Reply #143: You make some good points... and I even agree with you some of the time

[AikidoSoul]

but some things I totally disagree with. Such as your devil's advocate statement, "By spreading a relatively small amount of waste over the entire country, you have effectively made it dissappear (sic) as far as having any real effect on the health or well being of anyone."

This has been the problem all along, and the problem is accumulating everywhere. You can't honestly say this practice isn't "... having any real effect on health."

Also --it doesn't "disappear" as you say. I get reports from hundreds of sources that report ecological system breakdowns, heavy metal accumulation, petrochemicals and heavy metals in our bodies, the bodies of fish and animals, and it's even being taken up by plants. Is this where we want these hazardous wastes stored? Our bodies were never meant to be miniature hazardous waste dumps -- and neither were the critters and plants of the earth.

Another point of disagreement -- nobody said in regards to synthetic fertilizers "that all use of it should immediately stop". Whoa..... please let's stop that one right there. I'm not that unreasonable. It would be insane for anyone to try to do too much too soon.

On the food / population growth idea -- if it's o.k. with you for the time being -- I'd like to drop the argument about what conditions are best, worst, or whatever -- for populations to increase dramatically. It would involve a major dissertation. I'd rather focus on a few things for now (and then I've GOT TO quit for awhile so I can finish my taxes!!) --so let's just focus briefly on fertilizers and whether organic farming methods can feed billions of people, and focus a little more on the problems inherent in the development of organic farming in general, especially the way it is not being done in the United States.

Fertilizer are complicated. There are a wide range of chemical fertilizers used in industrial farming. I think we're in agreement that haz waste additives should not be in fertilizers. Last time I checked, Washington State is the only state that regulates fertilizers... but I haven't researched this in about a year. The articles in the Seattle Times only went so far to influence policy changes -- and though the series was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize -- people have short memories.

I would prefer the widespread use of more sustainable fertilizers. Many organic farmers use large amounts of organic plant debris -- converted into compost -- which makes rich fertilizer and builds soil. Animal manures can be tricky. If animal manure is used by organic farms it requires an extremely strict process where sustained temperatures and time to complete the process of decomposition and transformation must take place before they are certified. Most organic farmers that I know -- prefer plant material for compost, mainly because if animal manure is used it must be certified free of contaminants which is very hard to find. Most animal manure is loaded with hormones, antibiotics, GMO material, and pesticided grain residue, To use organic manure the farmer really needs to raise the animals and feed them only clean grains and grass that are grown on the farm. Many of the larger organic farms do just that.

You may wonder why most industrial farm animals are fed a toxic brew of animal feed impregnated with pesticides -- it's to keep the fly populations! This grosses me out a lot because petrochemical pesticides get not only into the manure -- but move quickly into the fat of the animals because petrochemical pesticides are highly fat soluble (attracted to and store in fat readily).

Here's a link to EPA's site for all the highly toxic pesticides allowed in animal feeds:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_99/40cfr186_...

You are absolutely correct that it would take a huge commitment to "go completely organic" -- and it's also true that we are absolutely not doing that with government help here in the U.S. Despite that fact, the organic market is growing by 20% annually over the past several years.

I disagree with the notion that organic farming would be incapable of feeding the billions of people here on earth. The most unbiased studies of yield show that organic farming practices produce high yields of high quality food. They are comparable to industrial farming yields on an acre-by-acre basis. I also disagree with your remark that changing our farms to organic "..would likely mean having to put several million people back on the farm...".

That last comment reflects a common misunderstanding about organic farms. Not all organic farms are devoid of mechanization or efficiencies-of-scale. The image of organic farms is truly misunderstood almost everywhere. Many larger organic farms use modern equipment without losing quality or betraying the values and standards of the certified organic label.

