Organic getting big boost, Big Chem shuddering

AT THE WHITE HOUSE
America's First Gardener let it be known that her 1,100-square foot veg garden would be organic, much to the chagrin of Big Ag.  The Hill first reported on their industry group rather defensively claiming that "Fresh foods grown conventionally are wholesome and flavorful yet more economical."  There's that feel-good yet meaningless marketing term - "wholesome".  Member companies (think Monsanto, Dow and DuPont) must really be nervous.  But how nervous?

In an email to their supporters, that same industry group wrote: "While a garden is a great idea, the thought of it being organic made [us] shudder." They also sent a letter to the First Lady asking her to consider using chemicals -- or what they call "crop protection products" -- in her garden.  That mentality makes me shudder a bit.

AT THE AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT
Next there's the People's Garden on the grounds of the USDA headquarters in D.C., taking the extra step to get officially certified as organic - oh, yeah!  In fact, they're getting their compost from the Rodale Institute itself - and Rodale's very, very happy about that.  Their farm director Jeff Moyer delivered the compost himself, and here's how that came about (via Treehugger):

"Moyer was instrumental in making the connection with the People's Garden and negotiating the delivery. Moyer, as chair of the National Organic Standards Board, learned of the garden and its organic status in conversation with Barbara Robinson, acting chair of the USDA’s National Organic Program. He offered the compost, and Rodale received the OK to deliver it."

That's Barbara shoveling organic compost in the photo.  A Bush hold-over, she seems to be totally on board the organic train and boy, we're come a long way since the bad old days when J.I. Rodale couldn't even GIVE money to the USDA to research organic agriculture (so Jeff Moyer tells me).

AT 64 OTHER FEDERAL LANDSCAPES IN DC
Oh, it gets worse (if you're Big Chem, that is).  In 2008, to little notice, the government's building management agency switched to 100 percent poultry manure for all its fertilizer needs - on turf as well as flower beds.  We're talking 64 sites covering 84 acres.  Maybe the move went unnoticed because it didn't threaten conventional food-growing, just synthetic landscape products.  Or maybe it was because nobody even knows what the General Services Administration IS. 

And you won't be surprised to learn that this move to organics was done by land managers on their own initiative, not under orders from any political appointee.  (It's nice to be under the radar.)  Here's more about GSA's landscape program.

Next up? According to Janet Kenoyer, GSA's top horticulturist, another organic veg garden will soon be installed in D.C., this one in a courtyard at the EPA.  Big Chem's shudders may soon progress to full convulsions.

Comments

[Ginny Stibolt]

Wow Susan, thanks for this in-depth post. What a great day for gardeners!

[Ed Bruske]

I can appreciate the symbolism of having compost delivered by Rodale in Pennsylvania, but do we really want to send the message that organic is good when the compost is being trucked from Pennsylvania. We do, after all, have local compost. If it's not made on site, they might try using the compost that's made from all the leaves collected in the District of Columbia. Those leaves are now being taken to Pogo Organics, north of Olney, MD, composted and sold to customers of Whole Foods. But I bet if the USDA or GSA asked, Pogo would be will to provide some of our locally grown compost.

[Dave]

It just goes to show that compost is cool! Big chem needs to start the conversion to organics soon or risk losing hold on the ag market.

[thistleandthorn]

Ed, that's a great suggestion for the future... after all, organic gardens need a continuous supply of compost. Pursue it.
In the meantime, let's let Rodale have its moment in the sun! The symbolism is incredibly important for those who have followed the organic movement for these many years.
I'm so happy I'm all but levitating. This news fits hand-in-glove with a Big Idea I have. Way to go, Washington!!

[susan harris]

Ed, I love Pogo's, too, but their compost may not be certified as organic, which is required in order for the garden itself to be certified. Here's their info about it, which doesn't mention certification:
http://www.pogoorganics.com/product3.php

[Christopher C NC]

One of the interesting things about the agro-chemical companies PR push back against the local/organic/sustainable food movement is their use of the idea of "growing food conventionally."

Since when in 10,000 years of human agriculture is chemical fertilizers, pesticides, GMO's and the like, that only came into common use beginning in the late 1940's, conventional?

How did mechanized monocrops that are totally dependent on oil and chemicals and that cover entire states become "Conventional"?

It isn't. That word needs to be ripped right out of their PR hands in a public display of Liar, liar, pants on fire.

[Amelia of Gradually Greener]

"the thought of it being organic made [us] shudder"

Wow. Melodramatic, much? Oh no, people are gardening in an environmentally friendly manner!

[invisiblebees]

I tend to agree with Ed Bruske on the compost issue, and I bet, in theory at least, old man Rodale would, too.

Christopher C NC great point about "conventional" -- it's become almost Orwellian a la Newspeak.

[Jon]

The concept that "organic" farming is safer or better is false. To say so denies reality. There is zero proof of any study or scientific test that shows any difference betwen thesafety or in fact the composition of food grown "organically" or with modern methods. None, zero, nada.

