[PG-Anal01] ANALYZING THE OFFICIAL 'ORGANIC' EFFORTS & PUTTING THEM IN PERSPECTIVE

ANALYZING THE OFFICIAL 'ORGANIC' EFFORTS & PUTTING THEM IN PERSPECTIVE [PG-Anal01 - V101-080919]

There is a quite interesting organisation named the OFRF, standing for "Organic Farming Research Foundation". It represents the organized "certified" organic farming interest. Its material is quite interesting to look at, from several points of view. First, because it usually contains valuable information, second, for what it does, and what it says, and for what it does NOT do, and does NOT say.

First, we will go over their self-presentation. Later, examine their "FAQ":

All the data here is taken from "About OFRF" http://ofrf.org/aboutus/aboutus.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Our purpose: To foster the improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming systems."

So far, so good. Who could object, besides the "Merchants of Death"?

"Our mission: To sponsor research related to organic farming;"
So, it's an industry group. Indeed, they even have lobbyists in Washington, a quite polluted atmosphere if there was any...

"To disseminate research results to organic farmers and to growers interested in adopting organic production systems;"
Again, who could object?

"and... To educate the public and decision-makers about organic farming issues." Well... Someone has to do it!

"OFRF’s integrated strategy of grantmaking, policy, education and networking initiatives supports organic farmers’ immediate information needs while moving the public and policymakers toward greater investment in organic farming systems."

They just reached the landmark of distributing their second million in grants. Over 17 years, an average of less than $10K a month. This, while a certain corporation we will not name, but which is certainly one of the most remarkable embodiments of the "Merchants of Death", and which is probably the closest thing there is to a criminal outfit incorporated as a corporation, goes from record profits to ever more record profits years after years, now making over $7 Billion a year selling various poisons, GMOs, "terminator" seeds, etc. To say nothing about the artificial hormones and antibiotics you will ingest with meat and dairy products, which have been identified as some of the leading causes of a collection of chronic and acute diseases, for example diabetes and cancer to name a few. That same corporation reportedly reinvests 15% of that amount on "lobbying", buying legislators, making "research grants" which is the way one go to buys academics, burying the media under fat advertising budgets, etc, etc. Just do the math, the relation is 10,000 to 1 or so, and try to envision what such numbers can mean in practice... And that's just ONE corporation! Is this really the world YOU want to see your children growing in? Yet, this is the world we live in!

"Following is an overview of our program areas, and related links".

"Grantmaking: Since 1992, OFRF’s grantmaking program has awarded more than $1.5 million for over 200 projects In fact, they just reached the $2 Million mark]. Our grantmaking objective is to generate practical, science-based knowledge to support modern organic farming systems."

Hmm... Since after all, "generating practical, science-based knowledge to support modern organic farming systems" is exactly what optimalgardens.blogspot.com is about, perhaps we should consider testing their grant-making process one of these days... ;)

"OFRF-funded projects emphasize grower-researcher collaboration, studies conducted on-farm and/or in certified organic settings, and outreach of project results. For deadline and application information visit: Applying for Grants.

For a list of OFRF-funded projects and available project reports, visit: OFRF-funded project reports".

"Policy: OFRF’s policy program objectives are to ensure that the public and policymakers are well-informed about organic farming issues and to increase public institutional support for organic farming research and education funding. Our policy initiatives consist of four areas of priority:

- Secure a substantial increase in government support for organic agriculture;"

In fact, if reasonable thinking prevailed, it would be quite evident that any support whatsoever to non-organic agriculture is contrary to the public interest, and should not only be discontinued, but, to the contrary, since "the power to tax ius the power to kill", such toxic ways of producing foods should be heavily taxed. A policy change of that nature should be the stated goal to be expected from anyone interested in a healthy food supply. So here is an area where the incredible timidity of "organic farming" institutions start showing...

"- Ensure that land grant universities have an organic research and extension program and workplans developed with the participation of organic farmers;"

This is actually probably the most valuable service OFRF provides, although of course they are totally minuscule, in an area that is ripe with structural problems and where structural as well as personal corruption are the norm, not the exception. To understand the issue of how agricultural research gets funded and how fundamental the issue is, please read the following article: "Monsanto U: Agribusiness's Takeover of Public Schools" to be found here: http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/76804 , and provided in .PDF format here: http://ofrf.org/pressroom/ofrf_news_clips/080215_alternet_agribusinesstakeover.pdf .

