Re: Apple-Crop: LA Times Re: organic
is the harm of lime sulfur? Are you telling me I should stop going to my favorite sulfur hot Springs which are loaded with the stuff? Aside of the rotten egg smell, I don't see the harm with lime sulfur. I use this stuff all the time, it has not harmed me, it's actually good for the skin if diluted properly. Lime sulfur is used for pets too, takes care of parasites. http://www.nextag.com/lime-sulfur-dip/compare-html Keep it out of your eyes and don't drink it, and you will be fine. Different forms of sulfides are also used in dandruff shampoos. I would not take a bath in any water with dissolved inorganic pesticides, but lime sulfur, I'd put that in my jacuzzi to simulate the hot Springs. BTW, here in the West, fighting inorganic pesticide use is old hat, the fringe has moved on to find new causes and is now fighting the organic pesticides. So maybe you guys could all chime in and pretty soon we won't be able to use anything. From: Mo Tougas m...@tougasfarm.com To: Apple-Crop apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:36:49 PM Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: LA Times Re: organic Dare I add this. What the article lacks is what the organic movement hopes the public never learns, and that is the fact that the movement has deliberately mislead, often times outright lied to the public to forward its financial goals. The public overwhelmingly believes that organic means either not sprayed, not sprayed with pesticides , not sprayed with toxic pesticides or not sprayed with anything toxic. Or that because it is natural, it is benign. The organic industry has done nothing to right this misconception. I can't say that I blame them. Certainly if the truth were known, the advantage would be lost. Imagine if the average Joe or Mary spent a day pruning, or thinning in an orchard sprayed 2 days ago with sulfur or better yet, lime sulfur. Perhaps a reporter or two should be encouraged to do so. Pot stirred. Mo Tougas Tougas Family Farm Northborough, MA On Jul 21, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Dave Rosenberger wrote: Sorry, Alex, but all conventional pesticides produced in the past three decades have a MUCH shorter half-life than copper which is approved for organic. Also, I agree that organic farming is much easier in desert climates. However, it appears to me that western organic growers (and conventional farmers as well) have been and continue to be largely dependent on federally subsidized and/or state-funded water systems. The water management systems in western irrigated agriculture may have had less environmental impact that the wide- spread use of DDT from the 1940's through the 1960's, but it would be interesting to know the comparative environmental costs of the two systems. Pesticides that were developed in the past two decades have relatively short residual life-spans or half-lives. The water management systems used to produce the vast amounts of food that come from western irrigated farmland continue to drain water flows that formerly maintained wild salmon populations and other aspects of healthy stream ecology. So which system is ultimately more damaging if the ideal is to maintain healthy natural systems? Flavor comparisons are very difficult because everyone's preferences are different. I certainly agree that produce in chain-store retail outlets often lacks flavor, but in my opinion, that fact has little to do with organic vs. non-organic. It has a lot more to do with which cultivars and selections will hold up to our long-distance and impersonal food handling systems. Finally, I'll repeat my two main arguments against organic: First, lists of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for organic production have evolved from a mish-mash of nonscientific tradition and folklore with little or no scientific basis for those decisions. Second, organic foods generally are not available to those in the lower socio-economic quadrant of our society because it costs too much. The constraints on organic agriculture (perhaps with the exception of corporate farms in desert climates) almost guarantee that organic food will be more expensive because production costs are higher and/or productivity per acre is lower. (I know that higher cost and/or lower productivity is not always the case for organic ag, but it is still largely true. Therefore, don't bother replying with the examples of the exceptions!) Everyone has a right to pay more for the food of their choice if they can afford it, just as everyone has a right to drive a gas- guzzling Hummer if they can afford that. However, I detect similar levels of socio-economic arrogance and an attitude of I don't want to know the truth about real environmental costs among those who swear by organic foods and those who drive Hummers. I'll support everyone's right to choose, but I object when proponents of organic
Re: Apple-Crop: LA Times Re: organic