It is a dangerous assumption to believe organically grown means safer and it is a disproved theory that there is a difference in taste. Sure it great to grow your own fruits and vegetables and nothing can match the taste of picking and then eating, no arguement. Assuming that the taste of organically grown produce can be distinguished from the same age produce grown "non-organically" has been disproven time and time again. The amount of heath related problems is as high or higher when organic methods are used. Also, pretending that naturally occuring chemicals are any less dangerous than engineered chemicals is a dangerous suposition.

Pushing for all food to be "organic" is foolish. Food would cost more affecting everyone in the world with higher prices. Supplies would be less affecting those the most that spend the greatest proportion of their income on food. There would be zero improvement of the taste, nutrisional value or safety of the food supply; there would simply be less food at higher prices.

If there is one scientific study that shows otherwise please advise, where it is hiding. If there is one case of someone getting sick or suffering any ill effects from properly applied chemical fertilizers or pesticides please show it to me, I have not seen it.

Commercial fertilizers and pesticides along with modern hybrid crops are the reason we have such an abundance of safe affordable foods. These techniques have been utilized in many developing countries and revolutionized agriculture and helped feed milions. Hybrid rice is improving food supplies in China and India, India is using hybrid cotton to improve yields and the income of poor cotton farmers, hybrid corn harvests with dramatically increased yields are feeding hundreds of millions worldwide.

It is fine to grow what you want, any way that you like; it is quite another thing to try and impose lower yields, higher prices and poorer crops on the rest of the world.

There is zero upside and a great downside which is why these efforts will fail and rightly so. Chemicals engineered or natural can be abused and each can kill. Intelligent use of any type is the answer.

I remeber a story from many years ago about a guy who saved, dried out and salted apple seeds from the apples he ate. He ied from arsenic poisoning as apples seeds contain arsenic. The fact that he died of natural poisoning may be of some consolation to "organic" growers; it was no consolation to the deceased.

[Jon]

I did a little research and it is not arsenic but cyanide contained in apples. It is impossible to eat enough apples to get a fatal dose from eating the whole apple as it would be tooo dilute to be fatal. Also, according to Snopes they are safe if not chewed. Please do not try this athome.

[susan harris]

Christopher, what's even worse PR deception is contrasting organic with "traditional"! Even on NPR I've heard that comparison, which is oh, so false, as you point out. There's nothing more traditional than organic.

[Pam J.]

Did you guys invent "Jon" just to bring me pleasure? I love it when someone gets all lathered up about one of your posts and spouts off. I love a good argument. Pointless or otherwise.

[Jennifer]

credoaction.com has a petition to the board members of MACA that they support Obama's organic garden, if anyone is interested. :)

[Christopher C NC]

I'll ask Jon again and see if we can get a straight answer this time. Jon who do you work for?

[Susan Harris]

In related news: McDonald's agreed to do something about pesticides on the potatoes it buys, after pressure from their shareholders.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/04/shareholders-spoke-and-mcdonalds.html

[Kathy J, Washington Gardener]

The term "traditional" used this way is misleading and disturbing. Seems it has been co-opted by PR folks and we need to claim it back.

[Jamie O.]

Jon,

How many do you want, as far as proof?:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health-fitness/exercise-wellness/consumer-reports-why-organic-baby-food-is-safer-106/overview/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3076638/

http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1130888/european_union_funded_newcastle_university_study_preliminary_results_indicate_organic/index.html

Would you like some more?

[Jon]

Well, when pesticides are used there are more residuals shown on the produce. i would suggest you listen to what your grandmother used to tell you and rinse them off before eating. I did note the mention of pesticides in baby food. No levels were given, but I would agree that no risk is acceptable with babies. However I do agree with the Mayo clinic when they say "Pesticides. Conventional growers use pesticides to protect their crops from molds, insects and diseases. When farmers spray pesticides, this can leave residue on produce. Some people buy organic food to limit their exposure to these residues. Most experts agree, however, that the amount of pesticides found on fruits and vegetables poses a very small health risk." http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255

...and to my point about natural chemicals versus synthetic, Berkely has this to say "A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.

It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.

It should be noted, however, that we don't know for certain which system is more harmful. This is because we do not look at organic pesticides the same way that we look at conventional pesticides. We don't know how long these organic pesticides persist in the environment, or the full extent of their effects.

When you look at lists of pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, you find warnings such as, "Use with caution. The toxicological effects of [organic pesticide X] are largely unknown," or "Its persistence in the soil is unknown." Again, researchers haven't bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides because it is assumed that "natural" chemicals are automatically safe."
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

Indeed the effects of synthetic pesticides are better known and better controlled simply because they are newer are contrary to what many may believe organic produce is treated with bacterial and other pesticides. These would be from natural sources but very few people can distinguish whether they are being poisoned naturally or synthetically.

