Hello again,
I also wanted to comment as follows on Steve's observations.
I am not an organic grower, and do not agree with their perspective
on everything. However, I do feel that the early adopters of organic
are very good people, who did the rest of us a service, by being
critical of the general consensus of the greatness of all
agricultural advancements, some of which, though we did not know it
at the time, had serious downsides as well. It is important to look
critically and objectively at every new development, to assess
whether it really can deliver what it proposes, and whether there
are any potential downsides that have not yet become obvious.
It is also important for organic producers to think critically of
their own stance, and find if they can also do things differently.
And science is a great vehicle to use in this observation.
From my perspective, I do have some problems with the adaptation of
genetically modified plants, and I think the organic groups are
right to be wary.
Apart from the nasty behaviour of corporations against farmers
regarding violations of their patent rights (I have a problem with
the practice of allowing genes to be patented), there are some
unresolved questions (as well as some which have probably have not
even been thought of yet).
Human health:
Antibiotic resistant marker (ARM) genes were often added to the
genetic cassette (the gene segment being added to the plant to be
transformed.
After insertion of the new genes, antibiotics are applied to the cells.
These kill un-transformed cells, leaving the few transformed ones.
Critics said that it was a bad idea to allow these transformed
plants having genes that are coding for resistance to antibiotics
into the environment, but the GM proponents said it was not a worry,
because it could not happen.
Now, quite a few years later, it is now considered bad practice to
leave ARM genes in transformed plants, because of the small but real
risk of incorporation of this DNA into the gut bacteria of plants or
animals than eat modified plants.
This is because of a trial (the only one ever conducted to see if
this could happen). Volunteers were fed a single meal of a burger
and a milk shake containing GM Soya. (Study conducted in 2002 by UK
Food Standards Agency). There were 12 healthy volunteers and 7
volunteers who had previously had their colons surgically removed.
In healthy volunteers there was no evidence that gut bacteria had
taken up the DNA. In three of the seven people without a complete
digestive tract, it was found that bacteria had taken up modified
DNA from the Soya. Implies that gut bacteria could take advantageous
genes from GM food, to enhance their own characteristics, and the
end point of such a transformation is completely unpredictable.
There is also the issue of allergens to human health:
The genes that are transferred from the donor organism are not
necessarily selected individually.
As a consequence, unintentional transfers can take place.
In 1993, a company developed a modified soybean (producing extra
methionine; a desirable trait) using donor DNA from the Brazil nut.
The modified soybean produced immunological reactions in people
usually allergic to Brazil nut.
Development was discontinued, and the modified soybeans destroyed.
The difficulty this example highlights is that until individual
genes coding for desirable traits can be selectively transferred,
without risk of also transferring undesirable genes, or the
mutations inevitably associated with the transfer process as
currently undertaken can be eliminated, plants posing a risk to
human or animal health could be accidentally put on sale.
This is because of the regulatory concept of "substantial
equivalence" - Basically, genetically modified plants do not need to
be tested for safety before being released, as they are considered
substantially equivalent to plants produced in conventional breeding.
Another allergy issue was highlighted in a paper published in
November 2005, when a pest resistant field pea developed in
Australia for use as a pasture crop was shown to cause an allergic
reaction in mice. The gene in question, which inhibits amylase (a
dietary starch digestion enzyme), was transferred from beans to
peas. What the results showed is that the protein, when synthesized
in pea leaves had a different immunogenicity than when it was
isolated from bean leaves (the native form).
This was considered surprising to the researchers (though not to
sceptics) but was thought to be related to the presence of slightly
different carbohydrate chains in each plant.
Environmental effects:
Whatever about the possible health effects of consuming GM foods, at
least consumer have choice in this regard. Once a GM crop is
released to the environment, it is impossible to recall it, and
environmental considerations should be treated with importance.
The effect on non-target organisms, in for example, consuming Bt
crops is self-evident. They are also killed, with the adverse
effects on biodiversity.
However, the effects of gene drift to wild relatives, and the
knock-on to non-target organisms has not yet been defined.
The issue of super-weeds is also a realistic worry. It is entirely
possible that a crop species could become a difficult-to-control
weed species, or by gene drift, that an existing weeds species would
become more difficult to control.
There is also the real risk of genetically modified toxin-producing
plants grown for fuel or fibre accidentally transferring genes to
food species. You then have a toxic crop plant.
Not to mention liability for contamination of crops grown by farmers
who wish to produce GM-free ingredients. Who will pay to put things
right if there is damage to the environment as a result of using
genetically modified crops? Should the companies producing GMOs and
making profits from them be responsible? Or should the state pay
because it has approved the use of a GMO and society has had the
"benefit" of using them?
Companies and governments often argue that GM crops and foods are
thoroughly assessed for safety so adverse effects should, in theory,
be unlikely. Despite this they are often reluctant to see strict
liability rules introduced. The polluter pays principal would
dictate that companies producing GMOs should take responsibility for
their products, including any adverse effects on the environment.
Critics say that to have confidence that the whole process of GM
risk assessment is being undertaken rigorously, that environmental
liability is an important safeguard.
Here in Europe The Environmental Liability Directive (ELD - 2004/35)
provides the liability regime for environmental harm arising from
the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This is the regime
that was promised during the negotiation of the Deliberate Release
Directive (2001/18 - Recital 16).
The Directive provides for very basic environmental liability
protection. At the moment it is highly unlikely that a biotechnology
company or person using GMOs would be required to pay for
remediation of any environmental damage that may arise unless they
were proven to be negligent. As a result, either damage will not be
repaired or the state will have to pay.
To conclude:
The arguments and list of topics that warrant argument will go on.
But GM crops advocates are not the only ones who have science on
their side. They have the science of knowing how to make these
transgenic plants, but not the environmental or medical science to
give solid assurances as to their safety. At the moment GM companies
in the US are being sued by farmers and food producers who have had
their livelihoods damaged by contamination. Here in Europe the GM
companies are threatening to sue governments who set tight
guidelines about requirements for production (such as not having
conventional crops that may be contaminated nearby), because they
are losing time in getting patent income. At least the lawyers are
doing well out of GM.
Con Traas
-----Original Message-----
From: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Steve Demuth
Sent: 12 March 2007 02:37
To: Apple-Crop
Subject: RE: Apple-Crop: Time article
Arthur,
"Silliness" was a poor word choice on my part. It conveys nothing
except an derision of it's object. I apologize.
To be more precise, what I object to in the trajectory of the organic
movement, is its willingness, if not outright eagerness, to let
anti-science emotionalism into a process that, of all things, should
be evidence based. Thus we have a prohibition on genetically
engineered plants, when sensible genetic modification could be an
enormous boon to organics, and ecologically sound agriculture. Thus
we have a blanket prohibition on chemical pesticides, rather than a
considered weighing of benefit vs. risk. I just can't get behind
this kind of thinking.
At 06:50 PM 3/11/2007, you 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:[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:[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.
Steve Demuth
Decorah, Iowa
"Various forms of religious madness are quite common in the United
States ..." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
