ORGANIC food products using contaminated peanuts.....wtf????

[dixiegrrrrl]

I don't get how a company claiming they make organic granola bars can use Peanut corporation peanuts,
and claim they are organic.

"Natures Path Organic Foods Announces USA and Canada Nationwide Voluntary Recall of EnviroKidz Organic Crispy Rice Peanut Choco Chocolate Drizzle Bar, Nature’s Path Organic Granola Bar Peanut Butter Chunky, Nature’s Path Organic Granola Bars Peanut Choco Chocolate Drizzle, and Nature’s Path Organic Peanut Butter Granola Cereal Because of Possible Health Risk"

http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/naturepath03_09.html

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

1. Organicly grown stuff can be contaminated with salmonella and e. coli just as easily as non-organic

[blindpig]

2. Organic: it's all about marketing.

While it might have meant something 20 years ago in local markets with big money dominating the show ya gotta expect the usual bullshit involved in maximising profits.

It is a racket which takes advantage of the dumb/rich who think they are buying health and morality.

[PaulaFarrell]

11. Well no

Organic has a specific meaning which you may or may not be willing to pay a premium for. It never meant germ-free. Some organic standards are better than others. It is no more a 'racket' than anything else.
I'd go on but what's the point? Rather than accept that some people are willing to put their money where their mouth is, you'd rather diss the whole movment because it's not perfect. But I'll keep buying my organic meat because I know it meets much higher animal welfare standards than factory farming, even if still not 'perfect'. oh does that make me rich or dumb? if only...

[Gormy Cuss]

35. Quite right, the meaning was codified for many foods a few years back.

In doing so the agribusiness lobby succeeded in watering down what 'organic' meant to the small farmers who made the market for it in the first place but organic does have a specific legal meaning for foods now unlike "natural," which doesn't mean anything.

[Two Americas]

42. no it doesn't

It is more of a belief system than it is an agricultural method. That is why it is so easy to cheat.

Most of the "organic" produce on the shelf is imported, where the standards are lower than they are here and where a bribe to a local official will get you an "organic" stamp. People are paying premium prices for inferior produce.

The whole thing has been a marketing hustle for quite a while now.

It is a pleasant fantasy for the upscale few and a personal statement for people, but it has little if anything to do with the real world.

There are no standards in organic that make any sense, and the dogma continually evolves in an attempt at gaining the high moral ground for the movement. It is more or less "natural" and many hazardous and toxic materials that are "natural" are allowed, while many synthetic compounds that are identical to naturally occurring chemicals in the plants are disallowed. Heavy metals, salts, and Rotenone turn organic farms into toxic waste dumps.

There is a lot of money in the organic movement, from donations and grants to commercial hustles, and that is what is driving it. The public is being misled and ripped off, and scarce research dollars are being funneled into dead ends.

[Tashca]

47. Two points you made.

It is a belief system. The problem is that it is for the most part an eaters belief system. It is not based on reality, but more of a utopian dream.

Second point you made is the money.....and in this case money does corrupt. I'm afraid that people trust that anyone involved in Organic.....just has to be honest. The true purist growers are the best people you could ever want to meet. It's the rest that are the problem. I worked my ass off trying to build an organic soybean processing business up. I tried to get growers and of course expand our base of organic egg and milk producers. It was a challenge.........then came the beans from China. Were they really organic???...who the hell knows. I suspect not, but it changed the business....we lost all our California customers. My brother is still trying, but I gave up. There are too many under the table dealings for me to be a part of. It's too bad because there are some wonderful people trying to make this go.

I haven't figured out the answers.....I've been working in Ag. production for 32 years both conventional and Organic. I do believe there in an answer.....it has to do with safe food.....environemntal stewardship....and a system that drives production to maximize these ends.

[Two Americas]

57. 35 years ago

I have been involved in agriculture for a long time. 35 years ago the organic movement was truly a great thing. Since then, family farmers, so called conventional growers, have steadily improved on food safety and sustainability. Today I never hesitate to eat fruit right off the tree. The improvements have been based on science, good science developed by conscientious and talented people in the agricultural colleges. Meanwhile the organic movement stays locked in the same ideas from 35 years ago, which were mostly idealized reactions to the excesses of large scale corporate agriculture. Today, I will not eat organic, because it is likely to be less safe, not more safe. There is no methodology there, no discipline, as the movement has become increasingly doctrinaire and spiritualist, as well as corrupted, and more and more divorced from real agriculture. It is easy to cheat, inspections are a joke, and imports with no reliable certification at all are pouring in.

That being said, it is not a black and white issue. I think that the organic approach for meat and dairy is excellent, for example. I know many small farmers who are doing a great job and attempting the organic model. Most sincere and conscientious growers, however, have abandoned it because they are first and foremost committed to sustainability and safety, and so many of the progressive "conventional" methods are much safer than organic.

I think we need a new model. Country of origin labeling is a step in the right direction, in my opinion. A strengthened and adequately financed public agriculture infrastructure is what is needed. Strict regulation and inspection of food imports is a must. Assistance to small farmers is needed. Increased public education. We have a historically unprecedented situation today, with such a large percentage of the popualtion being 3 or 4 generations or more removed from the farm, and divorced from their food supply and abysmally ignorant about farming and food. We need programs to encourage and train the next generation of farmers. We need a solution to the labor problems. we need to protect farmland from development.

One little example highlights everything that is wrong with organic. Why is copper - with all of the smelting and refining required - to be seen as "natural" and OK to use as a a toxic pesticide, while nitrate is seen as not natural and not OK for fertilizer?

[conscious evolution]

66. People use copper?

And call it organic?

Never heard that one before.

[Two Americas]

68. you have to do something

Pests have to be stopped somehow.

[omega minimo]

118. As hard as people work, this disinformation is totally shitty

" Today, I will not eat organic, because it is likely to be less safe, not more safe. "

"t is more of a belief system than it is an agricultural method. That is why it is so easy to cheat."

[Two Americas]

122. no call for this at all

I have been very patient with you. The points you are raising have already been addressed.

[omega minimo]

126. you mean "dismissed"

[dixiegrrrrl]

132. Amen to that.

[omega minimo]

74. This is not true

"It is a pleasant fantasy for the upscale few and a personal statement for people, but it has little if anything to do with the real world."

"There is a lot of money in the organic movement, from donations and grants to commercial hustles, and that is what is driving it. The public is being misled and ripped off, and scarce research dollars are being funneled into dead ends."


It has everything to do with the real world. There are people and businesses, gardens and farms, markets -- urban and suburban -- and customers (affluent or poor and in between) working to feed themselves in a healthy, live, non-toxic, affordable way, all over the country and the planet.

There is of course some truth to the points about marketing. Any product in a standard grocery store needs to have its label read to determine the actual ingredients. "Organic" is trendy now b/c of the great public interest in it. (See above).

There is a whole range of activity going on. Your blanket statements don't help or reflect the healthy affordable eating cause....

:hi: Come out West, we'll fix you a meal.

[Two Americas]

90. I am there right now

Surveying and talking to the growers, including the few who are attempting organic.

My life is dedicated to the healthy affordable eating cause.

I don't know how I could possibly be in the real world more than I am now when it comes to agriculture.

"Healthy, live, non-toxic, affordable" - absolutely. I am talking about how to get there, not whether or not those are worthy goals.

[omega minimo]

100. Excellent

:yourock:

[Two Americas]

104. big eye-opener

The PNWs like nothing I have seen anywhere else in the country. Extremely polarized, both politically and between the haves and the have nots. Nowhere in the country is there a weaker connection between farmers and the public. Really surprised me.

Seeing the fruit districts was interesting, but somewhat disappointing. Wenatchee and Yakima are the "Valhalla" of fruit growing, but I was amazed to see how dead in the water they are - victims of their own success I think - how little variety diversity there is, how dependent they are on irrigation, and I am not impressed by the quality of the fruit. They brag grab brag like a bunch of Texans, but I am not impressed by many things here. The tonnage they crank out is amazing, and the little micro-climates are interesting - peaches here, pears there, cherries in another place. The scale of everything is over the top. Those gigantic packing plants and CA storage facilities are a shocker. I kept thinking when I was touring them "this us just wrong" lol.

If you get over this direction Tiny's in East Wenatchee and Jerzy Boys in Chelan are good folks doing a good job with organic.

http://www.jerzyboyz.com/

http://www.ilovetiny.com/

Dennis and Mallory Carlton are a young couple who run Smallwood Farms and impressed me a lot. They are real farmers and have made the CSA and organic models support their farming, rather than the other way around as is usually the case. Great folks. They grow a whole bunch of heirloom peach varieties.

http://www.smallwoodfarms.net/index.html

Feils Orchard just north of Wenatchee on the east side of the river grows a couple of hundred heirloom apple varieties and is well worth a visit.

You might be interested in some photos I have taken of the area -

http://www.washingtonapplecountry.com/photos9.htm

http://www.washingtonapplecountry.com/photos10.htm

http://www.washingtonapplecountry.com/photos11.htm

http://www.washingtonapplecountry.com/photos12.htm

http://www.washingtonapplecountry.com/photos13.htm

http://www.washingtonapplecountry.com/photos14.htm

http://www.washingtonapplecountry.com/photos5.htm

http://www.washingtonapplecountry.com/photos4.htm

[dixiegrrrrl]

133. We used to drive 300 miles just to go to Tinys.

Back in the day....fromn Seattle area over the then 2 lane highway over the pass to E. Wash/wenatchee area.
Well, part of it was that back then a weekend drive was an affordable mini-vacation.

[Two Americas]

136. they do a nice job

Much easier to do organic here than in other parts of the country, because it is so amazingly dry. That then requires irrigation and that causes other environmental problems - leeching of chemicals from the ground, for example. That was a problem in the Central Valley in California, to the point that waterfowl were being killed off.