Here is a short excerpt of that article, which you should read in its entirety: "[The agricultural-industrial complex]'s relationship with the land-grant system is not an entirely new development. In 1973, former Texas agricultural commissioner and activist Jim Hightower lamented the situation in his landmark report, 'Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times: The Failure of America's Land Grant College Complex'. But the world of agriculture is today a far, far different place [read: 'far worse place'] than when Hightower wrote. For one thing, in the early 1970s Monsanto was still a decade away from genetically modifying its very first plant cell. For another, back then the federal government was still committed to providing steady research funding. And, importantly, it was neither possible nor profitable for our nation's bastions of higher learning to be players in the global agribusiness."

"- Cultivate state and federal policies that help to assure the economic viability of organic family farmers;" and

"- Support organic farmers’ rights to grow and sell their products without the threat of pesticide and GMO contamination".

To learn more visit our Policy Program pages."

The issue of GMO contamination is becoming appalling. For example, read the following article about it, from "Sustainable Food News" on February 26, 2008: "Straus Family Creamery finds 33% of organic corn supply contaminated with GMOs" at http://ofrf.org/pressroom/organic_news_clips/080226_sustainablefoodnews_strausgmocorn.pdf .

What's most remarkable is that, despite the fact that GMO-related criminality is actually always signed by its perpetrators (all GMO crops being patented and "owned"), and despite the clear health problems coming with these crops, allergies to begin with and to name the most benign issue, we have yet to see the beginning of the tsunami of GMO-related lawsuits that will undoubtedly be one of the marks of the near future. It is almost certain that the efforts of the victims of GMO-related criminality have yet to reach the 10,000 lawsuits mark, even here in the USA, the most litigious country in the world. Actually, it is perfectly possible that we might still be under the 1,000 lawsuits mark, while any reasonable but uninformed mind would probably imagine that we'd already have passed the 1,000,000 mark, and that the talk of Wall Street and the media would already be about what the true costs of the unavoidable "GMO Superfund" that will someday be needed to clean-up the GMO mess might actually be. There is little doubt in the mind of all competent independent experts that GMOs have a good chance to prove to be the greatest environmental and ecological disaster of all time...

How the GMO-industrial Complex manages to both stay under the radar and apparently scare off its victims is a mystery, and it appears, will remain one for some time. And as far as one can tell, even the people at OFRF, whom one would imagine to be extremely vocal about an issue that menaces to destroy their very livelihood (contaminated organic crops are no more "organic"), pay little more than lip service to the issue.

"OFRF encourages organic farmers to participate in the policy process by joining our Organic Farmers Action Network (OFAN). Members of OFAN will receive free policy updates and tools for communicating with representatives in Congress, to advocate for increased funding for organic research, technical assistance and marketing support, funding for organic conservation programs and maintenance and improvement of national organic standards." We can on ly encourage any stakeholder to join that effort, since grass roots efforts is actually the only thing that people can put in the way of the steamrollers of agribusiness and the mountains of cash that are behind them.

"Research: OFRF conducts original research about organic farming in the U.S. OFRF research projects include:

Since 1992, OFRF has conducted four National Organic Farmers' Surveys, collecting information about organic farmers' research and information needs, their experiences in the organic marketplace, effects of GMOs on organic production and markets, organic farmer demographics, and much more."

Having not examined the data, we don't know what's in these surveys. But hopefully they could constitute a data collection sufficiently rich to inspire some Master's and Doctoral candidates to work a bit on exploring them. 16 years is a rather short time to really observe major trends develop, but it's nonetheless time enough to allow to come to some conclusions of value.

"OFRF conducts regular inventories programs related to organic farming and land grant universities. Visit State of the States: Organic Farming Systems Research at Land Grant Institutions 2001-2003, for our latest report."

We have yet to read the report, so we can't comment on it. What is sure is that there is lots of work to do in that area, for us to have a chance to stop or at least contain the very dismal movement toward a complete control of supposedly "public" education by the most egregious corporate interests, transforming even the "Land Grant" system into little more than a less and less credible legitimation process for the overall agribusiness and "Merchants of Death" agenda of ever more chemicals, ever more GMOs, and a sicker and sicker populace.

"In 1995 and 1996, OFRF conducted conducted a study to identify and catalogue federally supported agricultural research pertaining specifically to the understanding and improvement of organic farming. This led to publication, in 1997, of Searching for the ‘O-Word’: Analyzing the USDA Current Research Information System for Pertinence to Organic Farming, OFRF's seminal work identifying the need for federal support for organic programs".