If livestock, dairy ?and poultry farmers quit raising their ?products. ?the supply of manure for composting or fertilizers will be nil.? I posed this question to an invited organic grower (the originator of the Topato),? speaker at the SW Illinois Vegetable Growers meeting in 1968:? where is the supply of manure to fertilize the 3000 acres of vegetables in the St. Louis production area?? At that time, the recommendation was 2-4 tons per acre or more. It was not available then nor is it now.? Chris Doll, Extension retiree -Original Message- From: Dave Rosenberger da...@cornell.edu To: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Sent: Tue, Jul 21, 2009 9:03 pm Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: LA Times Re: organic Yes, I was implying that it might be less damaging to our planet if we produced food using pesticides in humid climates rather than draining rivers for arid-land agriculture. However, I really doubt if anyone has calculated the trade-offs, and it would probably be nearly impossible to do so. We are all so interconnected that it is often very difficult to predict how changes in one arena can totally upset the balances half a world away. (Besides, the world would rapidly run out of food if we abandoned all arid-land agriculture or if we abandoned all pesticides not approved for organic use!)? ? To illustrate the complexities of our interconnectedness: A recent article in Science magazine discussed decisions by an agency in California that decided industries should not receive carbon-related credits for using biofuels because the data collected by this agency indicated that biofuels as currently produced provide no net benefit to the environment. The problem is that the huge amounts of the US corn crop consumed for biofuel production resulted, at least initially, in rising food prices worldwide. That caused farmers in tropical and subtropical climates to remove/burn more forest land so as to convert it to farming. The loss of forest land was calculated to negate the carbon-saving benefits of biofuels. The final comment in that article was from a scientist who noted that we could produce enough crops for both biofuels and human food if everyone became a vegetarian because it takes only 1/10th as much land to support humans on vegetarian diets as on meat-based diets.? ? After reading that comment, I thought it would be interesting to know what would happen if North Americans were told that they could either become vegetarian and continue driving their cars/trucks, or they could give up their vehicles and driver's licenses and continue to eat meat. However, our recent discussion on organic farming has added a new twist: If everyone opted to become vegetarian so that they could continue to drive their cars, we would end up with a world-wide shortage of manure for organic farmers (despite all the BS that comes out of Washington DC!). Given this conundrum, I suppose the ecological choices would be to either become a non-organic vegetarian with a car or an omnivore (organic optional) with no car.? ? Saving the planet gets awfully complicated. And what is the point in eating organic foods to stay healthy (which seems to be the under-lying driver for most organic foodies) if by doing so you end up being the last healthy organism on the planet?? ? Dave,? ? There are lots of points you raise I agree with. Although I am not sure I understand the water argument and how it ties into pesticide usage. Are you suggesting it would be environmentally friendlier to grow fruit in humid climates but with more pesticide usage? Western climates do provide many other advantages, though.? ? -- ** Dave Rosenberger? Professor of Plant Pathology Office: 845-691-7231? Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax: 845-691-2719? P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528 Cell: 845-594-3060? ? http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/? ? ? --? ? The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements webmas...@virtualorchard.net.? ? Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content.? ? ? ?
Re: Apple-Crop: LA Times Re: organic
do you seriously believe that most fruit poducers do not use as little pesticides as possible and instead assault their fruit with pesticides? that is an incredibly backward statement. Pesticides cost money, some can be pretty darn expensive. I, for one, do not like to waste money and always use as little pesticides as possible. to make a broad statement that organic apples are better tasting that conventional apples is also closed minded. as Les Price pointed out, the primary difference in taste is because of variety and maturity at harvest. Length of storage also has adverse effects on fruit taste and quality, but there have been great strides made recently to offset that factor. Craig Tanner Tanners Ochard Speer, IL - Original Message - From: Axel Kratel To: Apple-Crop Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:44 PM Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: LA Times Re: organic Lee, I would LOVE to taste your apples, even the inorganic ones, they sound yummy! I believe you and my write up was supporting that point with growers of your scale. But I also believe it's because it's how you grow your non-organic apples. if you sprayed all the inorganic pesticides, the pre-harvest drop reduction agents, and pumped the soil full of nitrogen, your inorganic apples would be terrible compared to the organic ones. I believe that this definitely affects taste. My point was that in principle, organic or low/no-spray conventional properly harvested and handled apples are better tasting than apples assaulted with chemicals, and maybe that has to do with the fact that such growers take more care in handling apples for better flavor. I can tell you there is a striking difference in between Safeway apples and organic apples at Whole Foods for example. But I've had my share of crappy organic apples, so yes, you have to compare apples to apples. Like I say, I will not walk away from delicious produce just because it's not organic even though I favor organic produce. For example,. I get my favorite grapes from a conventional grower that uses as little pesticides as possible. -- From: Les Price jonescreekfa...