Sneak attack on Organic food standards

Xevious

Xevious

CAGiversary!
Hi,
Thought you might find this interesting.

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) needs your immediate help to stop Congress and the Bush administration from seriously degrading organic standards. After 35 years of hard work, the U.S. organic community has built up a multi-billion dollar alternative to industrial agriculture, based upon strict organic standards and organic community control over modification to these standards.

Now, large corporations such as Kraft & Dean Foods--aided and abetted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), are moving to lower organic standards by allowing a Bush appointee to create a list of synthetic ingredients that would be allowed organic production. Even worse these proposed regulatory changes will reduce future public discussion and input and take away the National Organic Standards Board's (NOSB) traditional lead jurisdiction in setting standards. What this means, in blunt terms. is that USDA bureaucrats and industry lobbyists, not consumers, will now have more control over what can go into organic foods and products.

This week, acting in haste and near-total secrecy, the U.S. Senate will vote on a "rider" to the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Bill that will reduce control over organic standards from the National Standards Board and put this control in the hands of federal bureaucrats in the USDA (remember the USDA proposal in 1997-98 that said that genetic engineering, toxic sludge, and food irradiation would be OK on organic farms, or USDA suggestions in 2004 that heretofore banned pesticides, hormones, tainted feeds, and animal drugs would be OK?).

For the past week in Washington, OCA has been urging members of the Senate not to reopen and subvert the federal statute that governs U.S. Organic standards (the Organic Food Production Act - OFPA), but rather to let the organic community and the National Organic Standards resolve our differences over issues like synthetics and animal feed internally, and then proceed to a open public comment period. Unfortunately most Senators seem to be listening to industry lobbyists more closely than to us. We need to raise our voices.

In the past, grassroots mobilization and mass pressure by organic consumers have been able to stop the USDA and Congress from degrading organic standards. This time Washington insiders tell us that the "fix is is already in." So we must take decisive action now. We need you to call your U.S. Senators today. We need you to sign the following petition and send it to everyone you know. We also desperately need funds to head off this attack in the weeks and months to come. Thank you for your support. Together we will take back citizen control over organic standards and preserve organic integrity.

Take action here:
http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/oca/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=1242
 
Although organic food use is by its very nature an incredibly stupid movement, I don't see why something should be labeled as organic when it's not.
 
It was just a matter of time I guess, I usually get organic food to avoid the pesticides and whathaveyou in fruits and vegetables.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Although organic food use is by its very nature an incredibly stupid movement, I don't see why something should be labeled as organic when it's not.[/QUOTE]

I don't know that it's stupid (though admittedly participants are rather paranoid), but it seems like such a waste for corporations to try to lie in order to capture such a small portion of the, erm, market market.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Although organic food use is by its very nature an incredibly stupid movement, I don't see why something should be labeled as organic when it's not.[/QUOTE]

Actually organic food is good for people and good for the planet.

You want stupid - pro-life is by its very nature an incredibly stupid movement (literally - those people would fail philosophy 101)
 
[quote name='camoor']Actually organic food is good for people and good for the planet.

You want stupid - pro-life is by its very nature an incredibly stupid movement (literally - those people would fail philosophy 101)[/QUOTE]

It's good for the planet if you consider not being able to feed a good percentage of the world's population good.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']It's good for the planet if you consider not being able to feed a good percentage of the world's population good.[/QUOTE]

Poisoning the earth, the water, the air, over-reliance on antibiotics to quell disease in overcrowded farms, and splicing genes in food when we really don't understand all the ramifications is not a great alternative.

Besides, if people in this country would eat less meat and more vegatables and more cereals/wheat/staple crops, then we could feed many many more people in the world. However you never hear arguements against agri-business or criticism of America's penchant for gorging themselves on fried dead animal flesh as a reason for the suffering of the world. No - it must be all those organic food nuts.