In a world where the very agency that is supposed to protect the quality of our food is widely recognized as "the Secular Arm of the Merchants of Death", that is, of Big Pharma, Agribusiness, the food adulterators, etc, believing in the need to get "federal support" might feel a bit akin to Dorothy believing in the need of "get support" from the Wicked Witch of the East, or the need of the hanged man to get more "support" from the rope... Nonetheless, just for the sake of it, like the motto of some long-dead nobleman once put it, let us firmly hold that "There is no need to hope to endeavor, nor to succeed to persevere". We certainly wish the OFRF good luck in that noble but unlikely very successful enterprise. Educating the public about the need to grow their own foods, and that today, technology could make such a thing extremely easy, would appear to be time, efforts and energy a lot better invested...

"Education: OFRF seeks to share new insights into organic farming systems with all farmers who use or want to adopt organic practices. The results of research projects funded by OFRF generate information useful to farmers who are working to develop and improve integrated, systems-level organic management practices. Every OFRF-funded project is required to have an outreach component that disseminates the results to the grower and research communities. These often include field days, farm tours, grower conference presentations and publication in grower newsletters."

This is definitely already a better way to go, even if educating the public-at-large about the need of us all to take back the control of our own personal food supply, that is, of our own health, seems to us even more important.

"The results of OFRF-funded projects are published in our newsletter, the Information Bulletin, available free-of charge both online and by regular mail.

OFRF also manages OrganicAgInfo.org, an on-line information source for research and information on organic production and marketing.

If you'd like to receive OFRF's free newsletters by email or by regular mail, please sign in through our subscriptions page."

We strongly encourage everyone to make use of these resources. Sure, OFRF appears to be about as timid a champion for organic food production as one could imagine possible to be, but their resources contain lot of useful and usable data. And, as we see it, anyone who decides to create and maintain their own Organic and Sustainable Garden qualifies as an "organic farmer", that is, a potential constituent for OFRF.

"Media: OFRF regularly serves as a media resource for topics related to organic farming research, farm policy, and the organic industry. We also track important organic media stories. Visit our pressroom for more on OFRF- and organic-related media."

In fact, the most interesting part of their pressroom is this one: http://ofrf.org/pressroom/organic_news.html , where quite a few truly interesting storiescan be found.

"Networking: OFRF is coordinating efforts to develop a national research agenda and a farmer-scientist network for pursuit of multi-disciplinary research & extension on working organic farms. The Scientific Congress on Organic Agricultural Research (SCOAR) has conducted a series of national and regional meetings with farmers and scientists to discuss and design a plan for basic, applied and developmental organic research".

There is definitely more to do in that direction, but it's a site well-worth visiting!

"OFRF also takes part in other networking in support of organic and sustainable farming. Examples include the Sustainable Agriculture Working Group [1] and the Organic Agriculture Consortium [2]".

"Support: OFRF is supported by your donations from individuals and by grants from family foundations. We hope that you "will choose to support OFRF’s work to meet the information and policy needs of organic family farmers -- the foundation of a healthier agriculture for the future. Please make a gift to the Organic Farming Research Foundation today."

We can only encourage you to support them in any possible manner, including financially. However, if you do so, make sure they get a clear message from you insisting that:
1/ OFRF needs to be a lot less timid and more assertive in the struggle of The People to assert our inalienable right to unadulterated foods and to Therapeutic Freedom.
2/ That, even if they are an industry group, it is their moral duty to also support the organic "micro-farmer", including the people who take charge of their own health in the most radical and revolutionary manner, that is, by creating and maintaining their own Organic & Sustainable Garden.

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

[1] The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a national alliance of farm, rural development and conservation groups organized in 1988 to interject grassroots sustainable agriculture perspectives into federal agricultural and environmental policies and programs. SAC member groups advocate for federal policies and programs to support small and mid-sized family farms, protect natural resources, promote healthy rural communities, and provide nutritious and healthy food to consumers. [ http://www.msawg.org/ ]

[2] The Organic Agriculture Consortium (OAC) was established in September 2000 with a $1.8 million grant, “Revitalizing Small and Midsize Farms: Organic Research, Education, and Extension,” from the USDA Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) program. Partners in the consortium are The Ohio State University, Iowa State University, North Carolina State University, Tufts University, the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF), and leading organic farmers. The goal of the OAC is to assist farmers with small to midsize operations to transition from conventional to organic production systems through integrated multidisciplinary research, education, and outreach programs. Please see OAC Accomplishments and Impacts for more information about the Consortium. Scientific abstracts presented at the final OAC meeting in August 2005 are listed at http://ofrf.org/networks/oac.html