@yahoo.com To: Apple-Crop apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:56:07 PM Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: LA Times Re: organic I just can't resist a response, Axel. For Me, the problem is, public is bombarded with the hype that organic tastes better and so when they come to the farmers market or my farm store they don't know that the difference in flavor has nothing to do with whether or not it's organic but instead its in things like cultural practices, cultivar selection and oh yes, picking when it's ripe. They believe the hype. They walk away. You absolutely have to make sure you are comparing apples to apples. I grow certified apples and pears as well as the very same varieties as non organic. This is purely by circumstance in that I have not yet taken out the non - organic trees yet once I have discovered whether or not they will work in a no spray environment. I guarantee you that you will not in any way shape or form . especially flavor, be able to tell the difference between my organic and non - organic apples, now numbering 18 cultivars. Les Jones Creek Farms Skagit Valley, Western WA --- Axel Kratel axel.kra...@yahoo.com wrote: I have a mixed reaction to this article. This article almost reads as if it says the world isn't black and white, so forget organics. That seems rather short sighted. The truth is that organic fruits and veggies are not only better for your health, but they're also better for the environment. The organic pesticides have a much shorter half-life. The truth is also that generally, organic fruits and vegetables have better flavor. Walk into a safeway and try it out on the apples, it never fails. But things aren't so easy at farmers markets and roadside fruit stands. It's also true that there are small scale non-organic farmers that really grow outstanding fruits, and me, personally, even though I am a die-hard organic fruit buyer, I do lower my standards to accommodate them. I will not walk away from delicious moorpark apricots if they're not certified organic, We have many local growers that are not certified, but make an extra effort to use as little pesticide as possible, and they should not be punished by the consumer. My orchard also has the sandy nutrient poor soil that the article uses as an example, and yes, even though I try to be organic on the pesticides, I complement organic manure and fish emulsion with ammonium nitrate and potassium nitrate whenever a tree shows major nitrogen deficiencies. I don't sell my produce, but if I did, I'd probably give up the chemical
Re: Apple-Crop: LA Times Re: organic
Keep it out of your eyes and don't drink it, and you will be fine. Different forms of sulfides are also used in dandruff shampoos. I would not take a bath in any water with dissolved inorganic pesticides, but lime sulfur, I'd put that in my jacuzzi to simulate the hot Springs. The first statement is pretty much the general approach I'd use for any fungicide. Some are more toxic than others, and I feel our goal should be to figure out an approach to growing apples and other crops that minimizes toxicity to the environment and humans. That can best be done selecting from all available pesticides and fertilizers, rather than drawing arbitrary lines between one type of chemical and another. As Dave also points out, it is easier to do this in the West but between irrigation and trucking the overall system is not terribly sustainable. There are a number of important environmental reasons to keep food production as local as possible. Growers who attempt to grow organic apples in the Northeastern US have a tough time of it, and usually end up using a pest management program that when evaluated using some form of environmental impact assessment rates worse than an IPM approach using conventional chemicals. (see Kovach et al. 1992. A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides. ) Organic agriculture did not start as a way to deal with pesticides and food safety, but rather as a response to the production of nitrogen fertilizer using the Bosch/Haber process, which Sir Albert Howard saw as having a long-term detrimental effect on soil fertility, He said soil nutrients should come from organic sources rather than synthesized fertilizers. There is a connection with plant diseases: Howard believed that much disease came from poorly managed soil. In the US, Rodale promoted the organic approach to agriculture with the same emphasis. It wasn't until the 1960's with Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring that the organic movement’s focus expanded to include pest control and pesticides. However, the basis for determining what is healthy for the environment is still based on science and philosophy from the early 1900's. So, organic certification programs have given farmers a set of guidelines that are only loosely based on science. While the mission of achieving agricultural sustainability is not only valid but