Besides, the world is overpopulated, and world leaders (political and religious) keep making it worse by refusing to teach proper birth control methods (opting instead for ineffective abstinence campaigns - or worse, just telling people it's god's will so keep on screwing)

This is a hokey little cartoon but it does a good job in explaining more:

http://www.themeatrix.com/
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Although organic food use is by its very nature an incredibly stupid movement, I don't see why something should be labeled as organic when it's not.[/QUOTE]

The surrounding envrionment (plants, animals etc.) is healthier around organic farms than with conventional farms, that alone places it beyond the "incredibly stupid" category.

I'm don't care very much one way or the other in regards to my consumption of the food (though, with a few foods organic does taste a little better normally), but there are other benefits.
 
Im not a big fan of organic due to the fact that it usually costs more. If it were the same price I would definatly buy it but since it costs enough that it would make a diffrence I stick to regualr food. I dont think it really matters in the long run though.
 
[quote name='dtarasev']Im not a big fan of organic due to the fact that it usually costs more. If it were the same price I would definatly buy it but since it costs enough that it would make a diffrence I stick to regualr food. I dont think it really matters in the long run though.[/QUOTE]

The more wide scale organic food is the cheaper it will cost, especially if larger companies were to adopt those methods.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The more wide scale organic food is the cheaper it will cost, especially if larger companies were to adopt those methods.[/QUOTE]

True, but the big companies are relictant to change so it will take some time or a big organic company to even the field.
 
[quote name='dtarasev']Im not a big fan of organic due to the fact that it usually costs more. If it were the same price I would definatly buy it but since it costs enough that it would make a diffrence I stick to regualr food. I dont think it really matters in the long run though.[/QUOTE]

Actually, organic food is the regular food. You are eating the genetically-modified, heavily pesticide-laden, antibiotic-fed food.
 
Organic needs to be replaced with common sense.

Pesticides = bad, they hurt the food and the environment

Genetic engineering = good, genetically engineered crops prevent disease and provide more nutrition

Organic = neutral, no cons or pros
 
[quote name='dtarasev']True, but the big companies are relictant to change so it will take some time or a big organic company to even the field.[/QUOTE]

You can force a big company to do anything when you threaten their wallet.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Organic needs to be replaced with common sense.

Pesticides = bad, they hurt the food and the environment

Genetic engineering = good, genetically engineered crops prevent disease and provide more nutrition

Organic = neutral, no cons or pros[/QUOTE]

This thread is going slightly off-topic. The issue is the government is changing what they consider to be labeled Organic. Most of you guys are talking about the pros and cons of organic food. Whether you like organic food or not is your perogotive. What matters is that the defination of Organic food should not change.
 
[quote name='Xevious']This thread is going slightly off-topic. The issue is the government is changing what they consider to be labeled Organic. Most of you guys are talking about the pros and cons of organic food. Whether you like organic food or not is your perogotive. What matters is that the defination of Organic food should not change.[/QUOTE]

The reason it's changing is because companies realize their is money to be made, but by lowering the standard they can maximize profit. If the standard for organic is maintained, then their profits will be reduced. Either way they will be expanding into that market since money is there, and they are, and will be, releasing more products to take advantage of that.

Another reason for them to move into that market, even if the profit is less than for conventional produce, is simply to stop any strong challenger from taking hold in that area and later expanding. If kraft could dominate a section of the organic market, but make minimal profit doing it, there is still the benefit of having to deal with one less competitor.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Genetic engineering = good, genetically engineered crops prevent disease and provide more nutrition[/QUOTE]

Except when you splice a fish gene in the tomatoes, and they start tasting like fish.

Or you create an allergenic corn that's resistant to disease, and it spreads into the human foodchain.
 
[quote name='camoor']Except when you splice a fish gene in the tomatoes, and they start tasting like fish.