[pnutbutr]

67. organic meat?

What does that even mean? When buying meat from animals you want to be sure were treated well you have to do extensive research. Grass fed is the start, then you have to find out which specific farm it came from to determine their slaughter practices. Do they slaughter there on the premises or do they ship the cattle to a slaughterhouse. Is the slaughterhouse they are shipped to a factory where the cows are placed in troughs and force fed like the non grass fed cows are just prior to slaughter or is it also a grass fed as humane as can be slaughterhouse?

Anyone calling meat organic is selling you the same bs as the company selling those organic peanut products or the organic milk that gets dehydrated for shipping or the........

[Two Americas]

69. yes, it is kind of silly

The word just has no meaning.

[omega minimo]

75. it means something when you buy it from someone who has confirmed the background you point out.

:hi:

[NashVegas]

3. Would You Buy Something Called "EnviroKidz"? I Sure Wouldn't

Sorry, but those bars are all junk food, anyway.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

17. I'm an adult and I buy EnviroKidz stuff

It's much healthier for kids than regular kids cereals. The bars are quite good, and I wouldn't consider them junk.

[ogneopasno]

4. Not every ingredient has to be organic for the product to be labeled "organic." I can't remember the

actual percentage, but something labeled "organic" can have non-organic ingredients in it.

[uppityperson]

5. I think there is a % that can be non-organic in "organic" foods.

Thanks for the heads up on the product.

[conscious evolution]

6. The term organic was hijacked

by the big food corporations and agribusiness.One of the first things they did was change the definition of organic to mean whatever they want it to mean in regards to food ingredients.
The term 'natural' is what us little people call organic these days.Unfortunately it is only a matter of time before that one is co-opted also.
One thing for sure.Very few peanuts are grown naturally.

[XemaSab]

9. The term "natural" means nothing

I could sell pure mercury in a jar, and as long as it had a green label with the word "natural," some sucker would buy it.

[Tashca]

10. I agree

Their are no guidelines that I know of to label something natural.....there are guidelines for organic....

[KamaAina]

15. Mercury is natural

it's right there in the periodic table.

Bad for you? Sure -- but since it isn't synthetic, it's "natural". :eyes:

[Posteritatis]

16. These days you could spin strange alien substances from beyond the stars as natural

Obsessing over labels like "natural" or "organic" (or their opposites; I never tire of people complaining about "unnatural" things on the Internet) doesn't do much to solve any problems.

Getting enough useful skepticism into peoples' heads that they wouldn't fall for the exact scheme you describe - and I'm certain there'd be folks who'd do so on account of "it's natural so that means it's healthy!" - is the better reaction, but it gets in the way of folks' nice, fun kneejerks these days. Bah.

[conscious evolution]

52. It may not mean anything to you

But for many growers who understand the fact that the organic label has been co-opted the word natural has become the word used to describe growing food in ways consistant with what organic was understood to mean twentyfive or so years ago.
It seems to be a fairly recent shift in the language.I only started hearing the term used in the last year or so.Seems to an example of how languages change and evolve over time.

Myself,I would label the mercury as natural poison.

[Tashca]

7. Whoops

They let that slip.....

next thing they might let slip is how many of those so called organic grains in snack foods are from China.....of course they do have several thousand years more experience at it.

We have to have a safe food supply.....I don't know what the answer is, but assuming labeling something organic makes it safe is not a safe assumption.

[Lost in CT]

48. Organic has nothing to do with safety. It is a label for those that are

against pesticides etc for political reasons...

It's not like the food itself is any different.

[Two Americas]

60. organic uses pesticides heavily

Organic orchards spray much more often and use more dangerous chemicals. The toxins approved for organic are supposedly "natural" - that is the only criteria, such as it is - and are often much more persistent and harder on the environment then what the farmers are using.

You make a good point about the food not being different. "Organic" and "conventional" food is indistinguishable.

Organic is a belief system among people who have little knowledge and no experience in farming about how farming "should" be done based on naive and primitivist fantasies. Claiming that the food itself is somehow better or different is a sales and marketing hustle.

[omega minimo]

120. Okay who did you say you shi-- i mean work for?

"Organic is a belief system among people who have little knowledge and no experience in farming about how farming "should" be done based on naive and primitivist fantasies. Claiming that the food itself is somehow better or different is a sales and marketing hustle."

:puke: that's just irresponsible BS while pretending to be knowledgable and experienced?! :crazy:

[omega minimo]

119. of course the food itself is different

:rofl:

[tangent90]

8. Don't be a label sucker. Anything edible (healthful or not) is organic.

The reverse is not true, however; not everything organic is edible.

[TygrBright]

13. No. Salt is not organic.

Salt is a mineral.

helpfully,
Bright

[tangent90]

23. Argh. Yes, it is. (a mineral)

And so it's edible...which technically means it can be eaten but then dog shit by that standard is edible too, nu?
:crazy: :silly:
:D
edit to clarify I was agreeing with you, not saying it's 'organic'

gotta be real keerful 'round herebouts
:D

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

18. Maybe on a pure scientific level, but there is a difference between organic and non-organic food

Personally, I prefer mine sans pesticides, hormones and antibiotics. That whole not eating poison thing, you know?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Two Americas]

71. pesticides

There is no such thing as food grown without pesticides. We eat pesticides every time we eat food, because almost all crops produce their own pesticides, and those pesticides are usually more dangerous then anything that farmers use. It is a question of concentrations. Every crop contains compounds that are deadly, though, in sufficient concentration.

Current state of the art - everywhere except in organic - is to analyze the naturally occurring pesticides, synthesize them, and use them so we are working with and not against the natural process. There are many other great things going on. For example, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have access for the first time to the primeval fruit forests in Kazakhstan - where all of our fruit originates. The trees there have developed natural pest and disease resistance over the centuries, and researchers from Cornell have brought back tens of thousands of seeds and cutting and have an experimental orchard going now in Ithaca. Studying those trees, and propagating them, may solve many of the pest and disease control issues with fruit. Sort of a "do over."

The progressive people throughout the farming community - and there are thousands of us - share the goals of the organic movement, but know now that the method - such as it is - will never work. It has become a belief system, and a sales and marking hustle.

Hormones are a different and bigger concern, in my opinion.

[conscious evolution]

83. Hormones are a different and bigger concern

I once dated a pharmacist.I learned real quick to get out the popcorn when someone mentioned the hormones being used in Dairy cattle to improve yields.
Anyone mentioning the subject instantly got a cliff notes lecture on the dangers of the stuff.
Anyone who persitsted in defending the practice got the full blown chemistry course.

Since the few defenders where usually pukes it was a pleasure and joy to watch her shred them.

[Two Americas]

105. mostly the hazards are not fully known

Too many things are being rushed to market by the corporations, circumventing the testing and inspection process by the public agencies. We are heading into unknown territory in too many cases with unknown hazards. But that is not about farmers nor is it a farming issue. It is a political issue. In every industry corporations have overwhelmed or corrupted and sabotaged the government agencies charged with protecting the public. Consumer choice and organic advocacy will never solve that problem. I think that is making things worse.

If we could get everyone here onboard with putting public welfare first, reigning in finance, restoring the public infrastructure, that would be the shortest path to better food safety and sustainable farming. Instead we have many here who want to prop back up Wall Street and the banks, who reach for privatized solutions, and who take a personal choice libertarian individual consumer approach to food safety issues, who are talking about "green entrepreneurship" and "green investing." That reinforces and supports the right wing agenda, and that leads to further destruction of the public infrastructure and that is a threat to public health and to the environment.

[Shakespeare]

139. It's a damn shame the organics v. biodynamics subthread got deleted.

We had a very interesting debate going; I'd love to know what happened that caused it to be deleted. There was a lot of really good info posted by both sides of the debate, and it was posted in a totally civil manner.

That's just sad.

[omega minimo]

41. including pesticides, wax, fumigants, coloring.........?

[Two Americas]

72. those issues

Waxing fruit is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't like it, and I don't like CA storage either - mostly for aesthetic reasons, and also because it supports the wrong approach in my opinion. But neither one is a serious public health risk, if at all. I want to see restoration of a broader range of varieties, local varieties, and more seasonal marketing, and more support for smaller scale more diversified farming. But so long as the public demands perfect looking produce year 'round, we can hardly blame the farmers for responding to that demand.

Pesticides are impossible to avoid. The biggest source of pesticides is the plants themselves. The toxicologists are the ones to talk to about this. There is no such thing as a completely safe world - that exists mostly in the fantasies of modern pampered American suburbanites, divorced from their food supply and profoundly ignorant about farming and food, and molecules have no political opinions. Pesticide use that endangers the public is a political, not a farming issue. We need to restore the public agriculture infrastructure that the right wingers have been dismantling, increase research and inspection, and fund the needed programs to protect public health.

The organic movement is a suburban movement, and it gets everything backward. It is suburbia that is unsustainable and toxic, not farming. That is where the problems originate - so many people to feed who are not pulling their weight. So many people so ignorant about food and demanding things like color, size, year 'round availability, and requiring massive transportation and storage infrastructure to keep them all fed. Farming should not be forced to adapt to suburbia, suburbia should be forced to adapt to the realities of feeding the public. rather than advocating the suburbanization of farm land, we should be advocating converting suburbs back to farming.

[omega minimo]

76. pesticides, wax, fumigants, coloring are used by the same misleading marketing megaindustry

pesticides, wax, fumigants, coloring are used by the same misleading marketing megaindustry you critique, to make produce appear fresh and ripe, after being megafarmed, picked green and shipped all over.

Anyone -- rich, poor, urban, suburban -- who has tasted and has access to fresh produce that doesn't need injections and makeup, has flavor and health benefits, without added chemicals that harm the body and environment will choose the tasty, healthful quality product.


