Organic, local farms get a boost from USDA

[cali]

Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau


(04-15) 04:00 PDT Washington - -- Obama administration officials Wednesday outlined a broad array of efforts to elevate organic and local farming to a prominence never seen before at the sprawling U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The shift is raising eyebrows among conventional growers and promising federal support to a food movement that began in Northern California and was considered heretical only a few years ago.

"Guys, this is your window - use it," USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan told organic farmers, processors and retailers at a conference Wednesday in Washington that was sponsored by Santa Cruz's Organic Farming Research Foundation and the Organic Trade Association.

When her microphone went dead as she discussed genetically modified foods, a member of the audience joked, "They're already sabotaging you."

Talking more like a Berkeley foodie than a USDA bureaucrat, Merrigan described efforts to penetrate "food deserts" in poor neighborhoods where people rely on corner markets and liquor stores for groceries, tougher enforcement of the USDA organic label and initiatives such as the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food program to connect local farmers with consumers.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/15/MNPG1CUKVS.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0lBw2FRrD

[Arctic Dave]

1. HELL YEAH!

Bust into eighties air guitar riff.

[jemsan]

2. I like this...

A LOT!! It's about time.

[Liberation Angel]

3. k&r

yeah!

[gblady]

4. that is....

wonderful news...
Hope this helps my local organic farmers market folks!

[Jefferson23]

5. K&R

[Mojeoux]

6. Orgamic is delicious and toxin free!

We don't need chems in our food.

[MajorChode]

7. You actually believe that an "organic" lable gives you such assurance?

Some of the most deadly substances on earth are fully organic.

[Luminous Animal]

8. So, they are selling latin america death caps in the produce aisle now, eh?

[MajorChode]

9. Hyperbole much?

[Luminous Animal]

10. You are the one who made the leap from organic FOOD to organic poisons.

[MajorChode]

11. Are you trying to allege organic foods don't contain them

...Evah!

And it's no more of a leap than alleging non-organic foods contain a chemical cocktail of certain death or taste worse, which is pretty much the point you should have waved at when it sailed over your head.

Cheers!

[Warren DeMontague]

12. I think it's pretty much a no-brainer to try to reduce the pesticide load in our bodies as much as

possible.

That's not some kind of homeopathic moon bombing woo, that's just common sense.

[MajorChode]

13. You're right, it is a no-brainer

Those that market organic food are counting on that. When you actually start to use your brain, you realize that pesticides are routinely used on so-called 'organic' labeled food. Even if you could actually be assured the food you buy is actually grown and processsed by USDA organic standards (and you can't), pesticides most certainly are used on many of those foods. The only difference is instead of getting a pesticide that has been used and tested safe for the last 50 years or so, you get a relatively new and less fully tested 'organic' alternative which may actually be more harmful than the one it seeks to replace.

The biggest threat (by far) from food is organic things like e-coli and salmonella. And the little round 'organic' label on your bag of spinach no more assures you of safety from those threats than sending your kids to a boy scout camp assures they won't get raped by a scout leader. Arguably the assurance is less because it's pretty difficult to get e-coli contamination from synthetic nitrogen. Not so much from cow shit.

[SpiralHawk]

14. Horseshit - you prettily parrot all the corporate (R) talking points

But mutant, chemical-saturated, irradiated, industrial food-facsimile crapola is still crapola.

And the system that produces it all but depends upon slave labor.

Clean, organic food is clean, organic food. Most of the systems that produce it also yield dignified work in nature for human beings at a better wage.

No amount of corporate spin is going to change reality.

[MajorChode]

15. Ad hominem fail

Rather than address any of my points with something that actually resembles substance, you simply resort to teabagger style name calling and actually have the nerve of accusing someone else of parroting right-wing talking points. Well, you might be intellectually bankrupt, but at least you are amusing. Please don't stop as I can always use the chuckle.

The same corporations who sold you "mutant, chemical-saturated, irradiated, industrial food-facsimile crapola" are now selling you so-called "organic" foods because they have figured out there's a huge untapped market of people with irrational fear who are eager and willing to pay substantially more for the same product so long as it has a sticker that lets them sleep better at night.

Here's a great link for you to chew on. I'm sure you'll claim it's simply "corporate (R) talking points", because I'm sure you won't be able to deal with having your manufactured reality shattered.
http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/rcbtoa/services/corporate-ownership.html

If you want to wallow in your "reality", be my guest. Just try not to pop a vein when someone calls bullshit.