Or you create an allergenic corn that's resistant to disease, and it spreads into the human foodchain.[/QUOTE]

That fish gene thing is a myth. They have done it in labs to test things but it is not curerntly in the food supply.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']That fish gene thing is a myth. They have done it in labs to test things but it is not curerntly in the food supply.[/QUOTE]

Did I say it was in the food supply? The fact that we caught that one because it's so obvious is little comfort - what about the next side-affect trait that isn't obvious (like a plant that kills off an important insect in the ecosystem)
 
[quote name='camoor']Did I say it was in the food supply? The fact that we caught that one because it's so obvious is little comfort - what about the next side-affect trait that isn't obvious (like a plant that kills off an important insect in the ecosystem)[/QUOTE]

It wasn't "caught", there was nothing sneaky about it. It didn't even make the news until years later. It was an attempt to utilize a gene so plants would be more resistant to cold, but it didn't work. It never made the tomatoe taste like fish. Just because you take a gene that is found in a specific animal, doesn't mean that implanting it into something else makes it partly that animal.

This is really nothing more than a shock tactic that most people have latched onto. Personally, I have much more problems with pesticide use than genetic modification.
 
My thoughts. I am really disgusted with you here elprinciple but you recognize the fact they should be honest if a product is organic or not.
Me I'd rather eat Organic whenever but most products aren't cheap. Personally I say we put a tax on candy and shit and use that to subside organic and this is coming from someone who eats it.
In the end foods without Antibiotics are better IMO. I mean hearing about those girls that reach puberty faster and GOD knows what it does to guys. Also, and this is not on the Antibiotic tips but on a screwing up the human body in general or even further the Human Genome, I would argue pollution or something else is effectively WRECKING it. You want proof? Look at all those kids allergic to Peanuts or whatever. You never use to hear about that allergy in the old days though I'm sure it existed. Fact is these products or something out there is doing HAVOK, perhaps to us, and some of the children right now.
Also you wanna talk about unhealthy, what about Pig Farms in Iowa? Those people set those animals in cages day in and out without letting them out to roam and what happens? Their urine destroys the land and maybe worse. That should be one listing on meat: free roaming as well as antibiotic free and grain fed.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The surrounding envrionment (plants, animals etc.) is healthier around organic farms than with conventional farms, that alone places it beyond the "incredibly stupid" category.

I'm don't care very much one way or the other in regards to my consumption of the food (though, with a few foods organic does taste a little better normally), but there are other benefits.[/QUOTE]

I will simply say in response to this and the other criticisms of my post that the organic movement is a step in the direction of undoing the green revolution. This was the series of technological advances in agriculture that has allowed us to feed everyone. It includes things like better fertilizers, irrigation, pesticides. It has exponentially increased food production. "Organic" production would have us go back on these advances. If "organic" production were the norm, all the world's forests would have to be cut down to make way for farmland to feed everyone. The "organic" movement is idiotic for these reasons.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I will simply say in response to this and the other criticisms of my post that the organic movement is a step in the direction of undoing the green revolution. This was the series of technological advances in agriculture that has allowed us to feed everyone. It includes things like better fertilizers, irrigation, pesticides. It has exponentially increased food production. "Organic" production would have us go back on these advances. If "organic" production were the norm, all the world's forests would have to be cut down to make way for farmland to feed everyone. The "organic" movement is idiotic for these reasons.[/QUOTE]

Irrigation can be used and gm foods can still be produced while maintaining the best part of organic produce, it doesn't harm the environment on the scale that conventional farming does. The main part is to get rid of the pesticides.
 
http://www.reason.com/0004/fe.rb.billions.shtml
REASON: What do you think of organic farming? A lot of people claim it's better for human health and the environment.

Borlaug: That’s ridiculous. This shouldn’t even be a debate. Even if you could use all the organic material that you have — the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues — and get them back on the soil, you couldn’t feed more than 4 billion people. In addition, if all agriculture were organic, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests.

At the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you have to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows? There’s a lot of nonsense going on here.