"Pesticide use that endangers the public is a political, not a farming issue. We need to restore the public agriculture infrastructure that the right wingers have been dismantling, increase research and inspection, and fund the needed programs to protect public health."


Actually, it is a farming issue. Those who can't wait for a top down approach from a compromised system and business interests addicted to petroleum based products have already found alternatives to "protect public health." that includes supporting farmers markets and seeking out high quality, organic foods.

Many people don't realize that the health and beauty products industry is not regulated for health and safety by the FDA at all. That system needs an overhaul. Meanwhile, what kind of insanity/greed/evil perpetrated that on the public? Toxic products approved by the government for use in and on the body.


"The organic movement is a suburban movement, and it gets everything backward."

That claim may be how it looks from Detroit, but it's not applicable to the whole "organic movement" at all.

"So many people so ignorant about food and demanding things like color, size, year 'round availability, and requiring massive transportation and storage infrastructure to keep them all fed."

There you're describing the conventional produce available in conventional markets. People who care about flavor and health don't expect -- and don't want -- a "wrapped in plastic" look/feel. They seek out quality -- seasonally -- and it looks alive, not "perfect."


"Rather than advocating the suburbanization of farm land, we should be advocating converting suburbs back to farming."

Absolutely. We advocate preserving farmland and not putting tract homes in floodplains.

:thumbsup:

[Two Americas]

81. just was at Stemilt

Stemilt is the world's largest apple packer. They are probably the ultimate in "marketing megaindustry" in the world of fruit. I know them. They are farmers, a family operation, and have gone into large production, import and export, CA storage, limited varieties, size and color as a priority, and other things in order to respond to consumers and to survive. I don't like that, I think it is going the wrong direction, but I sure can't blame them.

This "addicted to petroleum products" is nonsense. The use of petroleum products in farming does not support farming, it supports suburbanization - people moving away from the farm. The farmers would be happy to go back to mules, and nothing would change. What would change is that we could no longer support the 97% of the population that has moved away from the farm to do whatever it is they do in that environment. That is historically unprecedented.

If we ran out of oil farming would not collapse, suburbia would.

I am am expert on fruit nutrition, flavor, varieties, freshness, seasons and regions, and would be happy to go into that in more detail.

You say "people who care about flavor and health..." as opposed to other people. The commitment in farming is that ALL people get the best flavor, nutrition and safety. All. Not just those enlightened few. You are advocating a consumer choice driven approach. That is the problem, that is what caused the problems and it can never be a solution. It is alsi a politically reactionary free market linertarian approach. Where does "educating" the public - so that they share your tastes - end, and where does marketing begin? I do not understand why any progressives or Democrats would act as unpaid shills for private interests, at the expense of support for our public agricultural infrastructure.

Those who "can't wait" for a "top down approach" and who demand that they get their tastes and preferences catered to now and that they have personal choices need to start voting Republican in my opinion. Government supervision and regulation of the food supply for the benefit of all of the people is not "top down" it is the essence of the approach to public policy and politics that is not right wing and libertarian.

Detroit? WTF? I have worked and lived in farm country for years, and even when I lived in Detroit spent most of my time in farming country. Detroit is populated by working people who are refugees from farming communities around the world.

Had you said "Seattle" I would agree with you. That is the urban area that has the highest concentration of people who do not have a clue about agriculture, in my experience, yet who have the most rigid doctrines and strongest opinions about farming.


...

[omega minimo]

91. Is your particular POV still blinding you?

:shrug:

The reference to petroleum based products was a reference to the chemical products used on the ground and the plants -- and to the industry that is dependent on the use of those products.


"You say "people who care about flavor and health..." as opposed to other people."

If you'll notice, my posts were extremely inclusive of all walks of life and locale. The dichotomy is yours. :hi:


"The commitment in farming is that ALL people get the best flavor, nutrition and safety. All. Not just those enlightened few."

That's a good goal, but what's with the attitude? See comment above and read my descriptions without picturing what you already have in your head. "Enlightened few"? Speaking of WTF.


The rest of your posts' assumptions don't make any sense and it seems you're able to hold "both" sides of your perceived argument all by yourself. I'm not "advocating" whatever you said, I'm describing reality as it exists for people that make the effort to seek out what they need, a variety of needs, a variety of solutions, a variety of people in a variety of locations.


IMHO it's healthiest to not make either/or the goal, b/c people have different options and opportunitities... so when DU has discussions about health, food, avoiding Made In China, etc., I encourage people to not think it's All or Nothing.


Detroit is listed in your profile. Ooops.


Seattle "is the urban area that has the highest concentration of people who do not have a clue about agriculture, in my experience, yet who have the most rigid doctrines and strongest opinions about farming. "

Seattle has fresh blueberries, mmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Two Americas]

103. fertilizer

"The reference to petroleum based products was a reference to the chemical products used on the ground and the plants -- and to the industry that is dependent on the use of those products."

Again, it is the eaters living away from the farm that are "dependent on the use of those products" not farmers.

Yes, some of the methods for making fertilizer come from petroleum. The growers in my area have all gone to manure, though, because of cost considerations. There are always trade offs, and this means increased risk from pathogens. But it is cost driven, and the reason for that is to support the eaters, not the farmers - to keep food prices low.

Science does not depend upon people having the right "attitude" and science is the way to assess toxicology and sustainability. No spirituality needed.

If my posts do not make sense to you, that is because you are not up to speed on agriculture. Anyone who is would understand everything I have posted.

[omega minimo]

116. well, you're the know it all.

[Two Americas]

124. why the insults?

We all have areas in which we are knowledgeable.

[omega minimo]

127. I thought that was a compliment

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. Job # 1, 028,000,000 for Obama man...

putting teeth in food labling laws
(pun intended).

Appreciate the insightful responses to this post. Thanks.

[Lost in CT]

14. Who said the peanuts were not organic?

Salmonella is more probable on organically grown fruits and vegetables.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

19. Links?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Here.

How about an explanation on why the peanuts aren't organic?

http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/fecal-contamination.cfm

[Tashca]

25. Storage is a challenge

I have never worked with peanuts personally. I have worked with organic soybean processing and organic chicken feed. There is a tremendous challenge to follow organic standards in trying to keep mice and rats out of the storage of these products. Obviously you can not use the same poisons that you can with conventional. It takes a much higher level of management and is not impossible.....but does present unique challenges.

As far as that article....you do understand that the Avery's ...Alex and Dennis work for the Hudson institute. They are both spokesman for the Ag. sectorin Hudson. They are funded by the multinational agri firms......they are hired to write papers in the favor of their sponsors...I don't trust one freaking word that comes from either of them. They are wonderful word-smiths, but easily debunked.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. The Journal of Food Protection is a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

"They are wonderful word-smiths, but easily debunked."

By all means... debunk the article.

[Tashca]

29. I'm curious

Have you ever had the opportunity to hear them speak??
I have....it's not what they say....it's what they don't say. They are wonderful spin meisters. If you want to trust them.....have at it!!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Hear who speak?

[Tashca]

31. The Avery's..

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. No.

But they're irrelevant to the discussion.

[Tashca]

34. you brought them up

They are quoted in the article you posted a link for. The point counter point article....

Never mind.....I have a feeling we are arguing semantics here.....we quite possibly are closer in agreement than it appears...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. Actually, no.

I just brought up that organic foods are more likely to contain actual shit.

You're the one interested in the Averys.

[Tashca]

38. Maybe you should read the articles you post

might save confusion.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. I did.

A person asked for evidence that organic foods are more likely to be contaminated with salmonella.

I posted an article discussing a scientific article about how organic foods are more likely to be contaminated with shit. The article also discusses some people named Avery, who apparently are attempting to exploit the findings.

That really doesn't have anything to do with anything though.


Might want to can the red herrings.

[Gormy Cuss]

43. Since you seem interested in this study, link to the longitudinal study article in the same journal

The Organic Consumers site doesn't have a link to the full text of the article discussed in that point- counterpoint page. Here's the followup article on the two year results.
http://www.misa.umn.edu/sites/2e889d49-6a82-4b7e-8d7a-c1c383aa1d65/uploads/Mukherjee_et_al._2006_Longitudinal_survey.pdf

[Tashca]

44. Interesting read

I read most and skimmed some.

First off this is about fresh fruit and vegetables and not peanuts....each presenting different challenges.

The results if I read correctly really show no difference between the three different farm scenario's. There is some belief that manure's might have impact on food contamination. They didn't appear to be able to prove that to be true or false. I would like to see a study using fresh or composted manure to compare. I could take a sentence or two from the study and condemn either organic or non-organic. The study needs to be presented in full.

Basically what I took away was the absolute need to wash the produce before consumption no matter if organic or non-organic..

Thank you for the information

[Gormy Cuss]

46. I think it's not a bad guess to suspect that the "semi-organic" growers are using fresher manure.

But it is a guess and beyond the study findings. The study scope was really on a small subset of crops and had other limitations but yes, someone who isn't a careful reader or who is trying to promote an agenda can cherry pick a few lines in this report, and apparently in the earlier one where controls over the organic status were weaker (self-reporting rather than certification)it was even easier for someone to describe organic produce as a 'crapshoot.'

[NashVegas]

45. Hudson Institute? HAHAHA

There's not a single issue that's dear to progressives they won't attempt to refute and trash.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

26. That talks about e. coli, he mentioned salmonella

And, I didn't say the peanuts weren't organic, please show where I said they weren't organic.

You're reaching even more than usual this evening.

Oh, and that's a bogus source. Show me something neutral.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Actually, it talks about fecal matter.

Which is a vector for salmonella.

"Oh, and that's a bogus source. Show me something neutral."

The article cites a neutral source.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

33. It's not a neutral source, see the other response on the article

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. The Journal of Food Protection is not a neutral source?

In what respect, Charlie?

