Organic Board out, GMO Board in...

[daniel@ozarkforest]

With the axing of the State of Missouri Organic Certification service recently and Governor Blunts support of the BioTech industry, the front of the fight is in our own backyard. Does anyone know the legality of teminating the MDA program?

Dan

[JereGettle]

Yup, if Bush could get a third term, Blunt would be a top pick to head the USDA, as he surely knows how to help the chemical companies.

[daniel@ozarkforest]

Unfortunately the result of this will and already has resulted in farmers dropping organic certification due to the high cost of certification from OCIA and other entities. Another blow is the cost of re-printing labels that have the MDA organic label on it if any of the products have a label.

We are looking for a non-profit group, advocacy group or pro-bono legal services that can challenge the termination of this program which is a State Statute and may have been illegally terminated.

It is always ironic the trouble and money you have to spend to prove your food is produced responsibly and is healthy to eat, while GMO food is not required to be labeled.

Dan

[PhilosopherStorm]

Let's recall that there is no obligation on the part of others to provide convenience for any of us. The same sort of argument used here to imply that there is an obligation by others to provide convenience with regard to GMO labeling could be used to support any opposing convenience for others.

The difficulty in getting organic food is minimal in most areas. There is no need for government interference and "authenticating" especially given that governments fail in almost every such endeavor that they try. Lots of promises, but results are dismal. The food will be no less healthy for the lack of a label. The produce that is not getting labeled is not grown any differently by that same farmer who now cannot afford government certification.

We each are responsible for our food choices. No one else owes us convenience, just as we do not owe anyone else convenience. I do not partake of caffeine for instance, but this fact does not obligate anyone to provide for me every possible product on the market in a caffeine free form, nor is there any obligation for others to label products as "caffeine free" I know what naturally contains caffeine, as well as to what products it is added or likely to be added, and so if in doubt I simply forego the particular item.

We can and I do the same with regard to all food stuffs..

This is the proper as well as most reasonable and secure approach to take. By calling upon the use of the weapon of government, by insisting on increasing the already enormous power of government we are inviting abuse in, as well as creating the very real threat that this power will be used against our desired ends. The risk is not worth the illusion of possible benefit..

[daniel@ozarkforest]

A quick reply to another point of view. The term "Organic" is now for better or worse a federal term and regulated by the USDA.

The issue with GMO labeling is precisely what enables you to make a choice in what you eat. If you choose not to eat GMO foods there is no way to know whether the food you are eating contains them or not - unless you buy organically certified food!

Dan

[JereGettle]

Yes, That is where we now stand daniel,

One option that many small producers are using is the "Certified Naturally Grown" label.
www.naturallygrown.org

It is the work of every consumer to help save our food supply.

We are not granted rights to destroy our future food supply.
Big Goverment or Little Goverment it has to be saved.

[PhilosopherStorm]

Dan,

The truth is that government only provides the promise of a guarentee, the mere illusion of it, without any substance. If you want to be certain of what you eat, you cannot rely upon a mindless bureaucrat or a dishonest politician (pardon the redundancy) but rather you can only rely upon yourself and your ability to reason.

Government power, including government labeling, is subject to the whims of those in power. There is absolutely nothing at all preventing a politician, or even a nameless faceless (and of course mindless) bureaucrat from stipulating that GMO produce if grown without the use of chemical pesticides, to be "certified organic" (Actually they can just ignore the chemical pesticide requirement as well, but you get the idea)

By abdicating responsibility for our food choices to those who not only do not care, but are also incapable of making sound choices for us, we are by definition being irresponsible, but worse yet we are creating an illusion of security that further reduces the chances that we will have the option to choose the particular type of food we believe is safe to eat.

So the complaint that there is no way to know what you are eating without government interference and coercion is clearly misleading since there is even less certainty as to the nature and quality of your food WITH government interference and coercion

The only certain way to protect what you eat, is to not abdicate responsibility. Make the intelligent choices for yourself, increase your own knowledge as well as those around you, and support those producers who do not engage in activities which you oppose.

Any path that begins with abdicating responsibility leads to failure.