If people want to believe that the organic food has better nutritive value, it’s up to them to make that foolish decision. But there’s absolutely no research that shows that organic foods provide better nutrition. As far as plants are concerned, they can’t tell whether that nitrate ion comes from artificial chemicals or from decomposed organic matter. If some consumers believe that it’s better from the point of view of their health to have organic food, God bless them. Let them buy it. Let them pay a bit more. It’s a free society. But don’t tell the world that we can feed the present population without chemical fertilizer. That’s when this misinformation becomes destructive.
Click to expand...

http://www.jhpress.org/press_release/mendel2004.html
The Green Revolution

In just the last hundred years the world population has doubled and redoubled.

The number of people on earth reached three billion in 1950, then jumped to six billion in little more than a single human generation. Yet farmers kept pace through advances in plant breeding: Plants' genes were modified in ways that capitalized on the nitrogen chemists had learned to pull out of the air.

From the 1960s to the 1990s, new crop varieties and expanding fertilizer use-the Green Revolution- allowed us to meet the world's food needs. In 1950, 1.7 billion acres of farmland produced 692 million tons of grain. In 1992, with no real increase in the number of acres under cultivation, the world's farmers produced 1.9 billion tons of grain-a 170 percent increase.

If India alone had rejected the high-yielding varieties of the Green Revolution, another 100 million acres of farmland-an area the size of California-would have had to be plowed to produce the same amount of grain.

That unfarmed land now protects the last of the tigers.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Sorry to have sort of hijacked this thread, Xevious, but I think nobody's going to defend labeling food that is not produced organically as organic.
 
I'm not sure if that was just a fyi or directed at me. If it was in response to my last post then here's my response:

Organic farming benefits the surrounding environment, mainly due to lack of pesticide use. You can still use gm crops and most fertilizers and still maintain the major benefit of organic farming. That's what I said in my last post, and that point was unchallenged.
 
Hey LP,

People are overbreeding, man is a party animal and the party is raging right now. Agribusiness is just delaying the hangover.

Our only hope is for politicians and religious leaders to take a courageous stand against overpopulation, teaching effective birth control and planned parenting would be a great start.

 
What I don't understand is why the OCA doesn't create its own seperate certification for orgainc foods. The problem with the USDA or indeed any state department of agriculture is that regulation is affected not by what is best for the consumer but by politics and lobbyists.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm not sure if that was just a fyi or directed at me. If it was in response to my last post then here's my response:

Organic farming benefits the surrounding environment, mainly due to lack of pesticide use. You can still use gm crops and most fertilizers and still maintain the major benefit of organic farming. That's what I said in my last post, and that point was unchallenged.[/QUOTE]

Even assuming that's true, organic farming drastically harms the environment by requiring massive increases in cropland, as I was attempting to point out. This cropland would come from cutting down forests and farming in more and more marginal areas, causing massive increases in environmental degredation on a wide scale.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Even assuming that's true, organic farming drastically harms the environment by requiring massive increases in cropland, as I was attempting to point out. This cropland would come from cutting down forests and farming in more and more marginal areas, causing massive increases in environmental degredation on a wide scale.[/QUOTE]

But devastation already occurs due to all the pesticide use. I honestly don't know, and haven't seen reputable statistics on, the difference between conventional and organic products per acre. But when you're dealing with small local farmers, who sell locally (there are a bunch of these about a half hour west of boston) like many organic farmers do, then their produce is essentially surplus. Often their whole selling point is based on their size and that they're organic, they're not designed to be mass produced farms that feed millions of people. But, again, you could use practically all of the gm technologyand fertilizing technology in place, minus the pesticides, and still have high crop yields along with a healthier environment.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But devastation already occurs due to all the pesticide use. I honestly don't know, and haven't seen reputable statistics on, the difference between conventional and organic products per acre. But when you're dealing with small local farmers, who sell locally (there are a bunch of these about a half hour west of boston) like many organic farmers do, then their produce is essentially surplus. Often their whole selling point is based on their size and that they're organic, they're not designed to be mass produced farms that feed millions of people. But, again, you could use practically all of the gm technologyand fertilizing technology in place, minus the pesticides, and still have high crop yields along with a healthier environment.[/QUOTE]

In regards to pesticides, I think you've hit the nail on the head as to where it's going. I think we'll see less pesticides used in the future as more and more genetically engineered crops are used. That will help reduce the effects of pesticides on the environment, although it will bring up its own environmental issues as well. But right now the point is not that some small-time vegetable farmers grow organic, but that more and more people insisting on organic would be a bad thing for the environment and a bad thing for our ability to feed everyone right now.
 