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


Now, we will finish this overview of OFRF by examining their "FAQ", which you can find here: http://ofrf.org/resources/organicfaqs.html under the title:

"About Organic -- Frequently asked questions about organic food and farming"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There, we discovered an absolute gem -- of sorts, which will be discussed in detail when we get to that point... But let's take questions and answers in the order they come:


Q "What is organic farming?" A: "Organic farming refers to agricultural production systems used to produce food and fiber. Organic farming management relies on developing biological diversity in the field to disrupt habitat for pest organisms, and the purposeful maintenance and replenishment of soil fertility. Organic farmers are not allowed to use synthetic pesticides or fertilizers. All kinds of agricultural products are produced organically, including produce, grains, meat, dairy, eggs, fibers such as cotton, flowers, and processed food products. Some of the essential characteristics of organic systems include: design and implementation of an "organic system plan" that describes the practices used in producing crops and livestock products; a detailed recordkeeping system that tracks all products from the field to point of sale; and maintenance of buffer zones to prevent inadvertent contamination by synthetic farm chemicals from adjacent conventional fields."

A bit over-simplified, but, so far, so good.

Q "What does "certified" organic mean?" A: "Certified organic refers to agricultural products that have been grown and processed according to uniform standards, verified by independent state or private organizations accredited by the USDA. All products sold as "organic" must be certified. Certification includes annual submission of an organic system plan and inspection of farm fields and processing facilities. Inspectors verify that organic practices such as long-term soil management, buffering between organic farms and neighboring conventional farms, and recordkeeping are being followed. Processing inspections include review of the facility's cleaning and pest control methods, ingredient transportation and storage, and recordkeeping and audit control. Organic foods are minimally processed to maintain the integrity of food without artificial ingredients or preservatives. Certified organic requires the rejection of synthetic agrochemicals, irradiation and genetically engineered foods or ingredients. Since 2002, organic certification in the U.S. has taken place under the authority of the USDA National Organic Program, which accredits organic certifiying agencies, and oversees the regulatory process. To find out more about the national organic certification requirements and organic program, please go to the USDA National Organic Program website www.ams.usda.gov/nop ."

Well, there would be a lot to say about the shortcomings of the official "Organic" system, as it exists today, but that would take a book, not a single post on this website, so we will refrain to do so for the moment.

Q "Is organic food more nutritious than conventional food?"

The answer to that one is the true gem of sorts we mentioned earlier. Commenting upon it in details would legitimately also deserve a whole book, so this will just be a short comment, which will be developed later if and when circumstances allow.

A "The definitive study has not been done, mainly because of the multitude of variables involved in making a fair comparison between organically grown and conventionally grown food. These include crop variety, time after harvest, post-harvest handling, and even soil type and climate, which can have significant effects on nutritional quality. However, a 2002 report indicates that organic food is far less likely to contain pesticide residues than conventional food (13% of organic produce samples vs. 71% of conventional produce samples contained a pesticide residue, when long-banned persistent pesticides were excluded). For more information on this 2002 report (Baker, B.P., C.M. Benbrook, E. Groth III, and K.L. Benbrook. 2002. Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown and organic food: insights from three US data sets. Food Additives and Contaminants 19:427-446.) go to the Organic Materials Review Institute website http://www.omri.org/ ".

Now let's go over this remarkable statement:

"The definitive study has not been done, mainly because of the multitude of variables involved in making a fair comparison between organically grown and conventionally grown food."

This could have been (and probably HAS) been lifted word for word from some Diktat "Cease and Desist" order, or whatever it was, probably originating from the Food and Disease administration.

Let's get this clear in our mind... We are to believe that "mainly because of the multitude of variables involved" "the definitive study" "making a fair comparison between organically grown and conventionally grown food" "has not been done". In other words, hey, since there is really no discernable difference between "organically grown" and "conventionally grown" food, a "definitive study" which "has not been done" would be needed to figure out what that "difference" between the two could possibly be. You know, it's like "fluoridation is good for you" (even if was hailed as "probably the greatest scientific fraud of all time" by the leading EPA scientist specialized in the matter). And aspartame, sucralose, MSG and bisphenol A are "perfectly safe" too. Exactly like, "no difference has been shown" between milk laden with artificial hormones and natural milk...