[elizfeelinggreat]

63. At the top of your link:

Note to reader: The two news articles on this page represent differing viewpoints in regards to organics and are a part of OCA's new "Point/Counterpoint" series, providing readers with an opportunity to view arguments from both proponents and opponents of the organic industry.

Point (article #1): "Organic Food Has 'Significantly Higher' Contamination"

Counterpoint (article #2): "Study Confirms Safety of Organic Food But Agrichemical Front Group Attempts to Twist Findings"

The bold is mine. Did you read your own link?

[Tumbulu]

49. that is not what is what your link is about (nt)

[conscious evolution]

50. Most likely not

There may have been some but the vast majority would have been grown using pesticides,chemical fertilizers and herbicides.
Use of such growing methods is pretty much standard practice here in Georgia.
There may be some farmers growing peanuts without using chemicals but I would imagine they are few and far between in any large scale operation.Remember,this is red state Georgia where the majirity of peanuts are grown,People in the boonies don't take to well to crackpot ideas from long haired commie hippy freaks like organic farming.

Question-I'm not very familar with how salmonella is transmitted at the farm level.What is it that makes fruits and veggies more sucseptable than peanuts?Does the fact that peanuts grow underground make a difference?

[Lost in CT]

51. It's the fertilizer and the field workers... for salmonella you basically need shit.

Now if your farm hands are crapping in the fields that will do it...

If you are not using chemicals but instead "natural" fertilizer that will do it to.

One of the reasons to use artificial fertilizer is to avoid disease. (Whether farmers realized that when it first was used is questionable however)

[conscious evolution]

55. Farm hands crapping in the fields.

I can see that happening occasionally but not too often.Peanut farming is mainly mechanized and as a result very few people are actually in the fields for very long as they would be for a crop that required hand picking.
Even if someone did take a dump in a field it would only contaimanate maybe a half a pound of peanuts at most.
Would that be enough to contaimanate so much paste?
Remember,peanuts grow underground and are in a hard shell.Seems like it would be a pretty tough gauntlet the salmonella would have to run.

As for fertilizers very few farmers use natural fertilizers.Using chemical based fertilizers,along with pesticides and herbicides, is pretty much the norm here on most farms.The backyard gardner is most likely the one to be using manure and other natural fertilizers.

[Two Americas]

59. deer "go" in the fields

So do badgers, squirrels, foxes, porcupines, mice, skunks, opposums and on and on.

Farming is long hours in season, and it is outdoors - for everybody working on farming. Much of it may seem yucky to pampered suburbanites - where do they think their shit goes when they flush? - but that reflects their own gentrified sensibilities and prejudices, not anything wrong with farming.

The contamination comes from the processing and packaging process.

[blindpig]

62. Eat mo' dirt.

The fanatical cleanliness fetish, largely the result of intensive advertising, makes us less healthy. People simply have no resistance to organisms which they have never been exposed to. Perhaps it's just me but it seems that kids get sick more often than they used to. Consumerism makes us sick.

For a somewhat extreme example, due to the company I have kept over the decades(turtles) I have been very intimate with salmonella, probably swallowed at least a quart of funky turtle water over the years. I do not have stomach ailments, don't get the shits, eat whatever the fuck I like including rare meat & raw shellfish.

An example to you all.:D

[conscious evolution]

64. Don't forget the wild pigs

Not only do they shit in the fields they also root the peanuts up.

You must have misread my posts.I was pretty much saying the same thing as far as the contaimanation point is concerned.While I recognize the fact that there is a possibility of contamaination in the fields imo the salmonella came from the processing plant.
I have been in the processing plants many times.Of all the different food processing facilitys I have been in peanut plants are second only to poultry plants in regards to their lack of interest if not down right disregard for sanitation and rodent infestation problems.Especially rodents.Mice luvs them peanuts.

I know what you mean about the hours.Periods of big bursts of activity followed by lots of waiting and preparing for the next all hands on deck get er done period.Sort of like being in the military in a way.

[Xithras]

106. Deer have been identified as the causes of multiple outbreaks.

IIRC, there was an apple juice outbreak in New York years ago that killed several kids and was traced to deer. The deer walked into the orchard, crapped all over the place, and infected some of the apples. Those apples became juice, which was consumed by children, who died as a result.

Farm fields are generally unfenced, and unfenced farms are crossed by animals and trespassing humans regularly. It only takes one infected crap to potentially set off an outbreak.

[Two Americas]

107. every day occurrence

There is no way to stop crap. Birds, for example cannot be fenced out. Besides, using manure is the intentional introduction of crap and is a good practice.

Proper handling and washing of produce is the solution.

Compared to a hundred years ago or so, the incidence of food borne pathogens and related disease and death is almost non-existent. That is the direct result of public inspection and regulation - a political issue, not farming methods.

Americans had come to take food safety for granted. Then the right wingers started dismantling the public infrastructure, and as a result we have an upswing in food borne pathogens related illness.

[Tashca]

111. Quick question

When you reference the dismantling of public infrastructure.....are you referring to government inspections and oversight??

How should it be set up better??....I happen to agree with you....just curious as to how you think it should be done or at least how to start?

[Two Americas]

113. thanks Tashca

Here are the main areas, all of which have been under assualt by the right wingers.

Inspection - food safety inspection, thanks to "de-regulation" and cutting of funding by the right wingers, is in a shambles now. Most food producers are still following the old regulations, out of habit and from being conscientious, but inspection is almost non-existent. Also, we are deluged with questionable imports that are getting virtually no inspection.

Research and outreach - the system of land grant colleges was established by the federal government at public expense for the purpose of supporting agriculture and advancing public health. They are all strapped for finds, and taking food industry corporate money for research projects. We need to get the private interests out of the loop and restore public funding.

Standards - quality and safety standards have eroded and become muddled. We need one set of standards that apply to all food. This has traditionally been the task of the USDA, but we now have a corrupted, politicized and incompetent FDA butting in and making a mess of things.

Public education - the public is now relying on hucksters and marketers for their food information. We have some from the corporate food corporations and we have some from "alternative" perspectives, each with an agenda and each spreading self-serving misinformation. we need increased funding for USDA and state education projects. This is especially important since for the first time in history the majority of the population is divorced from their food supply and living off of the farm.

End the punishment model - historically, the public agencies worked with the growers and food processors to establish best practices. The job of the inspector was to help you get into compliance and adopt best practices, not catch you and punish you. The right wingers have succeeded in applying the punishment model to all areas of public policy, and this has failed miserably. The punishment model leads to more, not less infractions since it sets up an adversarial relationship between the authorities and the citizens. The bad actors go punished, while the good people are harassed and terrorized. The right wingers do not care if social problems get solved. they just want to be punishing and terrorizing as many people as possible.

Surplus food programs - the government has a long standing program of buying surplus produce, and distributing it to schools and other public institutions and poverty programs. This needs to be restored and expanded. At it is, crops are going on the ground, while imports are pouring in and poor people are struggling to get food.

Support for small farmers and specialty crops - a start on this was recently achieved, thanks to the Democratic Congress. We now have subsidies going to fruit, vegetable and nut production, rather than exclusively to row crops which indirectly subsidizes the meat industry. Also, subsidies were all going to big players, many of whom were not even farmers. We now have a cap on payments, which will free up finds for smaller farmers. This will stop some of the gaming of the system that has been happening.

Other things that are needed:

Farm credit - Farm credit has stabilized finance in agriculture since the New Deal, and they are today immune from the credit crunch and financial meltdown that is happening everywhere else, where finance is de-regulated and has run amok. Expanding the programs would be an easy way to encourage new farmers, and protect valuable farm land.

Arrest the loss of farmland - Restrictions on development of farmland is needed. We zone like crazy in urban areas and restrict development, and there is no reason this cannot be done with farmland.

Anti-monopoly regulations - vertical monopolies, one company owning everything from the feed lot to the packing house, is reducing competition and diversity, creating CAFO nightmares, and giving too few people too much clout and control over the food supply. Also, too much of the food supply system in general is controlled by too few people.

Regulate the futures markets - the idea of futures markets was to see farmers through the winter. Food buyers could pledge money on the coming year's crop. But thanks to de-regulation, we have bog money players gaming the system who have no intention of buying food but are trying to exploit the system to make quick profits. This is what drove the gasoline prices up, and the same thing can happen to food if we are not careful.


...

[Tashca]

131. Wow

You have put some major thought into this. I really appreciate your response. I'm not going to go through line by line right now because of something called a job...and it's calling.

Much of what I see here seems to be shaped or influenced by the New Deals policies or maybe Henry Wallace's Ag. department. I see many new ideas too.

The land grant issue is major. Nothing is going to change until public monies are directed there. Researchers would love to again be able to have the ability to do their work freely without industry influence. I would love that too. Maybe we could finally get some good research on alternative Ag production.

Vertical integration.......that is so damagiing..you are spot on there.

I could go on and on but time doesn't allow me. I do believe the guiding principle has to be a safe food supply first. You outline many ways to achieve that. I worry that the consumer will not be in this discussion. I worry that most of the influence will come from the production and supply industry. My question......how do we get the most important aspect people (the consumer) more involved in this discussion? I don't see major change unless it is demanded.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!!

[Two Americas]

135. changing demographics

We see agriculture as solely the concern of farmers - down to 7% of the population - and they have no political clout. But farming, and ag policy has always been about the eaters, not the growers. The farmers respond to public demand. Sadly, the organic movement has created and adversarial relationship between the family farmers and the public, while the corporations that are corrupting and destroying the ag infrastructure go untouched. That is why I say that the organic movement has become politically reactionary and rests on and promotes all of the fundamental principles of Reaganomics.

There is much research happening on alternative safer methods, and always has been. Scarce ag research dollars diverted to organic are not used to find safer methods, but rather for promoting the organic belief system to the public. That hurts everyone.

[Two Americas]

58. the myths and prejudices

Organic farms "spray."

Organic farms use pesticides.