El I can't see how much worse it could get around here. Already we're tearing DOWN farmland to make room for the population and I say what a waste.
 
[quote name='Sarang01'] Already we're tearing DOWN farmland to make room for the population and I say what a waste.[/QUOTE]

Why? we produce far more food than we can ever use. Farm subsidies, now there's a waste.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']El I can't see how much worse it could get around here. Already we're tearing DOWN farmland to make room for the population and I say what a waste.[/QUOTE]

You don't see how much worse it could get? You don't get out much, do you. I'm sure you wouldn't like rural forested land being cleared en masse to make way for more "organic" farmland. Perhaps we can raze Shenandoah National Park (after all, it used to be farmland) to make way for more farms that grow "organic" food, which isn't any healthier or better than non-"organic" food (or at least there is no research indicating this whatsoever).

As for population trends, did you know that other than immigration, the U.S. has no population growth? It's true. If we allowed 0 immigrants, our population would not increase and we would in a few years see a European-like curve, with our population beginning to decrease. Of course, I'm not advocating that and there is still plenty of room in this country, so I think your overpopulation fears are unfounded.
 
[quote name='camoor']Hey LP,

People are overbreeding, man is a party animal and the party is raging right now. Agribusiness is just delaying the hangover.

Our only hope is for politicians and religious leaders to take a courageous stand against overpopulation, teaching effective birth control and planned parenting would be a great start.

[/QUOTE]

Switching to organic farming would leave 2 billion people with no food. We are in fact at double carrying capacity for our planet. Realistically we need to curb the population growth, and steadily decrease it, and in the meantime genetically altered foods and pesticides are necessary.

I've spent my entire childhood eating organic "everything" due to hippie parents, and I can tell you first hand all it got me was worms.

Edit: I'd like to see the proposed bill in it's entirety, I'm sure everything the organic / health food industry is accusing is complete fabrication, per usual.
 
[quote name='weimerwanger']Switching to organic farming would leave 2 billion people with no food. We are in fact at double carrying capacity for our planet. Realistically we need to curb the population growth, and steadily decrease it, and in the meantime genetically altered foods and pesticides are necessary.

I've spent my entire childhood eating organic "everything" due to hippie parents, and I can tell you first hand all it got me was worms.

Edit: I'd like to see the proposed bill in it's entirety, I'm sure everything the organic / health food industry is accusing is complete fabrication, per usual.[/QUOTE]

You can eat your mock DDT covered food but I have a feeling it's screwing up our bodies somewhere along the line.
Also I think most of us have those Parasites in us and just assume we're getting tired because we're getting older or because of something else. I don't think just kids eating Organic foods that may have been improperly cleaned got it.
 
[quote name='weimerwanger']I've spent my entire childhood eating organic "everything" due to hippie parents, and I can tell you first hand all it got me was worms.[/QUOTE]

Well as a result I would assume that you don't have man-boobs or a general problem with obeisity. Maybe you should thank your thoughtful parents for feeding you natural food while respecting the enviornment.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well as a result I would assume that you don't have man-boobs or a general problem with obeisity. Maybe you should thank your thoughtful parents for feeding you natural food while respecting the enviornment.[/QUOTE]

So people who eat mostly healthy, natural type foods don't get fat? Seriously, I don't think you've ever made a non mouth foaming point in regards to obesity.
 
Massive monoculture, pesticide using, GMO farms aren't the answer to the world's problems.