Let's see... GMO foods, (better known as "frankenfoods"), loaded with a witchbrew consisting of a good sampling of hundreds of herbicides, perticides, conserving agents and other man-made chemicals, half of which are very well "known" to cause cancer, birth defects, and a host of other such small inconveniences, need a "fair comparizon" with food which is not supposed to contain any of that. So we can be sure there is really some reason to prefer the one to the other...

For what complete idiots do our Masters really take us?

And what sort of (very domestic) terrorism has been exercized on a non-profit dedicated to the defense of organic food production to make them publish a phrase as patently absurd as "The definitive study has not been done, mainly because of the multitude of variables involved in making a fair comparison between organically grown and conventionally grown food."

Which, in addition, is also a patent lie. The study in question HAS been done, and more than once too. Done so well that in fact, even the London-based "Times", probably the world's most prestigious of all powers-that-be-controlled newspapers, had on October 28, 2007 to admit that: "Official: organic really is better"! You can read it yourself here: http://ofrf.org/pressroom/organic_news_clips/071028_londontimes_organicbetter.pdf .

" October 28, 2007 'Official: organic really is better', by Jon Ungoed-Thomas"

"The biggest study into organic food has found that it is more nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's lives. The evidence from the £12m [ $ 25M ] four-year project will end years of debate and is likely to overturn government advice that eating organic food is no more than a lifestyle choice.

The study found that organic fruit and vegetables contained as much as 40% more antioxidants, which scientists
believe can cut the risk of cancer and heart disease, Britain’s biggest killers. They also had higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.

Professor Carlo Leifert, the co-ordinator of the European Union-funded project, said the differences were so marked that organic produce would help to increase the nutrient intake of people not eating the recommended five portions a day of fruit and vegetables. “If you have just 20% more antioxidants and you can’t get your kids to do five a day, then you might just be okay with four a day,” he said.

This weekend the Food Standards Agency confirmed that it was reviewing the evidence before deciding whether to change its advice. Ministers and the agency have said there are no significant differences between organic and ordinary produce. Researchers grew fruit and vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent organic and nonorganic sites on a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle University, and at other sites in Europe. They found that levels of antioxidants in milk from organic herds were up to 90% higher than in milk from conventional herds.

As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables, they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly higher levels of antioxidants, including flavonoids thought to reduce coronary heart disease.

Leifert said the government was wrong about there being no difference between organic and conventional produce. 'There is enough evidence now that the level of good things is higher in organics,' he said."

In addition, this four years, $25M study is nothing compared with the 27 years long "China Project" under the direction of Dr T. Colin Campbell, and still on-going through a partnership between Oxford University in Britain, Cornell University in NY and the Chinese Academy of Sciences assisted by China's health authorities. Although this study focuses on data collection that does not even mention the word "organic" anywhere, it is evidently clear that one of the principal difference-making aspects in people's diet is how much "organic" food people have access to -- the poorer and the more rural (and healthier) people eating naturally more "organic" than the richer and/or more urbanized ones, not necessarily because they want it to be that way, but simply because they cannot afford the price of pesticides, herbicides, chemicals and GMO seeds...

A detailed analysis of the available data would demonstrate this fact quite readily, if it was undertaken. Once one thinks about it and examines the known parameters afecting the issue, the fact is, at any rate, rationally quite self-evident.

Now let's go back to the OFRF Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ):

Q "Is organic food safe?" A "Yes. Organic food is as safe to consume as any other kind of food. Just as with any kind of produce, consumers should wash before consuming to ensure maximum cleanliness. As cited above, organic produce contains significantly lower levels of pesticide residues than conventional produce. It is a common misconception that organic food could be at greater risk of E. coli contamination because of raw manure application although conventional farmers commonly apply tons of raw manure as well with no regulation whatsoever. Organic standards set strict guidelines on manure use in organic farming: Either it must be first composted, or it must be applied at least 90 days before harvest, which allows ample time for microbial breakdown of pathogens."

Wouldn't the rational question rather be "Is conventionally-grown food safe?". And if *that* was the question, what would the answer be, in your opinion?