Organic growers use "chemicals" - often very dangerous chemicals in extremely high concentrations and requiring very frequent application.

Organic farming is hard on the soil.

Organic growing uses deadly toxins that are liable to be transferred on the food.

Organic farms today, after 30 plus years of relentless propaganda, and much higher market prices, and much subsidy, still can only feed a fraction of 1% of the population. It is just not a serious player, nor a legitimate methodology. It is not happening, and I believe never will happen.

Farming is not liberal or conservative. If anything, it is one of the most socialized industries in the country.

You are repeating all sorts of prejudices and myths here.

Farmers, be they socialists or Republicans, do not take well to arrogant and ignorant and doctrinaire suburbanites telling them how to farm. That has nothing to do with "long haired commie hippy freaks."

Salmonella is not commonly a packing issue, not a farming issue.

The "standard practice" of your imagination, and the idea that Georgia farmers use different methods than farmers anywhere else because it is a red state, is just plain ill-informed and false.

[conscious evolution]

61. My knowledge comes from

working on the family farm growing peanuts,soy, and tobacco as a youth.A family farm that raised peanuts for several decades/generations of the nearly three centuries of family who grew up on that farm.

And your knowledge of peanut farming in Georgia comes from where?

[Two Americas]

70. OK

So Georgia has no department of agriculture? The department of agriculture in Georgia is inferior to those in other states? The USDA is inoperative in Georgia? The farmers pick and choose their farming methods to match their politics? Pest management is for some reason different in Georgia then it is in the rest of the country?

I didn't talk about peanut, soy, or tobacco cultivation at all.

My area is deciduous fruit, and my knowledge about Georgia comes from working with the ag department there and working with the fruit growers in northern Georgia.

[conscious evolution]

86. The county extension agent

was here the other day.
Pretty smart guy.And if he can't answer a question he knows who has the answer.

Peaches?
I remember grading a reefer full of them once.It was a long time before I could eat a peach after that.

[Two Americas]

87. are you still on the farm?

I have a lot of memories of picking cherries when I was a kid, I remember being sick of them for a while lol.

Michigan was once a big peach producer - the Elberta variety is named for a town in Michigan - nut a big freeze in 1916 killed all of the trees, and it is still very small scale today. No one wants to take the risk. Apples and tart cherries are much more cold hardy.

[conscious evolution]

96. Not that farm

Considering moving to it though.My uncle is getting old and it looks like no one else in the family wants it.

Currently I live next to a landtrust in downtown Atlanta.We have about five acres of land with about three and a half of it undercultivation.The other acre and a half has an amphitheater,sauna,picnic pavilion and playgrounds.We are also acquiring more land.
Basicly its a mini farm in the city owned and operated by a bunch of us hippys.There are about twenty of us who work the place-mostly part time.
We grow a wide variety of tomatoes,squashes,eggplants,greens,lettuces and peanuts.We also have blueberrys,blackberrys,pomegranetes,figs and bananas.
In addition we also have chickens,goats and an emu(pretty useless bird,imo,but the kids like him).

We use no fertilizers except for manure from the chickens and goats.And that gets mixed into woodchips for composting.Its a long time before it gets mixed into the growing beds.
We use no herbicides whatsoever.We dump woodchips between the rows to cut down on the weeds.
We use no pesticides whatsoever whether it is "conventional" or "organic".What we use instead is mixing in plants that use their own built-in pesticides to deter insects.It seems to work because we haven't had any major insect problems.The only crop where we have experienced infestation has been cabbage.Our solution for that was to quit growing it.
What we do have is rats.Kind of hard to escape them in a big city.Nieghborhood cats plus wild hawks,eagles and owls seem to be keeping their numbers down though.We also have an abundance of squirrels but they seem to be content to stick with acorns and the sacrificial sunflowers we plant for them.

As for our yields its kinda hard to figure it out.I do know that out of one 15' by 20' plot I was harvesting about two bushels of a mixed variety of tomatoes and a bushel or two of eggplant and squash every week.I have no idea how much others were taking out of the same plot.Maybe another half bushel of each?

When the county agent was here it was his first visit.He flipped out.He could not believe a bunch of hippys had managed to put such a place together.He wasn't here ten minutes before he was asking if he could use the place as a venue for some sort of growers convention he is helping to organize.

We area also working on getting 501c3 status as an educational facility for urban growing.That should be coming thru in a couple of months.

[Two Americas]

108. that is all great stuff conscious evolution

Thanks for telling me about that. I am very interested in urban farming. Great to hear about your success. Very exciting. I would love to get down there and see what you are doing.

If you have any interest in going back to the family farm, I sure would encourage you. We sure need new farmers and there are a lot of advantages to living on the farm. But your urban farming project is great, too.

[Tashca]

110. Very impressive story.

I have to admit I am more than alittle jealous of you and your fellow hippy's.
I would love to be involved in a project like that. Your yields sound pretty good to me. It's hard to tell exactly but some quick calculations make it appear very good.
I've never been a fan of wood chips in vegetable production. You have to do what you have to do though. The wood takes quite a bit of biological energy to break down. Once the soil biota is set up it works fine. Sometimes it has a tendency to tie up nutrients until everything is balanced. Your soil maybe different.
Thank you for sharing!!

[conscious evolution]

112. Over twenty years worth

of woodchips.
When the place started up it was bare clay covered with kudzu and junk.Took years to clean it all up from what I am told.They would clean up an area then dump woodchips then move to the next area.We are still doing that as a matter of fact.Chickens and goats kept the weeds and insects at bay in addition their droppings helped the composting process.People were also buying baitworms and setting them loose.Kitchen compost was continually added to the mix.
It took a lot of work but it was worth it.

[Two Americas]

77. here you go

The Southern Region IPM Center, in conjunction with the University Of Georgia, is your source for learning about farming practices in Georgia and toxicology, sustainability, and food safety issues. They are doing some great work.

"The Southern Region Integrated Pest Management Center (SRIPMC) fosters the development and adoption of IPM, a science-based approach to managing pests in ways that generate economic, environmental and human health benefits. We work in partnership with stakeholders from agricultural, urban and rural settings to identify and address regional priorities for research, education and outreach."

http://www.sripmc.org/ipm_states.cfm?state=GA

Public agriculture infrastructure, public health, public solutions, science based, standards and regulation. That is what we want to support, not free market "choice" models, not the imposition of fantasies and upscale agendas on farming.

[omega minimo]

78. That's true

"Farmers, be they socialists or Republicans, do not take well to arrogant and ignorant and doctrinaire suburbanites telling them how to farm."

Farmers have figured out the marketing aspect on their own. People want fresh, healthy affordable foods. The explosion of popularity of farmers markets is indicative. When more people found out what the megafarm industry does to their food, they looked elsewhere. The misuse of marketing terms and the efforts in Congress to water down the terms so they were meaningless, misleading and impossible for small farmers to use (the terms discredited or the farmers priced out of megafarm size testing programs) benefits the megaindustry.

At the farmers market, anyone can buy good food, fresh food, organic food -- including "arrogant and ignorant and doctrinaire suburbanites" -- and talk to the farmer about how it's grown.

Your attitude about where this worldwide and traditional movement is coming from ("arrogant and ignorant and doctrinaire suburbanites") seems to "have nothing to do with the real world."

[Two Americas]

85. they are not supposed to be marketers

Let's make the marketers grow their own food, instead of forcing farmers to become marketers. That would contribute more to society.

Putting everything on the "free market" and forcing everyone to market themselves is pure libertarian doctrine and contradictory to every principle or the political Left and the Democratic party.

Farmers markets are a drop in the bucket, do not support farmers, and are mostly an upscale trend and fad. The old farmers markets, the real ones, have become dominated by hustlers, brokers and part timers. I understand that in a few locations - Portland, Seattle, San Franciso and to some extent in New England there are exceptions to this. But again, that is supported by a narrow and upscale demographic and does not scale up. Michigan leads the nation is roadside stands and fruit stands and farm markets run by the individual farmers, and that is vastly more effective and sustainable model. Hundreds of times more fresh produce is moved that way, and to a much more diverse public.

In the Pacific Northwest, there is very little direct farm marketing going on in comparison - shockingly little - but a small subset of agriculture has arisen to cater to the upscale markets, and they are almost completely separate from the mainstream farming community - bitterly antagonistic, actually. That is not healthy, socially or politically, is not scalable, and sets up a two tier food system - one for the peasants and one for the beautiful progressives. It also sets up a two tier farm system - one for the workaday farmers who are feeding the people, and one for the better capitalized few who cater to upscale tastes.

In that aristocratic two tier system that has developed in the PNW, the peasants and the workaday farmers will always suffer, and never be able to compete on the "free market" for public attention, and for investments and grants and political clout, with the few who have more access to resources and less demands placed on them for performance and less commitment to agriculture. Again the tail is wagging the dog. That threatens public welfare.

It is not true that small farmers are "priced out of megafarm size testing programs." For one thing, testing is done at the research stations and ag colleges for the most part. The "size" of the tests is irrelevant, and they don't cost anything. I visit small farms every day that are involved in testing projects, experimenting with new varieties, etc.

[omega minimo]

94. Farmers markets are worldwide

"Farmers markets are a drop in the bucket, do not support farmers, and are mostly an upscale trend and fad. "

Farmers markets are worldwide, available to anyone in the vicinity, support farmers and have been a tradition since forever.



It is not true that small farmers are "priced out of megafarm size testing programs."

The farmers say it is true, unable to sell organic produce to larger shopping markets due to testing programs (for marketing purposes) that price them out, due to their smaller volume.



"In the Pacific Northwest, there is very little direct farm marketing going on in comparison - shockingly little - but a small subset of agriculture has arisen to cater to the upscale markets, and they are almost completely separate from the mainstream farming community - bitterly antagonistic, actually. That is not healthy, socially or politically, is not scalable, and sets up a two tier food system - one for the peasants and one for the beautiful progressives. It also sets up a two tier farm system - one for the workaday farmers who are feeding the people, and one for the better capitalized few who cater to upscale tastes".



