[PeteMcCracken]

The "really interesting thing" is the essential nutrients for plants MUST be in an inorganic form for the plants to absorb them. Plants cannot absorb "organic compounds" so manure etal must be broken down into the inorganic components to be used by plants.

[OregonYeti]

In chemistry, organic basically means molecules that contain carbon . . . well this is my understanding at least. Carbon tetrachloride can be called organic. Is that ok to eat?

It's kind of the same for the term "natural". Hydrogen cyanide is natural, since it occurs in nature, so it must be good. Or maybe not. Radon occurs in nature, and therefore is "natural" too.

My point is that the whole idea of "organic" is like a cloud with no defined edges. The only thing defining "organic" produce is the laws in place, which may be manipulated for someone's benefit.

As long as the regulations are loosely defined, very localized, or tailored to fit particular interests, we have meaningless labeling. I don't have the answer, but when people talk about "natural" or "organic" stuff being better, I just wish the laws had some teeth, and the right kind of teeth, so people wouldn't be misled. I am no expert on the regulations, myself, and not claiming to be. I'm not happy with the regulation.

[chefhow]

I am a member of our Regulatory Committee with the company I work with and I will tell you first hand that I can take ANY govt regulation to suit my needs. There are so many loop holes that its like dealing with Swiss Cheese. As a result we have to work our way thru these loop holes to meet the needs of our customers on a regular basis and we are constantly in contact with the FDA and the USDA to stay ontop of any changes that are being made.

Currently we arent seeing as many requests for Organic as we are for GMO free, IP and Natural. Organic is a HUGE expense on our end and in turn our customers end, it isnt growing at the rate it had in the past and the quality isnt any better while the micro counts are much higher since you cant Irradiate, treat with BT or ETO to control your bad micro organisms. From a manufacturers point of view it makes me twitch when I hear Organic but you gotta give the customer what they want.

[KYHeirloomer]

>I can take ANY govt regulation to suit my needs. <

When I was editing Package Engineering magazine we did a lot of work with those same agencies. One thing I learned is that the smart money does not manipulate the written law. It starts long before that, by manipulating the TACs.

The members of TACs rarely know much about the subject they are studying. Instead, they rely on input from "outside experts." Which almost always translates as representatives from the industry the new rules are going to control.

Kind of a vicious cycle. But, from a manufacturer's viewpoint, it makes sense: We don't really wan't to be regulated. But if we're going to be, we should write the regulations to make sure they aren't onerous.

Even after the fact, you don't have to convince lawmakers, or even the administrators at the agency, to make changes. You only have to convince the TAC members, because their recomendations almost always prevail---especially after the fact, when public input is no longer part of the regulatory process.

That, to bring this back home to the discussion, is precisely what happened with the organics regulations. And continues happening as the industry (i.e., factory farmers) constantly seek to water it down even further as conditions change.

>since you cant Irradiate, treat with BT or ETO to control your bad micro organisms.<

Haven't read it lately, but so far as I know, Bt remains on the approved list of organic products. It certainly was approved originally. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if Monsanto managed to get it banned. Bt is affordable by the real organic growers, whereas a giant vacumn cleaner isn't.

I wonder how we survived for 10,000 years without irridation, and pasturization, and all the "necessary" things we do to food nowadays so that it's safe to eat.

[KYHeirloomer]

>In chemistry, organic basically means molecules that contain carbon.....<

Essentially correct, Yeti. But we're talking about another one of those code words, such as hybrid. "Organic" as it's used by gardeners, farmers, and others involved with the food industries is merely shorthand for a method of growing food crops.

What's under discussion is precisely what that method entails---on both practical and legal levels.

>It's kind of the same for the term "natural". <

The problem is that the general public remains unaware that most labeling terms are strictly controlled by the government. And that the terms, therefore, do not mean what they think they do.

Take the term "vine ripened." You would naturally think that it applied to a tomato which had been allowed to ripen on the plant before being harvested. Such is not the case. A tomato which shows no red at all can, legally, be classed as vine-ripened if you pick it at the right point.

BTW, under the law, the word "natual" has no meaning whatsoever. Nor does the word "organic" when applied to anything other than produce.