Cheers!

[druidity33]

17. with all due respect...

you don't really know what you're talking about (or you're intentionally obfuscating). Yes there are organic "toxins". But they are just as common in non-organic foods. The problems associated with Salmonella and E Coli are problems inherent in the BigAg industry and monocropping... they have nothing to do with Organic or not. Bringing in raped Boy Scouts seems a little over the top to me... whatever.

But without the Organic label, you have NO IDEA what has been used to create the product. At least with a label you have the minimal assurance that it contains non-GMO ingredients and that there are not highly toxic man-made chemicals liberally dosing your veggies. (i oppose Bt and other soluble "natural" pesticides in general, but with good IPM i think they're tolerable)

I don't know why you are hostile toward Organic foods. They are a small step, true. But it is at least in the right direction.

:shrug:

[MajorChode]

20. with all due respect....

You don't know what I'm talking about either.

I would agree completely that there's negligible difference between organic and non-organic as far as things like Salmonella, E-coli, Botulism, etc. I would expect organic foods to be a little higher in that regard because animal waste is more likely to be used as fertilizer. I understand that waste is required to go through processes to negate those effects, but it requires a high level of integrity on behalf of the farmer which I'm not convinced happens. However, I know of no study that shows a higher incidence of such things in organic foods, so I'm willing to concede the risk is nearly equal, at least until more empirical studies show a difference one way or another. That still is the very point I'm trying to make. People can and do get sick or die after eating organic foods just as readily as people can and do get sick or die from eating non-organic foods. When it comes to the greatest food threat to public health(by far) organic foods are absolutely no safer. It's kind of like people getting overly concerned about a meteor falling out of the sky and killing them when there's a truck about to run them over. It's nothing more than irrational fear and it's silly as hell.

As far as chemicals go, that's another huge myth of the so-called "organic" marketing. You really have "NO IDEA" what has been used to create an organic product either. You actually have less of an idea as synthetic chemicals used in the agriculture industry are highly regulated. For one thing, fraud in organic labeling is already epidemic and the problem gets bigger every year. The FDA has nothing more than a token few who track down and enforce organic labeling so the risk of discovery is negligible and the profit motive is enormous. But lets assume for a moment that there actually is 100% integrity in the organic food label. What do you gain with that label? The next myth is that organic pesticides are always safer. This is simply not true. There have been numerous instances of highly toxic 'organic' pesticides being used which do pose a threat. Now most of those have been phased out of commercial organic farming after trial and error using the public at large as guinea pigs. You still can buy many of them at your local hardware store for use in your backyard garden. They are labeled organic and they are complete shit and may even be quite dangerous. The problem with the whole so-called 'organic' idea is it automatically assumes that an 'organic' approved substance is always the safest and best alternative. This is complete shit. There are all sorts of chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and herbicides which are safer than organic alternatives. What kills a bug and what kills a person are often two very different things. Many pesticides work by dissolving the waxy coating on bugs. Some pesticides cause bugs not to eat. Some pesticides work on the hormonal action of bugs which are completely different than the hormones of humans or animals. Some pesticides coat the bug with a non-toxic oil which causes them to suffocate. Some pesticides kill on contact and break down into harmless substances in less than a day. Many of these pesticides are safe enough to drink or bathe in (or at least as safe as soda pop that people routinely consume by the truckload). Rejecting a completely safe, cheap, and highly effective substance simply because it's synthetic is fucking stupid. Especially when you are rejecting it for a product that may not be as well tested, may be more expensive, and/or may be less effective.

Next, the contention that the 'organic' label buys you foods that are more socially or environmentally friendly is also dubious at best. The whole notion that 'organic' means the product comes from a local mom-and-pop farmer, is also marketing bullshit. It may have been true a decade ago, but not so much anymore and it becomes less so every year. All of the huge farming conglomerates are in the organic food game and they are buying up small label 'organic' brands like a fire sale. Brands that some organic hipsters would have you believe are the anti-christ are now heavily invested in 'organic'. Kraft, ConAgra, Heinz, Cargill, and just about any other major food producer you can name are now deeply invested. Even the ueber evil Monsanto is getting in the game.