I do agree with you however that it would take a miracle to get the feds to commit to actively supporting organic farming here in the U.S. God, it would be hugely difficult. I think it's mainly because of the enormously powerful chem/pharm/biotech/ag interests that have purchased the souls of Congress -- but even if the federal commitment was small -- say a goal for 20% of all U.S. farming land to go organic -- it would still need to be "...a long term project" as you describe it.

How about a ten year plan?

Germany is doing just that --and Europe is leaping ahead in organic production. The German Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture has an interesting ten year strategic plan with the goal of "...increasing the amount of organically farmed area out of Germany's total agricultural acreage to 20% in 10 years."

http://www.oekolandbau.de/fileadmin/redaktion/bestellfo...

An interesting point made early in the strategic plan is the idea of educating the public and farmers about the meaning of organic and to get rid of the "outdated image" of those committed to these practices as "... technologically backward organic farmers in overalls."

along those same lines it says the plan works to:

"....free the organic farming discussion from ideological ballast. Prejudices arising from ideology continue to keep many farmers, advisers and even scientists from being impartial when examining organic farming. Conversely, we find farmers who over-hastily convert their operations in anticipation
of market opportunities without having made careful plans. On the consumer side, there are people who ascribe all sorts of effects to organic produce that they do not have. Others avoid organic produce on principle because they associate it with an unattractive 'health food freak' image."

**********************

Did you know that organic farming in Europe is growing exponentially? It's probably a secret from most of the world, and certainly from U.S. citizens -- but the European countries have been moving in this direction aggressively for the past ten years. Recently it passed a law prohibiting the marketing of chemicals unless safety is proven. Wow! Think of it. Insuring safety before marketing -- what a concept!

Here's some fascinating details on the incredible increase of organics in Europe, including an outline on the distinctly different government policies in Europe which are set up to ENCOURAGE organic farming... unlike here in the U.S.

These numbers come from 2003 (link below chart) but you can already see that Europe was far ahead of us in land used for organic farming compared to the U.S. If these numbers get scrambled, please to to the web site link below:

EU and U.S. organic sectors, 2003

Country Retail sales Organic operations Organic land Farmland under organic production


Million euros Number Hectares Percent

Austria 400 19,056 328,803 9.7

Belgium 300 688 24,000 1.7

Denmark 339 3,510 165,146 6.1

Finland 212 5,074 159,987 7.2

France 1,578 11,377 550,000 1.9

Germany 3,100 16,476 734,027 4.3

Greece 21 6,028 244,455 6.2

Ireland 40-50 889 28,514 0.7

Italy 1,400 44,039 1,052,002 6.9

Luxembourg NA 59 3,002 2.4

Netherlands 395 1,522 41,865 2.2

Portugal NA 1,507 120,729 3.2

Spain 144 17,028 725,254 2.8

Sweden 420 3,562 225,776 7.4

United Kingdom 1,607 4,017 695,619 4.4

European Union 9,966 134,434 5,099,179 3.9

U.S. 8,047 8,035 889,734 0.2



http://www.organic-europe.net /

After fifty years of chem/pharm/biotech expansion of industrial farming methods in Europe -- certified land used for organic farming has more than doubled in the EU since 1997. Economic reports from three sources confirm that it "rose from 2.1 million hectares (5.2 million acres; 0.405 hectares = 1 acre) in 1997 to 5.1 million hectares in 2003, about 4 percent of total agricultural area. U.S. organic lands increased from 549,406 hectares in 1997 to 889,734 hectares in 2003—or 0.24 percent of all agricultural lands. Thus, in 2003, the EU had over five times the amount of organic farmland as the U.S., while the U.S. had three times as much total agricultural land."

Please note: the above quote was taken from the United States Department of Agriculture | Economic Research Service. The article gives source credit saying that some of the material was derived from "Market-Led Versus Government-Facilitated Growth: Development of the U.S. and EU Organic Agricultural Sectors, by Carolyn Dimitri and Lydia Oberholtzer, WRS-05-05, USDA, Economic Research Service, August 2005."


source: http://151.121.68.30/AmberWaves/February06/Features/fea...

*************************