimism is in serious danger of becoming > permanent pessimism -- is ignorance. Ignorance. Ignorance > on the part of a group of people, who, in the name of > protecting the environment, have imperiled the near-term > future of agricultural biotechnology." He makes an > impassioned case for the science behind, and the > potentially great benefits of biotechnology. Read the > full text of his speech here: > > > http://www.agriculture.com/scgi/notebook/nb.cgi?FNC=Corres > pondents__Anb_list_html___780 > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the > command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest > format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To > Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the > command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 11:18:47 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20262 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:18:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04354 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:17:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov (cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov [199.146.249.191]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04206 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:16:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tn.nrcs.usda.gov by cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov with ESMTP (8.7.6/itc-cust.Revision: 1.11 $) id NAA02717; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:42:24 GMT Message-ID: <3819A43F.76778695@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:42:24 -0500 From: mike richardson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; UNIX_SV 4.2MP i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: no-till chemical use Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 13 To London et al: On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Lynne Carpenter-Boggs wrote: > No-till is a wonderful thing, and even with the increased herbicide > input it is a much more productive and environment-friendly system > than currently practiced in many places. London replied: "How is increased herbicide use/acre more environment-friendly?" My reply: No-till is not the be all - end all of environmentally sound farming. However, it certainly can have tremendous environmental benefits, compared to conventional farming (deep plowing, disking, cultivating, etc.) Yes, generally more chemical amounts are used. However, since the killed vegetation reduces soil erosion to near zero (major benefit), absorbs chemicals, slows surface water movement, reduces fertilizer loss, enhances water movement into the soil profile, etc. then there is less chemical running off into surface waters. As for chemical leaching into the ground water, that can be a problem with some chemicals used in no-till and conventional tillage (atrizine types for instance). However, many chemicals do break down while in the soil, so as they are moving through the soil they tend to degrade. No-till also enhances soil tilth, reduces fossile fuel use (thereby reducing air pollution and global warming), lowers labor and equipment costs to the farmer, and has been proven to maintain or even increase yields. No-till farming: Environmental panacea? Nope. Environmentally friendly? Yep. Son of Richard To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 11:20:43 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20341 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:20:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03791 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:15:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from envsci.rutgers.edu (envsci.rutgers.edu [165.230.5.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03783 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:15:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from the-ufos-asy-35.rutgers.edu (the-ufos-asy-35.rutgers.edu [128.6.249.35]) by envsci.rutgers.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA28799; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:10:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: envsci.rutgers.edu: the-ufos-asy-35.rutgers.edu [128.6.249.35] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <3819D4B8.42@envsci.rutgers.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:09:12 -0700 From: Loren Muldowney Reply-To: loscott@envsci.rutgers.EDU Organization: Individual X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Wilson, Dale" CC: sanet Subject: Re: chlorpyrifos References: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC2@vela.phibred.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 14 Wilson, Dale wrote: > Chlorpyrifos has been around for a long time, and has a good safety record, > although a few people claim to be highly sensitive to it. The fact that > traces of this can be found in human urine is not, in itself, indication of > a problem. Apparently, the clear evidence of chemical trespass itself is disregarded as being in the category of things we call "a problem." By this reasoning, if a person breaks into my home by picking the lock, but does not actually break the lock in doing so, and proceeds to alarm my family, tells bad jokes, has vile body odor, and sit on the furniture, but does not immediately kill anyone or steal or break anything, then the presence of this trespassor "is not, in itself, indication of a problem." I shall poll everyone I run across for the next 7 days, and shall submit this situation to their scrutiny. I shall ask "Would you consider it a problem to have a tresspassor hanging out in your home? Please answer yes or no." I'll report the results when they are compiled. I hypothesize that it would be considered indication of a problem. Or is there some error in the analogy? > In fact, this is so widely used, it would be a surprise if you > couldn't find it in your urine. No argument here. LM To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 11:29:25 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20529 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:29:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12924 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:39:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.1starnet.com (1starnet.com [207.243.104.17]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12854 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:39:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joepaloff [207.243.107.57] by mail.1starnet.com (SMTPD32-5.04) id A144182016C; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:37:56 CDT Message-ID: <05cb01bf221b$861a5fc0$396bf3cf@joepaloff> From: "Minelle & Joe Paloff" To: Subject: Free range chickens.....comment Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:40:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 15 I raised free range chickens both in northern Arkansas and now down here in Texas. In AR, I must have had about 100 chickens running around in the yard and nearby woods. I had a good chicken house with a light, which I kept on all the time. At night, most of the chickens would go into the house, and then we would go out and close the door. In the morning, we would open the door and let them out again. I had quite a few dogs which kept predators away. One time, I had a black snake which sneaked in at the top of the house near the roof through a tiny hole. We soon took care of that prob. LOL Down here in Texas, I do not have a nice chicken house like I did in Arkansas; however, I raised a few chickens out in my goat pen ( after they were old enough to leave the brooder), and most did quite well. I still have dogs which I trained from tiny puppies to leave the chicks alone. I have four dogs outside. A Great Pyranees ( who has never attempted to kill anything), a tri-colored collie, and two mixed collie-chows. They are great dogs and really work at night. In my way of thinking, to be really successful , one needs a good chicken house for the chickens to go in at night and in foul weather, a light in the chicken house, fresh water, good food, and some good dogs. As for diet, I fed corn chops, leftover cornbread, veggies, leftover popcorn, etc. I also saved the egg shells, baked them in the oven until crisp, then put them in a plastic bag and crushed them with my rolling pin, then put them in with the corn chops for added strength to the eggs. Minelle Paloff To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 11:34:32 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20681 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:34:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA16824 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:44:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from fw1.phibred.com (firewall-user@fw1.phibred.com [204.233.143.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA16812 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:44:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fw1.phibred.com; id JAA19585; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:42:37 -0500 Received: from orion.phibred.com(170.54.241.13) by fw1.phibred.com via smap (V4.2) id xma019423; Fri, 29 Oct 99 09:42:30 -0500 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:42:30 -0500 Message-ID: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC4@vela.phibred.com> From: "Wilson, Dale" To: "'Dave Lewington'" Cc: Sanet Subject: RE: Benefit of BT Corn Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:42:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 16 Dave, > As far as I'm concerned, all seed companies should be required to > make available the non GMO base hybrid that is in every GMO > hybrid. I tend to agree, but I don't like the idea of the government dictating what varieties we must offer. If I were the head of product planning, I would offer all the elite material as non-GMO hybrids to give customers the choice. Keep in mind that often, the non-GMO version IS marketed, but just not identified as the non-GMO equivalent of the more trendy GMO hybrid. > Either that or you are going to drive all of us that don't wish to > grow GMO to the small local companies or to open pollinated corn. I think the big companies are beginning to realize this. Dale To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 11:34:41 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20689 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:34:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21819 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:59:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from spdmgaae.compuserve.com (ds-img-5.compuserve.com [149.174.206.138]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21789 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:59:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spdmgaae.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.7) id KAA03163 for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:56:39 -0400 From: Tom Green Subject: Environmental Marketing Conference To: Sanet posting Message-ID: <199910291056_MC2-8AEC-7E22@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu id KAA21795 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 17 Please feel free to circulate to listservs, friends and neighbors. Conventional producers who are interested in learning more about opportunities in environmentally identified production and marketing are especially encouraged to attend. To: News Editor October 29, 1999 From: Thomas A. Green, Ph.D., President, IPM Institute of North America, Inc. (608) 232-1528, fax (608) 232-1530 E-mail: ipminstitute@cs.com FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE #### Conference Set on Adding Value to Food Products through Environmental Marketing, December 6-7, 1999 in Madison, WI How concerned are consumers about the environmental impacts of agricultural production practices? How can producers effectively communicate their efforts to reduce these impacts? What market advantages are available to food and fiber producers, processors and retailers who can document and deliver environmental benefits? More than 50% of consumers indicate a preference for goods produced in an environmentally sound manner. The organic market is currently $5 billion dollars, growing 20% annually, and now includes marketing giants such as Quaker Oats and General Mills. Products identified with other eco-labels and environmental standards, including ISO 14001, are also experiencing double digit sales growth in domestic and international markets. How can you turn this challenge into an opportunity for your organization? At this conference, you will discuss these issues with national experts and industry leaders, including Harvey Hartman, a consultant advising senior management of Fortune 500 companies on environmental and marketing strategies; Katherine DiMatteo, Executive Director of the Organic Trade Association, representing over 1000 members; Mark Retzloff, Senior Vice President of Horizon Organic Dairy, the largest organic brand with over $57 million in annual sales; Daniel Burke, President of Pacific Soybean and Grain, an international supplier of identity-preserved grains; Jeff Wilson, owner, Birkbank Farms, producer of fruit and vegetables and participant in the Ontario Farm Plan; Tom O'Neill, Manager, Norfolk Fruit Growers Association, completing ISO 14001 environmental certification; Ron Lautrup, National Commodities Manager, United Natural Foods, the largest natural foods distributor in the U.S., with $729 million in sales and 73% growth in 1998, Harold Coble, former USDA National IPM Coordinator and others working in well-established and newly developed environmentally based production and marketing systems. "Adding Value through Environmental Marketing: Opportunities for Food Producers, Processors and Retailers" with special focus on production, marketing and distribution of field crops, meat and dairy products will be held December 6-7, 1999, at the Edgewater Hotel in Madison, Wisconsin. Attendance is limited to the first 160 registrants. For more information, contact the IPM Institute of North America, 1914 Rowley Ave., Madison, WI 53705, (608) 232-1528, Fax (608) 232-1530, E-mail , or visit the web site at ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:36:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13141 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:39:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from po4.wam.umd.edu (po4.wam.umd.edu [128.8.10.166]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13067 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:39:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 129.2.68.82 (aglifesurge-82.umd.edu [129.2.68.82]) by po4.wam.umd.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA20890 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:37:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3819791A.2015@wam.umd.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:38:31 +0000 From: Valerie Berton Organization: SARE X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: New on-farm research bulletin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 18 A new, 12-page bulletin for farmers, ranchers and the extension educators who work with them outlines how to conduct research at the farm level. Published by the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program’s Sustainable Agriculture Network, the bulletin offers practical tips for both crop and livestock producers, as well as a comprehensive list of more in depth resources. Real-life examples -- from a Pennsylvania vegetable farmer testing new rotations to a Montana producer experimenting with a legume called black medic to build soil and prolong pasture -- may stimulate research ideas. Co-written by a team of research scientists, the bulletin features many SARE grant recipients. The free publication is available at www.sare.org/san/htdocs/pubs/ or call (301) 504-6422 and request a copy of "Put Your Ideas to the Test: How to Conduct Research on Your Farm or Ranch." Valerie Berton SARE Communications Specialist (301) 405-3186 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 11:42:35 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20917 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:42:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29777 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:11:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail1.uts.ohio-state.edu (mail1.uts.ohio-state.edu [128.146.214.30]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29751 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:11:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uoguelph.ca ([128.146.210.212]) by mail1.uts.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21063 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:09:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3819C685.337C4AFE@uoguelph.ca> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:08:37 -0500 From: "E. Ann Clark" Organization: University of Guelph X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: no-till chemical use (long) References: <3819A43F.76778695@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 19 Folks: mike (son of richard) richardson wrote regarding no-till: > However, it certainly can have tremendous environmental > benefits, compared to conventional farming (deep plowing, disking, > cultivating, etc.) Yes, generally more chemical amounts are used. > However, since the killed vegetation reduces soil erosion to near zero > (major benefit), absorbs chemicals, slows surface water movement, > reduces fertilizer loss, enhances water movement into the soil profile, > etc. then there is less chemical running off into surface waters. As > for chemical leaching into the ground water, that can be a problem with > some chemicals used in no-till and conventional tillage (atrizine types > for instance). However, many chemicals do break down while in the soil, > so as they are moving through the soil they tend to degrade. No-till > also enhances soil tilth, reduces fossile fuel use (thereby reducing air > pollution and global warming), lowers labor and equipment costs to the > farmer, and has been proven to maintain or even increase yields. Pasture - which is an "alternate" form of the livestock nutrition (grains) produced with no-till - does all of the above, and better - without need for chemicals in the first place. Let's not frame the discussion so narrowly as to create a strawman-type argument. If we really stand back and analyze land use practices objectively (whatever that is), starting with - what do we grow these crops for in the first place - this opens up a much wider array of options than just no-till or till. Might also add that even well managed no-till inherently and inescapably creates a whole suite of problems (which well managed pasture doesn't), including weed shifts to favor hard-to-control perennials like dandelion and quack. The obligatory dependence on herbicides (to the exclusion of all other approaches) also accelerates herbicide resistance (note Benbrook's authoritative commentary earlier on the increase in mean glyphosate use in the US in just the last few years, owing largely to no-till and RR crops (probably in that order too). In Ontario, long-time no-till farmers (experienced and commited people; leaders in the field) have begun to plow up their land, following several dry years in a row. For reasons that I still do not understand (given all the presumed increase in soil OM and water conservation under no-till (which is disputed, see below)), no-till land apparently has performed worse than tilled land under dry conditions. I'd have thought the reverse. It may have something to do with the accumulation of macropore space opening directly to the surface, conveying water too readily down to tiles before it can be absorbed. These same uninterrupted macropores, by the way, also convey liquid manure, herbicides, and anything else that has been surface applied directly down to tiles and out into surface water systems - completely bypassing buffer strips and other vehicles recommended to protect the integrity of watercourses. Colleagues in Land Resource Science tell me that no-till slows down the rate of loss of OM under annual arable cropping, but does NOT increase full-profile soil OM. Distribution is affected, with more concentrating in the surface layers, but less in the lower layers, with a net effect that total OM does NOT increase. The only way to materially increase soil OM is to withhold the land from cultivation under a perennial sod - like a pasture or hay field. And then there is the issue of N-use efficiency. I recall a paper co-authored by Rennie (former dean of ag at Sask and major proponent of conservation tillage) showing the potential for anaerobic microsites and anaerobiosis under surface vegetation on no-tilled land in the spring promoted denitrification and N-loss on wheat land. The amounts were fairly hefty if memory serves - say, 20-50 kg N/ha. Surface residues also keep soil colder longer, which effectively shortens the growing season in a short season climate, such as we have in Canada. Surface residues, particularly in combination with cold, can also retard plant establishment and seedling vigor, promoting susceptibility to a range of soil damping-off and other pathogens. Only certain crops *can* be grown no-till, which reduces rotation complexity and hampers the ability to constructively design rotations to deal with weed, pest, and nutrient management issues. Another unintended effect of no-till is leaving allelochemically active residues on the soil surface, where they can impact weed and subsequent crop growth. As it happens, one of the major no-till crops in Canada is no-till wheat. Research by Purvis et al., in Australia, has shown that the allelochemics released by decomposing wheat straw stimulate wild oat germination and growth. Thus, failure to incorporate the residues created a mega-problem with wild oats. And wild oats are a major problem in the prairies, which have adopted no-till wheat with a vengence. So, from a different (pro-pasture, admittedly) vantage point, no-till is a proprietary band-aid to patch up a arable crop technology (annual tillage to produce annual grain crops) that is fundamentally at odds with the ecological integrity of farm land. The problem(s) with tillage is soil erosion and degradation, with consequent effects on related processes, as water use efficiency. So, no-till addresses those issues, but in so doing, creates a suite of other issues. Pasture - which is what ruminants are actually evolved to eat in the first place - avoids most of these issues entirely (granted, you have to manage it to avoid overgrazing, erosion, etc.). Admittedly, pasture also creates some potential problems, relating to soil compaction (and water infiltration etc.) and N leaching/volatilization - although these are at least partly managable through such practices as restricting labile N (less chemical N; lower % legume). Management intensive grazing is a largely non-proprietary technology which can be mastered by men, women, and children, can be a useful (if not sole) source of nutrition year-around (even in Canada), and can retain a much larger share of farm gate receipts in the hands of farmers than no-till, conventional till, or any kind of annual arable cropping. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why commodity-specific subsidy/entitlement programs always favor annual crops and completely omit pasture (and often hay) crops. Ann To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 12:32:38 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21953 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:32:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22095 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:45:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22058 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:45:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00898 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:43:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [148.233.231.88] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:42:17 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:40:19 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <11444.991029@acnet.net> To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Subsidies and Priorities In-reply-To: <199910281529.IAA02084@enaila.nidlink.com> References: <199910281529.IAA02084@enaila.nidlink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 20 Thursday, October 28, 1999, 9:42:51 AM, you wrote: ... CB> Amount spent to produce food consumed in the US in 1996 (farm CB> cost): $126 billion. Amount spent on marketing it: $421 billion" ... CB> "Tiger Woods gets paid ten cents for having his picture on each CB> box of Wheaties, and the farmer gets five cents for raising the CB> wheat." CB> Can this really be true? I hope someone will pursue this further. CB> chuck Probably true and not surprising. Farmers do not control the food industry, where more weight is held by the distribution end of it. (Incidentally, an organic farmer in California and Mexico who also distributes his own and other peoples organic food products world wide, told me once that his distribution costs were higher than his production costs). In any case, there is nothing that prevents farmers from forming organizations that take charge of the whole food chain - except their own capacity to organize, finance, administrate, collaborate etc. I suggest: Do it! Provide an alternative. Easier said than done? Of course. Got anything better to do? Is this something that is necessary, or not? Douglas Hinds, CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil (Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization) Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 12:34:57 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22021 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:34:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA24239 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:52:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.internet.com.mx (mail.internet.com.mx [200.10.239.229]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA24208 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ssc053.sancristobal.com.mx (customer-23-246-140.uninet.net.mx [200.23.246.140] (may be forged)) by mail.internet.com.mx (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA12282 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:50:48 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991029103155.00728ea8@mail.internet.com.mx> X-Sender: danamex@mail.internet.com.mx X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:31:55 -0500 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Ronald Nigh Subject: Re: rediscovery of old way of plant breeding Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu id LAA24217 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 21 Dear SANET and Wytze de Lange Thank you for this interesting post, Wytse. Indeed, the subject is so important that I think it would be helpful if you could clarify some of the points that I don't quite understand. What exactly does "crossing sister lines" involve in practical terms? With corn crossing is fairly easy, but how does it work with wheat? What exactly is the nature of Temirbikova's research? There is precious little research on this issue. I just saw a presentation of fascinating results by Hugo Perales, Mexican agronomist, who found that traditional farmers in Central Mexico are able to maintain adapted races of corn that perform as well or outperform available hybrids. Farmers freely use the hybrids when they work, but for the most part, the traditionally maintained varieties do just as well (including by responding to chemical fertilizer and irrigations etc.) and in some conditions consistently outperfom hybrids. Two factors maintain these varieties: the incredibile reserve of genetic variety farmers possess and conserve (with know help from anybody) and the continual experimentation and selections by farmers from that variety (one again, with no support). Mexican government ag policy has, for decades, actively discouraged this activity among farmers. There is a lot of hype about 'modern plant breeding' and now 'biotechnology' as being what has 'fed the world' over the past decades as we grew to 6 billion. But it seems to me this activity by farmers that has maintained the viability of our crops all over the world is far more important to our food security, past and future, than any systematic breeding or genetic engineering ever has or will be. In fact, the concern now is that GE, seed patents and such might threaten this traditional source of crop productitivity. How much of our basic crop production do we really owe to modern plant breeders and how much do we owe to farmers? I think giving the plant breeders credit for 10 per cent of it would be generous. Would it be possible to come up with quantitative estimate? Not that we don't appreciate them! I hope modern plant breeders will continue to ply their trade. But the coroporate hype has blown their contribution way out of proportion and detoured our attention from the truly vital process we should be concerned about: in situ conservation and selection by farmers. This is the heart of agricultural sustainability. Ronald Nigh Dana, A.C. Mexico, D.F. & San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas Tel. y FAX 525-666-73-66 (DF) 529-678-72-15 (Chiapas) danamex@mail.internet.com.mx To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 12:36:21 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22062 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:36:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23643 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:51:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from fw1.phibred.com (firewall-user@fw1.phibred.com [204.233.143.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA23540 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:51:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fw1.phibred.com; id KAA05413; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:47:03 -0500 Received: from orion.phibred.com(170.54.241.13) by fw1.phibred.com via smap (V4.2) id xma004596; Fri, 29 Oct 99 10:46:28 -0500 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:46:27 -0500 Message-ID: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC5@vela.phibred.com> From: "Wilson, Dale" To: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Do-it-yourself corn breeding Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:46:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 22 Alex and Mike, Alex wrote: > Of course, GMOs are the same mentality. This mentality has > been operating since the beginning of agriculture. (Keep > in mind that any type of cultivation is unnatural.) > > We started out just selecting individual plants for their > properties, but that wasn't good enough. Then we had to > start cross pollinating for characteristics. (grafting is > just a mutation of this.) This led us to hybrids and then > to GMOs. All of this is a manipulation of nature, so there > are no sacred cows, such as heirloom varieties or standard > fruit trees. This kind of fundamental, human-mediated evolution lies at the root of agriculture and is interlocked with the evolution of human culture. Just about all our fruit species came from Asia, for example. Our most serious pests are fairly recent introductions too. Such manipulation is only "unnatural" if you believe that humans (or the human mind) is not part of nature. I am not saying that everything we do is desirable or good, just that appeal to natural law is a weak foundation in these matters. > The goal initially, with selection, cross pollination and > grafting was to bend the plants to our needs- production, > flavor and nutrition. The goal of hybrids was to do all > this AND own a variety which didn't breed true- to make > growers dependent on seed companies. The same is true of GMOs. Okay, Okay! lets deal with this head on. If I am smart and organized enough to come up with superior varieties, what is wrong with my protecting them from people who would steal them? Don't I have a right to earn a living? Mike wrote (in response to Douglas I think): > You are saying then that with some work/?luck? I can take my > hybrid and turn it into a stable Open-Pollinated variety with > the same characteristics. Then why are we spending all this > money on hybrid seeds? > so why not develop our own open pollinated types that works > best in our own area? Because selection pressures experienced by OP corn tend to select against certain important traits. But I would encourage you to try (if you do, I think you will decide that Pioneer Seed is a pretty good deal). You might want to emulate the successful 19th century farmer-seedsmen from whom we have received our most productive germplasm, people like James Reid (Reid Yellow Dent) and Issac Hershey (Lancaster Sure-Crop). Forrest Troyer wrote an excellent review article on these OP breeders "Background of U.S. Hybrid Corn" (Crop Science 39:601-626) In summary he wrote "Adaptation is everything - the sole driving force of evolutionary biology. Better adaptation to the environment means higher yielding corn. U.S. corn breeding is accelerated evolution to adapt a tropical crop to a temperate environment." Dale PS: If anyone is interested in development of OP supersweets with good seed vigor, I would be happy to share my germplasm with you and cooperate in breeding. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 12:42:56 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22152 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA04313 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:06:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04302 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:06:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Twittman@aol.com Received: from Twittman@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 7XGOa29634 (3998) for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.ac0cac93.254b1f89@aol.com> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:04:25 EDT Subject: Fwd: Temperature Resistant E.coli To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_0.ac0cac93.254b1f89_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 23 --part1_0.ac0cac93.254b1f89_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Folks, Any help on this would be appreciated. Thank you, Thomas Wittman --part1_0.ac0cac93.254b1f89_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-za02.mx.aol.com (rly-za02.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.98]) by air-za05.mail.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:55:23 2000 Received: from mail.cruzio.com (mail.cruzio.com [208.226.92.37]) by rly-za02.mx.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:55:09 2000 Received: from [165.227.129.94] (sa-165-227-129-94.cruzio.com [165.227.129.94]) by mail.cruzio.com with ESMTP id FAA14256 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 05:55:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: sambo@mail.cruzio.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 05:54:12 -0700 To: twittman@aol.com From: Sam Earnshaw Subject: Temperature Resistant E.coli Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From: "Porter, Christy" >To: compost@compostingcouncil.org >Cc: "Sam Earnshaw (E-mail)" >Subject: Temperature Resistant E.coli >Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:47:45 -0700 >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Have any of you heard of a new strain of E.coli that is not killed by >131 >degree composting? There's a farmer in the Santa Cruz, California, area who >is being sued by a neighbor who claims that the spreading of compost is >causing E. coli contamination of the wells. The neighbor is quoting an >article by the infamous Dennis Avery. Any help would be greatly >appreciated. Has anyone seen this article? > > >Christy Porter >Organic Materials Outreach Coordinator >California Integrated Waste Management Board >8800 Cal Center Drive, MS 22 >Sacramento, CA 95826 >(916) 255-2410 > --part1_0.ac0cac93.254b1f89_boundary-- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 12:46:56 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22208 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:46:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03101 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:05:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA03015 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:05:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m8.boston.juno.com (m8.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.196]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01291 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:03:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from eweigel@juno.com) by m8.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id EP4ZHBCE; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:59:20 EDT To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:41:59 -0700 Subject: range chickens (was RE: free range eggs) Message-ID: <19991029.084307.3502.1.eweigel@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,12,20,25,33-35 From: Edna M Weigel Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 24 Mike asked about wildlife and dogs and cats as danger to chickens: One of my books says chicks are of interest to cats only after they fledge until they are a few months old. My hunting cat (who can take a cotton tail nearly her size) is leery of the chickens (but she is timid of anything she doesn't understand.) On the other hand, our three dogs got into the chicken yard and eliminated 6 or the 12 birds in the few minutes it took me to feed our neighbor's cats (5 of the 6 survivors managed to get through or over the fence into garden, drive, or wild area). I have the chicken yard fenced in a dog/coyote proof fence (the gate the dogs got through is now securely bolted). When we moved here, my neighbor insisted hawks and owls and coyotes would get our cats within a few weeks. Same for any chickens. So far this hasn't been a problem except for our own dogs. However, unless you have secure sleeping quarters for the chickens and close them up over night, you might have a lot more problems. Depending on the wildlife in your area, your defenses might have to be adjusted; back on the farm in Kansas, our defenses were constantly challenged by opossums, raccoons, weasels (they can get through a very small opening), skunks, and probably a few other things I've forgotten. Here in southeast AZ, I have a friend who lost lots of chickens to a bob cat. We have a small pen attached to the chicken house with a chicken-sized door into it for times when we won't be around at dark to close them up. The chickens hate the confinement and I try to avoid having to use it, but it also worked as a nursery for young chicks this spring. About hawks, my chickens crouch under trees when they spot a hawk (their color camouflages them nicely), but once a hot air balloon drifted over. The dogs were going berserk barking at it but the chickens ignored it until its shadow passed over them. There was an enormous commotion of panicky skwaks, cackles, flapping of wings, etc as they ran for cover. >From the balloon, I heard one distinct question: "Are those flamingos?" They are Rhode Island Red's, which are reddish brown, hardly the pink associated with race-track flamingos! Good luck if you try chickens. Edna ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Fri Oct 29 13:30:24 1999 -0400 Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23066 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:30:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mindspring.com (user-2ivf01f.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.128.47]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA04421 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:30:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3819DA55.D1C875AF@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:33:09 -0400 From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." Reply-To: lflondon@mindspring.com Organization: InterGarden X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: london@metalab.unc.edu Subject: Sustainable Apple Growing in Illinois Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 25 From: "S. K. Kurtural" Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture Subject: Re: Landcare in Australia Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 18:25:23 -0500 Organization: Souhtern Illinois University Lines: 11 Message-ID: <7hnj0u$vuo$1@saluki-news.it.siu.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: port6.aixdialin.siu.edu X-Trace: saluki-news.it.siu.edu 926895966 32728 131.230.253.6 (16 May 1999 23:06:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: netnews@siu.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 May 1999 23:06:06 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Xref: wnb1 alt.sustainable.agriculture:14812 I am involved ina research project which is titled 'Sustainable Apple Growing in Illinois'. I don't know how much of pomology is important to your project but we have some good ideas on revive communities that lost their livelihood due to the closure of coal mines down here (or up here I should say) with the help of planting of high management apple orchards. We would like to exchange some ideas with you all. S.K. -- Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu /intergarden/orgfarm /intergarden /permaculture /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 13:59:31 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23587 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:59:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13412 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:12:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13312 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from node11e64.a2000.nl ([24.132.30.100] helo=zap.a2000.nl) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11hFWf-0001qf-00; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:09:17 +0200 Message-ID: <3819D967.CD770FDF@zap.a2000.nl> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:29:12 +0200 From: wytze X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ronald Nigh CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: rediscovery of old way of plant breeding References: <3.0.1.32.19991029103155.00728ea8@mail.internet.com.mx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 26 Dear Ronald Nigh, I will try to connect mr. van Mansvelt and than come back to it. As far as I understand there is not such use of crossing but rather growing of sister lines and selecting them further. I will let you know when I talked to someone involved in the research. Wytze Ronald Nigh wrote: > Dear SANET and Wytze de Lange > > Thank you for this interesting post, Wytse. Indeed, the subject is so > important that I think it would be helpful if you could clarify some of the > points that I don't quite understand. > > What exactly does "crossing sister lines" involve in practical terms? > > With corn crossing is fairly easy, but how does it work with wheat? > > What exactly is the nature of Temirbikova's research? > > There is precious little research on this issue. I just saw a presentation > of fascinating results by Hugo Perales, Mexican agronomist, who found that > traditional farmers in Central Mexico are able to maintain adapted races of > corn that perform as well or outperform available hybrids. Farmers freely > use the hybrids when they work, but for the most part, the traditionally > maintained varieties do just as well (including by responding to chemical > fertilizer and irrigations etc.) and in some conditions consistently > outperfom hybrids. Two factors maintain these varieties: the incredibile > reserve of genetic variety farmers possess and conserve (with know help > from anybody) and the continual experimentation and selections by farmers > from that variety (one again, with no support). Mexican government ag > policy has, for decades, actively discouraged this activity among farmers. > > There is a lot of hype about 'modern plant breeding' and now > 'biotechnology' as being what has 'fed the world' over the past decades as > we grew to 6 billion. But it seems to me this activity by farmers that has > maintained the viability of our crops all over the world is far more > important to our food security, past and future, than any systematic > breeding or genetic engineering ever has or will be. In fact, the concern > now is that GE, seed patents and such might threaten this traditional > source of crop productitivity. How much of our basic crop production do we > really owe to modern plant breeders and how much do we owe to farmers? I > think giving the plant breeders credit for 10 per cent of it would be > generous. Would it be possible to come up with quantitative estimate? > > Not that we don't appreciate them! I hope modern plant breeders will > continue to ply their trade. But the coroporate hype has blown their > contribution way out of proportion and detoured our attention from the > truly vital process we should be concerned about: in situ conservation and > selection by farmers. This is the heart of agricultural sustainability. > > Ronald Nigh > Dana, A.C. > Mexico, D.F. & San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas > Tel. y FAX 525-666-73-66 (DF) > 529-678-72-15 (Chiapas) > danamex@mail.internet.com.mx > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 14:26:06 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24017 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03131 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:41:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (mta3.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.141]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA03086 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:41:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [63.192.219.119] by mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with ESMTP id <0FKD00BXVL1FKD@mta3.snfc21.pbi.net> for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:39:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:36:26 -0700 From: Misha Subject: Communicating about biotech In-reply-to: <3818F316.18B99D9C@epix.net> To: SANET-mg Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" References: <3818F316.18B99D9C@epix.net> Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 27 Howdy, all-- Jim found and shared this: >Ignorance imperils future of agriculture > >Farmers are in fight or flee mode; they are confused, scared and angry, >observed Ed Shonsey, the president and CEO of Novartis Seeds, Thursday >in an Iowa speech. "And you know what bothers them the most?" he asked. >"It's not the government. Or the weather. Or even the seed companies. >What has farmers upset -- so upset their eternal optimism is in serious >danger of becoming permanent pessimism -- is ignorance. Ignorance. >Ignorance on the part of a group of people, who, in the name of >protecting the environment, have imperiled the near-term future of >agricultural >biotechnology." He makes an impassioned case for the science behind, >and the potentially great benefits of biotechnology. Read the full text of >his speech here: The Biotech CEO Who Speaks for Farmers. Wow, scary; sounds like a Halloween movie release. In my view, CEO Ed's speech is a highly predictable response, not only content-wise (this kind of speech goes back to at least the 19th century technical press around innovations like electricity), but rhetorically. I see him using two common rhetorical methods whereby the powerful try to discredit those who disagree with them. In brief they try to recast the communication into something they control, when they feel threatened on that front. Here's how it works: Novartis and other biotech companies are trying to argue that biotech is good good good good simply all-American scientific good goodie goodness. Some are getting sucked into the Cold War of Words and responding by saying, no no no, it's bad baddy baddness. From where I'm sitting, though, it appears many people are taking a more complex approach: "Wait, it's not as simple as good versus bad...there are many shades of grey and colors as well between those two poles...many things we don't know...we don't even know what questions to ask, never mind what the answers are." And interestingly enough, to me, many of the most vocal opponents of GMOs are *right there.* Yeah, they think it's bad, but they're raising incredibly complex and perceptive challenges to corporate PR about GE--challenges on the fronts of biology, ecology, economics, morality, ethics, democratic government, and more. So one would expect that the corporations would try to re-impose their binary, black-white, good-evil, for-agin thought structures on the discourse. Get things simple and controllable again. PR and advertising are about encapsulating idiotically simple messages in sugared niblets that wedge themselves in your brain like prions. Once people start thinking, they start paying less attention to PR and advertising. I.e., the communications lifeblood of the corporate structure. Or they view those messages from a stance that doesn't enhance the corporations' marketing efforts. (Have you all seen the fabulous Canadian magazine, /AdBusters/?) What is one of the most tried-and-true rhetorical ways to reinforce a binary discourse, when things threaten to get complicated by multi-hued, multi-textured reality? Projection. For instance, CEO Ed says *farmers*--who in my experience are asking some of the most complex, deep, and probing questions about this technology--are having "fight or flee" (binary) responses. Optimism vs. pessimism. Ignorance vs. knowledge. Not CEO Ed's corporation. Oh no...not them. Farmers. Not only that, *the farmers* are confused, scared, and angry (obviously emotional, and we all know what THAT means). Whereas CEO Ed is "impassioned" in favor of science. He has no confusion, fear, or anger about the fact that his expensive pin-striped butt is on the line to sell investors and the public on a technology that's getting more suspect by the hour, that his company exists to sell. Oh, no; he's rational, and when he gets emotional, it's in favor of rationality. Farmers get used a lot this way, in this society. Silver screens onto which people and organizations project their own fears, goals, desires, hopes, hatreds, biases, etc. What's sad is that guys like CEO Ed and his Marketing Mavens generally have no incentive to stretch themselves to think and communicate in any other way. This is part of their privilege. The world must come around to their way of thinking--impoverishing higher-order thinking and analysis because THEY SAY SO. This is a variation on the Engineer Mentality issue that got brought up here recently, complete with a joke involving a sexually deviant naked woman. I bit my tongue on that, in part because I believe "Engineer Mentality" is code for "UberMale thinking," and this joke seemed to demonstrate that without requiring comment. By the way....it was Darth Cheezer--a corporate engineer and a boy--who observed this connection between gender and technocratic thinking/communication. Quite some years ago now. In observing his and my communications these past 10 years, and more recently, and in watching him as he has worked to grow into a more complex, skilled communicator...I've concluded he's absolutely right. And who better than a boy to observe how boys are taught to communicate???? But I've been told repeatedly that looking at gender and communication has nothing to do with sustainable ag. Just ask Wendell Berry. :^) peace mish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Michele Gale-Sinex Communications manager Center for Integrated Ag Systems, UW-Madison http://www.wisc.edu UW voice mail: 608-262-8018 Home office: 415-504-6474 (504-MISH) Home office fax: Same as above, phone first for enabling ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If there was a law they was workin' with, maybe we could take it, but it ain't the law. They're workin' away our spirits, tryin' to make us cringe and crawl, takin' away our decency. --Tom Joad To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 14:27:51 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24086 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:27:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03165 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:42:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (mta3.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.141]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA03136 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:41:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [63.192.219.119] by mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with ESMTP id <0FKD00BXVL1FKD@mta3.snfc21.pbi.net> for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:39:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:37:12 -0700 From: Misha Subject: Beef wars/England, France To: SANET-mg Cc: iffs@nal.usda.gov Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1270903800==_ma============" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 28 --============_-1270903800==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Howdy, all-- Darth Cheezer passed this item along. From today's SF Gate/SF Chronicle, an AP story highlighting some cultural aspects of key food safety issues. As Glenn repeatedly reminds us, bless his persistent boots, it's in the market that these issues ultimately get played out. When I read stuff like this, it helps me understand why so many people fled to the New World as soon as they could--to escape the weight of centuries-long cultural sniping like the following. Only to translate it into things like the (now defunct) Mets-Cubs rivalry, or the hatred of drivers who come from adjoining states. :^) Again, it's interesting that there's this strong focus on some French farmers' use of sewage as fodder...while ignoring the Dutch, Belgian, and German examples. peace misha ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ French and British at war again: Whose beef is dirtier? MAUREEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Friday, October 29, 1999 Breaking News Sections (10-29) 01:16 EDT LONDON (AP) -- It may not rank with the battles of Agincourt or Waterloo, but it's war. At least that's what the tabloids say. Britain and France, those centuries-old enemies and allies, are at it again -- this time not over dynasties and domain, but over who produces the dirtiest, most unhygienic and dangerous-to-eat beef. The dispute promises to be the most serious since, well, since the issue was cheap British lamb in the '80s. Or perhaps since the historic 1994 opening of the undersea Channel Tunnel that physically linked Britain with France for the first time -- ushering in a new era of Anglo-French misunderstandings. This latest skirmish, while it began over beef, has spread to other products as tempers flare higher and higher. French farmers have lit burning barricades in front of British trucks at the tunnel entrance. ``England is an island. It is easier to blockade than the continent,'' declared farmers' leader Luc Guyau. A British aristocrat with an ancient title, Lord Cranborne, has banned French goods from the tourist shop on his family estate, and the agriculture minister is denying himself French delicacies. The Daily Star tabloid is running a ``Just Say Non'' campaign, urging Britons to drink Californian, Bulgarian, Australian or anyone, but anyone, else's wine. ``The Frogs may have started it, but it's hard to know which side of the Channel is behaving worse,'' Polly Toynbee wrote in London's upmarket, pro-European Guardian newspaper. And that's about as liberal and even-handed as it gets. The beef war began in August -- or rather entered a new, more emotional phase -- when France refused to join the rest of Britain's partners in the 15-nation European Union in lifting a ban on British beef. The ban was imposed in 1996 because of an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, which researchers linked to a new strain of the fatal human brain ailment Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease. France claims to have its own scientific evidence that British beef is still unsafe. Having spent millions cleaning up its act, Britain has made strong objections, laced with suspicions that the French are protecting their own farmers. An EU scientific committee began meeting Thursday in Brussels, Belgium, to examine the French claim. Officials said they expected a ruling Friday. Last week, in the sweetest of revenge for the British, an EU report accused French rendering plants of using sewage in livestock feed. London-based tabloids went wild. ``Why oui hate 'em,'' cried the Daily Star, listing 20 reasons to dislike the French. The top-selling Sun double-printed its front page Thursday, once in English, once in French with the headline over a burning barricade: ``We don't want war but France is wrong.'' Britain's opposition Conservative Party wants an immediate ban on imports of French meat. But for Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair, seeking to smooth over traditional British edginess with the Continentals, it's proving a lot more difficult. Braving accusations of being spineless, Blair said that, despite the sewage report, the EU had ruled French meat is not a danger to health and that any ban would therefore be illegal. His position sounded a shade tame this week in the tumult of shouting Tory legislators in the House of Commons. As ever, this dispute is tinged both with historic overtones and the near-certainty that after it's over, something else will crop up. And though it's deadly serious, with livelihoods, free trade and the British liking for French cuisine at stake, some tongues are firmly in cheeks. The Daily Star offered this among its reasons for hating the French: ``Speak to them in fluent, faultless French which you've painstakingly studied for three years at night school, and they will stare at you blankly as if you are a mound of smoldering donkey dung.'' --============_-1270903800==_ma============ Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Howdy, all-- Darth Cheezer passed this item along. From today's SF Gate/SF Chronicle, an AP story highlighting some cultural aspects of key food safety issues. As Glenn repeatedly reminds us, bless his persistent boots, it's in the market that these issues ultimately get played out. When I read stuff like this, it helps me understand why so many people fled to the New World as soon as they could--to escape the weight of centuries-long cultural sniping like the following. Only to translate it into things like the (now defunct) Mets-Cubs rivalry, or the hatred of drivers who come from adjoining states. :^) Again, it's interesting that there's this strong focus on some French farmers' use of sewage as fodder...while ignoring the Dutch, Belgian, and German examples. peace misha ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Times_New_RomanFrench and British at war again: Whose beef is dirtier? MAUREEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Friday, October 29, 1999 Breaking News Sections (10-29) 01:16 EDT LONDON (AP) -- It may not rank with the battles of Agincourt or Waterloo, but it's war. At least that's what the tabloids say. Britain and France, those centuries-old enemies and allies, are at it again -- this time not over dynasties and domain, but over who produces the dirtiest, most unhygienic and dangerous-to-eat beef. The dispute promises to be the most serious since, well, since the issue was cheap British lamb in the '80s. Or perhaps since the historic 1994 opening of the undersea Channel Tunnel that physically linked Britain with France for the first time -- ushering in a new era of Anglo-French misunderstandings. This latest skirmish, while it began over beef, has spread to other products as tempers flare higher and higher. French farmers have lit burning barricades in front of British trucks at the tunnel entrance. ``England is an island. It is easier to blockade than the continent,'' declared farmers' leader Luc Guyau. A British aristocrat with an ancient title, Lord Cranborne, has banned French goods from the tourist shop on his family estate, and the agriculture minister is denying himself French delicacies. The Daily Star tabloid is running a ``Just Say Non'' campaign, urging Britons to drink Californian, Bulgarian, Australian or anyone, but anyone, else's wine. ``The Frogs may have started it, but it's hard to know which side of the Channel is behaving worse,'' Polly Toynbee wrote in London's upmarket, pro-European Guardian newspaper. And that's about as liberal and even-handed as it gets. The beef war began in August -- or rather entered a new, more emotional phase -- when France refused to join the rest of Britain's partners in the 15-nation European Union in lifting a ban on British beef. The ban was imposed in 1996 because of an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, which researchers linked to a new strain of the fatal human brain ailment Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease. France claims to have its own scientific evidence that British beef is still unsafe. Having spent millions cleaning up its act, Britain has made strong objections, laced with suspicions that the French are protecting their own farmers. An EU scientific committee began meeting Thursday in Brussels, Belgium, to examine the French claim. Officials said they expected a ruling Friday. Last week, in the sweetest of revenge for the British, an EU report accused French rendering plants of using sewage in livestock feed. London-based tabloids went wild. ``Why oui hate 'em,'' cried the Daily Star, listing 20 reasons to dislike the French. The top-selling Sun double-printed its front page Thursday, once in English, once in French with the headline over a burning barricade: ``We don't want war but France is wrong.'' Britain's opposition Conservative Party wants an immediate ban on imports of French meat. But for Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair, seeking to smooth over traditional British edginess with the Continentals, it's proving a lot more difficult. Braving accusations of being spineless, Blair said that, despite the sewage report, the EU had ruled French meat is not a danger to health and that any ban would therefore be illegal. His position sounded a shade tame this week in the tumult of shouting Tory legislators in the House of Commons. As ever, this dispute is tinged both with historic overtones and the near-certainty that after it's over, something else will crop up. And though it's deadly serious, with livelihoods, free trade and the British liking for French cuisine at stake, some tongues are firmly in cheeks. The Daily Star offered this among its reasons for hating the French: ``Speak to them in fluent, faultless French which you've painstakingly studied for three years at night school, and they will stare at you blankly as if you are a mound of smoldering donkey dung.'' --============_-1270903800==_ma============-- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 15:14:57 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24879 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA07057 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA07035 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:36:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24210; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:35:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id OAA22516; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:35:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:34:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: mike richardson cc: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: no-till chemical use In-Reply-To: <3819A43F.76778695@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 29 On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, mike richardson wrote: > On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Lynne Carpenter-Boggs wrote: > > > No-till is a wonderful thing, and even with the increased herbicide > > input it is a much more productive and environment-friendly system > > than currently practiced in many places. > > London replied: "How is increased herbicide use/acre more > environment-friendly?" > > My reply: No-till is not the be all - end all of environmentally sound > farming. However, it certainly can have tremendous environmental > benefits, compared to conventional farming (deep plowing, disking, > cultivating, etc.) Yes, generally more chemical amounts are used. The conventional farming methods you described are, for the most part, and in only certain specific situations environmentally unfriendly and are at worst temporary in nature. Chemical use, worse yet, increased chemical use is long lasting, semi-permanent and in some cases close to being permanent when you consider the loss of plant/animal/microorganism diversity that invariably results. The risk to human health, farmers, FARM WORKERS, and consumers alike is undeniable and potentially long-term. > However, since the killed vegetation reduces soil erosion to near zero > (major benefit), absorbs chemicals, slows surface water movement, > reduces fertilizer loss, enhances water movement into the soil profile, > etc. then there is less chemical running off into surface waters. As > for chemical leaching into the ground water, that can be a problem with > some chemicals used in no-till and conventional tillage (atrizine types > for instance). However, many chemicals do break down while in the soil, > so as they are moving through the soil they tend to degrade. No-till > also enhances soil tilth, reduces fossile fuel use (thereby reducing air > pollution and global warming), lowers labor and equipment costs to the > farmer, and has been proven to maintain or even increase yields. > > No-till farming: Environmental panacea? Nope. Environmentally > friendly? Yep. Thanks for the interesting description of (chem no-till but you haven't convinced me. There are conventional farms in my immediate neighborhood, one of the best is a dairy farm where the owner spreads ALL his manure on his land, sheet composts it and tills it (and weeds) under with a Soil Saver (a chisel plow and a Yeomans (Keyline System) plow will work as well but both are smaller implements). He uses this tillage tool exclusively and has very little weed problem, with very little herbiocide use, and has rich friable loamy soil to be proud of. Of course if a farmer is trying to get rich farming marginal land he may, unless he has been enlightened about natural methods (read a little Alan Chadwick about improving poor land - http://metalab.unc.edu/london/pc/Alan.Chadwick/), may in desperation resort to chemical use - but why farm marginal land? The key to weed control is effective tillage and cover cropping in a system of rotating fallow land with land in production with grazed land. Initial tillage with a soil saver could be followed with light weed-removal tillage followed by 1) cover-crop/till-under-covercrop/plant-cash-crop or 2) cover-crop/let-land-lay-fallow/use-soil-saver/plant-cash-crop. A system using either of the above methods can be followed by successive, incremental, plantings of crops that are increasingly intolerant of competition with other plants, i.e. "weeds". IOW following 1) or 2) plant lespedeza, rye grain, vetch or any number of other cover crops; follow these with sudex or milo, canola or hemp, more rye, tall sweet clover; follow these with soybean and/or millet, corn, wheat or sesame or barley; followed with a legume soil builder/ hay crop, followed by more grain, beans or vegetables. Some root crops like mangel, beets or carrots, daikon could be integrated effectively into this system, possibly heavy seed-bearers and other persistent crops like tall sweet clover and comfrey could be integrated effectively without adding to the weedseed bank. I'll continue to resist sanet-mg being turned into a handy podium for those inclined to rationalize the use of agrichemicals, even though the term sustainable agriculture was long ago co-opted by that crowd. Roundup use=sustainable farming, indeed! To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 15:58:17 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25813 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:58:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29367 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:12:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from relay4.hawaii.edu (relay4.hawaii.edu [128.171.94.12]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA29300 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:12:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.171.125.93] ([128.171.125.93]) by relay4.Hawaii.Edu with SMTP id <373606(8)>; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:10:07 -1000 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991029091646.007e2a90@pop-server.hawaii.edu> X-Sender: mikerobo@pop-server.hawaii.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:16:46 -1000 To: SANET From: Michael Robotham Subject: Courses/trainings on FSR at US/Canadian universities Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 30 Hello SANET subscribers, In order to improve a paper we are revising on the future of farming systems research and extension (FSR/E) in the US and Canada, Hal McArthur and I am looking for information on courses taught or training programs regularly conducted at US and Canadian universities that include FSR theories and methodologies. If you are (or have been) involved in such a course or training program, could you send me some basic information including: Title of the course/training Instructor(s) When did it start (year) How often is it taught/conducted Typical mix of students (Graduate/undergraduate/combination) Typical number of students What is the role of FSR in the course (primary focus, one of several components, mentioned but not covered in any depth, etc.) Any other information you could provide that would help us better understand the goals, structure and expected outcomes of your course/training. For courses/trainings that are no longer offered, could you provide the last year of the course/training and a brief comment on why it was discontinued. Please reply directly to me, Michael Robotham, at mikerobo@hawaii.edu. I will gladly post a summary of the results to the list or send them directly to others who are interested. Please contact me if you would like additional information on the goals and structure of our analysis or would like a copy of the final paper. Thank you for your help. If you know of others who are involved in courses and/or trainings that include FSR, please pass along this message. Sincerely, Michael Robotham PS My apologies for cross-postings --------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Robotham, Ph. D. Phone: (808) 956-6835 (office) Education Specialist (808) 956-2617 (workroom) Agronomy and Soil Science Fax: (808) 956-6539 University of Hawaii at Manoa Email: mikerobo@hawaii.edu 1910 East-West Road Home Page: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~mikerobo Honolulu, HI 96822 USA ...none but ourselves can free our minds (Bob Marley--Redemption Song) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 16:21:17 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26317 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:21:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA22942 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:49:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (mta1.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.122]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22900 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:49:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [63.192.219.119] by mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with ESMTP id <0FKD00B41QXSR2@mta1.snfc21.pbi.net> for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:44:47 -0700 From: Misha Subject: Cryptosporidiosis/petting zoos To: SANET-mg Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 31 Howdy, all-- Thought this might interest those of you who have petting zoos. p m ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CRYPTOSPORIDIOSIS, HUMAN - NEW ZEALAND (03) ******************************************* A ProMED post Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 05:22:10 -0400 From: Marjorie P. Pollack Source: New Zealand News from The Press, 26 Oct 1999 [An outbreak of cryptosporidiosis] in Hawke's Bay is alarming health officials. Sixty-seven cases have been reported this year compared with eight at the same time last year. Healthcare Hawke's Bay medical officer of health, Caroline McElnay, said 12 cases had been reported for October compared with three in August and nine in September. Health officials blamed the time of year and children feeding animals for the outbreak. The disease, which caused "bloody diarrhoea" and terrible stomach pain, left people feeling generally unwell, Dr McElnay said. Most of the cases since September were young people under 15, but people of all ages could be affected. "At this time of year, children could become infected after handling pet lambs and calves, as animals often carried cryptosporidium cysts in their faeces," Dr McElnay said. The disease was easily spread, so it was essential that people preparing food washed their hands thoroughly, she said. "People who have diarrhoea must stay out of the kitchen." In past outbreaks, public swimming pools had been targeted as potential carriers of the cryptosporidium cysts. There was no evidence that this had happened this time, as most of the cases appeared to be unrelated, Dr McElnay said. People who have had diarrhoea should not swim in a public pool until two weeks after having diarrhoea. Dr McElnay urged people with symptoms to see a doctor so the public health unit could isolate the cause to stop it spreading. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Michele Gale-Sinex Communications manager Center for Integrated Ag Systems, UW-Madison http://www.wisc.edu UW voice mail: 608-262-8018 Home office: 415-504-6474 (504-MISH) Home office fax: Same as above, phone first for enabling ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you knew what life was worth, you would look for yours on earth. And now you see the light--you stand up for your rights. --Bob Marley, Peter Tosh To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 16:25:55 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26405 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:25:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA27377 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:55:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27317 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:55:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu (uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu [152.1.1.165]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06377 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:53:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unity.ncsu.edu (2405p200.ppath.ncsu.edu [152.1.176.53]) by uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8/UR01Feb99) with ESMTP id PAA16493; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:53:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3819FC08.51BA463F@unity.ncsu.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:56:57 -0400 From: Russ Bulluck X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Twittman@aol.com, Sustainable Ag Subject: Re: Fwd: Temperature Resistant E.coli (long) References: <0.ac0cac93.254b1f89@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 32 > >Have any of you heard of a new strain of E.coli that is not killed by >131 > >degree composting? There's a farmer in the Santa Cruz, California, area who > >is being sued by a neighbor who claims that the spreading of compost is > >causing E. coli contamination of the wells. The neighbor is quoting an > >article by the infamous Dennis Avery. Any help would be greatly > >appreciated. Has anyone seen this article? That Avery article is in American Outlook, Fall 1998. (It's also online at www.hudson.org.) "The Hidden Dangers of Organic Food" pages 19-22. It's likely the article that your "Friend" was talking about. The following quotes were taken directly from the article online. each quote is followed by comments from me. Quotes are always in quotation marks and (hopefully) indented. And as I've said, these come from the above article by Dennis Avery, and are quoted from online sources. (I hope "Organic food is more dangerous than conventionally grown produce because organic farmers use animal manure as the major source of fertilizer for their food crops. Animal manure is the biggest reservoir of these nasty bacteria that are afflicting and killing so many people." " The new reality is quite sobering. Organic and "natural" food producers supply only about 1 percent of the nation’s food, but the Centers for Disease Control have traced approximately 8 percent of the confirmed E. coli 0157 cases to such foods. Consumer Reports recently found much higher levels of salmonella on free-range chickens than on conventionally raised ones. Many other organic foods also pose higher salmonella risks than "supermarket" foods. To be sure, most strains of salmonella are mild and are easily killed by cooking one’s food adequately. But the new salmonella, S. typhimurium, is far stronger than other varieties. Infection often proves fatal. The CDC estimates that there are up to four million cases of salmonella poisoning per year in the U.S., and it has identified one-fourth of the culture-confirmed cases as the more virulent S. typhimurium." This appears to state that one is eight times more likely to get food poisoning from organic foods. What is really said is that 92% of E. coli food-borne illness is not related to organic foods, and that 99% of our food in the US is conventionally produced. I don't think I'll be eating anymore steak tartar! The article implies that the new S. typhimurium is less likely to be killed by heating, when the bacterium simply produces more toxin than other strains. By the way, in the United States, Salmonella spp. are found on 37% of chicken from supermarkets, 55% of pet snakes, and 36% of pet lizards (Foodborne Bacterial Pathogens, M. P. Boyle, ed. Marcel Dekker, Inc., 796 pp). "To be sure, it is an overstatement to say, as one physician recently did, that organic food is "grown in animal manure." Few organic farmers actually put fresh manure on their crops. Most of them compost the manure for several weeks before using it on their crops. But the composting guidelines have been fuzzy and are probably inadequate. A common rule of thumb is to compost for two months at 130 degrees F. or better. The bad news is that a study by Dr. Dean Cliver of the University of California at Davis found that the deadly new E. coli 0157 bacteria can live at least seventy days in a compost pile—and it probably takes an extended period at 160-degree heat to kill it." This may be true, but I can't find the exact reference that Avery is quoting here. And, although I'm not an expert on the subject, I highly doubt that E. coli would be able to survive these temps too long. Avery states that E. coli O157:H7 can survive up to 70 days in a compost pile. He didn't say _Where_ in the pile that the organism could survive. Yes, it could survive on the outside of the pile, but wouldn't thrive in the environment. Other ref's by Cliver point to degradation of E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella tiphimurium 2 days to 5 weeks in temps at 4, 20, and 37 degrees C (much lower than the 71 degrees C that Avery used) (in 1999 FEMS Microbiology Letters 178:251-257). Other E. coli strains have also been shown not to last long in soil and water samples (on the order of days, Bogosian 1996, Appl. Env. Micro. 62:4114-4120). However, I'd check with Dr. Cliver, himself before believing what Dennis Avery wrote about what he wrote. Avery has a way of turning results around in such a way that they say what he needs them to say. "The real surprise is that nobody is telling the public about the new dangers from organic food, or trying to persuade organic farmers to reduce these risks. Activist groups, government, and the press—all of which have shown no reluctance to organize crusades about matters such as global warming, tobacco addiction, and the use of pesticides—are allowing organic farmers to endanger their customers without any publicity whatever. A press corps eager to find headline-worthy dangers would long ago have exposed any other farmers guilty of so blatantly and unnecessarily endangering the public. And other farmers would certainly have been condemned, or even closed down, by government regulators." This article was quoted in the Wall street Journal on 8 December 1998 (I think). I wonder when Dennis Avery will hear about our little SANET group! Anyway. . .I have some additional articles about the fate of E. coli in soils and water. there are also tests that can be run to determine what the likely source of contamination is. Check with the local health dept. And give Dr. Cliver a call. I know when I talked to Dr. Paul Mead (of the CDC, misquoted in the same article) he was interested to know about the Avery Article. He had heard something about the CDC saying organic food way eight times more likely to cause food poisoning, and knew he had spoken to Dennis Avery. Russ -- Russ Bulluck Ph.D. Candidate Department of Plant Pathology North Carolina State University PO Box 7616 Raleigh, NC 27695-7616 http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/plantpath/Personnel/Students/webpage.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The soil population is so complex that it manifestly cannot be dealt with as a whole with any detail by any one person, and at the same time it plays so important a part in the soil economy that it must be studied. --Sir E. John Russell The Micro-organisms of the Soil, 1923 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 17:11:37 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27109 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:11:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA17234 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:26:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from fw1.phibred.com (firewall-user@fw1.phibred.com [204.233.143.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA17104 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fw1.phibred.com; id PAA05321; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:24:13 -0500 Received: from orion.phibred.com(170.54.241.13) by fw1.phibred.com via smap (V4.2) id xma003918; Fri, 29 Oct 99 15:23:10 -0500 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:23:09 -0500 Message-ID: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC7@vela.phibred.com> From: "Wilson, Dale" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Cc: "'Ronald Nigh'" Subject: More do-it-yourself breeding (Was: rediscovery of old way of plan t breeding) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:23:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 33 Ronald, > With corn crossing is fairly easy, but how does it work with wheat? Crossing is a lot harder with crops like beans, wheat, soybeans, but selfing is a lot easier (just grow the crop). The crossed population segregates, in the course of several generations, into a mixture of pure lines. > Two factors maintain these varieties: the incredibile reserve > of genetic variety farmers possess and conserve (with know help > from anybody) and the continual experimentation and selections > by farmers from that variety (one again, with no support). Land-race varieties of self pollinated crops, unlike corn, are mixtures of pure-lines, each of which breed true. Much gain is made initially by selection, but then gain declines to practically zero. Different species have different rates of mutation and sexual recombination, but in general, these processes that create diversity operate more slowly than the breeding enterprise in self-pollinated crops. Human plant breeders keep creating diversity by causing sexual recombination, allowing continuing progress. It is difficult for amateur breeders to make crosses in soybeans or wheat, since one must dissect the flower bud to do it. One approach is to have some agency or organization make the crosses and increase the progeny in bulk for one or two generations. Then the F2 or F3 bulk is distributed to amateur breeders, who perform selection at their unique sites, on the segregating material. Even a half dozen F2 seeds can produce thousands of distinctive pure-lines after segregation. Some of these might be just what you are looking for on your farm. So the farmer-breeder obtains his customized "land-race" and doesn't have to mess with tweezers and a magnifying glass. > There is a lot of hype about 'modern plant breeding' and now > 'biotechnology' as being what has 'fed the world' over the > past decades as we grew to 6 billion. But it seems to me this > activity by farmers that has maintained the viability of our > crops all over the world is far more important to our food > security, past and future, than any systematic breeding or > genetic engineering ever has or will be. I think a lot of people would dispute this. I have heard that Norman Borlaug is practically worshipped in India for is work with dwarf rice. I know that the improved rice varieties turned Colombia from a net rice importer to a strong rice exporting country. I am less familiar with the wheat story of the green revolution, but it is probably a big success too. Most of the green revolution work was done by public-sector breeders. I think it has been a clear success. Dale To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 17:41:11 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27601 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:41:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06527 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:53:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06471 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:53:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lanfear.nidlink.com (root@lanfear.nidlink.com [216.18.128.7]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA08009 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:51:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from enaila.nidlink.com (root@enaila.nidlink.com [216.18.128.8]) by lanfear.nidlink.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA24204; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:51:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from benbrook (pm5-5.nidlink.com [216.18.141.12]) by enaila.nidlink.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA03137; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199910292051.NAA03137@enaila.nidlink.com> X-Sender: benbrook@mail.nidlink.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:05:03 -0700 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu, From: Charles Benbrook Subject: Interesting Talk re Food System Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu id QAA06484 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 34 The Federal Reserve system has established a Center for the Stidy of Rural America. At a press ocnferene in D.C. announcing the center, Mark Drabenstott made some very interesting remarks re trade, government policy, and the impacts of structural change on rural communities. He is a well-respected observer and his thoughts warrant wide circualtion. You can get the full text at: http://www.kc.frb.org/marks%20rural%20ctr%20remarks.html A few excerpts follow -- "An Introduction to the Center for the Study of Rural America" October 13, 1999 Washington, DC Agriculture is redefining the way it does business. Many farmers no longer grow the generic commodities of the past. Instead, they have signed on as the first link in a more tightly choreographed food system. The key component in this choreography is the business alliance known as the supply chain. In a supply chain, farmers sign a contract with a major food company to deliver precisely grown farm products on a pre-set schedule. The move to supply chains is a tidal wave of change sweeping through agriculture and rural America. Once confined to a handful of products, such as chickens and vegetables, supply chains are beginning to dominate hog production and are spreading to grain. In 1997, for instance, nearly 60 percent of all hogs in the United States were sold under some form of contract, compared with less than 5 percent in 1980. Supply chains change not only how agriculture does business but also who does business. In almost all cases, supply chains include relatively few farmers since the firm putting the chain together wants to minimize the costs of managing its alliances. For instance, the pork industry may end up with less than 40 chains that will engage a fraction of the 100,000 hog farms now scattered across the nation. Thus, farmers increasingly want to know how they can stay in the rapidly changing game of agriculture. Without doubt, some will be left out. While redefining the farming business, supply chains are literally redrawing the rural landscape. Indeed, agriculture’s new geography may be its most profound and least understood new feature. For the past 200 years, a hallmark of commodity agriculture in the United States has been its wide dispersion. Corn, for instance, has been grown across more than 1,000 miles of the nation’s midsection, from the rolling hills of Pennsylvania to the wide-open prairies of Nebraska. Supply chains lead to a much different geography—one based on concentration in relatively few rural places. In that sense, the highly concentrated poultry industry may be prelude to the future. This new geography will turn into an economic revolution for rural America. Many rural places’ dependence on commodity agriculture will continue for the foreseeable future. The struggle for these "commodity communities" will be building an economic future with fewer farms, fewer banks, and fewer businesses. Meanwhile, some rural communities will hitch themselves to the new world of supply chains, but relatively few communities may ultimately prosper in this world. Rural policy must embrace broader issues The final issue is rural policy. The economic changes now sweeping rural America will raise a broad new slate of policy issues in the new century. While agricultural policy was rural policy throughout the 20th century, a much broader approach will be required if rural America is to achieve its economic potential in the 21st century. Conclusions In closing, a vital part of the U.S. economy, rural America is undergoing enormous changes as the 20th century draws to close. Agriculture, currently in a deep slump, is also being transformed by a new way of doing business—supply chains. The ebb and flow of rural America’s other industries have left a deeply divided rural economy—a number of booming growth havens and a countryside full of communities being left behind. Unlocking rural America’s economic potential in the new century will fall in part to a new generation of rural policy, a policy that must extend far beyond agriculture. Obviously, a lot is happening in rural America, and there is plenty of work ahead for those of us in the new Center. We look forward to sharing the news from rural America’s new economic companion. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Charles Benbrook CU FQPA site www.ecologic-ipm.com Benbrook Consulting Services Ag BioTech InfoNet www.biotech-info.net 5085 Upper Pack River Road IPM site www.pmac.net Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 208-263-5236 (Voice) 208-263-7342 (Fax) To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 18:18:30 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA28309 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 18:18:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16870 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:48:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov (cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov [199.146.249.191]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA16712 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:48:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tn.nrcs.usda.gov by cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov with ESMTP (8.7.6/itc-cust.Revision: 1.11 $) id VAA03708; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:14:16 GMT Message-ID: <381A0DD8.F951988F@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:12:56 -0500 From: mike richardson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; UNIX_SV 4.2MP i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: RE: no-till chemical use Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 35 Had some great replies to my post this a.m. on using no-till as an envionmentally friendly farm tool. As to be expected, London and Clark were not exactly enthusiasticly embracing my perspective. However, rather than rant about my acceptance of no-till farming (as some would) they both offered intelligent, reasoned arguments to the debate. 1. To London: Conventional tillage does indeed have tremendous potential for environmental damage. One need only look to the gullied Southern states in the first half of the century or to the infamous dust bowl, or the ongoing devestation in China etc.. Soil erosion is neither modest nor temporary (in human life terms) in many circumstances. Not all farms are blessed with rich, loamy soils, on nearly flat fields. And I agree, there are probably other tillage methods that would work for those type of farms. However, much of our productive farm land is rolling and it is not practical or economical to suggest that row crop farmers should just pick up and move to the flat, flat land of loamy soils. I do agree wholeheartedly that rotations are healthy for soils and crops alike. Monoculture is a bane on agriculture. However I disagree on using fallow land in a rotation except in unusual circumstances. Land that is farmed around here is much too expensive to lay idle, and much too rolling (read erosive) to be fallow tilled during the growing season. Use of cover crops, rotation with grass, and rotation of crop species are much more practical. I am not familiar with the tillage tool that you described. However I do remember seeing a demonstration of a "para plow" a few years ago that I thought had promise, but haven't heard much of since. The para plow went nearly as deep as a subsoil shank, but had "wings" at the base that lifted and fractured the soil above. Very narrow surface tillage, with similar efffects to breaking up the plow layer of soil with a conventional plow, as well as improving the tilth of the upper subsoil. Good tool when used with reduced tillage systems, it seemed. 2. To Clark: I think I understand your thread that instead of growing annual row crops for beef that we should grow beef on grass instead. Point taken, although I've eaten both grass fed and grain finished beef, and much prefer grain fed. However, please remember that not all annual row crops are grown for (non-human) animal consumption. Besides many food products, annual crops such as soybeans and cotton provide material for other uses for instance. Row crops would continue to be a major portion of agriculture, even if never another grain was fed to a single cow. Also, I would tend to not accept at face value any statement that conventional tillage does better during dry weather than no-till, without knowing the circumstance. It sounds like it might be more in the line of an exception to the rule, rather than the rule. And lastly (whew!) if land is being drained with tiles, then why would anyone need to use no-till? Reduced tillage, or even ridge tillage maybe, but no-till is especially useful on rolling lands to stop soil erosion. Fields with subsurface tiling shouldn't have water erosion problems. To all: While I do not ascertain that no-till is the final word in environmentaly sound farming, I will not throw it out just because there are some chemicals used. Keep up the debate folks, and lets hear from some others besides London, Clark, or myself! Son of Richard To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 23:09:19 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01573 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:09:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16857 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:45:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA16839 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:45:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [148.233.231.144] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:42:45 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:41:03 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <5903.991029@acnet.net> To: mmiller@pcsia.com CC: Subject: Re: Hybrid to OP Corn? In-reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991029085015.008f4560@pcsia.com> References: <3.0.6.32.19991029085015.008f4560@pcsia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 36 Hi Mike, Friday, October 29, 1999, 7:50:15 AM, you wrote: MM> You are saying then that with some work/?luck? I can take my MM> hybrid and turn it into a stable Open-Pollinated variety with the MM> same characteristics? No. I'm saying that unless you can somehow read the genetic map of a new variety, the variety is or isn't a hybrid depending on how it behaves. If it produces true to type for only 1 generation before reverting to the original distinct crosses, it can be considered a F1 hybrid (good for one generation more of relatively predictable production). Before new varieties are marketed, the developers know what they have and can promote it accordingly. Also, there are undoubtedly reasonably predictable patterns of what can be expected, depending on the crosses used, the genetic makeup of those, the differences between them, their past behavior etc. But in practice, whether or not a new variety is a hybrid or not, is something you determine retroactively. MM> Then why are we spending all this money on hybrid seeds? The MM> farmers have no margin left to spend on unnecessary expenses. There is a lot of money spend on promoting seed and getting "authorities" to join in. MM> If true, it seems this would be a money saving way to go. After MM> all farmers have the equipment, the land and the know-how to grow MM> and harvest the crop, so why not develop our own open pollinated MM> types that works best in our own area? There you go. You also want to develop a communications network, data bank and seed exchange program among them. You want to follow all the results with data collection and make that readily available. The protocols shouldn't be that hard to come up with. I'll even bet there are existing governmental (or non-governmental) support programs that would fund this. And hybrids may or may not prove to be the best option. Remember that there a lot of economic benefits that motivate the seed companies to develop proprietary (difficult to reproduce) varieties. But they're not farmers (they just live off of them). MM> What if every farmer devoted, say 2 acres to his own research? You MM> would not lose the odd 20-70 dollars an acre from growing a MM> regular crop and with a little of your own work, you would have MM> the potential to save money in the long run. A lot of money, and get better results. And when you make your own mistakes (assuming you will, to some degree) you have a better chance of learning from that and correcting them. MM> Another benefit would be mental. At least you would be doing MM> something so save your farm from the inevitable fate that awaits MM> you if you just go along with the current system. You would be taking (greater) control of your own needs and destiny. MM> I would not hold my breath waiting for the congress et al to break MM> up the grain/packing house monoplies so the expense reduction is MM> going to have to come on the input side. Congress will respond the same way as dogs do in relation to those that feed them. Some will value the farm vote and many will salivate in tune with the lobbyists. A big group of farmers could do that too, of course. What does the the Farm Bureau do? (Is that the name of the largest farmers organization in the US)? Can existing organizations take this up or does it take something new? MM> Nothing ventured, nothing MM> gained. Mike Miller Do it, Mike! MM> major snip >>AMcG> This led us to hybrids >> >>Hybrids are simply the results of natural breeding methods (cross >>pollination) that happen to NOT reproduce true to seed, due the >>instability of the particular genetic cross. >> >>Further cross breeding (continued seed selection) can sometimes revert >>this reversion to type. In other words, if the cross proves stable and >>reproduces true to type, you've got a new OP variety on your hands, >>which is harder to make proprietary. It has also been found that the >>tension involved in a genetic cross that is inherently unstable can >>sometimes introduce a kind of temporary (since it doesn't reproduce) >>vigor in the progeny. Douglas Hinds, CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil (Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization) Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 23:45:28 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01920 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:45:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10353 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:18:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA10285 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:18:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [148.233.231.144] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:15:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:14:16 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <7926.991029@acnet.net> To: "Wilson, Dale" CC: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Do-it-yourself corn breeding In-reply-To: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC5@vela.phibred.com> References: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC5@vela.phibred.