Finally, no I can't agree that the whole 'organic' idea is a step in the right direction. Often it is a step in the wrong direction. If a particular crop takes 20% more farmland, 20% more water, 20% more resources to produce 80% of the yield which is absolutely no better than the alternative. I'd say that's very much a step in the wrong direction for a lot of reasons. Now before some fartsmeller comes out and says that's not true for all organic farms, I say fine, but it is true for some. That's not environmentally friendly. That's not sustainable. It drives up the costs of ALL foods (organic and non-organic) which puts otherwise good wholesome foods out of the reach of those with less resources. A twinkie and a Big Mac are already cheaper than an avocado and a grapefruit. That is the biggest challenge facing America. Not some uninformed hipster's irrational fear.

So any contention that organic foods are by default safer or better, is simply a myth that feeds on the ignorant public. You now have the FDA acting as a marketing wing for Heinz and Kraft when they should be focusing on what they do best in the world which is insuring a safe and wholesome food supply to the American public. It drains already strained public resources to silly endeavors for the betterment of large corporations. That is not a step in the right direction.

I'm certainly not hostile towards organic methods. I've been a backyard gardener for over 20 years and I routinely use effective organic alternatives all the time. Personally I look for the safest, cheapest, most effective, and most environmentally friendly products to use. They might be organic or they might be synthetic, but I'm not going to limit my choices based on the mindless notions of an uninformed few. If you think I'm hostile, just look at the hostility coming from the other direction. If I dare challenge the myth of 'organic', I'm instantly labeled as a GOP shill. I'm sure I'll be called Hitler before long. The reality is that ignorance is far more cancerous and destructive than evil can ever hope to be. I recently got through spraying my peach blossoms with horticultural oil derived from a by-product of the oil industry. Now perhaps there's an 'organic' alternative extracted from the husks of the east Malayan Rambutan that costs 3 times more and is no more effective or safe. I suppose I could impress my gardening friends if I used it. At least the ones that don't know shit from beans. I just choose not.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. If that's the case, then why do you, yourself, garden with 'minimal environmental impact' in mind?

I mean, what difference does it make? Might as well bathe the whole backyard in Roundup. Why not? :shrug:

To me- it's pretty obvious that whenever possible, buying food with less crap sprayed on it- whatever that crap may be- is probably a better move. People should wash their greens thoroughly, and cook the shit out of their meat, whether it is 'organic' or not, because E Coli can turn up anywhere (if you've got any data proving e coli is more prevalent on organic produce, do share)

And lots of us wouldn't send our kids off to the boy scouts (or to a priest) OR drink 'truckloads of soda', either, but nice try with the lovely assortment of bright red herrings.

Speaking of data, that's really what the focus should be on, not shit-flinging (organic or otherwise):

http://www.consumersunion.org/food/organicsumm.htm

Frequency of Positive Samples: All three data sets showed striking, highly statistically significant differences between market categories in the percent of samples that had at least one pesticide residue. Conventionally grown samples consistently had residues far more often than other categories. Overall, across 8 fruits and 12 vegetable crops, 73 percent of USDA's conventionally grown samples had residues. For five crops (apples, peaches, pears, strawberries and celery) more than 90 percent of samples had residues. Cal DPR (using less sensitive analytical methods) found residues in 31 percent, and CU found residues in 79 percent, of their conventionally grown samples. Organically grown samples consistently had far smaller percentages with residues: 23, 6.5 and 27 percent in the USDA, DPR and CU data, respectively. In the two data sets that included samples of the third category, residues were found in 47 percent of the USDA IPM/NDR samples and 51 percent of the CU IPM/NDR samples.

***

Our analysis shows convincingly that organically grown foods have fewer and generally lower pesticide residues than conventionally grown foods. This pattern was consistent across all three independent data sets. Organic foods typically contain pesticide residues only one-third as often as conventionally grown foods do. Foods marketed with an IPM or NDR claim fall in between organic and conventional foods in both the frequency of residues and residue levels. Organic samples are also far less likely to contain multiple residues than conventional or IPM/NDR foods are.