crucial, the organic movement these days in some sectors is as much religion and cult as it is science. Following the guidelines of organic certification is not necessarily environmentally sustainable. As detailed by Vincent, some formulations of sulfur and copper are used as fungicides, and certified by the (OMRI) as acceptable in organic systems, yet both materials can be toxic to plants, soil microbes and fauna, and potentially humans. I think to date the apple orchard that came closest to being sustainable in the Northeastern US was Ron Prokopy's. It was based around disease resistant cultivars, and used a minimal number of insecticide and fungicide sprays, about 4 or 5 total a year, chemicals that were relatively benign. Ron struggled to stay away from fungicides, but decided that he couldn't spend the time physically washing and rubbing the sooty blotch and flyspeck from his apples. Flavor? I don't know of any objective tests. To do them, I'd have to use the word organoleptic in a grant proposal, and I refuse to do that. Back to chemicals - one has to be careful with the words inorganic and organic. In fact, many organic fungicides approved by Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) are inorganic. And naturally, most chemicals that can't pass the OMRI naturalness filter are in fact organic chemicals. Ironic, isn't it? This always messes with my students. By the way, no doubt sulfide chemicals are useful in the treatment of topical dermatitis, but there are some OTC fungicides used for athlete's foot and yeast infections that are the same as or closely related to tree fruit fungicides (e.g. triazoles). Daniel R. Cooley Dept. of Plant, Soil Insect Sci. Fernald Hall 103 University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 Office: 413-577-3803 Cell: 413-531-3383 dcoo...@microbio.umass.edu FAX 413-545-2115 http://people.umass.edu/dcooley/ Office location: 103 Clark Hall
Re: Apple-Crop: LA Times Re: organic
Organic is still the quick and easy approach for lots of people who worry about food safety issues, but there's some interesting stuff appearing in the mass media. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/opinion/27alexander.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/weekinreview/22bittman.html On Jul 21, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Smith, Tim wrote: This reporter has a fresh outlook. http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-fo-calcook1-2009jul01,0,2885942.story Timothy J. Smith WSU Extension
Re: Apple-Crop: LA Times Re: organic
I have a mixed reaction to this article. This article almost reads as if it says the world isn't black and white, so forget organics. That seems rather short sighted. The truth is that organic fruits and veggies are not only better for your health, but they're also better for the environment. The organic pesticides have a much shorter half-life. The truth is also that generally, organic fruits and vegetables have better flavor. Walk into a safeway and try it out on the apples, it never fails. But things aren't so easy at farmers markets and roadside fruit stands. It's also true that there are small scale non-organic farmers that really grow outstanding fruits, and me, personally, even though I am a die-hard organic fruit buyer, I do lower my standards to accommodate them. I will not walk away from delicious moorpark apricots if they're not certified organic, We have many local growers that are not certified, but make an extra effort to use as little pesticide as possible, and they should not be punished by the consumer. My orchard also has the sandy nutrient poor soil that the article uses as an example, and yes, even though I try to be organic on the pesticides, I complement organic manure and fish emulsion with ammonium nitrate and potassium nitrate whenever a tree shows major nitrogen deficiencies. I don't sell my produce, but if I did, I'd probably give up the chemical fertilizer because organic fruit commends a higher price. With that being said, I will walk away from the tasteless non-organic fruits and vegetables at the grocery store. They're disgusting, might as well sell cardboard. But when I go to a health food store that sells organic produce, the difference is striking: the organic produce is so much better it's not even in the same league. So yes, there it is definitely true that organic tastes way better! So just because the world isn't black and white, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. it's not an either/or situation, organic is in fact better, but it's also about making exceptions. Rules about what to do or not to do don't serve anyone well. Humans are given brains for a reason: to use them and not be on automatic pilot operating by some rules like a computer program: consumers need to open their eyes, and make decisions case by case, especially at the farmer's market, because every vendor, every person, and every day is unique. Here in the West, organic farming isn't really so hard. But on the East coast, there are so many bugs that it makes it almost impractical to be organic lest the consumer is willing to eat ugly looking fruit. In my opinion, therein lies the problem: we are turning into a plastic society, everything has to be antiseptic and perfect looking. And that's the main reason I probably will never sell any of my fruit from my 200 tree orchard. I know people