Q "Is organic food really a significant industry?" A "Approximately 2% of the U.S. food supply is grown using organic methods." How low have we not fallen. Only 2% of the food produced is actually certifiably edible! "Over the past decade, sales of organic products have shown an annual increase of at least 20%, the fastest growing sector of agriculture. In 2005, retail sales of organic food and beverages were approximately $12.8 billion (Natural Marketing Institute, Health & Wellness Trends Database, March 2006). Organic foods can be found at natural food stores and major supermarkets, as well as through grower direct marketing such as CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture) and farmers' markets. Many restaurant chefs across the country are using organic produce because they desire superior quality and taste. Organic food is also gaining international acceptance, with nations like Japan and Germany becoming important international organic food markets".

Actually, one can foresee a time in a not-too-far future when the only places where "conventional" food will still have a market will be the United States, where honest labeling is actually ILLEGAL, and third-world countries overcome with endemic famine and abject poverty: Obviously, pesticide- herbicide- chemicals- and GMO-laden food is better than no food at all...

Q "Why does organic cost more?" A "The cost of organic food is higher than that of conventional food because the organic price tag more closely reflects the true cost of growing the food: substituting labor and intensive management for chemicals, the health and environmental costs of which are borne by society. These costs include cleanup of polluted water and remediation of pesticide contamination. Prices for organic foods include costs of growing, harvesting, transportation and storage. In the case of processed foods, processing and packaging costs are also included. Organically produced foods must meet stricter regulations governing all these steps than conventional foods. The intensive management and labor used in organic production are frequently (though not always) more expensive than the chemicals routinely used on conventional farms. There is mounting evidence that if all the indirect costs of conventional food production were factored into the price of food, organic foods would cost the same, or, more likely, be cheaper than conventional food. Cost, however, is very dependent upon market venue and consumer product choice. It is possible to consume a moderately priced diet of organic foods by purchasing directly from farmers at venues such as farmers markets, and by choosing unprocessed organically grown foods at the grocery store."

Grow it yourself, and it will cost a lot *less* than conventionally-grown food...

Q "Are organic yields lower?" A: "Based on 154 growing seasons' worth of data on various crops, organic crops yielded 95% of crops grown under conventional, high-input conditions (Liebhardt, B. "Get the facts straight: organic agriculture yields are good," OFRF Information Bulletin #10, Summer 2001.). This was by using organic farming methods developed and refined by years of grower experience, independent of the billions of dollars of support provided the agrichemical industries through USDA and the land grant system. If USDA would increase the small proportion of its research funds currently directed toward optimizing organic farming practices, organic has the potential to produce yields fully matching or surpassing those of conventional crops. Growers who go through the 3-year transition period from conventional to organic management usually experience an initial decrease in yields, until soil microbes are re-established and nutrient cycling is in place, at which point yields return to previous levels".

In fact, there is absolutely no question that in the intensive and well-controlled conditions of your Personal Garden, you will get higher yields organically. This would probably be the case in agriculture as well, IF the field was level, and the game was played fair. Which of course is something any of us alive today is unlikely to see happen in their lifetime...

Q "Is there a national standard for organic?" A "Yes. Since October 2002, organic regulations under the USDA National Organic Program have been in effect. This means there are a uniform set of organic production, processing, and labeling standards across the United States. Anyone who sells a product as "organic" is required by law to be certified (The National Organic Rule and other policies of USDA's National Organic Program may be accessed on the web at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/index.htm ). USDA oversees implementation of the Rule through its National Organic Program but does not certify organic operations itself; instead, it accredits independent certifiers to certify growers and processors on USDA's behalf."

There would be a lot to say here, but again, such an endeavor would take a book.

Q "How do organic farmers fertilize crops and control pests, diseases, and weeds?" A "Organic farmers build healthy soils by nourishing the living component of the soil, the microbial inhabitants that release, transform, and transfer nutrients. Soil organic matter contributes to good soil structure and water-holding capacity. Organic farmers feed soil biota and build soil structure and water-holding capacity. Organic farmers build soil organic matter with cover crops, compost, and biologically based soil amendments. These produce healthy plants that are better able to resist disease and insect predation. Organic farmers' primary strategy in controlling pests and diseases is prevention through good plant nutrition and management. Organic farmers use cover crops and sophisticated crop rotations to manage the field ecology, effectively disrupting habitat for weeds, insects, and disease organisms. Weeds are controlled through crop rotation, mechanical tillage, and hand-weeding, as well as through cover crops, mulches, flame weeding, and other management methods. Organic farmers rely on a diverse population of soil organisms, beneficial insects, and birds to keep pests in check. When pest populations get out of balance, growers implement a variety of strategies such as the use of insect predators, mating disruption, traps and barriers. Under the National Organic Program Rule, growers are required to use sanitation and cultural practices first before they can resort to applying a material to control a weed, pest or disease problem. Use of these materials in organic production is regulated, strictly monitored, and documented. As a last resort, certain botanical or other non-synthetic pesticides may be applied."