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 37 Hi Dale, Friday, October 29, 1999, 9:46:24 AM, you wrote: ... DW> This kind of fundamental, human-mediated evolution lies at the DW> root of agriculture and is interlocked with the evolution of human DW> culture. Agreed. DW> Just about all our fruit species came from Asia, for DW> example. Disagreed. The avocado, papaya, tomato, the various classes of sapotes (white, yellow, mamee & chico), and the annonas (sp?) - like the cherimoya are all from the Americas, and there are varities of grapes and persimmons that are also; muskmelons are from Persia, bananas and watermelon from Africa, Mangos from India (this is just off the top of my head and there are no doubt many more). DW> Our most serious pests are fairly recent introductions DW> too. Such manipulation is only "unnatural" if you believe that DW> humans (or the human mind) is not part of nature. I am not saying DW> that everything we do is desirable or good, just that appeal to DW> natural law is a weak foundation in these matters. Glad we agree. >> The goal initially, with selection, cross pollination and >> grafting was to bend the plants to our needs- production, >> flavor and nutrition. The goal of hybrids was to do all >> this AND own a variety which didn't breed true- to make >> growers dependent on seed companies. >> The same is true of GMOs. They are obviously harder to reproduce >> and can be patented, since they're man made. (You know damn well >> that God wouldn't be caught dead creating such a thing). DW> Okay, Okay! let's deal with this head on. If I am smart and DW> organized enough to come up with superior varieties, what is wrong DW> with my protecting them from people who would steal them? Don't I DW> have a right to earn a living? Linux versus Microsoft. DW> Mike wrote (in response to Douglas I think): >> You are saying then that with some work/?luck? I can take my hybrid >> and turn it into a stable Open-Pollinated variety with the same >> characteristics. Then why are we spending all this money on hybrid >> seeds? so why not develop our own open pollinated types that works >> best in our own area? DW> Because selection pressures experienced by OP corn tend to select against DW> certain important traits. You want to begin by studying the issues involved. DW> But I would encourage you to try (if you do, I think you will DW> decide that Pioneer Seed is a pretty good deal). You might want to DW> emulate the successful 19th century farmer-seedsmen from whom we DW> have received our most productive germplasm, people like James DW> Reid (Reid Yellow Dent) and Issac Hershey (Lancaster Sure-Crop). DW> Forrest Troyer wrote an excellent review article on these OP DW> breeders "Background of U.S. Hybrid Corn" (Crop Science DW> 39:601-626) In summary he wrote "Adaptation is everything - the DW> sole driving force of evolutionary biology. Better adaptation to DW> the environment means higher yielding corn. U.S. corn breeding is DW> accelerated evolution to adapt a tropical crop to a temperate DW> environment." Good tips, Dale DW> Dale DW> PS: If anyone is interested in development of OP supersweets with good seed DW> vigor, I would be happy to share my germplasm with you and cooperate in DW> breeding. Good offer, Dale. That puts things one major step ahead. You may well become the Bill Stallings of the grow and share your own seed movement, cornerstone of the next green revolution (green in grass, not so much as in greenbacks. Having the grass greener on all sides of the fence). Who wants to take Dale up on this? Who else is interested in participating? Douglas Hinds, CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil (Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization) Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Fri Oct 29 22:35:49 1999 -0400 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA01363 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:35:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA14113 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:59:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mayumi.iphil.net (rufino2.gw.iphil.net [203.176.0.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA14044 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:59:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mayumi.iphil.net (8.8.7/8.8.8) with UUCP id JAA06196; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:44:20 +0800 Received: (from uu1@localhost) by phil.gn.apc.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) with UUCP id FAA22591; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 05:03:16 +0800 From: Roberto Verzola Message-Id: <199910292103.FAA22591@phil.gn.apc.org> Date: 30 Oct 99 04:05:44 Subject: Re: chlorpyrifos To: loscott@envsci.rutgers.EDU Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 38 >Wilson, Dale wrote: >> Chlorpyrifos has been around for a long time, and has a good safety record, >> although a few people claim to be highly sensitive to it. The fact that >> traces of this can be found in human urine is not, in itself, indication of >> a problem. > >Loren Muldowney wrote: >Apparently, the clear evidence of chemical trespass itself is >disregarded as being in the category of things we call "a problem." If they get their way, I can imagine the biotech industry later saying "the fact that traces of transgenic DNA can be found in human urine is not, in itself, indication of a problem." >> In fact, this is so widely used, it would be a surprise if you >> couldn't find it in your urine. > >No argument here. And I can imagine the biotech industry in the future likewise saying "in fact, transgenic DNA is so widely used it would be a surprise if you couldn't find it in your urine." I find such cavalier attitude towards chemical contamination quite incredible... Roberto To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Fri Oct 29 23:06:12 1999 -0400 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01555 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:06:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05657 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:29:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from outmta006.topica.com (outmta006.topica.com [206.132.75.208]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA05599 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:29:32 -0400 (EDT) To: PANUPS From: PANUPS Subject: PANUPS: Action Alert: Children Poisoned in Peru Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:27:19 -0700 Message-ID: <0.700000050.618464126-212058698-941250439@topica.com> Reply-To: panupdates@panna.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Loop: 700000050 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 39 =========================================== P A N U P S Pesticide Action Network Updates Service =========================================== Action Alert: Children Poisoned in Peru October 29, 1999 At least 24 children died in a remote Andean village after eating a government-donated breakfast contaminated with the organophosphate insecticide parathion. Another 20 children were poisoned and required medical treatment. The breakfast was served to schoolchildren between the ages of three and fourteen in the village of Tauccamarca, province of Cusco, on Friday, October 22. The milk substitute based on wheat, corn, soy and barley and packets of cookies were provided by the National Fund for Social Development and Compensation (FONCODES), as part of a government-sponsored nutrition program. The wife of the school's only teacher prepared the meal with the help of a 14-year-old student. Children began vomiting and convulsing within a half hour of eating the contaminated food. "The kids were screaming, vomiting and grabbing their bellies. Some were dead, others were writhing on the grass and still more were on the school patio. We had no idea what to do," a village woman said, according to media sources. Children collapsed outside the school, on the dirt roads leading to their homes, and in the doorways of their parents' houses. Healthy children attempted to lead sick children to their homes but many died along the way. Some villagers were able to carry their children to the town of Huasac, a 1 1/2 hour walk from Tauccamarca, where they could be evacuated to a hospital in the city of Cusco, several hours away. Parents of the victims said that if there were a road to their village, or if they had medical services there, some of the children might have been saved. The Minister of Health and other government officials visited the village but did not claim responsibility for the disaster. President Alberto Fujimori made no comment. By the time national officials arrived on the scene, local police had confiscated the remainder of the government-provided food and it was not available for testing. The government has offered several possible explanations for the event. Initially officials suggested that the milk substitute had been prepared in containers previously used for pesticides. Later the Minister of Health said that a local resident might have mixed some of the milk substitute with insecticide with the intention of poisoning a dog. Government officials denied the possibility that the company providing the food for FONCODES programs might be responsible for the contamination. Meanwhile, the schoolteacher and his wife were arrested and accused of criminal negligence. Children in other parts of the country have also suffered symptoms of poisoning after eating government-donated food, but all have survived. In response to this tragedy, the Red de Acción en Alternativas al uso de Agroquímicos (RAAA -- PAN Latin America) is calling for the immediate prohibition of highly toxic pesticides classified by the World Health Organization as 1a (extremely hazardous) and 1b (highly hazardous). RAAA is calling on the government to recognize that it is impossible to guarantee the safety of highly toxic pesticides such as organophosphates. Many potential pesticide users in Peru are illiterate and have no way to learn about the risks associated with pesticides. Many villagers speak only their native language of Quechua, and do not know Spanish. In addition, many rural areas have no health care centers to treat victims of pesticide poisonings. Highly toxic pesticides should not be distributed in areas where the population has no protection against the risks associated with their use. RAAA is asking the Ministry of Health to implement a program of quality monitoring to ensure that government-donated food is not contaminated with toxic substances. The Ministries of Health and of Agriculture should also develop a program to track pesticide poisonings throughout the country. As part of this program, doctors and nurses should receive training in the symptoms and treatment of pesticide poisonings. Finally, RAAA is calling on the Peruvian government to enforce its existing pesticide laws and to implement laws promoting safer alternatives. RAAA requests that concerned groups and individuals support the campaign to eliminate these toxic pesticides by faxing letters as soon as possible to the following addresses: Ingeniero Belisario de la Casa Piedra Ministro de Agricultura Fax (511) 431 0109 Señor Luis Campo Baca Comisión de Medio Ambiente y Amazonía Congreso de la República Fax (511) 428 2543 Please also fax or email a copy of your letter to RAAA. Sources: RAAA press release, October 23, 1999; RAAA communications to Minister of Health and others, October 24, 1999; Juan Paliza, "Peru Probes Child Food-Poisoning Deaths," Reuters October 24, 1999; "Tainted Milk Kills 28 Peruvian Kids," Associated Press October 23, 1999; La República October 24-27, 1999 Contacts: Luis Gomero, Red de Acción en Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas para America Latina (RAPAL), Apartado Postal 11-0581, Lima, Peru, phone (51-1) 425 7955; fax (51-1) 337 5170; email rapalpe@mail.cosapidata.com.pe; PANNA =========================================== Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) 49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 USA Phone: (415) 981-1771 Fax: (415) 981-1991 Email: panna@panna.org Web: http://www.panna.org To subscribe, send a blank message to: panups-subscribe@igc.topica.com To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: panups-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com =========================================== _____________________________________________________________ Got a Favorite Topic to Discuss? Start a List at Topica. http://www.topica.com/t/4 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Sat Oct 30 00:42:39 1999 -0400 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA02334 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:42:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA25207 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:21:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mayumi.iphil.net (rufino2.gw.iphil.net [203.176.0.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA25043 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:21:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mayumi.iphil.net (8.8.7/8.8.8) with UUCP id MAA11295; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 12:04:28 +0800 Received: (from uu1@localhost) by phil.gn.apc.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) with UUCP id MAA25084; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 12:32:06 +0800 From: Roberto Verzola Message-Id: <199910300432.MAA25084@phil.gn.apc.org> Date: 30 Oct 99 11:33:56 Subject: RE: Benefit of BT Corn To: WILSONDO@phibred.com Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 40 >I tend to agree, but I don't like the idea of the government dictating what >varieties we must offer. If I were the head of product planning, I would >offer all the elite material as non-GMO hybrids to give customers the >choice. Keep in mind that often, the non-GMO version IS marketed, but just >not identified as the non-GMO equivalent of the more trendy GMO hybrid. Pioneer's official policy is much more important in this particular case than the personal opinions of its employees, no offense meant to you. Can you tell us if it is Pioneer's policy to always make available to the farmer the non-GMO version of a GMO hybrid? Roberto To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 03:46:23 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA03326 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:46:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21939 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA21905 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:14:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA03191; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:12:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id DAA02533; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:12:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:12:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: mike richardson cc: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: RE: no-till chemical use In-Reply-To: <381A0DD8.F951988F@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 41 On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, mike richardson wrote: > Had some great replies to my post this a.m. on using no-till as an > envionmentally friendly farm tool. As to be expected, London and Clark > were not exactly enthusiasticly embracing my perspective. However, > rather than rant about my acceptance of no-till farming (as some would) > they both offered intelligent, reasoned arguments to the debate. > > 1. To London: Conventional tillage does indeed have tremendous > potential for environmental damage. One need only look to the gullied > Southern states in the first half of the century or to the infamous dust > bowl, or the ongoing devestation in China etc.. Soil erosion is neither > modest nor temporary (in human life terms) in many circumstances. Not This is very true but only very inept farmers would let this happen. All farmers in my area are acutely aware of the damage that occurs to their land from erosion and take the necessary steps to keep it from happening. I mentioned the Soil Saver (a very large chisel plow with a row of coulter blades in front for pre-cutting sod so it won't bind up ahead of the shanks) because it does a magnificent job of subsoiling and surface tillage; it leaves behind small or no furrows, which if used correctly can channel runoff across contours and in dry season can direct needed runoff from sparse rainfall from non-cropped areas to cropped for absorption and use. I probably need definitions of reduced tillage, no-till and ridge-till so I can better respond to your argument for no-till. My hay-farming neighbor "no-till drills" his Fall oat planting. I think this means cutting a slice in the sod and depositing seeds therein. My other farmer neighbor, the dairyman, describes his use of the Soil Saver as "reduced tillage" (my words), i.e. less disruption of the soil, less erosion, more organic matter retained. I have seen him use this implement; weeks after applying manure to the land, when the soil is adequately dry, as he pulls it over hundreds of acres the soil literally boils like an ocean wave rolling in on the beach behind his tractor. Loosening the soil to a great depth and aerating it combined with it's high organic matter content, high N and intense microbial life create this fine farm soil. Year after year, it only gets better. Using the Soil Saver in the Fall when the soil is dry enough leaves the land capable of absorbing much of the increased rain expected in the cold season with little or no erosion. Strip cropping could effectively control any erosion that did occur. In fact narrow-strip cropping could be really effective in this respect, especially in hilly country; strips could be only as wide as the Soil Saver. This man has operated in the black for decades and has never borrowed a penny and has never done anything but dairy farm. I don't really know how much herbicide he uses but I feel sure he keeps it to an absolute minimum; IOW he uses it very rarely. This method I have heard of using reduced or no till followed by cover cropping followed by burning down the CC for mulch, then follow with notill plant grain/bean/hay seems to me poor planning and highly destructive to the environment. Careful, timely tillage and different cover crop schemes can eliminate most weed problems. My first response to your proposal for no-till was to suggest ways of using tillage to control and eliminate weeds, thus precluding the need for herbicide. Incresed soil tilth and organic matter content also result from this method. > all farms are blessed with rich, loamy soils, on nearly flat fields. > And I agree, there are probably other tillage methods that would work I can't see any reason to work marginal farmland. And I can;t see any reason to sell off prime farmland for residential/commercial development. There ought to be laws ..... > for those type of farms. However, much of our productive farm land is > rolling and it is not practical or economical to suggest that row crop > farmers should just pick up and move to the flat, flat land of loamy > soils. There are ways to work rolling land but it may not be possible to accomplish miracles overnight. > I do agree wholeheartedly that rotations are healthy for soils and crops > alike. Monoculture is a bane on agriculture. However I disagree on > using fallow land in a rotation except in unusual circumstances. Land Leaving land fallow for a period is part of the weed eradication scheme I am suggesting. You have to allow enough time for specific cover crops to mature and crowd out undesirable competing plants. Like lespedeza some crops don't spread readily by seed and are easily cut under for organic matter to never or rarely return. L really covers the ground with dense shade. I have seen it outcompete (and in poor, hard, rocky soil, too) blackberry, honeysuckle, johnson grass, bermudagrass, rye and fescue grass. By the time L matures, many nearby weeds will have exhausted themselves and disappeared. Some mowing may be necessary along the way. The soil will have had a chance to rebound as will earthworms and microbial life. > that is farmed around here is much too expensive to lay idle, and much As I said, miracles don't always happen overnight. > too rolling (read erosive) to be fallow tilled during the growing > season. I am not suggesting doing that. > Use of cover crops, rotation with grass, and rotation of crop > species are much more practical. I am suggesting this also. > I am not familiar with the tillage tool that you described. However I > do remember seeing a demonstration of a "para plow" a few years ago that > I thought had promise, but haven't heard much of since. The para plow > went nearly as deep as a subsoil shank, but had "wings" at the base that > lifted and fractured the soil above. Very narrow surface tillage, with > similar efffects to breaking up the plow layer of soil with a > conventional plow, as well as improving the tilth of the upper subsoil. > Good tool when used with reduced tillage systems, it seemed. The "para plow" soounds just like the Yeomans Plow. Farmers owe it to themselves to have a look at the Soil Saver, the chisel plow and the Yeomans plow. Then there are hilling and bedding implements ....... > 2. To Clark: I think I understand your thread that instead of > growing annual row crops for beef that we should grow beef on grass > instead. Point taken, although I've eaten both grass fed and grain > finished beef, and much prefer grain fed. However, please remember that > not all annual row crops are grown for (non-human) animal consumption. > Besides many food products, annual crops such as soybeans and cotton > provide material for other uses for instance. Row crops would continue > to be a major portion of agriculture, even if never another grain was > fed to a single cow. > > Also, I would tend to not accept at face value any statement that > conventional tillage does better during dry weather than no-till, > without knowing the circumstance. It sounds like it might be more in > the line of an exception to the rule, rather than the rule. > > And lastly (whew!) if land is being drained with tiles, then why would > anyone need to use no-till? Reduced tillage, or even ridge tillage > maybe, but no-till is especially useful on rolling lands to stop soil > erosion. Fields with subsurface tiling shouldn't have water erosion > problems. > > To all: > > While I do not ascertain that no-till is the final word in > environmentaly sound farming, I will not throw it out just because there > are some chemicals used. Keep up the debate folks, and lets hear from > some others besides London, Clark, or myself! Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 06:27:09 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA04150 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:27:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21579 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:10:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA21523 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:10:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.iatp.org (iatp-2.InnovSoftD.com [208.141.36.66]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA19269 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:08:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from markbert ([208.141.36.112]) by mail.iatp.org (Netscape Messaging Server 3.62) with SMTP id 199; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 05:15:16 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991030051116.01493d50@mail.iatp.org> X-Sender: mritchie@mail.iatp.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 05:11:16 -0500 To: "Wilson, Dale" , "'Paul Schmitmeyer'" From: "Mark Ritchie" Subject: RE: chlorpyrifos Cc: Sanet In-Reply-To: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC2@vela.phibred.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 42 Dear Dale, Anything showing up in our bodies uninvited is a violation of both property rights and human rights. The tobacco companies and gun companies are showing the way in terms of litigation as one approach to this kind of violation. I believe that the pesticide companies will be the next ones hauled into court, followed soon thereafter by the biotech companies. Sincerely, Mark Ritchie At 08:19 AM 10/29/99 -0500, Wilson, Dale wrote: >Paul, > >> Just what is chloropyrifos? > >Chlorpyrifos (Lorsban, Dursban) is a moderately toxic, moderately persistent >(in the environment, not in the body) organophosphate insecticide that is >very widely used for many things like termite control, flea collars, foliar >application, lawn insect control, in-furrow application (eg for rootworms), >and indoors for ant and roach control. > >http://ace.orst.edu/cgi-bin/mfs/01/pips/chlorpyr.htm > >http://www.dowagro.com/main/product_results.asp > >Chlorpyrifos has been around for a long time, and has a good safety record, >although a few people claim to be highly sensitive to it. The fact that >traces of this can be found in human urine is not, in itself, indication of >a problem. In fact, this is so widely used, it would be a surprise if you >couldn't find it in your urine. > >Dale > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". >To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > >All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: >http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > Mark Ritchie, President Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 2105 First Ave. South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 USA 612-870-3400 (phone) 612-870-4846 (fax) mritchie@iatp.org www.iatp.org To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 09:34:45 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00902 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:34:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21308 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:05:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.internet.com.mx (mail.internet.com.mx [200.10.239.229]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21220 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:05:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ssc053.sancristobal.com.mx (customer-23-246-140.uninet.net.mx [200.23.246.140] (may be forged)) by mail.internet.com.mx (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA01689 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 08:03:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991030075802.00736f88@mail.internet.com.mx> X-Sender: danamex@mail.internet.com.mx X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 07:58:02 -0500 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Ronald Nigh Subject: Farmer plant breeding Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu id JAA21250 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 43 Dale Wilson wrote: >Crossing is a lot harder with crops like beans, wheat, soybeans, but selfing >is a lot easier (just grow the crop). The crossed population segregates, in >the course of several generations, into a mixture of pure lines. >Land-race varieties of self pollinated crops, unlike corn, are mixtures of >pure-lines, each of which breed true. Much gain is made initially by >selection, but then gain declines to practically zero... "Gain" in terms of increasing a given trait (yield, oil content) in a constant environment perhpas...but as Forest Troyer said, "Adaptation is everything - the sole driving force of evolutionary biology. Better adaptation to the environment means higher yielding corn.." Evolution is adaptation to a specific and changing environment and that is what farmer breeding achieves. So really the "gain" in this sense does not decline. But my question is how do farmer do this with self-pollinating crops? That is why the "sistem lines" research is interesting. For example. Chiapas is center for maize diversity. It easy to see how this diversity is maintained and used te create further diversity by farmers. But Chiapas is also a center of bean diversity. Every village seems to have its own bean variety. In general in Mexico bean diversity is astounding. How is this done? Ronald Nigh Dana, A.C. Mexico, D.F. & San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas Tel. y FAX 525-666-73-66 (DF) 529-678-72-15 (Chiapas) danamex@mail.internet.com.mx To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 11:53:24 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01856 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:53:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00814 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:37:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from taurus.greensoft.com ([204.77.122.1]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00740 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:37:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from webserf.net (unverified [10.0.0.101]) by taurus.greensoft.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:40:29 -0500 Message-ID: Received: from bluestem [204.77.126.135] by webserf.net (SMTPD32-4.03) id A092B1801E8; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:36:50 CDT From: "Bluestem Associates" To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:34:42 +0100 Reply-To: "Bluestem Associates" X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows 98 (4.10.1998) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Proposed organic cost share program Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 44 On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 08:53:36 EDT, Erorganic@aol.com wrote: >Before signing on to letters to the Agricultural Marketing Service of USDA >supporting an organic cost share program for certification, it appears to me >members of the organic community should supply some thoughtful analysis of >its implications and possible effects on certified organic farmers and >handlers. >My concerns are gargantuan. Eric and I frequently disagree. Not this time. He who pays the piper, calls the tune. It would be entirely consistent with past bureaucratic motives if the purpose of this was simply to make certified farmers more dependent on bureaucrats, thereby securinging the bureaucrats' jobs in this little developing empire at the National Organic Program. >The Agricultural Marketing Service appears to >have proposed the organic certification cost share program. The cynical side of me sees this as a means of gaining more control over FVO and OCIA particularly, as these are both "high standards" programs, neither of which (to my knowledge) has ever taken a nickel of government money. We can't have such important programs so immune to our control, now, can we ...? In a private message to Anita Graf answering her question to me about how it is that Canada --- with its rather tight controls on election expenditures, PACs and such --- can still have so much of the same problems of favoritism, croneyism, special deals and so on, I said, ++Same shenanigans, same waste, same corruption as in the US. Most of the ++dirty work is done within the bureaucracy, as it is in the US. Bureaucrats are generally invisible, unavailable, and unaccountable. They can do a lot of good, and many are unsung heroes. More often they do an amazing amount of anonymous harm. >The money ultimately ends up going >first to certified farmers [snip] and then is passed >back to the Agricultural Marketing Service as fees for accreditation by them. > In fact the proposed organic cost share program is another way to use tax >money to support the Agricultural Marketing Service National Organic Program. In a time of tight budgets, bureaucrats are as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs... the most effective way to raise taxes is through all sorts of hidden fees, especially if they come direct to your little domain. >In the Midwest at least we have large numbers of farmers coming to >certification agency meetings wanting to sell crops as "organically produced" >for the increased income earning potential. This is a trend that has >increased markedly every year for 4 years now. Almost none of these farmers >have become really familiar with the principals, practices or system of >organic farming. There main objective is increase farm income. Such a >proposed organic cost share program will only increase the number of farmer >applicants with very little increase in applicant knowledge of organic >farming. Very sadly, Eric, you understate the case. I see these guys all the time as an inspector. Just one example, from your state of Iowa... Conventional farmer with many hundreds of acres in heavy duty corn (anhydrous, etc). He had 130 acres (55 ha) that had been in the federal Conservation Reserve Program (at a tidy annual rent) for ten years. The whole thing was planted to food soybeans for 1999, which he wanted certified. The entire 130 acres was going to go *back* into CRP in 2000. In the course walking the field it became obvious to me that he had used herbicide(s) --- probably Pinnacle and Pursuit --- on the whole field. He didn't get certified, but I'll bet there are a lot more out there like him, and some of them *do* get certified. The real weak link in the whole system right now is INSPECTION. Many inspectors do not have practical production experience or knowledge. Relatively few have any understanding of *conventional* production --- its methods, its materials, and (above all) its *attitudes.* Increasing the number of applicants by encouraging them with subsidies is potentially disastrous for the little credibility remaining in the industry. The organic industry has largely done this to itself, with its slavish and anal-retentive preoccupation with *materials* rather than farm systems. It simply doesn't take as much understanding of agriculture to haggle over materials as it does to codify the irreducible minimum of a healthy system management. Because it's easier for programs (and bureaucrats) to haggle over materials, we have ironically undermined the entire inspection process. Inspecting for materials use is *NOT* easy. In fact, it is probably the most difficult aspect of the entire system to monitor. There are farms I *know* got sprayed within hours of when I headed down the lane for my next inspection. What really matters is how the whole system is put together and managed. That is difficult to codify, but once codified is relatively easy to inspect, even for inspectors of modest ability. There is absolutely no way, for example, that I could determine whether or not an applicant as used 25 kg/ha of Chilean nitrate, or 125 kg/ha, other than to trust his answer. That standard, therefore, is un-inspectable, un-verifiable, and thereby useless. What is *easy* to inspect is whether or not there is at least 25% legume sod in the rotation, and whether or not the applicant has a *written* management protocol for standard materials and procedures used in that particular operation. Less than 2% of the farms I inspected in 1999 had a written protocol for mineral fertility management, even though it is clearly required in the standards. If you think that doesn't matter, go back to the archives and review my comments about soil minerals and crop quality from about 3 weeks ago. The key questions are: a) Is this system designed and managed so as maximise system health and crop quality; b) Is it designed and managed to minimise the need for chemical inputs; c) Is this management protocol documented and followed, and d) Is there a chain of custody guaranteeing that the harvest has not been contaminated or co-mingled. Having de-emphasised these most important managerial elements (which are the *easiest* to inspect), and having over-emphasised materials (which are very difficult to inspect), the organic business has left itself extremely vulnerable. Federal cost sharing and the resultant influx of desperate conventional growers may well be all that is needed to tip an already-unstable system into the abyss. >There is a question whether large numbers of new "cost share" applicants for >organic farming certification will not stimulate oversupply of organic >product. Every since passage of the Organic Foods Production Act, staff of >the Agricultural Marketing Service have been trying to expand organic markets >for us, expand organic supply for us. That is not their mandate under OFPA. >Let the markets and supply expand without, absolutely without, Federal >government intervention. All such intervention twist the internally, >continually re-balancing organic supply and demand system in directions that >are simply un-natural, not "organic." This is an additional cause for concern, but if the inspectability problem isn't resolved, it may not matter. There are inspectors (and certification committee members) out here with enough concrete examples to seriously damage the demand side of "organic" equation in the course of a single interview on '60-minutes.' Bart To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Sat Oct 30 10:14:52 1999 -0400 Received: from firefly.prairienet.org (firefly.prairienet.org [192.17.3.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01271 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:14:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firefly.prairienet.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firefly.prairienet.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA25211; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:12:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from imo-d10.mx (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by firefly.prairienet.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24931 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:09:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Erorganic@aol.com Received: from Erorganic@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id mXNQ0Yjg0m (3859) for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 08:53:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.7c591772.254c4450@aol.com> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 08:53:36 EDT Subject: Against a proposed organic cost share program To: Organic4um@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Sender: owner-csa-l@prairienet.org X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.07 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 45 Hello all, Before signing on to letters to the Agricultural Marketing Service of USDA supporting an organic cost share program for certification, it appears to me members of the organic community should supply some thoughtful analysis of its implications and possible effects on certified organic farmers and handlers. I have heard none. My concerns are gargantuan. Firstly, organic farming and handling is a free market activity now, with the only authorized activity of USDA or the Federal government made by Congress is to establish the National Organic Program. That has taken 10 years primarily because up until most recently qualified people were not hired to manage the proposed program. The Agricultural Marketing Service appears to have proposed the organic certification cost share program. What is this saying by the Agricultural Marketing Service initiating this proposal? Could it be that the cost for certification are going to be so high that we have to have government assistance to be a USDA certified organic farm or handling operation? Doesn't such a proposed cost share diffuse and cover over the much more important OFPA mandated statement of "reasonable" cost of certification and accreditation to all parties? Who really gains form such a program? --The money ultimately ends up going first to certified farmers (or more probably anyone applying for certification) (are handler applicants included also and if not why not?) who pay the money to USDA accredited certifiers (allowing their expansion of operations and farm/handler certification market share) and then is passed back to the Agricultural Marketing Service as fees for accreditation by them. In fact the proposed organic cost share program is another way to use tax money to support the Agricultural Marketing Service National Organic Program. I am not clear on how fees collected from farmer/handler applicants and/or accredited certifying agents must be used by USDA. Perhaps, such funds cannot be directly deposited to AMS/NOP accounts. In the Midwest at least we have large numbers of farmers coming to certification agency meetings wanting to sell crops as "organically produced" for the increased income earning potential. This is a trend that has increased markedly every year for 4 years now. Almost none of these farmers have become really familiar with the principals, practices or system of organic farming. There main objective is increase farm income. Such a proposed organic cost share program will only increase the number of farmer applicants with very little increase in applicant knowledge of organic farming. I have not heard any statement that this might be a one time cost share, meaning that such a program will probably become an annual conditioned response for those so applying. We see the utter collapse of the conventional farming "community" under the now 65 year continuous "cost share" program initiated during the 30's depression. A cost share program is worth the organic community considering as all options are, but why would any of us want to become dependent for part of our farming or handling operations on a government hand-out program? There is a question whether large numbers of new "cost share" applicants for organic farming certification will not stimulate oversupply of organic product. Every since passage of the Organic Foods Production Act, staff of the Agricultural Marketing Service have been trying to expand organic markets for us, expand organic supply for us. That is not their mandate under OFPA. Let the markets and supply expand without, absolutely without, Federal government intervention. All such intervention twist the internally, continually re-balancing organic supply and demand system in directions that are simply un-natural, not "organic." And lastly, anyone that is seriously considering organic farming or handling businesses can surely pay a "reasonable" fee for certification. If a farm or handling operation falls under the $5000 level of gross income stated in OFPA, they do not need to apply for certification. With this statement, Ripplebrook Organic Growers would like to bring everyone's attention to fact that supporting iinstituting of such programs without forethought may lead us to many more problems than we think. We fully understand that inserting such a program as part of the language of the second Proposed Organic Rule in the Federal Register for public comment does offer some degree of public dialogue. But, we question whether this proposal originated or has been thoroughly discussed within the private sector organic farming and handling community, which is where the effect will be felt. Best regards, Eric Kindberg From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 14:01:56 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA02744 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:01:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA26707 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:47:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26658 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:47:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lanfear.nidlink.com (root@lanfear.nidlink.com [216.18.128.7]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24969 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:45:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from enaila.nidlink.com (root@enaila.nidlink.com [216.18.128.8]) by lanfear.nidlink.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id KAA18277; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from benbrook (pm9-1.nidlink.com [216.18.141.56]) by enaila.nidlink.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA05193; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199910301745.KAA05193@enaila.nidlink.com> X-Sender: benbrook@mail.nidlink.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:58:18 -0700 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu, , From: Charles Benbrook Subject: Pioneer Policy re GMOs and Non-GMOs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 46 Questions and concerns have arisen recently on AgOnline, Sanet and other Internet lists regarding seed company policy re making available to farmers corn hybrids with advanced genetics, adapted to various regions with and without GMO genes/characteristics. National corn grower associations have raised strong concerns. Individual farmers have complained that in the 1998-1999 seasons, the best adapted hybrids for their soil/climatic region have been offered just in GMO versions (for examples, see the meeting notes from the June 1999 EPA-USDA Bt-corn resistance management meeting, ). Three issues have surfaced in several venues -- 1. Seed available only in GMO versions 2. Inadequate supply of the non-GMO seed was available, and hence those purchasing seed later in the season had limited choice 3. Farmers and others have had difficulty discerning which hybrid is the otherwise similar non-GMO version of a GMO variety. On the third issue, Pioneer has apparently heard farmers and has recently adapted its web page resources to make it very clear what the base genetics is for any herbicide tolerant or Bt hybrid. For example on the Iowa corn hybrid page, go to -- http://www.pioneer.com/us_products/iowa/corn/default.htm The columns in the characteristics tables are straightforward; the fourth column reports "Base Genetics," which is defined as -- "Identifies the non-converted hybrid which is modified to include new technologies. Mange similarly to the base genetic hybrid." On the first and second issue, it is clear on the Pioneer Iowa corn hybrid page that some of the non-engineered base genetic hybrids are not offered in 1999-2000. For example, the first variety listed -- 38P06 is a Bt hybrid with base genetics 38P05, but 38P05 is not listed in the ratings, suggesting it is not offered for sale in Iowa. The Pioneer "Iowa Corn Characteristics Ratings" page lists 23 Bt hybrids. Of these 23, the non-GMO versions are listed, and hence presumably available in 7 cases; they are not listed and hence presumably not offered in 13 cases; and the "Base Genetics" is not identified in 3 cases. Dale, if I missed something, please correct the record. These observations lead to a couple of questions which I hope someone from Pioneer will address -- * In the 13 cases where the "Base Genetics" hybrid is not offered, do farmers have a choice of very similar genetics? If so, how would they know? * In the 3 cases where "Base Genetics" are not identified, what other modifications have been made in those varieties? What genetic changes have been incorporated in these varieties in addition to adding the Bt trait? Information on the supply, demand and sale of different hybrids by region is needed to definitively answer questions related to the first two issues noted above. Such information is highly guarded by seed companies. We will have to await for any official word from Pioneer and/or other seed companies re their policies. I do know from several years of interactions with Pioneer people that Pioneer's policy is to offer for sale the hybrids and genetics that farmers are demanding. If demand grows for non-GMO varieties, it is fair to say, based on the company's history, that Pioneer will expand its offerings of non-GMO seed. If this proves not the case, farmers will complain and move to other companies. Both reactions will be unambiguous. If there is an overall nationwide shortage of non-GMO varieties next year, we will also hear about this and there will be consequences and the seed companies will have to respond. The adequacy of that response will determine whether and to what extent government actions are seen as necessary to restore a greater degree of responsive in the market. In the case of DeKalb (see url below), the information re GMO and matching non-GMO genetics is also pretty obvious in most cases, since most GMO hybrid designations are simply tacked onto the non-GMO variety -- for example, DK471 -- the modifier "IMI" for imidazolinone herbicide tolerance is added right after the 471, so that the modified hybrid becomes DK471IMI. Plus, in most cases, the herbicide tolerant or Bt transgenic hybrids follow right after the non-GMO base genetics, so no major mysteries here. There are exceptions on the DeKalb page -- for example DK545BtY is a Bt variety obviously, but the closest match in a non-GMO version appears to be DK540. If enough people raise questions, perhaps DeKalb will match Pioneer's lead and add a column to its characteristics tables which report "Base Genetics." DeKalb characteristics table for Iowa/corn -- http://216.17.44.19/seed2k/ProductCat.asp?cat=8&prod=5 Given the concerns re availability in GMO versus non-GMO seed for the year 2000 season, and the major uncertainty all seed companies face in predicting demand in today's highly volatile environment, it seems really important for USDA and the corn growers associations to develop cooperatively a survey of corn growers, to be undertaken in late spring, regarding their corn variety purchasing decisions. There will be all sorts of anecdotal information floating around, much of it subject to a degree of spin since almost no one these days has a completely dispassionate and disinterested perspective on these matters. Hence, the value of timely information from a properly designed statistical survey. If the survey documents significant mismatches between the genetics offered and farmer demand, it will hasten and help shape responses in both the public and private sectors and provide a baseline against which to monitor improvement in future years. chuck Charles Benbrook CU FQPA site www.ecologic-ipm.com Benbrook Consulting Services Ag BioTech InfoNet www.biotech-info.net 5085 Upper Pack River Road IPM site www.pmac.net Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 208-263-5236 (Voice) 208-263-7342 (Fax) To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 17:54:55 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06511 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 17:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08016 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 17:37:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08010 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 17:37:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from earthlink.net (dialup-209.244.71.184.SanDiego1.Level3.net [209.244.71.184]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04748; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:35:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <381A7BC7.C61D4B0A@earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:01:59 -0700 From: Bargyla Rateaver X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "E. Ann Clark" CC: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: no-till chemical use (long) References: <3819A43F.76778695@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> <3819C685.337C4AFE@uoguelph.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 47 How about, instead of all the fuss with this/that method, people use the Scriptural sabbatical year, when the land is let alone for a whole 7th year period. After all the Creator who set up the entire landscape is the one who said to make use of the 7th year total rest for the land. Yes, I know someone here just said it couldnot be done, economically, but who knows more than God does? E. Ann Clark wrote: > Folks: > > mike (son of richard) richardson wrote regarding no-till: > > > However, it certainly can have tremendous environmental > > benefits, compared to conventional farming (deep plowing, disking, > > cultivating, etc.) Yes, generally more chemical amounts are used. > > However, since the killed vegetation reduces soil erosion to near zero > > (major benefit), absorbs chemicals, slows surface water movement, > > reduces fertilizer loss, enhances water movement into the soil profile, > > etc. then there is less chemical running off into surface waters. As > > for chemical leaching into the ground water, that can be a problem with > > some chemicals used in no-till and conventional tillage (atrizine types > > for instance). However, many chemicals do break down while in the soil, > > so as they are moving through the soil they tend to degrade. No-till > > also enhances soil tilth, reduces fossile fuel use (thereby reducing air > > pollution and global warming), lowers labor and equipment costs to the > > farmer, and has been proven to maintain or even increase yields. > > Pasture - which is an "alternate" form of the livestock nutrition (grains) > produced with no-till - does all of the above, and better - without need for > chemicals in the first place. Let's not frame the discussion so narrowly as > to create a strawman-type argument. If we really stand back and analyze land > use practices objectively (whatever that is), starting with - what do we grow > these crops for in the first place - this opens up a much wider array of > options than just no-till or till. > > Might also add that even well managed no-till inherently and inescapably > creates a whole suite of problems (which well managed pasture doesn't), > including weed shifts to favor hard-to-control perennials like dandelion and > quack. The obligatory dependence on herbicides (to the exclusion of all other > approaches) also accelerates herbicide resistance (note Benbrook's > authoritative commentary earlier on the increase in mean glyphosate use in the > US in just the last few years, owing largely to no-till and RR crops (probably > in that order too). > > In Ontario, long-time no-till farmers (experienced and commited people; > leaders in the field) have begun to plow up their land, following several dry > years in a row. For reasons that I still do not understand (given all the > presumed increase in soil OM and water conservation under no-till (which is > disputed, see below)), no-till land apparently has performed worse than tilled > land under dry conditions. I'd have thought the reverse. It may have > something to do with the accumulation of macropore space opening directly to > the surface, conveying water too readily down to tiles before it can be > absorbed. These same uninterrupted macropores, by the way, also convey liquid > manure, herbicides, and anything else that has been surface applied directly > down to tiles and out into surface water systems - completely bypassing buffer > strips and other vehicles recommended to protect the integrity of > watercourses. > > Colleagues in Land Resource Science tell me that no-till slows down the rate > of loss of OM under annual arable cropping, but does NOT increase full-profile > soil OM. Distribution is affected, with more concentrating in the surface > layers, but less in the lower layers, with a net effect that total OM does NOT > increase. The only way to materially increase soil OM is to withhold the land > from cultivation under a perennial sod - like a pasture or hay field. > > And then there is the issue of N-use efficiency. I recall a paper co-authored > by Rennie (former dean of ag at Sask and major proponent of conservation > tillage) showing the potential for anaerobic microsites and anaerobiosis under > surface vegetation on no-tilled land in the spring promoted denitrification > and N-loss on wheat land. The amounts were fairly hefty if memory serves - > say, 20-50 kg N/ha. > > Surface residues also keep soil colder longer, which effectively shortens the > growing season in a short season climate, such as we have in Canada. Surface > residues, particularly in combination with cold, can also retard plant > establishment and seedling vigor, promoting susceptibility to a range of soil > damping-off and other pathogens. > > Only certain crops *can* be grown no-till, which reduces rotation complexity > and hampers the ability to constructively design rotations to deal with weed, > pest, and nutrient management issues. > > Another unintended effect of no-till is leaving allelochemically active > residues on the soil surface, where they can impact weed and subsequent crop > growth. As it happens, one of the major no-till crops in Canada is no-till > wheat. Research by Purvis et al., in Australia, has shown that the > allelochemics released by decomposing wheat straw stimulate wild oat > germination and growth. Thus, failure to incorporate the residues created a > mega-problem with wild oats. And wild oats are a major problem in the > prairies, which have adopted no-till wheat with a vengence. > > So, from a different (pro-pasture, admittedly) vantage point, no-till is a > proprietary band-aid to patch up a arable crop technology (annual tillage to > produce annual grain crops) that is fundamentally at odds with the ecological > integrity of farm land. The problem(s) with tillage is soil erosion and > degradation, with consequent effects on related processes, as water use > efficiency. So, no-till addresses those issues, but in so doing, creates a > suite of other issues. Pasture - which is what ruminants are actually evolved > to eat in the first place - avoids most of these issues entirely (granted, you > have to manage it to avoid overgrazing, erosion, etc.). Admittedly, pasture > also creates some potential problems, relating to soil compaction (and water > infiltration etc.) and N leaching/volatilization - although these are at least > partly managable through such practices as restricting labile N (less chemical > N; lower % legume). > > Management intensive grazing is a largely non-proprietary technology which can > be mastered by men, women, and children, can be a useful (if not sole) source > of nutrition year-around (even in Canada), and can retain a much larger share > of farm gate receipts in the hands of farmers than no-till, conventional till, > or any kind of annual arable cropping. > > Perhaps that is one of the reasons why commodity-specific subsidy/entitlement > programs always favor annual crops and completely omit pasture (and often hay) > crops. Ann > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 20:08:21 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA07501 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 20:08:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA05407 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 19:44:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from acme.sb.west.net (acme.sb.west.net [205.254.224.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA05340 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 19:44:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [205.254.241.195] (term6-3.vta.west.net [205.254.241.195]) by acme.sb.west.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0554E24A34; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: , From: colibri@west.net (Beth von Gunten) Subject: Swiss farmers seek compensation for GE contamination of maize seed Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 48 [In response to Sal's query from a couple days ago:] Swiss soiled seed prompts tolerance question by Ingeborg Furst Nature Biotechnology, Volume 17 / July 1999 Page 629 On July 1, the Swiss government's tolerance standard for genetic purity of food comes into effect. Switzerland is the first country in Europe to set a limit for genetic contamination, but current controversy over genetically contaminated corn seeds highlights the urgent EU-wide need for such a standard for crops. In May, it was discovered by the Swiss Department of Agriculture (Budesamt fur Landwirtschaft; Bern) and the district president of Baden-Wurtlemberg (Tubingen, Germany) that Pioneer Hi-Bred's (Des Moines, IA) nongenetically modified corn seed varieties, Ulla and Benicia, actually contained novel genes from a variety of corn genetically modified to be resistant to the corn borer, Bacillus thuringiensis. Contamination of the seeds, which were harvested in the United States, was "probably caused by stray pollen during the growing season," says Ulrich Schmidt, managing director of Pioneer in Buxtehude, Germany, which represents the grain manufacturer in Switzerland. It is likely that incorporation of pollen from GM varieties into Ulla and Benicia occurred this way because "Pioneer does not offer a commercial GM variety of Ulla or Benicia." Before the contamination was discovered, Pioneer had sold enough Ulla and Benicia seeds to sow 400 hectares (roughly 0.5% of total corn cultivation in Switzerland), about 200 hectares of which had already been planted. Estimates of the amount of genetic contamination of non-GM DNA by GM DNA vary between 0.1 and 0.5%-- respectively below the limit set in both countries for contamination resulting from physical mixing of varieties. Under German and Swiss seed market laws, this "technical" contamination with seed from weed and other varieties can be as high as 3% and 5%, respectively. But because there are no tolerance standards set for genetic purity, the contaminated Pioneer seeds are not approved for release into the environment, and planting therefore infringes the Swiss environment conservation law (Umweltschutzgesetz), as well as violating the German gene technology law (Gentechnikgesetz). As a result, the Swiss Department of Agriculture (Bundesamt fur Landwirtschaft, Bern) has prohibited the import and trade of contaminated Ulla and Benicia and has ordered the destruction of any already sown. However, Pioneer and the entire grain industry are not able to guarantee the genetic purity of their conventional non-GM varieties, says Schmidt. "Genetic inserts are in the nature of things," agrees Rainer Linneweber, spokesperson for Novartis Seed (Bad Salzuflen, Germany). "Despite our high-level quality management and our ISO certification, even a 100% [technical] purity for conventional seed is utopian," he adds. But although the Swiss government has now set a 1% tolerance standard for genetic contamination of food, such a standard for crops remains absent. In the meantime, both Switzerland and Germany have analyzed the contaminated seed: The Swiss Department of Agriculture could detect by PCR the presence but not the amount of DNA sequences from GM corn varieties. But analysis ordered by the Baden-Wurttemberg district has called two specific GM varieties into question &endash; one from Pioneer and one from another unnamed grain manufacturer, according to Grit Puchan, spokesperson for the Baden-Wurttemberg district. "We still need to clarify whether or not these GM-corn seed varieties have been granted marketing approval in the EU and subsequently in Germany," says Puchan. If they have, the release of their contaminants would already be approved under the existing EU 90/220 directive. In this case, Pioneer must simply label the seeds accordingly to satisfy German authorities, says Edgar Muschketat, spokesperson for the Berlin-based Robert-Koch-Institut, which approves the release of GMOs into the environment. But this question is irrelevant, according to Hans-Georg Dederer, jurist at the Institute for Public Law at the University of Bonn, who says a loophole in the law means that genetically contaminated seeds need no special approval under 90/220. "A crop genetically modified by stray pollen is not a product within the meaning of 90/220, because 'product' implies a willful preparation," he says. Meanwhile, a "witch hunt-like atmosphere" reigns in Switzerland, says Klaus Ammann, director of the Botanic Garden at the University of Bern and member of the Commission for Biosafety (Kommission fur biologische Sicherheit). But although some corn fields have been destroyed by fire or herbicides, many farmers (mainly in western Switzerland) refuse to destroy the corn until Pioneer and the Swiss government agree to compensate them. In addition, the Swiss farmers' association (Schweizerischer Bauernverband) is deciding whether to file a class action lawsuit against Pioneer (via the Swiss seed importer), and Pioneer is considering halting sales via the Swiss seed importer to farmers in Switzerland. As Nature Biotechnology was going to press, the Swiss seed importer Eric Schweizer Samen AG agreed to pay farmers 700 Swiss Francs per hectare. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 20:08:21 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA07500 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 20:08:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01280 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 19:41:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01200 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 19:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from acme.sb.west.net (acme.sb.west.net [205.254.224.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA29373 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 19:39:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [205.254.241.195] (term6-3.vta.west.net [205.254.241.195]) by acme.sb.west.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 47F3224B34 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:39:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu From: colibri@west.net (Beth von Gunten) Subject: BSE fears prompt USDA order to destroy Vermont flock Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:39:41 -0700 (PDT) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu id TAA01205 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 49 Sunday, October 24, 1999 Rutland (Vermont) Herald and Sunday Times Argus WARREN Linda Faillace keeps her emotions under control until she gets to the point in her story when she told her children their animals face a death sentence. The tears start to flow, and she is forced to break off her account of how her small sheep farm became the focus of the government's concern over food safety. Six years of work, numerous trips to Europe, intensive research on animal health and genetics have come to this: Federal officials want the Faillaces' flock of imported sheep destroyed because of a possibility they may have been exposed to an untreatable, always fatal brain disease that could spread to humans. The Faillaces' saga extends to the science of emerging diseases and the politics of international trade. But it's also a story of one family's attempt to start a new agricultural enterprise in a state where traditional dairy farming is threatened. The East Friesian sheep the family brought in from Belgium and the Netherlands make prodigious amounts of milk, which is then used to produce a variety of specialty cheeses. While an average U.S. sheep used for milking may give 100 pounds of milk a year, these tall, long-eared ewes can produce 1,000 pounds annually. Although the cheese is selling well, the real money was supposed to come from the sale of breeding stock. Because the USDA halted imports soon after the Faillaces bought their sheep in 1996, the Warren operation and another farm in Greensboro have the only U.S. flocks of East Friesian sheep. The Greensboro farm belongs to Houghton Freeman, a philanthropist whose Freeman Foundation has donated millions of dollars for education and land conservation efforts in Vermont. Freeman and the Faillaces saw the East Friesian breed as having strong potential for Vermont agriculture. Freeman invested significant amounts of money in launching his sheep operation, which is run by a young couple. "In reality, there probably isn't a return for him," said his lawyer, Thomas Amidon. "The return is the (sheep) genetics would be something helpful to Vermont hillside farms." It's as if these were the only two farms in the early days of the dairy industry to own high-producing Holstein cows. Others looking to get in on the ground floor of the emerging dairy sheep business have offered up to $25,000 for a bred ewe, Faillace says. The business plan is now on hold, while state and federal officials decide their next move. The animals were imported under a plan approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They were certified free of scrapie a sheep brain disease that has been endemic in Europe and the United States for years and were quarantined in both Europe and this country. But last year, federal agriculture officials told the Faillaces they wanted to buy and then destroy the 300 animals held on their farm and on the Freeman farm in Greensboro. Government specialists said that the sheep came from an area of Europe where bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) had been found and that they could potentially harbor the deadly disease. The sheep are not sick, and the cheese is safe to eat. But at the USDA's request, the state Department of Agriculture quarantined both flocks in 1998. BSE is more commonly known as Mad Cow Disease, and is believed to have infected and killed in its human variant 46 people in the United Kingdom. The disease the word "spongiform" describes the holes it leaves in brains is insidious and always fatal. Its victims become disoriented and then slip into dementia and death. The U.K. outbreak led to a ban on British beef sales and the slaughter of millions of animals there. BSE has not been found in U.S. cattle, according to the USDA. However, U.S. officials are concerned because laboratory experiments in which infected cow brains were injected into other species have shown that the disease can be transmitted from cows to sheep. The disease may also have been spread by a common but little-known practice of feeding animal meal to herbivores. Until the practice was curbed, commercial feed mills bought meat and bone meal for use as a protein source in feed. Many researchers believe the BSE outbreak in the United Kingdom began when cattle were fed meal made from infected animals. Some also believe that meal made from sheep infected with scrapie a disease related to BSE jumped the species barrier and may have caused Mad Cow Disease in the United Kingdom. Belgium and the Netherlands both had cases of BSE, and the USDA says the Vermont sheep may have been exposed through feed. But the Faillaces argue there is no chance their sheep, or their forebears in Europe, were fed processed animal meal. They say their flock doesn't have scrapie. They have documentation that feed mills in the area where the sheep originated did not use animal products. No sheep has contracted BSE, outside the laboratory, they note. And tests on their sheep for a telltale protein that indicates the presence of BSE have all turned up negative. Larry Faillace, who holds a doctorate in animal health and worked in the early 1990s for a leading British researcher who advised the government on BSE, is confident the science is on their side. "The chances of any sheep in the world (getting BSE) are remote. The chances of these particular sheep getting it well, you'd have a better chance of a meteor landing on your front step tomorrow," he says. Freeman is also incredulous that the USDA wants the animals killed, after first helping to bring the animals into the country. "My client has said show us the evidence. There isn't any," says Amidon, the philanthropist's lawyer. But USDA officials have insisted for over a year that the most prudent course is for both flocks to be slaughtered. Nothing less than the national interest is at stake, according to Alfonso Torres, deputy USDA administrator. "The high stakes involved mandate very conservative measures if there is a possibility of the sheep being infected with the BSE agent. We are conscious that these actions require difficult choices on your part," Torres told the Faillaces in a letter this spring. "However this is a case in which the welfare of our nation must be placed above any other consideration." For a long time Linda and her husband had not discussed the issue with their three children, all of whom work on the farm. (Fifteen-year-old Francis does the pasture management; Heather, 13, does the daily milking; and Jackie, 12, is the cheesemaker along with her father.) But after a meeting with the USDA last October, the parents broke the news that the animals might have to be killed. "We sat down with our children and explained to them what was going on," Linda says, pausing to control her tears. "At that point, what we found out is that our children are as obstinate as we are. They said, 'No way, there's nothing wrong with our sheep.'" The Faillaces mustered scientific evidence. They flew over top veterinarians from Europe to meet with the USDA and an official from the National Institutes of Health. Their experts insisted the sheep were disease-free and safe. But USDA officials did not back down. Now the Vermont Department of Health, which only recently learned of the problem from state agriculture officials, has weighed in. After a meeting last week with Health Commissioner Jan Carney, the Faillaces believe Carney also wants the animals destroyed. Carney who is expected to rule on the issue this week did not return several calls for comment. "We're not real positive about what she's going to say," Linda says. "When she heard we were making cheese, she was shocked. … She (Carney) said if there's any risk, she has to protect the public." Indeed, if Larry and Linda Faillace have a ready rebuttal for every concern raised by the USDA, government officials also have a compelling comeback. Dr. Linda Detwiler, a leading BSE specialist and a veterinarian with the USDA's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, says the public would be justifiably outraged if BSE did spread to the United States and the government had not done everything possible to stop it. Detwiler also notes there is some sign although the Faillaces dispute the significance that the brains of sheep culled from both farms have "vacules," small holes that could possibly indicate a spongiform disease. "The overriding issue is human health," Detwiler says. "If you protect animals, then you protect humans. If we ignore (the disease potential) and something happened, somebody could come back and say, 'Did you know they could have been exposed?' We'd have to say yes. And if they ask, 'Was there any indication in the brains of the animals (that they carried the disease)?' We'd have to say, 'Possibly, yes.' ... We don't know all the answers, but I think we know enough to be conservative." Detwiler acknowledges that there is nothing "overtly" wrong with the Vermont sheep. She says the issue "is exposure, or potential exposure." Neither the Faillaces nor the farmers who sold them the animals can be absolutely sure that the feed in Europe did not contain meat or bone meal, according to Detwiler. Belgium's government has told the USDA that feed mills cannot be ruled out as a source of the disease in Belgian cattle. And feed mills often changed their mixes depending on price and availability, she says. "A lot of time, the rations were developed by least cost calculations, so on any given day, there might be a substitute (such as meat or bone meal) for a protein source," she says. Dr. Gerald Wells, one of the leading British experts on BSE, agrees with the USDA's stance, after examining the slides of brain tissue taken from the two flocks, Detwiler says. "He said he couldn't say what it was. But he couldn't rule out (some form of transmissible encephalopathy). Given the background of the sheep, he would support the action taken by the state and USDA." Larry Faillace says the animals in Vermont were born after a ban on animal meal went into effect in Europe. And he and his wife say that the vacules detected by lab tests in the brains of the culled sheep are not evidence the animals have scrapie or BSE. Vacules in brain tissue can be caused by other illness or the way the slides for the microscope are prepared, they say. The alcohol used on the sample can dissolve lipids (fat molecules) in the tissue, giving the appearance that the tissue has small holes. They also say that researchers did not detect several other signs of transmissible brain disease, including the key protein associated with BSE. Dr. Bernard Carton, a Belgian veterinarian who works with the Faillaces, also says the lab work does not show their sheep have a brain disease. "I have followed all the details of this case. I do not understand why your government is acting like it is," he says. "To me, it has nothing to do with science, it just has to do with politics." The United States which has already faced a European ban on its beef over hormones in the meat wants desperately to keep its BSE-free status, Carton notes. But if the U.S. government destroys the Vermont sheep, it could have an impact on international trade, since dairy products from the same sheep breed are imported from Europe. If the sheep are deemed unsafe, what would happen to those cheese imports if the public believed the animals were at risk to get BSE, he asks. "I wonder what will happen with my (Agriculture) ministry if they kill these animals," Carton says. "Up until now, it's been very quiet, but what happens with cheese from Europe? This could be the beginning of a big war." While the USDA has moved aggressively to control BSE in sheep, government officials have allowed several Vermont farmers to import elk from western states where there is a similar brain disease infecting wild herds. The Faillaces feel there is a double standard at work. Elk are not tested, nor does the USDA or the state ban their import from infected states. "I can understand wanting to take a conservative approach. But if (they) were doing their utmost, testing elk, testing (other) sheep, then I could understand this. But to select us, to say these sheep are under more suspicion than any in the world, seems ridiculous," says Linda. Detwiler refers questions on the elk issue to the state Agriculture Department. Agriculture Commissioner Leon Graves says he is aware that elk in other parts of the country have the brain disease, but that no action has been taken in Vermont. "It's on the radar screen. We haven't done anything about that yet," he says. Graves says he supports the USDA's position. "We've never had BSE in this country and we can't afford to take the risk." The Faillaces believe some of the pressure to destroy their sheep comes from the beef industry, which does not want the United States to lose its BSE-free status. Detwiler, the USDA vet, says the issue goes beyond the beef industry. Many pharmaceutical products are made from cattle and other animal products. That industry could be jeopardized as well from a BSE outbreak. "It's the whole country, definitely not just the beef industry solely, that is interested in that (BSE-free) status," she says. "The overriding issue is human health." By eliminating the Vermont flocks, the USDA "can pre-empt having to undertake any kind of big national (eradication) effort," Detwiler says. The USDA has offered to pay market price for the Faillaces' animals. The couple has heard from state officials that the government could offer around $5,000 for ewes. But that figure would not begin to cover the lost business or the potential sales of breed stock. The Faillaces say they'd sell for $11.3 million. But they don't want to get rid of their animals. "We'd like the science to come out and the truth to come out. ... There's nothing wrong with our sheep," Larry says. "Let's figure out a way of solving this without killing them all." To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 21:22:17 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08086 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:22:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA25824 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:02:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f70.hotmail.com [216.32.181.70]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA25787 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 75266 invoked by uid 0); 31 Oct 1999 01:00:25 -0000 Message-ID: <19991031010025.75265.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 128.84.227.215 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 18:00:24 PDT X-Originating-IP: [128.84.227.215] From: "Lester Loam" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Safety of chlorpyrifos Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:00:24 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 50 Did someone mention that chlorpyrifos (Dursban) was relatively safe? That's not what EPA is saying. lester DOW CHEMICAL PRODUCT MAY HURT HUMAN HEALTH - EPA Oct. 28/99 Reuters By Julie Vorman WASHINGTON - U.S. environmental officials were cited as saying one of the U.S. 's most popular pesticides may be unsafe for Americans who use it in their gardens, fields and homes. Blurred vision, muscle weakness, headaches and problems with memory, depression and irritability have been linked to large amounts of exposure to Dow Chemical's Dursban, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said in a preliminary scientific assessment posted on its web site late Wednesday. The EPA analysis found exposure to Dursban on the skin, in food, or by inhaling it could be harmful to human health. The EPA was quoted as saying it had a "particular concern" with Dursban poisoning cases reported to federal officials. About one-fourth of 325 illnesses reported from 1993 through 1996 were serious enough to require hospitalization. "Data from the two human studies suggest that humans are as sensitive and possibly even more sensitive than animals," the EPA said in the detailed report. One of the studies was conducted with inmate volunteers at a prison. Dursban is used to kill insects that attack everything from home-grown tomatoes to corn fields. It is also a powerful weapon against termites and cockroaches, and is frequently used in homes, schools, hospitals, and in pet collars. More than 20 million pounds of Dursban are used annually in the United States, according to the EPA. The report laid out potential health risks, but did not indicate whether the agency planned to tighten use of Dursban, require new labels alerting consumers to the risk, or phase it out. The agency will not make any final decision until summer. "This preliminary risk assessment indicates that risks from the use of chlorpyrifos in residential settings, as well as its risks to applicators, are of concern," the EPA was quoted as saying in a brief statement released to the press. Dow Chemical, in a letter to the EPA that was included in the report, said EPA's analysis was misleading and based on "fundamental errors" of science. "Three decades of use have shown that unless seriously misused, chlorpyrifos products have wide margins of safety that protect users and consumers, including infants and children," the letter also read. Dursban is one of Dow's biggest pesticide products. EPA's scientific analysis of Dursban is part of a mammoth project to check for harmful residue in food, drinking water and households from some 9,000 U.S. pesticides. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 21:54:45 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08281 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:54:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11003 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:32:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA10967 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:31:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sals (mp115.nc.rain.org [198.68.145.115]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E82EB61759; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 18:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00e801bf233f$66a71140$739144c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: , "Beth von Gunten" References: Subject: Re: Swiss farmers seek compensation for GE contamination of maize seed Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 18:29:37 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 51 probably caused by stray pollen during the growing season," says > Ulrich Schmidt, managing director of Pioneer in Buxtehude, Germany, can Pioneer really have it both ways saying not to worry about stray pollen and yet use that stray pollen excuse for the reason they sold contaminated seed? so does this mean any seed from Pioneer may be GE contaminated and those that don't want GE corn can not buy Pioneer because even they with all their talk about no cross pollnation are so full of it, that they can not keep their own seed non GE. It is too bad that a big company like Pioneer sells GE contaminated maize seed to folks that say please don't sell us any GE contamination maize. how long before the whole earth is contaminated? is the barn door open who opened it? ----- Original Message ----- From: Beth von Gunten To: ; Sent: Saturday, October 30, 1999 4:42 PM Subject: Swiss farmers seek compensation for GE contamination of maize seed > [In response to Sal's query from a couple days ago:] > > Swiss soiled seed prompts tolerance question > by Ingeborg Furst > Nature Biotechnology, Volume 17 / July 1999 Page 629 > > On July 1, the Swiss government's tolerance standard for genetic purity > of food comes into effect. Switzerland is the first country in Europe to > set a limit for genetic contamination, but current controversy over > genetically contaminated corn seeds highlights the urgent EU-wide need > for such a standard for crops. > > In May, it was discovered by the Swiss Department of Agriculture > (Budesamt fur Landwirtschaft; Bern) and the district president of > Baden-Wurtlemberg (Tubingen, Germany) that Pioneer Hi-Bred's (Des > Moines, IA) nongenetically modified corn seed varieties, Ulla and > Benicia, actually contained novel genes from a variety of corn > genetically modified to be resistant to the corn borer, Bacillus > thuringiensis. > > Contamination of the seeds, which were harvested in the United States, > was "probably caused by stray pollen during the growing season," says > Ulrich Schmidt, managing director of Pioneer in Buxtehude, Germany, > which represents the grain manufacturer in Switzerland. It is likely > that incorporation of pollen from GM varieties into Ulla and Benicia > occurred this way because "Pioneer does not offer a commercial GM > variety of Ulla or Benicia." > > Before the contamination was discovered, Pioneer had sold enough Ulla > and Benicia seeds to sow 400 hectares (roughly 0.5% of total corn > cultivation in Switzerland), about 200 hectares of which had already > been planted. > > Estimates of the amount of genetic contamination of non-GM DNA by GM DNA > vary between 0.1 and 0.5%-- respectively below the limit set in both > countries for contamination resulting from physical mixing of varieties. > Under German and Swiss seed market laws, this "technical" contamination > with seed from weed and other varieties can be as high as 3% and 5%, > respectively. > > But because there are no tolerance standards set for genetic purity, the > contaminated Pioneer seeds are not approved for release into the > environment, and planting therefore infringes the Swiss environment > conservation law (Umweltschutzgesetz), as well as violating the German > gene technology law (Gentechnikgesetz). As a result, the Swiss > Department of Agriculture (Bundesamt fur Landwirtschaft, Bern) has > prohibited the import and trade of contaminated Ulla and Benicia and has > ordered the destruction of any already sown. > > However, Pioneer and the entire grain industry are not able to guarantee > the genetic purity of their conventional non-GM varieties, says Schmidt. > "Genetic inserts are in the nature of things," agrees Rainer Linneweber, > spokesperson for Novartis Seed (Bad Salzuflen, Germany). "Despite our > high-level quality management and our ISO certification, even a 100% > [technical] purity for conventional seed is utopian," he adds. But > although the Swiss government has now set a 1% tolerance standard for > genetic contamination of food, such a standard for crops remains absent. > > In the meantime, both Switzerland and Germany have analyzed the > contaminated seed: The Swiss Department of Agriculture could detect by > PCR the presence but not the amount of DNA sequences from GM corn > varieties. But analysis ordered by the Baden-Wurttemberg district has > called two specific GM varieties into question &endash; one from Pioneer > and one from another unnamed grain manufacturer, according to Grit > Puchan, spokesperson for the Baden-Wurttemberg district. > > "We still need to clarify whether or not these GM-corn seed varieties > have been granted marketing approval in the EU and subsequently in > Germany," says Puchan. If they have, the release of their contaminants > would already be approved under the existing EU 90/220 directive. In > this case, Pioneer must simply label the seeds accordingly to satisfy > German authorities, says Edgar Muschketat, spokesperson for the > Berlin-based Robert-Koch-Institut, which approves the release of GMOs > into the environment. > > But this question is irrelevant, according to Hans-Georg Dederer, jurist > at the Institute for Public Law at the University of Bonn, who says a > loophole in the law means that genetically contaminated seeds need no > special approval under 90/220. "A crop genetically modified by stray > pollen is not a product within the meaning of 90/220, because 'product' > implies a willful preparation," he says. > > Meanwhile, a "witch hunt-like atmosphere" reigns in Switzerland, says > Klaus Ammann, director of the Botanic Garden at the University of Bern > and member of the Commission for Biosafety (Kommission fur biologische > Sicherheit). But although some corn fields have been destroyed by fire > or herbicides, many farmers (mainly in western Switzerland) refuse to > destroy the corn until Pioneer and the Swiss government agree to > compensate them. In addition, the Swiss farmers' association > (Schweizerischer Bauernverband) is deciding whether to file a class > action lawsuit against Pioneer (via the Swiss seed importer), and > Pioneer is considering halting sales via the Swiss seed importer to > farmers in Switzerland. > > As Nature Biotechnology was going to press, the Swiss seed importer Eric > Schweizer Samen AG agreed to pay farmers 700 Swiss Francs per hectare. > > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 31 09:17:06 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12018 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:17:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29948 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:50:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from envsci.rutgers.edu (envsci.rutgers.edu [165.230.5.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA29935 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:50:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from bermuda-asy-17.rutgers.edu (bermuda-asy-17.rutgers.edu [128.6.248.145]) by envsci.rutgers.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA02657; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:44:33 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: envsci.rutgers.edu: bermuda-asy-17.rutgers.edu [128.6.248.145] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <381C71A4.5DC1@envsci.rutgers.edu> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:43:16 -0800 From: Loren Muldowney Reply-To: loscott@envsci.rutgers.EDU Organization: Individual X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet , Organic Gardening List Subject: Mulch: Forwarding thanks from Peace Corps-Africa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 52 Greetings from the gambia. My name is Zachary Maichuk, the PCV Loren has been so generous to help out. I just wanted to thank you personally for all of the information you have sent me. Hopefully, I can pass it on effectively. sincerely, Zachary Maichuk To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 31 13:33:59 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14157 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA26175 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:03:45 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26171 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:03:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.82] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:01:03 -0600 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:59:52 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <0541.991031@acnet.net> To: mmiller@pcsia.com CC: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re[2]: Hybrid to OP Corn? In-reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991030115815.007d2770@pcsia.com> References: <3.0.6.32.19991030115815.007d2770@pcsia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 53 (somewhat long) Saturday, October 30, 1999, 10:58:15 AM, you wrote: > At 22:28 29-10-99 -0600, you wrote: >>MM> so why not develop our own open pollinated >>MM> types that works best in our own area? >> >>There you go. You also want to develop a communications network, >>data bank and seed exchange program among them. You want to follow >>all the results with data collection and make that readily >>available. The protocols shouldn't be that hard to come up with. >>I'll even bet there are existing governmental (or non-governmental) >>support programs that would fund this. MM> Douglas, there is an organization here in Iowa called the Seed MM> Saver's Exchange located in Decorah. I will have to join this MM> group and see what I can learn. Perfect. MM> I just read the relevant sections in the Seed Saver's of Texas MM> booklet called the Vegetable Seed Saver's Handbook. Here is a MM> quote "Just as tradtitional Mexican farmers have learned to MM> naturally hybridize their corn plants with teosinte to increase MM> vigor, home gardeners can hybridize their own favorite plants to MM> increase the vigor and diversity of their seed stock. By allowing MM> varieties to 'hybridize' or cross-pollinate, new populations with MM> more diverse gene pools can be produced." It goes on to say the MM> you can then regrow and select for desirable traits and even MM> stress the plants to select for say drought resistance. That all sounds good, except that I don't know how many traditional Mexican farmers are around any more. Some of the folks that farm in the rural areas probably still save seed from the varieties that they have improved and that have always worked from them, and most plant more than one variety, in order to hedge their bets in relation to the weather and have sweet corn over a longer period of time (there's not much corn planted specifically / exclusively to sweet corn in the hills) but the big growers that live in the cities and grow larger mechanized fields on the plains probably buy their seed from Pioneer and DeKalb etc. >>MM> What if every farmer devoted, say 2 acres to his own research? >>You MM> would not lose the odd 20-70 dollars an acre from growing a >>MM> regular crop and with a little of your own work, you would have >>MM> the potential to save money in the long run. That's for sure. But I say that there should be an attempt to institute a coordinated effort among farmers. It would be faster and more efficient to spread the research load out among many growers, and tabulate the results. The collaboration and the involvement in the identification and / or development of good, locally adapted varieties would foment both the kind of collective culture and self reliance that the world and everyone in it needs. >>A lot of money, and get better results. And when you make your own >>mistakes (assuming you will, to some degree) you have a better >>chance of learning from that and correcting them. MM> When you think about it, it appears to be a daunting task but that MM> really is because at least in this country we have come to think MM> everything should be right now and not require hard work. I need MM> to adopt the poverb from somewhere that I heard, the longest MM> journey starts with a single step and not worry about the long MM> term. You don't have to wait to start, and every day's effort adds a little more toward getting closer to the end. I think the major difference is that virtually everything done in the US is done through someone else (i.e. a corporation or "professional" that makes a living at it, tries to corner the market and creates a framework that in and of itself contains and furthers many assumptions that serve to create a dependency), rather than in a self reliant way, supported by a culture that supports and provides the basis for that. There are many exceptions, of course. The tools are there and more accessible than in many (if not most) other places (i.e. the libraries, cheap and plentiful internet access, good highways - which are some of the things I like best about the US. Focus groups like sanet also provide an important means of gaining competence in a given field. But these are just means - people have to decide to use them and actually do it). Land is expensive though, in many parts of the U.S.; although credit is more easily available and cheaper than in many countries. >> What does the the Farm Bureau do? (Is that the name of the >>largest farmers organization in the US)? Can existing organizations >>take this up or does it take something new? MM> Not the Farm Bureau. Here is a intro/ending from an article in The MM> Progressive Populist, a populist newpaper published in Iowa. The MM> author of this is from the Nebraska Farmer's Union. MM> "The Farm Bureau, at both state and national levels, vigorously MM> promoted the farm and trade policies ... which are devastating the MM> family farm system of agriculture today. ... (some talk about MM> replacing crop price supports with subidized crop insurance - of MM> which the Farm Bureau controls about 1/3 of market) ... Whay does MM> the Farm Bureau favor policies which work against the interest of MM> farmers? Follow the crop insurance money trail, and the answer MM> emerges ..." I don't know. At the beginning of the decade, before Nafta had been approved, I was invited to an event in Guadalajara that had a number of speakers and the main speaker was an Adjunct Director of (I'm pretty sure) the Farm Bureau. He outlined what the position of the Farm Bureau was in relation to Nafta. Right away I could see what had to be done, and I verified this by talking briefly with this person after the event. (He was very cautious in his responses, as I was with my probing, but my evaluation of things stood up). It is absolutely indispensable to be well informed about the available production options available in a given area, the cost of each and the relevant market conditions. You also need to know the direction that the market is heading and above all, to what kind of person are directing your product. Ideally, it will be someone much like yourself, so that the process will be intuitive to a high degree, leaving just the need to establish contact and maintain constant feedback mechanisms working The bad part is that apparently not enough people have understood the nature of the opportunity nor the limited nature of the threat. Down here particularly, in many cases the traditional way of doing things simply won't cut it anymore. In each and every region, people need to be aware of the areas where they can and can't compete effectively, and how to do it. Costs are just part of the picture, although obviously an important part. MM> Greed and money as usual but "That's America" as Arlo Gutherie MM> says in one of his songs. The various Farmer's Unions might be MM> able to help but they are too small and farmer's are too MM> independent and vote mostly Repbulican, the very party that is MM> screwing them over. It's almost like an abusive personal MM> relationship but the pot is boiling now and for most non-corporate MM> farms, it is too late. The chicken and hogs serfs are being joined MM> by the cattle and grain serfs and so the take over will be MM> complete. It won't be complete until the only source of life is in the hands of these corporate conglomerates, which tend to leave a lot of room for other and better offers (not because the conglomerates want that, but because they are often incapable of even understanding just what it is that people really need. They try to create the impression that they're giving the public what it want's and some even seem to believe their own lies - Hi Dale - when what they are really doing is trying to convince people to buy a proprietary product that is neither needed nor recommendable. [Dale, I suggest forming a joint venture with others here and elsewhere to develop and really give the farmers that share these concerns, products that meet their needs, as they themselves understand them. Consultancy and facilitating the availability of appropriate inputs will probably play a greater role here than occurs with conventional seed companies, and help with marketing could also be offered. Anyone else interested]? The lie is so blatant that the only hope these corporations have requires stifling "truth in labeling" initiatives and bullying entire governments into turning against the will and best interests of their own constituents, through the the intervention of "free" or "world" trade organizations. (There is nothing inherently wrong with free or world trade or with having organizations that promote it. What's wrong is the way that some of these organizations are controlled and being used by vested and highly localized interests to further their own devious ends, that run in conflict with nature, biological evolution, a healthy biosphere, the public good etc. The rest of us have to organize too, but in a loose and independent way, rather than in the dominating, controlling, insidious, militaristic and ludicrously propagandistic way that the new chemical / agrochemical / seed conglomerates are trying to go about it. However, this time they have bitten off more than they can chew and the stage is set for better alternatives on a large scale. It will have to begin small of course, and already has. We're part of it). MM> Sorry to end on such a depressing note but until "democracy and MM> legislation are not bought with monopoly campaign dollars" we are MM> in for a rough ride. MM> Mike Miller It helps to know which battles have to waged. The thing to is go ahead with it all. Rough rides require rougher riders. And it's not that rough to do things right, particularly when you are eating well. That's a tremendous advantage, in and of itself. Douglas Hinds, CeDeCoR, A.C. dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net (The m is for Miller, btw - my middle name, & my mother's maiden name). I am going to go ahead and post this, assuming that's fine with you. Maybe more will decide to get involved, or do it on their own. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 31 13:47:34 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14271 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:47:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA10805 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:25:01 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10698 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:24:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw1.phibred.com (firewall-user@fw1.phibred.com [204.233.143.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA01443 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:23:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by fw1.phibred.com; id MAA19096; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:23:04 -0600 Received: from orion.phibred.com(170.54.241.13) by fw1.phibred.com via smap (V4.2) id xma018951; Sun, 31 Oct 99 12:22:18 -0600 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:22:18 -0600 Message-ID: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC9@vela.phibred.com> From: "Wilson, Dale" To: Sanet Subject: RE: chlorpyrifos Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:22:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 54 Loren, Roberto, and Mark, Loren wrote: > Apparently, the clear evidence of chemical trespass itself is > disregarded as being in the category of things we call > "a problem." Roberto wrote: > I find such cavalier attitude towards chemical contamination > quite incredible. Mark wrote: > Anything showing up in our bodies uninvited is a violation of > both property rights and human rights. First, I don't think you folks have an appreciation of just how sensitive modern quantitative analysis really is. At a sufficiently low level of contamination, this controversy devolves into theoretical hair-splitting. Second, society subjects all of us to all kinds of risks. Ordinary risks we accept without second thought are a lot bigger than pesticide risk (as far as I can tell). Third, we constantly ingest all manner of toxic substances that occur naturally. To a large extent, the function of kidneys and liver is to detoxify and/or eliminate these things. One of the reasons chlorpyrifos is relatively safe is that it is excreted rapidly. In the context of general chemical risk, it may not be that important. Lester forwarded: > Blurred vision, muscle weakness, headaches and problems with > memory, depression and irritability have been linked to large > amounts of exposure to Dow Chemical's Dursban... > The EPA analysis found exposure to Dursban on the skin, in food, > or by inhaling it could be harmful to human health... So...what else is new? Everybody knows this. > The report laid out potential health risks, but did not indicate > whether the agency planned to tighten use of Dursban, require new > labels alerting The press release is just spin, based on some routine EPA report. It may be that some uses like flea collars and in-home application should be banned. Is there a link to the EPA report, or some reliable source of technical information? Dale To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 31 14:08:02 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14430 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:08:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24690 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:42:12 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24594 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:42:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw1.phibred.com (firewall-user@fw1.phibred.com [204.233.143.