Starvation is a bad thing, but hey, once we feed everyone, we've got this overpopulation thing to worry about...and let's not forget that starvation is a symptom of poverty and the corruption that causes it. feeding the hungry is a band aid.

on topic: that sucks OP, but I'm not terribly suprised.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So people who eat mostly healthy, natural type foods don't get fat? Seriously, I don't think you've ever made a non mouth foaming point in regards to obesity.[/QUOTE]

They don't have as great an occurnace of problems like endometriosis, pumping all our cattle and polutry full of steroids and antibotics isn't exactly a good thing.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']They don't have as great an occurnace of problems like endometriosis, pumping all our cattle and polutry full of steroids and antibotics isn't exactly a good thing.[/QUOTE]

I'm not arguing that. I've just always thought it was disgusting the way camoor portrays overweight people.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']They don't have as great an occurnace of problems like endometriosis, pumping all our cattle and polutry full of steroids and antibotics isn't exactly a good thing.[/QUOTE]

Precisely, thanks for being the voice of reason as opposed to Alonzo's attempts to bait me.

Anyway yes - as an example non-organic milk has female cow hormones in it - I'm saying no thanks to that Frankenstein experiment.
 
[quote name='camoor']Precisely, thanks for being the voice of reason as opposed to Alonzo's attempts to bait me.

Anyway yes - as an example non-organic milk has female cow hormones in it - I'm saying no thanks to that Frankenstein experiment.[/QUOTE]

But thats just it, everything's a "Frankenstein experiment" to all those paranoid health food fanatics that have little to no education and have no idea how the human body works. You can believe anything you want, but don't preach it like its going to save lives.

FDA attacks "hormone-free" milk claims. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has warned four manufacturers to stop labeling their milk products are "No Hormones" or "Hormone Free." The agency has determined that these statements are false claims because all milk contains naturally occurring hormones that milk processing does not remove. I has also stated that food manufacturers who do not use milk from cows treated with recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) may voluntarily inform consumers of this fact on their product labels or labeling, provided that the statements are truthful and not misleading. During the rbST approval process, the FDA determined that the recombinant (genetically engineered) form of bST is virtually identical to a cow's natural somatotropin, a pituitary hormone that stimulates milk production and that there is no significant difference between milk from treated and untreated cows. For that reason, the FDA also concluded that it lacks the authority to require special labeling for products from rbST-treated cows, and that producers have no basis for claiming that milk from untreated cows is safer. [FDA warns milk producers to remove "hormone free" claims from the labeling of dairy products. FDA news release, Sept 12, 2003]
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm not arguing that. I've just always thought it was disgusting the way camoor portrays overweight people.[/QUOTE]

Then why not make a seperate Vs. forum thread about fat people?
 
[quote name='weimerwanger']But thats just it, everything's a "Frankenstein experiment" to all those paranoid health food fanatics that have little to no education and have no idea how the human body works. You can believe anything you want, but don't preach it like its going to save lives.[/QUOTE]

The FDA can only act on food and drugs once they have been proven to cause illness or death - and with the food and drug lobbyist groups being so powerful on Capitol Hill, it takes years of documented evidence of harm or a string of high-profile deaths(think of ephedera, which we all knew was dangerous, but which required deaths, lawsuits, hearings, and motions filed before the FDA would even investigate). Citing that you have the FDA's blessing does little to reassure me that these substances are safe. Besides, does it seem natural to you to inject cows with drugs that interfere with their natural bodily functions?

There is also the issue of taste, non-organic milk just doesn't taste right.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']And that's how things get off topic, it seems odd to dismiss a valid point because of a fat joke.[/QUOTE]

It seems odd to take every possible opportunity to insult overweight people.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It seems odd to take every possible opportunity to insult overweight people.[/QUOTE]

Why? Everyone has their vices.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Why? Everyone has their vices.[/QUOTE]

Fine, he cant stop constantly attacking overweight people, I can't stop finding that sickening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top