Q "How are organic livestock and poultry raised?" A "Organic meat, dairy products, and eggs are produced from animals that are fed organic feed and allowed access to the outdoors. They must be kept in living conditions that accommodate the natural behavior of the animals. Ruminants must have access to pasture. Organic livestock and poultry may not be give antibiotics, hormones, or medications in the absence of illness; however, they may be vaccinated against disease. Parasiticide use is strictly regulated. Livestock diseases and parasites are controlled primarily through preventative measures such as rotational grazing, balanced diet, sanitary housing, and stress reduction".

Q "How can I reach an organic certification agency that serves my area?" A "Depending on where you live or farm in the U.S., there may be one or several organic certifications agencies that serve your region. There are many organic certifying agencies accredited through the USDA National Organic Program, and these include non-profit organizations, state- or county-affiliated agencies, and for-profit corporations. Some agencies work solely within a particular county or state, while others conduct organic certifications regionally or nationwide. Depending on the type of agency, an organic certifier may also provide additional services to farmers and the public, such as information about organic food and farming, sponsorship of workshops and conferences, or organic marketing materials. Together with The Rodale Institute/NewFarm, OFRF has developed a Guide to U.S. Organic Certifiers or you can contact the USDA National Organic Program.

Q "Where can I find organically grown products?" A "Organically grown products are becoming more widely available throughout the U.S. Many national food store chains such as Albertson's, Safeway and Wal-Mart carry some organically grown selections. National natural food store chains such as Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats Market carry a wide array of organic products, as do regional and local independent natural food stores. Farmers markets offer locally and regionally-grown organic products available directly from the farmer. Organic products may also be mail-ordered from many farms and retailers, and a web search will likely yield a variety of options for consumers who have a difficult time finding organic products in their area. The Local Harvest website is a useful resource for finding locally produced, organic, and specialty farm products throughout the U.S.".

Q "How many organic farmers are there in the United States?" A "As of 2007, there are approximately 13,000 certified organic producers in the U.S. The growth in the number of organic farmers has increased steadily, similar to the growth of the U.S. organic industry, which has increased by rates of approximately 20% per year for more than 10 years. When OFRF first began tracking certified organic producer numbers in 1994, there were approximately 2,500 -3,000 certified organic growers in the U.S. at that time. Consumer awareness of the value of organic farming and food products continues to grow, making organic a viable and attractive economic option for a growing number of producers".


All this being said, fact is that the best organic food you will ever have access to will never be certified by anyone other than you yourself, and will not need any other certification than the one you could give, for it will be the food you will have produced in your own backyard or rooftop, or community garden space, on the model of what Dr Otto Warburg, the only physician to ever get TWO Nobel Prizes in Medicine, did for the greatest part of his long life.

And that is the sort of food you should focus on having access to!

The permalink for this post is: http://personalgardens.blogspot.com/2008/09/analyzing-official-organic-efforts.html

Copyright 1964-2008 OSL All rights reserved, worldwide. LICENSE IS HEREBY GRANTED to all to freely link to or to reproduce this page by any means of one's choice, virtual or physical, and to republish it, including in a compilation, etc, as long as the entirety of the page is NOT MODIFIED in any manner (except of course your location if you are publishing a community ad of your own). This includes not modifying the present copyright notice and license, and the permanent link (permalink URL) or “web address” of the page, and license is granted as long as reproduction is not part of a commercial venture, that is, as long as you do not charge for it in any way, be it directly, or indirectly, for example in commercial publications. Commercial licenses available from the copyright holder.

===========================================WEB DESIGNERS - GRAPHICS ARTISTS – CODERS - SEO & MARKETING - Etc:If you wish to volunteer to help us set up specialized websites and particularly complex portal sites using the present material and more, presented in a more graphic way, and complemented with multimedia material, we need you! Software such as like of Drupal or Joomla, more advanced forms of Wordpress, etc, is the way to go, so please contact us, you will be very welcome! We already have the hosting, and quite a few domains, all we need is your elbow grease! ;)===========================================