I would agree with Kurt. It is all about Trust.

The public has been told many, many times that "Certified Organic" equates to "Not Been Sprayed"

When was the last time anyone from the organic movement stood up and said, NO, that is not what "Certified Organic "means. Where is the credibility?


It is time that the real issues be addressed. Not the fear mongering of the anti pesticide crowd, but the real issues of obesity and the loss of habit of eating fresh fruits. As the fear of pesticides have risen, so has juvenile diabetes (double in the past decade), consumption of junk food, obesity, and more. What is the correlation? When mom fears the sprayed apple, does she reach for the high fat, high calorie granola bar? 7up rather than apple juice?


Mo Tougas
Tougas Family Farm
Northborough, MA








On Mar 11, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Arthur Harvey wrote:

I could agree with most of what you say about organic foods, but I'm not sure that what you regard as silliness is the same as the silliness I observe. In conventional food standards it is far more silly ---and dangerous to health---than what goes on in organics. I speak as an organic inspector and author of Harvey v Veneman. Most of my life was spent working in conventional apple orchards where the prevailing view is that Guthion---or whatever---is perfectly safe because the manufacturers say so, and the feds have not contradicted them until very recently. Interestingly, the Fruit Growers News which I have been reading for more than 40 years, has within the past couple of years turned away from their contemptuous attitude toward organic orcharding, and now has
positive and helpful coverage.


--- Steve Demuth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Kurt,

I actually agree with you that you, and other farmers, are probably
better served by the personal relationship than they would be by
certification alone (nothing, I might add, prevents one from
benefiting from both).  My point was that the consumer's trust is
based mostly on the good feelings from the personal relationship,
even though there is no demonstrable correlation between this and the
things that people claim to value about food production methods.

And the physician example is in fact perfectly apropos.  Firstly,
because physicians are certified, and required to periodically
re-certify in their chose area of practice.  I suspect it matters a
great deal to most people that their doctor actually graduated from
medical school, finished a residency, and is regularly re-certified
in their speciality.

Secondly, it is true that people do choose physicians on
recommendations, and personal trust.  And, it's a lousy way to choose
them.  Having been involved research on clinical outcomes, I can say
quite certainly that the fact that a physician appears competent,
caring and trustworthy is very poorly correlated with whether or not
they produce above or below average results for their patients.  Many
well-loved physicians are, statistically at least, a very bad bet for
your health.

This of course hardly bolsters my case for certification.  Despite
our best efforts to certify physician competence, there is still a
huge variance in quality.  However, there is an important difference
between organic certification and doctor certification: organic
certification certifies methods, not knowledge alone.  There is a
movement afoot in the medical field to start doing this with
hospitals (if you can't verify that every post heart-attack patient
is getting the most proven effective drug regimen, you may lose your
blessing as a cardiac care center); organic already does this with
horticultural practice.

All of this is not to say that I think organic is an altogether great
thing.  I don't actually like the direction that organic has taken in
the last 20 years; many of the regulations in the current
certification are to my mind just plain wrong headed.  And I
certainly think that a local, ecologically-minded agriculture is
preferable in many ways to a distant, organically certified one.

But, how am I know to that my local grower is following best
horticultural, pesticide, and ecological practice.  Trust?  Not
alone.  On this one I'm with Ronald Reagan, "trust but verify."  That
is the value of certification.

Which bring me back to my starting point: this isn't an either
or.  Can't there be a certification program for ecologically sound
agriculture that steers clear of the silliness in the organic
standards, and which tells me something useful about what is going on the farm?

At 02:18 PM 3/11/2007, you wrote:
Fellow Growers,

I think that Steve's conclusion about the gullibility of consumers is a little misdirected. I have found that what consumers (people) really value and desire in America is personal relationships. Certification may well serve and be necessary for the 900 mile "local" model as well as the box stores but I believe that it has been born out of the realization of these retailers that they must somehow compete with the consumer desire to have a personal relationship with a person that they trust. I view the situation as being similar to having a physician. One generally chooses a personal physician not based on the fact that they have a PhD from a prestigious university and scored well on their finals, but rather on the recommendation
and endorsements from others who have established trusting personal
relationships with that physician. Defining consumer trust may be mostly subjective, but it is very real. To a retailer, it manifests the bottom line. I feel much more confident building our retail farm business on our ability to create, build, and maintain personal relationships with the consumers that we serve (and we do this successfully with 10 of thousands of
customers) as opposed to trusting our future business growth to a
bureaucratic regulatory certification program. Indeed, as growers we must
always endeavor to do our job correctly in order to produce safe and
nutritious food, but it is the personal relationship that people really want and desire. And it is this reality, I believe, that will solidify and grow the retail farm market consumer spending share that is being aggressively
sought after by the box stores and supermarkets.