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA01685 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:40:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by fw1.phibred.com; id MAA23528; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:40:14 -0600 Received: from orion.phibred.com(170.54.241.13) by fw1.phibred.com via smap (V4.2) id xma023450; Sun, 31 Oct 99 12:39:57 -0600 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:39:56 -0600 Message-ID: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFCA@vela.phibred.com> From: "Wilson, Dale" To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Cc: "'Charles Benbrook'" Subject: RE: Pioneer Policy re GMOs and Non-GMOs Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:39:50 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 55 Chuck, > On the first and second issue, it is clear on the Pioneer Iowa > corn hybrid page that some of the non-engineered base genetic > hybrids are not offered in 1999-2000. The industry was taken by surprise by the anti-GMO sentiment. I think that in some cases the expectation was that farmers would not want the non-GMO hybrid, if they could get the GMO version (which we tend to regard as better, in general). So sometimes companies didn't plan to offer the non-GMO variety, at least not in any quantity. We estimate demand 2 or 3 years in advance, to produce sufficent parent seed, so it will not be surprising if the industry is short on some popular non-GMO hybrids. > If there is an overall nationwide shortage of non-GMO varieties > next year, we will also hear about this and there will be consequences > and the seed companies will have to respond. There is probably a lot of non-gmo seed around. It might be hard to specifically get the non-gmo version of your favorite GMO hybrid in some cases though. > non-GMO genetics is also pretty obvious in most cases, since most GMO > hybrid designations are simply tacked onto the non-GMO variety -- for > example, DK471 -- the modifier "IMI" for imidazolinone herbicide > tolerance I don't think that (most ?) IMI corns are transgenic. I believe they were developed by ordinary crossing and selection. Dale To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 31 19:34:49 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA18133 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:34:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA06215 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:42:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from po3.wam.umd.edu (po3.wam.umd.edu [128.8.10.165]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA06037 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:41:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from rac2.wam.umd.edu (root@rac2.wam.umd.edu [128.8.10.142]) by po3.wam.umd.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08396 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:49:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from rac2.wam.umd.edu (sendmail@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rac2.wam.umd.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA08804 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:49:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (jgruv@localhost) by rac2.wam.umd.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08800 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:49:56 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rac2.wam.umd.edu: jgruv owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:49:56 -0500 (EST) From: Joel Brooks Gruver To: sanet Subject: Dick and Sharon Thompson's "problem child" In-Reply-To: <381A0DD8.F951988F@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 56 Hello to all... Last night, I was browsing an old issue of the Journal of Agronomic Education (~ 1991, so it may have been the newly named incarnation) and read a case study article titled "Dick and Sharon Thompson's problem child". The article was presented in the form of a case study that one would discuss with undergrad agronomy students or crop consultants in training. The case study presented that after ~20 years of organic integrated livestock and row crop production, the Thompsons decided that they had to start banding muriate of potash (KCl) to alleviate K deficiency. Tissue tests of their corn indicated a serious K deficiency but soil tests indicated K levels that were more than adequate. Since adopting organic management practices in 1969, the Thompsons had not applied any salt fertilizers but had ammended all fields with manure from their integrated cattle operation. For a number of years, they composted the manure prior to field application but eventually decided to abandon composting. Despite the fact that their soil test K levels had increased during their 20 years of organic management, something was causing their crops to become increasing K deficient. The article indicated that following the initiation of KCl banding, crops did show a yield response in most fields but continued to have low tissue levels of K. The article suggested that the Thompson's ridge tillage system may have been partly responsible for the unsual K dynamics. Sooo... ~ 7 years have gone by since this article was written... I am wondering whether the Thompsons have resolved or continued to struggle with their "K problem child" and/or what mechanisms were underlying the problem... Can anyone enlighten me ? Joel Gruver Center for Agriculture, Food and Environment Tufts University To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 31 19:35:14 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA18144 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:35:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA06888 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:46:19 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA06714 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:45:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.iatp.org (iatp-2.InnovSoftD.com [208.141.36.66]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04780 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:12:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from markbert ([152.172.213.208]) by mail.iatp.org (Netscape Messaging Server 3.62) with SMTP id 268; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:18:39 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991031161327.00b7f720@mail.iatp.org> X-Sender: mritchie@mail.iatp.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:13:27 -0600 To: "Wilson, Dale" , Sanet From: "Mark Ritchie" Subject: RE: chlorpyrifos In-Reply-To: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC9@vela.phibred.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 57 Hello, Maybe I wasn't clear. If a corporation puts something into my body that is not invited it is a violation of property rights and human rights. It should and will be litigated like tobacco and bullets. Those that have died will not see any benefit. Those that have been maimed may be compensated but not heal. Those conceived but not born may see some reduction over their lifetime and those not yet conceived will still be affected over several generations. It should be quite an interesting process of determining the damages. Sincerely, Mark Ritchie Some people will go to jail and=At 12:22 PM 10/31/99 -0600, Wilson, Dale wrote: >Loren, Roberto, and Mark, > >Loren wrote: >> Apparently, the clear evidence of chemical trespass itself is >> disregarded as being in the category of things we call >> "a problem." > >Roberto wrote: >> I find such cavalier attitude towards chemical contamination >> quite incredible. > >Mark wrote: >> Anything showing up in our bodies uninvited is a violation of >> both property rights and human rights. > >First, I don't think you folks have an appreciation of just how sensitive >modern quantitative analysis really is. At a sufficiently low level of >contamination, this controversy devolves into theoretical hair-splitting. > >Second, society subjects all of us to all kinds of risks. Ordinary risks we >accept without second thought are a lot bigger than pesticide risk (as far >as I can tell). > >Third, we constantly ingest all manner of toxic substances that occur >naturally. To a large extent, the function of kidneys and liver is to >detoxify and/or eliminate these things. One of the reasons chlorpyrifos is >relatively safe is that it is excreted rapidly. In the context of general >chemical risk, it may not be that important. > >Lester forwarded: >> Blurred vision, muscle weakness, headaches and problems with >> memory, depression and irritability have been linked to large >> amounts of exposure to Dow Chemical's Dursban... >> The EPA analysis found exposure to Dursban on the skin, in food, >> or by inhaling it could be harmful to human health... > >So...what else is new? Everybody knows this. > >> The report laid out potential health risks, but did not indicate >> whether the agency planned to tighten use of Dursban, require new >> labels alerting > >The press release is just spin, based on some routine EPA report. It may be >that some uses like flea collars and in-home application should be banned. >Is there a link to the EPA report, or some reliable source of technical >information? > >Dale > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". >To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > >All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: >http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > Mark Ritchie, President Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 2105 First Ave. South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 USA 612-870-3400 (phone) 612-870-4846 (fax) mritchie@iatp.org www.iatp.org To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 31 20:24:24 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18588 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 20:24:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15513 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:09:09 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from sscntex.ssc.msu.edu (ssc.msu.edu [35.8.70.66]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15495 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:09:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by SSCNTEX with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:08:09 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Harris, Craig" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, "'Bluestem Associates'" Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:08:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 58 it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of problems with certification . . . . first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that usda develop a national program of standards setting and certification . . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and signed by the president, not with the usda-ams implementation of the legislation second, when the first draft of the proposed implementation was released for review last year, one of the major criticisms was that the cost of certification would be unduly burdensome for small organic farmers . . . it seems to me that a cost-share arrangement addresses that criticism . . . if one is going to be critical of the cost-sharing proposals, i think one has to suggest ways in which they can be revised (or alternatives implemented) which at the same time mitigate the undue cost burden cheers, craig craig k harris department of sociology michigan state university 429b berkey hall east lansing michigan 48824-1111 tel: 517-355-5048 fax: 517-432-2856 > ---------- > From: Bluestem Associates[SMTP:bluestem@webserf.net] > Reply To: Bluestem Associates > Sent: Saturday 30 October 1999 10:34 AM > To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Proposed organic cost share program > > On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 08:53:36 EDT, Erorganic@aol.com wrote: > > >Before signing on to letters to the Agricultural Marketing Service of > USDA > >supporting an organic cost share program for certification, it appears to > me > >members of the organic community should supply some thoughtful analysis > of > >its implications and possible effects on certified organic farmers and > >handlers. > > >My concerns are gargantuan. > > Eric and I frequently disagree. Not this time. > > He who pays the piper, calls the tune. It would be entirely consistent > with past bureaucratic motives if the purpose of this was simply to > make certified farmers more dependent on bureaucrats, thereby > securinging the bureaucrats' jobs in this little developing empire at > the National Organic Program. > > >The Agricultural Marketing Service appears to > >have proposed the organic certification cost share program. > > The cynical side of me sees this as a means of gaining more control > over FVO and OCIA particularly, as these are both "high standards" > programs, neither of which (to my knowledge) has ever taken a nickel of > government money. We can't have such important programs so immune to > our control, now, can we ...? > > In a private message to Anita Graf answering her question to me about > how it is that Canada --- with its rather tight controls on election > expenditures, PACs and such --- can still have so much of the same > problems of favoritism, croneyism, special deals and so on, I said, > > ++Same shenanigans, same waste, same corruption as in the US. Most of > the > ++dirty work is done within the bureaucracy, as it is in the US. > > Bureaucrats are generally invisible, unavailable, and unaccountable. > They can do a lot of good, and many are unsung heroes. More often they > do an amazing amount of anonymous harm. > > >The money ultimately ends up going > >first to certified farmers [snip] and then is passed > >back to the Agricultural Marketing Service as fees for accreditation by > them. > > In fact the proposed organic cost share program is another way to use > tax > >money to support the Agricultural Marketing Service National Organic > Program. > > In a time of tight budgets, bureaucrats are as nervous as a long-tailed > cat in a room full of rocking chairs... the most effective way to > raise taxes is through all sorts of hidden fees, especially if they > come direct to your little domain. > > > >In the Midwest at least we have large numbers of farmers coming to > >certification agency meetings wanting to sell crops as "organically > produced" > >for the increased income earning potential. This is a trend that has > >increased markedly every year for 4 years now. Almost none of these > farmers > >have become really familiar with the principals, practices or system of > >organic farming. There main objective is increase farm income. Such a > >proposed organic cost share program will only increase the number of > farmer > >applicants with very little increase in applicant knowledge of organic > >farming. > > Very sadly, Eric, you understate the case. I see these guys all the > time as an inspector. Just one example, from your state of Iowa... > > Conventional farmer with many hundreds of acres in heavy duty corn > (anhydrous, etc). He had 130 acres (55 ha) that had been in the federal > Conservation Reserve Program (at a tidy annual rent) for ten years. The > whole thing was planted to food soybeans for 1999, which he wanted > certified. The entire 130 acres was going to go *back* into CRP in > 2000. In the course walking the field it became obvious to me that he > had used herbicide(s) --- probably Pinnacle and Pursuit --- on the > whole field. He didn't get certified, but I'll bet there are a lot more > out there like him, and some of them *do* get certified. > > The real weak link in the whole system right now is INSPECTION. Many > inspectors do not have practical production experience or knowledge. > Relatively few have any understanding of *conventional* production --- > its methods, its materials, and (above all) its *attitudes.* Increasing > the number of applicants by encouraging them with subsidies is > potentially disastrous for the little credibility remaining in the > industry. > > The organic industry has largely done this to itself, with its slavish > and anal-retentive preoccupation with *materials* rather than farm > systems. It simply doesn't take as much understanding of agriculture to > haggle over materials as it does to codify the irreducible minimum of a > healthy system management. > > Because it's easier for programs (and bureaucrats) to haggle over > materials, we have ironically undermined the entire inspection process. > Inspecting for materials use is *NOT* easy. In fact, it is probably the > most difficult aspect of the entire system to monitor. There are farms > I *know* got sprayed within hours of when I headed down the lane for my > next inspection. > > What really matters is how the whole system is put together and > managed. That is difficult to codify, but once codified is relatively > easy to inspect, even for inspectors of modest ability. There is > absolutely no way, for example, that I could determine whether or not > an applicant as used 25 kg/ha of Chilean nitrate, or 125 kg/ha, other > than to trust his answer. That standard, therefore, is un-inspectable, > un-verifiable, and thereby useless. > > What is *easy* to inspect is whether or not there is at least 25% > legume sod in the rotation, and whether or not the applicant has a > *written* management protocol for standard materials and procedures > used in that particular operation. Less than 2% of the farms I > inspected in 1999 had a written protocol for mineral fertility > management, even though it is clearly required in the standards. If you > think that doesn't matter, go back to the archives and review my > comments about soil minerals and crop quality from about 3 weeks ago. > > The key questions are: > > a) Is this system designed and managed so as maximise system health > and crop quality; > > b) Is it designed and managed to minimise the need for chemical > inputs; > > c) Is this management protocol documented and followed, and > > d) Is there a chain of custody guaranteeing that the harvest has not > been contaminated or co-mingled. > > > Having de-emphasised these most important managerial elements (which > are the *easiest* to inspect), and having over-emphasised materials > (which are very difficult to inspect), the organic business has left > itself extremely vulnerable. Federal cost sharing and the resultant > influx of desperate conventional growers may well be all that is needed > to tip an already-unstable system into the abyss. > > >There is a question whether large numbers of new "cost share" applicants > for > >organic farming certification will not stimulate oversupply of organic > >product. Every since passage of the Organic Foods Production Act, staff > of > >the Agricultural Marketing Service have been trying to expand organic > markets > >for us, expand organic supply for us. That is not their mandate under > OFPA. > >Let the markets and supply expand without, absolutely without, Federal > >government intervention. All such intervention twist the internally, > >continually re-balancing organic supply and demand system in directions > that > >are simply un-natural, not "organic." > > This is an additional cause for concern, but if the inspectability > problem isn't resolved, it may not matter. There are inspectors (and > certification committee members) out here with enough concrete examples > to seriously damage the demand side of "organic" equation in the course > of a single interview on '60-minutes.' > > Bart > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Sun Oct 31 23:14:32 1999 -0500 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA19787 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:14:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24804 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:51:07 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mayumi.iphil.net (rufino2.gw.iphil.net [203.176.0.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24709 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:51:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mayumi.iphil.net (8.8.7/8.8.8) with UUCP id LAA31422; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:45:36 +0800 Received: (from uu1@localhost) by phil.gn.apc.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) with UUCP id MAA03312; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:28:26 +0800 From: Roberto Verzola Message-Id: <199911010428.MAA03312@phil.gn.apc.org> Date: 30 Oct 99 13:22:57 Subject: Re: Do-it-yourself corn breeding To: WILSONDO@phibred.com Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 59 >Okay, Okay! lets deal with this head on. If I am smart and organized >enough to come up with superior varieties, what is wrong with my >protecting them from people who would steal them? Don't I have a >right to earn a living? Yes, it is good to deal with this issue head on. What do you mean, steal them? You took the varieties from the public pool, didn't you? Once you release your breeding results, they're back to the public pool, and the public is entitled to use them. That's what all farmers have been doing. Earning a living has nothing to do with stealing from the public pool. Roberto To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 10:06:46 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25060 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:06:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01734 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:45:25 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail1.uts.ohio-state.edu (mail1.uts.ohio-state.edu [128.146.214.30]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01727 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:45:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from uoguelph.ca ([128.146.210.212]) by mail1.uts.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA08008 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:43:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <381DB4E6.A7A9CF99@uoguelph.ca> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 09:42:31 -0600 From: "E. Ann Clark" Organization: University of Guelph X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: [Fwd: no-till] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------162DDF1FA7157919879D8E54" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------162DDF1FA7157919879D8E54 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks: FYI. Ann Maroc wrote: > Good article in April 1999 Canadian Cattlemen on Manitoba farmer who > switched from 2,700 ac of zero-till wheat and durum, to 560 ac of pasture, > grazing 1,100 stockers. > > Don Maroc > Vancouver Island, Canada --------------162DDF1FA7157919879D8E54 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.cs.uoguelph.ca (inbound.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.96.75]) by pobox.cs.uoguelph.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA16699 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:45:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.islandnet.com (mail.islandnet.com [199.175.106.4]) by mailhub.cs.uoguelph.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA21315 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [199.175.106.44] [199.175.106.50] by mail.islandnet.com with smtp id m11hRK1-0006f2C for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:45:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: maroc@mail.islandnet.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:48:27 +0000 To: eaclark@uoguelph.ca From: maroc@islandnet.com (Maroc) Subject: no-till Good article in April 1999 Canadian Cattlemen on Manitoba farmer who switched from 2,700 ac of zero-till wheat and durum, to 560 ac of pasture, grazing 1,100 stockers. Don Maroc Vancouver Island, Canada --------------162DDF1FA7157919879D8E54-- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 10:44:52 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25885 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:44:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18653 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:23:30 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18585 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:23:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from sals (maxmp-136.rain.org [198.68.144.136]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E8E4861742; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <006601bf247c$c139d280$889044c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: "Harris, Craig" , , "'Bluestem Associates'" References: Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:21 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 61 ----- Original Message ----- From: Harris, Craig To: ; 'Bluestem Associates' Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 2:08 PM Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program > it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of > problems with certification . . . . > > first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that USDA develop > a national program of standards setting and certification . . . if one has > disagreements with those two objectives, then one's disagreements are with > the legislation as passed by congress and signed by the president, not with > the USDA-ams implementation of the legislation calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy now I pay a certifier, a inspector ,the state of Ca. etc how many pencil pushing bureaucrats do I have to pay off just for telling the truth and they all require paper work and can all charge me what they want. whats with that. no one can tell you what you will have to pay to be organic because every one charges what they want and u have to pay. it's a rip off there are too many folks NOW with their hands in our pockets now. I can't afford to give all these folks money now. the organic tax is a rip off. > second, when the first draft of the proposed implementation was released for > review last year, one of the major criticisms was that the cost of > certification would be unduly burdensome for small organic farmers . . . it > seems to me that a cost-share arrangement addresses that criticism . . . if > one is going to be critical of the cost-sharing proposals, i think one has > to suggest ways in which they can be revised (or alternatives implemented) > which at the same time mitigate the undue cost burden easy take the burden off the backs of the growers. they are paying to much now. why do I have to pay a certifier and the state of Ca. both for the same thing and why should I pay the USDA for the same thing I am paying everyone else for. why do I have to give paper work to the state and be inspected by the state and the certifier and pay them both for the same dam thing. its a big rip off NOW and the USDA are talking about adding to the burden not lifting it. I say let those that are lying pay and those that are telling the truth not pay this whole thing is a rip off. Mafia protection money . you get a letter from the state of Ca. ok your organic now you have to pay us every year and kiss up to us and the certifier sends a letter ok your organic now You have to pay us every year year after year and the inspector sends us a bill yes you are organic now you have to pay me every year year after year for the rest of your life . I know I am organic what did i get from all this nothing but a stinking little piece of paper more work. more bosses more slavemasters now the USDA want to get into the act. ok your organic now every year year after year after year you have to pay us. bull shit how many pencil pushing bottom feeders do u have to pay off to tell the truth organic Gestapo extortion force labor slavery the Mafia won they are now the Government and they got the organic grower by the cohoniess and all these folks can charge what every they want and we have to pay. I can go on and on . those that feel it know it. I say organic growers should not have to pay one cent more than any other grower to grow and sell their crops and if they are organic they should be able to tell anyone the truth. if the USDA wants to set a standard let them if the USDA wants to regulate certifiers let them but don't tax the organic grower for doing the good that he knows. Its too much now not one more cent I need my money go rob someone else. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 12:16:56 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27899 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:16:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02173 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:48:23 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov (cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov [199.146.249.191]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02152 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:48:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from tn.nrcs.usda.gov by cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov with ESMTP (8.7.6/itc-cust.Revision: 1.11 $) id QAA01304; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:13:41 GMT Message-ID: <381DBC07.81379A41@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 10:12:55 -0600 From: mike richardson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; UNIX_SV 4.2MP i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: No-till Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 62 Great post, London! The tillage definitions you were asking about are (briefly) 1. No-till - minimizing seed bed preparation to just the cutting of a slit in the existing ground cover (sod, cover crop, last year's unincorporated crop residue), dropping the seed and pressing the slit closed with press wheels. This method can be used with or without chemicals, depending on other factors. 2. Minimum (reduced) tillage - shredding crop residues after harvest to provide ground cover during winter, followed by just enough tillage in the spring to allow seed drills proper access. Generally the term minimum tillage is used where at least 30% of the field surface is covered by last year's crop residue after planting of the new crop has been completed. There are several different methods of reduced tillage and specialized equipment for some of those methods. 3. Ridge tillage - using cultivating tools to create planting ridges a few inches higher than the between row area. Primarily used where soils have a hard time drying out in the spring in time to plant. The middles are often left with last year's crop residue as an additional protection against erosion. 4. Conventional tillage - plow, disk, spray, plant. Liked your description of the Soil Saver tillage tool. Sounds pretty much like the para plow. Strip cropping is and can be an effective erosion fighter, but is not always suitable to the terrain. For instance, it is used extensively in Wisconsin, but rarely anymore in Tennessee. Different terrain, different soils, different agriculture. Define marginal land. There is such a thing, but in between really marginal land and really good crop land there is a lot of land that could be defined either way, depending on your perspective. Lespedeza (sericea?) has been used successfully as a soil saver/builder. However, there are many other plant types available to farmers now that are easier to manage and provide more usable production. I do not recommend use of sericea anymore, like I did 20+ years ago. Gotta go. Son of Richard To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 12:36:16 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28290 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:36:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09667 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:00:08 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov (cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov [199.146.249.191]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09641 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:00:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from tn.nrcs.usda.gov by cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov with ESMTP (8.7.6/itc-cust.Revision: 1.11 $) id QAA01310; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:24:09 GMT Message-ID: <381DBEA7.737C8F58@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 10:24:08 -0600 From: mike richardson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; UNIX_SV 4.2MP i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: FYI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 63 North Dakota Chapter of SWCS Forum on Carbon Sequestration Bismarck, North Dakota December 8-9 Of interest to farmers, ranchers, industry, conservationists, environmentalists, and others interested in agriculture and its potential role in reducing CO2 and global warming. Open to the public. Registration fee: $45. Continuing education credits for Certified Crop Advisors available. Contact Jon Stika on (701) 225-5113 or at Information is also available on To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 13:01:41 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28681 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:01:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25239 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:33:26 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mesa.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (mesa.ACNS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.100.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25169 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:33:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from coop.ext.colostate.edu (coop.EXT.ColoState.EDU [129.82.139.50]) by mesa.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA39162; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:31:20 -0700 Received: from nrcs3.cohugo.fsc.usda.gov (nrcs3.cohugo.fsc.usda.gov [199.153.37.252]) by coop.ext.colostate.edu (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA14636; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:25:11 -0700 Message-Id: <199911011725.KAA14636@coop.ext.colostate.edu> From: "Will Arnold" To: "'Anita Graf (Staff)'" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, Walker Bennett Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:36:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: political change Reply-to: warnold@coop.ext.colostate.edu In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 64 A few years ago I heard someone on NPR relate how they thought if we moved the decision makers out of Washington D.C. and held legislative sessions every two years in different states we would remove much of the corruption we now face. I really liked the idea. The scerio would go something like this. For the House we elect representatives to serve four year terms, (Senate stays 6) butboth houses only meet every two years. Each state makes available on a rotational basis their state houses for a 12 week session. All business not accomplished would table over until next session. The President has the authority to call special sessions in times of dire need that would meet in D. C.. Committee work ( where I think the most damage is done anyway would begin over e-mail) and then the last four weeks of the normal yearly session (off year) would be devoted to this work in various sites around the U.S.. I don't know what we would do with all those buildings but maybe we could quit building new ones for quite some time and rent out the others for other purposes. Of course this is pie in the sky but I liked the concept. Will Will Arnold Regional Extension Specialist/RC&D Community Development P.O. Box 157 Hugo CO 80821 (719)743-2370 ext 112 warnold@coop.ext.colostate.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 13:02:06 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28689 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23685 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:29:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23668 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:29:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28137; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:27:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id MAA29701; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:27:58 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:27:58 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: Sal cc: "Harris, Craig" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, "'Bluestem Associates'" Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program In-Reply-To: <006601bf247c$c139d280$889044c6@rain.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 65 On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Sal wrote: > Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:21 -0800 > From: Sal > To: "Harris, Craig" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, 'Bluestem Associates' > Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Harris, Craig > To: ; 'Bluestem Associates' > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 2:08 PM > Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program > > > > it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of > > problems with certification . . . . > > > > first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that USDA > develop > > a national program of standards setting and certification . . . if one has > > disagreements with those two objectives, then one's disagreements are with > > the legislation as passed by congress and signed by the president, not > with > > the USDA-ams implementation of the legislation > > calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off > taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off > set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks > if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the > inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy > now I pay a certifier, a inspector ,the state of Ca. etc how many pencil > pushing bureaucrats do I have to pay off just for telling the truth and > they all require paper work and can all charge me what they want. whats > with that. no one can tell you what you will have to pay to be organic > because every one charges what they want and u have to pay. it's a rip off > there are too many folks NOW with their hands in our pockets now. > I can't afford to give all these folks money now. > the organic tax is a rip off. Right on, Sal! Keep shouting it out loud and clear. There _are_ folks listening! another organic small grower Lawrence Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 13:07:39 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28798 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:07:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01382 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:40:44 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov (cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov [199.146.249.191]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01375 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:40:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from tn.nrcs.usda.gov by cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov with ESMTP (8.7.6/itc-cust.Revision: 1.11 $) id RAA01512; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:06:13 GMT Message-ID: <381DC884.ACA363D0@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 11:06:12 -0600 From: mike richardson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; UNIX_SV 4.2MP i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: chlorpyrifos Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 66 Mark: You said "Maybe I wasn't clear. If a corporation puts something into my body that is not invited it is a violation of property rights and human rights. It should and will be litigated like tobacco and bullets. " Go ahead, and while you are at it sue all industries that have even the slightest emissions into the air or water, regardless of how well they conform to existing laws. Go after state and federal road programs too, especially in the areas where seams of Chattanooga shale have been exposed (natural radiation source). Lets back the EPA when they find the most miniscule traces of carcinogens (remember saccarin), regardless of whether they really pose an identifiable seriouse health risk. Farmers should be sued en mass since they contribute soil erosion pollution to the water and air no matter how conscientious they are. Your argument reminds me of the wildly disproportional response to the unfounded Alar scare. A lot of good people were hurt by the media's irresponsible "reporting" of a danger that never was. I'm sorry, but while I agree that we should find those things that truely pose a health threat and either stop or mitigate the problem, I have little patience with those that believe in a fairy tale environment that is all pure and good, or that finds enviromental boogymen hiding under the bed every night. Son of Richard To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 13:09:20 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28829 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:09:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29864 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:37:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29757 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:37:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28264; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:35:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id MAA29793; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:35:30 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:35:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: Sal cc: "Harris, Craig" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, "'Bluestem Associates'" Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program In-Reply-To: <006601bf247c$c139d280$889044c6@rain.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 67 On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Sal wrote: > Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:21 -0800 > From: Sal > Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program > > calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off > taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off A magnificent message from Sal! It could not have been said better. I hope all sanet subscribers read every word of it. It will have been worth it. He speaks the truth! The Devil take the petty system some would impose on the small organic grower. It goes against all reason and morality. Convinced, Lawrence Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 14:13:16 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00531 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:13:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23881 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:25:26 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23856 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:25:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.141] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:22:17 -0600 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:21:10 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <4514.991101@acnet.net> To: "Sal" CC: "Harris, Craig" , , "'Bluestem Associates'" Subject: Re[2]: Proposed organic cost share program In-reply-To: <006601bf247c$c139d280$889044c6@rain.org> References: <006601bf247c$c139d280$889044c6@rain.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 68 Hello Sal & all Sal was very eloquent and is totally right! OFPA is fundamentally wrong in mandating obligatory USDA Organic Certification. Once a decent Organic Rule has been developed and supported by the organic community, those that need it will adhere to it and participate; but USDA Organic Certification is going to have to be either non compulsory or unconstitutional. Let it rest on it's own merit and let the buyer insist on which certification program he, she or it requires, if any. Craig too is correct when he says: > first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that usda > develop a national program of standards setting and certification . > . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's > disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and > signed by the president, not with the usda-ams implementation of the > legislation Having been passed by congress and signed by the president does not make the obligatory aspect of USDA Organic Certification constitutional (much less necessary or fair), and Sal is right again when claiming that the $5000 limit for exemption is a "rip off". In fact, it's ridiculous and offensive. OFPA as written will either be amended or become bogged down in court. If implemented as it now reads, there will be serious liabilities generated that will have attended to at a high cost, in the end. Douglas Hinds Monday, November 01, 1999, 9:21:21 AM, you wrote: S> ----- Original Message ----- S> From: Harris, Craig S> To: ; 'Bluestem Associates' S> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 2:08 PM S> Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program >> it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of >> problems with certification . . . . >> >> first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that USDA S> develop a national program of standards setting and certification . S> . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's S> disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and S> signed by the president, not with the USDA-ams implementation of S> the legislation S> calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off S> taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off S> set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks S> if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the S> inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy S> now I pay a certifier, a inspector ,the state of Ca. etc how many pencil S> pushing bureaucrats do I have to pay off just for telling the truth and S> they all require paper work and can all charge me what they want. whats S> with that. no one can tell you what you will have to pay to be organic S> because every one charges what they want and u have to pay. it's a rip off S> there are too many folks NOW with their hands in our pockets now. S> I can't afford to give all these folks money now. S> the organic tax is a rip off. >> second, when the first draft of the proposed implementation was released S> for review last year, one of the major criticisms was that the cost of >> certification would be unduly burdensome for small organic farmers >> . . . S> it seems to me that a cost-share arrangement addresses that S> criticism . . . if one is going to be critical of the cost-sharing S> proposals, i think one has to suggest ways in which they can be S> revised (or alternatives implemented) which at the same time S> mitigate the undue cost burden S> easy take the burden off the backs of the growers. they are paying to much S> now. why do I have to pay a certifier and the state of Ca. both for the same S> thing and why should I pay the USDA for the same thing I am paying everyone S> else for. why do I have to give paper work to the state and be inspected by S> the state and the certifier and pay them both for the same dam thing. its a S> big rip off NOW and the USDA are talking about adding to the burden not S> lifting it. I say let those that are lying pay and those that are telling S> the truth not pay S> this whole thing is a rip off. Mafia protection money . you get a letter S> from the state of Ca. ok your organic now you have to pay us every year and S> kiss up to us and the certifier sends a letter ok your organic now You have S> to pay us every year year after year and the inspector sends us a bill yes S> you are organic now you have to pay me every year year after year for the S> rest of your life . I know I am organic what did i get from all this S> nothing but a stinking little piece of paper more work. more bosses more S> slavemasters now the USDA want to get into the act. ok your organic now S> every year year after year after year you have to pay us. bull shit how S> many pencil pushing bottom feeders do u have to pay off to tell the truth S> organic Gestapo S> extortion S> force labor S> slavery S> the Mafia won they are now the Government and they got the organic grower by S> the cohoniess and all these folks can charge what every they want and we S> have to pay. S> I can go on and on . those that feel it know it. S> I say organic growers should not have to pay one cent more than any other S> grower to grow and sell their crops and if they are organic they should be S> able to tell anyone the truth. if the USDA wants to set a standard let them S> if the USDA wants to regulate certifiers let them but don't tax the organic S> grower for doing the good that he knows. S> Its too much now S> not one more cent S> I need my money go rob someone else. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 14:14:56 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00562 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:14:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27936 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:36:19 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail3.uts.ohio-state.edu (mail3.uts.ohio-state.edu [128.146.214.32]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27889 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:36:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from uoguelph.ca ([128.146.210.212]) by mail3.uts.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29660 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:34:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <381DEB03.6166DEE4@uoguelph.ca> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 13:33:23 -0600 From: "E. Ann Clark" Organization: University of Guelph X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: chlorpyrifos References: <381DC884.ACA363D0@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 69 Mike, Mark and others: mike richardson wrote: > Mark: You said "Maybe I wasn't clear. If a corporation puts something into > my body that > is not invited it is a violation of property rights and human rights. It > should and will be litigated like tobacco and bullets. " > Then Mike said: > Go ahead, and while you are at it sue all industries that have even the > slightest emissions into the air or water, regardless of how well they > conform to existing laws. snip > Your argument reminds me of the wildly disproportional response to the > unfounded Alar scare. A lot of good people were hurt by the media's > irresponsible "reporting" of a danger that never was. Perhaps this is the point to recall that evocatively perceptive statement of William McDonough, Dean of Architecture at Virginia - "Regulations are an indication of design failure". He said that regulations were needed "so we didn't kill each other too quickly". And just think about how many regulations - and how much money is being wasted in managing, refining, and monitoring regulations - complicate our lives today.. Before you are tempted to pooh-pooh this as wishful utopian thinking, understand that McDonough also heads a design firm with clients who have a combined annual income of $400 billion - who pay him to bring his brilliance into action in their particular firm, whether it is a textile plant in Switzerland or Nike or Walmart in the US. He walks the walk. Look for his upcoming book - Cradle to Cradle. At any rate, all this talk about chlorpyrifos and Alar (which was NOT a hoax by the way; look at John Wargo's densely referenced text Our Children's Toxic Legacy. Yale Univ Press (1996) - he is a wild-eyed radical masquerading as a Yale university professor) is really rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I am reminded of Steingraber's powerful text Living Downstream, which drew its title from a hypothetical village, whose inhabitants noted an alarming increase in the number of drowning people floating by their village. They developed very elaborate and effective means of grabbing and resuscitating the victims, but were so busy doing so that they had no time to go upstream and see who was pushing them in. That's what all this verbage about chlorpyrifos et al. is about. Why should we (collectively, as a people) be allowing our creative energies to be sapped by this pinhead dancing (is 0.0001 picograms too much? how much more risk is 0.001 picograms?) when it would be so much more fruitful and life-enhancing to design and operate production systems that didn't create the niches allowing pests to proliferate to pestiferous proportions in the first place? It is the flawed system design (corn-soy-corn-soy-corn-soy) or 3000 cow dairies or megahog factories that has encouraged the slide into dependence on biocides. We know this. This is not rocket science. Yet we keep getting diverted into dead-end arguments and "it is toxic" or "it isn't toxic" or "risk is less than being struck by lightening" or whatever - instead of pulling back and asking the more fundamental questions - how to avoid the problems in the first place instead of using chemicals or ecologically deranged production practices to *fix* them after we've created them. We are talking about fixing self-created problems here. But is there another way? Can this be done? Of course it can - it is being implemented every day by farmers who farm using ecological principles - including but not limited to organic farmers - who probably never took a course in ecology. So, if it is so great, why isn't everyone doing this? Well the short answer is because systems that internalize costs of production (e.g. full cost accounting) simply have to *pay* more costs more than systems which externalize (don't pay) some of the true costs of production (in contaminated ground- and surface water, antibiotic resistant cattle, salmonella-contaminated chicken etc.). This puts the former at an economic disadvantage - until society realizes just how much damage is actually being done to them and calls us to task - which they are already doing. Look for more of this, in spades, in the near future.. Ecologically sound systems are also less dependent on input suppliers, which makes them a threat to those with a vested interest in ecologically unsound, inputs-based production systems. So, you won't see ecologically sound farmers between the covers of Fantazmagorical Farmer, in between the Pioneer and John Deere ads, and you will very likely find them the object of rejection and ridicule from their neighbors in the local coffee house. Negative peer pressure is a powerful disincentive to stepping over the traces and doing something differently. You don't imagine that Avery and the like are gearing up their anti-organic distribes just lately as a lark, do you? Count on more of this blather in the near future. Farmers who attempt to use ecologically sound design principles often don't have an easy time of getting guidance, assistance, or solutions to production problems that may arise during the season (as has been amply discussed on SANET in recent weeks). This means that - unlike their conventional neighbors, who simply call up the fertilizer salesman, seedsman, or extension/university expert - ecological practicioners have to absorb the cost and risk of doing their own research on their own farms, to address their own issues. They don't have a multi-million dollar societal investment in govn't and academic research waiting to service their needs. This puts them at a further financial and managerial disadvantage. But all of this is changing, in part because of the skyrocketing demand for organic produce (now, why is that, do you suppose?). Look for more of this, particularly if the US and Canada remain obstinately adamant that GE foods are substantially equivalent to real food and require neither testing nor labeling. So, next time you find yourself getting waylayed into one of the "he said/she said" whine-olas about biocides, let the wisdom of McDonough or Steingraber shine into your mind and keep you focused on the real issues. Ann To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 14:58:04 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01658 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:58:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19220 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:19:04 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from taurus.greensoft.com ([204.77.122.1]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19188 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:18:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from webserf.net (unverified [10.0.0.101]) by taurus.greensoft.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:22:16 -0600 Message-ID: Received: from bluestem [204.77.126.187] by webserf.net (SMTPD32-4.03) id A76DBA8D0086; Mon, 01 Nov 1999 13:18:05 CDT From: "Bluestem Associates" To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 19:16:24 Reply-To: "Bluestem Associates" X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows 98 (4.10.1998) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: 'Small' farms & certification Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 70 On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:21 -0800, Sal wrote: >calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off I believe that the US Small business Administration sets the threshhold for 'micro' businesses at $250,000 annual sales and below. That covers 94% of all American farms. I don't know where the upper threshold is, but it's probably more than my businesses are ever likely to gross. Half of US farmers have less than $10,000 in annual sales. *However* when I was living in Wisconsin I was tangentially involved in a case in which an organic grower was routinely using calcium nitrate and some other prohibited materials. If he was bigger than $5,000, it wasn't by a lot. Cheaters come in all sizes, including small, which is why they, too, need to be certified. The organic premium is supposed (in part) to cover the *additional* costs of producing organically, is it not. Additional costs like paperwork and certification. I'm not sure who is "ripping off" whom when organic growers want the full premium for their production, but seem pathologically unwilling to make the efforts in soil care and recordkeeping (including certification) to justify that premium. I have been on 2 acre organic vegetable farms with 125-150 ton/acre annual erosion rates. They were pocketing their premium and giving absolutely nothing back to the land. Their sales were under $5,000 but they should no more have the right to call themselves organic than if they had been using Sevin to control squash bugs. It us the certification process --- with all its flaws --- that should be making that determination. Self-definition as organic, regardless of size, is simply wrong. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 15:03:11 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01751 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:03:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA20974 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:24:40 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.pcsia.com (mail.pcsia.com [206.162.14.3]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20963 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:24:34 -0500 (EST) From: mmiller@pcsia.com Received: from www.pcsia.com (unverified [206.162.14.2]) by mail.pcsia.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:22:39 -0600 X-ROUTED: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:22:38 -0600 X-TCP-IDENTITY: MMiller Received: from [206.162.14.77] by www.pcsia.com with smtp id 0d0a133c ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:22:18 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991101130939.007d89f0@pcsia.com> X-Sender: mmiller@pcsia.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 13:09:39 -0600 To: Subject: Re: Do-it-yourself corn breeding Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 71 Roberto's discussion below is the crux of the matter in many of our discussions. Privatizing public resources for corprate gain and it's cousin - Externalizing private costs to the public. We saw it with: * neem insecticide in India, *tropical plants in the pharaceutical industry, *in the chemical trespass argument - privatizing my right to a full life by increasing the cancer risk of my environment *in the premature development of lepidotera resistance to the BT bacteria by the massive enviornmental dispersion of the associated toxin in various BT products. *odor, insects and manure spill problems from various types of excessively large and/or improperly sited livestock confinement operations. This problem of how to motivate people to work for economic gain and still maintain some moral responsibility in the enterprise had no doubt exercised liberal economists as much as God's allowance of evil in the world has exercised theologian. In the book, Winner Take All Society, the author discussed the misallocation of resources brought on by technogical change. His solution included the politically taboo idea of the taxing these exessive incomes in order to reduce the over allocation of resouces into these technologically driven areas. As Somebody said "The love of money is the root of all evil." Mike Miller > >Okay, Okay! lets deal with this head on. If I am smart and organized > >enough to come up with superior varieties, what is wrong with my > >protecting them from people who would steal them? Don't I have a > >right to earn a living? > >Yes, it is good to deal with this issue head on. What do you mean, >steal them? You took the varieties from the public pool, didn't you? >Once you release your breeding results, they're back to the public >pool, and the public is entitled to use them. That's what all farmers >have been doing. Earning a living has nothing to do with stealing from >the public pool. > >Roberto > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". >To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > >All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: >http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 17:02:48 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05295 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:02:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA02520 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:32:09 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA02344 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:31:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.23] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:29:02 -0600 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:27:59 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <17644.991101@acnet.net> To: mike richardson CC: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re[2]: chlorpyrifos In-reply-To: <381DC884.ACA363D0@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> References: <381DC884.ACA363D0@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 72 Hello Mike, Mark and all, I think we have two extremes here and I will attempt here to take a more measured approach. When Mark refers to "a violation of property rights and human rights. It should and will be litigated like tobacco and bullets", he's making a valid point but the analogy is somewhat premature. Tobacco has been proven to contain a large number of known carcinogens and other harmful substances and offers absolutely NO redeeming social value, while bullets do what they are intended to do: Kill and/or maim. With the first it's a fairly clear cut case (it's still legal for adults with full use of their faculties to commit slow suicide via this means, but it's gotten a lot harder and more costly for anyone to foist damage on third parties), and with the second it's a matter of who's using them against who, under what circumstances and the legal rights (and the ability to defend those rights) of the respective parties involved. But when we talk about toxic pesticides, we're discussing what is still the current convention, and one with a number of claimed redeeming social values. However, the situation is changing, and changing ever-more rapidly. As ecologically sane alternatives to toxic pesticides become increasingly available and the use of them more common, the preference of the public for foods produced via these means is also increasing, logarithmically. Incidentally, another of the hidden foibles of OFPA is the certainty of elevating (or maintaining elevated) the cost of "organically" produced food stuffs. (Could this have been intentional)? But as economies of scales are reached and biologically based technologies continue to mature, the costs for ecologically sane agriculture will continue to lower, relative to those of "conventional" (i.e. toxic) agricultural practices, given that ecologically sane agriculture benefits far more easily than does "conventional" agricultural from new knowledge relating to biological systems approaches (since agriculture itself has never ceased to be wholly biological phenomena, at bottom, and can more easily incorporate and take advantage of these discoveries). The point is that it's just a matter of time before the greater public at large (and the legislation generated indirectly through their elected representatives) perceives toxic pesticides as unnecessarily damaging elements with no redeeming social value and at that point, the perception of those who recognize and resent the danger that these toxic substances represent will meet little resistance. (Not that long ago, smoking was freely permitted in elevators). As things stand, although it's just a matter of time, it will require both quantifying the damage on the one hand and the clear dominance of alternative technologies on the other, before becoming the order of the day. For now, current EPA, FDA & USDA regulations will determine where liabilities do and don't lie, but those too can be subject to litigation and where clear and wanton damage can be proven, large settlements may well be result from it. In short, liability depends to a large degree on the alternatives available, the need for and degree of the damage done, in addition to proving the existence of the damage. In any case, precedents need to be set and class action suits may well prove viable in the near term. Unlike the long establish practice of toxic pesticide use, the needless and exploitatively motivated introduction of GMOs into the environment at large is meeting an unanticipated resistance facilitated by modern and economic communications media, just as TV exposure put an end to war no stupider or more useless than other before it, 2 or 3 decades ago. But before any of you veterans jump on my cage for saying that, let me make it clear that I was ALWAYS willing and able to go do my share for my country. Yes sir, I said, count me in. Just put a gun in Nixon's hands and I'll follow, close behind him. (Which reminds me, that this was the war that invented the word "fragging"). On the other hand, we could wait until "the enemy" really represents a threat to the nations integrity (rather than to the economic interests of just a few US fat cats); and that was how it wound up, with the government deciding that I was best left in reserve, as a secret weapon. (I'll bet some of you think I'm kidding). But I digress. Nothing new follows below. Monday, November 01, 1999, 11:06:12 AM, you wrote: mr> Mark: You said mr> "Maybe I wasn't clear. If a corporation puts something into my mr> body that is not invited it is a violation of property rights and mr> human rights. It should and will be litigated like tobacco and mr> bullets. " mr> Go ahead, and while you are at it sue all industries that have even the mr> slightest emissions into the air or water, regardless of how well they mr> conform to existing laws. Go after state and federal road programs too, mr> especially in the areas where seams of Chattanooga shale have been mr> exposed (natural radiation source). Lets back the EPA when they find mr> the most miniscule traces of carcinogens (remember saccarin), regardless mr> of whether they really pose an identifiable seriouse health risk. mr> Farmers should be sued en mass since they contribute soil erosion mr> pollution to the water and air no matter how conscientious they are. mr> Your argument reminds me of the wildly disproportional response to the mr> unfounded Alar scare. A lot of good people were hurt by the media's mr> irresponsible "reporting" of a danger that never was. mr> I'm sorry, but while I agree that we should find those things that mr> truely pose a health threat and either stop or mitigate the problem, I mr> have little patience with those that believe in a fairy tale environment mr> that is all pure and good, or that finds enviromental boogymen hiding mr> under the bed every night. mr> Son of Richard mr> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command mr> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command mr> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". mr> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command mr> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". mr> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: mr> http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail Douglas Hinds, Dir. Gral. - CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil (Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization) Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico Apdo. Postal No. 171 Fortin de las Flores, Veracruz 94471 Mexico Tel: 011 522 713 2888 (Direct at present) U.S. Voicemail (email linked) 630 300 0550 U.S. Fax Mailbox (email linked) 630 300 0555 dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 17:21:06 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05631 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:21:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16720 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:00:56 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from ntscspdcexch1.caldwellspartin ([208.24.177.8]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA16669 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:00:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by NTSCSPDCEXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:59:00 -0500 Message-ID: From: Walker Bennett To: "'mmiller@pcsia.com'" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: free range eggs Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:58:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 73 The chicks would be a worry from all of the predators you describe. However, the cat will soon learn not to tackle a bird bigger than it (chickens are NOT nice birds). Your biggest problems from your list would be the raccoons and dogs. Walker Bennett wbennett@caldwellspartin.com wabennett@gw.total-web.net w_bennett@msn.com ___________________________________________________________ A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election. - Billy Vaughan Tuesday, November 2nd is election day! Remember to vote. ___________________________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: mmiller@pcsia.com [mailto:mmiller@pcsia.com] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 8:14 PM To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: free range eggs >Subject: RE: free range eggs > I read a few years back that a lot of the yellow was actually caused >by the increased chlorophyll that a free range chicken ingests from grass, >etc.. The firmness caused by the increased protein from insects rather than >grain in commercial feed. This with all of the other 'trace' nutrients they >get from scratching and pecking at everything. Alright, you all have me convinced. I have wanted to start with a few chickens here on the farm but how do free range birds hold up with the red-tailed hawks, raccoons, possums, owls and my major worry, my barn cat, who the other morning brought me a adult rabbit as big as he is. (looked like a mini-lion dragging the rabbit between his legs)? Then there are the coyotes and wild dog pack from people in the city who dump their unwanted litters out here in the country. I figure I would have to cover any chicken pen just to assure there would be chickens left after the first month. What is your experience? Would I just be feeding the wildlife? Mike Miller To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 17:45:33 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06056 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:45:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04584 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:28:15 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from saffron.propagation.net (saffron.propagation.net [216.221.160.23]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04566 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:28:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from 204.149.164.225 (mx3-82.ilhawaii.net [204.149.164.225]) by saffron.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA10310; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:26:11 -0600 Message-ID: <381E172F.763@smallfarms.com> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 12:41:52 -1000 From: Glenn Reply-To: glenn@smallfarms.com Organization: smallfarms.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Credit cards. Not solicitation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 74 Hi. And no this isn't one of those credit card solicitations. A farmer who's thinking about registering for free at smallfarms.com is considering whether offering credit card services will increase his sales. As you know, we do not offer credit card services at smallfarms.com as a way for making registration easier for farmers and ranchers. For us, It would increase costs beyond our low $29.00 / year regular fee, and we trust small farmers and ranchers to pay us in a timely manner. We have no relation to the following sites and do not endorse them. Sales, Marketing and promotions are important to farming and we pass these sites on as information. Start with their FAQs. http://www.charge.com/ http://www.itransact.com/index.html glenn Buy from the Farmer http://www.smallfarms.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 18:59:10 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07313 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:59:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA16427 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:37:14 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailhub.iastate.edu (mailhub.iastate.edu [129.186.1.102]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA16417 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:37:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from dewitt.iastate.edu (dewitt.agron.iastate.edu [129.186.20.17]) by mailhub.iastate.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA01183; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:35:17 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19991101173101.00765eac@exnet.iastate.edu> X-Sender: x1dewitt@exnet.iastate.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 17:31:01 -0600 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Jerry DeWitt Subject: Leopold Center Announcement Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 75 To: Saneters From: Jerry DeWitt Iowa State University The search for the Director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture in Iowa is nearing completion. The search was extended so that candidates for the Leopold Director position could be informed of the list of candidates being interviewed for the Dean of the College of Agriculture position. For many potential candidates this information was very important because the Director of the Leopold Center will report to the Dean of the College of Agriculture. Shown below are the candidates being interviewed for the Dean's position. Applications for the Director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture are still being accepted with an announcement of finalists expected in mid-November. Application information is available by calling Wendy Wintersteen, Chair of the search committee at 515-294-7801 or by accessing http://www.ag.iastate.edu/news/leopold.html College of Agriculture Dean finalists are Alan Bennett, associate dean of the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of California, Davis; Cornelia Butler Flora, director of the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, Iowa State; Joseph Jwu-shan Jen, dean of the College of Agriculture, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Gary Minish, head of the department of animal and poultry sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg; Colin Scanes, executive associate dean of agriculture at Iowa State; and Paul Wangsness, senior associate dean of the College of Agricultural Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 20:23:23 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08778 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:23:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08438 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:02:51 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08429 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:02:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailcore0.oh.voyager.net (mailcore0.oh.voyager.net [207.0.229.17]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA15877 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:00:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (d14.as1.gnvl.oh.voyager.net [207.90.124.142]) by mailcore0.oh.voyager.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA01941 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:00:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004f01bf24d0$85d21b40$8e7c5acf@oemcomputer> From: "Paul Schmitmeyer" To: "Sanet" Subject: proposed organic cost share legislation Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:20:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 76 Hi all, This is quite an interesting thread. I'm not really where to attack it, I just know I don't like the direction this legislation is all leading. There is a proplem in as much as there are too many certification agencies with too many different sets of rules and regs. Compound that with the different inspectors and how they might interpret different regs. It reminds me a lot of the current crop insurance program we have currently in place. If you happen to get a sympathetic adjuster they will work things as far as he knows he can get away with. Also just the opposite is true. Another thing that worries me is that this is all leading towards federal involvement, something none of us should want. Like someone wrote earlier said, there will be a day of reconning, a day to pay the Piper. They have screwed up our ag system completely. Subsidies have only helped the Big farmer get bigger yet. Yes, it helps out the small farmer also, but at what price? Paul To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 20:23:23 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08779 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:23:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08330 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:01:51 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from purple.tmn.com (purple.tmn.com [205.177.137.5]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08310 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from tmn.com ([164.106.173.25]) by purple.tmn.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA17370; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:56:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <381E35DB.BFA1E78D@tmn.com> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 19:52:43 -0500 From: tabeles Reply-To: tabeles@tmn.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Douglas Hinds CC: Sal , "Harris, Craig" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, "'Bluestem Associates'" Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program References: <006601bf247c$c139d280$889044c6@rain.org> <4514.991101@acnet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 77 It is interesting to look at this exchange. A number of years ago I warned those in the organic industry that if they got gov't in the middle it would be a muddle (hmm, sounds like Dr. Seuss). The rationale was that if the gov't provided the cert that it would be a seal of uniform approval and a way to keep interlopers and the greedy out of just labeling something as organic. The industry was self regulating- once upon a time. But now you can't unscramble eggs and you get a half baked, expensive omlet that, like any gov't reg, has enough loopholes that you can drive a big 4WD right through it. sounds like that old Abbott/Costello exchange "Who's on First?" thoughts tom abeles Douglas Hinds wrote: > Hello Sal & all > > Sal was very eloquent and is totally right! OFPA is fundamentally > wrong in mandating obligatory USDA Organic Certification. Once a > decent Organic Rule has been developed and supported by the organic > community, those that need it will adhere to it and participate; but > USDA Organic Certification is going to have to be either non > compulsory or unconstitutional. Let it rest on it's own merit and let > the buyer insist on which certification program he, she or it > requires, if any. > > Craig too is correct when he says: > > > first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that usda > > develop a national program of standards setting and certification . > > > . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's > > disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and > > signed by the president, not with the usda-ams implementation of the > > legislation > > Having been passed by congress and signed by the president does not > make the obligatory aspect of USDA Organic Certification > constitutional (much less necessary or fair), and Sal is right again > when claiming that the $5000 limit for exemption is a "rip off". In > fact, it's ridiculous and offensive. > > OFPA as written will either be amended or become bogged down in court. > If implemented as it now reads, there will be serious liabilities > generated that will have attended to at a high cost, in the end. > > Douglas Hinds > > Monday, November 01, 1999, 9:21:21 AM, you wrote: > > S> ----- Original Message ----- > S> From: Harris, Craig > S> To: ; 'Bluestem Associates' > S> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 2:08 PM > S> Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program > > >> it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of > >> problems with certification . . . . > >> > >> first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that USDA > S> develop a national program of standards setting and certification . > S> . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's > S> disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and > S> signed by the president, not with the USDA-ams implementation of > S> the legislation > > S> calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off > S> taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off > S> set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks > S> if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the > S> inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy > S> now I pay a certifier, a inspector ,the state of Ca. etc how many pencil > S> pushing bureaucrats do I have to pay off just for telling the truth and > S> they all require paper work and can all charge me what they want. whats > S> with that. no one can tell you what you will have to pay to be organic > S> because every one charges what they want and u have to pay. it's a rip off > S> there are too many folks NOW with their hands in our pockets now. > S> I can't afford to give all these folks money now. > S> the organic tax is a rip off. > > >> second, when the first draft of the proposed implementation was released > S> for review last year, one of the major criticisms was that the cost of > >> certification would be unduly burdensome for small organic farmers > >> . . . > S> it seems to me that a cost-share arrangement addresses that > S> criticism . . . if one is going to be critical of the cost-sharing > S> proposals, i think one has to suggest ways in which they can be > S> revised (or alternatives implemented) which at the same time > S> mitigate the undue cost burden > > S> easy take the burden off the backs of the growers. they are paying to much > S> now. why do I have to pay a certifier and the state of Ca. both for the same > S> thing and why should I pay the USDA for the same thing I am paying everyone > S> else for. why do I have to give paper work to the state and be inspected by > S> the state and the certifier and pay them both for the same dam thing. its a > S> big rip off NOW and the USDA are talking about adding to the burden not > S> lifting it. I say let those that are lying pay and those that are telling > S> the truth not pay > S> this whole thing is a rip off. Mafia protection money . you get a letter > S> from the state of Ca. ok your organic now you have to pay us every year and > S> kiss up to us and the certifier sends a letter ok your organic now You have > S> to pay us every year year after year and the inspector sends us a bill yes > S> you are organic now you have to pay me every year year after year for the > S> rest of your life . I know I am organic what did i get from all this > S> nothing but a stinking little piece of paper more work. more bosses more > S> slavemasters now the USDA want to get into the act. ok your organic now > S> every year year after year after year you have to pay us. bull shit how > S> many pencil pushing bottom feeders do u have to pay off to tell the truth > S> organic Gestapo > S> extortion > S> force labor > S> slavery > S> the Mafia won they are now the Government and they got the organic grower by > S> the cohoniess and all these folks can charge what every they want and we > S> have to pay. > S> I can go on and on . those that feel it know it. > S> I say organic growers should not have to pay one cent more than any other > S> grower to grow and sell their crops and if they are organic they should be > S> able to tell anyone the truth. if the USDA wants to set a standard let them > S> if the USDA wants to regulate certifiers let them but don't tax the organic > S> grower for doing the good that he knows. > S> Its too much now > S> not one more cent > S> I need my money go rob someone else. > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 20:28:18 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08832 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:28:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14167 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:12:10 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from landcare.cri.nz (landcare.cri.nz [202.27.240.7]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA14017 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:12:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from Lincoln-Message_Server by landcare.cri.nz with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 02 Nov 1999 14:10:07 +1200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 14:09:38 +1200 From: Will Allen To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Cc: Ian.Brown@orc.govt.nz Subject: Whole farm environmental planning Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 78 This information from the recently established NOSLaM web site (http://noslam.co.nz/) may be of interest to members of this group interested in whole farm environmental planning. A group of New Zealand farmers now has several properties in the final stages of environmental certification under a group scheme, to ISO 14001 standards. The North Otago Sustainable Land Management (NOSLaM) group's major project is the development of the ENVIRO-AG Farm Environmental Certification scheme, modeled on ISO 14001 environmental certification. The ENVIRO-AG process helps farmers objectively assess the environmental impact of their farm practices, develop suitable management practices and monitoring methods, then prove their compliance. The farmer controls this process and tailors the plan to suit his or her own needs. Over 80 properties throughout the region now operate ENVIRO-AG plans, which is seen locally as a major step toward achieving the goal of gaining recognition in the market place, both nationally and internationally, as a community operating sustainable farming systems. Since NOSLaM began in 1994, the group has encouraged the uptake of environmentally preferable farming methods through newsletters, field days, seminars and on-farm demonstrations. There is also evidence of the increased use of improved farming methods. While NOSLaM cannot claim full credit for this, survey results show that North Otago farmers have increased the use of less damaging crop establishment and pasture renewal methods, improved effluent disposal and other farm practices. Independent assessment has investigated the success of a non-regulatory approach in improving farmer practices, and the group's methods appear to be working well. NOSLaM's new web site may be viewed at http://noslam.co.nz/ The web site has further information about the group and the ENVIRO-AG system. There are various downloads available in PDF format of farm plans, as well as the ENVIRO-AG handbook. The group is keen to establish links with other related web sites and others interested in using the ENVIRO-AG system. and would welcome feedback on their approach. For further information contact Ian Brown, Manager Land Resources, Otago Regional Council (e-mail: Ian.Brown@orc.govt.nz) This posting made by: ===================================================== Will Allen Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research NZ Ltd. PO Box 282, Alexandra, New Zealand Tel: +64 3 4489932 Fax: +64 3 4488939 http://www.landcare.cri.nz/science/social/ E-mail: allenw@landcare.cri.nz WEBSITE: NRM_changelinks: Improving Community Participation in Environment & Development URL: http://nrm.massey.ac.nz/changelinks/ ===================================================== To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 20:59:52 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09213 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:59:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04887 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:45:46 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04779 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:45:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from node11e64.a2000.nl ([24.132.30.100] helo=zap.a2000.nl) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11iSzD-0004JK-00; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:43:47 +0100 Message-ID: <381E4688.70D869CD@zap.a2000.nl> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 03:03:52 +0100 From: wytze X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, biotech_activists@iatp.org Subject: Hunza agriculture Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 79 The site below is on the remarkable Hunza people, their agriculture and their way of live. http://www.soilandhealth.org/02healthlibrary/0203longevitycat/020302hlthyhunza/02030207.html To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 21:10:39 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA09334 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 21:10:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09229 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:51:11 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from aurora.nal.usda.gov (aurora.nal.usda.gov [192.54.138.38]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09149 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:51:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by aurora.nal.usda.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id <4QTHK3NP>; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:50:30 -0500 Message-ID: From: Andy Clark To: "'sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu'" Subject: FW: International Short Course on Agroecology Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:50:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 80 -----Original Message----- From: Agroecology Shortcourse [mailto:shortcourse@agroecology.org] Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 1:26 PM To: Andy Clark Subject: International Short Course on Agroecology Greetings from the University of California, Santa Cruz! We invite you to join our International Short Course on Agroecology, to be held at the Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, Santa Cruz, August 7-18, 2000. The course is designed to give extensionists, farm advisers, trainers, NGO managers, farmers, graduate students, researchers, professors, and other agricultural professionals a practical, "hands-on" experience with the application of agroecological principles to the design and management of sustainable farming systems. The full course announcement is available on-line at: http://www.agroecology.org/shortcourse.htm A printable version of the course announcement is available as an adobe acrobat file: please print and distribute the course announcement at your workplace. The adobe acrobat reader/printer can be downloaded for free at: http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html. If you plan to attend, please submit your application as soon as possible, before the application deadline of March 1, 2000, so that your place in the course can be guaranteed. Application details are included in the course announcement. Please let us know if you have any other questions, or would like to be kept updated as new information becomes available. A Spanish version of the course announcement is available on-line at http://www.agroecology.org/espanol/cursocorto.htm. Agroecologically yours, Stephen R. Gliessman, Alfred Heller Professor of Agroecology Erle C. Ellis, Agroecology Short Course Coordinator ----- International Agroecology Short Course Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 Tel: (831) 459-2506 | Fax: (831) 459-2867 -->http://www.agroecology.org/shortcourse.html To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 21:19:41 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA09419 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 21:19:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12925 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:59:28 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA12866 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:59:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.116] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:56:40 -0600 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:55:15 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <7830.991101@acnet.net> To: tabeles CC: Sal , "Harris, Craig" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, "'Bluestem Associates'" Subject: Re[2]: Proposed organic cost share program In-reply-To: <381E35DB.BFA1E78D@tmn.com> References: <381E35DB.BFA1E78D@tmn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 81 Hi Tom & all, Monday, November 01, 1999, 6:52:43 PM, you wrote: TA> It is interesting to look at this exchange. A number of years ago I TA> warned those in the organic industry that if they got gov't in the TA> middle it would be a muddle (hmm, sounds like Dr. Seuss). It could have been done right. There IS a proper role for government in the matter, but that ISN'T the role that OFPA designates. TA> The [ostensible] rationale was that if the gov't provided the cert TA> that it would be a seal of uniform approval and a way to keep TA> interlopers and the greedy out of just labeling something as TA> organic. The industry was self regulating- once upon a time. Not quite. That is why third party certification organizations were created. Undoubtedly some are better than others, but truly interested and involved parties have or will develop (alone or with help), an appropriate criteria that gets to the medulla of what organic means and represents. They'll know who to trust, and falsehoods will be exposed, just as they are in politics or what have you. In the end, the products own quality speaks for itself and buyers already specify which certifying bodies they'll accept, when they require certification. (There are many instances when it's not needed, as in many CSA operations). Still, there is a need for an OFPA, but not the way this one reads at present. TA> But now you can't unscramble eggs and you get a half baked, TA> expensive omlet that, like any gov't reg, has enough loopholes TA> that you can drive a big 4WD right through it. Not only are there loopholes (that is, there is no guarantee that it will produce the desired results), OFPA creates abuses and injustices of it's own. I suspect that it will never be implemented, at least not as presently written. And if it is, the following morass in the courts will obviate any benefits it could have brought. All it needed to do was develop a consistent national standard that is congruent with organic principles and tradition, and achieves a consensus with the organic community. But any certification program that is linked to it will have to be voluntary: i.e., one option among others. This is not to say that the above mentioned consistent national standard wouldn't be backed truth in labeling laws and penalties for misrepresentation; but as Sal suggested (and he did this in 1997 as well - I happened to be searching the sanet archives for something else and ran on to this thread), just as was done with drag racers who questioned whether their opponents car was "stock" or not (requiring the the engine be dismantled), the cost of this was born by the party that was proved right - a cheater was penalized, while he who accused falsely the other without foundation was also. In short, we don't need a police state (and another bureaucracy with links to "friends" in the industry) running the show, we need a valid legal structure to provide an effective recourse for allowing consumers, growers and "value added" intermediaries to operate within defined limits that they themselves have defined and control. If government eats this, it will bloat, die and go rotten. TA> sounds like that old Abbott/Costello exchange "Who's on First?" Except that it's not funny. TA> thoughts TA> tom abeles nothing new follows below. -------------- TA> Douglas Hinds wrote: >> Hello Sal & all >> >> Sal was very eloquent and is totally right! OFPA is fundamentally >> wrong in mandating obligatory USDA Organic Certification. Once a >> decent Organic Rule has been developed and supported by the organic >> community, those that need it will adhere to it and participate; but >> USDA Organic Certification is going to have to be either non >> compulsory or unconstitutional. Let it rest on it's own merit and let >> the buyer insist on which certification program he, she or it >> requires, if any. >> >> Craig too is correct when he says: >> >> > first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that usda >> > develop a national program of standards setting and certification . >> >> > . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's >> > disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and >> > signed by the president, not with the usda-ams implementation of the >> > legislation >> >> Having been passed by congress and signed by the president does not >> make the obligatory aspect of USDA Organic Certification >> constitutional (much less necessary or fair), and Sal is right again >> when claiming that the $5000 limit for exemption is a "rip off". In >> fact, it's ridiculous and offensive. >> >> OFPA as written will either be amended or become bogged down in court. >> If implemented as it now reads, there will be serious liabilities >> generated that will have attended to at a high cost, in the end. >> >> Douglas Hinds >> >> Monday, November 01, 1999, 9:21:21 AM, you wrote: >> >> S> ----- Original Message ----- >> S> From: Harris, Craig >> S> To: ; 'Bluestem Associates' >> S> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 2:08 PM >> S> Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program >> >> >> it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of >> >> problems with certification . . . . >> >> >> >> first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that USDA >> S> develop a national program of standards setting and certification . >> S> . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's >> S> disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and >> S> signed by the president, not with the USDA-ams implementation of >> S> the legislation >> >> S> calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off >> S> taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off >> S> set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks >> S> if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the >> S> inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy >> S> now I pay a certifier, a inspector ,the state of Ca. etc how many pencil >> S> pushing bureaucrats do I have to pay off just for telling the truth and >> S> they all require paper work and can all charge me what they want. whats >> S> with that. no one can tell you what you will have to pay to be organic >> S> because every one charges what they want and u have to pay. it's a rip off >> S> there are too many folks NOW with their hands in our pockets now. >> S> I can't afford to give all these folks money now. >> S> the organic tax is a rip off. >> >> >> second, when the first draft of the proposed implementation was released >> S> for review last year, one of the major criticisms was that the cost of >> >> certification would be unduly burdensome for small organic farmers >> >> . . . >> S> it seems to me that a cost-share arrangement addresses that >> S> criticism . . . if one is going to be critical of the cost-sharing >> S> proposals, i think one has to suggest ways in which they can be >> S> revised (or alternatives implemented) which at the same time >> S> mitigate the undue cost burden >> >> S> easy take the burden off the backs of the growers. they are paying to much >> S> now. why do I have to pay a certifier and the state of Ca. both for the same >> S> thing and why should I pay the USDA for the same thing I am paying everyone >> S> else for. why do I have to give paper work to the state and be inspected by >> S> the state and the certifier and pay them both for the same dam thing. its a >> S> big rip off NOW and the USDA are talking about adding to the burden not >> S> lifting it. I say let those that are lying pay and those that are telling >> S> the truth not pay >> S> this whole thing is a rip off. Mafia protection money . you get a letter >> S> from the state of Ca. ok your organic now you have to pay us every year and >> S> kiss up to us and the certifier sends a letter ok your organic now You have >> S> to pay us every year year after year and the inspector sends us a bill yes >> S> you are organic now you have to pay me every year year after year for the >> S> rest of your life . I know I am organic what did i get from all this >> S> nothing but a stinking little piece of paper more work. more bosses more >> S> slavemasters now the USDA want to get into the act. ok your organic now >> S> every year year after year after year you have to pay us. bull shit how >> S> many pencil pushing bottom feeders do u have to pay off to tell the truth >> S> organic Gestapo >> S> extortion >> S> force labor >> S> slavery >> S> the Mafia won they are now the Government and they got the organic grower by >> S> the cohoniess and all these folks can charge what every they want and we >> S> have to pay. >> S> I can go on and on . those that feel it know it. >> S> I say organic growers should not have to pay one cent more than any other >> S> grower to grow and sell their crops and if they are organic they should be >> S> able to tell anyone the truth. if the USDA wants to set a standard let them >> S> if the USDA wants to regulate certifiers let them but don't tax the organic >> S> grower for doing the good that he knows. >> S> Its too much now >> S> not one more cent >> S> I need my money go rob someone else. >> >> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command >> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". >> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". >> >> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: >> http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail Douglas Hinds, Dir. Gral. - CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil (Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization) Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico Apdo. Postal No. 171 Fortin de las Flores, Veracruz 94471 Mexico Tel: 011 522 713 2888 (Direct at present) U.S. Voicemail (email linked) 630 300 0550 U.S. Fax Mailbox (email linked) 630 300 0555 dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 21:34:31 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA09584 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 21:34:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21750 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 21:13:40 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21741 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 21:13:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from epix.net (qrvl209-74-60ppp88.epix.net [209.74.60.88]) by lima.epix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/1999100101/PL) with ESMTP id VAA05152; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 21:11:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <381E49FE.6DB73217@epix.net> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 21:18:39 -0500 From: Steve Groff Reply-To: sgroff@epix.net Organization: Cedar Meadow Farm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "E. Ann Clark" CC: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: no-till chemical use (long) References: <3819A43F.76778695@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> <3819C685.337C4AFE@uoguelph.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 82 sanet, Ann Clark, (whom I admire as a pasture expert) wrote a long post on her take of the notill system and for the most part was suggesting that it is not environmentally friendly. "E. Ann Clark" wrote: > Might also add that even well managed no-till inherently and inescapably > creates a whole suite of problems > The obligatory dependence on herbicides > Colleagues in Land Resource Science tell me that no-till slows down the rate > of loss of OM under annual arable cropping, but does NOT increase full-profile > soil OM. > > And then there is the issue of N-use efficiency. > > Surface residues also keep soil colder longer, which effectively shortens the > growing season in a short season climate, such as we have in Canada. > Only certain crops *can* be grown no-till, > Another unintended effect of no-till is leaving allelochemically active > residues on the soil surface > > So, from a different (pro-pasture, admittedly) vantage point, no-till is a > proprietary band-aid to patch up a arable crop technology (annual tillage to > produce annual grain crops) that is fundamentally at odds with the ecological > integrity of farm land. The "Permenant Cover Cropping System" that I have developed utilizes very little chemicals and soil quality has increased dramatically. It is fundementally based on notill. Notill has a place in Sustainable Ag. Just look at all the SARE funded projects that have notill as a component. > The problem(s) with tillage is soil erosion and > degradation, with consequent effects on related processes, as water use > efficiency. and this is a *HUGE* issue that most conventional farmers AND organic farmers convieninatly sweep under the rug and ignore. It is the "skeleton in the closet" of the organic row crop farmers. There is no ideal ecologically perfect way to farm. Tillage is a diaster for soil life and it is not natural, but that doesn't make notill the only way to farm. As pointed out, it does have some negative baggage, but so does a well managed pasture system. > Admittedly, pasture > also creates some potential problems, relating to soil compaction (and water > infiltration etc.) and N leaching/volatilization - although these are at least > partly managable through such practices as restricting labile N (less chemical > N; lower % legume). > Steve Groff "Enhancing the Environment" http://www.cedarmeadowfarm.com/ Cedar Meadow Farm 679 Hilldale Road Holtwood, PA 17532 USA To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 22:27:43 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10091 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:27:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00614 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:12:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA00603 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:12:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09915; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:10:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id WAA12199; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:10:56 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:10:56 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: wytze cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, biotech_activists@iatp.org Subject: Re: Hunza agriculture In-Reply-To: <381E4688.70D869CD@zap.a2000.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 83 On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, wytze wrote: > Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 03:03:52 +0100 > From: wytze > To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, biotech_activists@iatp.org > Subject: Hunza agriculture > > The site below is on the remarkable Hunza people, their agriculture and > their way of live. > >http://www.soilandhealth.org/02healthlibrary/0203longevitycat/020302hlthyhunza/02030207.html Start here and go to the health library then to longevity http://www.soilandhealth.org The Healthy Hunzas J.I. Rodale The entire book is digitized and put online for reading or download Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 22:28:09 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10096 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:28:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00863 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:14:50 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from crow.a001.sprintmail.com (crow.prod.itd.earthlink.net [209.178.63.7]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA00855 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:14:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from sprintmail.com (sdn-ar-001tnchatP005.dialsprint.net [158.252.94.13]) by crow.a001.sprintmail.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA17519 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:12:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <381E57FB.39BD5F03@sprintmail.com> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 22:18:19 -0500 From: Alex McGregor Reply-To: waldenfarm@sprintmail.com Organization: Walden Farm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: Time and the Benefit of BT Corn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 84 Douglas, You seem to have misread my post. I was agreeing with you from the beginning. Maybe you don't agree that agriculture is an unnatural act, but I happen to believe we left the natural world when we stoppd being hunters/gatherers/scavengers. And I was trying to say that GMOs are an aberation, but follow a sequence of manipulation throughout our plant breeding history. And I didn't say that heirlooms and GMOs were the same thing. I was saying that most of our varieties are the result of some manipulation. AND you said, "How long were you breast fed, BTW?" Around here, the common response to an insult like that would be, "Yo mamma so stank..." or announcing that it's time for the little 'uns to bunch up and the big 'uns to line up. But I will forgo the local customs and await an appropriate apology. Alex To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 23:24:21 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA10965 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 23:24:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28363 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:59:39 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA28130 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:59:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from earthlink.net (dialup-209.244.68.137.SanDiego1.Level3.net [209.244.68.137]) by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02490; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:56:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <381D2D7D.8BD35802@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:04:45 -0800 From: Bargyla Rateaver X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brooks Gruver CC: sanet Subject: Re: Dick and Sharon Thompson's "problem child" References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 85 I can't see how, if one utilized seaweed, either as the fairly cheap soluble powder, or the more expensive per acre seaweed meal,how one could ever, ever get K deficiency. Seaweed has plenty of it. I haven't heard anything about those people, for a long time. Are they still farming? Joel Brooks Gruver wrote: > Hello to all... > > Last night, I was browsing an old issue of the Journal of > Agronomic Education (~ 1991, so it may have been the newly named > incarnation) and read a case study article titled "Dick and Sharon > Thompson's problem child". The article was presented in the form of a case > study that one would discuss with undergrad agronomy students or crop > consultants in training. > > The case study presented that > after ~20 years of organic integrated livestock and row crop > production, the Thompsons decided that they had to start banding muriate > of potash (KCl) to alleviate K deficiency. Tissue tests of their corn > indicated a serious K deficiency but soil tests indicated K levels that were > more than adequate. > > Since adopting organic management practices in 1969, the Thompsons had > not applied any salt fertilizers but had ammended all fields with > manure from their integrated cattle operation. For a number of years, they > composted the manure prior to field application but eventually decided > to abandon composting. Despite the fact that their soil test K levels had > increased during their 20 years of organic management, something was > causing their crops to become increasing K deficient. > > The article indicated that following the initiation of KCl banding, > crops did show a yield response in most fields but continued to have low > tissue levels of K. The article suggested that the Thompson's ridge > tillage system may have been partly responsible for the unsual K dynamics. > > Sooo... ~ 7 years have gone by since this article was written... I am > wondering whether the Thompsons have resolved or continued to struggle > with their "K problem child" and/or what mechanisms were underlying the > problem... Can anyone enlighten me ? > > Joel Gruver > Center for Agriculture, Food and Environment > Tufts University > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Tue Nov 2 00:34:52 1999 -0500 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11811 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:34:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10243 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:07:02 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mayumi.iphil.net (rufino2.gw.iphil.net [203.176.0.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA10163 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:06:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mayumi.iphil.net (8.8.7/8.8.8) with UUCP id NAA15221; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:01:02 +0800 Received: (from uu1@localhost) by phil.gn.apc.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) with UUCP id NAA09535; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:34:12 +0800 From: Roberto Verzola Message-Id: <199911020534.NAA09535@phil.gn.apc.org> Date: 02 Nov 99 12:13:23 Subject: high cost of organics To: dmhinds@acnet.net Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 86 >Incidentally, another of the hidden foibles of OFPA is the certainty >of elevating (or maintaining elevated) the cost of "organically" >produced food stuffs. (Could this have been intentional)? Of course, it is intentional. There are two options for the government to do: 1) if you choose to be organic, you must pay me to inspect you that you don't use chemicals blah blah, as Sal said. 2) if you use chemicals, you must pay me to inspect you that you don't use too much blah blah The first option favors the chemical firms, because it makes organic expensive, even with lower inputs. In effect, it makes chemical use the default. The second option favors organics, because it makes chemically-grown crops more expensive. It makes organic the default. If the government used the first option (we're not even talking of subsidies here!). Organics will take over very quickly. This approach will automatically take care of the cheats who falsely claim they are organic, but use chemicals. They can be prosecuted for evading inspection. No chemicals, no need for certification. This should be the goal. Roberto To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 02:18:41 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA12854 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:18:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14337 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:02:07 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA14236 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:01:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.166] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:59:20 -0600 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:58:11 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <240.991102@acnet.net> To: Alex McGregor CC: "sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re[2]: Time and the Benefit of BT Corn In-reply-To: <381E57FB.39BD5F03@sprintmail.com> References: <381E57FB.39BD5F03@sprintmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 87 Hello Alex, Monday, November 01, 1999, 9:18:19 PM, you wrote: AM> Douglas, AM> You seem to have misread my post. I was agreeing with you from the AM> beginning. I'll agree we agree. AM> Maybe you don't agree that agriculture is an unnatural act, AM> but I happen to believe we left the natural world when we stoppd being AM> hunters/gatherers/scavengers. No, I think man by nature is a farmer, actually an extension of the plant, a walking, talking plantman that can do things to his his own kind. This we can do because we don't have roots, but that's exactly why we depend on the rest of them (us) to keep us (unrooted ones) sustained. How about them apples? I'm going father back in time than you. And even a hunter / gatherer alters the ecosystem. To me the conscious act is were it's at. Only humans understand so much what a seed represents, what it can become. we don't just eat, fly and shit like birds, we take care of what we plant. This is the BASIC human trait, to me. I but still agree that we agree. AM> And I was trying to say that GMOs are an aberation, but follow a AM> sequence of manipulation throughout our plant breeding history. Working with, not against the plant is OK. We're helping those that are most generous and not probably NOT the ones that out their effort into outgrowing the rest. No, these PRODUCE a life giving quality that goes beyond themselves. (Poetic, isn't it). AM> And I didn't say that heirlooms and GMOs were the same thing. I was AM> saying that most of our varieties are the result of some manipulation. Ditto to the above. AM> AND you said, "How long were you breast fed, BTW?" Around here, the AM> common response to an insult like that would be, "Yo mamma so stank..." AM> or announcing that it's time for the little 'uns to bunch up and the big AM> 'uns to line up. But I will forgo the local customs and await an AM> appropriate apology. AM> Alex No Alex, people who weren't breast fed or who did it for a short time often feel less integrated and intuitive with nature - they don't identify with it to the same degree as those that had more mother's milk do and there was no offense meant nor made so forget the apology. It was a legitimate question and I'm interested in your answer. BTW, my brother's name is Alex too (as was my grandfathers), and he nursed for a much shorter period than I did and there is no doubt in my mind that this had some effect in terms of his development, behavior and present day assumptions, but he's still my brother (and a good one) and it certainly was not his fault (nor my mother's for that matter). He's strong in his own way and has done more than I have in some respects, to date. In any case, there's no conflict between us and never has been. And if you think there is with you, it's strictly imagined. Look for another excuse to get belligerent, but do it on your own hook, because my comment had a basis in fact and I have no idea why you find anything wrong with it. These are things that happen to form part of life and the world we live in. I sure you agree that we're all civilized adults here, and I'm confident that you will accept my explanation and rectify your error of interpretation. Douglas Hinds, Dir. Gral. - CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil (Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization) Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico Apdo. Postal No. 171 Fortin de las Flores, Veracruz 94471 Mexico Tel: 011 522 713 2888 (Direct at present) U.S. Voicemail (email linked) 630 300 0550 U.S. Fax Mailbox (email linked) 630 300 0555 dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 03:37:13 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA13406 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:37:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA00529 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:20:15 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp.ncc-mannheim.net (smtp.ncc-mannheim.net [62.104.117.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA00385 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:20:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (lufa-sp.vdlufa.de [62.132.27.12] (may be forged)) by smtp.ncc-mannheim.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA12621; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:19:05 +0100 Received: from lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (LUFA.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de [192.168.3.254]) by www.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20782; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:19:55 +0100 Received: from LUFA/SpoolDir by lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (Mercury 1.44); 2 Nov 99 09:12:18 +0100 Received: from SpoolDir by LUFA (Mercury 1.44); 2 Nov 99 09:11:45 +0100 From: "Klaus Wiegand" Organization: Landw. U.-& Forsch.-Anstalt Speyer To: benbrook@hillnet.com, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:11:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Subsidies and Priorities Reply-to: Wiegand@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <751AC278E5@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de> Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 88 hello charles, > A post this a.m. on this tread included the following: > >"GEMA Summary April, 15 1998: > >Amount spent to produce food consumed >in the US in 1996 (farm cost): $126 billion. >Amount spent on marketing it: $421 billion" > you mustn't wonder : In an average american life, an entire year is spent watching television commercials. by the time they graduate from high school, typical american teenagers have been exposed to 360,000 advertisements. thousands of consumer messages a day tell americans to buy things. advertisements are often the only source of information a consumer has about a product, and as discussed in the section above on eco-labeling, complex information is required for a consumer to make an informed decision about the environmental impact of a product. (source: whitehouse.gov) half of all purchases are made on impulse. and if an sustainable agriculture wants to gain land against the agressive advertisements of their business rivals, they really should think it over, if it's enough to say: "our products/philosophy speaks for itself". i do not talk of aggressive and competor-hostile advertising, but of fair information about the relationship between income of industrial workers and farmers and the percent income spent on healthy food vs. other quite useless products. sustainable agriculture today has one ENORMOUS advantage (thanks to industry!!). for years the big companies rode the train of "natural" foods ("all-natural", "no preservatives", "prepared like at mom's", "aunt sally's cookies", ads with pictures of undistorted, green meadows, little green dwarfs harvesting little green peas from little green plants in midst of nice green fields, farmers caring for their animals like they were their own children, production of corn flakes (mr. kellog would turn himself in his grave, if he would see today's production methods of his label), which perfectly fits into the picture of sustainability and "in harmony with nature". and the same picture has become their "kismet" of today. for years they earned a lot of money (for free) with these adds, which had nothing to do with reality, but with fooling of consumers. result: nowadays they have the problem to explain, why the meanwhile welltrained consumers should shift away from it to GMO's, functional food or additives. scientific explainations won't help, no matter how true/honest they are. the ghosts, they once called.... again: sustainable agriculture needs more advertising. that's something, a lot of organic farmers won't agree with, because it's meddling with their philosophy. but advertising certainly is not restricted to tv ads.. and finally you will have to deal with the ethical question, whether you have to compete unfair, manipulating and wrong ads with a fair behavior... sociology says NO. (the prisoners' dilemma, the evolution of cooperation, game theory. btw: axelrod's "the prisoners' dilemma" - also known as the game of "tit for tat" shows a nice example, how a altruistric group can invade a group of aggressive enemies). klaus To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 03:47:49 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA13480 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:47:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05434 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:32:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA05409 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:32:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA13278 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:30:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id DAA18521 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:30:26 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:30:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Interesting website: Holism, Evolution & Ecology Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 89 Holism, Evolution & Ecology http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/ecotao/std-1.htm Nature's Holism Ecotechnology Ecotaoism <><><><> Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 10:55:10 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18006 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:55:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04859 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:48:04 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA04844 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:47:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from sals (maxmp-148.rain.org [198.68.144.148]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FA2761746; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:46:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002401bf2540$fa9a15c0$949044c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: "Bluestem Associates" , References: Subject: Re: 'Small' farms & certification Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:45:58 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 90 check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Bluestem Associates To: Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 7:16 PM Subject: 'Small' farms & certification > On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:21 -0800, Sal wrote: > > >calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off > >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off > > I believe that the US Small business Administration sets the threshhold > for 'micro' businesses at $250,000 annual sales and below. That covers > 94% of all American farms. I don't know where the upper threshold is, > but it's probably more than my businesses are ever likely to gross. > > Half of US farmers have less than $10,000 in annual sales. all the more reason not to charge these poor farmers money they need to live on. The government they love duplication and overlap and easy made jobs and powertrips. they feel organic growing is the cash cow and they are all out to milk it . Mafia protection money if you don't pay you can't do business. I have to pay a certifier,an inspector,the state of Ca. and now you want me to pay the Fed. USDA for the same dam thing. send paper work to all four and bow down to the power trips that all four are on. Your a farmer king of you farm and you get all these powertripers tell you what u have to do to meet their power trip and the funny part is that it has nothing to do with if u are organic or not but how u cross your ts and dot your i. this is every year over and over . it is getting to be real bull shit. and every year someone else forces you to pay them. it is always let the farmer pay for it all he can get the money back from his customers. where is that guarantee at. and why should I tax my customers who are the only folks I care about. > *However* when I was living in Wisconsin I was tangentially involved in > a case in which an organic grower was routinely using calcium nitrate > and some other prohibited materials. If he was bigger than $5,000, it > wasn't by a lot. so what if there is a thief in a town they don't search every ones house in the whole town to find the one thief why make the honest folks pay because someone cheats. > Cheaters come in all sizes, including small, which is why they, too, > need to be certified. The organic premium is supposed (in part) to > cover the *additional* costs of producing organically, is it not. > Additional costs like paperwork and certification. this is bull shit I don't get a organic premium and I'm lucky to sell my stuff at the same price big farmers get. this is the most bullshit I ever heard . are u going to guarantee me a premium? who guarantees me a supposed premium the certifier the inspector the state of ca the usda . > I'm not sure who is "ripping off" whom when organic growers want the > full premium for their production, but seem pathologically unwilling to > make the efforts in soil care and recordkeeping (including > certification) to justify that premium. all these certifiers and inspectors and usda made jobs and state run rip-offs don't make me organic and don't justify any premium I may get it is the fact that I farm organic my own labor not what these pencle pushers do . if you don't trust me and you don't trust CCOF and you don't trust IFOAM and you don't trust the state of Ca. what makes you think they will trust the USDA. i don't understand if I did not do anything different this year than last year why just because the date changes and it 99 or 20000 why do they all get to line up and get paid again . just because the year changes does not mean I changed anything. so why every year what does that date change have to do with being organic . > I have been on 2 acre organic vegetable farms with 125-150 ton/acre > annual erosion rates. They were pocketing their premium and giving > absolutely nothing back to the land. Their sales were under $5,000 but > they should no more have the right to call themselves organic than if > they had been using Sevin to control squash bugs. It us the > certification process --- with all its flaws --- that should be making > that determination. Self-definition as organic, regardless of size, is > simply wrong. so what! you know a cheater big deal so make every one doing good give up their right to innocent until proven guilty and the organic grower is guilty until he pays to prove he is innocent. and pays and pays and pays over and over again every year. year after year.to more and more people. bullshit. I did not do anything different this year than last year yet they line up to get their pound of flesh every year. are you organic ok pay us. bullshit why should I pay more than a chemical farmer to sell my goods . whats is fair about that. who is this USDA and STATE and inspector and certifier that their word is better than mine and why should I pay all of them. What happen to my robe of innocence? you mean the state does not trust the certifier and the certifier does not trust the inspector and the USDA does not trust any of them. hehe I am certified for my customers but this is getting nuts. I can't even support me let alone a big bureaucratic sink hole. every one charging what they like and I am in the middle being force to pay what every they ask and do what every they ask and bow to all these folks that don't do shit for me but take my money. My customers are happy with my CCOF and IFoam certification and I don't need any more people to pay off. so you know a cheater turn him in don't make me pay for his wrong doing I can't afford it. turn in his certifier turn in his inspector but because some one growing organic may cheat don't make me pay over and over again to more and more people what ever they bill me. the inspectors just gave themselves another raise now they get full pay for driving to your house plus gas and motel room . the state guy is getting paid and only works a three day week is on a real powertrip just talking to him makes me sick and they did not send me my registration for over 8 months just to show me how much power they have. powertripers they got to show you they got the power if you are cheating or not and the USDA is releasing living Frankenstein plants that will make organic growing imposable. you think drift was a problem wait till these GMO start to drift. and you want me to bow down and kiss up to these folks. don't get me started. they all got to show you how much power they got don't do any thing to help u only there to whip their power trip on you . yes boss slavemasters extortionists the Mafia won that's why you don't hear about them. now the government controls the gambling and the loan sharking and the extortion. When the Mafia did it they called it numbers game now the government calls it the lottery . you better worry about the real cheaters the fox you all want to watch the hen house. Just say no to the organic tax just say no to oppression of the poor and rightous. > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 10:56:18 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18035 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:56:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06632 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:01:14 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.pcsia.com (mail.pcsia.com [206.162.14.3]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06616 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:01:10 -0500 (EST) From: mmiller@pcsia.com Received: from www.pcsia.com (unverified [206.162.14.2]) by mail.pcsia.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:59:18 -0600 X-ROUTED: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:59:18 -0600 X-TCP-IDENTITY: MMiller Received: from [206.162.14.73] by www.pcsia.com with smtp id 080d0b3c ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:59:10 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991102084630.007c79b0@pcsia.com> X-Sender: mmiller@pcsia.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 08:46:30 -0600 To: Subject: USDA BioTech Website Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 91 This is excerpted from the Enviornment New Service's Ameriscan posting. Mike Miller BIOTECHNOLOGY IN AGRICULTURE EXPLORED ON NEW WEBSITE WASHINGTON, DC, November 1, 1999 (ENS) - A new website that will be a clearinghouse for agricultural biotechnology issues has been created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). "There is an incredible amount of information on biotechnology available through hundreds of sites on the Internet," said Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. "By creating this new central website, we're providing a starting point for the general public, media, industry, academia and our international trading partners to access information about USDA's role in agricultural biotechnology." The new site offers answers to some common biotechnological questions, along with recent speeches by Glickman on agricultural biotechnology. The site also includes pages on biotechnology and trade, regulations and research. Links to many of the other government agencies involved in biotechnology are also provided. The site will be updated as new reports and information are released by USDA. Several USDA agencies have a role in biotechnology issues. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Food Safety Inspection Service, and the Agricultural Marketing Service help regulate the biotechnology industry. The Agricultural Research Service, the Economic Research Service, and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service conduct or fund agricultural biotechnology research. The Foreign Agricultural Service addresses biotechnology trade issues. The biotechnology website can be accessed at: www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 11:12:13 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18499 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:12:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10270 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:27:15 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov (cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov [199.146.249.191]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10245 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:27:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from tn.nrcs.usda.gov by cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov with ESMTP (8.7.6/itc-cust.Revision: 1.11 $) id OAA05349; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:52:35 GMT Message-ID: <381EFA79.3472D51E@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 08:51:38 -0600 From: mike richardson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; UNIX_SV 4.2MP i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: RE: chlorpyrifos Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 92 Hinds said: ".......when we talk about toxic pesticides, we're discussing what is still the current convention, and one with a number of claimed redeeming social values. However, the situation is changing, and changing ever-more rapidly. As ecologically sane alternatives to toxic pesticides become increasingly available and the use of them more common, the preference of the public for foods produced via these means is also increasing, logarithmically." Clark said: "Why should we (collectively, as a people) be allowing our creative energies to be sapped by this pinhead dancing (is 0.0001 picograms too much? how much more risk is 0.001 picograms?) when it would be so much more fruitful and life-enhancing to design and operate production systems that didn't create the niches allowing pests to proliferate to pestiferous proportions in the first place? It is the flawed system design (corn-soy-corn-soy-corn-soy) or 3000 cow dairies or megahog factories that has encouraged the slide into dependence on biocides." Excellent responses (exerpts). I agree that while we should be looking for alternatives to dependency on chemicals in farming, I also believe that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water, or get into picking the smallest of nits. People in general seem to have this need to swing on pendulums (spelling is not my forte), going from one extreme to another. "Plant fence row to fence row, boys," and use whatever chemicals are needed to get the job done ! Swhoooosh "Lets go back to the days of hunters and gatherers and live in caves, etc." Surely there is some middle ground we can come to where we are not *dependent* on chemicals, but also where sustainable agriculture is not some pie in the sky life led by latter day hippies. Remember, while it often takes time to get into trouble, it usually takes even more time to get out of it. Son of Richard PS to Hinds - I am a VV (1970-71), did my part proudly and still proud of my active & reserve career, but came to realize the futility and stupidity that was behind that war. Don't have any problems with anti-warriors as long as they realize that the GI's were not the problem. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 11:40:45 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19040 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:40:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27661 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:01:52 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from taurus.greensoft.com ([204.77.122.1]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27651 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:01:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from webserf.net (unverified [10.0.0.101]) by taurus.greensoft.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:05:11 -0600 Message-ID: Received: from bluestem [204.77.126.156] by webserf.net (SMTPD32-4.03) id AAB373A90070; Tue, 02 Nov 1999 10:00:51 CDT From: "Bluestem Associates" To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 15:59:19 Reply-To: "Bluestem Associates" X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows 98 (4.10.1998) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: The word "organic," a right? Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 93 Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word "organic" in the marketplace. He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious who-knows what. I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be earned. There are many other marketing words for which you must earn the privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet all the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher unless I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups offering that service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* not matter. The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." Bart To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 11:59:34 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19356 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:59:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02830 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:24:24 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from ars.usda.gov (ars.usda.gov [199.130.152.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA02796 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:24:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from NPA-Message_Server by ars.usda.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 02 Nov 1999 09:07:26 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 09:16:31 -0700 From: Ted Rogers To: dmhinds@acnet.net, mrichardson@tn.nrcs.usda.gov Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re[2]: chlorpyrifos -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 94 EPA documents concerning chlorpyrifos and process of review and decisionmaking. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/chlorpyrifos.htm To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-csa-l@prairienet.org Tue Nov 2 14:21:49 1999 Received: from firefly.prairienet.org (firefly.prairienet.org [192.17.3.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22280 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:21:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from firefly.prairienet.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firefly.prairienet.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA07601; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:19:08 -0600 (CST) Received: from web804.mail.yahoo.com (web804.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.23.64]) by firefly.prairienet.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA07314 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:16:27 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <19991102191626.27546.rocketmail@web804.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [192.54.138.167] by web804.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 02 Nov 1999 11:16:26 PST Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:16:26 -0800 (PST) From: Kirsten Saylor To: CSAlist , sanet Cc: ecofarm@accokeek.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-csa-l@prairienet.org X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.07 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 95 Forwarded for Shane -----Original Message-----From: shane labrake [mailto:ecofarm@accokeek.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 11:21 AM Subject: apprenticship/intern positions at Ecosystem Farm, AccokeekFoundation Dear Friends and Colleagues, Attached is an announcement for apprenticeship positions and an internship at the Ecosystem Farm of the Accokeek Foundation in Piscataway Park in Accokeek, MD. Please forward to any interested students or to any other forums where appropriate. Thanks in advance for your interest and cooperation. Sincerely, Shane J. LaBrake, Farm Manager Accokeek Foundation/RWS Ecosystem Farm 3400 Bryan Point Road Accokeek, MD 20607 Contact: Shane J. LaBrake, Farm Manager (301) 283-2113 ext. 906 (301) 283-2049 FAX e-mail: ecofarm@accokeek.org URL: http://www.accokeek.org Please Note: snail mail or phone contact preferred RWS Ecosystem Farm is hiring 3 full-season apprentices and 1 4-month summer intern for the year 2000 season. This is an intensive land-based training program in organic vegetable production for those who have a serious and mature desire to pursue farming as a way of life. The work is challenging – physically, mentally and emotionally, though thorough instruction and encouragement are provided in a safe and nurturing manner. Applicants must have a strong desire to learn, a willingness to work cooperatively with others, and be willing to work outdoors in all types of weather and to work hard under pressure. The apprentices normally work 55 hours/week. Some prior experience in farming is preferred, though not necessary. Apprentices will receive instruction in use of hand and mechanical tools (including tractor operation). The apprentices will also learn CSA operation and management and philosophy of sustainable agriculture. Apprentices will be involved in all aspects of production including greenhouse work, soil preparation, planting, transplanting, drip irrigation, cultivation and mulching, pest control and harvest. We offer a monthly stipend of $1250.00 and will assist the apprentices in finding local and affordable housing. A Senior Apprenticeship position follows the first season with a $1500.00 monthly stipend. The Accokeek Foundation is an equal opportunity employer. The Ecosystem Farm is an 8-acre certified organic vegetable farm (includes blueberries, cut flowers, culinary herbs and cover crops), on the banks of the Potomac River in Piscataway National Park. We use solar power for irrigation and potable water. We operate a 75-household CSA. Please contact by Dec. 20, 1999 for the 2000 season. Inquiries accepted year-round. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 14:46:47 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22956 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:46:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04800 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:18:49 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from web804.mail.yahoo.com (web804.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.23.64]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA04767 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:18:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19991102191626.27546.rocketmail@web804.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [192.54.138.167] by web804.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 02 Nov 1999 11:16:26 PST Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:16:26 -0800 (PST) From: Kirsten Saylor To: CSAlist , sanet Cc: ecofarm@accokeek.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 96 Forwarded for Shane -----Original Message-----From: shane labrake [mailto:ecofarm@accokeek.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 11:21 AM Subject: apprenticship/intern positions at Ecosystem Farm, AccokeekFoundation Dear Friends and Colleagues, Attached is an announcement for apprenticeship positions and an internship at the Ecosystem Farm of the Accokeek Foundation in Piscataway Park in Accokeek, MD. Please forward to any interested students or to any other forums where appropriate. Thanks in advance for your interest and cooperation. Sincerely, Shane J. LaBrake, Farm Manager Accokeek Foundation/RWS Ecosystem Farm 3400 Bryan Point Road Accokeek, MD 20607 Contact: Shane J. LaBrake, Farm Manager (301) 283-2113 ext. 906 (301) 283-2049 FAX e-mail: ecofarm@accokeek.org URL: http://www.accokeek.org Please Note: snail mail or phone contact preferred RWS Ecosystem Farm is hiring 3 full-season apprentices and 1 4-month summer intern for the year 2000 season. This is an intensive land-based training program in organic vegetable production for those who have a serious and mature desire to pursue farming as a way of life. The work is challenging – physically, mentally and emotionally, though thorough instruction and encouragement are provided in a safe and nurturing manner. Applicants must have a strong desire to learn, a willingness to work cooperatively with others, and be willing to work outdoors in all types of weather and to work hard under pressure. The apprentices normally work 55 hours/week. Some prior experience in farming is preferred, though not necessary. Apprentices will receive instruction in use of hand and mechanical tools (including tractor operation). The apprentices will also learn CSA operation and management and philosophy of sustainable agriculture. Apprentices will be involved in all aspects of production including greenhouse work, soil preparation, planting, transplanting, drip irrigation, cultivation and mulching, pest control and harvest. We offer a monthly stipend of $1250.00 and will assist the apprentices in finding local and affordable housing. A Senior Apprenticeship position follows the first season with a $1500.00 monthly stipend. The Accokeek Foundation is an equal opportunity employer. The Ecosystem Farm is an 8-acre certified organic vegetable farm (includes blueberries, cut flowers, culinary herbs and cover crops), on the banks of the Potomac River in Piscataway National Park. We use solar power for irrigation and potable water. We operate a 75-household CSA. Please contact by Dec. 20, 1999 for the 2000 season. Inquiries accepted year-round. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 14:50:28 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22998 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:50:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA05136 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:19:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA05101 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:19:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22189; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:17:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id OAA27998; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:17:56 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:17:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: Sal cc: Bluestem Associates , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: 'Small' farms & certification In-Reply-To: <002401bf2540$fa9a15c0$949044c6@rain.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 97 For those interested in following this thread and who may have missed reading any of the messages in it I am archiving it, on an ongoing basis, in its entirety at: http://metalab.unc.edu/intergarden/issues-and-news-issues/The.Truth.About.Organic.Certification Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Sal wrote: <><><> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 14:50:38 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23002 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:50:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA02724 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:12:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA02719 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:12:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21795; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:11:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id OAA27660; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:11:02 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:11:02 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: Sal cc: Bluestem Associates , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: 'Small' farms & certification In-Reply-To: <002401bf2540$fa9a15c0$949044c6@rain.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 98 WHAT HE SAID! Sal, you're the man! You should become head of NOP! USDA organic certification is just (yet) another example of undo government intrusion and heavy handed intervention in our fine system of free enterprise and directly in the lives and livelihoods of many good hardworking, productive, resourceful, taxpaying citizens. Certtification of organic food production systems should not be mandatory, it should only be voluntary. The american consumer is intelligent enough to discern what products are worth buying in the marketplace. Retailers are fully capable of "certifying" the organic certifiers. Customers can simply look at a regularly-updated chart posted in plain view in a store to see which certifying agencies the store recommends, details on their track record and how to find certification information on each product labelled "organically produced" in the store. The government cannotget a patent on "I grew this product with materials suppied by Nature" using methods emulating natural processes." Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Sal wrote: > Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:45:58 -0800 > From: Sal > To: Bluestem Associates , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: 'Small' farms & certification > > > check out a organic growers web page > http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bluestem Associates > To: > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 7:16 PM > Subject: 'Small' farms & certification > > > > On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:21 -0800, Sal wrote: > > > > >calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off > > >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off > > > > I believe that the US Small business Administration sets the threshhold > > for 'micro' businesses at $250,000 annual sales and below. That covers > > 94% of all American farms. I don't know where the upper threshold is, > > but it's probably more than my businesses are ever likely to gross. > > > > Half of US farmers have less than $10,000 in annual sales. > > all the more reason not to charge these poor farmers money they need to live > on. The government they love duplication and overlap and easy made jobs > and powertrips. they feel organic growing is the cash cow and they are all > out to milk it . Mafia protection money if you don't pay you can't do > business. I have to pay a certifier,an inspector,the state of Ca. and now > you want me to pay the Fed. USDA for the same dam thing. send paper work to > all four and bow down to the power trips that all four are on. Your a > farmer king of you farm and you get all these powertripers tell you what u > have to do to meet their power trip and the funny part is that it has > nothing to do with if u are organic or not but how u cross your ts and dot > your i. this is every year over and over . > it is getting to be real bull shit. and every year someone else forces you > to pay them. it is always let the farmer pay for it all he can get the > money back from his customers. where is that guarantee at. and why should > I tax my customers who are the only folks I care about. > > > > *However* when I was living in Wisconsin I was tangentially involved in > > a case in which an organic grower was routinely using calcium nitrate > > and some other prohibited materials. If he was bigger than $5,000, it > > wasn't by a lot. > > > > so what if there is a thief in a town they don't search every ones house in > the whole town to find the one thief why make the honest folks pay because > someone cheats. > > > > Cheaters come in all sizes, including small, which is why they, too, > > need to be certified. The organic premium is supposed (in part) to > > cover the *additional* costs of producing organically, is it not. > > Additional costs like paperwork and certification. > > > this is bull shit I don't get a organic premium and I'm lucky to sell my > stuff at the same price big farmers get. this is the most bullshit I ever > heard . are u going to guarantee me a premium? who guarantees me a > supposed premium the certifier the inspector the state of ca the usda . > > > I'm not sure who is "ripping off" whom when organic growers want the > > full premium for their production, but seem pathologically unwilling to > > make the efforts in soil care and recordkeeping (including > > certification) to justify that premium. > > all these certifiers and inspectors and usda made jobs and state run > rip-offs don't make me organic and don't justify any premium I may get it > is the fact that I farm organic my own labor not what these pencle pushers > do . if you don't trust me and you don't trust CCOF and you don't trust > IFOAM and you don't trust the state of Ca. what makes you think they will > trust the USDA. i don't understand if I did not do anything different this > year than last year why just because the date changes and it 99 or 20000 why > do they all get to line up and get paid again . just because the year > changes does not mean I changed anything. so why every year what does that > date change have to do with being organic . > > > > > I have been on 2 acre organic vegetable farms with 125-150 ton/acre > > annual erosion rates. They were pocketing their premium and giving > > absolutely nothing back to the land. Their sales were under $5,000 but > > they should no more have the right to call themselves organic than if > > they had been using Sevin to control squash bugs. It us the > > certification process --- with all its flaws --- that should be making > > that determination. Self-definition as organic, regardless of size, is > > simply wrong. > > > so what! you know a cheater big deal so make every one doing good give up > their right to innocent until proven guilty and the organic grower is guilty > until he pays to prove he is innocent. and pays and pays and pays over and > over again every year. year after year.to more and more people. bullshit. > I did not do anything different this year than last year yet they line up to > get their pound of flesh every year. are you organic ok pay us. bullshit > why should I pay more than a chemical farmer to sell my goods . whats is > fair about that. > who is this USDA and STATE and inspector and certifier that their word is > better than mine and why should I pay all of them. > > What happen to my robe of innocence? > > you mean the state does not trust the certifier and the certifier does not > trust the inspector and the USDA does not trust any of them. hehe I am > certified for my customers but this is getting nuts. I can't even support > me let alone a big bureaucratic sink hole. every one charging what they > like and I am in the middle being force to pay what every they ask and do > what every they ask and bow to all these folks that don't do shit for me but > take my money. My customers are happy with my CCOF and IFoam certification > and I don't need any more people to pay off. > so you know a cheater turn him in don't make me pay for his wrong doing I > can't afford it. turn in his certifier turn in his inspector but because > some one growing organic may cheat don't make me pay over and over again to > more and more people what ever they bill me. > the inspectors just gave themselves another raise now they get full pay for > driving to your house plus gas and motel room . the state guy is getting > paid and only works a three day week is on a real powertrip just talking to > him makes me sick and they did not send me my registration for over 8 months > just to show me how much power they have. powertripers they got to show you > they got the power if you are cheating or not and the USDA is releasing > living Frankenstein plants that will make organic growing imposable. you > think drift was a problem wait till these GMO start to drift. and you want > me to bow down and kiss up to these folks. don't get me started. they all > got to show you how much power they got don't do any thing to help u only > there to whip their power trip on you . yes boss slavemasters extortionists > the Mafia won that's why you don't hear about them. now the government > controls the gambling and the loan sharking and the extortion. When the > Mafia did it they called it numbers game now the government calls it the > lottery . you better worry about the real cheaters the fox you all want to > watch the hen house. Just say no to the organic tax just say no to > oppression of the poor and rightous. > > > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 14:50:56 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23006 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:50:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04456 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:17:31 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from saffron.propagation.net (saffron.propagation.net [216.221.160.23]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04406 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:17:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from 204.149.164.194 (mx3-51.ilhawaii.net [204.149.164.194]) by saffron.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA26709; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:15:12 -0600 Message-ID: <381F3BE8.76F0@smallfarms.com> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 09:30:48 -1000 From: Glenn Reply-To: glenn@smallfarms.com Organization: smallfarms.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: who are our friends? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 99 Morning! I visited the http://www.thehungersite.com, the people who donate food for hits we make there. Their numbers are impressive! Have a look at their list of sponsors which is varied and really impressive. It reminded me of the importance of seeking out and retaining our friends and partners in the sustainable, organic, small farms part of the food business. We know of at least one chef who is listening to our discussions because he posted a short message recently. Who else are we talking talking with? Are we covering all of our friends? glenn Buy from the Farmer http://www.smallfarms.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 15:10:54 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA23282 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:10:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08751 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:29:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08649 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:29:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22398; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:27:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id OAA28146; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:27:18 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:27:17 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: Bluestem Associates cc: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 100 On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Bluestem Associates wrote: > Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 15:59:19 > From: Bluestem Associates > To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" > Subject: The word "organic," a right? > > Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word > "organic" in the marketplace. > > He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious > who-knows what. I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be > earned. > > There are many other marketing words for which you must earn the > privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet all > the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher unless > I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups offering that > service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* not matter. It is not the government's business to enforce this process. Private organic certification agencies and discerning consumers are all that is required to carry this out successfully. Of course if "We're THE Organic People", Inc. UnLtd. wants to mass market "official USDA Certified Organic soy doodles" to 1 billion dumbells who can't or won't read the label, then that's another matter, but WHY do skilled, committed, productive, deserving small organic growers have to make huge sacrifices to make this scam possible both for the government and their favored buddies in the corporate megalith agribiz world. I know, Dennis Avery told them it was OK. > The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone > can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." > > > Bart Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 15:25:54 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA23784 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:25:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15610 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:39:29 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from THE-SPA.COM (the-spa.com [204.97.227.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15537 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:39:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from cisa ([206.153.193.183]) by THE-SPA.COM with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 4839700 ; Tue, 02 Nov 1999 14:37:07 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991102143716.00794be0@buylocalfood.com> X-Sender: markl@buylocalfood.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 14:37:16 -0500 To: jimdpitts@aol.com, jazzli@crocker.com, emaltby@open-field.org, begg@together.net, Mmaide@aol.com, bschultz@hampshire.edu, barts@valinet.com, bwallace@javanet.com, pickens@crocker.com, dcooley@microbio.umass.edu, kruhf@smallfarm.org, jcutson@hampshire.edu, Mmaide@aol.com, gabyi@buylocalfood.com, nefood-l@listproc.tufts.edu, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Mark Subject: High Tech Food Fight Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 101 >From the National Journal, 10/23/99, p. 3075: More than two dozen Washington trade associations eager to promote wider public acceptance of genetically altered food have formed the Alliance for Better Foods. The group's members include the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Meat Institute, the Food Distributors International and the National Food Processors Association. The group, which was cooked up earlier this month, is focusing on public relations rather than lobbying, said Stephen Gaskill, a spokesman for the group. The coalition, he added, operates out of the Washington office of BSMG Worldwide, a New York City-based PR firm. "Biotech food has such promise, and the science is so sound, that we wanted to ensure that products were not derailed by opposition before people have a real chance to understand what this is and what it can do," Gaskill said. The Alliance for Better Foods joins another group - the International Food Information Council - which has worked on public education about biotech food since 1985. Both groups face continuing criticism of genetically altered foods from, among other organizations, Greenpeace and Consumers Union. Exemplifying the influence of such foes, Greenpeace convinced Gerber Products CO. earlier this year to keep genetically engineered products out of its baby foods, according to Charles Margulis, a specialist in genetic-engineering issues for Greenpeace in Washington. ---------------------------------------------------- Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) An independent non-profit organization. http://www.buylocalfood.com 893 West Street Amherst MA 01002-5001 T: 413-559-5338 F: 413-559-5404 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 16:47:50 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25192 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:47:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04695 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:10:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA04625 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:10:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA24626 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:08:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id QAA02461 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:08:28 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:08:27 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 102 On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Bluestem Associates wrote: > Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word > "organic" in the marketplace. > > He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious > who-knows what. I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be > earned. To repeat your words, "a *privilege* to be earned" is exactly right in the context of a producer wishing to market products labelled CERTIFIED organic as opposed to "organic", a label that anyone should be free to use, putting their credibility, accountability and quality assurance on the line for public scrutiny of, course. Organic certification agencies not given a free ride through government enforcement of organic labelling laws it creates and tailors to its own desired ends, would be motivated to compete with fellow certification agencies for clients seeking certification, touting their standards as the most exacting and reliable. Producers would strive to attain certification from the best agencies in order to gain maximum market access. "Letting the government do it" simply gives certification agencies a free ride and opens the door to abuse of the system, on the backs of the small organic grower who cannot afford the time and expense of getting certification and would rather rely on nearby local sales and building reputation and sales by "word of mouth", a perfectly legitimate and extremely effective way of doing business. Customers would gain by participating in such a system by having access to a broader range of products, possibly of better or equal quality to "certified organic" ones and participaion in a time-honored traditional marketing system that is more farmer, customer and and community-friendly, a system modeled in part on the Fertile Crescent, foodshed and food circle concepts. Get and keep the government out of the organic labelling business and let it stick to enforcing truth-in-labelling laws and monitoring the safety of products. > There are many other marketing words for which you must earn > the privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet > all the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher > unless I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups > offering that service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* > not matter. > The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone > can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." Nothing wrong with that and it usually comes with a high price tag these days as so many food products in the marketplace continue be adulterated and of poor nutritional quality. Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 17:18:30 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA25788 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 17:18:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA23181 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:38:47 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA23164 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:38:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from sals (maxmp-128.rain.org [198.68.144.128]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 030B861765; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:36:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001c01bf257a$5b644900$809044c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: "Bluestem Associates" , References: Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:36:40 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 103 check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Bluestem Associates To: Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 3:59 PM Subject: The word "organic," a right? > Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word > "organic" in the marketplace. > > He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious > who-knows what. I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be > earned. > > There are many other marketing words for which you must earn the > privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet all > the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher unless > I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups offering that > service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* not matter. > > The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone > can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." > I have been certified for over 15 years and have my land inspected and have paid a certifier and a inspector and the state of ca. all that time every year,year after year and I do care what is called organic what u talking about. and if a Rabbi comes to my house and kills a chicken and tells me it is kosher I would trust him . You trust the paper more than the Rabbi. hehe whats up with u telling folks How I feel. I been playing by the books for so long because I do care where organic is going and I don't like what I see. you going to force your powertrip on me telling me how I feel and saying I need some big brother to watch over me because I am "growing organic"I don't know what non natural and natural is and saying I have to bow to the USDA who are the real folks that don't know GMO from natural. your right I do disagree with you I feel if you grow organic you should be free to tell the world you do by growing organic that is what give me the right to use that word. I feel I have as much a right to use that word as anyone because I grow organic. ... .they have turned the word organic into a political football subject to hard money and soft money and back door money and under the table money and we want our word back. I have been using it and folks have grown organic for 6000 years and only now this generation of vipers want to tax u for being natural . they want to make you pay for the chemicals you don't use.is this a joke or what. is this backwards or what. and u bluestem associates what ever that means don't tell folks what I think I can tell them my self. I don't think this take over of the word organic and the con job by the USDA is a good idea and I don't like paying the state of Ca. just because I am organic why should they get extra money from me just because Im organic. . you are right I do feel if I grow organic I have the right to tell folks how I grew their food something the USDA does not feel folks have a right to know. we are paying too many people to much of our hard earned money. its a rip off. how many bureaucratic pencil pushing bottom feeders do I have to pay off just to be able to tell the truth. farming is hard enough with out all these bosses working their power trips on you . the bureaucratic bullshit is harder than the farming. they are all on powertrips who needs it. the biggest pest i have is this bureaucratic bullshit pest . they don't pick up a hoe or help u pick food or even pull a weed yet they feel they have a right to your money and the feel they have the right to tell you what they want from u because u are organic. they do nothing only boss u each with his own power trip what a night mare . they love to show you how much power they have. I don't need anymore more bosses . they think they are such bigshots give them a little power and they powertrip on you. It is that old slavemaster sprit they still have it. the USDA in all my years has not been the organic growers friend or the small farmers friend or the black farmers friend in fact they are the biggest reason you don't see many of these kinds of farmers. the fox watching the hen house . we don't need no stinking badges. > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 18:52:04 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27150 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:52:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21950 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:17:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from envsci.rutgers.edu (envsci.rutgers.edu [165.230.5.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21899 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:17:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from bermuda-asy-1.rutgers.edu (bermuda-asy-1.rutgers.edu [128.6.248.129]) by envsci.rutgers.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA10956; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:11:50 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: envsci.rutgers.edu: bermuda-asy-1.rutgers.edu [128.6.248.129] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <381F999E.72AD@envsci.rutgers.edu> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 18:10:38 -0800 From: Loren Muldowney Reply-To: loscott@envsci.rutgers.EDU Organization: Individual X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bluestem Associates CC: sanet Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 104 Bluestem Associates wrote: > > Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word > "organic" in the marketplace. > > He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious > who-knows what. I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be > earned. There exists at least one other option, and I would welcome commentary from everyone involved in buying, selling, marketing, or regulating, since the concept can be applied much more widely than just to the "organic" market. This option is basing the regulatory frame, not upon the dollar amount sold, but on the level of anonymity involved in the transaction chain, or the number of steps between producer and consumer, or some kind of measure other than a financial one. So, if I am buying personally, face to face, from a local farm, and I know these people and my kids go to school with their kids, and I see every day how they live their lives and I go past their fields and can ask them personally about various practices and problems, that is really very different than if I am making an anonymous purchase through a third party. Why not make the exemptions based, not on income, but on the relationship between buyer and seller? If I am in position where t's physically possible to decide personally whether I trust that specific producer personally, what is the interest of the Federal Government, state government, or anybody else in that transaction? The matter is in the realm of personal affairs between two individuals. This can apply to buying milk, eggs and butchered livestock from my neighbors as easily as to organic produce. When I am "protected" only from making my own decisions, who is really served? Who would object to making the criteria based on relationship? > There are many other marketing words for which you must earn the > privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet all > the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher unless > I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups offering that > service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* not matter. Well, actually, some individuals accept one organization's standards of kosher and not others. And as long as the consumer knows who is doing the certifying, who is harmed? It's just like when the different organic certifiers didn't have to pretend they were all the same, when in fact they were not. I used to be able to purchase based on who did the certifying, and those days will be over soon, probably devolving to the lowest common denominator, but possibly even worse. In the case of kosher food, the word "kosher" is not the deciding thing, it is the registered trademark of the certifying organization which carries the weight. Speaking here from the hub of orthodox Judaism in the USA...... LM To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 20:34:30 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA28875 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:34:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03829 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:10:19 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from taurus.greensoft.com ([204.77.122.1]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA03809 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:10:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from webserf.net (unverified [10.0.0.101]) by taurus.greensoft.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:13:42 -0600 Message-ID: Received: from bluestem [204.77.126.175] by webserf.net (SMTPD32-4.03) id AB3C634500BC; Tue, 02 Nov 1999 19:09:16 CDT From: "Bluestem Associates" To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 01:07:53 Reply-To: "Bluestem Associates" X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows 98 (4.10.1998) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 105 On Tue, 02 Nov 1999 18:10:38 -0800, Loren Muldowney wrote: >There exists at least one other option, and I would welcome commentary >from everyone involved in buying, selling, marketing, or regulating, >since the concept can be applied much more widely than just to the >"organic" market. This option is basing the regulatory frame, not upon >the dollar amount sold, but on the level of anonymity involved in the >transaction chain, or the number of steps between producer and consumer, >or some kind of measure other than a financial one. I agree totally, big or small, size has nothing to do with it. Certification is institutionalised trust. When the trust relationship is there, you don't need the institution. In fact, I'll take well-placed trust over 'institution' any day of the week. The question of certification has everything to do with distance and intermediaries. Allow me to quote from an article I wrote in Growing for Market in May of 1999. I was referring to lot numbers, but that is a good substitute for the whole system of certification. "[certification] is almost always unnecessary for vegetables sold primarily into local markets (CSA, farmers' markets, farm stand, a few restaurants, etc.) In broad terms, if there is no more than one intermediary between you and the customer you can dispense with [certification] altogether for produce. Once you get into wholesale markets, however, where there are two or more intermediaries, [certification] is generally more important." (page 8) Let me add, since some folks seem to have some confusion about the matter, that I am categorically opposed to government involvement in certification beyond (possibly) the establishment of minimum standards as a mandatory *floor* (not ceiling), thereby eliminating all the California Code charlatans currently undermining the market for legitimate organic growers of all sizes. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 20:40:23 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA28972 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:40:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA11175 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:21:31 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA11063 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:21:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.168] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:18:41 -0600 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:17:32 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1803.991102@acnet.net> To: "Bluestem Associates" CC: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? In-reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 106 Hi Bart (and all the rest of you fellow saneters), Before going any further, I want to say that I have tremendous respect for Bart and consider many of his accomplishments to be extremely important. Having said that, I must state that I seem to share the "fundamental difference over use of the word "organic" in the marketplace" that he says he seems to have with Sal; except that in this instance I share it with Sal. Here's why (we'll continue below): Tuesday, November 02, 1999, 9:59:19 AM, you wrote: BA> Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word BA> "organic" in the marketplace. BA> He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious BA> who-knows what. Here's what: It is true that the word "organic" has more than one usage. On the one hand, it represents a set of philosophic principles that in turn, have become embodied in specific farm production systems and the products that emanate from same. On the other hand, it is a word that has arrived at, through the hard work, perseverance and integrity of many (not the least of which is Bart Hall), at an important level of public and specifically, *consumer* recognition. In other words, the word organic itself has become imbued with it's own market value and can be considered a valuable commodity, the control of which lends considerable power and opportunity to whoever holds it. The meaning of a word is invariably related to it's etymology, or origins; coupled with the more recent and current common usage the word has been given, in practice. As things now stand, organic foods are those that were produced, handled and sometimes processed, using methods consistent with the organic philosophy and tradition. Additionally, an industry of third party "objective witnesses" has also developed, some of which have achieved a fair degree of respect within certain circles of buyers, be they consumers of intermediaries. These self proclaimed "objective witnesses", supported by those that value their "services" proportion a kind of affidavit as to the products' adherence to organic principles and processes, a "certification" as it were. Some state governments, building on their ability to make obligatory the use of this service from the vantage point of the political power they wield, have themselves entered into the "certification business". >From this perspective (a third definition), a product isn't organic on the basis of the way it was cultivated, handled and sometimes processed (Sal says it is, but Bart says it isn't), because from *this* perspective, the product is organic at the moment THE MAN with the POWER says it is, and not before. In short, words define states. The question is, which definition are we to accept? Which state is the real one? (Can states stand up and talk? You're damn right they can. Read on). BA> I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be BA> earned. And WHO, good buddy, doles out that *privilege*? Do we have to stand in line for it, after having followed all the appropriate principles, precepts and practices? Are our buyers and those who consume our products demanding that? BA> There are many other marketing words for which you must earn the BA> privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet all BA> the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher unless BA> I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups offering that BA> service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* not matter. We are not even going to discuss in this forum, the power that religion holds over it's disciples. BA> The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone BA> can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." BA> Bart Bart, what we really need is a comprehensive and consistent definition of what "organic is and isn't". But leave the need for verifying or not verifying that to those involved in each and every transaction. Once a valid legal definition that in turn is congruent with organic principles and tradition, one that is supported by the organic community exists; the state of being organic or not organic is INHERENT IN THE PRODUCT. The product embodies that state, and this state is something VERIFIABLE when this is appropriate; that is, when for the demand for it arises. This is true because we are talking about the possibility of consumer fraud having been committed. The questions Sal raised (and they're good ones) is WHO should bear the cost of verification and when should that cost be incurred. The answer is simple. (In reverse order): When reasonable doubt exists as to the veracity of the claims made, the cost being born by those that have made false claims when these have been proved false. On the one hand a given product is proclaimed to be organic, and on the other a suspicion has been raised that it isn't. Payment for the verification procedure should depend on the outcome of those tests. This is what Sal is saying. Let the USDA get into the certification business if it wants to, but let it compete in the market for those services like anybody else: Based on the merit of the service provided, as judged by those who use the service. For many, verification on demand will be preferable to obligatory and universal certification, and the legal basis for needs to be created. We can talk about legal definitions, talk about congress and the president of the united states if you like - but reality is not created by decree, my friends; nor is the meaning of words, particularly when they've been around as long as this one has, and has come to mean what it does precisely because there IS a difference in the value and results of different types of agricultural production systems, one founded on biological principles and processes, the other on easily commercialized bottles of chemicals that make little or no effort to account for the effects on the environment and human health they produce. I share Sal's outrage and find ample basis for his totally sincere and well founded analysis of the present situation. He's getting screwed as things stand and deserves much better treatment from the elected authorities who've sworn to uphold the public good, with liberty and justice for all. He's supporting a whole network of bureaucrats that add no value to the crops he himself produces, at his own cost. The idea that someone farther away from the scene is better equipped to determine whether or not his product is as he and his clients say it is, is an insult. If a reasonable doubt exists, that that doubt be raised in an appropriate forum, with the risk shared by both parties. If periodic inspections are called for due to public health concerns (as they could be in any industry and for organic and conventional farmers alike), funding for these should be derived from the same tax moneys that fund any other governmental activity at present, without penalizing the farmers that are doing more than the rest to produce a healthy, nutritious product without damaging the environment, and doing so on the basis of their own effort and conviction, with no help from those now living off these farmers hard work: Harvesting without having planted, cashing in without having to take a product to market I find this recent statement of yours inconsistent with the extremely well documented statements you sent to the NOP in relation to the Organic Rule which you were kind enough to send me copies of, and hope that it's a passing thing. Best regards, Douglas Hinds To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 07:02:51 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA04507 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:02:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA14836 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 06:48:26 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp.ncc-mannheim.net (smtp.ncc-mannheim.net [62.104.117.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA14772 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 06:48:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (lufa-sp.vdlufa.de [62.132.27.12] (may be forged)) by smtp.ncc-mannheim.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA00601; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:47:29 +0100 Received: from lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (LUFA.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de [192.168.3.254]) by www.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06961; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:48:23 +0100 Received: from LUFA/SpoolDir by lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (Mercury 1.44); 3 Nov 99 12:40:42 +0100 Received: from SpoolDir by LUFA (Mercury 1.44); 3 Nov 99 12:40:04 +0100 From: "Klaus Wiegand" Organization: Landw. U.-& Forsch.-Anstalt Speyer To: jgruv@wam.umd.edu, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:40:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Dick and Sharon Thompson's "problem child" Reply-to: Wiegand@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <9093EC7845@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de> Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 107 hello joel, >Last night, I was browsing an old issue of the Journal of >Agronomic Education (~ 1991, so it may have been the newly named >incarnation) and read a case study article titled "Dick and Sharon >Thompson's problem child". > >The case study presented that >after ~20 years of organic integrated livestock and row crop >production, the Thompsons decided that they had to start banding muriate >of potash (KCl) to alleviate K deficiency. Tissue tests of their corn >indicated a serious K deficiency but soil tests indicated K levels that were >more than adequate. > >Since adopting organic management practices in 1969, the Thompsons had >not applied any salt fertilizers but had ammended all fields with >manure from their integrated cattle operation. For a number of years, they >composted the manure prior to field application but eventually decided >to abandon composting. Despite the fact that their soil test K levels had >increased during their 20 years of organic management, something was >causing their crops to become increasing K deficient. > >Sooo... ~ 7 years have gone by since this article was written... I am >wondering whether the Thompsons have resolved or continued to struggle >with their "K problem child" and/or what mechanisms were underlying the >problem... Can anyone enlighten me ? i think, that's an old problem with grassland. most of the nutrients (esp. nitrogen in up to 10% organic matter in the grasslayer) is found in the upper 10 cm of the field. the soil below gets deficient or the nutrients are fixated. so nutrient analysis usually is also restricted to a sample of these 10-15 cm, while in ploughed land you take 30-35 cm. then you plow the grassland and in the first and also in the 2nd (and most probably also in the 3rd) year you have: a) a deficiency of K (that's the usual result of our analyses and it results from the deficiency of the deeper soil layers, although the upper 10 cm are sufficiently or even high in potash content). things are getting better with the years, but you will have a deficiency for about 3 or 4 years. then orthoclas and caolinit will start to set free more K (but as a rule of thumb : always add K when switching from grassland to tillage.) and mostly K isn't the only deficiency to show up, it's only the most evident and b) high leaching of nitrogen, because the usually compact 10 cm upper soil (with the grassroots) becomes more aerated, drier and warmer, the OM is rapidly destroyed and cannot be absorbed in the now 30 cm of plowed soil. there's nowhere so much nitrogen leaching than in just ploughed grasslands.. klaus Klaus Wiegand Landwirtschaftl. Untersuchungs- u. Forschungsanstalt (LUFA) (Governm. Inst. for Agricult. & Environm. Res.) 67346 Speyer, Obere Langgasse 40 (GERMANY) Dept. of Seed Sci., Microscop. Analysis & Plant Pathol. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 07:17:21 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA04599 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:17:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA23481 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:04:15 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp.ncc-mannheim.net (smtp.ncc-mannheim.net [62.104.117.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA23405 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:04:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (lufa-sp.vdlufa.de [62.132.27.12] (may be forged)) by smtp.ncc-mannheim.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA00788 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:03:19 +0100 Received: from lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (LUFA.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de [192.168.3.254]) by www.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07027 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:04:13 +0100 Received: from LUFA/SpoolDir by lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (Mercury 1.44); 3 Nov 99 12:56:33 +0100 Received: from SpoolDir by LUFA (Mercury 1.44); 3 Nov 99 12:56:09 +0100 From: "Klaus Wiegand" Organization: Landw. U.-& Forsch.-Anstalt Speyer To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:56:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program Reply-to: Wiegand@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <90D87A41F3@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de> Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 108 hello sal, >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off >set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks >if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the >inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy >calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off >set the standards and fine those that break the law not the >honest folks if you come and inspect me and i am telling the >truth u pay for the inspection if I am lying I pay and get a >fine. easy no, sal. it's not that easy ! let me speak as a consumer, not as a public consultant (yes, from time to time i also consume and stop analysing and consulting). you won't get away with that so simple. in case you acted against organic rules i believed your statements and you cheated me ! the usual result of a consumer would be: stay away from you FOREVER and try his luck elsewhere. your idea is: just pay a fine and then you are allowed a second try of cheating me. fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. why do you think, you can get away with just a fine ? the system you imagine will work for you yourself, but never under a label, because you have competors, who will not accept, that they should stay honest and you only risk a fine 20 or even 80% of your net gain by cheating. so most important question: what's your idea of the fine ???? 1000 $, 10% of your annual income, 1/2 year of a selling ban (who will control the last two things?) ???. and to whom do you PAY the fine ?? >the organic tax is a rip off. stay away from from it, but also don't use the advantage of the label as consumers understand it... every other thing is a free ride on a train the others pay for.. > I know I am organic what did i get ..... YOU know, but that's your personal business. eat your own food, be content with your own pure fruits, but don't expect me to believe, what you know... you certainly would convince some dear friends, who know you're an honest guy, but do not believe (or know), that i from the village nearby am going to trust you automatically. that's exactly the problem with the word "organic". to everyone it has a different meaning. 8 years ago we made an analysis on food bought a) under certified labels and b) bought under the non-regulated name "organic". while a) was almost! free of pesticide residues, b) had about one third the levels of chemical residues of conventional farmers. evidently one third of the uncertified "organics" cheated consumer's assumption of what they understood by "organic". so if you think, you can have your way without certification, that's ok (i'm against obligatory certification for anyone, who uses the name organic), but don't ride the same train, others pay for by certification. it's what i wrote long ago: if organic growers will not find an agreement on what "biologic", "organic", "natural", "bio-dynamic" really means for ALL, who use these labels, you will VERY SOON run into trouble of not being able to explain for what reasons i should prefer your products. time will show the wiser and in my opinion it will largely depend on how trustworthy you are on EVERY INDIVIDUAL consumer. but anonymously selling your products won't work.... at least not here in europe. i checked it: for more than 10 years we had a MAJOR food scandal at least every 3 months !! trust from the consumers to an anonymous producer ? forget it !!! klaus To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 08:55:36 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06456 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:55:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21081 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:34:09 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21071 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:34:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.169] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:31:25 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:30:23 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <10312.991103@acnet.net> To: "Klaus Wiegand" CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re[2]: Proposed organic cost share program In-reply-To: <90D87A41F3@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de> References: <90D87A41F3@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 109 Dear Klaus, With all due respect, your comments are strictly hypothetical and only complicate a practical concrete situation that has existed for some time between Sal and the buyers / consumers of his products. While legal penalties and appropriate remedies for consumer fraud are certainly subject to debate in a public forum, the relationship between grower and his customers should NOT be open to such Governmental intervention (or theoretical posturing) without a demonstrably reasonable basis in fact. What is at issue here is the proper role of government in the matter of organic certification, which has failed to differentiate between "organic" (as defined by law*, in terms of the materials and procedures used), and "certified organic" which defines* the role of certification organizations and their services (and thank you Larry for reminding me of that important distinction that we had emphasized back in 1997). This is an important distinction and should NOT be glossed over. * Once accomplished As for the rest of the philosophical end of it, I've got a few practical issues of my own to face and can't promise to engage in much further discussion of this thread at present. (Incidentally Klaus, I've agreed with many of your informative posts). Douglas Hinds Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 4:56:00 AM, you wrote: KW> hello sal, >>taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off >>set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks >>if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the >>inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy >>calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off >>taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off >>set the standards and fine those that break the law not the >>honest folks if you come and inspect me and i am telling the >>truth u pay for the inspection if I am lying I pay and get a >>fine. easy KW> no, sal. it's not that easy ! let me speak as a consumer, not as KW> a public consultant (yes, from time to time i also consume and KW> stop analysing and consulting). KW> you won't get away with that so simple. in case you acted against KW> organic rules i believed your statements and you cheated me ! the KW> usual result of a consumer would be: stay away from you FOREVER KW> and try his luck elsewhere. your idea is: just pay a fine and KW> then you are allowed a second try of cheating me. fool me once, KW> shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. why do you think, you can KW> get away with just a fine ? the system you imagine will work for you KW> yourself, but never under a label, because you have competors, who KW> will not accept, that they should stay honest and you only risk a KW> fine 20 or even 80% of your net gain by cheating. KW> so most important question: KW> what's your idea of the fine ???? 