[PhilosopherStorm]

Or look at it this way, Monsanto and others are far more capable and knowledgeable about how to use the weapon of government than you or I are, even assuming that it could be weilded for good. So rather than sharpening and strengthening the weapon, which we know ultimately will be used for ill against us, our safest and smartest path is to dull and weaken the weapon so that those who are stronger and have far greater access and control of that weapon, can do less harm with it.

No matter how one looks at it, be it a matter of integrity and principle, or simply practicality and responsibility, the answer is never abdication to, reliance upon and/or increasing the strength of, government. The answer lay in assuming the responsibility which is ours to begin with, increased knowledge, and in spreading the information.

[daniel@ozarkforest]

Will agree to disagree, not as cynical about goverment although certainly appreciate its limitations. I personally think the national organic standard is a good thing but must be constantly monitored to ensure it is not tampered with as you suggest and as it was just before it came out. I also believe it is imperative and a public responsibility to label GMO food. Large corporations have tremendous power and influence but there are always tiny trigger points that can ultimately shift directions. They also know that most people in the US even if not adamantly against GMO food would tend to avoid it if it were labeled!
Incentives also help along various initiatives including organic certification which can be expensive in a low margin business. The loss of this program will damage the spread of organically certified food available in Missouri and I and many others want to fight back to get this assistance restored. It will not ultimately make or break the organic industry here but can certainly help accelerate it.

[PhilosopherStorm]

This is one of the many subjects/questions on which there is no more need to disagree than there would be in determining the length of the hypotenuse of a triangle. We need not disagree, we need only be willing to examine the facts and allow reality to be the final arbitrar of truth.

It is not cynicism but simply a healthy knowledge of history and of the nature of governments. It is not as if this is a new phenomenom, Jefferson offered caution similar to that you yourself offer here, though more generally applicable, yet even then when it was still possible for an individual to have an effect on government's action, the caution was not heeded. The very definition of irrationality is to take the same action time and again, expecting a different outcome.

As for incentives, they are absolutely wrong and immoral as they require those who do not agree to pay for the convenience and desire of others. Would you support incentives to promote frankenfood? If not, then if you are a reasonable and principled person, which I always assume others to be until proven to be in error, you would of course not support the same tactic used against those who are not as motivated by organics as you and I.

As for the profits available to individual farms, the most profitable segment of the agricultural market in the US are boutique farms exactly of the sort of which we are speaking. The fact is that the market is supporting these farms, not because of government interference, but IN SPITE of it.

As for government limitations, we have seen throughout the history of governments, including recent US history, no limitations on governments actually exist. For instance there is nothing in the US Constitution which allows for the regulation of agriculture at all, whether it be certified organic or frankenfood, yet despite this complete absence of authority, the feds just assume that they have the authority and those who have not read the Constitution just accept it. (BTW interstate commerce does not fill the bill.. never intended to be the catch all that it has become..)

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" Lord Acton


History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought.-Etienne Gilson:

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.-George Santayana:

And sadly perhaps the most apropos..:


We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.-George Bernard Shaw

As an aside:
To be fair, I should admit that I have a background in history, political science, political philosophy, economics, as well as other subject areas not quite as relevant to the question immediately at hand.

[PaulF]

I am not so afraid of genetically modified food as some are. Maybe it's because I am on the downhill slide of life and I have no more procreating to do. However, when Monsanto sues me for saving my heirloom tomato seeds because they now own the rights to all tomatoes grown by anyone, anywhere because they applied for the patent because they "discovered" how tomatoes grow, the violent standoff in S.E. Nebraska will be me.

[redneckplanter]

wow....

[w8in4dave]

OOpsi this is politics... I'm stayin away

[silverseeds]

Yes, That is where we now stand daniel,

One option that many small producers are using is the "Certified Naturally Grown" label.
www.naturallygrown.org

It is the work of every consumer to help save our food supply.

We are not granted rights to destroy our future food supply.
Big Goverment or Little Goverment it has to be saved.


This is as true now as it was years ago, when jere said this. What ways can we gardeners and farmers help this cause?

It seems we are still loosing ground.