[MajorChode]

22. Because that's one concern out of many

If you'd bothered to read my rather lengthy rebuttal on pesticides, you might understand that just because something has a trace amount of pesticide on it, doesn't automatically mean it's bad for humans. Suggesting as much is intellectual dishonesty which is why I have a rub with Consumer Reports on that issue. It also doesn't automatically mean the environmental impact is less. If trace amounts of harmless pesticides result in far lower culling of produce, it's not hard to see the positive environmental impact. So your narrowminded source doesn't even begin to touch on the bigger picture. If you want to read an actual objective source on the matter, try the Mayo Clinic or more directly the American Academy of Pediatrics who have said that 'organic' baby food is no better. If the organic hipsters can't even begin to prove that organic food is better for even babies, it's not hard to see they don't have much hope of proving it's better or worse for anyone else.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-baby-food/AN01424

What I truly love about some who preach at the organic pulpit is that they demand their opponents PROVE that non-organic foods are safe or are better than the environment, when they never proved that organic choices were better in the first place. This is the classic argumentum ad ignorantiam fail. It shifts the burden of proof on the skeptic when the other side never made their argument in the first place. This type of misinformation campaign can often be many times more damaging than their so-called solution in search of a problem. History has proved this true many times.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. I'm not preaching at ANY "pulpit", Jack.

If you think I'm at all interested in telling you what to eat or what not to eat, you've got me seriously confused with someone else. Eat what you want, I will do the same.

[MajorChode]

24. It's called a metaphor

You really should learn to read between the lines as there's volumes of information you're missing out on.

Was it not you accusing me of slinging shit and claiming the focus should be on "data"? I agree the focus should be on data, but quoting obviously highly biased sources that lie by ommission is not what I had in mind. You certainly do appear to be promoting an idea for which there simply isn't enough empirical scientific data to justify. In other words, you're doing it on blind faith in much the same way Jerry Falwell tells us we should believe in a mysterious white man that lives in the clouds.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Robble Robble Robble.

No, I didn't accuse you of slinging shit, actually. I *did* accuse you of tossing around red herrings, which you have kindly provided another stunning example of, above.

I quoted one source, which you claim to be highly biased. You also, apparently, have an axe to grind against Consumer Reports. So we know at least some of the sources you don't trust. I'm not sure what sources you consider unbiased- so why don't you provide some?

And I don't mean the link you posted to the mayo clinic; the one with the first sentence that reads: "Organic baby food can limit your baby's exposure to pesticides and other potential contaminants in foods."

Hardly a wholesale indictment of the concept of organic food, and a statement which is, essentially, the argument I made in the first post. Not that pesticides are evil, not that man-made chemicals are bad, not that organic growth methods can't pose problems too- just that, whenever possible, decreasing the accumulated load of things like pesticides in our foods seems like a fairly obvious good idea for a lot of us.

But you know what? Like I said, if you want to suck down an frosty mug of roundup every morning, I don't really give a shit. Nothing could make me even remotely interested in advising you about your diet, and likewise, nothing you could say is going to make me go "Hmmm. Gee, you know, I think I'm going to go out of my way to increase the amount of pesticides I put in my body"


Got that? NOTHING. I don't care what you put on the end of your fork, and I'll be damned if after my many, many decades on this planet I'll let some jabbering tasmanian devil with god-knows-what for an agenda tell me what to put on mine.

Dig? So, go ahead, huff and puff and complain (or, if you're feeling really frisky, contribute some 'unbiased' data, please. With links), you're still not changing my mind. Ever. Period. I guess that makes me Jerry Falwell, or Pol Pot, or Dutch Elm Disease, or something.

[MajorChode]

26. We're almost done here

No, I didn't accuse you of slinging shit

"Speaking of data, that's really what the focus should be on, not shit-flinging (organic or otherwise):" (emphasis added)
-- post #21

Yes, I stand corrected. You accused me of flinging shit. I'm not sure how that changes the context much, but apparently you think it does so we'll go with that.

I quoted one source, which you claim to be highly biased. You also, apparently, have an axe to grind against Consumer Reports. So we know at least some of the sources you don't trust. I'm not sure what sources you consider unbiased- so why don't you provide some?

And I don't mean the link you posted to the mayo clinic; the one with the first sentence that reads: "Organic baby food can limit your baby's exposure to pesticides and other potential contaminants in foods."

Hardly a wholesale indictment of the concept of organic food, and a statement which is, essentially, the argument I made in the first post. Not that pesticides are evil, not that man-made chemicals are bad, not that organic growth methods can't pose problems too- just that, whenever possible, decreasing the accumulated load of things like pesticides in our foods seems like a fairly obvious good idea for a lot of us.