You are so right about the use of the word "natural" though, and how people react to it. The worst instance has to do with the New Agers and their view of herbs. Their general philosophy is, "it's natural, so it has to be good for you."

I happen to be a practicing herbalist, and that attitude scares the bejebers out of me. Herbs can have just as many contraindications as any other medicine. As I like to point out, it don't come any more "natural" than heroin---which is a lot of things, but good for you ain't one of them.

[KYHeirloomer]

> The "really interesting thing" is the essential nutrients for plants MUST be in an inorganic form for the plants to absorb them. Plants cannot absorb "organic compounds" so manure etal must be broken down into the inorganic components to be used by plants. <

Pete,

I don't understand your use of the words "organic" and "inorganic" in this context. If you're using them as chemical terms, then they're really irrelevent to this discussion.

Could you clarify, please, what you're trying to say? Thanx.

[chefhow]

Originally Posted by KYHeirloomer

>I can take ANY govt regulation to suit my needs. <

When I was editing Package Engineering magazine we did a lot of work with those same agencies. One thing I learned is that the smart money does not manipulate the written law. It starts long before that, by manipulating the TACs.

The members of TACs rarely know much about the subject they are studying. Instead, they rely on input from "outside experts." Which almost always translates as representatives from the industry the new rules are going to control.

Kind of a vicious cycle. But, from a manufacturer's viewpoint, it makes sense: We don't really wan't to be regulated. But if we're going to be, we should write the regulations to make sure they aren't onerous.

Even after the fact, you don't have to convince lawmakers, or even the administrators at the agency, to make changes. You only have to convince the TAC members, because their recomendations almost always prevail---especially after the fact, when public input is no longer part of the regulatory process.

That, to bring this back home to the discussion, is precisely what happened with the organics regulations. And continues happening as the industry (i.e., factory farmers) constantly seek to water it down even further as conditions change.

>since you cant Irradiate, treat with BT or ETO to control your bad micro organisms.<

Haven't read it lately, but so far as I know, Bt remains on the approved list of organic products. It certainly was approved originally. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if Monsanto managed to get it banned. Bt is affordable by the real organic growers, whereas a giant vacumn cleaner isn't.

I wonder how we survived for 10,000 years without irridation, and pasturization, and all the "necessary" things we do to food nowadays so that it's safe to eat.

Since Whole Foods decided that they were going to be the be all and end all in the Organic industry they lobbied to have ANY and ALL chemical type treatments removed from the list of things that could be "Certified Organc". Now the only way to get product into them or any company that wants to supply them is to either have higher micro counts or Steam Treat the products which is costly, ruins the appearance and breaks down the essential oils in the product resulting in a less flavorful product that has to be reinforced with oleoresins and natural flavors. Now there is nothing wrong with resins and flavors but then you run into problems with flavors since they are made up of chemical compounds to emulate the flavor of the natural product and not every thing on the earth has enough oil in it to make resins. Its a nasty cycle that is being turned by a money hungry company that is trying to protect its image more than anything.

As to how we survived, we ate our foods raw and our bodies were used to it. We didnt eat as much and we exercized constantly. The American Industrial Revolution was the best and worst thing to happen to us, it made us more effeicent and lazy all in one broad stroke.

[KYHeirloomer]

>Since Whole Foods decided that they were going to be the be all and end all in the Organic industry they lobbied to have ANY and ALL chemical type treatments removed from the list of things that could be "Certified Organc".<

You've either said too much here or far too little.

I wasn't aware that Whole Foods had any particular place in determining what was or was not allowed by organic growers. Nor that they're a particularly important player. Maybe in their corporate mind they are, but not in the real world.

They may have their own rules as to what they will or will not allow in their stores; but that's a business decision, not a legal one. And it flies in the face of the whole purpose of the federal law: to have one consistent set of rules that were enforced equally.

Any company can do that, but it doesn't make it the law of the land. For instance, the Good Foods Co-Op, in Lexington, used to have an internal regulation that in order for something to be labeled organic in that store the grower had to meet or exceed the California organics standards. But that didn't make the California standards the law in Kentucky.