Points well taken. And sometimes the "beautiful progressives" can be narcissistic pains in the ass. In fact, some sub/urban yuppies shop our farmers market, demanding, rude and disrespectful to the farmers and other customers. I went to the first meeting of this area's Slow Food movement years ago, and the woman who started it made it very chi chi and yuppie and un-fun.

That's not the whole picture, though. Not everywhere, right?

[Two Americas]

109. yes

"Farmers markets are worldwide, available to anyone in the vicinity, support farmers and have been a tradition since forever."

Agreed. I am not dismissing the concept. I am talking about what is actually happening now in this country in most regions. The better growers do not go to the farmers markets because it is not worth their while.

There are exceptions. Last season I was in Colorado and visited all of the farm markets and all of the farms (I think that is literally true lol). There were a number of growers who were making that work for them.

[omega minimo]

115. The best growers are at the farmers markets. It's worth their while.

" The better growers do not go to the farmers markets because it is not worth their while." :thumbsdown:

guess it depends on how you define "better" amd "worthwhile."

[Two Americas]

123. how I define those

The better growers are the ones who use safe practices, who treat their people well, who contribute to the community, and who contribute substantially to the challenge of feeding the public. My determination is not arbitrary or whimsical. Years of study and observation and discussion inform my judgment. The people in the agricultural field know who the good growers are - better than anyone does. Most people respect that, and seek out and value my opinion on that.

"Worthwhile" means that in their judgment - and to be a successful farmer you must be an expert in making these decisions - that the labor and expense does not justify the return. Much of that is because the markets tend to be dominated by those not dependent on farm income, or part timers, and prices are driven down. It is a much better model to have people come to you, and the quality farmers attract a good clientele and have built a reputation and don't need to go fishing for customers among the general public.

[omega minimo]

128. so the best farmers who ARE at the farmers markets aren't quality farmers b/c they are at the market

:crazy:

[Two Americas]

129. again, not following you

That isn't what I said and I don't know what you mean. I have been very clear.

[omega minimo]

130. if you believe your POV is the only valid one, that will probably happen a lot.

[Two Americas]

137. my point of view

My point of view is that there is no one point of view that is 100% valid to the exclusion of all others. I reject the all-or-nothing organic zealotry, and I reject the all-tech-is-good corporate point of view. There is a world of progressive ideas and practices that are outside of and excluded by those two very narrow and rigid points of view.

I am not on either of the two simple minded "sides." You accused me of arguing both sides. That is probably because you can only see this in terms of the two sides, and are struggling to figure out which of those two sides I am on. I am opposed to both.



...

[rucky]

20. Salmonella is All-Natural

:shrug:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

22. Uh... bacteria is organic.

[omega minimo]

40. Unless it says it's 100% organic, it's not. Must read the ingredients.

:thumbsup:

[Two Americas]

73. that means nothing

I was involved in an extensive survey of organic products. Almost all of the brands are owned, sometimes through a dummy company, by a handful of giant food corporations. They put some distance between themselves and the brands, so it is difficult or impossible to figure out who is actually making and marketing the products. Names like "Aunt Sue's Organic Homegrown this or that" is all a ruse to fool the public. The ingredients themselves, and the "organic" produce on the shelf, are mostly imports from countries where there is no certification or inspection at all that means anything. This means that as a general rule, organic will be less safe - much less safe - then locally grown domestic produce from known sources and subject to US standards and inspections and public agricultural infrastructure support.

There is a giant "clearing house" in Cincinnati, that "launders" food products - that is to say, takes in imported produce and food ingredients from China and Mexico and elsewhere, and slips them into the "organic" distribution system. In Mexico, and in China, getting something labeled organic is a simple matter of bribing a local official. There is virtually no inspection of imports, and once they can be slipped into the system through a hidden third party, the corporations can label their products "organic" with impunity. But this is all an end-around, a way to avoid the regulations and safety inspection, and to then reap windfall profits from gullible upscale American consumers. American farmers are not in this loop at all, and it is absurd to blather about "conventional farming" and attack our farmers for problems that they have no connection to whatsoever.

If "organic" meant anything - told us anything about the food itself - it would not be such a simple matter for corporations to game the system. That is one of the biggest problems with organic - it promises greater safety to the public, while actually being a method for the corporations to skirt the regulations and avoid inspection.

Meanwhile, after decades of propaganda, despite organic commanding vastly higher prices, despite the funding and support for organic - scarce research dollars funneled into dead ends - domestic organic farming still does not feed even 1% of the population. That id because is is based on false premises, and will never work.

Organic is so much more profitable, that all farmers would do it if there were anything there that worked at all, and of ot were safe. How can that be? Most progressive farmers do not use organic methods - despite it being more lucrative - because of their commitment to food safety and sustainability, and because they know that organic works against those goals.

[omega minimo]

79. Reading the label includes the company and avoiding the BS fake mega products you point to

There are other choices. Careful shoppers make them.

"They put some distance between themselves and the brands, so it is difficult or impossible to figure out who is actually making and marketing the products."

Right. People who care choose not to be suckers. Take "fast food." Whoever thought that was really FOOD? :rofl:


"Most progressive farmers do not use organic methods - despite it being more lucrative - because of their commitment to food safety and sustainability, and because they know that organic works against those goals."

Well now. That's apparently how it looks from your world and your particular version of reality. Your need to convince others that yours is the only possible realistic POV is odd.

"...because of their commitment to food safety and sustainability, and because they know that organic works against those goals."

ORGANIC WORKS AGAINST THOSE GOALS? :wow: :rofl:

Okay, now tell us, which branch of the industry do you work for?


And speaking of false advertising, just what do you mean by "progressive"? Perhaps, ""progressively" weaning off fossil fuels.........."?

[Two Americas]

89. look

I am very interested in this subject, have extensive and unique experience and can discuss it until the cows come home. You could probably count on two hands the number of people in the country who are as familiar and conversant with both the progressive political community and the agricultural community. There are not many of us.

It is a big job to document the statements I have made here, and I have done that a number of times in the past. It would take a couple of hours of my time, as the subject is complex. I have found that people are not usually interested in that, and would prefer to play dueling talking points and my effort is wasted.

Also in my work talking to the public about food and nutrition and farming issues, after tens of thousands of conversations, I think that something like 1% of the public are organic zealots, and no amount of logic, documentation or proof will ever change their minds. On the other hand, it is a simple matter that takes about 5 minutes to disabuse the other 99% of the people from the organic fantasy and that means that time and effort is better spent there.

But if you are interested in this topic, are open-minded, and sincerely willing to have in an in-depth discussion of this, I am always up for that.

[omega minimo]

97. Look!

"But if you are interested in this topic, are open-minded, and sincerely willing to have in an in-depth discussion of this, I am always up for that."

Isn't that the idea? :think:


If you are always fighting the zealots in your head, you may be appear to be tilting at windmills.



"1% of the public are organic zealots, and no amount of logic, documentation or proof will ever change their minds. On the other hand, it is a simple matter that takes about 5 minutes to disabuse the other 99% of the people from the organic fantasy and that means that time and effort is better spent there."


Like I said, you seem capable of arguing "both" sides of your perceived conflict by yourself. Are there grey areas and open-mindedness in your views of organic and the "organic fantasy" as you "disabuse" others?


The tendency toward black and white thinking is already a hazard in the Intertubes. :hi:

[Two Americas]

114. I wish

I wish the zealots were merely in my head.

I see both sides, and there is merit in both. That doesn't mean I am arguing with myself. It means I am trying to help people reach a better understanding of the issues.

How could I simultaneously be "fighting the zealots in my head" and "arguing both sides of the conflict?" Maybe your notion as to what the sides are is off base?

How can I be arguing both sides, yet not seeing gray areas? I posted some links to some organic growers whom I admire. That seems pretty "gray" to me, pretty open-minded and even-handed.

I explained in great detail exactly what it is that I object to, and why. I object to organic and consumer choice free market solutions, boutique farmers markets, and CSA - which are mostly hobby activities for the privileged few - being forced on us as a replacement for public agricultural policy. That does not mean they are bad or wrong, and they have a place ion the lix in my opinion. I also object to throwing all real agriculture into the grab bag of "conventional agriculture" and then describing and defining conventional agriculture by citing the very worst examples of abuses and bad practices by the food industry corporations and factory farms. I also object to the double standard - using science selectively to smear farming, and then eschewing science for a spiritual and emotional approach when it comes to describing the supposedly superior "alternative."

[omega minimo]

117. by cut and paste misquoting to fit your apparent agenda

What I wrote was two different things:

1. "If you are always fighting the zealots in your head, you may be appear to be tilting at windmills."

and after quoting you: "1% of the public are organic zealots, and no amount of logic, documentation or proof will ever change their minds. On the other hand, it is a simple matter that takes about 5 minutes to disabuse the other 99% of the people from the organic fantasy and that means that time and effort is better spent there."

2. "Like I said, you seem capable of arguing "both" sides of your perceived conflict by yourself."

You made it "simultaneous" to support your need to discredit and insult:

'How could I simultaneously be "fighting the zealots in my head" and "arguing both sides of the conflict?" Maybe your notion as to what the sides are is off base?'

Since that's not what I said, looks like you're "off base." :hi:

"I posted some links to some organic growers whom I admire. That seems pretty "gray" to me, pretty open-minded and even-handed."

Aappreciated and posted AFTER the post you're tilting at.

"I object to organic and consumer choice free market solutions, boutique farmers markets, and CSA - which are mostly hobby activities for the privileged few"

THAT IS A LIE.

" - being forced on us as a replacement for public agricultural policy."

If it were true, that may be a valid concern.