I don't have an axe to grind with Consumer Reports. I've been a subscriber for over 25 years. I actually believe they are largely responsible for much higher regulation of pesticides and herbicides which is a very good thing. However, somewhere along the line they chose to narrowly focus on one aspect of pesticides and completely ignore the overall environmental benefit. They also continue to allege that infinitesimal amounts of pesticides on certain produce presents a health hazard which sure as hell has never been established. It simply feeds on the ignorance of the general public regarding the subject. It's no different than Dial trying to sell you anti-bacterial soap. They allege that since bacteria are bad, less bacteria must be better. It's intellectual dishonesty promoting a bad idea because the solution in search of a problem creates an actual problem itself.

So where's the bias in the Mayo Clinic article? That's the subtle point you alleged, but failed miserably to establish. I never tried to make the case that non-organic food results in the same or lower pesticide residue. So that's simply strawman nonsense. If you had actually bothered to read pass the first sentence, you'd see the Mayo clinic states that organic baby food is no safer, which is what the discussion should be about in the first place. Your contention seems to be that if an already infinitesimal amount of pesticide could be reduced even farther, there must be an advantage. That is nonsensical, because it hasn't been established that it's actually harmful to begin with and lots of folks have tried. You also conveniently ignored the point that those pesticides reduce the amount of culling, which does provide an environmental benefit. At the risk of offending you by using a metaphor, in other words you try to make a mountain out of a molehill as you're conveniently ignoring the actual mountain.

But you know what? Like I said, if you want to suck down an frosty mug of roundup every morning, I don't really give a shit. Nothing could make me even remotely interested in advising you about your diet, and likewise, nothing you could say is going to make me go "Hmmm. Gee, you know, I think I'm going to go out of my way to increase the amount of pesticides I put in my body"

Got that? NOTHING. I don't care what you put on the end of your fork, and I'll be damned if after my many, many decades on this planet I'll let some jabbering tasmanian devil with god-knows-what for an agenda tell me what to put on mine.

Dig? So, go ahead, huff and puff and complain (or, if you're feeling really frisky, contribute some 'unbiased' data, please. With links), you're still not changing my mind. Ever. Period. I guess that makes me Jerry Falwell, or Pol Pot, or Dutch Elm Disease, or something.

Here we have more of your strawman rhetoric. You allege that I actually do give two shits about what you eat or what you don't. Then you proceed to burn that strawman down with the rest of your ranting. I don't give two shits what you eat or what you don't. I do care about setting myths straight and calling bullshit on obvious bullshit.

Now you only seem interested in ramping up the hostility from there and I'm just not going to play your games anymore.

Have a nice day!

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Mentioning shit-flinging isn't the same thing as accusing YOU of doing it, dude.

On the whole, this is a very, very silly fight to have, but let's be honest; it's one which you waded into with a certain amount of relish, taking on "would be eco-hipsters" and the like.

My point has not been that $20 lettuce from Whole Paycheck is inherently better than cheaper lettuce from safeway; it's been the same throughout- that there is a good scientific case to be made for concern about the accumulation in our bodies of a whole range of synthetic chemicals.

I'm not a member of the 'lets all move into yurts and abandon technology' crowd, nevertheless I think that pesticides -the pesticides used in conventional produce- are one area to watch.

That is all.

[MajorChode]

28. Really?

I find it interesting that you have one set of standards for yourself and quite another for everyone else. Neither did I specifically mention that YOU were the one preaching at the organic pulpit. That didn't stop you from running with that assumption, no? So let's not pretend reasonable assumptions aren't reasonable, fair enough?

And actually the case about the accumulation of "synthetic chemicals" in the body is not all that good. The concern is even a weaker case. The correlation to industrial pesticides is weaker still and the case for causation is non-existent. That's not even throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That's throwing the baby out when you think the tub might happen to fill up someday. The environmental movement in the US has been trying to prove the negative health effects of industrial pesticides for about 50 years now. Despite many decades and perhaps billions of dollars spent on research, they haven't made that case yet. I'm not sure why you would be so optimistic that it will.