Christiopher, please do not assume that because I have better arguements than you that I am paid to express them. You are the benificiary of my wisdom at no charge. Oh, and that's right you don't have any arguements as you have stated in previous posts and your only purpose in life is to be an irritant. The only question is, should we use a natural or synthetic pesticide to silence you. Hmmmm.

Pam, I dare say that Susan could not bring herself to type the comments I make, even to boost interest.

PS, I am not "lathered up", just simply giving my point of view.

PSS, did you know that fully 1/3 of all products labeled "organic" are not. The only thing organic about them are the higher price tags.

[Della]

Jamie, the first 2 articles you posted that discuss the need to be extremely cautious about what we feed babies is spot on, but I have to say that the third article you attached left me laughing. It says that there was a study done at Newcastle Univ. that was funded by a grant from the Organic Trade Association (not exactly an uninterested party).

The article announced “preliminary findings” that there were higher levels of unspecified antioxidants from organic cows than in conventional cows. It does not address what was done/fed to the cows to render some organic and some conventional and it does not address the antioxidants with any specificity. Scientific studies without any scientific fact run an equal (at best) chance of being somewhat true or outright charlatanism. Could be right – could be wrong – but there’s not enough substance there in that article you presented to be worth consideration.

And, the study could have had enormously different results when all the data was in.

And, the study was done on cows, not produce.

Yes, an organic food company did chime in and postulate that what was true for cows was possibly true for produce, but from where I sit, there’s a heck of a lot of difference between cows and tomatoes.

Jon is right in that “organic” doesn’t mean pesticide free. And you better believe that some of the products approved as organic pesticides can hurt you just as fast as the synthetic ones. If you want to eat food that is pesticide free, grow it yourself or find someone at the local farmers market who believes as you do, but don’t fall into the trap of thinking that “organic” and “pesticide free” mean the same thing

[Non Ame]

I say if the organic movement gets to bandy around meaningless words like "wholesome", then big agra gets to too.

[Jan]

I doubt Big Chemical is seriously concerned. They make their money from Big Farming not gardeners and hyphenated farming (free-range, home-grown, pesticide-free, etc.) Let Big Ag feed the world, keeping food prices reasonable and let niche farmers do their thing for the people who can afford their output. One advantage to living in a free country is everyone gets to choose how they garden, (or farm)] and eat and there is room for all kinds of food production.

Me? My husband, son and I are industrial farmers. My vegetable garden is mostly organic using my own home-made compost. Why? Because I love making compost and what organic matter does to the soil, not because I'm afraid of synthetic fertilizers.

[Christopher C NC]

"Christopher, please do not assume that because I have better arguments than you that I am paid to express them. You are the beneficiary of my wisdom at no charge. Oh, and that's right you don't have any arguments as you have stated in previous posts and your only purpose in life is to be an irritant. The only question is, should we use a natural or synthetic pesticide to silence you. Hmmmm."

I see the gangs all here. If my site meter is any indication from the people who followed my comment to find out who I might be, this post is attracting readers with some very very interesting IP addresses.

Jon I asked you who you worked for and you avoided it again. Why is that?

I see no value in arguing points with someone whose sole intent is muddying the waters. You have a disingenuous intent from the start. The volume of your comments suggests you have all these prearranged diversionary talking points available and handy to copy and paste. You either do this professionally or you have an odd hobby.

Jon, the only question is, should we use a natural or synthetic pesticide to silence you? Sadly, I don’t think there is any chemical, natural or synthetic with an LD50 high enough to overcome the inherent toxicity you represent.

If you find this irritating, good.

PS. I corrected your spelling for you in the quote.

[Della]

Geeze Christopher, get off your soapbox. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them the enemy. I thought your first post was reasonable and I thought Jon's first post was reasonable also. But not your last one. And no, before you start seeing a conspiracy where none exists, I don't work in agriculture (beyond my 1/2 acre back yard garden), I have never worked in the chemical, pesticide, nursery or big ag business, but I have more than a high school biology degree and I actually take the time to read the technical small print.

[Christopher C NC]

Della, Jon only shows up here on specific topics in which he likes to sound reasonable in an attempt to sow confusion. There is a bit of a history here, you may not be aware of.

It doesn't take much before Jon is insulting most of the commenters here and praising his imagined superior wisdom. It isn't about agreeing or disagreeing on any particular issue or specific point. It is about his online demeanor and agenda for being here on very specific topics.

If it comments like a shill and fumes and sputters like a shill, than there is a pretty good chance he is here for more than casual conversation and debate.

[Pam J.]

It's always a mistake to reduce a complex subject to a few sound bites, but here I go. I don't like pig poop lagoons. And I don't like the rise in type 2 diabetes in this country. I blame synthetic fertilizers and pesticides for both of these things.

And as a long-time editor I regret the use of the word "organic" when talking about food or farming. So imprecise, so meaningless, so vague. But it's too late now.