THEN you launch into a diatribe, another black and white lecture, where you've got "both" sides all worked out ahead of time and are foisting your attitudes..... arguing with yourself and whoever happens to get in the way of your assumptions.....

You want to lecture to "99%" and alienate and marginalize your perceived "1%," insistently reinforcing cliches and misunderstandings as you go?

If that's what it takes to market what you're selling, maybe it's not worth it, after all.

[Two Americas]

121. sorry

Not following you now.

All of your points were addressed elsewhere on the thread in a calm and thoughtful manner.

[omega minimo]

125. fertilizer

[Two Americas]

92. Ezekiel Goodband

Ezekiel Goodband is a good example of progressive farmers who do not use organic methods. Here is an excerpt from a good article about his operation. He was a pioneer in the organic movement.

Now that some consumers are well aware of the dangers of pesticides, their demands for "organic" produce has added a new wrinkle to the production and marketing of apples. Most people still believe that a product with an "organic" label is grown without the use of any chemicals. This is one of the biggest myths bedeviling the consumer (see Conservation Matters, Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 5 and Vol. V, No. 3, p. 42). Actually, the term organic indicates that a product has been grown with the use of certain pesticides or fungicides approved by certification boards or organizations. The Department of Agriculture has also developed national guidelines for organic pesticides. Alyson’s owner Bob Jassye fumes with rage at the thought of what such labels are doing to the marketplace. His apples are grown with the minimum of pesticide spraying, combined with many innovative ways of pest management. And yet, they are often passed over by the "health-conscious" consumer for the organic varieties.

"I know there’s this fad for organic food and organic farming," he says. "It sounds good, wholesome as mother’s milk, about as 'womby’ as you can get. But in many cases the consumers really don’t know what they are getting."

One of the attendant myths surrounding the organic fad is the assumption that something that is natural or organic cannot be harmful. But as Jassye hotly asserts, " Not true! Hemlock juice did a pretty good job on Socrates."

Both Jassye and Goodband (who has a degree in ecology and has worked for the Audubon Society as a teacher) believe that organic methods of agriculture, as currently approved by government standards are harsher for the land than their way of ecological crop management. The amount of sulphur that an organic farmer would use for an orchard this size would acidify the soil, making the place look like a sulphur pit. Trees have a lot of surface area, unlike, say, a row of beans, and it would take a lot of sulphur to spray a row of apple trees. Instead, they have chosen a combination of biological or cultural pest management practices as well as judicious spraying when needed.

"I generally choose a synthetic chemical that has lower toxicity to humans and nontarget organisms than the chemicals available under the organic program," says Zeke. "When Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1963," he goes on, "the chemicals used in agriculture were rather harsh, had long lives, and degraded into even more harmful substances. But in the last 10 years, a lot of progress has been made in developing synthetic chemicals that are easier on the watershed, on humans, on the environment in general. They are certainly less harmful than the organic pesticides we could be using."

http://www.clf.org/general/index.asp?id=466

[NashVegas]

134. "as currently approved by government standards"

And therein lies the rub, doesn't it?

[Two Americas]

93. more...

It is the goal of Landmark Trust USA to diversify and enhance the ecological integrity of the orchard. The orchard, which had been 98% McIntosh apples conventionally managed when we acquired the farm, now has 70 varieties of apples along with pears, plums, peaches, raspberries, gooseberries, elderberries, grapes, medlars, and quince--all certified ecologically grown.

The farm relies primarily on biological and cultural practices to control insect pests. To control fungal diseases we use a combination of cultural practices and low rates of fungicides. The fungicides used at Scott Farm were originally derived from natural sources but are not considered “organic.” Since 2005 the farm has utilized biological disease control.

Scott Farm has worked with the University of Massachusetts and the University of Vermont in developing ecological pest and disease management. We are currently working with USDA on a test for trapping plum curculio, for example, that has had very promising results.

Our orchardist, Ezekiel Goodband, is well known in the apple community both for his knowledge of and passion for apples as well as his dedication to environmentally sensitive orchard management.

If, as a last resort, a treatment is needed, Scott Farm chooses the least toxic and least environmentally disruptive product available to sustainable and organic growers. Sometimes that product is not considered “organic.” We firmly believe that a healthy and vibrant orchard will:

--provide an acceptable percentage of marketable fruit;
--provide a safe environment for workers and neighbors;
--produce the best tasting, safest, and healthiest fruit for our community.

http://www.scottfarmvermont.com/growingpractices.html

[Two Americas]

95. more...

While for most people, the terms "ecological agriculture" and "organic agriculture" are nearly synonymous, in fact organic is not the only, nor always even the best, approach to growing healthy food while protecting the environment. Alyson's uses Integrated Crop Management ("ICM") -- an approach which has been used by progressive growers and researchers for over 25 years. ICM is a "best practices" approach that primarily relies on cultural practices and the action of beneficial organisms to manage pests, using the lowest possible dosage of the least disruptive pesticide when other methods don't work. As with organic approaches, ICM emphasizes plant health and cultural practices as the first line of defense against pests. Unlike organic however, ICM does allow the use of synthetic pesticides when they have been shown to be both safe and effective. Organic growers are limited to using pesticides that derive from natural sources - mostly plants or "elementals" - which may or may not be safe, and which are often less effective. For instance, an ICM grower May use 5 or 6 sprays to control apple scab in the Northeast, whereas an organic grower will likely use 20 to 30 sprays to control the same pest! And the most commonly used organic fungicide in apples is sulfur, which builds up in the soil, harming earthworms and other soil-dwelling organisms and causing soil acidification. Synthetic materials are specifically manufactured so that they will break down into harmless components in about 2 weeks.

Most ICM orchardists in the Northeast are good environmental stewards, and the vibrancy of the orchard ecosystem reflects that stewardship - bluebirds, kestrels, orioles, and many other species of birds abound - often nesting in the apple trees; choruses of frogs May be heard from farm ponds, and even sensitive species like trout flourish in those ponds. (In Sarma's Pond at Alyson's Orchard, there is a large, healthy population of rainbow trout; while in Lily's Pond, black bass and brown trout thrive.) Because ICM relies very much on the presence of beneficial insects to control pests, diversity of insects and other invertebrates is also very strong.

Consumers and neighbors who are concerned about human health and the environment should be aware that orchards like Alyson's are leading the way to a safe and vibrant agro-ecosystem!

http://alysonsorchard.com/alyson-orchards/overview.aspx

[omega minimo]

98. Thank you for the info, I'll come back and read those.

:thumbsup:

[Two Americas]

99. good article here...

Organic food is riding a surge in popularity; across the globe, sales of organic food are burgeoning. The global market in 2006 was estimated at close to an impressive US$40 billion (A$47.9 billion) by Organic Monitor, an industry research body, and growing 20 per cent annually in the U.S. and Canada. And where consumers go, the multinational food companies follow: everyone from Uncle Tobys to Kraft, Heinz, Kelloggs and even Coca-Cola has jumped on the bandwagon. And developing countries are joining in too: China's organic exports grew 200-fold in a decade to reach US$200 million in 2004. Australia is also a major exporter, and plans to increase its organic produce by 50 per cent by 2012.

But is this belief in organic food based on faith, or evidence?

The surprising fact is that this mass migration to organic food has not been on the back of scientific evidence. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find comprehensive evidence that organic food is healthier – either for us or the planet. Nevertheless, in the public consciousness, organic farming is unquestioningly bundled with the reigning moral imperatives of sustainability, protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gases.

...

Organic farmers are bound to an ideology that demands they only use natural techniques. In some cases, such purism gets in the way of practices that are better for the environment and more sustainable for farmers. For example, organic farmers will use litres of BT spray (BT is a 'natural' pesticide made by the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis), yet they often demonise the genetically modified (GM) cotton crops that carry an inbuilt supply of BT, and which therefore require less spraying.

...

Even the freshest organic apples – as well as other plant foods – contain natural compounds which, when extracted and given to rats in high doses, cause tumours. Toxicologist Bruce Ames of the University of California became famous in the 1970s for sounding the alarm on the cancer-causing (or carcinogenic) potential of man-made chemicals. But after testing 'natural' pesticides in rats, he called off the warning. A paper he published in 1990 said it all. Entitled, "Dietary Pesticides (99.99 per cent All Natural)", it reported that in a regular diet, people consume about 10,000 times more natural carcinogens than synthetic ones. According to Ames, a single cup of coffee contains more natural carcinogens than a year's worth of the pesticide residues eaten on fruit and vegetables.

Ames is not alone in his findings. A comprehensive review of some 400 scientific papers on the health impacts of organic foods, published by Faidon Magkos and colleagues in 2006 in the journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, concluded there was no evidence that eating organic food was healthier.

...

If chemical pesticides are hazardous to health, then farm workers should be most affected. The results of a 13-year study of nearly 90,000 farmers and their families in Iowa and North Carolina — the Agricultural Health Study – suggests we really don't have much to worry about. These people were exposed to higher doses of agricultural chemicals because of their proximity to spraying, and 65 per cent of them had personally spent more than 10 years applying pesticides. If any group of people were going to show a link between pesticide use and cancer, it would be them. They didn't.

A preliminary report published in 2004 showed that, compared to the normal population, their rates of cancer were actually lower. And they did not show any increased rate of brain-damaging diseases like Parkinson's. There was one exception: prostate cancer. This seemed to be linked to farmers using a particular fungicide called methyl bromide, which is now in the process of being phased out. According to James Felton, of the Biosciences Directorate of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, who also chairs the study, "The bottom line is the results are coming out surprisingly negative. It's telling us that most of the chemicals we use today are not causing cancer or other disease."

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1567

[Two Americas]

101. another grower

Do we Spray? Are We Organic?
From Diary of an English Orchard
Stephen Hayes, MD
(Used with permission)

These notes first appeared in the Botley parish magazine. They attempt to be a frank and candid account of our doings in the orchard and were to some extent inspired by a similar column written by David Macer-Wright in the Countryman magazine several decades ago.