who threw in the towel because they got so fed up to see people walk away from incredibly good tasting but not perfect looking fruit to buy the bland fruits just because they're big and pretty. To me, an oddly shaped, heavily ribbed, russeted apple is a delight to the eyes, and I can't wait to sink my teeth into it. Another great example: lately, I've been eating a nice crop of Espagne pears, a French Summer pear that blets like a medlar, a.k.a. turns brown and mushy when ripe, but the brown mush is an incredible delight to the senses, like pie filling, like a nectar of the Gods, a cross in between a medjool date and a pear. Do you think I can easily find an American out there who'd be willing to eat that? Nope, they prefer their tasteless cardboardy bartlett pears, except maybe the chefs are upscale restaurants, who serve a more open minded clientele. So let the people who are on automatic pilot go and buy their produce at safeway, the rest of us can go and delight in our ugly, russeted, scabby but scromtuously delicious fruit, organic is prefferable, especially if you don't care what the fruit looks like, but go ahead and cheat a little. :) From: Smith, Tim smit...@wsu.edu To: Apple-Crop apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:53:14 AM Subject: Apple-Crop: LA Times Re: organic This reporter has a fresh outlook. http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-fo-calcook1-2009jul01,0,2885942.story Timothy J. Smith WSU Extension
Re: Apple-Crop: LA Times Re: organic
Dare I add this. What the article lacks is what the organic movement hopes the public never learns, and that is the fact that the movement has deliberately mislead, often times outright lied to the public to forward its financial goals. The public overwhelmingly believes that organic means either not sprayed, not sprayed with pesticides , not sprayed with toxic pesticides or not sprayed with anything toxic. Or that because it is natural, it is benign. The organic industry has done nothing to right this misconception. I can't say that I blame them. Certainly if the truth were known, the advantage would be lost. Imagine if the average Joe or Mary spent a day pruning, or thinning in an orchard sprayed 2 days ago with sulfur or better yet, lime sulfur. Perhaps a reporter or two should be encouraged to do so. Pot stirred. Mo Tougas Tougas Family Farm Northborough, MA On Jul 21, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Dave Rosenberger wrote: Sorry, Alex, but all conventional pesticides produced in the past three decades have a MUCH shorter half-life than copper which is approved for organic. Also, I agree that organic farming is much easier in desert climates. However, it appears to me that western organic growers (and conventional farmers as well) have been and continue to be largely dependent on federally subsidized and/or state-funded water systems. The water management systems in western irrigated agriculture may have had less environmental impact that the wide- spread use of DDT from the 1940's through the 1960's, but it would be interesting to know the comparative environmental costs of the two systems. Pesticides that were developed in the past two decades have relatively short residual life-spans or half-lives. The water management systems used to produce the vast amounts of food that come from western irrigated farmland continue to drain water flows that formerly maintained wild salmon populations and other aspects of healthy stream ecology. So which system is ultimately more damaging if the ideal is to maintain healthy natural systems? Flavor comparisons are very difficult because everyone's preferences are different. I certainly agree that produce in chain-store retail outlets often lacks flavor, but in my opinion, that fact has little to do with organic vs. non-organic. It has a lot more to do with which cultivars and selections will hold up to our long-distance and impersonal food handling systems. Finally, I'll repeat my two main arguments against organic: First, lists of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for organic production have evolved from a mish-mash of nonscientific tradition and folklore with little or no scientific basis for those decisions. Second, organic foods generally are not available to those in the lower socio-economic quadrant of our society because it costs too much. The constraints on organic agriculture (perhaps with the exception of corporate farms in desert climates) almost guarantee that organic food will be more expensive because production costs are higher and/or productivity per acre is lower. (I know that higher cost and/or lower productivity is not always the case for organic ag, but it is still largely true. Therefore, don't bother replying with the examples of the exceptions!) Everyone has a right to pay more for the food of their choice if they can afford it, just as everyone has a right to drive a gas- guzzling Hummer if they can afford that. However, I detect similar levels of socio-economic arrogance and an attitude of I don't want to know the truth about real environmental costs among those who swear by organic foods and those who drive Hummers. I'll support everyone's right to choose, but I object when proponents of organic foods and/or Hummers suggest that the whole world would be better if we all subscribed to those activities. I have a mixed reaction to this