Here's the hazard with what you think is "common sense". Even the best of intentions can sometime result in disastrous consequences. Here is one example of many. In 1962, Silent Spring was written by Rachel Carson who outlined the potential hazards associated with DDT. As a result, even to this day you can't even mention DDT without causing some environmentalists' blood to boil. The problem was, her data was flimsy and her conclusions were premature and largely in error. That didn't stop the worldwide ban which soon followed. Some estimate as many as 20 million African children have died as an indirect result of the ban. There is a price to be paid for eco-hysteria.

Now before you go spinning up your hyperbole, I'm not suggesting that DDT should be used as a condiment. DDT is a broad spectrum pesticide that persists for many years and should never be used without a high level of regulation, just as any persistent broad spectrum pesticide should. However, it is extremely cheap to produce and can be extremely effective under certain circumstances, so almost completely eradicating its use had very serious consequences for the millions who continue to die from diseases that can be controlled.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. And I agree that there's a place for DDT in malaria control.

I'm not knee jerk about any of this. Yes, best intentions can have disastrous consequences.

No, you don't *know* 100% that something labeled organic hasn't been sprayed with a non-organic pesticide, just like you don't *know* that conventionally grown produce hasn't secretly been grown organically. Nor do you *know* that the guy at the drive thru didn't take a whizz in your lemonade. You do the best you can, with the information available, and try to make the best choices possible.

[MajorChode]

31. I agree and that's what I'm appealing for

I'm also saying that in order to make an informed decision, you should look at the bigger picture instead of just focusing in on one aspect. This means looking at the ramifications of your actions. In the US, you already have several types of food products that are out of the reach of many Americans simply because they can't afford it. Pushing organic products simply makes all food more expensive. If a farmer can make $25,000 more profit converting a field to organic, that's what they are going to do. Now you have one less field making lower cost produce. If he's using more water and other resources to produce the same yield, that has an environmental impact also.

This wasn't such a big deal when you had just a few small farmers making organic products for a very small market, but now 'organic' is a multi-billion dollar business which takes over more and more of the traditional market every year. This is part of the reason why the price of even non-organic produce is soaring. If a poor family has the choice of making a garden salad for $10 or getting 5 roast beef sandwiches for $5, it's not hard to figure out which one they are going to choose. We should be looking at ways where we can cut the costs of wholesome foods, not filling the shelves of boutique food markets with expensive products. If we could do both I would say fine, but I'm not convinced we can.

[Mojeoux]

34. Sorry Chode, In California, our years of research trump even YOUR Big Agro lofty hype. hehe n/t

[MajorChode]

37. Ad hominem fail

Your response is highly predictable. In fact, I already predicted it back in post #20. Try someone else who is weak minded enough not to recognize your logical fallacies and is amused by your childish text chuckles.

Cheers!

[Mojeoux]

38. Ahem, Choder my friend, here in ever mellow California

we have specific criteria for labeling "Organic."
There are standards as to even how many years an individual field has grown only organic, before it can be labeled organic.

I appreciate the good Dr. Jay L. Hoecker, M.D. and his column where he references a study that was not conducted with these higher California State organic standards. It's not a big deal to some people.

But for some others, there is an old fashioned goodness that attracts new communities forming around these wonderful Farmer's Markets, all over the country.

We know that the bottom line for big Agro, and all big corporations can work a sketchy "adverse incentive" built it to the growing/manufacturing and distribution paradigm.

Buying from an organic farmer, or eating from you own garden, rewards people with a human to human satisfaction. This is more than a vague nostalgia, but living in our best case scenarios of how food comes to our tables.

[MajorChode]

39. I don't need a lesson on what 'organic' is or isn't

...especially from someone who doesn't appear to have a clue. The California Organic Program adds almost nothing additional to the USDA National Organic Program standards and it's been that way for almost a decade. The California Organic Program has no standard on "how many years an individual field has grown only organic" because those standards are contained in the federal law which the COP references. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know these things. What's even more hilarious is your esteemed California Department of Agriculture tactic of dealing with pestilence is to aerial spray sometimes heavily populated areas with chemical pesticides instead of finding an 'organic' solution for the fruit crops themselves. So if you live in California, you may not get trace amount of harmless pesticides in your produce, you just get crop dusted yourself directly with broad spectrum pesticides because there is no 'organic' solution to the problem. But hey, what's a few thousand sick people? At least you can still market your fruit as 'organic' right? And that's what really matters. If you actually think the state of California is going to value your health and welfare over their multibillion dollar agricultural industry, you have a big wakeup call coming.