We were really keen to be organic, to the extent that we tried to control weeds by hoeing and did no spraying at all. We spent many an hour working up the rows squashing the caterpillars that were eating our trees, between finger and thumb. It took us about 3 years to accept the fact that this approach was totally unrealistic and it wasn't working. We had severe infestations of winter moth caterpillars, apple scab, mildew, apple sawfly, rosy apple aphid, twig cutter weevil, capsid bug, codling moth and what not. Many trees died, others were stunted. The "Organically" managed apple trees looked as if someone had fired a couple of shotgun rounds through them and then thrown a bucket of dilute slurry over them. I wept. When in the third year we had our first crop, 19 out of 20 Apples had one or more Codling moth maggots in it. There was clearly no future in this so we decided to start spraying. The trees were overjoyed at this decision and shot ahead, relieved of their heavy load of pests and diseases.

Of course we would strongly prefer not to spray, but even "organic" growers spray with total killer poisons like nicotine which is OK by them as it comes from a plant. The customer will not accept a scabby, maggoty apple, let alone pay a premium price necessary for it since the crop yield is reduced by the pest load. Sorry about that. Of course we use an absolute minimum of pesticide, not least because it costs money and it's very uncomfortable to trudge up and down the orchard rows on a dry summer's day in protective clothing with a 15 litre knapsack sprayer on your back. Believe me, I would rather be writing poetry or making daisy chains. But don't be put off by this frankness, anything you eat from the shops is sprayed, and safety rules are stringent and enforced. We are the canaries, as not only do we eat massive amounts of our own fruit, to say nothing of the cider, but we are spraying them for hours, if anyone was going to have a problem it would be us. The last spray goes on by midsummer, so the dew, the wind and the rain has been on the fruit for 2 months after the last application before it gets to you.

In 1999, the Guardian published some research on pesticide residues in supermarket bought fruit. 75% of samples had no detectable pesticide residue at all, most of the rest were within legal limits of residue, only about 4% had significant levels of pesticide residues, and these were all imported. We are confident that no pesticides will be found in our fruit, although it will be found to contain vitamins, antioxidants with their health benefits, and plenty of flavour.

Remember, and I speak as a medical man, that all the research (and there is a lot of it) that shows the health benefits of eating fruit (reduced cancers, less heart disease, improved lung function etc) as opposed to not eating it, was done with sprayed fruit-there is no other kind in the shops. No spray=very little fruit.

Stephen Hayes is a medical doctor and fruit grower in Botley, England

[Two Americas]

102. Goodband again

More to "Organic" than Meets the Eye

Brattleboro Reformer 11/29/96

Editor of the Reformer:

Thanks to Ray Pestle for his letter on Integrated Crop Management. I agreed with Mr. Pestle that most people mistakenly think that "organic" means absolutely no pesticides.

Good stewardship of the land and resources, responsibility to farm workers and commitment to consumer are not the exclusive provenance of organic farmers. I manage Alyson's Apple Orchard in Walpole, N.H. My background includes a college degree in ecology, teaching for the Audubon Society and work in organic crop and seed research.

An orchard can be a vibrant and complex ecosystem. My goal as a farmer is to work with the natural environment to produce a safe and abundant harvest. I've chosen to use the ICM approach because it is much more compatible with ecological orcharding than organic orchard management. ICM seeks to keep insect and diseases below damaging levels through cultural and biological practices, intervening with a chemical spray only as a last resort.

I choose not to use organic pesticides in those instances because they are generally quite toxic to non-target organisms (including me). I'd lose the beneficial insects and predators that have become established here. To grow apples organically I would need massive amounts of sulfur to control fungal disease. This would acidify the soil and watershed and knock off my earthworms. The chemicals I use are less toxic to beneficial and other non-target organisms (farmers included here) than organic pesticides. They also break down fast and don't persist in the environment.

While growing tree fruit organically might be a more lucrative approach, it simply isn't the most environmentally responsible way of growing fruit. My goal is to grow safe food in an ecologically sound and responsible way. The notion that "organic is good, everything else is bad" is an overly simplistic idea. Farming practices and food safety are complex issues that deserve thoughtful consideration.

Ezekiel Goodband
Brattleboro

[upi402]

53. ORGANIC= 1 grain of pesticide eaten, non-ORGANIC = 3 grains

I figure I'm ingesting less herbicides and pesticides over time buying organic. And the earth will take less damage over the years too.

So, if I'm a sucker - so be it. But I feel good about it, and they say that's healthy.
Nothing's perfect where big agra is involved. There are no absolutes. I go for general progress, not perfection or quit.

[Two Americas]

84. that is misleading

The research is sketchy and ambiguous. You can manipulate the numbers anyway you like, but since organic - such as there is and there is very little - focuses on the crops that are less at risk from pests, and with less production demand and less costly inputs, and on a smaller scale, if we compare that to the giant row crop farms we get distorted numbers such as the one you cite.

There is some evidence, based on a number of studies, that when people feel good about their food they get more nutritional value from it. There is a mind-body convergence or synergy going on there I think. So, yes, people should eat that which makes them feel good maybe. And certainly people have a right to indulge their tastes. It is when people try to impose that on the rest of us, or on public policy, that there is a problem that threatens public welfare.

Organic is harder on the earth. So we should not assume that it is earth friendly. "natural" chemicals that poison the soil are more damaging than synthetic chemicals that break down and are non-persistent. Often, the "synthetic chemicals" are molecules that were found and isolated in the crops themselves, and occur naturally. No one molecule is always toxic and no one molecule is always safe. It is much more complex than that implies.

You want to see some toxic soil? Analyze the average suburban lawn or garden. According to the USDA there is no comparison, and the suburban environment is vastly more toxic. Also, every school, every store, every restaurant, every office building, most homes, every grocery store is routinely sprayed with toxic chemicals to manage pests. The difference between that and farming is that in those places there is virtually no oversight, standards regulation or training, all of which there is in farming. The typical restaurant sends an employee to Sam's Club to buy whatever is one th4 shelf = and consumer products are under little if any regulation any more - and then has untrained employees spray whatever it is all over the place, often minutes before they serve food. One cockroach can put them out of business.

I think that they "no pesticides!" mania is part of the modern gentrified mentality that seeks to sanitize and sterilize everything. There is some fantasy that we can "get rid of bad stuff" and have a perfect little environment for ourselves. That is an illusion.

Also, it is not as though soil health is not continually monitored, analyzed and managed by the extension agents, the toxicologists from the ag colleges, and the local soil management people in rural communities.


...

[killbotfactory]

54. FYI

In the US, federal organic legislation defines three levels of organics. Products made entirely with certified organic ingredients and methods can be labeled "100% organic". Products with at least 95% organic ingredients can use the word "organic". Both of these categories may also display the USDA organic seal. A third category, containing a minimum of 70% organic ingredients, can be labeled "made with organic ingredients". In addition, products may also display the logo of the certification body that approved them. Products made with less than 70% organic ingredients can not advertise this information to consumers and can only mention this fact in the product's ingredient statement. Similar percentages and labels apply in the EU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification

[upi402]

56. Thanks for that

I looked up the USDA site after seeing the OP. I figure there is a lot of "holes" in the inspection and lax enforcement. But all in all, I would hate the see the baby thrown out with the bathwater.

[sfpcjock]

65. I KNOW. They have a nice organic supply line from China

Yes, China. I know. LOL Also the Chinese "organic" peanuts use real animal dung for fertilizer, so there might be some E-coli or salmonella in there.

[vaberella]

80. I am not surprised. Wow...well that company went down.

Guys, guys, guys...we have to realize that peanuts are peanuts are peanuts. What does this mean? This means that anything could happen to them through processing, through faulty control measures and on and on this goes. We have to realize that no one is innoculated from causing detrimental harm.

[FourScore]

82. Actually, produce grown on organic farms are just as much at risk of e-coli

From the Organic Trade Associations website:

Are organic products more likely to be contaminated by E. coli?

Are organic products more likely to be contaminated by E. coli?

No, there is no evidence to indicate this. All food—whether conventional or organic—is susceptible to E. coli. In fact, CDC has issued the following statement: “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…has not conducted any study that compares or quantitates the specific risk for infection with Escherichia coli O157:H7 and eating either conventionally grown or organic/natural foods. CDC recommends that growers practice safe and hygienic methods for producing food products, and that consumers, likewise, practice food safety within their homes (e.g., thoroughly washing fruits and vegetables).”

A University of Minnesota study concerning fecal E. coli in fresh picked produce by Mukherjee et al, published in the Journal of Food Protection (Vo. 67, No. 5, 2004), found that the percentage of E. coli prevalence in certified organic produce was similar to that in conventional samples. However, it did find a marked difference in the prevalence of E. coli between the samples from certified and non-certified organic farms. “Ours is the first study that suggests a potential association between organic certification and reduced E. coli prevalence,” the authors wrote. They noted that the results of the study “do not support allegations that organic produce poses a substantially greater risk of pathogen contamination than does conventional produce.”

http://www.ota.com/organic/foodsafety/ecoli.html

[gollygee]

88. I thought it was contaminated with bugs and mouse droppings?

Bugs and poop are organic enough. It would only not be able to be called organic if there were chemicals used in their growth or processing. Pesticides might even have kept the ickies out?

But maybe I'm wrong about what they were contaminated with? Remember a few years ago when organic spinach was contaminated with e. coli? So this isn't even the first time for this.

[upi402]

138. www dot organicconsumers dot org/articles/article_17106.cfm

good info

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17106.cfm

[natrat]

140. damn now i am confused

somehow i still think that the locally grown (northern california)organic is better than anything coming out of mexico. And buying Safeway's organic produce is probably a bad idea.