article. This article almost reads as if it says the world isn't black and white, so forget organics. That seems rather short sighted. The truth is that organic fruits and veggies are not only better for your health, but they're also better for the environment. The organic pesticides have a much shorter half-life. The truth is also that generally, organic fruits and vegetables have better flavor. Walk into a safeway and try it out on the apples, it never fails. But things aren't so easy at farmers markets and roadside fruit stands. It's also true that there are small scale non-organic farmers that really grow outstanding fruits, and me, personally, even though I am a die-hard organic fruit buyer, I do lower my standards to accommodate them. I will not walk away from delicious moorpark apricots if they're not certified organic, We have many local growers that are not certified, but make an extra effort to use as little pesticide as possible,
Re: Apple-Crop: LA Times Re: organic
Nonsense! Copper concerns me, but what is the harm of lime sulfur? Are you telling me I should stop going to my favorite sulfur hot Springs which are loaded with the stuff? Aside of the rotten egg smell, I don't see the harm with lime sulfur. I use this stuff all the time, it has not harmed me, it's actually good for the skin if diluted properly. Lime sulfur is used for pets too, takes care of parasites. http://www.nextag.com/lime-sulfur-dip/compare-html Keep it out of your eyes and don't drink it, and you will be fine. Different forms of sulfides are also used in dandruff shampoos. I would not take a bath in any water with dissolved inorganic pesticides, but lime sulfur, I'd put that in my jacuzzi to simulate the hot Springs. BTW, here in the West, fighting inorganic pesticide use is old hat, the fringe has moved on to find new causes and is now fighting the organic pesticides. So maybe you guys could all chime in and pretty soon we won't be able to use anything. From: Mo Tougas m...@tougasfarm.com To: Apple-Crop apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:36:49 PM Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: LA Times Re: organic Dare I add this. What the article lacks is what the organic movement hopes the public never learns, and that is the fact that the movement has deliberately mislead, often times outright lied to the public to forward its financial goals. The public overwhelmingly believes that organic means either not sprayed, not sprayed with pesticides , not sprayed with toxic pesticides or not sprayed with anything toxic. Or that because it is natural, it is benign. The organic industry has done nothing to right this misconception. I can't say that I blame them. Certainly if the truth were known, the advantage would be lost. Imagine if the average Joe or Mary spent a day pruning, or thinning in an orchard sprayed 2 days ago with sulfur or better yet, lime sulfur. Perhaps a reporter or two should be encouraged to do so. Pot stirred. Mo Tougas Tougas Family Farm Northborough, MA On Jul 21, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Dave Rosenberger wrote: Sorry, Alex, but all conventional pesticides produced in the past three decades have a MUCH shorter half-life than copper which is approved for organic. Also, I agree that organic farming is much easier in desert climates. However, it appears to me that western organic growers (and conventional farmers as well) have been and continue to be largely dependent on federally subsidized and/or state-funded water systems. The water management systems in western irrigated agriculture may have had less environmental impact that the wide-spread use of DDT from the 1940's through the 1960's, but it would be interesting to know the comparative environmental costs of the two systems. Pesticides that were developed in the past two decades have relatively short residual life-spans or half-lives. The water management systems used to produce the vast amounts of food that come from western irrigated farmland continue to drain water flows that formerly maintained wild salmon populations and other aspects of healthy stream ecology. So which system is ultimately more damaging if the ideal is to maintain healthy natural systems? Flavor comparisons are very difficult because everyone's preferences are different. I certainly agree that produce in chain-store retail outlets often lacks flavor, but in my opinion, that fact has little to do with organic vs. non-organic. It has a lot more to do with which cultivars and selections will hold up to our long-distance and impersonal food handling systems. Finally, I'll repeat my two main arguments against organic: First, lists of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for organic production have evolved from a mish-mash of nonscientific tradition and folklore with little or no scientific basis for those decisions. Second, organic foods generally are not available to those in the lower socio-economic quadrant of our society because it costs too much. The constraints on organic agriculture (perhaps with the exception of corporate farms in desert climates) almost guarantee that organic food will be more expensive because production costs are higher and/or productivity per acre is lower. (I know that higher cost and/or lower productivity is not always the case for organic ag, but it is still largely true. Therefore, don't bother replying with the examples of the exceptions!) Everyone has a right to pay more for the food of their choice if they can afford it, just as everyone has a right to drive a gas-guzzling Hummer if they can afford that. However, I detect similar levels of socio-economic arrogance and an attitude of I don't want to know the truth about real environmental costs among those who swear by organic foods and those who drive Hummers. I'll support everyone's right to choose, but I object when proponents