1000 $, 10% of your annual KW> income, 1/2 year of a selling ban (who will control the last KW> two things?) ???. and to whom do you PAY the fine ?? >>the organic tax is a rip off. KW> stay away from from it, but also don't use the advantage of the KW> label as consumers understand it... every other thing is a free ride KW> on a train the others pay for.. >> I know I am organic what did i get ..... KW> YOU know, but that's your personal business. eat your own food, KW> be content with your own pure fruits, but don't expect me to KW> believe, what you know... you certainly would convince some dear KW> friends, who know you're an honest guy, but do not believe (or KW> know), that i from the village nearby am going to trust you KW> automatically. KW> that's exactly the problem with the word "organic". to everyone KW> it has a different meaning. 8 years ago we made an analysis on KW> food bought a) under certified labels and b) bought under the KW> non-regulated name "organic". while a) was almost! free of KW> pesticide residues, b) had about one third the levels of chemical KW> residues of conventional farmers. evidently one third of the KW> uncertified "organics" cheated consumer's assumption of what they KW> understood by "organic". KW> so if you think, you can have your way without certification, KW> that's ok (i'm against obligatory certification for anyone, who KW> uses the name organic), but don't ride the same train, others pay KW> for by certification. it's what i wrote long ago: if organic KW> growers will not find an agreement on what "biologic", "organic", KW> "natural", "bio-dynamic" really means for ALL, who use these KW> labels, you will VERY SOON run into trouble of not being able to KW> explain for what reasons i should prefer your products. KW> time will show the wiser and in my opinion it KW> will largely depend on how trustworthy you are on EVERY INDIVIDUAL KW> consumer. but anonymously selling your products won't work.... KW> at least not here in europe. i checked it: for more than 10 years KW> we had a MAJOR food scandal at least every 3 months !! KW> trust from the consumers to an anonymous producer ? forget it !!! KW> klaus KW> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command KW> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command KW> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". KW> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command KW> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". KW> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: KW> http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 08:55:37 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06460 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:55:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21137 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:34:43 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21115 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:34:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.169] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:31:58 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:30:58 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <18313.991103@acnet.net> To: "Klaus Wiegand" CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re[2]: Proposed organic cost share program In-reply-To: <90D87A41F3@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de> References: <90D87A41F3@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 110 Dear Klaus, With all due respect, your comments are strictly hypothetical and only complicate a practical concrete situation that has existed for some time between Sal and the buyers / consumers of his products. While legal penalties and appropriate remedies for consumer fraud are certainly subject to debate in a public forum, the relationship between grower and his customers should NOT be open to such Governmental intervention (or theoretical posturing) without a demonstrably reasonable basis in fact. What is at issue here is the proper role of government in the matter of organic certification, which has failed to differentiate between "organic" (as defined by law*, in terms of the materials and procedures used), and "certified organic" which defines* the role of certification organizations and their services (and thank you Larry for reminding me of that important distinction that we had emphasized back in 1997). This is an important distinction and should NOT be glossed over. * Once accomplished As for the rest of the philosophical end of it, I've got a few practical issues of my own to face and can't promise to engage in much further discussion of this thread at present. (Incidentally Klaus, I've agreed with many of your informative posts). Douglas Hinds Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 4:56:00 AM, you wrote: KW> hello sal, >>taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off >>set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks >>if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the >>inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy >>calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off >>taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off >>set the standards and fine those that break the law not the >>honest folks if you come and inspect me and i am telling the >>truth u pay for the inspection if I am lying I pay and get a >>fine. easy KW> no, sal. it's not that easy ! let me speak as a consumer, not as KW> a public consultant (yes, from time to time i also consume and KW> stop analysing and consulting). KW> you won't get away with that so simple. in case you acted against KW> organic rules i believed your statements and you cheated me ! the KW> usual result of a consumer would be: stay away from you FOREVER KW> and try his luck elsewhere. your idea is: just pay a fine and KW> then you are allowed a second try of cheating me. fool me once, KW> shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. why do you think, you can KW> get away with just a fine ? the system you imagine will work for you KW> yourself, but never under a label, because you have competors, who KW> will not accept, that they should stay honest and you only risk a KW> fine 20 or even 80% of your net gain by cheating. KW> so most important question: KW> what's your idea of the fine ???? 1000 $, 10% of your annual KW> income, 1/2 year of a selling ban (who will control the last KW> two things?) ???. and to whom do you PAY the fine ?? >>the organic tax is a rip off. KW> stay away from from it, but also don't use the advantage of the KW> label as consumers understand it... every other thing is a free ride KW> on a train the others pay for.. >> I know I am organic what did i get ..... KW> YOU know, but that's your personal business. eat your own food, KW> be content with your own pure fruits, but don't expect me to KW> believe, what you know... you certainly would convince some dear KW> friends, who know you're an honest guy, but do not believe (or KW> know), that i from the village nearby am going to trust you KW> automatically. KW> that's exactly the problem with the word "organic". to everyone KW> it has a different meaning. 8 years ago we made an analysis on KW> food bought a) under certified labels and b) bought under the KW> non-regulated name "organic". while a) was almost! free of KW> pesticide residues, b) had about one third the levels of chemical KW> residues of conventional farmers. evidently one third of the KW> uncertified "organics" cheated consumer's assumption of what they KW> understood by "organic". KW> so if you think, you can have your way without certification, KW> that's ok (i'm against obligatory certification for anyone, who KW> uses the name organic), but don't ride the same train, others pay KW> for by certification. it's what i wrote long ago: if organic KW> growers will not find an agreement on what "biologic", "organic", KW> "natural", "bio-dynamic" really means for ALL, who use these KW> labels, you will VERY SOON run into trouble of not being able to KW> explain for what reasons i should prefer your products. KW> time will show the wiser and in my opinion it KW> will largely depend on how trustworthy you are on EVERY INDIVIDUAL KW> consumer. but anonymously selling your products won't work.... KW> at least not here in europe. i checked it: for more than 10 years KW> we had a MAJOR food scandal at least every 3 months !! KW> trust from the consumers to an anonymous producer ? forget it !!! KW> klaus KW> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command KW> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command KW> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". KW> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command KW> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". KW> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: KW> http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 10:03:25 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08119 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:03:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25058 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:39:58 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24925 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:39:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from sals (maxmp-117.rain.org [198.68.144.117]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D42856174F; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 06:37:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001e01bf2609$02775780$759044c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: , References: <90D87A41F3@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de> Subject: Re: Re: Proposed organic cost share program Venting and Stressing! Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 06:37:50 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 111 check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Klaus Wiegand To: Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 2:56 AM Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program > hello sal, > > >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off > >set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks > >if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the > >inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy > > >calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off > >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off > >set the standards and fine those that break the law not the > >honest folks if you come and inspect me and i am telling the > >truth u pay for the inspection if I am lying I pay and get a > >fine. easy > > > no, sal. it's not that easy ! let me speak as a consumer, not as > a public consultant (yes, from time to time i also consume and > stop analysing and consulting). > > you won't get away with that so simple. in case you acted against > organic rules i believed your statements and you cheated me ! the > usual result of a consumer would be: stay away from you FOREVER > and try his luck elsewhere. your idea is: just pay a fine and > then you are allowed a second try of cheating me. fool me once, > shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. why do you think, you can > get away with just a fine ? the system you imagine will work for you > yourself, but never under a label, because you have competors, who > will not accept, that they should stay honest and you only risk a > fine 20 or even 80% of your net gain by cheating. I never acted against any rules you have not been cheated it is me that is getting cheated who is watching out for me where is protection the honest organic grower from this witchhunt from this organic rip-off from high fees and powertripers . when did I act against organic rules what u talking about I have been inspected for 15 years and passed every time I have paid of many folks every dime they asked for what the heck are u talking about. > so most important question: > what's your idea of the fine ???? 1000 $, 10% of your annual > income, 1/2 year of a selling ban (who will control the last > two things?) ???. and to whom do you PAY the fine ?? .> >the organic tax is a rip off. . this whole thing is turning into a witch hunt. let me tell u some stories. true stories. once a chemical farmer came to inspect me and he charged me 4 time more than anyone else he drove down from SF and I paid for the gas he stay in a motel and I paid for it and he charged me for this and for that and he lied to me and I can go on and on about this jerk. anyway to make a long story short you can't blame him because the money he makes depends on how much he can squeeze out of me. where is my protection another story the state of Ca. ag girl inspected me the same week that the certifier inspected me two inspections the same week. the state of Ca. AG is the biggest witchhunt of all . one year they said you are not organic because u did not put the variety of the fruit u sold was that anna apple or pearman or was that a white or a booth no verity on the paper no registration and no registration mean your not organic. once they said your not organic because you did not put the state registration number of the person you sold too on the paper so your not organic because you don't have his number . to top it all off last year I sent my hard earned money into the state and the paper work and they did not send me my registration number for 10 months. if you call up there they said Sals registration expired yet they then sent it to me one month before I had to pay them again. its is a organic growers witch hunt. they give us bull like it just depends on what your idea of is is. it is not if your organic it is a witch hunt. the state ag man makes his bones by how many organic growers he can nail to the cross. this whole thing is a dog pile on the organic grower and is a bullshit witchhunt. you don't even know the bullshit you have to go through . every year year after year you have the army of folks trying to get u and you have done nothing wrong. and I go through that over and over year after year and it is getting old. once they said you not organic because you did not fill out the unit column right and our computers could not handle it. so the computer is down Im not organic any more. you folks that buy organic food have no idea what hops we have to jump through and what evil sprits we have to put up with. it is a witchhunt every year. its not about organic its about making your bones building a reputation on the killing off of organic growers. where is my protection from powertripers that can ruin my life . i could be a little more organic and it would make no difference because that is not what this is about. the question asked have little to do with if your organic or not. its a power trip why did not I get my registration for 10 months because they have the power that's why. they can just not send it. and you can't do nothing. its not about if you are organic it about power slavemaster extortion and most of all its about letting evil in the gate and on your land and in your life. you have to pay them because your not chemicals and your not using herbicides or GMO yet those that do don't pay . they all want to show you how much power they got and you can do nothing but take it . non funded state and fed. mandates ripping off honest business folks and making it imposable for the poor man to live. > stay away from from it, but also don't use the advantage of the > label as consumers understand it... every other thing is a free ride > on a train the others pay for.. I have not had a free ride I pay and pay and pay year after year and I put u with their wickedness and I let folks with that spirit of we are going to get u on my land. who needs that spirit of wickedness around me. > > I know I am organic what did i get ..... > > YOU know, but that's your personal business. eat your own food, > be content with your own pure fruits, but don't expect me to > believe, what you know... you certainly would convince some dear > friends, who know you're an honest guy, but do not believe (or > know), that i from the village nearby am going to trust you > automatically. that bull about if you don't have anything to hide why not let a army of folks screw with u well I thought that too but u see you can be a little more organic it would make no different because this is not about organic it is a witchhunt. I thought at one time so what let them come and check me out but now I see they can not give you your registration just because they want to show you how much power they have. > that's exactly the problem with the word "organic". to everyone > it has a different meaning. 8 years ago we made an analysis on > food bought a) under certified labels and b) bought under the > non-regulated name "organic". while a) was almost! free of > pesticide residues, b) had about one third the levels of chemical > residues of conventional farmers. evidently one third of the > uncertified "organics" cheated consumer's assumption of what they > understood by "organic". sorry you are out of it folks know what organic is I have been paying to be certified organic for 15 years folks understand what organic is you are so out of it you want to oppress the organic grower and tax him and it has nothing to do with if you are organic or not. its a witch hunt . > so if you think, you can have your way without certification, > that's ok (i'm against obligatory certification for anyone, who > uses the name organic), but don't ride the same train, others pay > for by certification. it's what i wrote long ago: if organic > growers will not find an agreement on what "biologic", "organic", > "natural", "bio-dynamic" really means for ALL, who use these > labels, you will VERY SOON run into trouble of not being able to > explain for what reasons i should prefer your products. If you can't find a reason to buy my product thats your problem. this is just a witch hunt . it is a non funded fed. and state mandate who gets it funds but bleeding the turnips. what is this all about. laying the burden of this bureaucratic nightmare on the backs of the organic grower. time will show who the wiser is and you can just eat the paper. > time will show the wiser and in my opinion it > will largely depend on how trustworthy you are on EVERY INDIVIDUAL > consumer. but anonymously selling your products won't work.... > at least not here in europe. i checked it: for more than 10 years > we had a MAJOR food scandal at least every 3 months !! > trust from the consumers to an anonymous producer ? forget it !!! > > > klaus where is the protection for the organic grower. there is non any one of a army of folks can screw you up and you have no no protection. if the state of Ca. does not want to send you the registration for 10 months and tells every one it has expired and you are not organic and they don't need a reason . its a power trip they make their bones by nailing organic growers and it is a big witch and getting worse every day. it just depends on what your definition of is is. I don't deserve this kind of treatment just for growing organic. I got two words for you and one of the is OFF. where is my protection? > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 10:41:10 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09168 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:41:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11325 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:14:32 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp5.jps.net (smtp5.jps.net [209.63.224.55]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11295 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:14:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.224.156.124] (216-224-155-125.stk.jps.net [216.224.155.125]) by smtp5.jps.net (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id HAA09374 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:12:27 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: fullcircle@mail.jps.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:08:29 -0800 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Marcie Rosenzweig Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 112 Maybe the third time's the charm. I'm receiving mail from the list but my replies are bouncing back. M- Bart, I'm afraid I must agree with Sal. Our farm has been known as Full Circle Organic Farm since before any of this certification business got started on the state (CA) or federal level. We use the word in our name to indicate how we treat our plnats and soil as opposed to the conventional folks around here. We "were organic when organic wasn't cool." I have no need or desire to ship grain, beans, or produce all over the world - the real genesis of the federal regs - I don't even have a need or desire to truck my produce two counties away. My personal belief is that sustainable, organic growing is about local distribution of locally grown products with local inputs, as much as humanly possible, put back into the soil. I've detailed the enormous cost of certification for us both on this list and to the national committee so I won't rehash it here. But there is also the matter of principle involved. I should not be forced to change the name of my farm after all these years simply so someone else can have rules allowing them to sell in interstate and international commerce. Nor should I have to pay for the privilege of keeping the name. Organic was an ecological, soil-saving/building, non-chemical paradigm long before it was co-opted as a marketing word. Kosher was a religious paradigm long before it became a marketing word. Neither needed "certification" until they were used to sell products outside the local community. Marcie Marcie A. Rosenzweig Full Circle Organic Farm To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 11:18:59 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10220 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:18:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02703 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:51:11 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from web1403.mail.yahoo.com (web1403.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.23.167]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA02642 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:51:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19991103155623.27860.rocketmail@web1403.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [204.60.25.55] by web1403.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 03 Nov 1999 07:56:23 PST Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:56:23 -0800 (PST) From: "Stephen M. Apatow" Subject: Y2K Downplay & Public Health Risk To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 113 November 2, 1999 Contact: Stephen M. Apatow President, Humanitarian Resource Institute Eastern USA: (203) 668-0282 Western USA: (775) 884-4680 Internet: http://www.humanitarian.net Email: sma@humanitarian.net PUBLIC ADVISED TO RESEARCH RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES FOR CHEMICAL PLANTS IN THEIR CITIES - DATABASE PROVIDES IMMEDIATE ACCESS Just after midnight on December 3, 1984, a pesticide plant in Bhopal, India accidentally released approximately 40 metric tons of methyl isocyanate into the atmosphere. The incident was a catastrophe for Bhopal with an estimated 2000 casualties, 100,000 injuries, and significant damage to livestock and crops. The long-term health effects from such an incident are difficult to evaluate; the International Medical Commission on Bhopal estimated that as of 1994 upwards of 50,000 people remained partially or totally disabled.... U.S. SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE URGES FEMA & EPA TO HELP PREPARE COMMUNITIES On October 21, 1999, The U.S. Senate Special Committee for the Year 2000 technology Problem released a report prepared by the Texas Engineering Experiment Station's (TEES) Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center headquartered at Texas A&M University in College Station. Its results include the following: * 86.5 percent of firms surveyed are not currently prepared for Y2K. * 85.6 percent have not coordinated emergency plans with local/community officials. A majority have not linked contingency planning to community emergency services such as police, fire and rescue, or hospitals. * 79 percent said they had never before been surveyed about Y2K preparedness. * A majority of respondents do not belong to industry organizations or trade associations, which have been the primary gatherers of Y2K preparedness information in the private sector. * 4.1 percent said Y2K presents A potential for a catastrophic event. An estimated 85 million Americans live within five miles of one of the 66,000 sites that handle hazardous chemicals. CITIZENS URGED TO REVIEW RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES FOR CHEMICAL PLANTS IN THEIR CITIES RTK NET was started in 1989 in support of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), which mandated public access to the Toxic Release Inventory. It is operated by two nonprofit organizations-- OMB Watch and The Unison Institute--and funded by various government agencies and foundations. Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, certain chemical facilities must report risk management plans (RMPs) to prevent and respond to chemical accidents in the United States. The RTK NET database provides access to the RMP Executive Summaries for facilities in most states. Each facility's Plan must include: A worst-case chemical release and more-likely "alternative release" scenario, Information about chemical accidents that have occurred in the last five years, An accident prevention program, An emergency response plan, identifying information about the facility, including its location, address and contact information, and an Executive Summary that summarizes the plan and allows the company reporting the data to characterize the information in the RMP. The Risk Management Plan program is being run by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Chemical Emergency Prevention and Preparedness Office (CEPPO). CEPPO has provided a great deal of information online about the RMP program, including links to laws and regulations, guidance documents and other materials. To access to the RTK NET database, reports and links to the U.S. Chemical and Hazard Safety Investigation Board visit the Humanitarian Resource Institute Global Y2K Infrastructure Risks Web Site at: http://www.humanitarian.net/y2keconomic.html COMMUNITY & FAMILY PREPAREDNESS Humanitarian Resource Institute in cooperation with the FEMA Community & Family Preparedness Program has constructed a one stop Community & Family Preparedness resource guide on the internet. Included on this web site is the Preparedness Guide for Chemical Emergencies which was produced by the National Disaster Education Coalition: AmericanRed Cross,FEMA, IAEM, IBHS, NFPA, NWS, USDA/CSREES, and USGS. Topics Include: * Why Talk About Chemical Emergencies? * What Is a Home Chemical Emergency, and a Major * Chemical Emergency? * Awareness Information * Preventing Chemical Emergencies in the Home * What to Do During a Home Chemical Emergency * Plan for Major Chemical Emergencies * Media and Communicate Education Ideas * What to Do During a Major Chemical Emergency * What to Do if You Are at the Scene of a Chemical Accident * How to Shelter-in-Place * Evacuation During a Chemical Emergency * What to Do After a Major Chemical Emergency The Community & Family Preparedness Resource Guide can be found at: http://www.humanitarian.net/prepare.html ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 11:57:01 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA11205 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:57:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19423 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:29:17 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19404 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:29:13 -0500 (EST) From: SustainAg@aol.com Received: from SustainAg@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 7LJDa21033 (4391) for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:26:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.7999e84e.2551bc43@aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:26:43 EST Subject: GMOs and FIFRA To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 84 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 114 Throwing this out there for discussion.... How are GMOs currently regulated? Could those GMOs created for pest control measures, including the Round-Up Ready varieties even though their resistance is to an herbicide, be regulated under FIFRA? Though a highly imperfect solution, if they could be listed under FIFRA they would fall under the provisions of the act including labeling, certification for application (planting and management?), record keeping, and GMO drift could be treated, perhaps, as an off-target application and subject to fines. Also under FIFRA, states can require more stringent restrictions than those approved at the federal level which would mean grassroots at the state and regional level could potentially have an impact within their locale by rallying support for greater state restrictions. The obvious downside is what I mentioned previously--it is an imperfect solution largely because the penalties under FIFRA are so weak, and because stringent and effective enforcement of the provisions of the act is spotty. Also, temporary measures such as this (I personally feel that GMOs need their own regulatory act on the order of the Clean Water Act or Clean Air Act given their potential impact on the environment and society) tend to become permanent solutions. Chris Campany Baton Rouge, LA sustainag@aol.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 12:03:34 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11362 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:03:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26731 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:39:01 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from kdemailn1.kde.state.ky.us (kdemailn1.kde.state.ky.us [162.114.136.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26721 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:38:54 -0500 (EST) From: awiediger@Hart.k12.ky.us Received: by kdemailn1.kde.state.ky.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:39:37 -0500 Message-ID: To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: The word "organic," a right? Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:26:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 115 I have watching this discussion for several days - ready to wade in. We have been growing organically since 1974 - again since before organic was 'cool'. We grow this way because for us, it is the only sane way to grow food. We sell at the local Farmers' Market. It is in a city of about 50,000, which is also the "market" city for all the counties around. If I had to put a number to the customers that buy from us because we are organic, it might be 5% of our customers. We do not get any premium - if we put our prices above the rest of the vendors (many of which are resellers, not farmers), we'd come home with our produce. We are organic because we believe in it, not for any premium. We are also certified. Mostly because the state of Kentucky has a program that is cheap ($10.00/year). We have been certified since 1991, when the program began - farm 28 to do so. Most of the farms that were certified in 1991, are no longer growing organic produce. It is so difficult to make a living growing produce on a small and sane scale. We have beef, lamb, cut flowers, potted perennials and an outside income to be able to stay on the farm. When the USDA, in 1997, asked for input on whether the word organic(or any phrase implying that the product was grown without ag chemicals, in a sane manner, etc) should be allowed only from certified organic producers, we got worried. Depending upon what the certification costs became under federal labeling, certification may or may not be economically feasible for our operation. I wrote a strong letter to the Department urging that it not happen. As long as we are in a local selling situation, our customers will certify us. However, that said, there are large producers that need to sell food outside their local area. Even for us, we'd probably make more money selling wholesale to the nearest large city than we do retailing locally. For those sales, some sort of certification is necessary so the customers, whether stores or wholesale brokers, know what they are buying. It may well be a necessary evil for those wanting to sell organic produce outside a local buying area - especially overseas. There has to be some kind of commonality. Yes, there will be people cheating - it seems to be part of the human condition. Yes, there will be too much bureaucracy - there always is. And, yes, it may put a lot of small operators in a bind. For us, we'll wait and see. Maybe our state will retain some sort of program under the federal regs. Maybe we'll just have to grow more cut flowers and perennials (which are a lot more profitable) and less food - which most Americans don't appreciate anyway. We hope we'll still be able to say "we grow all our food organically" without being certified. If not, well, maybe it won't make much difference in our sales, and we'll still farm organically because, for us, it is the only sane way to steward our land. Paul and Alison Wiediger Au Naturel Farm Smiths Grove, KY To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 13:08:47 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12548 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:08:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA22293 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:29:35 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22279 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:29:31 -0500 (EST) From: LiseVM@aol.com Received: from LiseVM@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 7WNNa09316 (3991); Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:27:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.179bc300.2551ca67@aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:27:03 EST Subject: full spectrum lights for barn question To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu CC: monaghan@brandeis.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 85 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 116 Hi, I just have a quick question about light bulbs in the barn. Do any of you use the full spectrum lights which are supposed to imitate daylight in your barns? Because of where our farm is located, it gets dark here early and we like to leave the lights on in the barn for the cows. The recommended amount of light per day that I have been told cows need is 18. The kind of lights I am talking about are the ones they recommend for humans to use in the winter that suffer from daylight deprivation. I was wondering if they made any for barns (tubes or bulbs) and where I could get them. If anyone has any information on these lights I would appreciate a reply. Of course, if you've tried them and found positives or negatives I would love to hear from you. thank you, Lise Monaghan LiseVM@aol To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 14:49:42 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15135 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:49:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA20182 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:16:55 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from saffron.propagation.net (saffron.propagation.net [216.221.160.23]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20157 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:16:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from 204.149.164.195 (mx3-52.ilhawaii.net [204.149.164.195]) by saffron.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA26899; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:14:45 -0600 Message-ID: <38208D54.182E@smallfarms.com> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 09:30:28 -1000 From: Glenn Reply-To: glenn@smallfarms.com Organization: smallfarms.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: The word "organic" a right? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 117 Sal, Bart, Klaus, Paul and Alison, and others who have contributed to this thread: You’ve made for riveting reading for me, and others, I’m certain. Sal and the farmers have stated their case with the same passion that they farm. They/I/we/ produce the best foods on the market and we are looked upon to bear additional costs when outside and neutral entities like government, certifying agencies and even consumer groups feel the need to certify, standardize our products. Bart and Klaus have risked our wrath by saying that standardization, certification are necessary evils in the world they/I/we live and work in that demands some sense of uniformity for the consumer and to a lesser extent, for government and certifying agencies. This discussion needs to be taken to the consumer because they now have only the foggiest sense of how complex our work and lives are. Bring people to the sanet archives or post a summary of this discussion elsewhere. In my opinion, this is uncanned and unlabeled, very powerful education. It’s too important for our limited group even as we seem to deal with each other in stereotype. Allison and Paul, and Sal indicated that their customer contacts are one on one. (Have you seen Sal’s web site, my web site, and our attempts to go beyond the face to face relationship?) Bart and Klaus, do you have web sites? Will you add your site addresses to your signatures if they’re not already there? Your customers need to know this. glenn Buy from the Farmer http://www.smallfarms.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 15:35:39 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA16343 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:35:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10720 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:52:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10654 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:52:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15176; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:51:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id OAA12184; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:50:49 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:50:49 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: Klaus Wiegand cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program In-Reply-To: <90D87A41F3@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 118 On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Klaus Wiegand wrote: > > I know I am organic what did i get ..... > > YOU know, but that's your personal business. eat your own food, > be content with your own pure fruits, but don't expect me to > believe, what you know... you certainly would convince some dear > friends, who know you're an honest guy, but do not believe (or > know), that i from the village nearby am going to trust you > automatically. What a hard, cold attitude. You're throwing the whole Fertile Crescent concept out the window - and the process of consumers getting to know the farmers in their area, those they buy food from, how they farm, how they grow their crops, livestock, how they manage their farmland, treat their animals, and so on. You go into a store, you see products on the shelf from a farmer you've never heard of; the store tells you who he is and how to get in touch with him, you follow up and make your own decision as to whether his products are as he says they are or if he makes no statement aboout his products you find out for yourself how they are produced by asking him or going to his farm to see exactly how he runs his operation. Those with farms too far away for you to visit can, in order to market successfully in your town, can, voluntarily, simply pay to have his farm certified by the agency he chooses. If he picks an agency lacking in skills and credibility he looses, if he picks one that is good, and the store he wants to market through endorses this agency, he wins, the store wins and the customer wins. A win-win-win situation. Read Edwards Deming about win-win business deals. > that's exactly the problem with the word "organic".to everyone > it has a different meaning. 8 years ago we made an analysis on That's not a "problem", its human nature and individual choice. Here you, again, open the door to competition in the true spirit of free enterprise, between competing farmers and competing certification agencies and between competing, discerning stores. What is organic? Let the government define, it based on input from the cream of the expertise in the organic industry, so as to provide everyone with a minimum standard to follow and abide by. > so if you think, you can have your way without certification, > that's ok (i'm against obligatory certification for anyone, who Amen. > uses the name organic), but don't ride the same train, others pay > for by certification. it's what i wrote long ago: if organic Customers and store owners are fully capable of deciding which growers are providing a good product, the rest will fall by the wayside if they cheat, its that simple. > growers will not find an agreement on what "biologic", "organic", > "natural", "bio-dynamic" really means for ALL, who use these Sure they will. > labels, you will VERY SOON run into trouble of not being able to > explain for what reasons i should prefer your products. That should not be a problem for any grower, any credible grower, that is. > time will show the wiser and in my opinion it > will largely depend on how trustworthy you are on EVERY INDIVIDUAL > consumer. Absolutely true. > but anonymously selling your products won't work.... Voluntary certification will take care of that problem. Competition between growers and competition between certifiers will ensure that all participants maintain high standards of production and certification and will ensure that all comply with the minimum government standards. > at least not here in europe. i checked it: for more than 10 years > we had a MAJOR food scandal at least every 3 months !! > trust from the consumers to an anonymous producer ? forget it !!! That's an isolated example and mere scare tactics. Most people involved in the organic food industry are better than that and those are who you need to rely on to make the system work so that consumers will have access to high quality, affordably priced, naturally grown food. LL Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 15:59:40 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA16896 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:59:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA23299 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:16:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA23256 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:16:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15811; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:14:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id PAA12681; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:14:55 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:14:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: Marcie Rosenzweig cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 119 On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Marcie Rosenzweig wrote: > I'm afraid I must agree with Sal. Good decision. > Our farm has been known as Full Circle Organic Farm since before any of > this certification business got started on the state (CA) or federal level. > We use the word in our name to indicate how we treat our plnats and soil as > opposed to the conventional folks around here. We "were organic when > organic wasn't > cool." > > I have no need or desire to ship grain, beans, or produce all over the > world - the real genesis of the federal regs - I don't even have a need or > desire to truck my produce two counties away. > My personal belief is that > sustainable, organic growing is about local distribution of locally grown > products with local inputs, as much as humanly possible, put back into the > soil. A very special Amen to that statement!. > I've detailed the enormous cost of certification for us both on this list > and to the national committee so I won't rehash it here. But there is also > the matter of principle involved. I should not be forced to change the > name of my farm after all these years simply so someone else can have rules > allowing them to sell in interstate and international commerce. Nor should > I have to pay for the privilege of keeping the name. Good heavens, I had overlooked that impact on existing organic farms from the mandatory certification debacle. I don't seem to remember anything about federal compensation of farmers for loss of business resulting from having to change the name of their business, much less some other competing, "certified" farm snatching up their name and making hay off the years of work and reputation building by the farmer who lost his business name because he stood firm and refused to be railroaded by a government-sponsored scheme to rid the nation of good organic small farms in order to help the corporate world market adulterated products to even more unsuspecting consumers. > Organic was an ecological, soil-saving/building, non-chemical paradigm long > before it was co-opted as a marketing word. Kosher was a religious > paradigm long before it became a marketing word. Neither needed > "certification" until they were used to sell products outside the local > community. Voluntary 3rd-party organic certification can do all that is needed for remote marketing of organic products and spare the small organic local grower in the process. Again, its a win-win proposal. How can anyone lose? Except the evil, greedy, non-caring power freaks. LL Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 16:11:27 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17153 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:11:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04887 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:36:59 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from larry.indy.net (larry.indy.net [199.3.65.253]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04862 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:36:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from richmo.indy.net (ip209-183-86-51.ts.indy.net [209.183.86.51]) by larry.indy.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA22930; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:34:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <382053B0.7496@indy.net> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 15:24:32 +0000 From: Rich Molini Reply-To: richmo@indy.net Organization: OCIA Indiana Chapter X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-IndyNet (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Webb, Kevin" CC: "'sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Re: Research on use of local food by institutions References: <52246021B94FD311B4B900609451548D01953AF8@umc-mail02.missouri.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 120 Kevin, Steve Bonney ( sbonney@iquest.net ) has initiated a program in Indianapolis called City Food where his organization , Sustainable Earth, has purchased vacant lots in low income neighborhoods and has established organic gardens run by locals and other volunteers. Unfortunately for you ,or fortunately for us, depending on how you view it, the project is not connected with our major land grant. later, Rich Webb, Kevin wrote: > > Hello- > I'm looking for any leads on work being done to integrate local food (the > more local the better, generally speaking: within the state, produced by > small-scale, sustainable producers) into institutions, particularly public > institutions like universities. Any contacts, informational resources, etc. > sent my way would be greatly appreciated. > > Also curious if anyone has a copy of "A Guide to Starting a Local Food > Project", Based on the Hendrix College Experience. 1991. By Melissa > Beck Yazman. I tried calling the college, but no one I spoke to there was > able to put their hands on it. I would gladly pay for costs of copying and > mailing. > > Many thanks, > Kevin > > -- Rich Molini 2419 East 281st Street Atlanta, Indiana 46031 Phone and Fax 317-984-9600 http://mypage.goplay.com/eiofarm/ To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 16:12:54 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17179 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:12:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA28280 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:29:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28228 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:29:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA16071; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:27:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id PAA13022; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:27:50 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:27:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: awiediger@Hart.k12.ky.us cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: The word "organic," a right? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 121 On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 awiediger@Hart.k12.ky.us wrote: > As long as we are in a local selling situation, our customers will > certify us. There you have it. It is a compliment to your customers that they are discerning enough to appreciate the good job you are doing on your farm and that you are producing a quality product for their benefit and that they know the difference between your product and what is offered in the supermarket. > which most Americans don't appreciate anyway. We hope we'll still be able > to say "we grow all our food organically" without being certified. If not, > well, maybe it won't make much difference in our sales, and we'll still farm > organically because, for us, it is the only sane way to steward our land. Beautifully put. LL Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 16:29:06 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17585 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:29:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA12605 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:51:50 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from THE-SPA.COM (the-spa.com [204.97.227.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12456 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:51:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from cisa ([206.153.193.228]) by THE-SPA.COM with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 7127000 ; Wed, 03 Nov 1999 15:49:28 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991103154949.007e4100@buylocalfood.com> X-Sender: markl@buylocalfood.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 15:49:49 -0500 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Mark Subject: Organic vs. organic In-Reply-To: <199911031954.OAA11211@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 122 Here's a little tangent off the organic thread. I was told recently by a certified organic farmer that she suspects that another certified organic farmer (certified by a different body) has been bad-mouthing her to a retailer she has been selling to for years. She thinks this farmer raised questions about the validity of the certifying body she works with and now the retailer is not buying much from her. This is a retailer she has been selling to for many years and their order has decreased dramatically. I've suggested she talk openly to the retailer and ask what is the reason behind the drop in business (her fear could be unfounded or there could be another explanation; or she may be given an opportunity to defend her certifying agency) but I wonder this: have any other farmers had this problem and if so is it widespread enough to warrant concern? If it does happen a lot will the proposed USDA regs make it less easy for unscrupulous competitors to damage one's business this way? Mark ---------------------------------------------------- Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) An independent non-profit organization. http://www.buylocalfood.com 893 West Street Amherst MA 01002-5001 T: 413-559-5338 F: 413-559-5404 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 17:28:48 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18753 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:28:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14909 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:52:43 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from VM1.MCGILL.CA (VM1.McGill.CA [132.206.27.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA14838 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:52:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by VM1.MCGILL.CA (IBM VM SMTP V2R4a) via spool with SMTP id 0843 ; Tue, 02 Nov 1999 21:05:15 EST Received: from MUSICB.MCGILL.CA (NJE origin MUSICB@MCGILL1) by VM1.MCGILL.CA (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2528; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 21:05:15 -0500 Message-Id: <02NOV99.22774384.0015.MUSIC@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 21:05:14 EST From: "John Henning, Eco-Echo, McGill U., Montreal, Ca" To: Cc: Subject: LYON Organic conference X-Mailer: MUSIC/SP V5.1.0 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 123 Lyon Organic Conference: In Europe and North America, organic agriculture has long enjoyed a favourable image among consumers and more recently, a growing interest among farmers and public institutions. Organic agriculture now confronts growing demand that is driving a rapid enlargement of the market. It is now faced with the prospect of profound technical and organisational changes: the specialisation of production systems, development of new partnerships between producers, their suppliers and the surrounding community. In order to better understand and respond to these changes, the Institute Superior d'Agriculture Rhone Alpes, with the collaboration of INRA, Laval University, and the Jacques Cartier Center have organized a conference to be held in Lyon France December 9. 6,7,8 1999. The conference will include a variety of speakers from North America and Europe. For more information, vist the conference web site: http://www.agrenv.mcgill.ca/AGRECON/france/ or contact Christophe David at: david@isara.fr To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 17:36:59 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18911 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:36:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA26400 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:11:24 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from taurus.greensoft.com ([204.77.122.1]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA26256 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:11:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from webserf.net (unverified [10.0.0.101]) by taurus.greensoft.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:14:37 -0600 Message-ID: Received: from bluestem [204.77.126.184] by webserf.net (SMTPD32-4.03) id A2B75D30258; Wed, 03 Nov 1999 16:09:59 CDT From: "Bluestem Associates" To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 22:08:47 Reply-To: "Bluestem Associates" X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows 98 (4.10.1998) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Organic vs. organic Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 124 On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 15:49:49 -0500, Mark wrote: >I was told recently by a certified organic farmer that she suspects that >another certified organic farmer (certified by a different body) has been >bad-mouthing her to a retailer she has been selling to for years. She >thinks this farmer raised questions about the validity of the certifying >body she works with and now the retailer is not buying much from her. This >is a retailer she has been selling to for many years and their order has >decreased dramatically. This kind of stuff has gone on for nearly twenty years. That aside, not all organic certification programs are equal. Politically incorrect to say so, but some programs *are* better than others, sometimes a LOT better. It is exasperating for me as an inspector to have a guy I've inspected deservedly be refused certification, only to crop up a couple of months later certified by a weaker program. Certain programs have built their business by being *easy,* and picking up the farms that can't make it with FVO or OCIA. Frankly, the average consumer is a long way from being sophisticated enough that any of this matters --- as long as it says 'organic,' they'll buy it without asking any questions. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 17:42:41 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18985 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:42:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22740 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:04:19 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from acme.sb.west.net (acme.sb.west.net [205.254.224.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22700 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:04:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from [205.254.241.221] (term6-29.vta.west.net [205.254.241.221]) by acme.sb.west.net (Postfix) with SMTP id D566924B3B for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:01:46 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: colibri@west.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu From: colibri@west.net (Beth von Gunten) Subject: Query re: Use of fly ash in soil amendment for agriculture, horticulture & forestry Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:01:48 -0800 (PST) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 125 Fwd from the Infoterra list: Dear Colleagues, We have received a request from a Research Institution in India regarding the use of fly ash in soil amendment for agricultural, horticultural and forestry development. The Institution is particularly interested in the growth and uptake of micro-nutrients and heavy metals leading to increase in toxicity in the food material. In addition they would like to know whether the fly ash is being used in the developed countries and to what magnitude. Available information material or contact addresses of institutions/universities/individuals should be forwarded to: Mr. V.N. Sharma Principal Research Manager Steel Authority of India Ltd. R & D Centre for Iron & Steel Ranchi-834002, Bihar, India e-mail hdp@rdcis.bih.nic.in or vnsharma55@yahoo.co.uk Thanks a lot for your assistance and regards. Amelia Onyango _________________________________________ Amelia Onyango(Amelia.Onyango@unep.org)Ms| Query Response Assistant | Communications and Public Information | | United Nations Environment Programme | P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya | Fax (254-2) 623927 | Tel.(254-2) 623115 | _________________________________________| - message sent by infoterra@cedar.univie.ac.at to signoff from the list, send an email to majordomo@cedar.univie.ac.at the message body should read unsubscribe infoterra your@email.address - To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 18:08:29 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19367 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:08:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13300 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:35:53 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA13282 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:35:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.148] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:33:04 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:31:58 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) S/N 5E3E1CD8 / Personal Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <6688.991103@acnet.net> To: Glenn CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: The word "organic" a right? In-reply-To: <38208D54.182E@smallfarms.com> References: <38208D54.182E@smallfarms.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 126 Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 1:30:28 PM, Glenn said: ... G> This discussion needs to be taken to the consumer The discussion has and always will be with the consumer, in spite of the lame attempts to claim otherwise and co-opt both the innate authority of the author-creator of the product when presenting it, as well as that of the buyer of the product when exercising with his freedom of choice. The issue here hinges on the free exchange of information, as well as the right to earn one's livelihood. Certain groups seem to feel they've got a corner on the truth, and that's a dangerous point of view. All that's required is complete and truthful information, along with a standard (that doesn't even exist yet), the truth in labeling laws that mandate the penalties and the existence of an appropriate forum in which to ventilate disputes, along with mechanisms for making claims. Why "fix" what isn't broken? (All those who would privatize the use of the O word really want is a sure corner on the market, not consistent standards. Why? Read on). Once a definition that's consistent with the principles and tradition of the organic movement (which has always included consumers) has reached a consensus (and this is where the effort should have been made before even attempt to legislate. OFPA seems to have been drawn up by people with little or no juridical experience - as a piece of legislation it's the parody of what a law should be), then and only then will it be relevant to attempt for force compliance with a given standard. OFPA forces open (and and the same time tries to close) the door to a myriad of new "green" labels, while spelling the death of the word organic (but not the organic movement, which simply simply disperse and regroup around new words and differentiated standards - right, just like things are as is), in relation to the use for which it was originally intended. What a circus! (And the past nine years events bear me out). To those who insist on making this happen by obligating certification, I strongly suggest looking for another way to feel important, like producing and and offering an outstanding product (and call it what you damn well please - just don't lie). Douglas Hinds (one of the "others" Glenn referred to) ---------- No soy una monedita de oro, para caerle bien a todos. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 18:21:09 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19603 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:21:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA17199 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:45:09 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from sp2n17.missouri.edu (sp2n17-t.missouri.edu [128.206.2.27]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17159 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:45:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from missouri.edu ([128.206.61.172]) by sp2n17.missouri.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA1851484 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:42:46 -0600 Message-ID: <3820B9F5.2291F5CD@missouri.edu> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 16:40:53 -0600 From: Mary Hendrickson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Subject: FDA Public Meetings Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 127 I have heard via another list that the FDA public forum on bioengineered foods in Chicago is already full. Washington seems to be filling fast. Supposedly the response has been overwhelming to get into these meetings. Myself, I find that it was announced relatively late (or at least in forums where people should have heard of it), and with relatively limited space. You have until January to get written comments in. Mary To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 19:10:53 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA20302 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:10:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01268 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:56:06 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from guppy.pond.net (guppy.pond.net [205.240.25.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA01149 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:55:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.36.12.170] ([216.36.12.170]) by guppy.pond.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08536 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:41:44 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: neva/pesticide.org@mail.pesticide.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:59:34 -0800 To: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu From: Neva Hassanein Subject: Changing the Way America Farms Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu id SAA01173 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 128 Friends and Colleagues, I wanted to let you know about the publication of my book on sustainable farming networks (see below). I hope you will find it useful in your own efforts to build a more sustainable agriculture. Regards, Neva Hassanein _____________________________________________________ For more information contact Erika Kuebler Rippeteau (402) 472-5938 >From the University of Nebraska Press CHANGING THE WAY AMERICA FARMS: Knowledge And Community in the Sustainable Agriculture Movement By Neva Hassanein "A strong contribution to the available literature on cooperative farmer groups...The author describes with eloquence the challenges faced by farmers who do not subscribe to the current conventional industrial agriculture paradigm and their difficulty in finding recommendations for improving their systems." -- Charles A. Francis, coeditor of Crop Improvement for Sustainable Agriculture. Changing the Way America Farms traces the manner in which alternative farmers have developed and exchanged their own personal, local knowledge as a basis for moving toward an agricultural system that is ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially just. Neva Hassanein studies the patterns of local and regional networks in Wisconsin that sprang up to disseminate new and viable agricultural methods. She argues that these networks have in many ways become the foundation of the sustainable agriculture movement. Hassanein focuses on two organizations: the Ocooch Grazers Network, a group of dairy farmers who practice intensive rotational grazing, and the Wisconsin Womenís Sustainable Farming Network. The different lived experiences of particular members in each group shaped the ways local knowledge was generated and exchanged. Hassanein considers the broader implications of this kind of local-level, collective activity centered around the creation and exchange of agricultural knowledge. In rejecting the all-knowing expertise characteristic of scientific reports and extension services, network members instead created heterogeneous systems based on the exchange of information among a community of farming practitioners. These informal networks do not completely reject agricultural science, but they do suggest ways of democratizing knowledge production for sustainable agriculture. Neva Hassanein has a doctorate in environmental studies and is currently a program associate for the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. Changing the Way America Farms Knowledge and Community in the Sustainable Agriculture Movement By Neva Hassanein Cloth ISBN: 0-8032-7321-5 Cloth Price: $29.95 Features: xiv, 218 pages, 6 x 9 inches, 6 photographs, index * * * * * * * * * * Neva Hassanein, PhD Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides P.O. Box 1393 Eugene, OR 97440-1393 (541) 344-5044, ext. 27 email: neva@pesticide.org For more information about NCAP, visit our World Wide Web site: http://www.pesticide.org To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 19:20:44 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA20423 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:20:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA03162 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:57:58 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA01182 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:56:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.37]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA04370 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:54:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.79.178.207]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with ESMTP id <19991103231144.CEFQ3356@worldnet.att.net>; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:11:44 +0000 Message-ID: <3820C086.B0B51395@worldnet.att.net> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 18:08:54 -0500 From: Samuel Kaymen Reply-To: kaymen@worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-WNS2.5 (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: amigosearth@mindspring.com, Abby , Abby c/o RILES , Abby Rockefeller , Alan , Alan , Alex Mata , Ananda Kaymen , Angelica Ronnerberg , Beth Holtzman , Bill and Linda , Bill Wolf , Bio Pac , "Birdsall, Mark & Laurie" , Breda Hopkins , Carlos Hernandez , Cheryl & Bob Allenberg , Chilenita <"Chilenita_ _"@hotmail.com>, Chip@worldnet.att.net, Chip SUNWEAVERS , Clare County Library , Constanze vonLaer , Cristobal Ripalda , Daniel Chaij , "Daniel D. Worley" , Daniel Sherrard , Darryn Kaymen-Covel/Christopher Covel , Darryn Kaymen-Covel/Christopher Covel , David Diehl , David Mitchel , David Wylie , "Debra H Foster, Technical Editor, Pembroke, NH" , Denise and Phil <73071.756@compuserve.com>, Dietrich Rotenhan , Doris@worldnet.att.net, Douglas Kahn , Ananda Kaymen , Eileen Lewandowski , Maria Kaymen , Darryn Kaymen-Covel/Christopher Covel , "E. Ann Clark" , Eileen Lewandowski , Elizabeth Henderson , Emory Black , Erika Lindblom , Flavors , Fred Jawitz , Gary Hirshberg , Daniel Chaij , Daniel Sherrard , Jose Zaglul , Nancy Hirshberg , Therus Kolff , Victor Sanchez , Emory Black , George and Rachel Behm , Geralyn White Dreyfous , Grace Gershuny , Greg Fiske , Hal Hamilton , Hanno Ekdahl , Harry Wells , Helena Dahlblom , Herbert Cole , Ingmari Lewander , James Gardiner , Jane Black , "Jane Black " <"Jane Black , Jason Clay , Jay Vogt , Joe Smille , Johan Lindblom , Jorge Manuel Dengo , Jorgen Hansen , Jose Zaglul , Juan Luna-Kelser , Judd Gregg , Karen Precourt , Karin Eklof-Floge , kate , Kina , "Laura Medalie, Hydrologist, Montpelier, VT" , Lewis Family , Lewis Feldstein , Lori Sandman , Louisa Ransom , Lowell Rheinheimer , "Luna-Kelser, Juan Jorge" , "Majordomo@ghtmail.cr.usgs.gov" , Maria Kaymen , Maria Lindgren , Mark Ritchie , Mary Kopp , masha Pyshkina , Meg Hirshberg , Michael Rozyne , Mike , Mike@worldnet.att.net, Mikey Dillon , Missy Ryan , Monica Karlsson , Nancy Hirshberg , Nancy Mandel , Nancy Voorhis , Nathaniel Holder , Norman Brown <76472.2732@compuserve.com>, "oakmontlabs@cheshire.net" , Organic Wine Company , Beth Holtzman , Harry Wells , James Gardiner , Lori Sandman , Ron Korcak , Steve Gilman , Patricia Hopkinson , Patricia Shattuck , Peter Strugatz <73523.151@compuserve.com>, Rachel Birdsall , Randal Teague , Ray Sterner , Renee Ziesing , Rikard Lewander , Robert Gorham , Robert Knahpe , Ron Korcak , Rubin , "Rubin, Alan" , Samuel Kaymen , "Sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu" , Steve Gilman , Stuart Hill in australia , Sustainable Harvest , Suzanne Judith , The Genealogy Palace , Therus Kolff , Tjejerna , Jorge Manuel Dengo , Geralyn White Dreyfous , Jason Clay , Jose Zaglul , Norman Brown <76472.2732@compuserve.com>, Randal Teague , Therus Kolff , Victor Sanchez , "Jane Black " <"Jane Black , "Rubin, Alan" , Rubin , USGS Geologic Division , Victor Sanchez Subject: [Fwd: Cell phone nightmare] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------A836FA908DD08BEE2D099E54" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 129 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------A836FA908DD08BEE2D099E54 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Important information for all of us! --------------A836FA908DD08BEE2D099E54 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from lists.essential.org ([216.0.124.17]) by mtiwgwc04.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with ESMTP id <19991103221835.CHAA5857@lists.essential.org>; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 22:18:35 +0000 Received: from venice (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.essential.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA27002; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:16:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:16:56 -0500 Message-Id: Errors-To: corp-focus-owner@essential.org Reply-To: rob@essential.org Originator: corp-focus@essential.org Sender: corp-focus@essential.org Precedence: bulk From: Robert Weissman To: Multiple recipients of list CORP-FOCUS Subject: Cell phone nightmare MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0d -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Please see http://lists.essential.org for help X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Sorry for the delay in sending this out. It appears not to have been delivered the first time it was forwarded to the list. Robert Weissman Essential Information | Internet: rob@essential.org CELL PHONE NIGHTMARE By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman Ready for a real scary Halloween story? Remember the Larry King Live show in 1993 on cell phones? David Reynard was the guest. He had filed a lawsuit against NEC, a cell phone operator, and other companies, alleging that his late wife's brain tumor was caused in part by her use of a cell phone. The Reynard's lawsuit was dismissed in 1995, but Reynard's appearance on the show created nationwide concern. At the time, there were 15 million Americans using cell phones. The day after the Larry King Live show, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) went on the offensive. Industry executives said that there were thousands of studies that proved that wireless phones were safe. In fact, there were no such studies about cell phone safety. But CTIA understood the basic reality of the situation, and so it decided to spend $27 million over the next six years on health studies. They hired George Carlo, figuring he would be a perfect fit. Carlo is a public health scientist, who had a good track record as an industry researcher. Most of his clients over the years have been industry clients, and few have been disappointed with his work. In 1994, Carlo began conducting studies to determine whether cell phones pose a health risk to consumers. Four times a year, Carlo would trudge over from his Dupont Circle office in Washington, D.C. to the offices of CTIA to debrief the CEOs of the major telephone and electronics firms that make up the $40 billion a year mobile phone industry. And things went well, until 1995. In 1995, Carlo found that digital phones were interfering with cardiac pacemakers. "We then conducted about $2.5 million worth of research to quantify that problem, and as a result, I had somewhat of a falling out with the industry," Carlo told us this week. "They didn't like that finding." The industry cut off Carlo's funding. But through a process of negotiation, Carlo got back in. The industry would again fund his studies, but only if he agreed not to research the questions of defibrillators and digital phones, and of cell phones and automobile safety, and he could no longer work on a very extensive program to standardize the methodology for testing whether or not cell phones met industry-defined standards. Carlo said that it took him two months to decide that he needed to continue the work, even under CTIA's conditions, and so he did. What he found may prove to be the cell phone industry's worst nightmare. He found that the risk of acoustic neuroma, a benign tumor of the auditory nerve that is well in range of the radiation coming from a phone's antennae, was 50 percent higher in people who reported using cell phones for six years or more. Moreover, that relationship between the amount of cell phone use and this tumor appeared to follow a dose-response curve. He found that the risk of rare neuro epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain was more than doubled, a statistically significant increase, in cell phone users as compared to people who did not use cell phones. He found that there appeared to be some correlation between brain tumors occurring on the right side of the head and use of the phone on the right side of the head. And, most troubling, he found that laboratory studies looking at the ability of radiation from a phone's antenna to cause functional genetic damage were definitely positive, and were following a dose-response curve. Carlo said that he has repeatedly recommended that the industry take a pro-active, public health approach on the issue, and inform consumers of his findings. He says that he uses a cell phone, but only with a headset. "Alarmingly, indications are that some segments of the industry have ignored the scientific findings suggesting potential health effects, have repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers, including children, and have created an illusion of responsible follow up by calling for and supporting more research," Carlo wrote in a letter to top industry CEOs this month. "The most important measures of consumer protection are missing: complete and honest factual information to allow informed judgment by consumers about assumption of risk, the direct tracking and monitoring of what happens to consumers who use wireless phones, and the monitoring of changes in the technology that could impact health." Carlo is also troubled by a recent agreement between Elizabeth Jacobson, the person in charge of cell phone regulation at the Food and Drug Administration, and Thomas Wheeler, executive director of the CTIA. Under the agreement, CTIA will fund the FDA to do additional safety studies. Carlo says that in 1994, Jacobson refused such a cooperative research agreement, because she didn't think she could both collaborate with the industry and regulate it. (Jacobson, through a spokesperson, denies taking this position.) "This arrangement is wrong, plain and simple," Carlo told us. "The FDA's behavior is appalling to me. The FDA seems to be more than willing to jump in bed with the industry. It is a blatantly arrogant attempt to join in a relationship that is a conflict of interest on its face. The reason it has not been criticized is that people don't know about it. Consumers are being left out to dry." The FDA's Russell Owen says that the FDA has not regulated cell phones because "we don't have sufficient evidence to determine that there might be adverse health effects from cell phones." Sorry Mr. Owen, but in this instance, we agree with the industry's guy. (That's a scary thought.) Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1999; http://www.corporatepredators.org) (c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman --------------------------------------------------- Focus on the Corporation is a weekly column written by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman. Please feel free to forward the column to friends or repost the column on other lists. If you would like to post the column on a web site or publish it in print format, we ask that you first contact us (russell@essential.org or rob@essential.org). Focus on the Corporation is distributed to individuals on the listserve corp-focus@essential.org. To subscribe to corp-focus, send an e-mail message to listproc@essential.org with the following all in one line: subscribe corp-focus (no period). Focus on the Corporation columns are posted at . Postings on corp-focus are limited to the columns. If you would like to comment on the columns, send a message to russell@essential.org or rob@essential.org. --------------A836FA908DD08BEE2D099E54-- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 20:07:32 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA21058 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 20:07:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA05796 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:50:41 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from dialup0.macomb.com (IDENT:root@dialup0.macomb.com [199.120.118.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA05665 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:50:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from macomb.com (208.34.39.212.outfitters.com [208.34.39.212]) by dialup0.macomb.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA25874 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:48:36 -0600 Message-ID: <3820D868.F4F88A8@macomb.com> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 18:50:48 -0600 From: Kathy Jeffries Reply-To: jeffries@macomb.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-NECCK (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SANET Subject: Monsanto and organics Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 130 Hi Sanetters I basically cruise this list and pass on the information to others who are not on it. But I just have to put a bit of info on myself. I was invited to a BioTech class that is being sponsored by Monsanto at WIU in IL. So far I bet you are thinking........got a clue to where this is going. I've spoken to a few Ag classes and water resource and management classes on the topics of our water pollution and the mega-livestock facilities. Ths class I sat in on......had an ethics panel to answer questions that the students fielded to them on biotech. And one of the panelist was a rep from Monsanto. The M. rep had a very downplay on organics. I asked to what does he base his opinion on. Reply was something in the effect of the grains (and that is the only aspect of organics that he stressed) is riddled with mycotoxins and the use of the pesticides and herbicides would eliminate this. Now we have a choice of mycotoxin vs. chemicals..........I would chance it with the mycotoxins. Since my way of thinking was in relation to other products that are raised organically. There is not a guarantee that the pesticides and such will eliminate the mycotoxin 100%. And he did not seem concerned that this would create an environmental problem....... Aother topic that predominated the class was about labelling. One student says he has never seen anyone take any notice to labels.....I told him he hasn't been in the store when I am shopping. These students are being pruned into the thought patterns of Monsanto and that the earth concerns are not a part. Monsanto rep seemed to bring out the point of competition and costs, no stress on environment or safety to people. So it shows the $$$$$ reigns. Rep said "Also the organics "trend" is just a way of pushing for higher prices" This is sad because our young people are being guided to have concerns in relation to the $$$ and not to the benefit of people. I came out of this class witn a real sad heart as to what our future is being groomed toward. Kathy Jeffries http://homepages.go.com/~earthprotect To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 21:22:09 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21876 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:22:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07397 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 20:42:50 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA07360 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 20:42:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from node11e64.a2000.nl ([24.132.30.100] helo=zap.a2000.nl) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11jBtK-00037T-00; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 02:40:42 +0100 Message-ID: <3820E8B6.292D0DCB@zap.a2000.nl> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 03:00:22 +0100 From: wytze X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jeffries@macomb.com CC: SANET Subject: Re: Monsanto and organics References: <3820D868.F4F88A8@macomb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 131 I recently checked the 'mycotoxin situation' on organic food(crops) in the Netherlands with the Dutch Health Care officials who perform the checks. They find no difference in the levels of mycotoxins between organic and non-organic foods. This is a great accomplishment by organic agriculture. The Monsanto story is, like al their stories, total b.s. wytze Kathy Jeffries wrote: > Hi Sanetters > I basically cruise this list and pass on the information to others who > are not on it. > But I just have to put a bit of info on myself. > > I was invited to a BioTech class that is being sponsored by Monsanto at > WIU in IL. > So far I bet you are thinking........got a clue to where this is going. > I've spoken to a few Ag classes and water resource and management > classes on the topics of our water pollution and the mega-livestock > facilities. > Ths class I sat in on......had an ethics panel to answer questions that > the students fielded to them on biotech. And one of the panelist was a > rep from Monsanto. > The M. rep had a very downplay on organics. I asked to what does he base > his opinion on. > Reply was something in the effect of the grains (and that is the only > aspect of organics that he stressed) is riddled with mycotoxins and the > use of the pesticides and herbicides would eliminate this. > Now we have a choice of mycotoxin vs. chemicals..........I would chance > it with the mycotoxins. Since my way of thinking was in relation to > other products that are raised organically. There is not a guarantee > that the pesticides and such will eliminate the mycotoxin 100%. And he > did not seem concerned that this would create an environmental > problem....... > Aother topic that predominated the class was about labelling. One > student says he has never seen anyone take any notice to labels.....I > told him he hasn't been in the store when I am shopping. These students > are being pruned into the thought patterns of Monsanto and that the > earth concerns are not a part. Monsanto rep seemed to bring out the > point of competition and costs, no stress on environment or safety to > people. So it shows the $$$$$ reigns. > Rep said "Also the organics "trend" is just a way of pushing for higher > prices" > > This is sad because our young people are being guided to have concerns > in relation to the $$$ and not to the benefit of people. > I came out of this class witn a real sad heart as to what our future is > being groomed toward. > > Kathy Jeffries > http://homepages.go.com/~earthprotect > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Wed Nov 3 21:48:11 1999 -0500 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA22126 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:48:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA26966 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:13:13 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mayumi.iphil.net (rufino2.gw.iphil.net [203.176.0.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA26869 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:13:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mayumi.iphil.net (8.8.7/8.8.8) with UUCP id JAA20059 for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:59:27 +0800 Received: (from uu1@localhost) by phil.gn.apc.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) with UUCP id KAA21283; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:31:32 +0800 From: Roberto Verzola Message-Id: <199911040231.KAA21283@phil.gn.apc.org> Date: 04 Nov 99 06:34:43 Subject: Japan - 66% of food companies to go non-GM ? To: rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 132 I hope there are corn/soya farmers on this list who can learn from this news item. -- Roberto ================================================================== Japan grain-non-GM crops bought with high premiums ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAPAN: November 2, 1999 TOKYO - Japanese have recently bought corn and soybeans grown exclusively from non genetically modified (GM) seeds, at premiums roughly 40-50 percent higher than those for mixed GM and non-GM crops, traders said. Premiums for non-GM, U.S.-grown corn were purchased at premiums of 40-50 cents a bushel more than the cost of genetically mixed varieties. As for soybeans grown in the U.S. states of Indiana, Ohio and Michigan (IOM) that contain higher protein and are suitable for food use, non-GM soybeans were purchased at premiums of 50-60 cents a bushel over unsegregated IOM soybeans. Soybeans for crushing have not been segregated on the basis of genetic origin as Japanese oilseed crushers are exempt from government GMO labelling requirements that take effect in April 2001, traders said. "Japanese food companies will start receiving non-GM corn deliveries from the U.S. this month. The volume of imports (of non-GM U.S. corn to Japan) will likely reach 70,000-80,000 tonnes by the end of this year," said a trader at a grain trading house. "The imports are mainly for use in beer production. Premiums are 50 percent higher (than unsegregated U.S. corn prices)," he added. Soybean traders expect that out of total Japanese demand for food soybeans of 800,000 to one million tonnes in the 1999/2000 year, 500,000-600,000 tonnes will be non-GM varieties. "Japanese are buying non-GM soybeans with high premiums. This will probably be taken as an incentive for U.S. farmers to increase planting of non-GM soybean varieties next year," said a trader at a major Japanese trading house. HIGH COSTS TO BE PASSED ON TO CONSUMERS Non-GM U.S. corn premiums are 43 to 54 percent higher than the current premiums for unsegregated U.S. corn for January-March shipment, which are 93 cents a bushel cost and freight Japan over the March contract on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT), traders said. Non-GM IOM soybean premiums on a c&f Japan basis are 37 to 44 percent higher than premiums for unsegregated IOM soybeans. Premiums for the latter are 135 cents a bushel over CBOT's January contract. The non-GM corn/soybean premiums are for bulk transportation, traders said. Japanese trading houses charge additional premiums if end-users ask them to transport crops in containers or bags so as to reduce the risk of adulteration. During bulk transportation, non-GM crops could become mixed with genetically altered varieties, which could end up accounting for about five percent of the total bulk, traders said. Accord to results published Monday of a survey conducted by Japan's leading economic daily, 66 percent of food companies polled by the paper had decided or were considering switching to non-GM ingredients. Some 43 percent of the companies will pass on the increased purchasing costs, totally or partially, to consumers as higher product prices, according to the survey conducted last month by the Nihon Keizai Shimbun. Some 323 of the 472 companies polled responded to the survey. As for domestic business, Japanese end-users have covered about 20 percent of their corn needs for January-March shipment. In the soybean market end-users are looking for January shipment, but high premiums made them wary of covering their needs quickly. U.S. Gulf-Japan freight rates for Panamax-class vessels were little changed from week-ago levels at $24.50-$25 a tonne for December shipment and $25-$25.50 a tonne for January shipment. Story by Aya Takada REUTERS NEWS SERVICE To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 22:29:47 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA22732 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 22:29:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA26879 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:56:36 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from saffron.propagation.net (saffron.propagation.net [216.221.160.23]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA26867 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:56:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from 204.149.164.249 (mx3-106.ilhawaii.net [204.149.164.249]) by saffron.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA26164; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 20:54:27 -0600 Message-ID: <3820F913.45A1@smallfarms.com> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 17:10:12 -1000 From: Glenn Reply-To: glenn@smallfarms.com Organization: smallfarms.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Douglas Hinds CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: The word "organic" a right? References: <38208D54.182E@smallfarms.com> <6688.991103@acnet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 133 Dear Douglas, The discussion with the consumer is taking place and always has taken place as you said. And the farmers who have consumer contact, I’m guessing, have done a splendid job of cultivating the customer relationship with good sound information. One of the activities I enjoy most at my farm is talking with my customers and sharing with them what we do here that’s beneficial to them, to me and to the pastureland. I have been told that my current farm practices would qualify as “organic” by one of the certifying organizations, and the fee is very attractive. Our current discussion on the subject of organic certification needs to be taken beyond the limits of this list and this group of participants because of the well stated, genuine, and I believe honest perspectives of all the participants. My hunch is that consumers don’t have any idea that we see certification through such different eyes. This issue is complex with many potential winners and losers, and I don’t believe that consumers appreciate this. Please remember that I’m a marketer of small farm and small ranch products also. At small farms.com, we intentionally created a structure for selling by the farmer, where the farmers use their own words to tell consumers what they offer, where the products are available, and how the farmer can be contacted. We fully expect and desire to facilitate customer to farmer contact. I believe smallfarms.com to be the best small farmer / small rancher marketing web site on the internet. We have free registration offers to farmers right now. Most of you know this as I have taken every opportunity to talk about the site. So how come if it’s free and has good features, I still need to promote smallfarms.com? People are busy. They have many, many other concerns, causes, and interests to pursue. If we’re to be successful at informing consumers of the organic certification quagmire we need to ramp up what we’re doing. glenn Buy from the Farmer http://www.smallfarms.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Nov 3 23:39:14 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA23731 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:39:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11396 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:10:52 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.pcsia.com (mail.pcsia.com [206.162.14.3]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA11390 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:10:47 -0500 (EST) From: mmiller@pcsia.com Received: from buzz-off (unverified [206.162.14.179]) by mail.pcsia.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 22:08:53 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991103215601.007ec2b0@pcsia.com> X-Sender: mmiller@pcsia.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 21:56:01 -0600 To: Subject: Monsanto and organics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 134 >Subject: Monsanto and organics >(monsanto's rep.)Reply was something in the effect of the grains (and that is the only >aspect of organics that he stressed) is riddled with mycotoxins and the >use of the pesticides and herbicides would eliminate this. >Now we have a choice of mycotoxin vs. chemicals.......... A few points of correction is needed to this guy's reply. Note the operative word MAY REDUCE in the following ENS excerpt below versus WOULD ELIMINATE in the monsanto reply. Also remember that milk cows can be grass fed as Dr. Clark has so aptly pointed out. >From ENS release at http://ens.lycos.com/ens/oct99/1999L-10-18-09.html "Plant pathologist Gary Munkvold says Bt corn, a hybrid engineered to produce the toxic (toxin from the soil bacterium - It does not product the bacteria itself) soil bacterium Bacillus thurigiensis, may reduce human exposure to toxins from diseases that attack corn. By reducing insect damage to the corn, the Bt toxin also reduces the plant’s susceptibility to fungal plant diseases. These fungi produce mycotoxins and aflatoxins that can be dangerous to humans and livestock, whether they are eaten whole or found in milk from cows consuming contaminated corn." Now from Gary's actual paper at http://www.scisoc.org/feature/BtCorn/Top.html "Fusarium ear rot is the most common ear rot disease in the Corn Belt; it can be found in nearly every cornfield at harvest (Smith and White, 1988). The severity of this disease is usually low, but it can reduce yield and quality. The primary importance of this disease is its association with mycotoxins, particularly the fumonisins. Fumonisins are a group of mycotoxins that can be fatal to horses and pigs, and are probable human carcinogens (Munkvold and Desjardins, 1997). The importance of fumonisins in human health is still a subject of debate, but there is evidence that they have some impact on cancer incidence in some parts of the world (Marasas, 1995)." Note the line "The importance of fumonisins in human health is still a subject of debate..." so this issue is not settled yet either. Looks like somebody is grasping at straws hoping no one will look beyond the headlines. Some Questions. How much of the corn crop is actually used for direct human food consumption anyway? How many seasons will this BT hybrid corn be effective before evolution develops resistant pests? It just might be the real question is which toxins you want to eat with your corn. Mycotoxins or mycotoxins and the BT toxin? Spin, Spin, Spin are you dizzy yet? Mike Miller To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 00:35:02 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA24294 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:35:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24786 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:18:59 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from raven.a001.sprintmail.com (raven.prod.itd.earthlink.net [209.178.63.9]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA24752 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:18:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from sprintmail.com (sdn-ar-002tnchatP327.dialsprint.net [158.252.95.105]) by raven.a001.sprintmail.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA00209; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:16:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38211816.18C446D@sprintmail.com> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 00:22:30 -0500 From: Alex McGregor Reply-To: waldenfarm@sprintmail.com Organization: Walden Farm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Douglas Hinds CC: "sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: Time and the Benefit of BT Corn References: <381E57FB.39BD5F03@sprintmail.com> <240.991102@acnet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 135 Douglas Hinds wrote: > No Alex, people who weren't breast fed or who did it for a short time > often feel less integrated and intuitive with nature - they don't > identify with it to the same degree as those that had more mother's > milk do and there was no offense meant nor made so forget the > apology. It was a legitimate question and I'm interested in your > answer. > And if you think there is with you, it's strictly imagined. Look for > another excuse to get belligerent, but do it on your own hook, because > my comment had a basis in fact and I have no idea why you find > anything wrong with it. So, maybe you could enlighten us all and cite the reference to the study that establishes this "fact" to which you refer. Alex To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 01:07:36 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA24568 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:07:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15401 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:49:52 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA15390 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:49:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.26] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:47:03 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:45:40 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) S/N 5E3E1CD8 / Personal Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <8990.991103@acnet.net> To: Alex McGregor CC: "sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re[2]: Time and the Benefit of BT Corn In-reply-To: <38211816.18C446D@sprintmail.com> References: <38211816.18C446D@sprintmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 136 Hello Alex, Nice to hear from you again. Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 11:22:30 PM, you wrote: AM> Douglas Hinds wrote: >> No Alex, people who weren't breast fed or who did it for a short time >> often feel less integrated and intuitive with nature - they don't >> identify with it to the same degree as those that had more mother's >> milk do and there was no offense meant nor made so forget the >> apology. It was a legitimate question and I'm interested in your >> answer. >> And if you think there is with you, it's strictly imagined. Look for >> another excuse to get belligerent, but do it on your own hook, because >> my comment had a basis in fact and I have no idea why you find >> anything wrong with it. AM> So, maybe you could enlighten us all and cite the reference to the study that AM> establishes this "fact" to which you refer. AM> Alex Personal experience of Douglas M. Hinds, an independent investigator highly recommended by established authorities for his well developed powers for observing and accurately evaluating detailed phenomena. (References provided upon request). After that, I suggest that further concerns related to this thread be performed privately. Douglas Hinds, Dir. Gral. - CeDeCoR, A.C. dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 01:07:43 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA24576 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:07:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16151 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:52:52 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA16061 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:52:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.26] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:50:02 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:48:44 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) S/N 5E3E1CD8 / Personal Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <13992.991103@acnet.net> To: Glenn CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re[2]: The word "organic" a right? In-reply-To: <3820F913.45A1@smallfarms.com> References: <3820F913.45A1@smallfarms.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 137 OK Glenn, go for it! Douglas Hinds ------------- Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 9:10:12 PM, you wrote: G> Dear Douglas, G> The discussion with the consumer is taking place and always has taken G> place as you said. And the farmers who have consumer contact, I’m G> guessing, have done a splendid job of cultivating the customer G> relationship with good sound information. One of the activities I enjoy G> most at my farm is talking with my customers and sharing with them what G> we do here that’s beneficial to them, to me and to the pastureland. I G> have been told that my current farm practices would qualify as “organic” G> by one of the certifying organizations, and the fee is very attractive. G> Our current discussion on the subject of organic certification needs to G> be taken beyond the limits of this list and this group of participants G> because of the well stated, genuine, and I believe honest perspectives G> of all the participants. My hunch is that consumers don’t have any idea G> that we see certification through such different eyes. This issue is G> complex with many potential winners and losers, and I don’t believe that G> consumers appreciate this. G> Please remember that I’m a marketer of small farm and small ranch G> products also. At small farms.com, we intentionally created a structure G> for selling by the farmer, where the farmers use their own words to tell G> consumers what they offer, where the products are available, and how the G> farmer can be contacted. We fully expect and desire to facilitate G> customer to farmer contact. I believe smallfarms.com to be the best G> small farmer / small rancher marketing web site on the internet. We G> have free registration offers to farmers right now. Most of you know G> this as I have taken every opportunity to talk about the site. So how G> come if it’s free and has good features, I still need to promote G> smallfarms.com? G> People are busy. They have many, many other concerns, causes, and G> interests to pursue. If we’re to be successful at informing consumers G> of the organic certification quagmire we need to ramp up what we’re G> doing. G> glenn G> Buy from the Farmer G> http://www.smallfarms.com G> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command G> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command G> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". G> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command G> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". G> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: G> http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 04:15:58 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA25862 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 04:15:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA03990 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 03:51:51 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from vugon.vista.ac.za ([196.13.30.3]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA03874 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 03:51:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from acaleph.vista.ac.za (acaleph.vista.ac.za [196.13.2.20]) by vugon.vista.ac.za (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA16370 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:50:10 GMT Received: from FT/SpoolDir by acaleph.vista.ac.za (Mercury 1.21); 4 Nov 99 10:49:15 GMT+2 Received: from SpoolDir by FT (Mercury 1.21); 4 Nov 99 10:47:52 GMT+2 From: "Dr Maggi Linington" Organization: Vista University - Academic To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:47:46 GMT+2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: breast feeding and deeling close to nature In-reply-to: <199911040520.AAA25520@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 138 Dear Netters, Numerous studies have shown that it is crucial for a baby to be cuddled, especially while feeding. This is despite whether the source of milk is a bottle or a breast. babies are remarkable creatures, especially their ability to learn and interact. Babies who are not cuddled and handled frequently, especially during feeding are known to have a higher potential of being introvert. I have done a lot of study on this since I have a 9 month old adopted baby. If people are specifically interested in the above and want references I can supply them. I have NEVER read anywhere in the last 18 months that bottle fed babies do not have an affinity for nature. If Douglas wants to quote family personalities to "prove" his point then I have the exact opposite in mine a bottle fed who is nature mad and a breast fed who is definitely not. Douglas, please quote references for your allegation, 'cause I for one think that sounds like an old wives tale. On the other hand if it is true I'll include the question of breast or bottle fed in my next job interview Regards Dr MJ Linington HEAD:Department Agricultural Sciences email:lngtn-mj@acaleph.vista.ac.za Snail Mail: Dept. Agricultural Sciences VUDEC, Vista University P/Bag X641, Pretoria, 0001 Tel: 012 322 1303 Fax: 012 322 3243 cell:083 637 0182 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 07:31:17 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA26995 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:31:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA08283 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:10:36 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp.ncc-mannheim.net (smtp.ncc-mannheim.net [62.104.117.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA08178 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:10:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (lufa-sp.vdlufa.de [62.132.27.12] (may be forged)) by smtp.ncc-mannheim.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA18902 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:09:34 +0100 Received: from lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (lufa.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de [192.168.3.254]) by www.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17212 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:10:44 +0100 Received: from LUFA/SpoolDir by lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (Mercury 1.44); 4 Nov 99 13:03:03 +0100 Received: from SpoolDir by LUFA (Mercury 1.44); 4 Nov 99 13:02:19 +0100 From: "Klaus Wiegand" Organization: Landw. U.-& Forsch.-Anstalt Speyer To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:02:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re[3]: Proposed organic cost share program Reply-to: Wiegand@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 139 hello douglas, >It is true that the word "organic" has more than one usage. not only that, it means everything, someone likes to put into it.. >As things now stand, organic foods are those that were produced, >handled and sometimes processed, using methods consistent with >the organic philosophy and tradition. few people would doubt that. but most consumers do NOT know the producer of his food. maybe i'm the deepest sceptical in the whole world and all the trustful people left europe with the mayflower, but trust is earned, but not just given away ! once you're trusted by someone, that one needs no other proof (as long as no competor spreads wrong bads about him, which also happens and not so rarely, and that's something even worse to deal with, because it's like a dagger from behind). BA> The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone BA> can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." here in germany it goes even to the extremes with a group of growers, who sell their products as "naturgemaess". a rough translation would be equivalant to "natural". now comes the tricky part. they are sailing under the flag of "organic" (which is also no label, but better known in the public as a GENERAL way of producing and even more of thinking about nature), but they use anything THEY mean it would be natural. some of these natural products: slaugtherhouse byproducts like undigested gastric residues, grinded chicken manure, mined potash salt and phosphorus, arsen, copper, maggots grown on dead english horses for fish-feeding. and all of these products may very well be claimed "natural". (who decides, if mining is a natural method?) during our large residue study we went to local markets and also sold their products. we asked them about them and all you heard from them was "all natural". they are SOO right ! 3 to 4 times a week people call me on the phone and ask me about "organic" food. that's what i have to tell them: there is "organic", "biological", "bio-organic", "bio-dynamic", "natural", "organic-dynamic", "naturgemaess".... once i've reach the 3rd or 4th group and their different definitions, i hear a gasp and a "stop!". >But leave the need for verifying or not verifying that to those >involved in each and every transaction. > The product embodies that state, and this state is something >VERIFIABLE when this is appropriate; that is, when for the demand >for it arises. you know very well, that it's an impossiblity for a single consumer, who has a strong doubt to test the efficiency of a drug or the claim of a pesticide-free food. simply unpayable !! for a simple test for a pesticide you pay 300$, provided you are able to name the effective substance (if you don't, it depends on the experience of the analytic lab to GUESS, what might be used. if you're successful at the 6th try, that makes 1.800 $. if there are 5 people, who have doubts, that makes 9.000$. how uneffective for the whole society..) >The questions Sal raised (and they're good ones) is WHO should >bear the cost of verification and when should that cost be >incurred. The answer is simple. (In reverse order): When >reasonable doubt exists as to the veracity of the claims made, >the cost being born by those that have made false claims when >these have been proved false. after the bse-scandal in england meat could only be sold at a ridiculous price not even worth buying the calf. consumption went down for half a year to 40-50% of the consuption before. not even farmers can be convinced by you, that british farmers or the feeding industry there could be made responsable for the damage. and most of the cheating isn't "big-bang". most of it is done the "smart" way: heat up the gasoline at the gasoline station, add old leathersoles to the feed instead of proteins, put in only 95% of the usual weight in the package, "forget" a vitamin in the mix, used old stuff over the limit-date, selling pse-meat, replacing a natural flavor with a synthetical one, dyeing with roasted malt, the "wonderful" multiplication of yields in "organic" fields... 700 eggs a year from each free- ranging hen... simple example: our analysis has a tolerance of 5%, the machine for mixing has one of 1% (due to the large amount). you can be ABSOLUTELY sure, that the company selling feedstuff will adjust their machine to 96%, because they know, that due to the tolerance they can not be fined before a court. several years ago we invented a method for measuring the hormone DES (it was known, that it was used for years). immediately after we published the method, DES disappeared from the market. our chemists were glad and proud - until we heard, that feed producers switched to hexoestrol. we found a method (chemists proud again), only to hear, that feed producers having heard about it, switched to dienoestrol.... for us that's more like a funny game, for the consumer that's a real threat. now you may ask: what has this all to do with organic procducers? it's simple: most of the consumers live in cities and cannot have direct contact to the farmer. so why believe them more than the rest of the world ? the situation is only different, if you know the farmer by person and then it's exact the same situation as having trust in a friend of yours. another example, which is very comparable to certification re no certification. beginning from next year every wine-farmer in germany will be obliged to do a soil analysis for nitrogen content. you may say, that's thanks to the soil lab lobby. you're wrong. it's the consumers, who pressured the water companies and were tired of paying higher and higher prices due to increasing elimination costs for nitrate and the closure of wells nearby vineyards. your system of charging the source of the contamination won't work again. especially if brought forward by a single person. do you think tobacco companies could have been sued by individuals ?? >come to mean what it does precisely because there IS a difference >in the value and results of different types of agricultural >production systems, one founded on biological principles and >processes, the other on easily commercialized bottles of >chemicals that make little or no effort to account for the >effects on the environment and human health they produce. douglas, i worked in developing countries and you should know better, that especially there private farmers have neither the knowledge nor the money for individual defense. one day i went to the agricultural supply company, and the first thing i saw, was the lack of the plastic container on top of it for dosing. NONE of the farmers around knew about it, they were put away by the employees of the supply company and sold as schnaps glasses. the farmers were sold rotten equipment, they tried to sell usual NPK-fertilizer for a higher price, because the same fertilizer was "exlusively" designed for the higher-prized tobacco and not for my cabbage. a dr. fausto (a studied farmer) even claimed, that i could not use this fertilizer on cabbage, because "tobacco fertilizer can exclusively be used on tobacco and would kill my vegetables". he offered me fertilizer bags with a nice collard with vegetables on it - it was his "tobacco" fertilizer with the tobacco collard put away. LOTS of cheating even in countries most people believe their inhabitants to be more familiar with each other and less "wall-street-trimmed" .. and you want a number ? 3 percent of german "organic" food have normal conventional pesticide residues. meaning 3% are lying to consumers and also meaning 32 out of 33 organic farmers are honest. >I share Sal's outrage and find ample basis for his totally >sincere and well founded analysis of the present situation. He's >getting screwed as things stand and deserves much better >treatment from the elected authorities who've sworn to uphold the >public good, with liberty and justice for all. He's supporting a >whole network of bureaucrats that add no value to the crops he >himself produces, at his own cost. The idea that someone farther >away from the scene is better equipped to determine whether or >not his product is as he and his clients say it is, is an insult. >If a reasonable doubt exists, that that doubt be raised in an >appropriate forum, with the risk shared by both parties. i understand sal's situation very well (please sal, believe that's not intended towards you, as i do not know neither you nor your situation, it's NOT intended as an insult against you, you might be the most honest person on the whole planet.) but even he can't garantuee, that his co-farmers have the same honesty. one year ago a large manipulation with organic food from israel was detected. i also bought of these fruits, BUT: who am i to blame ? and what's the compensation for having eaten pesticide residues i expected not to eat with these fruits?? i did not even know the name of any grower. did they all cheat (CERTAINLY not, but do i have to test every avocado in the lab? - once tested, it's gone!) can i restrict future buys to certain people among them? certainly not. so what shall i do and what's within the range of my possibilities ? ? usually there's only one thing: avoid ALL products from israel, and with them those from the innocent and honest growers.... any better solution ? >If periodic inspections are called for due to public health >concerns (as they could be in any industry and for organic and >conventional farmers alike), funding for these should be derived >from the same tax moneys that fund any other governmental >activity at present, without penalizing the farmers that are >doing more than the rest to produce a healthy, nutritious product >without damaging the environment, and doing so on the basis of >their own effort and conviction, with no help from those now >living off these farmers hard work: Harvesting without having >planted, cashing in without having to take a product to market here you have my full support and it is exactly the way, it's done in germany and most european countries and everybody is lucky with the system !!!! there are 6 or 7 governmental food inspection units in germany, fully supplied and the analysts paid by the government (meaning everyone). they do the tests and report violations to a special task force with full investigation rights like the police. per chance about 1 of every 1000 individual products is controlled on actually known problems. so the price for society is quite low, the risk of detection also, but the mere fact, that there is a control system at all, seems to make troublemakers think twice. the fact, that fines go down very fast as soon as the information gets around in producer circles, that a method exists, speaks for itself... some of the controlling agencies are no governmental ones, they are private companies, who have a long history of trustworthy behavior and that's all, the public needs to trust them. one case of a detected palm greasing and they are out of business. the organic grower pays only his membership in HIS organisations like IFOAM, demeter or naturland. at least now i do understand much better, what sal is critizing !!!. here you have the choice of getting certified for an annual fee or you may just call yourself "organic". that's so logical to me, that at first i did not understand, that sal is being FORCED to pay for naming his business organic. that would be the same, as if government would give out order, that a chemical plant has to get certified, for being allowed to name itself a "chemical" plant. an iso-certified enviromental friendy chemical plant would be another thing. klaus --------------- klaus wiegand +-[Quote of the day, powered by k. wiegand]------+ | | | "The bad news is Americans are much more | | cynical about business. The good news | | is that Americans' expectations for honesty | | among businesses have gone down." | | - Roper Vice President Tom Miller | +------------------------------------------------+ To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 07:58:25 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA27268 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:58:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22368 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:36:57 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.pcsia.com (mail.pcsia.com [206.162.14.3]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA22359 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:36:52 -0500 (EST) From: mmiller@pcsia.com Received: from buzz-off (unverified [206.162.14.67]) by mail.pcsia.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 06:34:57 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991104062202.007c8ac0@pcsia.com> X-Sender: mmiller@pcsia.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 06:22:02 -0600 To: Subject: Soybean Selection Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 140 Below is the abstract and url for an article that demostrates the benefit of selecting plant varieties most suited to you local environment and the intended end use. Mike Miller Tofu Characteristics Influenced by Soybean Crop Year and Location T.C. Helms, T.D. Cai, K.C. Chang, and J.W. Enz Department of Plant Sciences, Department or Food and Nutrition, Department of Cereal Science, and Department of Soil Science North Dakota State University Abstract Plant breeders and tofu processors need to understand the influence of environment on tofu quality and color. Our objective was to determine the influence of locations within a year and differences between years on tofu yield, quality, and color. We evaluated two soybean (Glycine max (L). Merr.) genotypes that were developed for the tofu specialty market at four locations in 1993 and five locations in 1994. There were significant differences between years for tofu yield, protein content, oil content, and color averaged across genotypes. There were significant differences among locations within each year for soymilk solid content and tofu yield, protein content, oil content, protein ratio (11S/7S), firmness,and yellowness. Due to the influence of environment, genotypes should only be compared for tofu yield, quality, and color within the same environment. Processors can use this information to identify which locations produce the best quality tofu. This article is only available online at http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndagres/ndagres.htm To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 08:31:40 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA27639 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:31:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13713 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:11:44 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13657 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:11:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.146] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:08:57 -0600 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:07:45 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) S/N 5E3E1CD8 / Personal Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1297.991104@acnet.net> To: "Dr Maggi Linington" CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: The reference to a possible link between breast feeding and feeling close to nature put into perspective In-reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 141 Hello Dr. Linington: Thursday, November 04, 1999, 4:47:46 AM, you wrote: DML> I have NEVER read anywhere in the last 18 months that bottle fed DML> babies do not have an affinity for nature. There was no firm allegation made and I am NOT doing research on the subject, nor do I plan to. An obvious confusion is occurring and both topics and motives are being scrambled indiscriminately. It's important here to not forget where each participant was coming from and going, and I will speak for MYSELF. We will go back to the beginning. The topic was: Time and the Benefit of BT Corn. There are 6 messeges in this mailbox of mine that contain the words "breast fed": Yours, two of Alex McGregor's and four of of mine, the first was sent by me on Oct 29. In that post, I asked Alex whether or not he had been breast fed and I did so for the reason later stated: In order to determine whether or not a correlation MIGHT exist between his apparent feeling that agriculture was an unnatural act for human beings and having been breast fed or not breast fed, based both on past personal observations and the nature of the issue: Evidently *I* am more comfortable than Alex is with agriculture's role in human destiny, in spite of the all too frequent misuse of it. There was no offense meant or made by my having asked the question and that is the only issue of importance here. Since Alex interpreted my question in a defensive way, I therefore explained my reason for having asked it (which you may or may not adhere to, Dr., and I would certainly not insist that you do). DML> If Douglas wants to quote family personalities to "prove" his DML> point then I have the exact opposite in mine a bottle fed who is DML> nature mad and a breast fed who is definitely not. No, what Douglas wants is simply to remain true to the issues pertinent to this list. This type of interchange serves only to degenerate the quality of the issues that ARE important and DO need to be addressed here. So I will repeat once more what I want: Drop this irrelevant issue or save it for private email (which I may or may not answer). DML> Douglas, please quote references for your allegation. Once more. There was no allegation. There was an explanation for having asked a question due to the motive for the question's having been misunderstood. DML> , 'cause I for one think that sounds like an old wives tale. The old wife is someone else. I have explained my motives, more than once now. DML> On the other hand if it is true I'll include the question of DML> breast or bottle fed in my next job interview Very cute remark. But please save it (and others like it) for off list discussion. DML> Regards DML> Dr MJ Linington This has degenerated into nothing more than a personal confrontation and waste of time. It's an unimportant issue and straying far from both the original topic and good sanet participation. The topic is not a sanet topic and is inappropriate here, so let's NOT degenerate the list further with this kind of thing. Douglas Hinds To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 08:47:35 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA27787 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:47:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22260 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:27:43 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22173 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:27:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.146] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:24:56 -0600 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:23:43 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) S/N 5E3E1CD8 / Personal Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <17308.991104@acnet.net> To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re[4]: Proposed organic cost share program X-Sender: Douglas Hinds Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 142 (Originally sent off list on Nov. 3) Hello Klaus, Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 8:46:09 AM, you wrote: ... KW> maybe i did not understand correctly: KW> is he as "organic" farmer OBLIGED by american law to get certified KW> or is the certification a decision of each farmer for a certain KW> label ?? OFPA (Organic Foods Production Act) The US federal law, was passed in 1990 but not yet implemented due to controversies involved with the Organic Rule proposed last year that as far as I know have not been resolved. (I've been offline of most of the past year). Additionally, a number of us have opposed the mandatory certification that OFPA calls for. Sal is a good example of why intervention by the US Government as a certifier (or the agency that controls the certifiers) is unwise, except as an alternative available by free choice. That is, by making the distinction between organic and certified organic a legal one, so that the word organic does not become property of a select organic insider power elite, both within and outside of (but with strong ties to) the Government. In California, where Sal is located, certification was optional but I believe became mandatory. [Others here may care to update this]. To me, there is a legal issue involved regarding the proper role of government (not precisely of the people and for the people in the US, but rather the corporations), as well as a moral one, regarding the authority of the individual to freely make true claims, until proven otherwise. I enjoy your posts and read them (there are many posts I don't read for lack of time). I am aware that we share many values and perceptions and think that differences in the European situation and tradition are responsible for most of any differences that may lie between us on this issue. KW> here in europe "organic" growers are an extreme mixture of highly KW> qualified people with a perfect observation and on the other side KW> real dumb farmers, who will never be able to compete on a KW> professional market and they just try their luck by naming their KW> products "organic". that means nothing (except: a higher price KW> consumers are willing to pay for the most important claim - no KW> pesticides). KW> but: if i came to mexico and tell you: "i'm a golf trainer and KW> will give you golfing lessons for 50$ each", do you EXPECT me to be KW> a "trained" trainer or just a guy, who names himself a trainer. and KW> what, if you find out, that i'm not the slightest part better KW> at golf than you (it's highly probable, but of us have not the KW> slightest idea of golf) here in germany this would not be forbidden, KW> although everyone would expect a certified trainer.... so: how to KW> proceed, if you feel cheated and i'm not willing to pay back your KW> 100$ paid meanwhile ?? with fists ?? KW> klaus The justice system is not functioning well in Mexico as yet. Delays are rampant and corruption still exists. But in any country, a legal structure is a required condition for procuring justice, where Governments sets the rules and a forum to hear disputes, but DOESN'T get into the certification business or force measures that inhibit the competitiveness of organic farmers and their products in the open food market, in the case of organic food labeling. Other effective measures involve public expose of consumer fraud and any legitimate company will go out of it's way to avoid being publicly denounced, with the consequent damage to it's image and reputation, and the effect that this can have on their trade. At the same time, a company or grower unfairly slandered has recourse to forums to hear and rectify this too. Governments should provide the laws and forums and not attempt to change the meaning of words. Whether a product is organic or not depends on factors that can be measured and verified because they are inherent in the product and that is where the meaning comes from. In short, organic refers to a production and handling system and he who implemented it is best qualified to state whether or not he used a given set of principles and practices as his agricultural production system; while certified organic refers to an outside authority. The distinction is important. Douglas P.S.: After participating in something like the above, I often want to share it. Any objections to posting it? (He said no privately and here it is). To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 09:30:10 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA28427 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:30:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10415 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:01:19 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.pcsia.com (mail.pcsia.com [206.162.14.3]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA10396 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:01:15 -0500 (EST) From: mmiller@pcsia.com Received: from buzz-off (unverified [206.162.14.68]) by mail.pcsia.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:59:20 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991104074627.007cc700@pcsia.com> X-Sender: mmiller@pcsia.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 07:46:27 -0600 To: Subject: BT Cautions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 143 Below is an intro to an article on BT I found on the hard drive that is relevant to our discussion of BT Corn. Unfortunately, I don't have the url on this one but the reference is below. It appears that only some of the article is saved but it shows even organic uses of BT are not squeaky clean from an environmental viewpoint but it is better than synethics. Mike Miller Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.). Carrie Swadener. Journal of Pesticide Reform, Volume 14, Number 3, Fall 1994. Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Eugene, OR. Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) by Carrie Swadener Introduction Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) is a live microorganism that kills certain insects and is used to kill unwanted insects in forests, agriculture, and urban areas. In a purified form, some of the proteins produced by B.t. are acutely toxic to mammals. However, in their natural form, acute toxicity of commonly-used B.t. varieties is limited to caterpillars, mosquito larvae, and beetle larvae. B.t. is closely related to B. cereus, a bacteria that causes food poisoning and to B. anthracis, the agent of the disease anthrax. Few studies have been conducted on the chronic health effects, carcinogenicity, or mutagenicity of B.t. People exposed to B.t. have complained of respiratory, eye, and skin irritation, and one corneal ulcer has occurred after direct contact with a B.t. formulation. People also suffer from allergies to the "inert" (secret) ingredients. People with compromised immune systems may be particularly susceptible to B.t. Viable B.t. spores are known to exist for up to one year following application. Insect resistance to B.t. has been well documented. Genetic engineering may greatly expand use of B.t., speeding up the development of more resistance. Large-scale applications of B.t. can have far-reaching ecological impacts. B.t. can reduce dramatically the number and variety of moth and butterfly species, which in turn impacts birds and mammals that feed on caterpillars. In addition, a number of beneficial insects are adversely impacted by B.t. B.t. is less toxic to mammals and shows fewer environmental effects than many synthetic insecticides. However, this is no reason to use it indiscriminately. Its environmental and health effects as well as those of all other alternatives must be thoroughly considered before use. B.t. should be used only when necessary, and in the smallest quantities possible. It should always be used as part of a sustainable management program. --------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 12:25:23 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02594 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:25:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27932 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:42:13 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from THE-SPA.COM (the-spa.com [204.97.227.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27755 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:41:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from THE-SPA.COM ([204.97.227.3]) by THE-SPA.COM with ESMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 2807700 ; Thu, 04 Nov 1999 11:39:16 -0500 Received: from cisa ([206.153.192.223]) by THE-SPA.COM with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 2807400 ; Thu, 04 Nov 1999 11:39:02 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991104113908.007c36c0@buylocalfood.com> X-Sender: markl@buylocalfood.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 11:39:08 -0500 To: agresource@onelist.com, jimdpitts@aol.com, jazzli@crocker.com, emaltby@open-field.org, begg@together.net, Mmaide@aol.com, bschultz@hampshire.edu, barts@valinet.com, bwallace@javanet.com, pickens@crocker.com, dcooley@microbio.umass.edu, kruhf@smallfarm.org, nefood-l@listproc.tufts.edu, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Mark Subject: Job Announcement Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 144 Job Announcement The Organic Trade Association seeks a highly-motivated individual as Membership & Special Events Coordinator to administer fundraising and special events for rapidly expanding national business association. Excellent communication and computer skills. Team player. Send cover letter, resume, references, salary requirements by November 19th to OTA, PO Box 547, Greenfield MA 01302. For more information, please contact Amy Wales at awales@ota.com. Attachments may be e-mailed in Microsoft Word (for PC), Version 7 or older, to awales@ota.com. The Organic Trade Association is the trade association for the organic industry in North America. Our goal is to encourage global sustainability through promoting and protecting the growth of diverse organic trade. http://www.ota.com ---------------------------------------------------- Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) An independent non-profit organization. http://www.buylocalfood.com 893 West Street Amherst MA 01002-5001 T: 413-559-5338 F: 413-559-5404 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 14:16:00 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04935 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:16:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04720 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:44:11 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (mta3.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.141]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA04708 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:44:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [63.192.219.119] by mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with ESMTP id <0FKO00HOGRR37C@mta3.snfc21.pbi.net> for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:37:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 08:16:46 -0800 From: Misha Subject: Selling sustainability/greenwashing To: SANET-mg Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 145 Howdy, all-- First of all, many thanks to those of you who have written me individually recently to inquire whether I'd gotten dispirited on SANET and stopped writing. I haven't; I've just been extra busy with a cluster of writing, Web, and publishing projects lately. I've also been feeling a little under the weather as my body adjusts to shorter, darker days that, in early November, are warmer and sunnier than they were in July. Peculiar beyond belief. :^D This morning, it occurred to me that lately I haven't posted anything to you all from PR Watch, CMD's corporate-flack-watching newsletter. An item in the third quarter, 1999, newsletter that I think would interest many of you: an article about companies that seek "commercial advantage through a focus on sustainability," and how that works at the PR level. Through the Revolving Door: From Greenpeace to Big Business by Dr. Sharon Beder http://www.prwatch.org/99-Q3/greenpeace.html#start peace mish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Michele Gale-Sinex Communications manager Center for Integrated Ag Systems, UW-Madison http://www.wisc.edu UW voice mail: 608-262-8018 Home office: 415-504-6474 (504-MISH) Home office fax: Same as above, phone first for enabling ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Look around the table. If you don't see a sucker, get up. Because you're the sucker. --poker player Amarillo Slim To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 15:26:17 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06523 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:26:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA29259 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:29:49 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from saffron.propagation.net (saffron.propagation.net [216.221.160.23]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA29232 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:29:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from 204.149.164.36 (mx3-22.ilhawaii.net [204.149.164.36]) by saffron.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA06553; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:27:38 -0600 Message-ID: <3821E1D8.68B6@smallfarms.com> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 09:43:20 -1000 From: Glenn Reply-To: glenn@smallfarms.com Organization: smallfarms.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 146 Dear Klaus and David, Since both of you live outside the USA, and see what's happening here throught slightly different eyes, what do you see as the building blocks for farmer first national certification? Do you see leaders, friends or obvious single issues to pursue we don't see because we're in the forest and can't see the trees? glenn Buy from the Farmer htt://www.smallfarms.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 17:57:21 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09424 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:57:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00543 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:14:23 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail1.doit.wisc.edu (mail1.doit.wisc.edu [144.92.9.40]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA00276 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:14:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from [144.92.244.229] by mail1.doit.wisc.edu id QAA40454 (8.9.1/50); Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:11:53 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19991104161143.0077ca5c@facstaff.wisc.edu> X-Sender: mmmille6@facstaff.wisc.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 16:11:43 -0600 To: citnet-list@citnet.org, ecomda@danenet.wicip.org, bagajews@students.wisc.edu, jmmog@students.wisc.edu, cebooker@facstaff.wisc.edu, jmsimons@facstaff.wisc.edu, lesultan@students.wisc.edu, hageurki@students.wisc.edu, clvanlaa@students.wisc.edu, ermagner@students.wisc.edu, srmarmar@students.wisc.edu, jrknorr@students.wisc.edu, ddalsore@students.wisc.edu, jmooster@students.wisc.edu, eajusten@students.wisc.edu, srrabide@students.wisc.edu, dbutler@students.wisc.edu, chswanso@students.wisc.edu, agstone@facstaff.wisc.edu, gkellman@students.wisc.edu, wlbland@facstaff.wisc.edu, jlrieste@facstaff.wisc.edu, nmartino@students.wisc.edu, jadeelo@students.wisc.edu, jwlyne@students.wisc.edu, janetparker@students.wisc.edu, jrkloppe@facstaff.wisc.edu, kpdemast@students.wisc.edu, merosemeyer@facstaff.wisc.edu, cjpresti@students.wisc.edu, ndcorcor@students.wisc.edu, aaapplet@students.wisc.edu, mkrome@inxpress.net, sventura@facstaff.wisc.edu, lrcooperband@facstaff.wisc.edu, jhendric@facstaff.wisc.edu, embenne1@students.wisc.edu, bdturner@students.wisc.edu, mmmille6@facstaff.wisc.edu, eklein1@students.wisc.edu, ppa-greatlakes@igc.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: "Michelle M. Miller" Subject: Bt and butterflies Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 147 FYI - from Becky Goldburg, staff scientist at Environmental Defense Fund's New York City office.....m3 From: Becky Goldburg@EDF on 11/04/99 03:59 PM Subject: Industry manipulation of research results on Bt corn and monarchs I am writing to provide a first hand perspective on articles stating that "Bt corn poses little risk to monarchs" which have appeared in the Chicago Tribune, LA Times, St Louis Post Dispatch, and other papers in the past two days. Some of these articles are below. I attended Tuesday's (Nov 2) meeting in Rosemount, Illinois, on Bt corn and monarchs that is described in these articles. With the exception of an article in today's NYTimes (also below), these articles all stated that the meeting would reach a conclusion that Bt corn poses little risk to monarchs -- even though most of the articles were written before the meeting was even held!! Luckily, Carol Yoon from the NY Times attended the meeting. During the afternoon, she stood up and said that she had just talked to her editors and that they had received a press release from industry stating that the meeting would conclude that Bt corn presented little risk to monarchs. (See BIO's press release, below.) Carol asked if participants agreed with this conclusion. The answer was a clear "No" from a number of researchers. To be frank, I am appalled by industry's manipulation of a scientific meeting at which a number of researchers -- many of which have only analyzed some of their data and thus have only preliminary results to report -- were supposed to discuss their work in a careful and deliberate manner. Please feel free to circulate this email message. Becky Goldburg Environmental Defense Fund ---------------------- Forwarded by Becky Goldburg on 11/04/99 03:00 PM --------------------------- From: Linda Jantzen on 11/04/99 10:37 AM To: Becky Goldburg cc: Subject: NYTimes article News from the Net Date: 11/04/99 EDF Program: Biotechnology Publication: New York Times Headline: No Consensus on the Effects of Engineering on Corn Crops EDF Quoted: Reporter: CAROL KAESUK YOON http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/110499sci-animal-monarch.ht ml November 4, 1999 No Consensus on the Effects of Engineering on Corn Crops By CAROL KAESUK YOON ROSEMONT, Ill. -- An unusual scientific symposium organized and financed by a biotech trade group ended on Wednesday with conflicting claims about the risks that genetically engineered corn might pose to the monarch butterfly. Makers of the genetically altered corn were put on the defensive in May when a study by Cornell researchers was published in the journal Nature showing that pollen from corn producing the insecticidal toxin Bt could kill monarch caterpillars in the laboratory. Since then the potential threat to the monarch has become a focus for the growing opposition to genetically engineered crops by environmental and other groups. After the study, the biotech industry sponsored further research on the issue, including some presented at the meeting here. The Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship Working Group, the industry group that organized the symposium, issued a statement this morning saying scientists were expected to conclude that the altered corn pollen did not harm the monarch. But far from culminating in a consensus, the day was marked by sometimes heated exchange and ended with some scientists concluding that the bioengineered corn was safer than had been feared while others said that it was premature to drawn any such conclusions. "I hope we will all be a little patient, and allow good science to work its way to good data and good discussions," Dr. Adrianna Hewings, who represented the Department of Agriculture at the meeting, said in a concluding statement. The department is the primary federal regulator of genetically engineered crops. Many of the researchers emphasized that their results were preliminary, with many studies still far from complete. Some presented data suggesting that pollen from different varieties differ in their toxicity, with one genetic variety of corn known as 176 posing a much greater threat than other more common varieties. In addition, researchers presented evidence that suggests that Bt corn pollen may not travel as far away from fields as had been feared. "The worst-case scenario is not true," said Dr. Stuart Weiss, a researcher at Stanford University. "There's not a toxic pollen cloud wiping out monarchs and all species." Dr. Richard Hellmich, a research entomologist at Iowa State University, was among the most positive about the safety of the corn. He said that "research today had no bias to it" and that "there was a lot of information presented that was positive about Bt corn." But others noted that data presented showed that within and nearby cornfields, plants like milkweed, which monarch caterpillars eat, do get a heavy dusting of toxin-producing pollen. What remains unknown, researchers agreed, was where monarchs were really coming from and what proportion were likely to be growing up on plants with harmful amounts of pollen. "I don't know that we can even rule anything out based on the data," said Dr. John Losey, the entomologist at Cornell who was an author on the original monarch study. Stephen Johnson, an associate deputy assistant administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, said after the meeting that "it was clear from presentations that there is and still continues to be a great deal of scientific debate" and that the agency was not prepared to draw any conclusions. Some researchers expressed concern that so many studies, still far from completion and none peer-reviewed or published, should be given such a public airing, in particular in a forum orchestrated by the industry whose products safety has been brought into question. The industry group sponsoring the event includes the Monsanto Company, Novartis A.G. of Switzerland, Pioneer Hi-Bred, which is owned by the DuPont Compay, and other makers of genetically engineered seed. "We felt it was dirty pool and the fox was guarding the chicken coop," said Dr. Lincoln Brower, a monarch expert at Sweet Briar College in Virginia. "It was not conclusive." Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM TO SHOW NO HARM TO MONARCH BUTTERFLY November 2, 1999 Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) Press Release CHICAGO -- Genetically improved corn poses negligible harm to the Monarch butterfly population, a panel of scientists is expected to conclude at a day-long symposium on new field-conducted research that dispels doubts raised last spring about the safety of the Monarch population. This summer, researchers went beyond the laboratory and into the field to track the behavior of Monarchs, their feeding habits on milkweed plants, the proximity of milkweed to corn fields, and the effects of Bt corn pollen on larvae. The 20 scientists will release the results of 17 separate studies specifically designed to address questions raised by a Cornell University study included in the Rscientific correspondenceS section of Nature, a British science journal. The article claimed to establish a link between the mortality of Monarch butterfly larvae and the presence of pollen from corn that has been genetically improved for protection against insect pests to produce higher yielding and lower cost crops. That research was based on a four-day laboratory test that failed to simulate natural conditions. At the time, Dr. John E. Losey, author of the study, himself said: RIt would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions about the risk to Monarch populations in the field based solely on these initial results.S Does the pollen from genetically improved corn -- also known Bt pollenQaffect the Monarch butterfly in nature? The scientists participating in todayUs event have conducted field research Q from across the United States and Canada Q to address this key question. The research results will be released today at the Monarch Butterfly Research Symposium, conducted at the Rosemont Suites Hotel OUHare near Chicago. The symposium will be hosted by the Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship Working Group (ABSWG), with program participation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The research was conducted during the summer at universities in corn producing regions of North America and was funded independently and by the ABSWG. The symposium will conclude with a special briefing for media at 4 p.m. at which leading scientists will summarize research presented in five interest areas: * Monarch biology and ecology, Dr. Chip Taylor, University of Kansas * Larval feeding trends, Dr. Richard Hellmich, USDA-ARS; Iowa State University * Milkweed distribution in the environment, Dr. Start Weiss, Thomas Reid Associates, Palo Alto, Calif. * Monarch sensitivity to Bt pollen, Dr. Blair Siegfried, University of Nebraska * Monarch exposure to Bt pollen, Dr. Galen Dively, University of Maryland Location, time and registration information is provided below. WHAT: Monarch Research Symposium P Media Briefing WHEN: 4p.m. Central, Tuesday, Nov. 2, 1999 WHERE: Rosemont Suites Hotel OUHare 5500 North River Road, Rosemont, IL 60018 AUDIO: A toll-free phone line will be available to listen and ask questions. Please call Margaret Speich at (202) 296-1585 or Charlie Craig at (202) 857-0244 for call-in number and to register. The ABSWG is a consortium of companies and associations involved in the research, development and introduction of agricultural biotechnology products. Some of the research to be presented at the symposium was funded by the ABSWG. MONARCH BUTTERFLY SO FAR NOT IMPERILED >>GENE-ALTERED CORN GETS AN EARLY OK IN STUDIES >> >>Peter Kendall, Tribune Environment Writer >>11/02/1999 >> >>Chicago Tribune >>Page 4 >> >>When scientists announced in the spring that genetically engineered corn >>might kill monarch butterflies, two things happened: >>Groups opposed to genetic engineering adopted the monarch, perhaps the most >>recognizable American butterfly, as a symbol of the potential for trouble >>when science transplants genes from one species to another, and swarms of >>scientists headed out to cornfields across North America during the summer >>to see if the work done in the lab made sense in the field. >>Although data remains inconclusive, several studies suggest it is unlikely >>that many monarchs will be killed by accidentally eating pollen from >>so-called Bt corn. >> >>On Tuesday, the first Monarch Butterfly Research Symposium is to convene in >>Rosemont, where university scientists, some of whom have received grants >>from the bioengineering-seed companies, will discuss their early findings. >>"My impression right now is that the Bt impact on monarchs is minimal," said >>Dennis Calvin, a Penn State University entomologist. Highway departments >>that mow roadsides and railroads that spray their right-of-ways probably >>kill more monarchs than transgenic corn, Calvin said. >>The summer's monarch research was spawned by the findings of John Losey, a >>Cornell University entomologist who in May reported in the science journal >>Nature that transgenic corn has the potential to kill monarch caterpillars. >>He found that if milkweed, the only plant that monarch caterpillars eat, is >>dusted with pollen from genetically engineered corn, some of the >>caterpillars die. >> >>Bt corn has been implanted with a gene taken from a bacterium that is toxic >>to caterpillars. The gene tells the corn to produce the same caterpillar >>poison the bacteria makes, killing off a pest called the corn borer, a moth >>larvae. But that is toxin also present in the corn's pollen, which drifts >>away from >>the corn and lands on any plant that happens to be growing nearby, including >>milkweed. >> >>Scientists over the summer tried to measure how much Bt pollen it takes to >>kill the caterpillars and how much might land on milkweed leaves. >>Mark Sears, a professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario, found that >>corn pollen doesn't travel far. Using sticky petri dishes set on poles >>that are about the height of >>milkweed, about 3 feet, Sears and his colleagues determined that 90 percent >>of the pollen landed within 16 feet of the field. He also set out to find >>out how much Bt pollen has to be sitting on a milkweed leaf to kill a >>monarch caterpillar. He found a threshold of about >>500 to 700 pollen grains per square centimeter before the youngest, smallest >>monarch larvae started to die. >> >>When the researchers counted pollen grains on milkweed leaves in the field, >>they found that plants growing in the cornfield had an average of 78 grains >>of Bt pollen per square centimeter. Milkweed just three feet outside the >>cornfield had only 26 grains per centimeter. >> >>"The risk to monarch larvae is very minimal," Sears said. >>Galen Dively from the University of Maryland also set out to measure how >>much of the pollen lands on milkweed and collected 1,300 milkweed leaves >>from in and around Maryland cornfields. Although just 13 percent of his >>samples have been analyzed at a federal pollen laboratory, the early results >>also suggest that there is not enough pollen on milkweed leaves to kill >>monarch caterpillars. >> >>"The milkweed isn't real good at catching pollen," Dively said. "Pollen >>tends to bounce off of it." >>John Pleasants, a professor in the department of zoology and genetics at >>Iowa State University, found that 88 percent of the milkweed within one >>meter of a corn field would fall below the level where they could hurt the >>caterpillars, and 100 percent of the milkweed just two meters from a Bt >>field would be monarch-safe. >> >>Losey, too, will submit new research at the symposium that suggests that >>monarchs might avoid milkweed near corn plants anyway. >>He believes, however, that the question remains open of whether Bt corn >>kills monarchs. >>"It is too early to be reassured or more alarmed based on the early data," >>Losey said. "It's too early to rule how big a risk there is going to be." >> >>======= >>SCIENTISTS DISCOUNT THREAT TO BUTTERFLY FROM ALTERED CORN >>By Robert Steyer >>11/02/1999 >>St. Louis Post-Dispatch >>Page A5 >> >>The monarch butterfly has a lot more to fear than the pollen of genetically >>engineered corn, several experts said Monday. >>The scientists, among 20 who will present reports today, said new field >>tests and past research indicate that monarch butterfly larvae are >>threatened more by pesticides and environmental damage than by biotech >>pollen. >>Their findings may play an important role in the debate over bioengineered >>food because the monarch has become a rallying point for biotech critics. >>The critics argue that federal government approvals have moved too quickly >>for biotech crops with built-in defenses against insects and weeds. >>But most of the seven scientists speaking Monday said they believe the risk >>to these butterflies is small. >>"If we thought there would be a big risk to the monarch, we wouldn't be >>behind this technology," said John Pleasants, assistant professor of zoology >>and genetics at Iowa State University. >>"I don't think it's an issue," said John Foster, professor of entomology at >>the University of Nebraska, who has "no reservations" about planting or >>eating genetically engineered corn. >>"Habitat destruction, mowing and spraying rights of ways with chemicals" >>have a greater impact on butterflies' health and safety, Foster said. >>Dennis Calvin, professor of entomology at Pennsylvania State University, >>said his "impression is that the (biotech corn pollen) impact on monarchs is >>minimal." >>The scientists have been studying the impact of biotech corn pollen on >>monarch larvae and on milkweed, the monarch's principal food. They spoke on >>a telephone conference call to several newspaper reporters that was arranged >>by a biotechnology trade group. >>They offered a preview of research that will be presented today at a >>symposium in Chicago, adding that some research is preliminary and that some >>data are still being tabulated. >>The symposium is organized by Monsanto Co., several other biotech giants and >>trade organizations representing the agribusiness and biotechnology >>companies. >>They are paying these prominent academic researchers approximately $100,000 >>to examine larvae feeding behavior, the spread of pollen, the distribution >>of milkweed and the toxicity of biotech pollen. >>These tests follow a May report by a Cornell University researcher, who said >>monarch butterfly larvae exposed to pollen from biotech corn had higher >>death rates and lower growth rates than larvae exposed to pollen from >>standard corn. >>The researcher, John E. Losey, assistant professor of entomology, performed >>the tests in a laboratory. He said field tests were necessary to confirm his >>findings. >>Although some researchers criticized Losey's work, his article in the >>magazine Nature helped inflame anti-biotech opinion in the United States. It >>also had an impact in Europe, where consumers and politicians support >>labeling of gene-altered food and restricting - or even banning -biotech >>crop imports from the United States. >>"The bottom line is we need more data," Losey said Monday during the >>conference call. He has done field tests on monarch larvae feeding habits >>independently of the industry-backed research. His results have been mixed. >>"I'm not reassured or more alarmed about (my original study) based on this >>data," Losey said. "It is too early to tell to rule out a risk or to tell >>how strong the risk will be." >>It's also too early to tell how the Chicago symposium will affect the >>American public, which has been more supportive of - or at least less >>antagonistic to - crop biotechnology than Europeans. >>Critics are accelerating their campaigns, suing to stop the federal >>government from approving new biotech crops and threatening protests at the >>World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle in four weeks. They use the >>monarch - nicknamed "the Bambi of the insect world" by one entomologist - as >>a symbol. >>Recently, a coalition of environmental and anti-biotechnology groups began >>running full-page ads in The New York Times. The latest, entitled "Genetic >>Roulette," features a photo of a monarch amid an appeal for a fiv e-year >>freeze on new releases of genetically- altered plants and animals. >>The scientists who spoke Monday made it clear that the monarch butterfly >>debate isn't as simple as critics or corporations suggest. For example: >>* Different types of biotech pollen have different degrees of toxicity. For >>example, pollen from a Novartis corn used on few acres is much more toxic >>than pollen from widely used biotech corn developed by Monsanto. >>* Corn pollen concentrations dissipate as they are blown into neighbor ing >>areas filled with milkweed. Potential danger thresholds for monarchs depend >>on pollen toxicity and the milkweed's distance from cornfields. Wind, rain, >>irrigation practices and other factors influence the concentration of >>pollen. >>* Pleasants, the Iowa State researcher, found that pollen concentrations on >>milkweed at the edge of a cornfield could vary by 80-fold depending whether >>the milkweed plants were upwind or downwind of the field. >>* In Nebraska, Foster found that 95 percent of the corn pollen had spread >>before the first monarch egg had been found, suggesting there was little >>chance monarchs would be affected. But Calvin's computer- model studies of >>six states found there could be big variations in the overlap of monarch >>egg-laying and pollen shedding. "We don't know the impact on the population >>levels of the monarch," he said. "We don't have that data." >>The scientists said, as have their sponsors, that industry financing hasn't >>affected their work. "Industry has supported (my research) over the years," >>said Foster, "and I give them an honest answer that's not always the one >>they want to hear." Michelle Miller Pesticide Use and Risk Reduction Project Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems University of Wisconsin - Madison U.S. Mail: 146 Agriculture Hall 608.262.7135 Campus: 1535 Observatory Drive 608.262.5200 Madison, WI 53706 fax 265.3020 www.wisc.edu/cias/ mmmille6@facstaff.wisc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 19:30:59 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10494 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:30:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22793 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:52:54 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp2.mail.iamworld.net (smtp2-out.mail.iamworld.net [204.91.241.117]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22747 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:52:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from pc014 (1Cust103.tnt5.tco2.da.uu.net [63.21.91.103]) by smtp2.mail.iamworld.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA12933 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:52:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991104184958.00a104a0@pop.iamdigex.net> X-Sender: 10005843@pop.iamdigex.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 18:49:58 -0500 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Suzanne DeMuth Subject: Alternative Agriculture News Nov. 1999 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 148 Alternative Agriculture News November 1999 Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture 9200 Edmonston Road, #117 Greenbelt, MD 20770 USA Voice (301) 441-8777, Fax (301) 220-0164 E-mail hawiaa@access.digex.net Web site www.hawiaa.org * * * If You Are Interested in Sustainable Agriculture... In addition to this monthly newsletter, the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture publishes the "American Journal of Alternative Agriculture," a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal of research on alternative agriculture. It is a scientific forum for disseminating technical, economic, and social research findings about the character and requirements of alternative agriculture systems. Globalization of pesticide technology within the context of meeting the needs of low- input sustainable agriculture is examined in the first article of the current issue (Vol. 14, No. 2). Other articles cover an alternative, low-input production system for fresh market tomatoes; yields and returns from strip intercropping on six Iowa farms; geographic information systems for selection of CRP tracts to meet different management goals after contract expiration; and the effect of conservation tillage on crop yields, soil erosion, and soil properties under furrow irrigation in western Colorado. For U.S. subscribers, one volume (four issues) costs US$44 for libraries, US$24 for individuals, and US$12 for students; foreign rates are also available. For more information, contact the Wallace Institute, 9200 Edmonston Rd., #117, Greenbelt, MD 20770; (301) 441- 8777; hawiaa@access.digex.net. TABLE OF CONTENTS Minimal Gains for Sustainable Ag in 2000 Budget, p. 1 Floods Highlight Flaws in North Carolina's Farm Policy, p. 2 Disputed Study Questions Safety of Genetically Modified Food, p. 3 Positions, p. 3 Monsanto Will Not Commercialize "Terminator" Technology, p. 4 National Academy of Sciences to Review USDA's Biotech Process, p. 4 Resources, p. 4 Upcoming Events, p. 5 MINIMAL GAINS FOR SUSTAINABLE AG IN 2000 BUDGET The USDA budget passed by Congress last month for Fiscal Year 2000 included only minimal gains for sustainable agriculture programs, with small increases for Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) and the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). Here are the approved appropriations for several sustainable agriculture discretionary programs: SARE: An $8 million appropriation was approved for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program, the same as the FY99 appropriation. SAPDP: A $3.3 million appropriation was approved for the SARE (Chapter 3) Professional Development Program, the same as the FY99 appropriation. ATTRA: A $1.5 million appropriation was approved for ATTRA, an increase from the FY99 appropriation of $1.3 million. OFPA: The OFPA has funding up to $1 million, an increase from the FY99 appropriation of $500,000. In addition, the following appropriations were approved for mandatory programs: CFO: No funds were approved for the Conservation Farm Option, which also received no funding in the FY99 budget. EQIP: A $174 million appropriation was approved for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the same as the FY99 appropriation. WRP: Enrollment in the Wetlands Reserve Program was increased to 150,000 acres from the FY99 enrollment of 120,000 acres. CFSA: A $2.5 million appropriation was approved for the Community Food Security Act, the same as the FY99. FRA: No funds were approved for the Fund for Rural America, which also received no funding in the FY99 budget. IFAFS: No funds were approved for the new Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, a competitive grants program which was added and then eventually deleted from the FY99 budget. FLOODS HIGHLIGHT FLAWS IN NORTH CAROLINA'S FARM POLICY After the floods of Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd, "loose regulations that helped eastern North Carolina become the nation's biggest producer of turkeys and the second biggest of hogs have come back to haunt the state's public health and its environment," according to a front-page story in The New York Times (October 17, 1999). Hurricane Floyd killed 48 people and caused more than $1 billion in damage in North Carolina; it also left behind "incalculable and continuing hazards in ground water, wells and rivers from animal waste, mostly from giant hog farms." "For years, farmers had been free to build hog and poultry operations as big as they wanted and wherever they liked," the story said. But after the hurricane and its flooding, hog waste flowed into rivers from overloaded waste lagoons, and compounded other flooding problems. According to The Washington Post (October 24, 1999), "Hog lagoons were flooded, wastewater treatment plants were breeched, more than 2 million chickens, turkeys, and hogs drowned, and the scene was set for an environmental mess never encountered before in the state. Everything in the flood's path was swept into this witches' brew--chemicals, gasoline, fertilizers, dead animals, human and livestock wastes--and headed downstream." The State Department of Environment and Natural Resources last month announced an "emergency waste management strategy" for hog and poultry farms in order to keep waste out of the water supply. The North Carolina legislature in 1997 passed a moratorium on construction of new and expanded lagoons until July 2001, but a plan to phase out lagoons will take 10 years. DISPUTED STUDY QUESTIONS SAFETY OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD The medical journal Lancet last month published a study "suggesting that genetically modified food may be harmful, even though the research has been widely criticized by scientists and was found wanting by some of the journal's own referees," according to The New York Times (October 15, 1999). The study in the England-based journal reports that rats fed genetically modified potatoes experienced a thickening of their stomach walls, thinning of tissues in the large intestine, and an increase in white blood cells in intestinal linings. According to The Washington Post (October 15, 1999), the researchers "conclude that the gene-altering process somehow made the engineered potatoes toxic....They suspect that the rats' intestinal changes--the medical significance of which remains uncertain--may have been caused by the viruses that scientists used to get the new genes into the potatoes, or by normal potato genes that may have been disrupted when the repellent's genes were inserted." The editor of the journal wrote a commentary "revealing that several of the journal's own scientific reviewers considered the report to be unworthy of publication," The Post said. "They ultimately acquiesced, he writes, in part out of fear that biotech critics would accuse the journal of covering up a public health threat." According to The Times, "Publication of the paper in a peer-reviewed journal is likely to further fan fears about genetically engineered crops in Europe, where consumers and supermarkets are widely rejecting what opponents have called Frankenfoods." POSITIONS National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture seeks an organizer for policy advocacy activities; send letter, resume, writing samples, and references to Amy Little, Executive Director, NCSA, P.O. Box 396, Pine Bush, NY 12566; (914) 744-8448; campaign@magiccarpet.com. Washington State University seeks an Extension Leader, Small Scale and Urban Agriculture, at its Puyallup campus; Master's Degree required, Ph.D. desired; submit letter describing qualifications, vitae, transcripts, and three current letters of reference to Rebecca Armstrong, WSU Cooperative Extension, P.O. Box 646241, Pullman, WA 99164-6241; (509) 335-2822; armstro@wsu.edu. MONSANTO WILL NOT COMMERCIALIZE "TERMINATOR" TECHNOLOGY In an open letter last month to Rockefeller Foundation President Gordon Conway, Monsanto CEO Robert B. Shapiro made "a public commitment not to commercialize sterile seed technologies, such as the one dubbed 'Terminator.'" The development of the so-called "Terminator" technology, which would make plant seeds sterile, has been controversial, especially among rural development groups, because it would prevent farmers from keeping some of their harvest for seed. Conway in June had asked Monsanto to stop using the technology and recommended putting labels on foods that contain genetically modified ingredients to ease consumer fears about biotechnology. "The move by the St. Louis firm is the first time any U.S. crop biotechnology company has sworn off a promising area of research because of public reaction, a sign that the industry is trying to defuse what it fears is a growing anti-biotechnology sentiment in the U.S.," according to The Wall Street Journal (October 5, 1999). "Monsanto's decision is a blow to researchers at Delta & Pine Land [Co.] and the Agriculture Department, which share a 1998 patent on the terminator gene and apparently were in the dark about Monsanto's plans." Before Monsanto's decision, scientists had expected the seeds containing the technology to reach the marketplace in about five years. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES TO REVIEW USDA'S BIOTECH PROCESS The National Academy of Sciences, in cooperation with the USDA, will establish a committee to undertake an independent, on-going scientific review of USDA's regulatory process for biotechnology-derived plants. The 15 committee members will examine the environmental impacts associated with commercialization of biotechnology-derived plants, and provide guidance on how best to assess and mitigate those risks. The committee will also serve to address emerging scientific issues. "It is important that we maintain public confidence in our regulatory process, and we can only do that by ensuring that our decisions are backed by the most up-to-date and rigorous science available," said USDA Secretary Dan Glickman. RESOURCES "Tracking Progress: Alternatives to Pesticides on the Farm" is available on the Internet at www.pesticide.org/FarmerRptRelease.html, or from Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides at (541) 344-5044. "Animal Agriculture: Waste Management Practices" is available from U.S. General Accounting Office, P.O. Box 37050, Washington, DC 20013; (202) 512-6000; on the Internet, www.gao.gov. "The Organic Pages" is $44.95 plus $6 shipping/handling from Dan Pratt, Organic Trade Association Press, P.O. Box 547-R, Greenfield, MA 01302; (413) 775-9965; info@ota.com. "Forest Futures: Population, Consumption and Wood Resources" is available on the Internet at www.populationaction.org, or from Population Action International, 1120 19th St., #550, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 659-1833. Proceedings from "Marketing, Production, and Manure Contracts in Today's Pork Industry" are $10 from Kaye Longtine, Swine Center, 385 Animal Science/Veterinary Medicine Building, 1988 Fitch Ave., University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108; (612) 624-4719. "Cultivating Havana: Urban Agriculture and Food Security in the Years of Crisis" is $9 from Institute for Food and Development Policy, 398 60th St., Oakland, CA 94618; (510) 654- 4400; orders can be placed on the Internet at www.foodfirst.org/pubsorder.htm#IDR12. "Talking to Farmers," "Talking to Consumers," "Marketing Sustainably Produced Foods," and "Food Choices" are available from Food Choices, 30 West Mifflin St., #401, Madison, WI 53703; (608) 258-4396. UPCOMING EVENTS November 26-27, "Economic Globalization and the Role of the World Trade Organization Teach-In" will be held in Seattle, WA; contact International Forum on Globalization, 1555 Pacific Ave., San Francisco, CA 94109; (415) 771-8094; e-mail ifg@ifg.org. November 30 (in Washington, DC.) and December 13 (in Oakland, CA), the Food and Drug Administration will hold public meetings about bioengineered foods; in DC, contact Patricia Alexander, FDA, (301) 9827-5006, palexand@oc.fda.gov; in CA, contact Janet McDonald, FDA, (510) 337-6845, jmcdonal@ora.fda.gov. December 2-3, "The Future of Our Food and Farms," a Delaware Valley regional summit, will be held in Philadelphia, PA; contact The Farmers' Market Trust, (215) 568-0830 ext. 13, or 1-800-417-9499; foodfarm@libertynet.org. December 6-7, "Adding Value Through Environmental Marketing: Opportunities for Food Producers, Processors and Retailers" will be held in Madison, WI; contact IPM Institute of North America, 1914 Rowley Ave., Madison, WI 53705; (608) 232-1528; tagreen@compuserve.com. December 6-8, "Organic Agriculture Faces Its Development--The Future Stakes" will be held in Lyon, France; contact Christophe David, ISARA-France, phone (33) 0472325119; david@isara.fr. December 12-16, "Back to the Future on Jointed Legs," the annual meeting of the Entomological Society of America, will be held in Atlanta, GA; contact April Gower, ESA, 9301 Annapolis Rd., Lanham, MD 20706-3115; (301) 731-4535; esa@entsoc.org. December 14 is the deadline for Proposals for Participation for "Transcending Boundaries: Natural Resource Management from Summit to Sea," the 8th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, to be held in Bellingham, WA, June 17-22, 2000; contact 8th ISSRM, Rm. 217 Arntzen Hall, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225-9085; (360) 650-3284; issrm8th@cc.wwu.edu. December 15-17, "Conservation 2000," the National Agricultural Conservation 2000 Conference, will be held in New Orleans, LA; contact Conservation Technology Information Center, 1220 Potter Drive, #170, West Lafayette, IN 47906; (765) 494-9555; on the Internet, www.ctic.purdue.edu. January 19-22, 2000, 20th Annual Ecological Farming Conference will be held in Pacific Grove, CA; contact Committee for Sustainable Agriculture, 406 Main St., #313, Watsonville, CA 95076; (831) 763-2111. January 27-30, 2000, 19th Annual Organic Conference and Eco-Products Trade Show will be held at the University of Guelph, Canada; contact Tomas Nimmo, Box 116, Collingwood, Ontario, Canada L9Y 3Z4; (705) 444-0923; organix@georgian.net. March 27-29, 2000, "Soil, Food and People: A Biointensive Model for the New Century," co-sponsored by the Wallace Institute, will be held in Davis, CA; contact the University of California, Davis, Extension, 1-800-752-0881; on the Internet, www.universityextension.ucdavis.edu/biointensive. Henry A Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture 9200 Edmonston Rd Ste 117 Greenbelt MD 20770-1551 Phone: 301-441-8777 Fax: 301-220-0164 Web site: www.hawiaa.org Please place my first name somewhere in the Subject area of any reply to this message, as our email account is shared by several people. Thank you. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 19:34:25 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10534 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:34:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA03806 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:10:08 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03754 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from sals (maxmp-153.rain.org [198.68.144.153]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 60E4C6175D; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:08:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004201bf2721$d4629de0$999044c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: , References: Subject: Re: Re[3]: Proposed organic cost share program Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:08:01 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 149 .> > the organic grower pays only his membership in HIS organisations > like IFOAM, demeter or naturland. > > > at least now i do understand much better, what sal is critizing > !!!. here you have the choice of getting certified for an annual > fee or you may just call yourself "organic". that's so logical to > me, that at first i did not understand, that sal is being FORCED > to pay for naming his business organic. that would be the same, > as if government would give out order, that a chemical plant has > to get certified, for being allowed to name itself a "chemical" > plant. an iso-certified enviromental friendy chemical plant would > be another thing. > > > > klaus > > > --------------- > klaus wiegand > you have no Idea what I am talking about. .I think the way it worked before this force stuff was I joined CCOF and IFOAM because I wanted my customers to trust what I grow. I volunteered to have them come and inspect me and I know they want organic to grow and like me we want to see this thing work and we work together we were the volunteers of America and being a volunteer thing it was like we were asking to be inspected we were glad and proud to be organic growers .. we volunteered to grow food organic and be inspected from the folks the industry respects but that all gone now. the USDA has taken over the word organic and we are no longer volunteers but forced labor. our inspectors belong now to the USDA there will be no IFOAM rule book no CCOF list only a USDA rule book it is all to be force now and the volunteers of America will be working for the USDA the same folks that bring u GOMs and all the other wonderful things Ag has to offer. there will be one book the USDA book and you will do what the MAN says and you better not tell anyone how you grow food unless you pay and jump through the hoops most all of witch has little to do with the organic of the food. What ever they make the organic grower do they should make all growers do. no one wants pesticides in there food no one want farmers that lie if you don't trust me how can u trust any grower. how do we know what any farmer is really doing out there . don't single out organic growers how can we trust any one selling food. your right but you don't take it far enough and in fact only want to hurt the ones on your side. you single out organic farmers as the liars how do we know what any farmer is doing. what ever you make the organic farmer do u must make all growers that sell food do . every one wants to trust the food they eat the water they drink and the air they breath. check all those farmers not just the organic ones why only check them? do you think those that don't buy organic want pesticides in their food . do you think every farmer out there is using everything like the label says and law says . come on only organic growers lie. come on now. don't just beat up on the organic grower. what ever you make the organic growers do and pay u must make the all growers do. good for the goose good for the gander . grrrrrrrrr To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 20:04:09 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA10985 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 20:04:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA25032 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:41:51 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from raven.a001.sprintmail.com (raven.prod.itd.earthlink.net [209.178.63.9]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA25028 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:41:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from sprintmail.com (sdn-ar-001tnchatP311.dialsprint.net [158.252.95.49]) by raven.a001.sprintmail.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA05266; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:39:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <38222897.CE1645F8@sprintmail.com> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 19:45:12 -0500 From: Alex McGregor Reply-To: waldenfarm@sprintmail.com Organization: Walden Farm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dr Maggi Linington CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: breast feeding and feeling close to nature References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 150 Dr Maggi, It's obvious what's going on here. Douglas has been caught touting an opinion as fact. Being called on that has elicited 2 maneuvers: 1) Claiming the moral high ground by calling me belligerent and saying "we're all mature adults." 2) Saying that discussion of how he painted himself in the corner was inappropriate for discussion. My public apologies for embarrassing Doug by pointing out his misstatement of opinion as fact. And thank you for setting the record straight on the relevancy of his inquiry on how I was fed as a baby. Alex To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 20:35:02 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA11342 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 20:35:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06344 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 20:01:21 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA06266 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 20:01:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from bean.epix.net (bean.epix.net [199.224.64.57]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA19664 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:59:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from epix.net (wlbo-98ppp33.epix.net [199.224.98.33]) by bean.epix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/1999100101/PL) with ESMTP id TAA22666 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:59:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <38222BF7.7D984714@epix.net> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 19:59:35 -0500 From: Jim Weaver Reply-To: jaweaver@epix.net Organization: GCES X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sanet Subject: On the Run? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 151 Another check it out. Put off GMO planting decisions, says expert An expert at Southern Illinois University has a word of advice for farmers trying to decide whether they're going to plant genetically modified seed this season. "Wait." Kim S. Harris, an agribusiness economist from Southern Illinois University - Carbondale says, "I can't believe I'm saying this, but I would advocate inaction." Harris specializes in agribusiness management and decision-making. "It's a problem that's not going to go away, but it's too soon to make a decision about whether to plant transgenic crops, which ones to select and how many acres to plant. Delay your seed purchase decision to later this year or even until the first of next year," says Harris. "Between now and January 1, I think industry, government and trade organization representatives in Europe and North America will be meeeting and identifying the most critical issues. There has to be a breakthrough soon regarding the market that will exist for GMOs. If the marketability of GMOs isn't resolved soon, many farmers will switch back to traditional seed varieties," he predicts. http://www.agriculture.com/worldwide/partners/agonline.html To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 21:46:24 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12472 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:46:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA16990 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:09:10 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mayumi.iphil.net (rufino2.gw.iphil.net [203.176.0.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA16886 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:09:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mayumi.iphil.net (8.8.7/8.8.8) with UUCP id KAA14535 for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:00:10 +0800 Received: (from uu1@localhost) by phil.gn.apc.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) with UUCP id KAA28272 for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:31:16 +0800 From: Roberto Verzola Message-Id: <199911050231.KAA28272@phil.gn.apc.org> Date: 05 Nov 99 09:35:37 Subject: Japan - 66% of food companies to go non-GM ? To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 152 I got an inquiry about the high premiums from Japanese buyers of non-GMO crops. Sorry I have no additional info, but please try the addresses/websites below. -- Roberto From: "NLP Wessex" Subject: Japan - 66% of food companies to go non-GM ? Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:53:52 -0000 This news is likely to further encourage US farmers to switch back to non-gm varieties in 2000 which often are higher yielding anyway - see http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmagric.htm . NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX nlpwessex@bigfoot.com www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex ========================================================================= Japan grain-non-GM crops bought with high premiums ------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAPAN: November 2, 1999 TOKYO - Japanese have recently bought corn and soybeans grown exclusively from non genetically modified (GM) seeds, at premiums roughly 40-50 percent higher than those for mixed GM and non-GM crops, traders said. Premiums for non-GM, U.S.-grown corn were purchased at premiums of 40-50 cents a bushel more than the cost of genetically mixed varieties. As for soybeans grown in the U.S. states of Indiana, Ohio and Michigan (IOM) that contain higher protein and are suitable for food use, non-GM soybeans were purchased at premiums of 50-60 cents a bushel over unsegregated IOM soybeans. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Thu Nov 4 20:48:44 1999 -0500 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA11765 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 20:48:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19912 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 20:24:58 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mayumi.iphil.net (rufino2.gw.iphil.net [203.176.0.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA19838 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 20:24:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mayumi.iphil.net (8.8.7/8.8.8) with UUCP id JAA12587; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:15:11 +0800 Received: (from uu1@localhost) by phil.gn.apc.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) with UUCP id JAA28044; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:45:41 +0800 From: Roberto Verzola Message-Id: <199911050145.JAA28044@phil.gn.apc.org> Date: 05 Nov 99 07:28:59 Subject: Re: Re[3]: Proposed organic cost share program To: WIEGAND@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 153 >certainly not. so what shall i do and what's within the range of >my possibilities ? ? usually there's only one thing: avoid ALL >products from israel, and with them those from the innocent and >honest growers.... > >any better solution ? Yes, mandatory government certification if a farm uses pesticides, chemical fertilizers, to ensure they use within official limits. For other farms, certification should be optional. In the future, at the proper time, a ban on the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Roberto To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Thu Nov 4 21:45:10 1999 -0500 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12449 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:45:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21113 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:13:22 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from proxy4.ba.best.com (root@proxy4.ba.best.com [206.184.139.15]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21108 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:13:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from business (ncs-37.nbn.com [199.4.66.37]) by proxy4.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.out) with SMTP id RAA03256; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:59:18 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Michael Straus" To: Subject: New Office / Contact Information Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:01:43 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 154 A Beyond Organic Newsflash!! The Beyond Organic office has moved - if you're in the neighborhood, stop by!! Tomales Bay Foods Building Upstairs, Suite 211 Point Reyes Station, CA phone:  415-663-8343 fax:  415-663-8346 (mailing address is still: 22890 Highway 1, Marshall, CA 94940) That's it ... no conference updates, no press releases. Thanks! Michael Straus Clients: * Coyuchi, Inc. www.coyuchiorganic.com * California Farm Conference (1999) www.caff.org/farmconference.html * Wind Harvest Company www.windharvest.com * Bioneers Conference (1999) www.bioneers.org * LifeDirectory.com www.lifedirectory.com --------- info@beyondorganic.com www.beyondorganic.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Nov 4 23:29:06 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13944 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:29:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA29120 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:05:13 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from aurora.nal.usda.gov (aurora.nal.usda.gov [192.54.138.38]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA28983 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:05:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by aurora.nal.usda.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id <4QTHL44V>; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:04:30 -0500 Message-ID: From: Andy Clark To: "'sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu'" Cc: Sustainable Agriculture Network Subject: (urgently) calling all CSAs Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:04:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 155 Colleagues: In anticipation of national media publicity about Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), we are compiling a national listing/database of CSA farms (USA only at this time). To be available in print (by state) and on the web, we need to finalize the list by November 10. The potential to generate consumer interest in CSAs is very large. The public will be directed to a web site or a mailing address to 'find a CSA farm near you.' Any CSA not on the list will miss an opportunity to have potential shareholders find them. Although response by the public is impossible to predict, we anticipate thousands of snail-mail or web hits. I am excited by the 'teachable moments' this could generate with respect to the general public and our food system. Therefore, I am calling on all CSA farms to contact my office by November 8. Those 450 or so that have already been in touch, no need to contact us again. Please see below for the exact information we are requesting. We will not list any CSA until we have their permission to do so. I have been working with about a dozen organizations nationwide that maintain lists of CSA farms, and we have contacted all CSAs on the lists these groups have shared with me. If you maintain a list of CSA farms, please send that to me electronically. We will credit all organizations that share lists with us. If you know of CSA farms or know the farmers, please consider one of the following: 1) e-mail me (san@nal.usda.gov) with farm name and contact information; 2) call my voice mail 24 hours a day (301-504-6425) with farm name and contact information; 3) go to the web and fill out the form there (http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/csa/csaform.htm); 4) ask the CSA to e-mail or call me or send a FAX to 301-504-6409 or go to the web and submit a form (see below for information we are requesting). My apologies for the RUSH on this. I do not expect to be able to respond to replies to this message except those that include CSA information. I will be in touch later with more details. MANY THANKS for anything you can do to put me in touch with CSA farms in the USA. We have also set up a web site dedicated to CSA resources (http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/csa). Check it out and let us know if there are resources that need to be there! NOTE THAT the listing at that site was old, and has been disconnected. We expect to post the new data any day now. A note about the WE in this message. The Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN--the outreach arm of the SARE program) and the Alternative Farming Systems Information Center (AFSIC) at the National Agricultural Library, are working with the Robyn Van En Center for CSA, with other Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) personnel and with USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension (CSREES) to compile and make this national listing available in print and on the web. I've done practically nothing else in the past month. See http://www.sare.org http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/csa http://www.reeusda.gov WE ARE REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM CSA FARMS. Fill in only what you want published. At this time, we will not publish information about the organic certification status of the CSA. CSA Listing Preferred format for e-mail reply is address format without the item descriptors (except FAX). Farm Name Operator Name Address Phone FAX e-mail URL Area/county served Permission to list? YES NO Certified Organic? YES NO Many thanks again to everyone else helping on this project! Andy Andy Clark, Ph.D. SAN Coordinator c/o AFSIC, Room 304 National Agricultural Library 10301 Baltimore Ave. Beltsville, MD 20705-2351 PH: 301-504-6425 FAX: 301-504-6409 san@nal.usda.gov http://www.sare.org To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Nov 5 02:51:15 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA16454 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 02:51:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01681 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 02:26:40 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA01558 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 02:26:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.74] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 01:23:49 -0600 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 01:22:34 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) S/N 5E3E1CD8 / Personal Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <057.991105@acnet.net> To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Double the pleasure, double the fun Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 156 No doubt many of you noticed in the Alternative Agriculture News Nov. 1999 that the OFPA recently was awarded $1,000,000°° to do it's thing, double the last amount. DH To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Nov 5 11:45:42 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22761 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:45:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04958 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:05:34 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.islandnet.com (mail.islandnet.com [199.175.106.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04862 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:05:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from [199.175.106.51] [199.175.106.51] by mail.islandnet.com with smtp id m11jlpU-0006dRC for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 08:03:08 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: maroc@mail.islandnet.com (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 08:06:40 +0000 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: maroc@islandnet.com (Maroc) Subject: from grain to grass Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 157 The following story appeared in the Canadian Cattleman's magazine. It tells of an encouraging turn away from the seed companys, the chemical corporations, and the farm equipment manufacturers. The farmer handles less money but less of it goes to pay interest to the banks and more of it sticks to his hands. Four years ago, Mel Compton and his son Shawn, of Darlingford, Man., zero-tilled 2,700 acres of durum, winter wheat and peas. In addition to the grain operation, Compton fed about 150 to 200 grassers on the wastelands. Mel had been grain farming since the mid-'80s, but the disappearance of the Crow transportation subsidy meant one thing for the Comptons: they had to change the way they were farming. In 1995, they started the transition to grass and cattle. By 1998, they were intensively grazing 1,100 stockers on 560 acres. "Right now you can make more money grassing steers than growing grain," says Mel. The complete budget for the switch was $56,000. As a first step, they sold off 3 quarters and disposed of some leased land. Then they swapped a quarter section with a neighbor to gain access to water. They now own 400 of the 560 acres they grazed last year. Besides land, they sold the air seeder, a tractor, a combine and 2 trucks for another $400,000, which was used to pay off their debts. The equipment he charges against the cattle operation today includes a garden tractor and an old pickup truck. "That's the only collateral we have against the cattle," he says. In the fall of 1997, they tore down most of their existing fence. They started on a 40-acre field of established alfalfa by rotationally grazing 50 steers using cross fences. The rest of the land was air-seeded to a pasture mixture with a cover crop of canola. They didn't spray or fertilize the canola and the crop still yielded 20 bushels an acre. That fall, after harvesting the canola, he fertilized the pasture which contains bird's-foot trefoil, alfalfa, timothy, tall fescue, orchardgrass and meadow bromegrass. His first surprise was how fast the tame bunch grasses came on. "You can almost hear them grow.,, Trefoil was included to dampen the bloating effects of the alfalfa and provide some quick regrowth. "I'm a great believer in trefoil," Compton says. if a low spot requires reseeding, Compton throws some trefoil on it. He also includes a handful of trefoil seed in the mineral so the cattle spread the seed in their manure. About half of the seeds germinate. Last spring, Mel and Shawn developed their rotational grazing plan, fencing the new seeding into ten 32-acre pastures and splitting those into 3- and 6-acre paddocks with single-wire reels. Two hot wires on treated wooden posts are used for the perimeter of the 320 acres and to fence off the riparian areas. Compton incorporated 24'-wide grazing lanes into the end of the field so they can easily move the cattle to the yard and into a 3-acre holding paddock. The holding paddock is enclosed by 3 hot wires, so incoming cattle quickly learn to respect this fence. This spring, the Comptons are building a new processing corral with a curved chute where they can handle animals without having to herd them into the corner of the property. After the fence went up, the next step was to set up a means of drawing fresh water from the creek that runs through their property. First they trenched a hydro line a half mile from the house to a dam on the creek where they installed a pressure tank and 2 submersible pumps. In case one breaks down," says Compton. "And when it's really hot and the cattle are drinking more, I can run both the pumps at the same time so we always have lots of pressure." The water is pressurized to 65 pounds per square inch, tap-like pressure. Sections of heavyduty polypipe clamped together and laid along the fence rows transport the water to the paddocks. "It's so toug you can drive on it and the cattle walk over it all the time," says Compton. Every 300 feet are one-way valves leading to hoses that fill the portable rubberized troughs in the different paddocks. Every time he moves the cattle, he moves the troughs to spread out the manure and trampling. The oiler and mineral stations are also mobile, and when Compton heads down the grazing lanes on his garden tractor, towing a mineral station, the cattle string out behind. Having continual access to mineral/salt and keeping the cattle out of water also helped stop footrot. Pinkeye was the biggest health problem last summer, but by increas- ing their stocking rates this summer they hope to keep it under control. "Some of the grass got so tall, it headed, and that contributed to the pinkeye." The other contributing factor was an abnormally large number of flies last summer. To hold down the fly population, they attract birds by building bird houses along perimeter fences. At the beginning of the season almost all the cattle were given Rumensin boluses. They still had 2 bloat deaths, but they occurred 2 weeks before shipping, probably when the boluses were finished. Wanting to take a Sunday afternoon off, Compton put some steers on 15 acres instead of their normal 6. With less grazing pressure, 2 of the steers ate only the alfalfa, bloated and died. As a trial, he also left 10 steers on the pastures without a bolus, and they all survived. "I think you can manage your alfalfa-grass mix and pasture rotation to cut down the risk of bloat," notes Compton. Based on that small experiment, he may skip the bolus treatment this year and pocket the $13,000 he spent on them last year. After the 2 animals bloated, Mel moved the remaining steers twice a day and grazed them on 2-acre paddocks. 