Kurt W. Alstede
General Manager
Alstede Farms, LLC
P. O. Box 278
Chester, New Jersey 07930
United States of America

Tel.  908-879-7189




-----Original Message-----
From: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net [mailto:apple- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Steve Demuth
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 2:34 PM
To: Apple-Crop
Subject: RE: Apple-Crop: Time article

People often do trust things they are familiar with.  Unfortunately,
they do this without much analysis of whether this is wise.  That
people trust locally grown and marketed produce says nothing
whatsoever about the nutritional, economic or ecological bona fides
of such product.  That can only be done by well enforced
certification programs.  And that, whatever the faults of organic
certification (and there are certainly many), is the real benefit of
the organic label.

So, while I am a great proponent for consuming locally grown produce,
I think that Kurt's endorsement below points out mostly the
gullibility of consumers, not anything virtuous about local
production.  Even the "petroleum miles" benefit claimed in the Time
piece is not necessarily as obvious as it seems.  If one hauls
30,000lbs of apples cross country (say, 3,000 miles) in a
semi-trailer, that can easily burn 600 gallons of fuel. But, suppose 2000 consumers drive out to their local U-pick an average distance of
10 miles round trip to get an average of 15 lbs of apples
each. That's thte same 30,000lbs of product. Want to bet which uses
more petroleum?  In fact, the consumers would have to average 33+
miles/gallon to beat the truckload - highly unlikely with today's
cars.  And if the local producer is delivering to local markets,
rather than running a U-pick? The economics probably favor the local
produce in this case, assuming an efficient and truly local route,
but the margin will whither rapidly if they are delivering partial
loads with 200+ mile round trips.

And, as for the certainty a consumer may feel that a local grower
from whom they buy personally will be attentive to safe use of
pesticides and sound land use - a clean farm storefront, firm
handshake and welcome smile no more assure this than good manners
make used car salesmen honest.  Most local growers do pay attention
to these things, of course, but then so do most organic growers
(particularly as they need to worry about inspections to assure that
they do).  Again, the advantage to the consumer of the local grower
is more about perception than reality.

My favorite analogy in this department is airplane travel.  I don't
really care whether I know personally the mechanic who services the
next AirBus or Boeing that I get on.  I do care that there are
certification programs for the mechanic, the airframe, the pilot, and
basically everything else to do with my flight.  So too with
food.  Again, organic has gone directions that I sincerely disagree
with, but I think the notion of certification is at it's core, a lot
more valuable to society than "a farmer you know and trust."



At 08:42 AM 3/11/2007, you wrote:
Hello Jon,

You are right on as was the Time Article. In the final analysis, people trust the face and the person that they can see and touch...their local farmer. We have seen this to be the case in all of our direct marketing
and
have cultivated it in all of our advertising and marketing efforts. I was thrilled to see Time give this subject favorable front page attention.


Kurt W. Alstede
General Manager
Alstede Farms, LLC
P. O. Box 278
Chester, New Jersey 07930
United States of America

Tel.  908-879-7189




-----Original Message-----
From: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net [mailto:apple- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jon Clements
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:05 PM
To: Apple-Crop
Subject: Apple-Crop: Time article

Although I am hesitant to fan any embers -- I know there are quite a few out there -- into flames, it might be worth your while to pick up
the March 12th issue of Time magazine. There is a cover article on
organic vs. 'buy local.' A couple quotes:

"In the end I bought both apples (organic vs. 'conventional New York state local'). They were both good, although the California one had a
mealy bit, possibly from it's journey." (Is the author English -- a
"mealy bit?")

"Eating locally also seems safer. Ted's (an upstate NY diversified
producer) neighbors and customers can see how he farms. That
transparency doesn't exist with, say, spinach bagged by a distant
agribusiness. I help keep Ted in business, and he helps keep me fed
-- and the elegance and sustainability of that exchange make more
sense to me than gambling on faceless producers who stamp ORGANIC on
a package thousands of miles from home."

Now, I have been trying to fully explain the phenomenal direct- market
sales many Massachusetts apple growers -- and I understand it was
beyond MA too -- had last season. I know the weather was good, and
that makes a huge difference, but I am starting to think the buy

=== message truncated ===


On another topic, the federal law governing organic foods was recently amended by lobbyists hired by some manufacturers. This will allow synthetic ingredients to be added to organic-labeled foods. If this is important to you, please visit my website, www.RestoreOrganicLaw.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard
<http://www.virtualorchard.net> and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon
Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent "official" opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for
the content.









---------------------------------------------------------------------------


The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard <http://www.virtualorchard.net> and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent "official" opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content.





Reply via email to