Re: Apple-Crop: LA Times Re: organic
won't be able to use anything. From: Mo Tougas m...@tougasfarm.com To: Apple-Crop apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:36:49 PM Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: LA Times Re: organic Dare I add this. What the article lacks is what the organic movement hopes the public never learns, and that is the fact that the movement has deliberately mislead, often times outright lied to the public to forward its financial goals. The public overwhelmingly believes that organic means either not sprayed, not sprayed with pesticides , not sprayed with toxic pesticides or not sprayed with anything toxic. Or that because it is natural, it is benign. The organic industry has done nothing to right this misconception. I can't say that I blame them. Certainly if the truth were known, the advantage would be lost. Imagine if the average Joe or Mary spent a day pruning, or thinning in an orchard sprayed 2 days ago with sulfur or better yet, lime sulfur. Perhaps a reporter or two should be encouraged to do so. Pot stirred. Mo Tougas Tougas Family Farm Northborough, MA On Jul 21, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Dave Rosenberger wrote: Sorry, Alex, but all conventional pesticides produced in the past three decades have a MUCH shorter half-life than copper which is approved for organic. Also, I agree that organic farming is much easier in desert climates. However, it appears to me that western organic growers (and conventional farmers as well) have been and continue to be largely dependent on federally subsidized and/or state-funded water systems. The water management systems in western irrigated agriculture may have had less environmental impact that the wide- spread use of DDT from the 1940's through the 1960's, but it would be interesting to know the comparative environmental costs of the two systems. Pesticides that were developed in the past two decades have relatively short residual life-spans or half-lives. The water management systems used to produce the vast amounts of food that come from western irrigated farmland continue to drain water flows that formerly maintained wild salmon populations and other aspects of healthy stream ecology. So which system is ultimately more damaging if the ideal is to maintain healthy natural systems? Flavor comparisons are very difficult because everyone's preferences are different. I certainly agree that produce in chain- store retail outlets often lacks flavor, but in my opinion, that fact has little to do with organic vs. non-organic. It has a lot more to do with which cultivars and selections will hold up to our long-distance and impersonal food handling systems. Finally, I'll repeat my two main arguments against organic: First, lists of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for organic production have evolved from a mish-mash of nonscientific tradition and folklore with little or no scientific basis for those decisions. Second, organic foods generally are not available to those in the lower socio-economic quadrant of our society because it costs too much. The constraints on organic agriculture (perhaps with the exception of corporate farms in desert climates) almost guarantee that organic food will be more expensive because production costs are higher and/or productivity per acre is lower. (I know that higher cost and/or lower productivity is not always the case for organic ag, but it is still largely true. Therefore, don't bother replying with the examples of the exceptions!) Everyone has a right to pay more for the food of their choice if they can afford it, just as everyone has a right to drive a gas- guzzling Hummer if they can afford that. However, I detect similar levels of socio-economic arrogance and an attitude of I don't want to know the truth about real environmental costs among those who swear by organic foods and those who drive Hummers. I'll support everyone's right to choose, but I object when proponents of organic foods and/or Hummers suggest that the whole world would be better if we all subscribed to those activities. I have a mixed reaction to this article. This article almost reads as if it says the world isn't black and white, so forget organics. That seems rather short sighted. The truth is that organic fruits and veggies are not only better for your health, but they're also better for the environment. The organic pesticides have a much shorter half-life. The truth is also that generally, organic fruits and vegetables have better flavor. Walk into a safeway and try it out on the apples, it never fails. But things aren't so easy at farmers markets and roadside fruit stands. It's also true that there are small scale non-organic farmers that really grow outstanding fruits, and me, personally, even though I am a die-hard organic fruit buyer, I do lower my standards to accommodate them. I will not walk