'It forced them to eat the higher fiber grass as well as the alfalfa,' he says. "And it limits what they can eat.' He warns that rotational grazing is not an exact science nor is it for someone who doesn't want to be tied down during the summer. The only weeds they had to contend with were wormwood and knotting thistle. Last year, he spot-sprayed and kept a shovel handy to dig out these inedible weeds. The rest, like Canada thistle and dandelions, were eaten by the cattle. 'In fact, dandelions can be 24% crude protein." Compton's long-term goal is to attain an average daily gain of about 2 pounds a day for 120 days on grass. "We'll be able to put the heifers out a month early this year, so we should be able to increase the gain,' he says. Over the entire season, each acre fed 80 head for one day. This year, they're going to increase their stocking rate by 25%, grazing 1,000 head of 800-pound steers that they backgrounded this winter on the 320 acres. To do that, they will have to move the cattle twice a day. They'll also graze 150 to 200 heifers on 80 acres of native pasture, and they're fencing 160 acres that they hayed last year to graze another 400 to 500 head. They own one-third of the cattle and custom graze the rest for Cattlex, an order buying firm in Hamiota, Man. At 40 to 44 cents a pound for custom grazing, Compton says it's worth having Cattlex share the risk of getting the steers too heavy. "Currently, a well-managed custom-grazing operation will net (not gross) as much as if you owned them,' he says. At 411 pounds of gain per acre for the steers, the net return per acre is better than most crops. "Especially when you consider your input costs, and we don't have as much debt to finance." "Our goal is to net on 560 acres of grazing as much as we would have on 2,700 acres of cropping,' says Mel.In - Maggie Van Camp To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Nov 5 13:23:22 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25192 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:23:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19878 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 12:26:04 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from unlserve.unl.edu (root@unlserve.unl.edu [129.93.1.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19827 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 12:25:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from pmurray.unl.edu (ag-pmurray.unl.edu [129.93.224.80]) by unlserve.unl.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.2) with SMTP id LAA51492 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:21:03 -0600 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:21:03 -0600 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19991105112624.46a7bc70@unlserve.unl.edu> X-Sender: pmurray@unlserve.unl.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Pam Murray Subject: Deutsche Bank DuPont Report Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 158 This past summer I pulled off the Web a report on DuPont by Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown titled "Ag Biotech: Thanks, But No Thanks?" dated July 12, 1999. I think it was referenced in a sanet e-mail. Now I can't find the URL or the reference in sanet-mg archives. Perhaps someone got permission to post the report somewhere - maybe for a given period of time, because I've tried accessing it via the Deutsche Web site, but reports are blocked. I have a hard copy of the report (which I've shared with some professors here who have commented positively on it's scope and quality). Can anyone help me on whether it is still available electronically for public access? Thanks. *********************** Pam Murray, Coordinator Center for Grassland Studies and Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems PO Box 830949 University of Nebraska Lincoln, NE 68583-0949 phone: 402-472-9383 fax: 402-472-4104 e-mail: pmurray1@unl.edu http://ianrwww.unl.edu/ianr/cgs http://ianrwww.unl.edu/ianr/csas To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Nov 5 16:57:50 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29523 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:57:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA26539 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:22:08 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailgw.cc.uga.edu (mailgw.cc.uga.edu [128.192.1.101]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26519 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:22:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from agecon.uga.edu (agecon1.agecon.uga.edu) by mailgw.cc.uga.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.0149DA5B@mailgw.cc.uga.edu>; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:20:01 -0500 Received: from AGECON/SpoolDir by agecon.uga.edu (Mercury 1.43); 5 Nov 99 16:20:01 EST5EDT Received: from SpoolDir by AGECON (Mercury 1.43); 5 Nov 99 16:19:55 EST5EDT From: "Anita Graf (Staff)" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:19:45 EST5EDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: USDA organic certification In-reply-to: <199911011730.MAA23992@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 159 Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind in reading the Sanet posts. I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in international markets, and those who only want domestic certification could opt for a cheaper private label certification? It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to have a national organic program that is put out by the government. This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big, internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA, etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for this sort of two-tier certifying. I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended for export. These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a "prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in this scenario. Anita Anita Graf Market Development of National Organic Products University of Georgia make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Nov 5 18:23:54 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA00556 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:23:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22903 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:51:20 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22874 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:51:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw1.phibred.com (firewall-user@fw1.phibred.com [204.233.143.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA03703 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:49:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by fw1.phibred.com; id QAA02155; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:49:17 -0600 Received: from orion.phibred.com(170.54.241.13) by fw1.phibred.com via smap (V4.2) id xma001240; Fri, 5 Nov 99 16:48:20 -0600 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:48:19 -0600 Message-ID: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFCC@vela.phibred.com> From: "Wilson, Dale" To: "'Roberto Verzola'" Cc: Sanet Subject: RE: Do-it-yourself corn breeding Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:48:18 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 160 Roberto, >> Okay, Okay! lets deal with this head on. If I am smart and >> organized enough to come up with superior varieties, what is >> wrong with my protecting them from people who would steal >> them? Don't I have a right to earn a living? > Yes, it is good to deal with this issue head on. What do you > mean, steal them? You took the varieties from the public pool, > didn't you? Once you release your breeding results, they're > back to the public pool, and the public is entitled to use them. > That's what all farmers have been doing. Earning a living has > nothing to do with stealing from the public pool. Breeders take publicly available genetic resources and use them as raw material to breed improved varieties. They do this by sexually recombining existing varieties, often adding in exotic breeding material from public collections. Hidden diversity is made manifest by crossing and selfing. Finding the few genetic combinations that are truly better than existing varieties is very difficult and expensive. Imagine dealing out hands of cards, but instead of a deck of 52, using a deck of 52,000. So you deal out (with replacement), say, 20,000 hands, each with thousands of cards. only a very, very few of these are winning hands. Each hand is analogous to a line produced by selfing the progeny of a cross. You cannot just LOOK at the hand, you have to grow plots of each one and compare its yield (and other agronomic properties) to existing varieties to see if it is a winner. This is done at hundreds of locations around the world to gain enough confidence in the comparisons, and determine adaptation. This is a lot of work, and it is possible to steal a variety. So the varieties we come up with are truly new, not stolen from the public pool. The resources, the raw material, is still there. Do you want some of these varieties? you can get them from the USDA: http://www.ars-grin.gov Dale To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Nov 5 20:40:48 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA02113 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 20:40:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05537 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:57:59 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA05433 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:57:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from sals (maxmp-155.rain.org [198.68.144.155]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C85F61770; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:55:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000801bf27e9$4af50ca0$9b9044c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" , References: Subject: Re: USDA organic certification Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:55:50 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 161 thank you for you thoughts and ideas I read in the CCOF newsletter that "The USDA's Meat Certification and Grading Program (MCGP) has verified that CCOF conforms to the basic requirements of ISO -65, the international standard for certification programs. The approval means that CCOF-certified products should now be approved for entry into European Union (EU) countries. The EU organic regulations require imported organic products to be certified by an organization that meets the ISO-65 Standards. Other ISO-65 approved certification programs includes Farm Verified Organic-Quality Assurance International and Organic Growers and Buyers Association . Several other certifier site evaluations and approvals are pending. so u see all I need is CCOF or QAI or OG or FVO and I can voluntary join them if I need that. easy see how easy things work out . so why make a federal case out of it? why the extra state Ca. tax and the Fed Tax and the force certification for all and the once size fits all and the pay pay pay year after year. give us a USDA definition of organic and lets get on with business you don't have to take us over you don't have to make this any harder . you see Anita we are making it work out now . this should also make for more reciprocity between group of certifiers and a lot has changed . it has been years when the USDA started this and now the government has seen it does not want to be a burden to small folks with extra paper work (save those trees) and their non funded state and fed. mandates so now is the time to stop the Ca. Ag. organic tax if one is already certified by a recognized certifier. and it is time the Fed. gov. lets business take care of itself, as it is doing for itself now quite will thank-you. . ----- Original Message ----- From: Anita Graf (Staff) To: Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 8:19 AM Subject: USDA organic certification > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) > > However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the > products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near > international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they > want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big, > internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA, > etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic > Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous > and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for > this sort of two-tier certifying. > > I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look > alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide > range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with > the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a > bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra > certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at > the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic > label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can > produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended > for export. > > These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck > chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to > say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer > Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose > to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a > "prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this > new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann > mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture > curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in > this scenario. > > Anita > > Anita Graf > Market Development of National Organic Products > University of Georgia > > make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Nov 6 00:20:52 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03995 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:20:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08356 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:46:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA08283 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:46:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA03486; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id XAA13705; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:34 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:33 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: USDA organic certification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 162 On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Anita Graf (Staff) wrote: > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic - > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence - > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) Yes, and It is one that makes not a particle of sense. How would "they" (those participating in such a "lucrative" scheme) expect small or medium-sized organic farmers, opposing mandatory certification, to be fooled by such a ploy. 1) Government sets the standards for what constitutes organically produced products - defines the O word 2) Certifying organizations are forced by law to meet these USDA standards or the may exceed, to any degree they choose, these standards 3) Grower, if he wishes to sell to EU, Japan or wherever, hires the certifier of his choice, gets certified and moves on to export his product(s) overseas or at home 4) EU or other, by buying GrowerX's CertifierX-certified product gets "a stamp of approval from USDA" automatically. How could it be otherwise? So, what could possibly be wrong with this system? Tell us what the big mystery is all about, the "that is a whole other discussion/dilema" part. Curious, Lawrence > > However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the > products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near > international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they > want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big, > internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA, > etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic > Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous > and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for > this sort of two-tier certifying. > > I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look > alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide > range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with > the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a > bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra > certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at > the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic > label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can > produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended > for export. > > These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck > chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to > say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer > Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose > to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a > "prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this > new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann > mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture > curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in > this scenario. > > Anita > > Anita Graf > Market Development of National Organic Products > University of Georgia > > make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Nov 6 01:01:18 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04527 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 01:01:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10200 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:36:06 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA10122 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:35:58 -0500 (EST) From: HLPizza@aol.com Received: from HLPizza@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 7XAAa26723 (4403) for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:33:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.61fd46d5.255517a4@aol.com> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:33:24 EST Subject: What would YOU say about the WTO? To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 163 I've been invited to speak with Rep. Wu of Oregon about the WTO. Is there anything you'd like me to tell him for you? Sorry about the short notice. Dear David, I am writing to invite you to the First Congressional District Trade Roundtable on the Seattle World Trade Organization Ministerial. The WTO Ministerial is an international conference to review and negotiate world trade rules. The roundtable discussion on the WTO that I am hosting Looking forward to having you all attend the roundtable with Congressman Wu on Saturday. Glad you will be there, David. Are you representing a specific organization? Or what issues do you think you will discuss at the roundtable? Sincerely, Jessica Hamilton Field Representative Congressman David Wu My reply: My main concern(s) is the impact of the WTO on our food supply (resources). How WTO policy impacts farmers and biodiversity. I represent myself but also speak a father of two, as a chef, small business owner and a friend of family farmers. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Nov 6 01:27:51 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04690 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 01:27:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA22163 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:55:58 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA22122 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:55:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.175] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:53:03 -0600 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:51:25 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) S/N 5E3E1CD8 / Personal Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <17994.991105@acnet.net> To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: USDA organic certification and the way things really are In-reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 164 (long - enough) Hello Anita, nice to hear from you again. Interesting idea, but as you previously discovered, many countries (including Mexico) lack a developed market for Organic food products and their patterns of consumption are also much different than those prevalent in the U.S. I am unaware of the existence of a significant market for organic products outside of the US/Canada, Europe and to a lesser degree, Japan. (While Japan seems to show a strong preference for foods free from toxic elements, specifically "organic" food as such is of less relative importance than it is in the U.S. and Europe). Neither Japan nor Europe adheres to US standards. On the contrary, in order for US products to find acceptance in those markets, they must adhere to the respective Japanese or European standard. In view of this, within the context of foreign trade, OFPA is important NOT in the sense that you suggest, but rather for the purpose of regulating IMPORTED organic products. I'm sure you're aware of OFPA's stipulation to the effect that any country exporting organic food products to the USA MUST have a similar (to OFPA) set of regulations in place, in order for those products to be given entry into the US. THIS is exactly why Mexico has such a structure in place, and that is exactly why none of the government people you talked to before consulting with the writer of this note, knew anything about the existence of such regulations. They simply are not intended for the Mexican market, they were created to satisfy the requirement OFPA imposes on imported goods, so that Mexico can export organic tropical and off season fruits and vegetables to the US market, the biggest market in the world for organic products, and one that continues to grow exponentially. (I recall explaining this to you many months - over a year - ago. Perhaps being the "Market Development of National Organic Products" person there at the U of G has made assimilating it more difficult). In order for the OFPA legislation enacted en 1990 to actually take effect and become implemented, several significant issues that remain unresolved must be successfully dealt with. These include: What is the proper role of the federal government in relation to the cultivation and marketing of organic food products, and how can it perform that role without preventing farmers, consumers and others from exercising their right to the freedoms that the constitution guarantees them? (Among others): The freedom of speech (to impart and receive meaningful and truthful information), freedom of association and the freedom to earn a gainful living! When one is dealing with the right to drive on public roads and highways, governments can limit the right to drive on those thoroughfares to those holding current licenses issued by that state. But even this obviously appropriate privilege of governments (after all, they own the roads and have clear purview over public safety issues), becomes complicated when they must respect the licenses of drivers in transit who reside in different state or country. And where private property is concerned, governments are even further removed from holding authority over the events that occur there. The problem with OFPA is that it didn't address the appropriate task, that of arriving at a widely held consensus defining a consistent, national minimum threshold for organic products and then (and only then) have that consensus become written into law, to (hopefully) make the meaning and quality of organic foods more precise and (presumably) minimize abuses, while upholding the newly and more precisely defined standards. But no, that hasn't happened (& from the looks of things it may NEVER be accomplished, but let's not be pessimistic). Instead, the law was created but the task has yet to be done. What happened was, the legislature decided to a create a CONTROL mechanism for something that it (collectively) clearly failed to minimally understand, and the same mentality that gave us conventional agricultural practices, gave us OFPA. (Should we be surprised at that)? The concepts OFPA puts forth: Dominate (or appear to) that which you neither fully identify with or comprehend, manipulate (rather than work with or sustain) it until it reflects your own limitations and contradictions, fence it off and box it in (rather than encourage or help it grow), chop it up, make it change it's nature and direction, poison it, make it much more complicated (and more expensive) that it needs to be, until it becomes incapable of performing the function for which it was originally intended, created, and/or evolved, create doubt and place the burden of proof on those that least deserve it... AM I OR AM I NOT TELLING IT LIKE IT IS? Instead of directing it's energies toward reaching a consensus and arriving at a working definition of "organic" that's consistent with the tradition, spirit and principles and practice of organic agriculture, a definition that would legally define the State of Being Organic, the legislation decided to emphasize: That which is organic is organic when I or my cronies say it is. You bet. And then the emperor said: How do you like my new clothes? (Probably made with organically grown cotton, invisible except to the truly enlightened). Instead of being a big help, what resulted was a big cop out - a gross abdication of responsibility. A convoluted trip to nowhere. And this dear readers, is all that lies behind the decision to control the O word (as if that were where the answer was to be found). Instead of doing the job at hand, someone wanted to put it off and create a bureaucracy around that. Anyone here really believe that this is going to function? OFPA didn't put much stock in or give much attention to defining the State of Being, it elevated the certification and the "Word" that the certification certifies. However, the truth (State of Being) is not in the certification, and certifying something doesn't make it so. The certification simply states that whoever certified verifies, confirms a given claim. However, a more substantial foundation is required for any real degree of security. Otherwise, we have a closed circuit here. The opportunity for further recourse must exist, and must be grounded in a both congruent set of principles and the method that can be used to confirm this for the process of certification, but not for creating the State of Being, which precedes this. The certification can't confirm the State of Being, only that the certifier himself followed a given set of procedures for arriving at the conclusion he arrived at. The methods for legally determining the State of Being must ALSO be defined, as well as the procedures that determine when and if doing that is appropriate or necessary, but this is not related to the certification (although it could be, if the certification was suspect) so much as to a separate claim instituted by an interested party. In other words, this event can occur ONLY as a result of a claim being made, which itself must conform to a reasonable standard. Sal's point is that the interested party who institutes a claim should bear the cost of same, if his claim is not substantiated. Otherwise, the innocent are being prejudged as guilty, and in fact this is exactly what is happening. Things are turned around. And my point is that words are pointers to States of Being, and not subject to decrees (or acts) that lose track or their purpose. They are not so easily controlled as public, governmentally owned highways. They have a life and traditions of their own, that spring from the people that created and used them. Yes dear friends, that is how the leopard got it's spots, the USA got it's OFPA, sanet got this post, and the U of G got ... -------------- Friday, November 05, 1999, 10:19:45 AM, Anita Graf wrote: AGS> Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind AGS> in reading the Sanet posts. AGS> I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR AGS> EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in AGS> international markets, and those who only want domestic certification AGS> could opt for a cheaper private label certification? AGS> It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national AGS> standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without AGS> national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, AGS> less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not AGS> have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the AGS> EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get AGS> national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic AGS> label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the AGS> Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me AGS> repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to AGS> have a national organic program that is put out by the government. AGS> This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life AGS> more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and AGS> potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence AGS> and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and AGS> who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM AGS> or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) AGS> However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the AGS> products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near AGS> international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they AGS> want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big, AGS> internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA, AGS> etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic AGS> Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous AGS> and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for AGS> this sort of two-tier certifying. AGS> I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look AGS> alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide AGS> range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with AGS> the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a AGS> bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra AGS> certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at AGS> the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic AGS> label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can AGS> produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended AGS> for export. AGS> These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck AGS> chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to AGS> say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer AGS> Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose AGS> to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a AGS> "prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this AGS> new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann AGS> mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture AGS> curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in AGS> this scenario. AGS> Anita AGS> Anita Graf AGS> Market Development of National Organic Products AGS> University of Georgia AGS> make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com AGS> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command AGS> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command AGS> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". AGS> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command AGS> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". AGS> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: AGS> http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail Douglas Hinds, Dir. Gral. - CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil (Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization) Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico Apdo. Postal No. 171 Fortin de las Flores, Veracruz 94471 Mexico Tel: 011 522 713 2888 (Direct at present) U.S. Voicemail (email linked) 630 300 0550 U.S. Fax Mailbox (email linked) 630 300 0555 dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Nov 6 07:38:08 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA06454 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 07:38:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA23883 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 07:12:56 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from server1.mich.com (IDENT:root@server1.mich.com [198.108.16.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA23823 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 07:12:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from [207.75.116.132] (pm011-020.dialip.mich.com [207.75.116.132]) by server1.mich.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA13974; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 07:10:13 -0500 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 07:10:13 -0500 X-Sender: donald@mail.mich.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "Will Arnold" From: donald@mich.com (Donald E Davison) Subject: Let's move Congress back home to where they belong. Cc: "'Anita Graf (Staff)'" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, Walker Bennett Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 165 Reply to Will's political change post. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11/06/99 Dear Will, Your suggestion is good as far as it goes, but let's go all the way to the final step - let's move Congress back home to where they belong. Let us have every member of Comgress remain in the district or state in which they were elected. Every member would be online. Every committe would be connect via a subscription list. They could feel the pulse of the people in their district 52 weeks of the year. One more thing - the way they vote should be changed. Instead of a yes or no vote, they should be required to vote both a Percent-Yes and a Percent-No according to the feelings of all the people in their district. If they are going to represent the district then they should be representing all the people in the district, and all the people do not vote 100% Yes or 100% No. Yours for better government, Donald ------------Forwarded Letter ----------- From: "Will Arnold" Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:36:00 -0700 Subject: RE: political change A few years ago I heard someone on NPR relate how they thought if we moved the decision makers out of Washington D.C. and held legislative sessions every two years in different states we would remove much of the corruption we now face. I really liked the idea. The scerio would go something like this. For the House we elect representatives to serve four year terms, (Senate stays 6) butboth houses only meet every two years. Each state makes available on a rotational basis their state houses for a 12 week session. All business not accomplished would table over until next session. The President has the authority to call special sessions in times of dire need that would meet in D. C.. Committee work ( where I think the most damage is done anyway would begin over e-mail) and then the last four weeks of the normal yearly session (off year) would be devoted to this work in various sites around the U.S.. I don't know what we would do with all those buildings but maybe we could quit building new ones for quite some time and rent out the others for other purposes. Of course this is pie in the sky but I liked the concept. Will Will Arnold Regional Extension Specialist/RC&D Community Development, P.O. Box 157, Hugo CO 80821 warnold@coop.ext.colostate.edu +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ | Q U O T A T I O N | | "Democracy is a beautiful thing, | | except that part about letting just any old yokel vote." | | - Age 10 | +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ N E W S L E T T E R Worldwide Direct Democracy Newsletter Four Issues per Year by Postal Mail Cost per year: Czech Republic 200 Kc, Europe 12 DM Outside of Europe $10 Make check payable to: Mr. Bohuslav Binka Mail to: Mr. Bohuslav Binka Bellova 15 Brno 623 00 Czech Republic - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N E W D E M O C R A C Y A Source of Study Material for Political Change http://www.mich.com/~donald - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Nov 6 11:07:59 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07862 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:07:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03657 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:43:42 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03649 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:43:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from sals (maxmp-119.rain.org [198.68.144.119]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A27761774 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 07:41:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000e01bf286d$687975c0$779044c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: Subject: Fw: Safety Issues, did FDA do it right? (fwd) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 07:41:24 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 166 . ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Permaculture WA Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 11:06 PM Subject: Safety Issues, did FDA do it right? (fwd) > >From the "Just in case you're concerned about food safety, corparate and > governement ethics, etc." - > Here are three messages from the Dairy Action Discussion list in which > information is relayed about what may be some unethical/immoral actions by > the Monsanto company, concerningf their Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) > called "Round-up Ready" crops. The issue of human safety is at question > here, also. It also goes in to the issue of whether or not the > controversial injectable, genetically engineered hormone reportedly used by > 20% of the nation's dairy farmers - rbGH/rbST - was given adequate > scientific scrutiny as to human safety. There are journal citations to > follow-up. > > > > > >Subject: Re: [DairyAction] Monsanto strong arming Ag industry > > > >From: "John Bunting" > > > >DAD, > >> > >> Below is an interesting story from Canada about Monsanto strong arming > >> the ag industry. There is even some unsubstantiated claims of Monsanto > >> spraying Roundup on soybean fields without authorization to see if their > >> Roundup Ready seed was being used. There is a small part on rBST > >> towards the end of the story. > >> > >> http://www.canbus.com/magazine_items/oct08_99_frankenstein.html > >> > >> Mike Bernhardt > >> Dairy Farmer > >> Park City MT > > > >I think this is the important part of this story: > > > >Perhaps the best hope for injecting consumer confidence in GM food in North > >America is reminding consumers that it passed through the FDA and Health > >Canada approval process. But while erecting the regulatory system as a > >monument to GM food's safety is the industry's greatest strength, it's also > >a glaring weakness. For while the industry maintains the decision to > >classify GM food as substantially equivalent to non-GM food was grounded in > >science, recent leaked documents show that some FDA scientists had concerns > >about approving GM food, that they weren't convinced it was safe. Not only > >is the FDA now being sued by the Washington, DC-based Center for Food > >Safety, but University of Minnesota ecology professor Philip Regal, an > >expert in the field, sees more trouble in the offing. When it came to > >testing GM foods, the government "just gave up," Regal says. "The > >technological problems of testing were too difficult. A whole range of GMOs > >[genetically modified organisms] were coming in and they had no way to test > >for them. The expense would be astronomical. The general idea was, 'We'll > >just have to risk it. If the people want progress they're going to have to > >be guinea pigs.' " > > > > > >John Bunting > >Dairy Farmer > >Treadwell, NY > > > Reply-to: DairyAction@onelist.com > Subject: Re: [DairyAction] Monsanto strong arming Ag industry > > From: John Piwowar > > At 11:50 AM 1999.10.24 -0400, John bunting quoted a document which read, in > part: > > For while the industry maintains the decision to > >classify GM food as substantially equivalent to non-GM food was grounded in > >science, recent leaked documents show that some FDA scientists had concerns > >about approving GM food, that they weren't convinced it was safe. > > John and DAD, > I'm totally baffled here. What are the safety concerns of food made from > GM plants or animals? > > > > John S. Piwowar > 127 Bitner Road > Uniontown, Pa. 15401-9806 > vmdairy@usaor.net > > > From: "John Bunting" > > DAD, > > > From: John Piwowar > > > > At 11:50 AM 1999.10.24 -0400, John bunting quoted a document which read, > in > > part: > > > For while the industry maintains the decision to > > >classify GM food as substantially equivalent to non-GM food was grounded > in > > >science, recent leaked documents show that some FDA scientists had > concerns > > >about approving GM food, that they weren't convinced it was safe. > > > > John and DAD, > > I'm totally baffled here. What are the safety concerns of food made from > > GM plants or animals? > > > > > > > > John S. Piwowar > > I don't know what if any the specific safety concerns referred to are. I do > know that the safety of rBST was not based on any science. It was based on > very little and dated study on naturally occuring bovine growth hormone > injected into humans. This study was limited to observing changes in growth > of the subjects. FDA deemed that rBST was substantially the same as > naturally occuring bovine growth hormone and therefore with limited study of > that made the *assumption* no further study was needed. I think it is fair > to say that any scientist would objectively have concerns over the safety on > decisions made by *assumptions*. > > You might check the following: > "Safety of Bovine Growth Hormone," SCIENCE Vol. 251 (January 18, 1991), pg. > 256, and FDA responded in SCIENCE Vol. 251 (January 18, 1991), pgs. 256-257. > > T. B. Mepham, "Public health implications of bovine somatotrophin [sic] use > in dairying: discussion paper," JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE > Vol. 85 (December 1992), pgs. 736-739. > > Melvin M. Grumbach and others, "NIH Technology Assessment Conference > Statement on Bovine Somatotropin," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL > ASSOCIATION Vol. 265 No. 11 (March 20, 1991), pgs. 1423-1425. > > FDA seems to have made a decision to risk using the public as guinea pigs > with no *contol* on the experiment. Some would like to think that the EU > opposition is grounded upon, trade barriers, emotional reaction on BSE or > delaying tactic. I think a careful reading of their study demonstrates a > totally different approach to risk/benefit analysis. There is no clear > "public" benefit to rBST and the risk continues to be unknown. A basic > scientific rule is: "Absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence". > > > John Bunting > Dairy Farmer > Treadwell, NY > > at the end of each message to DAD. > > > +Peace, > Willie > > Willie Gibson > Extension Specialist - Sustainable Agriculture > University of Vermont Extension PHONE: 802/223-2389 ext.16 > 617 Comstock Road Suite 5 FAX: 802/223-6500 > Berlin, VT 05602-9194 EMAIL: Willie.Gibson@uvm.edu > > WEB SITES TO EXPLORE...... > The University of Vermont Extension Homepage > http://ctr.uvm.edu/ext/ > The Vermont Crops and Soils Homepage > http://pss.uvm.edu/vtcrops/index.html > The UVM Agricultural Testing Lab Homepage > http://pss.uvm.edu/ag_testing/index.htm > Center for Sustainable Agriculture at UVM > http://www.uvm.edu/~susagctr/welcome.html > > "I can do what you can't do, and you can do what I can't do. Together > we can do great things." > - Mother Teresa of Calcutta > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Nov 6 12:12:08 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA08437 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:12:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13712 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:49:16 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from taurus.greensoft.com ([204.77.122.1]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13611 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:49:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from webserf.net (unverified [10.0.0.101]) by taurus.greensoft.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:53:16 -0600 Message-ID: Received: from bluestem [204.77.126.129] by webserf.net (SMTPD32-4.03) id AC08937C01FA; Sat, 06 Nov 1999 10:49:12 CDT From: "Bluestem Associates" To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 16:47:08 Reply-To: "Bluestem Associates" X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows 98 (4.10.1998) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Civics lesson --- off topic thread (was: Let's move Congress ) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 167 On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 07:10:13 -0500, Donald E Davison wrote: > Let us have every member of Comgress remain in the district or state >in which they were elected. > Every member would be online. > Every committe would be connect via a subscription list. > They could feel the pulse of the people in their district 52 weeks of >the year. > > One more thing - the way they vote should be changed. Instead of a yes >or no vote, they should be required to vote both a Percent-Yes and a >Percent-No according to the feelings of all the people in their district. > If they are going to represent the district then they should be >representing all the people in the district, and all the people do not vote >100% Yes or 100% No. Sorry to be a bit blunt, but statements like these display a significant lack of understanding about (at least) American government. The politicians in Washington are *representatives,* not delegates. The system was designed specifically to diminish the force of *day-to-day* public opinion in the crafting of our laws. The Senate, especially, was designed to incorporate a significant lag time by virtue of the longer (and staggered) terms of office. The framers of the American Constitution understood (well, and quite correctly) that the greatest threat of tyranny faced by the American people was tyranny on the part of *government,* and most particularly a tyranny of the majority. That is the basis of the balance of powers laid out in the Constitution. Direct democracy, or near substitutes such as suggested in Mr. Davidson's post, is perhaps the speediest and most direct path to tyranny of the majority, if for no other reason than that the decisions arising therefrom are subject to the *unbuffered* whims of day-to-day public opinion. No quality is so deeply lacking in American current affairs than true *leadership.* Government by public opinion poll and focus group --- brought to the fore by the current administration --- is not leadership of any sort. Rather, it is *followership.* The dithering and flip flops on everything from agriculture to defence to taxation policy merely reflect the innate problems of government by followership. To embed the system of followership in the American way of government would only insure an institutionalisation of the lack of direction we see from both Congress and the Executive. The only leadership we're seeing is from the one branch of American government that should be *following* ---- the judiciary. Justice should follow the laws and Constitution as written, that's their job, and activist judges of all political stripes do Americans a great disservice when they legislate from the bench. Given the drift towards followership in American politics these days, activist judges (again, of all political stripes) are merely filling a void that never should have been allowed to develop in the first place. The US Constitution is by far the oldest working constitution in the world. Second place used to be held by Sweden (1809, I think) and third by Canada (1867). Both those nations promulgated new constitutions in the early 1980s. That the US Baby Boom generation (at least its earlier cohorts) have strong tendencies towards both self-righteousness and authoritarianism is not particularly comforting. Given that they are arriving in the decade of their peak political power, the fact that American government is often slow and inefficient should be seen as a *triumph* of the US Constitution, not a flaw. Quick, 'efficient' governments can become quickly and efficiently tyrannical, especially when those governing have that tendency in the first place. Bart To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Nov 6 13:44:49 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09452 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 13:44:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24398 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 13:03:08 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from purple.tmn.com (purple.tmn.com [205.177.137.5]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24292 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 13:03:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from tmn.com ([164.106.173.223]) by purple.tmn.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25954; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:57:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <38246BD5.C4445EBC@tmn.com> Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 12:56:38 -0500 From: tabeles Reply-To: tabeles@tmn.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bluestem Associates CC: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: Civics lesson- a critical topic for sanet References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 168 Bluestem Associates wrote, in a small part: > The politicians in Washington are *representatives,* not delegates. The > system was designed specifically to diminish the force of *day-to-day* > public opinion in the crafting of our laws. The Senate, especially, was > designed to incorporate a significant lag time by virtue of the longer > (and staggered) terms of office. > > The framers of the American Constitution understood (well, and quite > correctly) that the greatest threat of tyranny faced by the American > people was tyranny on the part of *government,* and most particularly a > tyranny of the majority. That is the basis of the balance of powers > laid out in the Constitution. Direct democracy, or near substitutes > such as suggested in Mr. Davidson's post, is perhaps the speediest and > most direct path to tyranny of the majority, if for no other reason > than that the decisions arising therefrom are subject to the > *unbuffered* whims of day-to-day public opinion. ----------------------------------------------------- Bart's entire post is worth serious reflection. As he states, the framers of the Constitution were indeed concerned about the uninformed populus and saw the elected representatives as individuals who had a serious commitment to governance and the time and capabilities to act in an informed manner for the long term benefit of the country. As a group, these founding fathers had reservations as to who should even have the ability to vote and thus we have a republic and not a democracy (but then, even the Greeks did not have a true democracy either) Given the current participation in public debate and in the election of officials, one may even believe that the founding fathers were prescient. Given the willingness of the public to become informed and to actively participate, even at the local level, one might also have serious questions. Then, again, we must ask, in relationship to sustainable agriculture, whether this wisdom of our representatives ever existed in spirit or in fact. This becomes questionable when one looks at the history of the legislation which has been enacted in support of taking this country from sea to shining sea in a couple of centuries and has, by legislative fiat created and promoted the implementation of the current policies which are and have been impacting on the entire past, present and future of agriculture in the US and, to a large extent, globally. thoughts? tom abeles To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Nov 6 16:33:44 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10975 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 16:33:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA18693 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 16:06:30 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA18610 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 16:06:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from lanfear.nidlink.com (root@lanfear.nidlink.com [216.18.128.7]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20980 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 16:04:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from enaila.nidlink.com (root@enaila.nidlink.com [216.18.128.8]) by lanfear.nidlink.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA17462; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 13:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from benbrook (pm5-18.nidlink.com [216.18.141.25]) by enaila.nidlink.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA20518; Sat, 6 Nov 1999 13:04:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199911062104.NAA20518@enaila.nidlink.com> X-Sender: benbrook@mail.nidlink.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 13:06:10 -0800 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu, From: Charles Benbrook Subject: Request for Deutsche Bank Biotech Report Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 169 We got permission from Deutsche Bank to post the full report in PDF format, and so you and anyone can read the whole report with references, caveats, etc. It is a very interesting document. On Ag BioTech Info Net (www.biotech-info.net) go to -- http://www.biotech-info.net/Deutsche.html Since posting the report, over 4,000 copies have been downloaded -- nearly 1,000 to people in the ag chemical industry!! Thanks to the Deutsche Bank for making it available. chuck Charles Benbrook CU FQPA site www.ecologic-ipm.com Benbrook Consulting Services Ag BioTech InfoNet www.biotech-info.net 5085 Upper Pack River Road IPM site www.pmac.net Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 208-263-5236 (Voice) 208-263-7342 (Fax) To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Nov 7 13:26:28 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA20336 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 13:26:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02122 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 13:03:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02033 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 13:03:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA20157; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 13:01:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id NAA05922; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 13:01:32 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 13:01:32 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: USDA organic certification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 170 On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote: > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:33 -0500 (EST) > From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." > To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Anita Graf (Staff) wrote: > > > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? > > > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic > - > > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence > - > > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) > > Yes, and It is one that makes not a particle of sense. How would "they" > (those participating in such a "lucrative" scheme) expect small or > medium-sized organic farmers, opposing mandatory certification, to > be fooled by such a ploy. > > 1) Government sets the standards for what constitutes organically > produced products - defines the O word > 2) Certifying organizations are forced by law to meet these USDA > standards or the may exceed, to any degree they choose, these standards > 3) Grower, if he wishes to sell to EU, Japan or wherever, hires the > certifier of his choice, gets certified and moves on to > export his product(s) overseas or at home > 4) EU or other, by buying GrowerX's CertifierX-certified product > gets "a stamp of approval from USDA" automatically. How could it be > otherwise? > > So, what could possibly be wrong with this system? Tell us what the big > mystery is all about, the "that is a whole other discussion/dilema" part. > > Curious, > > Lawrence And, as an afterthought, it occured to me that it would be nice for our government to tell its citizens that USDA Certified Organic means "your government says its really organic, go ahead and buy with confidence". However, they have not bothered with such quality assurance for conventionally-grown products to the tune of USDA Certified Analysis of Produxt X reveals the following levels of pesticide residues or breakdown products thereof OR the following levels of contaminants from materials used in production other than pesticides found in this product OR our environmental impact study revealed that production of this box of soy doodles will contribute % to degradation/contamination/desertification of square feet of farm soil. Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees why should it be allowed to force the burden of mandatory organic certification on small farmers trying to maintain a favorable position in our free enterprise system for the benefit of consumers IN OTHER COUNTRIES? Take the paranoia about cheating farmers and feed it to the birds. What about the farmers allowed to cheat by using vast arrays of poisons to grow their crops, without a thought about its impact on the health of the consumers - when half or 75% of the time none of it is needed, only to increase windfall profits for the agrichemical industry. LL > > However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the > > products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near > > international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they > > want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big, > > internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA, > > etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic > > Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous > > and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for > > this sort of two-tier certifying. > > > > I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look > > alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide > > range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with > > the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a > > bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra > > certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at > > the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic > > label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can > > produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended > > for export. > > > > These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck > > chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to > > say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer > > Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose > > to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a > > "prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this > > new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann > > mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture > > curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in > > this scenario. > > > > Anita > > > > Anita Graf > > Market Development of National Organic Products > > University of Georgia > > > > make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/intergarden /permaculture /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From Craig.Harris@ssc.msu.edu Sun Nov 7 14:05:57 1999 Received: from sscntex.ssc.msu.edu (ssc.msu.edu [35.8.70.66]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20672 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:05:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by SSCNTEX with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:06:30 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Harris, Craig" To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" , "'Lawrence F. London, Jr.'" Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: USDA organic certification Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:06:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 171 "Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees . . ." i think the premise here is false . . . usda does certify both the safety and various qualitative attributes of meat and eggs . . . usda establishes standards and grades for most other commodities, and, in cooperation with the states, operates inspection programs for those commodities . . . where inspection and grading is done by a private firm, it must still conform to usda standards, and not to conform is a violation of federal law in general the cost of the usda services are actually paid by the processor or first handler . . . presumably those costs are factored into the price which the processor or first handler offers the producer for the commodity . . . similarly, even if the first handler does the certification, presumably the cost is reflected in the price received by the grower thus the effect of the ofpa, if it is ever implemented, will be to bring organic commodities in line with other commodities, not to make organic commodities different from other commodities cheers, craig craig k harris department of sociology michigan state university 429b berkey hall east lansing michigan 48824-1111 tel: 517-355-5048 fax: 517-432-2856 > ---------- > From: Lawrence F. London, Jr.[SMTP:london@metalab.unc.edu] > Sent: Sunday 7 November 1999 1:01 PM > To: Anita Graf (Staff) > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:33 -0500 (EST) > > From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." > > To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" > > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Anita Graf (Staff) wrote: > > > > > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > > > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > > > > > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > > > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > > > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > > > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? > > > > > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > > > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > > > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > > > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > > > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > > > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > > > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic > > - > > > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > > > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > > > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > > > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > > > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > > > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > > > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence > > - > > > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > > > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > > > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) > > > > Yes, and It is one that makes not a particle of sense. How would "they" > > (those participating in such a "lucrative" scheme) expect small or > > medium-sized organic farmers, opposing mandatory certification, to > > be fooled by such a ploy. > > > > 1) Government sets the standards for what constitutes organically > > produced products - defines the O word > > 2) Certifying organizations are forced by law to meet these USDA > > standards or the may exceed, to any degree they choose, these standards > > 3) Grower, if he wishes to sell to EU, Japan or wherever, hires the > > certifier of his choice, gets certified and moves on to > > export his product(s) overseas or at home > > 4) EU or other, by buying GrowerX's CertifierX-certified product > > gets "a stamp of approval from USDA" automatically. How could it be > > otherwise? > > > > So, what could possibly be wrong with this system? Tell us what the big > > mystery is all about, the "that is a whole other discussion/dilema" > part. > > > > Curious, > > > > Lawrence > > And, as an afterthought, it occured to me that it would be nice for > our government to tell its citizens that USDA Certified Organic means > "your government says its really organic, go ahead and buy with > confidence". However, they have not bothered with such quality > assurance for conventionally-grown products to the tune of USDA Certified > Analysis of Produxt X reveals the following levels of pesticide residues > or breakdown products thereof OR the following levels of contaminants > from materials used in production other than pesticides found in this > product OR our environmental impact study revealed that production of this > box of soy doodles will contribute % to > degradation/contamination/desertification of square feet of farm soil. > > Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the > > benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees why should it be > allowed to force the burden of mandatory organic certification on small > farmers trying to maintain a favorable position in our free enterprise > system for the benefit of consumers IN OTHER COUNTRIES? > > Take the paranoia about cheating farmers and feed it to the birds. > What about the farmers allowed to cheat by using vast arrays of poisons > to grow their crops, without a thought about its impact on the health of > the consumers - when half or 75% of the time none of it is needed, only > to increase windfall profits for the agrichemical industry. > > LL > > > However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the > > > products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near > > > international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they > > > want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big, > > > internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA, > > > etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic > > > Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous > > > and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for > > > this sort of two-tier certifying. > > > > > > I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look > > > alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide > > > range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with > > > the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a > > > bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra > > > certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at > > > the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic > > > label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can > > > produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended > > > for export. > > > > > > These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck > > > chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to > > > say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer > > > Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose > > > to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a > > > "prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this > > > new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann > > > mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture > > > curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in > > > this scenario. > > > > > > Anita > > > > > > Anita Graf > > > Market Development of National Organic Products > > > University of Georgia > > > > > > make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com > > > Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm > http://metalab.unc.edu/intergarden > /permaculture /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech > lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Nov 7 14:30:37 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20825 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:30:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15825 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:07:51 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from sscntex.ssc.msu.edu (ssc.msu.edu [35.8.70.66]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15812 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:07:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by SSCNTEX with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:06:30 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Harris, Craig" To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" , "'Lawrence F. London, Jr.'" Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: USDA organic certification Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:06:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 172 "Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees . . ." i think the premise here is false . . . usda does certify both the safety and various qualitative attributes of meat and eggs . . . usda establishes standards and grades for most other commodities, and, in cooperation with the states, operates inspection programs for those commodities . . . where inspection and grading is done by a private firm, it must still conform to usda standards, and not to conform is a violation of federal law in general the cost of the usda services are actually paid by the processor or first handler . . . presumably those costs are factored into the price which the processor or first handler offers the producer for the commodity . . . similarly, even if the first handler does the certification, presumably the cost is reflected in the price received by the grower thus the effect of the ofpa, if it is ever implemented, will be to bring organic commodities in line with other commodities, not to make organic commodities different from other commodities cheers, craig craig k harris department of sociology michigan state university 429b berkey hall east lansing michigan 48824-1111 tel: 517-355-5048 fax: 517-432-2856 > ---------- > From: Lawrence F. London, Jr.[SMTP:london@metalab.unc.edu] > Sent: Sunday 7 November 1999 1:01 PM > To: Anita Graf (Staff) > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:33 -0500 (EST) > > From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." > > To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" > > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Anita Graf (Staff) wrote: > > > > > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > > > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > > > > > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > > > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > > > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > > > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? > > > > > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > > > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > > > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > > > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > > > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > > > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > > > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic > > - > > > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > > > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > > > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > > > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > > > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > > > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > > > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence > > - > > > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > > > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > > > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) > > > > Yes, and It is one that makes not a particle of sense. How would "they" > > (those participating in such a "lucrative" scheme) expect small or > > medium-sized organic farmers, opposing mandatory certification, to > > be fooled by such a ploy. > > > > 1) Government sets the standards for what constitutes organically > > produced products - defines the O word > > 2) Certifying organizations are forced by law to meet these USDA > > standards or the may exceed, to any degree they choose, these standards > > 3) Grower, if he wishes to sell to EU, Japan or wherever, hires the > > certifier of his choice, gets certified and moves on to > > export his product(s) overseas or at home > > 4) EU or other, by buying GrowerX's CertifierX-certified product > > gets "a stamp of approval from USDA" automatically. How could it be > > otherwise? > > > > So, what could possibly be wrong with this system? Tell us what the big > > mystery is all about, the "that is a whole other discussion/dilema" > part. > > > > Curious, > > > > Lawrence > > And, as an afterthought, it occured to me that it would be nice for > our government to tell its citizens that USDA Certified Organic means > "your government says its really organic, go ahead and buy with > confidence". However, they have not bothered with such quality > assurance for conventionally-grown products to the tune of USDA Certified > Analysis of Produxt X reveals the following levels of pesticide residues > or breakdown products thereof OR the following levels of contaminants > from materials used in production other than pesticides found in this > product OR our environmental impact study revealed that production of this > box of soy doodles will contribute % to > degradation/contamination/desertification of square feet of farm soil. > > Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the > > benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees why should it be > allowed to force the burden of mandatory organic certification on small > farmers trying to maintain a favorable position in our free enterprise > system for the benefit of consumers IN OTHER COUNTRIES? > > Take the paranoia about cheating farmers and feed it to the birds. > What about the farmers allowed to cheat by using vast arrays of poisons > to grow their crops, without a thought about its impact on the health of > the consumers - when half or 75% of the time none of it is needed, only > to increase windfall profits for the agrichemical industry. > > LL > > > However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the > > > products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near > > > international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they > > > want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big, > > > internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA, > > > etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic > > > Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous > > > and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for > > > this sort of two-tier certifying. > > > > > > I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look > > > alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide > > > range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with > > > the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a > > > bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra > > > certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at > > > the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic > > > label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can > > > produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended > > > for export. > > > > > > These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck > > > chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to > > > say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer > > > Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose > > > to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a > > > "prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this > > > new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann > > > mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture > > > curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in > > > this scenario. > > > > > > Anita > > > > > > Anita Graf > > > Market Development of National Organic Products > > > University of Georgia > > > > > > make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com > > > Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm > http://metalab.unc.edu/intergarden > /permaculture /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech > lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Nov 7 14:46:47 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20891 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:46:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00584 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:27:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00508 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:27:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20790; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:25:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id OAA07761; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:25:47 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:25:47 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: "Harris, Craig" cc: "Anita Graf (Staff)" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: USDA organic certification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 173 On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Harris, Craig wrote: > "Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the > benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees . . ." > > i think the premise here is false . . . usda does certify both the safety > and various qualitative attributes of meat and eggs . . . usda establishes > standards and grades for most other commodities, and, in cooperation with > the states, operates inspection programs for those commodities . . . where > inspection and grading is done by a private firm, it must still conform to > usda standards, and not to conform is a violation of federal law That does not include vegetables, herbs, fruits, nuts and seeds, as you well know. Regarding meat: Remember the deaths of the poultry processing workers in the plant in Raeford, NC when the plant caught fire and workers were trapped inside because the exit doors were locked from the outside - the USDA plant inspectors had not done the job they were PAID to do, had hardly ever visited the plant. Despicable b......s. > in general the cost of the usda services are actually paid by the processor > or first handler . . . presumably those costs are factored into the price > which the processor or first handler offers the producer for the commodity . > . . similarly, even if the first handler does the certification, presumably > the cost is reflected in the price received by the grower This has nothing whatsoever to do with informing the public as to any contamination (pesticide residues constitute contamination, in case you weren't aware of this fact) from pesticides or soil supplements, i.e. toxic waste incinerator by products incorporated into fertilizer and sewage sludge, of marketed products. > thus the effect of the ofpa, if it is ever implemented, will be to bring > organic commodities in line with other commodities, not to make organic What do you mean by "in line"? > commodities different from other commodities Sure, organic and "other" commodities are both food. Organic food, though, needs a minimum standard clearly defined and enforced by government in an impartial and fair manner. What do you mean by "different". > cheers, > > craig > > > craig k harris > department of sociology What is your agricultural background? > michigan state university > 429b berkey hall > east lansing michigan 48824-1111 > tel: 517-355-5048 > fax: 517-432-2856 Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/intergarden /permaculture /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From sals@rain.org Sun Nov 7 21:20:44 1999 Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23772 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 21:20:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from sals (maxmp-121.rain.org [198.68.144.121]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EFF0361752; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 18:20:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000c01bf298f$d6702880$799044c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: "Harris, Craig" , "Anita Graf (Staff)" , "'Lawrence F. London, Jr.'" Cc: References: Subject: Re: USDA organic certification Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 18:20:31 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 174 check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Harris, Craig To: Anita Graf (Staff) ; 'Lawrence F. London, Jr.' Cc: Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 11:06 AM Subject: RE: USDA organic certification > "Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the > benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees . . ." > . . where > inspection and grading is done by a private firm, it must still conform to > usda standards, and not to conform is a violation of federal law yes and I am getting tired of this we pay for the grading and inspection like everyone else now you want to put a extra tax on us. sure there are grading laws and we have to follow them sure there are pesticide regestration also and we also pay those when and if we buy pesticides so yes and organic growers have to follow those laws already. if I sell lemons I have to pay the lemon commodities tax the grading tax like all growers what your talking about is a extra tax on me above and be on what other growers have to pay because those lemons are organic and a extra tax because that apple is organic you can't see that this is a grading tax on top of a grading tax . > in general the cost of the usda services are actually paid by the processor > or first handler . . . presumably those costs are factored into the price > which the processor or first handler offers the producer for the commodity . > . . similarly, even if the first handler does the certification, presumably > the cost is reflected in the price received by the grower yes organic growers pay that too we are no different what you want us poor growers to do is pay for that service and a extra tax for organicness of the fruit . double and triple taxation with out representation I might add. if Ca. they are double and triple dipping from organic growers now what you are saying is another layer on top of the layers already. any fool can see that . I know when it come time to pay all these bottom feeders every year I feel it. don't u understand a regular meat raiser pay a usda tax and you want them to pay extra because they don't use hormones and GMO . you want them to pay more than regular growers . why why don't you trust organic grower and you trust chemicals growers in how the meat is raised. FRom the time this law was past till now a lot has happen and the law is not needed nor the extra fees. we don't do that any more you know force poor folks to pay extra fees and do extra paper work and hinder business . this is one business that is doing a great job of regulating it self. I can not sell to wholesalers now with out a certification . I can not sell over seas now without a certification. so this law will just be a extra unneeded tax on us that is not needed.. also if you charge our certifier money they will pass the cost on to us and that's another tax we don't need. what gives here this is bull. right now I have to pay the state of Ca. a certifier, a inspector . how many pencil pushing bureaucratic does one small organic grower have to pay off to be able to tell the truth. also I think one certification inspection at the transition period to make sure the new growers understands what organic is and then one inspection maybe every five years or so if nothing on the farm changes .. why make me pay all these folks over and over every year if my organicness is the same. what does the change in the year have to do with being organic . I was the same organic in 98 as 99 so why pay pay pay over and over for nothing. once one knows what organic is he should be left to grow organic . we are not such big liars that we need a yearly inspection what is that all about. you see the same stuff every years only I have to pay you to come over again and again and again to look at the same old same old.. what is that all about. . this is just a rip off they don't have to make life that hard on us because we grow organic. > thus the effect of the ofpa, if it is ever implemented, will be to bring > organic commodities in line with other commodities, not to make organic > commodities different from other commodities organic commodities are all the other commodities just grown organic so why charge us extra . what is your reasoning for all this burdening of the organic growers. lets get to the bottom line why you doing this to me I have done nothing wrong. cheers yourself. there is nothing cheerful to me in these years of being ripped off from folks that don't do nothing here but take my money. Where is the cheers in that. powertripers extortionist con men Mafia where is the farmers protection . > cheers, > > craig > > > craig k harris > department of sociology > michigan state university > 429b berkey hall > east lansing michigan 48824-1111 > tel: 517-355-5048 > fax: 517-432-2856 > > > > ---------- > > From: Lawrence F. London, Jr.[SMTP:london@metalab.unc.edu] > > Sent: Sunday 7 November 1999 1:01 PM > > To: Anita Graf (Staff) > > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote: > > > > > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:33 -0500 (EST) > > > From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." > > > To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" > > > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > > > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Anita Graf (Staff) wrote: > > > > > > > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > > > > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > > > > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > > > > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > > > > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? there already is and to ship international you have to be certified now > > > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > > > > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > > > > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > > > > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > > > > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > > > > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > > > > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic national standards are one thing fees and extra unneeded paper work is another > > > > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > > > > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > > > > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > > > > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > > > > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > > > > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > > > > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence > > > - > > > > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > > > > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > > > > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) I hope you got my post about how the certifiers and the USDA are taking care of that now . > > > > > > 1) Government sets the standards for what constitutes organically > > > produced products - defines the O word > > > 2) Certifying organizations are forced by law to meet these USDA > > > standards or the may exceed, to any degree they choose, these standards > > > 3) Grower, if he wishes to sell to EU, Japan or wherever, hires the > > > certifier of his choice, gets certified and moves on to > > > export his product(s) overseas or at home > > > 4) EU or other, by buying GrowerX's CertifierX-certified product > > > gets "a stamp of approval from USDA" automatically. How could it be > > > otherwise? > > > > > > So, what could possibly be wrong with this system? Tell us what the big > > > mystery is all about, the "that is a whole other discussion/dilema" > > part. > > > > > > Curious, > > > > > > Lawrence > > > > And, as an afterthought, it occured to me that it would be nice for > > our government to tell its citizens that USDA Certified Organic means > > "your government says its really organic, go ahead and buy with > > confidence". However, they have not bothered with such quality > > assurance for conventionally-grown products to the tune of USDA Certified > > Analysis of Produxt X reveals the following levels of pesticide residues > > or breakdown products thereof OR the following levels of contaminants > > from materials used in production other than pesticides found in this > > product OR our environmental impact study revealed that production of this > > box of soy doodles will contribute % to > > degradation/contamination/desertification of square feet of farm soil. the head of the USDA said organic food is not safer than conventional food so what is the reasoning for this extra tax. this is getting old. other folks if they do paper work they get paid and you want me to do paper work you pay me. you want me to take time out of my day to show you around you pay me you slavemaster you you want to look get a search warrant its the American way. you want me to not use the word organic take the o and the r and the g and the a and the n and the i and the c out of the alphabet. as long as every one else gets to use those letters so should i. Give me a o O give me a r R give me a g G give me a a A give me a n N give me a i Eye give me a C SEE hehe what does that spell? hehe ORGANIC What does that Spell Organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic naw naw na naw naw I think I will say the word ORGANIC CINAGRO IS ORGANIC SPELLED BACKWARD BECAUSE YOU GET IT ALL BACKWARDS you make the contaminated pay and not the contaminator. backwards I think I will call my product CINAGRO in honor of the USDA that has everything backwards. what you make the organic grower do all growers must do. good for the goose good for the gander. From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Nov 7 22:03:37 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24089 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 22:03:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA16747 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 21:22:47 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA16737 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 21:22:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from sals (maxmp-121.rain.org [198.68.144.121]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EFF0361752; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 18:20:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000c01bf298f$d6702880$799044c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: "Harris, Craig" , "Anita Graf (Staff)" , "'Lawrence F. London, Jr.'" Cc: References: Subject: Re: USDA organic certification Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 18:20:31 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 175 check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Harris, Craig To: Anita Graf (Staff) ; 'Lawrence F. London, Jr.' Cc: Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 11:06 AM Subject: RE: USDA organic certification > "Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the > benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees . . ." > . . where > inspection and grading is done by a private firm, it must still conform to > usda standards, and not to conform is a violation of federal law yes and I am getting tired of this we pay for the grading and inspection like everyone else now you want to put a extra tax on us. sure there are grading laws and we have to follow them sure there are pesticide regestration also and we also pay those when and if we buy pesticides so yes and organic growers have to follow those laws already. if I sell lemons I have to pay the lemon commodities tax the grading tax like all growers what your talking about is a extra tax on me above and be on what other growers have to pay because those lemons are organic and a extra tax because that apple is organic you can't see that this is a grading tax on top of a grading tax . > in general the cost of the usda services are actually paid by the processor > or first handler . . . presumably those costs are factored into the price > which the processor or first handler offers the producer for the commodity . > . . similarly, even if the first handler does the certification, presumably > the cost is reflected in the price received by the grower yes organic growers pay that too we are no different what you want us poor growers to do is pay for that service and a extra tax for organicness of the fruit . double and triple taxation with out representation I might add. if Ca. they are double and triple dipping from organic growers now what you are saying is another layer on top of the layers already. any fool can see that . I know when it come time to pay all these bottom feeders every year I feel it. don't u understand a regular meat raiser pay a usda tax and you want them to pay extra because they don't use hormones and GMO . you want them to pay more than regular growers . why why don't you trust organic grower and you trust chemicals growers in how the meat is raised. FRom the time this law was past till now a lot has happen and the law is not needed nor the extra fees. we don't do that any more you know force poor folks to pay extra fees and do extra paper work and hinder business . this is one business that is doing a great job of regulating it self. I can not sell to wholesalers now with out a certification . I can not sell over seas now without a certification. so this law will just be a extra unneeded tax on us that is not needed.. also if you charge our certifier money they will pass the cost on to us and that's another tax we don't need. what gives here this is bull. right now I have to pay the state of Ca. a certifier, a inspector . how many pencil pushing bureaucratic does one small organic grower have to pay off to be able to tell the truth. also I think one certification inspection at the transition period to make sure the new growers understands what organic is and then one inspection maybe every five years or so if nothing on the farm changes .. why make me pay all these folks over and over every year if my organicness is the same. what does the change in the year have to do with being organic . I was the same organic in 98 as 99 so why pay pay pay over and over for nothing. once one knows what organic is he should be left to grow organic . we are not such big liars that we need a yearly inspection what is that all about. you see the same stuff every years only I have to pay you to come over again and again and again to look at the same old same old.. what is that all about. . this is just a rip off they don't have to make life that hard on us because we grow organic. > thus the effect of the ofpa, if it is ever implemented, will be to bring > organic commodities in line with other commodities, not to make organic > commodities different from other commodities organic commodities are all the other commodities just grown organic so why charge us extra . what is your reasoning for all this burdening of the organic growers. lets get to the bottom line why you doing this to me I have done nothing wrong. cheers yourself. there is nothing cheerful to me in these years of being ripped off from folks that don't do nothing here but take my money. Where is the cheers in that. powertripers extortionist con men Mafia where is the farmers protection . > cheers, > > craig > > > craig k harris > department of sociology > michigan state university > 429b berkey hall > east lansing michigan 48824-1111 > tel: 517-355-5048 > fax: 517-432-2856 > > > > ---------- > > From: Lawrence F. London, Jr.[SMTP:london@metalab.unc.edu] > > Sent: Sunday 7 November 1999 1:01 PM > > To: Anita Graf (Staff) > > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote: > > > > > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:33 -0500 (EST) > > > From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." > > > To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" > > > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > > > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Anita Graf (Staff) wrote: > > > > > > > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > > > > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > > > > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > > > > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > > > > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? there already is and to ship international you have to be certified now > > > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > > > > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > > > > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > > > > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > > > > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > > > > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > > > > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic national standards are one thing fees and extra unneeded paper work is another > > > > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > > > > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > > > > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > > > > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > > > > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > > > > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > > > > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence > > > - > > > > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > > > > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > > > > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) I hope you got my post about how the certifiers and the USDA are taking care of that now . > > > > > > 1) Government sets the standards for what constitutes organically > > > produced products - defines the O word > > > 2) Certifying organizations are forced by law to meet these USDA > > > standards or the may exceed, to any degree they choose, these standards > > > 3) Grower, if he wishes to sell to EU, Japan or wherever, hires the > > > certifier of his choice, gets certified and moves on to > > > export his product(s) overseas or at home > > > 4) EU or other, by buying GrowerX's CertifierX-certified product > > > gets "a stamp of approval from USDA" automatically. How could it be > > > otherwise? > > > > > > So, what could possibly be wrong with this system? Tell us what the big > > > mystery is all about, the "that is a whole other discussion/dilema" > > part. > > > > > > Curious, > > > > > > Lawrence > > > > And, as an afterthought, it occured to me that it would be nice for > > our government to tell its citizens that USDA Certified Organic means > > "your government says its really organic, go ahead and buy with > > confidence". However, they have not bothered with such quality > > assurance for conventionally-grown products to the tune of USDA Certified > > Analysis of Produxt X reveals the following levels of pesticide residues > > or breakdown products thereof OR the following levels of contaminants > > from materials used in production other than pesticides found in this > > product OR our environmental impact study revealed that production of this > > box of soy doodles will contribute % to > > degradation/contamination/desertification of square feet of farm soil. the head of the USDA said organic food is not safer than conventional food so what is the reasoning for this extra tax. this is getting old. other folks if they do paper work they get paid and you want me to do paper work you pay me. you want me to take time out of my day to show you around you pay me you slavemaster you you want to look get a search warrant its the American way. you want me to not use the word organic take the o and the r and the g and the a and the n and the i and the c out of the alphabet. as long as every one else gets to use those letters so should i. Give me a o O give me a r R give me a g G give me a a A give me a n N give me a i Eye give me a C SEE hehe what does that spell? hehe ORGANIC What does that Spell Organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic naw naw na naw naw I think I will say the word ORGANIC CINAGRO IS ORGANIC SPELLED BACKWARD BECAUSE YOU GET IT ALL BACKWARDS you make the contaminated pay and not the contaminator. backwards I think I will call my product CINAGRO in honor of the USDA that has everything backwards. what you make the organic grower do all growers must do. good for the goose good for the gander. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 00:00:01 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA25211 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 00:00:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15852 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:32:22 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from taurus.greensoft.com ([204.77.122.1]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15796 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:32:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from webserf.net (unverified [10.0.0.101]) by taurus.greensoft.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Sun, 7 Nov 1999 22:35:56 -0600 Message-ID: Received: from bluestem [204.77.126.114] by webserf.net (SMTPD32-4.03) id A237E300106; Sun, 07 Nov 1999 22:31:51 CDT From: "Bluestem Associates" To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 04:29:49 Reply-To: "Bluestem Associates" X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows 98 (4.10.1998) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: USDA organic certification Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 176 On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 18:20:31 -0800, Sal wrote: > why why don't you trust organic grower I trust organic growers. Not everyone selling food as organic, however, *is* an organic grower. There are a number of people who cheat. Guess what? They also lie. Just because someone *says* they're organic doesn't mean as much as it used to. Sal, as onerous as certification can be, would you really prefer to have 117 customers coming out to your farm and checking it in sufficient detail to decide if you're organic enough? Visitors can be a very expensive drain on your time, and may well end up costing you more that writing out a check for the certification agency. We got around it by limiting visitors to one field day per year. >maybe every five years or so if nothing on the farm changes .. why make me >pay all these folks over and over every year if my organicness is the same. >what does the change in the year have to do with being organic . I was the >same organic in 98 as 99 so why pay pay pay over and over for nothing. You know, when I was being inspected for certification I happily paid the fees to have another set of eyes look at what I was doing. Sure I was organic, but I definitely wasn't a perfect farmer, and having someone who had seen a lot of other farms helped me get better at what I was doing. BTW, at the time I was also *training* inspectors, so I knew at least as much about the deal as they did. They were *still* a good use of my money, whether or not I ever shipped a thing more than 5 miles from home. Just a reminder here. I think you and I are in pretty close agreement about USDA involvement. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 08:37:23 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28728 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:37:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08658 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:04:55 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp.ncc-mannheim.net (smtp.ncc-mannheim.net [62.104.117.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08644 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:04:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from www.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (lufa-sp.vdlufa.de [62.132.27.12] (may be forged)) by smtp.ncc-mannheim.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA03578 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:02:48 +0100 Received: from lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (LUFA.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de [192.168.3.254]) by www.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14696 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:05:05 +0100 Received: from LUFA/SpoolDir by lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (Mercury 1.44); 8 Nov 99 13:57:17 +0100 Received: from SpoolDir by LUFA (Mercury 1.44); 8 Nov 99 13:56:33 +0100 From: "Klaus Wiegand" Organization: Landw. U.-& Forsch.-Anstalt Speyer To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:56:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program Reply-to: Wiegand@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <109DB9675F8@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de> Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 177 hello glenn, >Since both of you live outside the USA, and see what's happening >here throught slightly different eyes, what do you see as the >building blocks for farmer first national certification? Do you >see leaders, friends or obvious single issues to pursue first: these are my personal opinions and experiences from here, as i'm not familiar with the american organic movement and you will be surprised, how often behavior of americans seems extremely strange to us europeans. it might be totally wrong under your conditions. first i'm highly surprised about the way government is involved in regulating your life. and i thought germany has a bureaucratic system ;-]. today i read in the newspaper, that califorians have to pay a charge of 100$, if they exchange radiators in their houses and the bill to reduce it or put away with it was stopped by the democrats and several CONSUMER organisations. government should only be involved in cases, where individuals might be harmed or as a arbitrator or better as a mediator, where people can't agree on important things of a society, but not in other cases. the old sentance of a greek philosopher comes to mind, which says, that government should never ever regulate something, which it cannot control or garantuee. there are 3 groups of consumers: a) those, who know you personally and with which you live more closely together in a community. this is the simplest and maybe most satisfying and most sustainable way of selling and dealing with. as selling healthy food is (as every other question concerning health) a very SENSIBLE thing, it depends on personal relations and mouth-to-mouth propaganda. you do not need an extra propaganda or some kind of PR. a certification is useless here and a waste of money you better spend somewhere else on your farm !! b) those, who do not know you, but do not live VERY far away (maybe your farm nearby a larger town or a city). here you will already see my doubts, if it is sustainable, if people are driving 40 or 50 miles to your farm to buy food for 3 or 5 days. the pollution from the gasoline will contradict any sustainability (the real price for environmental damage is 2-3$ a liter of gasoline) ! ignoring that, these people still are preferring organic food ! i think, i need not tell anyone, how to market your products. just make it reasonable to him, why he should buy especially at your farm... maybe take a look into the faith popcorn's book (the popcorn report), how to "cocoon" people. c) people farer away, which can only be reached by distribution channels. it's your individual decision, if you want to reach them, but remember: they are the majority. you only need to think about them, if you cannot make a living from direct marketing. and here starts, what i see as the largest problem: the ambiguity between consumers. they do not behave, like you would like them to do (meaning 100% supporters of the organic idea and consistant). i know people, who eat their dinner at some fast-food restaurant and in the evening go to a restaurant and insist on an nice organic supper, because it's healthier. if i can convince 100 consumers to buy 20% of their food organic, that's better than 10 people living for 100% on organic food. but a lot of organic farmers also try to sell their philosophy instead and only live in "inner circles of alumni" their slogan: entirely organic or nothing at all. organic farmers tend to be much less consume-orientated, more individual and environmental sensible than conventional ones (and I myself like their attitude very much), but do they need to tell others, that this is "the sacred way"?. here in germany there even is an entirely anthroposophic way of living and children's education behind the organic movement. that's ok, but organic farmers not only try to sell their fruits, but with them also their anthroposophic philosophy and that's something a lot of people dislike. they can think for themselfes and chances are, that sooner or later they come to the same conclusions all by themself. they do NOT care about your internal quarrels, whether 80 or 90% of the manure needs to be from your own farm. and these are USELESS quarrels. in case the different organic groups cannot agree, just make a compromise: 85%. but don't weaken your image by internal battles taken to the public !!. one of these battles is the question: "what means organic?" why not a part of their farm organic and the other part conventional ?? i know of at least one farmer here, who tried it and was bashed and isolated from his organic-cofarmers. IFOAM rules allow that very well !!! 2 consequences: the absolutism, with which organic growers see their business, is an enormous restriction for them. maybe you remember my question, what organic growers can sell in winter. with an annual income of 10.000$ i see this absolutism a personal problem of the farmer's philosophy, which i as a consumer need not share. an example: i'm just involved in a project of small farmers, who offer a complete bundle of vegetables for a complete salad (like a colorful mixture of different salads for a "ceasar's salad".) all works well except the question of some organics, if the dressing also NEEDS to be organic and as a ready-to-eat dressing cannot be organic, they prefer to renounce the 95% of the total buy because of the 5% for the dressing. 2nd consequence: beginning from a certain distance from consumers your farm it is obligatory to go TO the consumer, instead the other way round (that might not be valid for some of the vast and unpopulated american regions like the apallachians. again, that's MY guess from far away. you better ask your own consultants). and here starts the problem with certification. selling into a city again has 2 options: if you sell on a farmer's market, certification MIGHT not be needed and diversification is more important. option 2 is the main problem: most part of a city's food need is based on a professional and ANONYMOUS distribution system and here it is very important to create a chain of trust and discriminate by kind of a (certified?) label. that needs not necessarily be a governmental system. here in europe at the lower level there are EU regulations, which you HAVE to meet to get the EU label for organic production and beginning with august, 2000 they will be unique in the whole EU. additionaly in germany there's a private system, supported and paid by the organic movement (yes, you WILL need a professional system, more and more people are living in cities and consequently more and more consumers, i.e. the people, you get the money from). at the moment there are 6 small and 3 large and successful groups ("BIOLAND", "NATURKIND" and "DEMETER", makes 9, all agree, that that's too much, none of them wants to be the first to quit. in denmark and austria there is just 1 organisation), who set their own internal and stricter rules as the EU for their own certification and who also do internal random control analyses. it works fine, as NONE (with VERY few exceptions) of the governmental analytical controls on pesticide residues and additives (they are restricted to these 2 items, because governent does not care about these group's internal rules) find any violations. so confidence in these 2 labels is very high and consumers trust them almost blindly. fresh products are mostly sold on farmer's markets, but they also are selling their other products (like noodles, flour, corn flakes, sea salt, dried spices and a whole bunch of readily prepared foods..) in supermarkets with increasing success (in germany 30%, in the UK 67%, in austria 70% and in denmark 90 of total organic sales. compare it with the number of organisations in these countries !!). selling in supermarkets needs some additional things like a nice design of the package, the right size (increasing market for singles), a moderate price (still 30-40% higher than conventional food) and a good positioning. and most important: it needs an organisation, which manages the distribution, deals with the supermarkets (which more and more become pure commisionaries for a place to sell and are insisting on "entry fees" too high for single farmers). and it needs a farewell from the usual absolutism and negiotiation of consumer's attitudes (still i never saw a TV ad for organic food, BUT WHY NOT?? and why not a nice designer package, it needn't have the overhead of a perfume?). that's too much for an individual farmer and needs something like an organisation. together with a friend i initiated another project (again not esp. intended for organics, but more for better prices.) years ago we "pushed" a special potato variety. a very small potato looking like a little cucumber (kind of a "bonsai" potato, 2-3 cm thick and 6-8 cm long) i got the idea, when i sold a bag of potatoes in the french alsace. there an old and honest woman sold me the bag with these potatoes, which are quite common there. when i asked her, why the potatoes were so small, she answered: "well, they are especially graded and taste better and are more convenient for cooking". when i asked her, what they do with the large ones, she answered with a smile: "we feed them to the swine or sell them to the germans". we convinced two farmers to try them and at the end of the 2nd year they mourned "if only we had planted twice as much fields". that would also be an option for organics: 2 different potato varieties for sale and one of them an unusual one. this way you can satisfy the "traditional" buyer, who wants no "gimmicks" AND the people looking for some sensation. and it's the sensation i'm missing at organic sellers on farmer's markets. argument: "we aren't interested in gimmicks". OOPS ??? when i'm buying noodles, i can choose between several dozens of conventional labels, when i buy organic noodles, they usually come in a neutral and wretched looking package. in sum: what organic agriculture needs, is a "corporate identity". the average consumer has not the slightest idea, what the behinds of a cover crop or soil fertility are (and doesn't care, YOU are the experts, so he can expect to a certain degree, that you think about, what's good and what's bad). hardly anyone of the consumers is in still in touch with nature or agriculture. compared with earlier eras in human history, we live in a society so artificial, so divorced from the natural environment, that it would be simply incomprehensible to our forefathers. this is not only true for people living in inner city areas, but also just about everybody else. but people are WILLING to support, what organic food can offer them. that's why the government still pays 15.800 !! marks every year as subsidy to every organic farm or 330 dm/ha. but for this people do expect a bullet-proof system (it's THEIR tax money), which can garantue 4 things: free from pesticides, free from additives, a prevention of cruelities to animals and free from gmo's. they don't care very much about the rest, at least much less than organic farmers expect. so what is needed, are for example convincing slogans, which sound logic to the consumer. example: "what was not put onto the field, can't be in the fruit" or "what quality can you expect from 5 sausages in a tin priced 80 cents?" or "caring about pesticide residues ? - we needn't", "lucky with a soup with 8 gramms of dehydrated meat?" or "our cows are called sandra, milka and linda and not #234, #743 and #1254". DON'T argue about healthier food! and for all this you need a professional distribution system with knowledge in PR and you need (few) special wellknown labels, with which consumers can identify a special quality, whereever they buy. it needn't be a governmental system, but instead one, that is trusted. i'm sure, the amish will never need an extra label for selling food, because they have their own "control" system and a well-known way of living (their "label"). in germany there are about 10% people, who need not be convinced, for whom no certification or PR is needed, about 30-50%, who need to be convinced and who want a certain kind of proof and a control system, because they are sceptical against just a claim and the rest can't be reached by you by ANY mean (they buy, what's cheapest or don't care about food at all.) here it needed about 20 years until these labels became really known among all consumers and you might have expected it: these labels started with about 50 farmers organising themselfes and agreeing on an internal control system. p.s: your smallfarms.com system might be a nice possibility to inform people, where i can buy organic food nearby and can show the differences between production systems much cheaper than flyers or media advertisement. it can be modeled to be an (farmer-restricted) information system about prices and trends in the market (provided farmers are willing to inform others about prices. that's not always the case. here we had a system called pool-marketing. everyone added to a common pool and the large batch was marketed, so everyone got the same price. the better farmers soon left). there definitely is competition and there are bad farmers, who will have to leave the market. another thing, organic farmers are more likely to ignore than conventional ones, as they see themself as ONE big friendly community of equal thinkers, ignoring that life in the city is more like life in a jungle than in a small town. but i have some doubts, if it can be a information system for market chains looking for larger batches. nicely programmed it can create desires and serve as a guide for food choices. (i have not the SLIGHTEST idea, if it can be useful to attract consumers to direct-selling farm, because, as i already wrote above, driving 50 miles for food in my view is not sustainable, but europe is totally different, because MUCH smaller and more densely inhabited. it might be a chance for buying on the way home from work, if nearby.) and a last thing (in case you think i'm talking purely theoretical): our institute meanwhile pays for 3 certification systems: ISO, GLP and DQS. it costs a lot of money, but we decided to pay it, because more and more of our costumers demand a proof, that our analysis is done according to international standards. the funny thing: we also worked by these standards before and certification hasn't changed the slightest thing in our daily work except additional paperwork and time-consuming work for the analysts (who asked almost the same questions as in this discussion about certification) and me - i'm one of the 2 internal quality assurance inspectors. either we have the certificate or our customers go elsewhere and we must live from those, who do not insist on a certificate (and therefore pay less, the others are charged for the extrawork). it's that simple and IT'S NOT ABOUT QUALITY. it's the same process of concentration as in agriculture and it's also an assurance against complaints and legal actions against us. puuh, finally finished.. any future mails will be fax-style... klaus To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 10:40:35 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00533 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:40:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14871 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:07:05 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from aurora.nal.usda.gov (aurora.nal.usda.gov [192.54.138.38]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14835 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:06:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by aurora.nal.usda.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:06:12 -0500 Message-ID: From: Andy Clark To: "'sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu'" Cc: "'Lisa Bauer'" , "'leocenter@iastate.edu'" Subject: local food systems paper from Iowa Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:06:03 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 178 Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:54:31 -0600 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:54:25 -0600 Subject: local food systems paper from Iowa For immediate release: Contact: Rich Pirog, (515) 294-3711 RELEASED: November 1999 APPLES TO APPLES: A PERSPECTIVE ON LOCAL FOOD SYSTEMS AMES, IOWA--Once a top apple-producing state, Iowa now provides a fraction of the fresh apples eaten by Iowans annually. More information about changes in Iowa's apple industry, and potential for local sales today, is now available in a report on the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture's World Wide Web site (http://www.leopold.iastate.edu). Authored by Education program coordinator Rich Pirog and intern John Tyndall, the paper is a vehicle for exploring the potential for local food systems to augment Iowa farm income. Market studies show a growing interested in local food systems, where local farmers sell their products to nearby consumers. The authors estimates that about 15 percent of the 1.3 million bushels of fresh apples consumed by Iowans each year are Iowa-grown. While a typical Iowa-grown apple is sold within one day to two months of picking, apples grown in Washington can be kept for eight months or longer in controlled atmosphere storage before sale, allowing nearly year-round availability in the nation?s grocery stores. Some Iowans may not know that the Delicious variety was discovered as a chance seedling by Madison County farmer Jesse Hiatt, nor that Iowa was once a top apple-producing state, producing a peak 9.5 million bushels in 1911. The Iowa apple industry was devastated in 1940, however, by the infamous Armistice Day freeze which killed many apple trees. Today, Iowa ranks 31st among the 36 states that grow apples commercially. Washington state ranks first in U.S. apple production, growing more than half of the nation's fresh apples. Graphics depicting the pathways taken by Iowa- and Washington-grown apples are included with the paper, as well as suggestions for increasing the potential for local food systems in Iowa, using apples as an example. Printed copies of the paper are also available by contacting the Leopold Center, 209 Curtiss Hall, ISU, Ames, IA 50011-1050; phone (515) 294-3711; e-mail leocenter@iastate.edu. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 10:52:52 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00709 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:52:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21704 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:18:57 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21547 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:18:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from sals (maxmp-158.rain.org [198.68.144.158]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0574A61759; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:16:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002001bf29fc$42901720$9e9044c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: , References: <109DB9675F8@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de> Subject: Re: Re: Proposed organic cost share program Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:16:39 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 179 check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Klaus Wiegand To: Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 3:56 AM Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program .let me give you my thoughts from here in the USA. the 3 kinds of buyers 1 . CSA and farmers and direct mail and even roadside stands are in close contact with the grower and can make up their mind from what they know. I agree with you the extra cost and burden is a waste. 2. the wholesale and retail and brokers - they already say I must be certified or they will not buy from me. they protect their store customers and their self's by making sure we are certified already and we don't need the added expense of the STATE Of CA. and the Fed. government to make that happen it happens now with out the extra organic tax from the state and fed gov. 3.the international market I read in the CCOF newsletter that "The USDA's Meat Certification and Grading Program (MCGP) has verified that CCOF conforms to the basic requirements of ISO -65, the international standard for certification programs. The approval means that CCOF-certified products should now be approved for entry into European Union (EU) countries. The EU organic regulations require imported organic products to be certified by an organization that meets the ISO-65 Standards. Other ISO-65 approved certification programs includes Farm Verified Organic-Quality Assurance International and Organic Growers and Buyers Association . Several other certifier site evaluations and approvals are pending. so u see all I need is CCOF or QAI or OG or FVO and I can voluntary join them if I need that. easy I don't need the extra tax imposed by the state of Ca. or the fed government. I don't need them to charge my certifier money because they only pass that on to me and we don't needed it. so you see that USDA and STATE of Ca. takeover of the word organic and taxing all those who use that word for business and the forcing them to jump through hoops and boss them around is not needed. business is taking care of business already here the USDA tried to sneak GMO, irradiation and sweagesluge in on us already and only a great out cry from the people stopped it. we don't need them forcing their ways on us. anything the state or fed government makes organic growers do they must make all farmers do. good for the goose good for the gander. make all farmers have material lists on what comes on their farm and were it is used and where all the GMO are sent and how they are sent so they don't contaminate good organic food and inspect them all so u can see that all growers of food are the same honest. why pick on organic growers? no fair its not fair now and it is getting worse. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 11:08:57 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00955 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:08:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27800 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:36:00 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA27744 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:35:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from sals (maxmp-158.rain.org [198.68.144.158]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F296F61765; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:33:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003301bf29fe$a1550980$9e9044c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: "Bluestem Associates" , References: Subject: Re: USDA organic certification Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:33:36 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 180 check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Bluestem Associates To: Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 4:29 AM Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 18:20:31 -0800, Sal wrote: > > > why why don't you trust organic grower > > I trust organic growers. Not everyone selling food as organic, however, > *is* an organic grower. There are a number of people who cheat. Guess > what? They also lie. Just because someone *says* they're organic > doesn't mean as much as it used to. so what there are cops that cheat every group of folks have liars you don't have to single out organic growers as the only cheats what about chemical growers that don't use the chemicals on the crops they are supposed to be used on . who checks out chemical growers. > Sal, as onerous as certification can be, would you really prefer to > have 117 customers coming out to your farm and checking it in > sufficient detail to decide if you're organic enough? Visitors can be > a very expensive drain on your time, and may well end up costing you > more that writing out a check for the certification agency. We got > around it by limiting visitors to one field day per year. I don't have to let anyone come and check me and decide if I am organic enough. I grow by the rules and don't need any big brother watching over me . if you think I am lying get a searchwarrent convince a judge you have a reason to look. this is America I don't have to prove I am not guilty every year year after year. you don't ask that of chemical grower why pick on me. > > >maybe every five years or so if nothing on the farm changes .. why make me > >pay all these folks over and over every year if my organicness is the same. > >what does the change in the year have to do with being organic . I was the > >same organic in 98 as 99 so why pay pay pay over and over for nothing. > > You know, when I was being inspected for certification I happily paid > the fees to have another set of eyes look at what I was doing. Sure I > was organic, but I definitely wasn't a perfect farmer, and having > someone who had seen a lot of other farms helped me get better at what > I was doing. BTW, at the time I was also *training* inspectors, so I > knew at least as much about the deal as they did. They were *still* a > good use of my money, whether or not I ever shipped a thing more than 5 > miles from home. so what you want to start telling stories about what makes you feel good go ahead I don't like spending anymore time or money than I have too. this is one good reason one size does not fit all . you like it I hate it. that is why you forcing us to play these games is wrong. in some states you pay $10 in some states you pay 2000 dollars for the same verification whets is fair about that. why do I pay more in Ca. than Ky. what is far about that. how the Fed. gov. and state force me to pay more here than in KY. good for the goose good for the gander. they cannot tell you what it will cost to be organic because there are so many folks with their hand in our pockets and all get to charge whatever they want and you are forced to pay them. this is wrong. it is wrong now and it is getting worse. where is the protection for the grower? where is the due process? where is the fairness of the same prices for the same thing ? where is my robe of innocence why am I guilty and have to pay to prove I am telling the truth over and over again just because the year changes. > Just a reminder here. I think you and I are in pretty close agreement > about USDA involvement. > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 11:53:20 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01646 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:53:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA16366 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:08:16 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f318.hotmail.com [207.82.250.238]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA16297 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:08:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 5990 invoked by uid 0); 8 Nov 1999 16:05:40 -0000 Message-ID: <19991108160540.5989.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 128.173.73.57 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 08 Nov 1999 08:05:39 PST X-Originating-IP: [128.173.73.57] From: "J. S." To: Wiegand@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 08:05:39 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 181 Not to disregard the many interesting comments in the rest of this letter, but i think it is pertinent to point out that california is quite atypical of the US in terms of regulation; especially as pertains to anything in the environment--they are heavy regulators, encourage citizens to report their uncompliant brethren and generally the consumer foots the bill. >From: "Klaus Wiegand" >Reply-To: Wiegand@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de >To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program >Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:56:25 +0200 > >hello glenn, > > >Since both of you live outside the USA, and see what's happening > >here throught slightly different eyes, what do you see as the > >building blocks for farmer first national certification? Do you > >see leaders, friends or obvious single issues to pursue > >first: these are my personal opinions and experiences from here, >as i'm not familiar with the american organic movement and you >will be surprised, how often behavior of americans seems >extremely strange to us europeans. it might be totally wrong >under your conditions. > >first i'm highly surprised about the way government is involved >in regulating your life. and i thought germany has a bureaucratic >system ;-]. today i read in the newspaper, that califorians have to >pay a charge of 100$, if they exchange radiators in their houses >and the bill to reduce it or put away with it was stopped by the >democrats and several CONSUMER organisations. government should >only be involved in cases, where individuals might be harmed or >as a arbitrator or better as a mediator, where people can't agree >on important things of a society, but not in other cases. the old >sentance of a greek philosopher comes to mind, which says, that >government should never ever regulate something, which it cannot >control or garantuee. > > >there are 3 groups of consumers: > >a) those, who know you personally and with which you live more > closely together in a community. this is the simplest and > maybe most satisfying and most sustainable way of selling and > dealing with. as selling healthy food is (as every other > question concerning health) a very SENSIBLE thing, it depends > on personal relations and mouth-to-mouth propaganda. you do > not need an extra propaganda or some kind of PR. a > certification is useless here and a waste of money you better > spend somewhere else on your farm !! > >b) those, who do not know you, but do not live VERY far away > (maybe your farm nearby a larger town or a city). here you > will already see my doubts, if it is sustainable, if people > are driving 40 or 50 miles to your farm to buy food for 3 or 5 > days. the pollution from the gasoline will contradict any > sustainability (the real price for environmental damage is > 2-3$ a liter of gasoline) ! ignoring that, these people still > are preferring organic food ! i think, i need not tell anyone, > how to market your products. just make it reasonable to him, > why he should buy especially at your farm... maybe take a look > into the faith popcorn's book (the popcorn report), how to > "cocoon" people. > >c) people farer away, which can only be reached by distribution > channels. it's your individual decision, if you want to reach > them, but remember: they are the majority. you only need to > think about them, if you cannot make a living from direct > marketing. and here starts, what i see as the largest problem: > the ambiguity between consumers. they do not behave, like you > would like them to do (meaning 100% supporters of the organic > idea and consistant). i know people, who eat their dinner at > some fast-food restaurant and in the evening go to a > restaurant and insist on an nice organic supper, because it's > healthier. if i can convince 100 consumers to buy 20% of their > food organic, that's better than 10 people living for 100% on > organic food. but a lot of organic farmers also try to sell > their philosophy instead and only live in "inner circles of > alumni" their slogan: entirely organic or nothing at all. > organic farmers tend to be much less consume-orientated, more > individual and environmental sensible than conventional ones > (and I myself like their attitude very much), but do they need > to tell others, that this is "the sacred way"?. here in > germany there even is an entirely anthroposophic way of living > and children's education behind the organic movement. that's > ok, but organic farmers not only try to sell their fruits, but > with them also their anthroposophic philosophy and that's > something a lot of people dislike. they can think for > themselfes and chances are, that sooner or later they come to > the same conclusions all by themself. they do NOT care about > your internal quarrels, whether 80 or 90% of the manure needs > to be from your own farm. and these are USELESS quarrels. in > case the different organic groups cannot agree, just make a > compromise: 85%. but don't weaken your image by internal > battles taken to the public !!. one of these battles is the > question: "what means organic?" > > why not a part of their farm organic and the other part > conventional ?? i know of at least one farmer here, who tried > it and was bashed and isolated from his organic-cofarmers. > IFOAM rules allow that very well !!! > > >2 consequences: the absolutism, with which organic growers see >their business, is an enormous restriction for them. maybe you >remember my question, what organic growers can sell in winter. >with an annual income of 10.000$ i see this absolutism a personal >problem of the farmer's philosophy, which i as a consumer need >not share. > >an example: i'm just involved in a project of small farmers, who >offer a complete bundle of vegetables for a complete salad (like >a colorful mixture of different salads for a "ceasar's salad".) >all works well except the question of some organics, if the >dressing also NEEDS to be organic and as a ready-to-eat dressing >cannot be organic, they prefer to renounce the 95% of the total >buy because of the 5% for the dressing. > >2nd consequence: beginning from a certain distance from consumers >your farm it is obligatory to go TO the consumer, instead the >other way round (that might not be valid for some of the vast and >unpopulated american regions like the apallachians. again, that's >MY guess from far away. you better ask your own consultants). and >here starts the problem with certification. selling into a city >again has 2 options: if you sell on a farmer's market, >certification MIGHT not be needed and diversification is more >important. option 2 is the main problem: most part of a city's >food need is based on a professional and ANONYMOUS distribution >system and here it is very important to create a chain of trust >and discriminate by kind of a (certified?) label. that needs not >necessarily be a governmental system. > >here in europe at the lower level there are EU regulations, which >you HAVE to meet to get the EU label for organic production and >beginning with august, 2000 they will be unique in the whole EU. > >additionaly in germany there's a private system, supported and >paid by the organic movement (yes, you WILL need a professional >system, more and more people are living in cities and >consequently more and more consumers, i.e. the people, you get >the money from). at the moment there are 6 small and 3 large and >successful groups ("BIOLAND", "NATURKIND" and "DEMETER", makes 9, >all agree, that that's too much, none of them wants to be the >first to quit. in denmark and austria there is just 1 >organisation), who set their own internal and stricter rules as >the EU for their own certification and who also do internal >random control analyses. it works fine, as NONE (with VERY few >exceptions) of the governmental analytical controls on pesticide >residues and additives (they are restricted to these 2 items, >because governent does not care about these group's internal >rules) find any violations. > >so confidence in these 2 labels is very high and consumers trust >them almost blindly. fresh products are mostly sold on farmer's >markets, but they also are selling their other products (like >noodles, flour, corn flakes, sea salt, dried spices and a whole >bunch of readily prepared foods..) in supermarkets with >increasing success (in germany 30%, in the UK 67%, in austria 70% >and in denmark 90 of total organic sales. compare it with the >number of organisations in these countries !!). > >selling in supermarkets needs some additional things like a nice >design of the package, the right size (increasing market for >singles), a moderate price (still 30-40% higher than conventional >food) and a good positioning. and most important: it needs an >organisation, which manages the distribution, deals with the >supermarkets (which more and more become pure commisionaries for >a place to sell and are insisting on "entry fees" too high for >single farmers). and it needs a farewell from the usual >absolutism and negiotiation of consumer's attitudes (still i >never saw a TV ad for organic food, BUT WHY NOT?? and why not a >nice designer package, it needn't have the overhead of a >perfume?). that's too much for an individual farmer and needs >something like an organisation. > >together with a friend i initiated another project (again not >esp. intended for organics, but more for better prices.) years >ago we "pushed" a special potato variety. a very small potato >looking like a little cucumber (kind of a "bonsai" potato, 2-3 cm >thick and 6-8 cm long) > >i got the idea, when i sold a bag of potatoes in the french >alsace. there an old and honest woman sold me the bag with these >potatoes, which are quite common there. when i asked her, why the >potatoes were so small, she answered: "well, they are especially >graded and taste better and are more convenient for cooking". >when i asked her, what they do with the large ones, she answered >with a smile: "we feed them to the swine or sell them to the >germans". > >we convinced two farmers to try them and at the end of the 2nd >year they mourned "if only we had planted twice as much fields". >that would also be an option for organics: 2 different potato >varieties for sale and one of them an unusual one. this way you >can satisfy the "traditional" buyer, who wants no "gimmicks" AND >the people looking for some sensation. and it's the sensation i'm >missing at organic sellers on farmer's markets. argument: "we >aren't interested in gimmicks". OOPS ??? when i'm buying noodles, >i can choose between several dozens of conventional labels, when >i buy organic noodles, they usually come in a neutral and >wretched looking package. > >in sum: what organic agriculture needs, is a "corporate >identity". the average consumer has not the slightest idea, what >the behinds of a cover crop or soil fertility are (and doesn't >care, YOU are the experts, so he can expect to a certain degree, >that you think about, what's good and what's bad). hardly anyone >of the consumers is in still in touch with nature or agriculture. >compared with earlier eras in human history, we live in a society >so artificial, so divorced from the natural environment, that it >would be simply incomprehensible to our forefathers. this is not >only true for people living in inner city areas, but also just >about everybody else. but people are WILLING to support, what >organic food can offer them. that's why the government still pays >15.800 !! marks every year as subsidy to every organic farm or >330 dm/ha. but for this people do expect a bullet-proof system >(it's THEIR tax money), which can garantue 4 things: free from >pesticides, free from additives, a prevention of cruelities to >animals and free from gmo's. they don't care very much about the >rest, at least much less than organic farmers expect. > >so what is needed, are for example convincing slogans, which >sound logic to the consumer. example: "what was not put onto the >field, can't be in the fruit" or "what quality can you expect >from 5 sausages in a tin priced 80 cents?" or "caring about >pesticide residues ? - we needn't", "lucky with a soup with 8 >gramms of dehydrated meat?" or "our cows are called sandra, milka >and linda and not #234, #743 and #1254". > >DON'T argue about healthier food! and for all this you need a >professional distribution system with knowledge in PR and you >need (few) special wellknown labels, with which consumers can >identify a special quality, whereever they buy. it needn't be a >governmental system, but instead one, that is trusted. i'm sure, >the amish will never need an extra label for selling food, >because they have their own "control" system and a well-known way >of living (their "label"). in germany there are about 10% people, >who need not be convinced, for whom no certification or PR is >needed, about 30-50%, who need to be convinced and who want a >certain kind of proof and a control system, because they are >sceptical against just a claim and the rest can't be reached by >you by ANY mean (they buy, what's cheapest or don't care about >food at all.) here it needed about 20 years until these labels >became really known among all consumers and you might have >expected it: these labels started with about 50 farmers >organising themselfes and agreeing on an internal control system. > > >p.s: your smallfarms.com system might be a nice possibility to >inform people, where i can buy organic food nearby and can show >the differences between production systems much cheaper than >flyers or media advertisement. it can be modeled to be an >(farmer-restricted) information system about prices and trends in >the market (provided farmers are willing to inform others about >prices. that's not always the case. here we had a system called >pool-marketing. everyone added to a common pool and the large >batch was marketed, so everyone got the same price. the better >farmers soon left). there definitely is competition and there are >bad farmers, who will have to leave the market. another thing, >organic farmers are more likely to ignore than conventional ones, >as they see themself as ONE big friendly community of equal >thinkers, ignoring that life in the city is more like life in a >jungle than in a small town. > >but i have some doubts, if it can be a information system for >market chains looking for larger batches. nicely programmed it >can create desires and serve as a guide for food choices. (i have >not the SLIGHTEST idea, if it can be useful to attract consumers >to direct-selling farm, because, as i already wrote above, >driving 50 miles for food in my view is not sustainable, but >europe is totally different, because MUCH smaller and more >densely inhabited. it might be a chance for buying on the way >home from work, if nearby.) > >and a last thing (in case you think i'm talking purely >theoretical): our institute meanwhile pays for 3 certification >systems: ISO, GLP and DQS. it costs a lot of money, but we >decided to pay it, because more and more of our costumers demand >a proof, that our analysis is done according to international >standards. the funny thing: we also worked by these standards >before and certification hasn't changed the slightest thing in >our daily work except additional paperwork and time-consuming >work for the analysts (who asked almost the same questions as in >this discussion about certification) and me - i'm one of the 2 >internal quality assurance inspectors. either we have the >certificate or our customers go elsewhere and we must live from >those, who do not insist on a certificate (and therefore pay >less, the others are charged for the extrawork). it's that simple >and IT'S NOT ABOUT QUALITY. it's the same process of >concentration as in agriculture and it's also an assurance >against complaints and legal actions against us. > > >puuh, finally finished.. any future mails will be fax-style... > > >klaus > > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". >To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > >All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: >http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 12:55:58 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02821 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:55:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12893 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:06:11 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from taurus.greensoft.com ([204.77.122.1]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12801 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:06:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from webserf.net (unverified [10.0.0.101]) by taurus.greensoft.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:09:40 -0600 Message-ID: Received: from bluestem [204.77.126.150] by webserf.net (SMTPD32-4.03) id A2D66940178; Mon, 08 Nov 1999 11:05:26 CDT From: "Bluestem Associates" To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 17:03:31 Reply-To: "Bluestem Associates" X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows 98 (4.10.1998) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Certification and other regulation (was USDA...) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 182 On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:33:36 -0800, Sal wrote: >I don't have to let anyone come and check me and decide if I am organic >enough. I grow by the rules and don't need any big brother watching over me >. if you think I am lying get a searchwarrent convince a judge you have a >reason to look. this is America I don't have to prove I am not guilty every >year year after year. you don't ask that of chemical grower why pick on me. >why you forcing us to play these games is wrong. in some states you pay $10 >in some states you pay 2000 dollars for the same verification whets is fair >about that. why do I pay more in Ca. than Ky. what is far about that. how >the Fed. gov. and state force me to pay more here than in KY. >the fairness of the same prices for the same thing ? where is my robe of >innocence why am I guilty and have to pay to prove I am telling the truth >over and over again just because the year changes. What does a "robe of innocence" have to do with anything? We are talking about regulation within the *commercial* sphere, not a criminal proceeding. And while we're at it, what ever led you to expect that regulation would be uniform (you call it "fair") from state to state, or even town to town? That sort of variation is precisely what localised (rather than federal) control is all about. This is America, and there is absolutely nothing preventing you from moving to Kentucky if you find the regulatory and administrative environment in California so onerous. I've built and renovated several houses over the years, and what do you know --- there's variation in building codes, permit requirements, fee structure, and administrative burden from place to place. Big deal. I've also done a major renovation in a jurisdiction where there is no code at all or even any requirement to get a permit. I've always built to code (actually, way better than code). I *know* that I build better than code, but I don't run around being a cry-baby about permits, fees, and building inspections in those places where they are required. Regulations, inspections, permits, fees, and paperwork are absolutely normal in the commercial sphere. If you're selling food, you're in the commercial sphere, and you should *expect* regulation. Organic farmers, especially small growers, would do far better to stop moaning about organic certification --- which can help their businesses --- and start paying attention to the REAL threats to their survival. a) the looming application of HACCP requirements to *all* produce growers, regardless of size. b) the possible application of migrant labor laws to "apprentices / interns" on organic farms. c) the rapid disappearance of small processing plants and slaughterhouses. If you're an organic produce grower on this list and you *don't* know about HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) I suggest you find out sooner rather than later. It *will* affect your operation within a few years, maybe a few months. It is a major food safety issue (far more important than chemical residues in terms of the number of acute illnesses). It can shut you down. The application of HACCP requirements to produce will almost certainly be nationwide. State application of migrant labor laws to apprentices/interns has already put one vegetable farm out of business. There may be more. Small scale processing is one of the best ways for the small grower to add value to crops. Unfortunately, it is getting harder and harder to find places who will do this work for you. Many slaughterhouses now set minimum-kill requirements far in excess of what small growers are able to bring forward --- 5000 turkeys, for example. Energy spent complaining is far better applied to a serious and dispassionate analysis of the opportunities and threats facing the business. Coupled with honest analysis of strengths and weaknesses, such study can make the difference between success and failure. Where strengths overlap an opportunity, there is the potential for substantial profit. Where weaknesses overlap a threat, there is a serious problem. HACCP and other potential regulations *are* a substantial threat, especially for the small grower. In that environment, reactive (as opposed to adaptive) attitudes towards regulation would seem to be a significant weakness with the potential to undermine survivability. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 13:24:07 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA03337 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:24:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29305 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:35:27 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from dorsey.fcc.net (dorsey.fcc.net [207.198.253.29]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28981 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:35:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from pentium-233mmx ([204.141.125.23]) by dorsey.fcc.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.2 release 221 ID# 0-57968U12500L1250S0V35) with SMTP id net; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:32:26 -0500 Message-Id: <4.1.19991108123017.00b35c10@mail.magiccarpet.com> X-Sender: campaign@mail.magiccarpet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 12:30:24 -0500 To: casawg@igc.apc.org, catanc@aol.com, chartmannsa@taconic.net, debbie.neustadt.@sierraclub.org, dh43048@navix.net, dolan@nwf.org, eschreder@watoxics.org, fhoefner@msawg.org, hgraddy@aol.com, ilstew@fgi.net, janetb@ncatark.uark.edu, jfawcett@eskimo.com, krist@cfra.org, lkemp@maroon.tc.umn.edu, mmellon@ucsusa.org, mnoble@msawg.org, msligh@rafiusa.org, nesfi@igc.apc.org, rmarks@nrdc.org, schul072@gold.tc.umn.edu, trimtab@psu.edu, vfrances@foe.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: "Natl. Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture" Subject: JOB ANNOUNCEMENT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 183 >From: Lamonte Garber >> CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION SAVE THE BAY >> >> >> JOB ANNOUNCEMENT >> >> >> Agricultural Policy Specialist >> >> The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the largest regional conservation >> organization seeks an Agricultural Policy Specialist in its Harrisburg >> office. >> >> THE CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION >> >> Established in 1967, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation is the original Save >> the Bay environmental group. Its founders realized that government alone >> could not save the Bay; private citizens must shoulder responsibility. >> The Bay is in trouble, humans caused it, and only humans can save it. >> Today CBF stands as a highly credible watchdog, educator, and catalyst for >> the Bay's restoration. It is the pre-eminent conscience of the Bay, >> speaking for the watershed's 15 million citizens and for those creatures >> who have no public voice - the fish, shellfish, and other living resources >> whose once legendary bounty inspired H. L. Mencken to dub the Chesapeake >> an "immense protein factory." CBF can take credit for rallying the public >> conscience to come to the aid of the Bay. >> >> CBF has a staff of 145 employees working across the watershed, from the >> Annapolis headquarters and three state offices in Harrisburg, Annapolis >> and Richmond, to the southern Bay office in Norfolk and the eastern shore >> office in Laurel, Delaware. In addition, CBF operates 16 outdoor >> environmental education training centers located in Pennsylvania, >> Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia. The organization has an >> annual budget of over $10 million and an endowment of approximately $15 >> million. Support comes from 80,000 members, several hundred foundations, >> over a thousand corporations, and tuition revenues from field trips. >> >> >> -OVER- >> >> >> >> CONTEXT OF THE POSITION >> >> The Agriculture Policy Specialist for Pennsylvania coordinates and >> implements state office efforts to reduce agriculture's impact on water >> quality and natural resources. The Agriculture Policy Specialist also >> develops strategy for use with legislators, regulatory agencies, and the >> private sector. Additionally, he/she writes position statements, lobbies >> legislators, serves on pertinent advisory boards and committees. >> >> >> PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS >> >> Requirements include: Graduate level degree in natural resources >> conservation, agricultural science or related field and a familiarity with >> a wide range of farm management issues including nutrient management, >> soil/water conservation, stream/wetland management, and sustainable >> agriculture. Thorough knowledge of government programs that affect >> agriculture policies and excellent communication skills are required. >> >> Please send resume, cover letter and salary requirements by November 7, >> 1998 to: >> >> Chesapeake Bay Foundation >> Old Water Works Building >> 614 North Front Street, Suite G >> Harrisburg, PA 17101 >> >> >> >> CBF offers a comprehensive benefits package to include: 20 vacation days, >> 10 sick days, health, vision, dental, life insurance, and pension plan. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 15:18:58 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA05726 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:18:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA18364 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:17:07 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from unlnotes.unl.edu (unlnotes.unl.edu [129.93.1.131]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA18320 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:17:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from unlnotes01.unl.edu ([129.93.1.23]) by unlnotes.unl.edu (Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) with SMTP id 86256823.00696E76; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:11:35 -0600 Received: from Laurie Hodges ([129.93.98.73]) by unlnotes01.unl.edu (Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.4 (830.2 3-23-1999)) with SMTP id 86256823.00697FCF; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:12:20 -0600 Message-Id: <4.1.19991108131349.00a3f550@unlnotes01.unl.edu> X-Sender: lhodges@unlnotes01.unl.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 13:19:11 -0600 To: "Bluestem Associates" , "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" From: Laurie Hodges Subject: Re: Certification and other regulation (was USDA...) In-Reply-To: <74FE92611B982653862568230062653A.00628AEA86256823@unlnotes 01.unl.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_99290882==_.ALT" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 184 --=====================_99290882==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" For those not familiar with the HAACP (food safety) guidelines for fresh produce, the following web site has the guidelines or they can be ordered as below: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/prodguid.html Guidance for Industry Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Additional copies are available from: Food Safety Initiative Staff, HFS-32 U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition 200 C Street S.W. Washington, DC 20204 General thread that prompts this (snipped considerably from original post): > > >On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:33:36 -0800, Sal wrote: > >>I don't have to let anyone come and check me and decide if I am organic >>enough. I grow by the rules and don't need any big brother watching over >me At 11:56 AM 11/8/99 -0600, Bluestem Associates wrote: >Regulations, inspections, permits, fees, and paperwork are absolutely >normal in the commercial sphere. If you're selling food, you're in the >commercial sphere, and you should *expect* regulation. > >Organic farmers, especially small growers, would do far better to stop >moaning about organic certification --- which can help their businesses >--- and start paying attention to the REAL threats to their survival. > >a) the looming application of HACCP requirements to *all* produce >growers, regardless of size. > >b) the possible application of migrant labor laws to "apprentices / >interns" on organic farms. > >c) the rapid disappearance of small processing plants and >slaughterhouses. > >If you're an organic produce grower on this list and you *don't* know >about HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) I suggest you >find out sooner rather than later. It *will* affect your operation >within a few years, maybe a few months. It is a major food safety issue >(far more important than chemical residues in terms of the number of >acute illnesses). It can shut you down. The application of HACCP >requirements to produce will almost certainly be nationwide. > >State application of migrant labor laws to apprentices/interns has >already put one vegetable farm out of business. There may be more. > >Small scale processing is one of the best ways for the small grower to >add value to crops. Unfortunately, it is getting harder and harder to >find places who will do this work for you. Many slaughterhouses now set >minimum-kill requirements far in excess of what small growers are able >to bring forward --- 5000 turkeys, for example. > >Energy spent complaining is far better applied to a serious and >dispassionate analysis of the opportunities and threats facing the >business. Coupled with honest analysis of strengths and weaknesses, >such study can make the difference between success and failure. Where >strengths overlap an opportunity, there is the potential for >substantial profit. Where weaknesses overlap a threat, there is a >serious problem. > >HACCP and other potential regulations *are* a substantial threat, >especially for the small grower. In that environment, reactive (as >opposed to adaptive) attitudes towards regulation would seem to be a >significant weakness with the potential to undermine survivability. > > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". >To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > >All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: >http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail ----- Dr. Laurie Hodges, Vegetable Specialist 377 Plant Sciences - University of Nebraska Lincoln, NE 68583-0724 phone: 402-472-2854 FAX: 402-472-8650 e-mail: lhodges@unl.edu --=====================_99290882==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" For those not familiar with the HAACP (food safety) guidelines for fresh produce, the following web site has the guidelines or they can be ordered as below:

http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/prodguid.html

Guidance for Industry
Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
Additional copies are available from:
Food Safety Initiative Staff, HFS-32
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
200 C Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20204

General thread that prompts this (snipped considerably from original post):


>
>
>On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:33:36 -0800, Sal wrote:
>
>>I don't have to let anyone come and check me and decide if I am organic
>>enough.  I grow by the rules and don't need any big brother watching over
>me

At 11:56 AM 11/8/99 -0600, Bluestem Associates wrote:

>Regulations, inspections, permits, fees, and paperwork are absolutely
>normal in the commercial sphere. If you're selling food, you're in the
>commercial sphere, and you should *expect* regulation.
>
>Organic farmers, especially small growers, would do far better to stop
>moaning about organic certification --- which can help their businesses
>--- and start paying attention to the REAL threats to their survival.
>
>a) the looming application of HACCP requirements to *all* produce
>growers, regardless of size.
>
>b) the possible application of migrant labor laws to "apprentices /
>interns" on organic farms.
>
>c) the rapid disappearance of small processing plants and
>slaughterhouses.
>
>If you're an organic produce grower on this list and you *don't* know
>about HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) I suggest you
>find out sooner rather than later. It *will* affect your operation
>within a few years, maybe a few months. It is a major food safety issue
>(far more important than chemical residues in terms of the number of
>acute illnesses). It can shut you down. The application of HACCP
>requirements to produce will almost certainly be nationwide.
>
>State application of migrant labor laws to apprentices/interns has
>already put one vegetable farm out of business. There may be more.
>
>Small scale processing is one of the best ways for the small grower to
>add value to crops. Unfortunately, it is getting harder and harder to
>find places who will do this work for you. Many slaughterhouses now set
>minimum-kill requirements far in excess of what small growers are able
>to bring forward --- 5000 turkeys, for example.
>
>Energy spent complaining is far better applied to a serious and
>dispassionate analysis of the opportunities and threats facing the
>business. Coupled with honest analysis of strengths and weaknesses,
>such study can make the difference between success and failure. Where
>strengths overlap an opportunity, there is the potential for
>substantial profit. Where weaknesses overlap a threat, there is a
>serious problem.
>
>HACCP and other potential regulations *are* a substantial threat,
>especially for the small grower. In that environment, reactive (as
>opposed to adaptive) attitudes towards regulation would seem to be a
>significant weakness with the potential to undermine survivability.
>

>
>To Unsubscribe:  Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg".  If you receive the digest format, use the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
>All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
>http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail

-----
Dr. Laurie Hodges, Vegetable Specialist
377 Plant Sciences - University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE  68583-0724
phone: 402-472-2854 FAX: 402-472-8650
e-mail: lhodges@unl.edu --=====================_99290882==_.ALT-- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 17:02:31 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07721 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:02:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA02092 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:32:15 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov (cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov [199.146.249.191]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA02007 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:32:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from tn.nrcs.usda.gov by cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov with ESMTP (8.7.6/itc-cust.Revision: 1.11 $) id UAA00564; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:57:44 GMT Message-ID: <38273911.158395B0@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 14:56:50 -0600 From: mike richardson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; UNIX_SV 4.2MP i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: FYI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 185 NOW IN PRINT SARE PUB FEATURES "HOW-TO'S" OF ON-FARM RESEARCH A new, no-cost, 12-page bulletin for farmers and ranchers, and the Extension educators who work with them, offers outlines on how to conduct research on farms. Published by the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Program's Sustainable Agriculture Network, the bulletin contains practical tips for crop and livestock producers, as well as an in-depth comprehensive list of resources. Co-written by a team of research scientists, the bulletin features many SARE grant recipients. The publication is available at or by calling (301) 504-6422. Ask for "Put Your Ideas to the Test: How to Conduct Research on Your Farm or Ranch." Your contact is Valerie Berton, SARE Communications Specialist, on (301) 405-3186 National Forage Quality and Animal Well-Being Training New Orleans, Louisiana November 15-18 Grazing land specialists and other NRCS personnel will participate. The Grazing Lands Technology Institute and Texas A&M University's Grazing Land Animal Nutrition Lab will provide training. Contact Arnold Norman, Grazing Lands Technology Institute on (817) 509-3214 or by e-mail at Forest Fragmentation Workshop Leesburg, Virginia November 30 Issues of maintaining, enhancing, and sustaining fully functioning forested ecosystems in Northern Virginia. Sponsored by the National Watershed Coalition (NWC) and State and local agencies and organizations. For more information, contact Gene Lessard, Senior Ecologist, NWC, on (540) 338-6143. North Dakota Chapter of SWCS Forum on Carbon Sequestration Bismarck, North Dakota December 8-9 Of interest to farmers, ranchers, industry, conservationists, environmentalists, and others interested in agriculture and its potential role in reducing CO2 and global warming. Open to the public. Registration fee: $45. Continuing education credits for Certified Crop Advisors available. Contact Jon Stika on (701) 225-5113 or at Information is also available on Sustainability of Wetlands and Water Resources: How Well Can Riverine Wetlands Continue To Support Society into the 21st Century? University of Mississippi at Oxford May 23-25 Information is available at To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 17:04:47 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07775 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:04:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04727 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:34:47 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from hotmail.com (law-f225.hotmail.com [209.185.130.163]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA04629 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:34:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 42122 invoked by uid 0); 8 Nov 1999 21:32:09 -0000 Message-ID: <19991108213209.42121.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 151.121.26.5 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 08 Nov 1999 13:32:08 PST X-Originating-IP: [151.121.26.5] From: "Kenneth Barnes" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: sanet-mg-digest V1 #1418 Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 16:32:08 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 186 Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote: "Regarding meat: Remember the deaths of the poultry processing workers in the plant in Raeford, NC when the plant caught fire and workers were trapped inside because the exit doors were locked from the outside - the USDA plant inspectors had not done the job they were PAID to do, had hardly ever visited the plant. Despicable b......s." The tragic fire that you have referred to did not take place at the poultry plant in Raeford, NC which processes turkeys. It was in Rockhingham, NC where they process chickens. Just wanted to let viewers know the difference. The fact still remains that several lost their lives. On a sadder note, if some of the employees had not been stealing from their employer, the doors would not have been locked, so... who's to blame? -Kenneth ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 17:07:26 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07840 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:07:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25176 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:20:11 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from ncnoc.ncren.net (ncnoc.ncren.net [192.101.21.1]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25143 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:20:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ncatmail.ncat.edu (ncatmail.ncat.edu [152.8.244.149]) by ncnoc.ncren.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA16741 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:18:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from agnus.ag.ncat.edu (agnus.ag.ncat.edu [152.8.33.7]) by ncatmail.ncat.edu (2.1.1/8.9.1/Execmail 2.1) with SMTP id QAA17217 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:20:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from talbottc.ncat.edu (unverified [152.8.6.70]) by agnus.ag.ncat.edu (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 08 Nov 1999 16:27:30 -0500 Message-ID: <002a01bf2a36$fc414600$46060898@talbottc.ncat.edu> Reply-To: "Charles W. Talbott" From: "Charles W. Talbott" To: "sanet-mg" Subject: small scale hog project: slaughter and processing Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:17:03 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 187 Our project (introduced last month) is looking at alternative production and marketing options (potential for outdoor raised hogs fed different diets to develop unique/"wholesome" tastes for upscale markets) for small scale hog producers. We are having a conference this weekend (CFSA annual conference at Radisson Hotel in High Point, NC) with a session addressing the marketing and processing "log jam" with administrators from USDA, NCDA, Academia and farmers. Collectively we hope to develop some initiatives to work on....... the marketing component at this stage of the grant is exploratory. I received some excellent comments from my last posting re. marketing options with Niman Ranch and searching for the "The Lost Taste of Pork". I personally think small scale (part-time) farmers are important for ensuring food security. We have essentially lost two or three generations of farmers and food producing know-how. Research and Academia have done an excellent job in promoting animal and labor efficiency through utilization of large, environmentally controlled confinement operations. Through this transition, we have basically ignored and written off the importance of the small producer as a vital resource for maintaining food security (if only from the stand point of trying to stay ahead of the viruses and bacteria), enhancing (or sustaining) the environment and rural communities, and ensuring market competition. I'll save you from my soap box..........In terms of access to slaughter and processing plants for small producers, what questions should we be asking USDA, NCDA and ourselves (farmers and support groups)? Thank you for your assistance. Chuck Talbott Charles W. Talbott, Ph D Adj. Ast. Professor, NC A&T SU 101 Webb Hall Greensboro, NC 27411 (336) 334 7672 Fax (336) 334 7288 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 17:09:06 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07872 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:09:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA05374 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:37:07 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA05363 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:37:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from m8.boston.juno.com (m8.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.196]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17426 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:35:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from eweigel@juno.com) by m8.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id EQXCKQPV; Mon, 08 Nov 1999 16:33:08 EST To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:16:46 -0700 Subject: HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) Message-ID: <19991108.141647.3502.0.eweigel@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-5,7-9 From: Edna M Weigel Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 188 >From Bluestem Associates: (snip) If you're an organic produce grower on this list and you *don't* know about HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) I suggest you find out sooner rather than later. (snip) Can someone explain the requirements and implications of HACCP in 100 words or less? Regards, Edna ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 17:22:55 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08092 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:22:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA11065 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:52:12 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10968 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:52:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from m8.boston.juno.com (m8.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.196]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17734 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:50:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from eweigel@juno.com) by m8.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id EQXCYUHU; Mon, 08 Nov 1999 16:40:18 EST To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:23:53 -0700 Subject: HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) Message-ID: <19991108.142354.3502.1.eweigel@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-5,7-9 From: Edna M Weigel Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 189 >From Bluestem Associates: (snip) If you're an organic produce grower on this list and you *don't* know about HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) I suggest you find out sooner rather than later. (snip) Can someone explain the requirements and implications of HACCP in 100 words or less? Regards, Edna ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 17:41:12 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08381 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:41:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06958 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:42:15 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailgw.cc.uga.edu (mailgw.cc.uga.edu [128.192.1.101]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06924 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:42:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from agecon.uga.edu (agecon1.agecon.uga.edu) by mailgw.cc.uga.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.014BC508@mailgw.cc.uga.edu>; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:39:53 -0500 Received: from AGECON/SpoolDir by agecon.uga.edu (Mercury 1.43); 8 Nov 99 16:39:56 EST5EDT Received: from SpoolDir by AGECON (Mercury 1.43); 8 Nov 99 16:39:48 EST5EDT From: "Anita Graf (Staff)" To: "Sal" Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:39:42 EST5EDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: USDA organic certification CC: In-reply-to: <000801bf27e9$4af50ca0$9b9044c6@rain.org> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 190 Hi Sal, Thanks for the quote from the CCOF newsletter. I'll have to look into this. It's been about 5 months since I worked on this issue, but it was my understanding that those convoluted and confusing ISO-65 rules specifically required "third party" certification which supposedly meant a gov't body. I think that maybe those big certifiers have gotten around this (not being able to use US gov't program) by getting the EU-approved certifiers to automatically "re-certify" their products when they go to the EU. But the whole thing is very confusing. I'm going to have to also look into all those taxes you're talking about too. I work on a couple of projects at once, and I have two on the back burner right now that are relavant to this conversation. One is regarding the cost of certification (I compared different types of certifiers around the country) and the other is looking at the barriers to export of US organic product. Part of the problem with keeping up with all this too is that it's constantly changing. If it's any consolation to you, the organic people at USDA that I have met (and work with) are very sincere in their desire to help the organic farmers and the organic market. Also, there have been some changings of the guarde since the first organic rules came out, and in general, I think that the people in charge of this program are genuinely interested in it and committed to good outcomes. (However, I don't know about whatever constraints to this they may be facing still.) I would, say that anyone's comments to the USDA at this time will probably be received in the most positive environment they have had there to date. Anita > thank you for you thoughts and ideas > I read in the CCOF newsletter that "The USDA's Meat Certification and > Grading Program (MCGP) has verified that CCOF conforms to the basic > requirements of ISO -65, the international standard for certification > programs. The approval means that CCOF-certified products should now be > approved for entry into European Union (EU) countries. The EU organic > regulations require imported organic products to be certified by an > organization that meets the ISO-65 Standards. Other ISO-65 approved > certification programs includes Farm Verified Organic-Quality Assurance > International and Organic Growers and Buyers Association . Several other > certifier site evaluations and approvals are pending. so u see all I need > is CCOF or QAI or OG or FVO and I can voluntary join them if I need that. > easy > see how easy things work out . > so why make a federal case out of it? why the extra state Ca. tax and the > Fed Tax and the force certification for all and the once size fits all and > the pay pay pay year after year. give us a USDA definition of organic and > lets get on with business you don't have to take us over you don't have to > make this any harder . you see Anita we are making it work out now . this > should also make for more reciprocity between group of certifiers and a lot > has changed . it has been years when the USDA started this and now the > government has seen it does not want to be a burden to small folks with > extra paper work (save those trees) and their non funded state and fed. > mandates so now is the time to stop the Ca. Ag. organic tax if one is > already certified by a recognized certifier. and it is time the Fed. gov. > lets business take care of itself, as it is doing for itself now quite will > thank-you. Anita Graf Research Coordinator Market Development of Organic Agricultural Products 313-F Conner Hall Dept. of Agricultural and Applied Economics University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-7509 (706) 542-1915 phone (706) 542-0739 fax agraf@agecon.uga.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 19:02:17 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA09707 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 19:02:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10280 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:42:05 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from taurus.greensoft.com ([204.77.122.1]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10212 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:41:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from webserf.net (unverified [10.0.0.101]) by taurus.greensoft.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:45:38 -0600 Message-ID: Received: from bluestem [204.77.126.150] by webserf.net (SMTPD32-4.03) id A193330198; Mon, 08 Nov 1999 16:41:23 CDT From: "Bluestem Associates" To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 22:39:32 Reply-To: "Bluestem Associates" X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows 98 (4.10.1998) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: HACCP Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 191 On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:16:46 -0700, Edna M Weigel wrote: >Can someone explain the requirements and implications of HACCP in 100 >words or less? Analyse your entire operation from beginning to end to determine which elements present the possibility of contamination with human pathogens. Having determined the elements of risk, analyse each element in detail to determine at what points it is possible to control contamination, should it have occurred. For each of those critical control points establish procedures for contamination control. Critical procedures must be precisely defined and measurable. Implement systems of *documented* monitoring at each CCP to ensure that requisite conditions have been met. Develop mandatory procedures for situations in which CCP requisite conditions have not been met, including precise criteria for determining at what point the threat has been removed and normal procedures and monitoring can be resumed. BTW, it's 117 words, so please forgive the extra verbiage, but broadly put, that should about get it. Some practitioners choose to include contamination by toxins, grease, insect parts, and so on, though strictly speaking HACCP is primarily orientated towards microbial contamination. On a small vegetable farm it will profoundly affect (amongst other things): manure handling, manure/compost applications, supervision of anyone touching the vegetables, how vegetables are picked, cooled and stored, sanitation on the packing line, and supervision of packing line workers. If you think organic certification is a pain in the bottom, just wait until you have to have a system capable of ensuring that all who touch the vegetables have washed their hands after the toilet. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 19:28:27 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10190 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 19:28:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10034 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:41:28 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09912 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:41:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from sals (maxmp-179.rain.org [198.68.144.179]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DA1161742; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:39:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000c01bf2a3a$1415b560$b39044c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: "Bluestem Associates" , References: Subject: Re: Certification and other regulation (was USDA...) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:39:06 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 192 check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Bluestem Associates To: Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 5:03 PM Subject: Certification and other regulation (was USDA...) > On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:33:36 -0800, Sal wrote: > > >I don't have to let anyone come and check me and decide if I am organic > >enough. I grow by the rules and don't need any big brother watching over me > >. if you think I am lying get a searchwarrent convince a judge you have a > >reason to look. this is America I don't have to prove I am not guilty every > >year year after year. you don't ask that of chemical grower why pick on me. > > >why you forcing us to play these games is wrong. in some states you pay $10 > >in some states you pay 2000 dollars for the same verification whets is fair > >about that. why do I pay more in Ca. than Ky. what is far about that. how > >the Fed. gov. and state force me to pay more here than in KY. I thought the whole idea for this was because every state was different and every one looked at organic different and this law was to level the playing field. > >the fairness of the same prices for the same thing ? where is my robe of > >innocence why am I guilty and have to pay to prove I am telling the truth > >over and over again just because the year changes. > > What does a "robe of innocence" have to do with anything? We are > talking about regulation within the *commercial* sphere, not a criminal > proceeding. > > And while we're at it, what ever led you to expect that regulation > would be uniform (you call it "fair") from state to state, or even town > to town? That sort of variation is precisely what localized (rather > than federal) control is all about. This is America, and there is > absolutely nothing preventing you from moving to Kentucky if you find > the regulatory and administrative environment in California so onerous. ..oh the old "love it or leave it "I was wondering when that argument was going to come up. the reason I brought up that fact that it is a lot cheaper in some states because one reason the state of Ca. gave for letting farmers use methyl bromine and extend its use even though it was proven a ozone killer was because they feel that farmers in some state still allow it and it would put ca. farmers at a big disadvantage so I felt that the fact that they are so much higher on organic growers than any other state may put ca. organic growers at disadvantage. see my point. > I've built and renovated several houses over the years, and what do you > know --- there's variation in building codes, permit requirements, fee > structure, and administrative burden from place to place. Big deal. > I've also done a major renovation in a jurisdiction where there is no > code at all or even any requirement to get a permit. I've always built > to code (actually, way better than code). I *know* that I build better > than code, but I don't run around being a cry-baby about permits, fees, > and building inspections in those places where they are required. what do you do now? > Regulations, inspections, permits, fees, and paperwork are absolutely > normal in the commercial sphere. If you're selling food, you're in the > commercial sphere, and you should *expect* regulation. sounds like that's how you make your living. what do you do now are you one of those paying for this or one of those getting my money from this? what do you do now? it is not normal to over regulate over inspect and over fee and paper work folks it is too much now I expect fairness even in the commercial sphere are you a small grower also do you really think we should just shut up here I thought I was paying attention to a real threat to my survival. > Organic farmers, especially small growers, would do far better to stop > moaning about organic certification --- which can help their businesses > --- and start paying attention to the REAL threats to their survival. no one is moaning it may sound like it but this is a time when if we don't talk up they will beat us down. I don't expect unfair regulation and want to do something to stop it and I find the only way a little guy can do anything is to make it known what is going on. I don't have enough money to spend a night in the white house or buy a vote so I guess I will just moan and grown at the unfairness of it all. I guess as long as it is unfair I will moan. I will moan every time feel it . I don't expect unfair unneeded regulations. what do u do for a living? > a) the looming application of HACCP requirements to *all* produce > growers, regardless of size. > > b) the possible application of migrant labor laws to "apprentices / > interns" on organic farms. > > c) the rapid disappearance of small processing plants and > slaughterhouses. > > If you're an organic produce grower on this list and you *don't* know > about HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) I suggest you > find out sooner rather than later. It *will* affect your operation > within a few years, maybe a few months. It is a major food safety issue > (far more important than chemical residues in terms of the number of > acute illnesses). It can shut you down. The application of HACCP > requirements to produce will almost certainly be nationwide. > > State application of migrant labor laws to apprentices/interns has > already put one vegetable farm out of business. There may be more. > > Small scale processing is one of the best ways for the small grower to > add value to crops. Unfortunately, it is getting harder and harder to > find places who will do this work for you. Many slaughterhouses now set > minimum-kill requirements far in excess of what small growers are able > to bring forward --- 5000 turkeys, for example. > > Energy spent complaining is far better applied to a serious and > dispassionate analysis of the opportunities and threats facing the > business. Coupled with honest analysis of strengths and weaknesses, > such study can make the difference between success and failure. Where > strengths overlap an opportunity, there is the potential for > substantial profit. Where weaknesses overlap a threat, there is a > serious problem. > > HACCP and other potential regulations *are* a substantial threat, > especially for the small grower. In that environment, reactive (as > opposed to adaptive) attitudes towards regulation would seem to be a > significant weakness with the potential to undermine survivability. > thank you for the warning. what ever you do you seem to be on the inside and I do thank you for pointing out this. to me it seems like now is the time to stop the fed. law because now is the time they are splitting the pot. cutting up my money picking my pocket etc. I guess when they dump that other stuff on me I guess I will moan and grown about that too. nothing else we can do -we should expect regulations and more regulations and more regulations and more regulations tell the small are gone and only the big important players are around. regulated out of business. what do u expect . what do you do now for a living that u know so much about farming and regulations that we should expect. I farm I am one of those that have to live by these new laws and I feel it getting worse and worse and you only pointed that out to me more. boss you around that all they do and get paid for that. nice work if you can get it. guess the real money is in regulation not farming. I pay so I get to moan. I do all this stuff so I get to tell the story of how it is not fair.> > > > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 20:33:25 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA11301 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:33:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29359 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:10:48 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (mta2.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.123]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA29283 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:10:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from [63.192.219.119] by mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with ESMTP id <0FKW009E2NRQG0@mta2.snfc21.pbi.net> for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:52:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 16:49:53 -0800 From: Misha Subject: Les Miserables In-reply-to: <19991108213209.42121.qmail@hotmail.com> To: SANET-mg Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" References: <19991108213209.42121.qmail@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 193 Howdy, all-- >The tragic fire that you have referred to did not take place at the >poultry plant in Raeford, NC which processes turkeys. It was in >Rockhingham, NC where they process chickens. Just wanted to let >viewers know the difference. The fact still remains that several >lost their lives. On a sadder note, if some of the employees had >not been stealing from their employer, the doors would not have been >locked, so... who's to blame? >-Kenneth I give up, Kenneth. Who is to blame? Are you suggesting that the theft of chickens by poor people from a corporation deserves the punishment of being burned alive or suffocated? And if so, what would you suggest is just punishment for the executives of large corporations who steal a lot more than chickens? peace misha (who thought that fire took place in Hamlet, NC) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Michele Gale-Sinex Communications manager Center for Integrated Ag Systems, UW-Madison http://www.wisc.edu UW voice mail: 608-262-8018 Home office: 415-504-6474 (504-MISH) Home office fax: Same as above, phone first for enabling ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses. -Utah Philips To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 20:33:27 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA11312 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:33:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27480 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:09:17 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27357 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:09:11 -0500 (EST) From: SustainAg@aol.com Received: from SustainAg@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 7AMMa12208 (4209) for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:06:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.7bc47447.2558cd9f@aol.com> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:06:39 EST Subject: Re: HACCP Regs...keep on top of them! To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 84 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 194 I'm glad to see this discussion on SANET. I have been worrying about the pending HACCP implementation and it's potential impact on small-scale producers and was beginning to wonder if I was the only one. At a USDA/Southern University Small Farm conference in Memphis last April representatives from USDA said they expect the implementation of these new regs to have a significant impact on small-scale livestock/poultry processors. The representatives speaking at the meeting were not even aware of the potential benefits to small farms of custom processing of livestock and poultry for direct sale, and had not even heard of the various "pastured" or "salad bar" livestock initiatives (e.g. Salatin, Lee, etc.). I'm afraid these regs are being developed even more inside the beltway, and in the dark, than usual. At the time these representatives said they were not concerned with on-farm vegetable processing--apparently they hadn't really thought about it--but these new regs have the potential to impact the full range of small-scale value-added initiatives. I'm no longer as up to date as I should be, so I'll add my name to the list of folk who would really appreciate an active discussion of this important issue. Peace to all. Chris Campany BREADA breada@aol.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 20:59:48 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA11567 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:59:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13071 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:34:03 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13067 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from erols.com (207-172-105-62.s285.tnt2.lee.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.105.62]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA06068; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:31:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <382779C2.9E8C37BE@erols.com> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 20:32:50 -0500 From: Robert Farr Reply-To: rbfarr@erols.com Organization: The Chile Man, inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en]C-NE (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Misha CC: SANET-mg Subject: Re: Les Miserables References: <19991108213209.42121.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 195 I say - steal all the chickens you can while there's still time. In favor of picking their pockets before they pick ours - Robert. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 21:51:12 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12076 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:51:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA16343 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:28:06 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.pcsia.com (mail.pcsia.com [206.162.14.3]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA16325 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:28:02 -0500 (EST) From: mmiller@pcsia.com Received: from buzz-off (unverified [206.162.14.76]) by mail.pcsia.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:26:02 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991108201246.007d8dd0@pcsia.com> X-Sender: mmiller@pcsia.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 20:12:46 -0600 To: Subject: Poultry Plant Fire Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 196 On a >>sadder note, if some of the employees had not been stealing from their >>employer, the doors would not have been locked, so... who's to blame? Wait a minute here folks. Are we also going to blame the victims of Egypt Airlines crash since they were in a plane with a defect or some malfunction beyond their control? Did the poultry plant fire only burn the women who were accused of stealing chicken? If you steal from me, at what monentary value lost do I have the right to kill you? $5, $100? Is the poultry industry so backwards that they have not heard of fire doors wired to alarm when opened? The courts have already settled this question and as I recall, the father took the hit for his son's actions and is now in prison. Mike Miller To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 8 22:02:49 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA12399 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 22:02:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA24226 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:40:01 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA24210 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 21:39:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from sals (maxmp-186.rain.org [198.68.144.186]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A61686174A; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:37:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <007b01bf2a5b$660a3a00$ba9044c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" Cc: References: Subject: Re: USDA organic certification Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:37:40 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 197 check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Anita Graf (Staff) To: Sal Cc: Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 8:39 AM Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > Hi Sal, > > Thanks for the quote from the CCOF newsletter. I'll have to look > into this. It's been about 5 months since I worked on this issue, > but it was my understanding that those convoluted and confusing > ISO-65 rules specifically required "third party" certification which > supposedly meant a gov't body. I think that maybe those big > certifiers have gotten around this (not being able to use US gov't > program) by getting the EU-approved certifiers to automatically > "re-certify" their products when they go to the EU. But the whole > thing is very confusing. I'm going to have to also look into all > those taxes you're talking about too. I work on a couple of projects > at once,