I find it quite amusing that just one message ago you had no problem going down the bullshit road of ad hominem and accusing me of being a shill for "big Agro"(which must still be your position since you didn't bother to correct it), yet when you actually bothered to read the source and figured out it was the Mayo clinic, now your tactic is to depreciate the study because it wasn't based on "California State organic standards" which you apparently are completely ignorant. In other words, no authoritative opinion will ever be good enough for you unless it subscribes to some narrow and arbitrary set of your own personal standards. Sorry to break the news to you, but the study was empirical and withstood peer review. You'll have to better than your ad hominem rhetoric and appeal to your own uninformed authority if your intention is to actually make a substantive argument (and I suspect it isn't).

You're trying to paint the picture that 'organic' means exclusively farmer's market communities and that's just not what the current reality reflects. I would never suggest that someone shouldn't patronize their local farmer's market. I very much do support local farmers and I visit my local farmer's market quite frequently. The reason I do so has nothing to do with 'organic'. I get fresher ingredients, better varietals, and it supports local farmers. 15 or so years ago, this represented the whole of the 'organic' market. Not so anymore. 'Organic' is now nothing more than a label on a product which means next to nothing in regards to wholesomeness, taste, health, local production, quality, and social or environmental responsibility. Yogurt in your dairy isle labeled 'organic' might very well be made from powdered milk that came from New Zealand cows and processed in an assembly line in Mexico owned by a European conglomerate, but it has a nice little picture of a happy cow on a happy farm perhaps somewhere in Vermont. This is nothing more than marketing bullshit, and since the vast majority of the whole 'organic' premise was cow shit to begin with, I find this more than just a bit dishonest. YMMV. So in other words the whole "old fashioned goodness", feel good, Kumbaya image you're suggesting has been hijacked by the very "big Agro" you seem to despise.

[Mojeoux]

40. Whooo I guess he told ME! I saw the "Mayo Clinic Label" not impressed

I live in Sonoma. We don't like chemicals in our food.

[proudohioan]

16. Good to hear!

There is a network here in the Cleveland area, Northeast Ohio Independent Farmers Markets, that offers locally grown/produced products every day of the week. The particular one that I frequent is in East Cleveland, which would be considered an inner-city "food desert" by any standards. The Amish come in to sell their jams, jellies, honey, baked goods, etc.... and other farmers and growers come in to sell produce. I get THE best spices and herbs at this market! But the best thing about the place is the atmosphere; it's just a really good feeling to be around such a diverse population with like minded people. And they accept SNAP and WIC vouchers.

Hope this gives our markets across the country a well deserved boost!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

18. YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!

this is good on so many levels!!

I love President Obama! :patriot:

[havocmom]

19. I know personnel in some agencies of USDA are REAL HAPPY with hopey/changey thing

Seems safe to guess hard working staff in most (if not all) USDA agencies are feeling better about going to work these days. Life under bush-appointed/agenda pushing managers was not good for the worker bees who do understand PUBLIC service and are proud to be a part of serving the public.

[underpants]

29. I will read up on this but it sounds good. Damn he was holding back waiting for the Healthcare thing

he is firing huge shots daily

LOVE IT

glad I helped get him elected

[elleng]

32. dupe

[elleng]

33. FLOTUS has described 'food deserts' recently, too.

No coincidence, imo.

[Hekate]

35. Thank you, Michelle Obama, for leading the way.

:yourock:

[Dover]

36. Locally grown and sold. Community gardens in every neighborhood! Yea!!!!!!

I hope that 'open window' lets in a lot of fresh air....and stays open.
Regardless, this organic, locally grown movement has always been grassroots
with a momentum all its own. But government re-enforcements are always welcome.

[quaker bill]

41. We have a number of local start ups

producing organic vegetables and herbs. They are generally family run operations on small acreages producing higher value crops, like tomatos, peppers, fruits, and herbs. Farther north, where I generally travel in the summers, many local growers who once had tobacco allotments have converted their small holdings to organic vegetables. I support them by purchase whenever I can.

My experience growing organically for personal consumption indicates that this form of agriculture requires much more active management, because you are not creating a chemical environment that is hostile to the rest of nature, except for the crop you are growing. I pull some weeds for 15 minutes or so several times a week. However, a meal fixed with produce picked from the garden minutes before cooking or eating is an entirely different experience, and well worth the effort.