Virtually anything you apply to the plants or soil is a chemical. So I'd like to see exactly how Whole Foods phrases that rule. Does it mean I can't water my plants (you know, that dangerous chemical oxydihydride)?

Bt is a naturally occuring insecticide that can also be applied by the grower. The big brand name is Dipel, but there are others.

Not all natural products are permitted. Roetenone (sp?), for instance, was never allowed on the list because it's too indiscriminate a killer. Bt (which is a bacteria) and pyritheryne (sp?) (which is derived from a marigold-like plant) were on the approved list. As far as I know they still are.

[KYHeirloomer]

For anyone interested, the list of approved and unapproved products, both synthetic and nonsynthetic, can be found here: Agricultural Marketing Service - National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances

I just went over it, and there is nothing in the amended list banning the use of Bt.

[KYHeirloomer]

>As to how we survived, we ate our foods raw and our bodies were used to it.<

Really? Hmmmmmmmm, let's see.

Government control of what we eat, how it is grown, what additives can or cannot be used, how it's packaged, etc. etc. is, essentially, about 75years old. But let's extend that to the beginning of the 20th century.

So you're saying that nobody cooked their food before that? Or canned it? Or otherwise modified it? Comes the year 1901 and suddenly everybody, who has until now been eating everything raw, has jumped on this new-fangled bandwagon called "cooking." Gimme a break. We have always cooked our food, or processed it.

Fermentation, to pick just one example, is either the second or third oldest form of food preservation, depending on which authority you accept. We could, until USDA and FDA (you know, those Johnny-come-latelies) told us otherwise, take raw whole milk and preserve it by fementing it. The result was called cheese. Now we can't do that, because whole milk has suddenly become unsafe.

In the 17-19th centuries, when cuisine as we think of it was being developed (you know, by cooking), there were no expiration dates; no "best if used by" dates; no "do not eat this after Tuesday" rules. But somehow we cooked food, and ate it, and survived.

For most of man's history he has cooked his food, or processesed it one way or another. And most of the world continues to produce its food, and prepare it, using rules that are incredibly less stringent than those propulgated by our regulatory agencies. Many, perhaps most, of those rules are based on nothing more than our ability to dream them up and impose them.

Here's an example, one I've used before. When I started as editor of Package Engineering, parts per million were the common small measurement used for government standards. When I left, parts per billion were coming on strong. Now we casually talk about parts per trillion.

All this reflects is that our technological ability to measure nothing gets better every day. But are the standards established by FDA and USDA meaningful? Does a standard that started as ppm but is now espressed in a fraction of ppb reflect clinical evidence? I submit, knowing how those agencies work, that it does not. That the standards are established primarily because we can measure that small, not because there is any more or less danger.

Regulatory agencies exist to promulgate regulations. Doesn't matter to them how much their rules fly in the face of common sense. Look at the history of canning tomatoes for the best example of how this works. Or examine the reasons why the United States, for all practical purposes, has no merchant fleet.

[PeteMcCracken]

Interesting article: Organic Food Not Nutritionally Better Than Conventionally-produced Food, Review Of Literature Shows

[KYHeirloomer]

Oregon Yeti posted that here several days ago, Pete.

As I said then, the findings should be no surprise to anyone except organics activists who insist that if you yell a falsehood long enough and loud enough it will make it true. What is true is that plants who's needs have been met will reach their full nutritional and flavor potential, whether those needs are met naturally or synthetically.

Again, the difference between organic growing and conventional growing has more to do with attitude than final result. Organic growers are concerned with the long-term effects their actions have on the land. Conventional growers are not. One is a steward of the land, the other an exploiter. But if each follows the respective rules of the game he's playing, their end results will be the same.

[OregonYeti]

Originally Posted by PeteMcCracken

Interesting article: Organic Food Not Nutritionally Better Than Conventionally-produced Food, Review Of Literature Shows

I'm wondering about the timing of this. I check out Yahoo's most popular news online every day, and I don't recall another article about organically grown vs conventional produce, at least not in a long time.

By the way, that title makes me ask . . . what is "conventional"? It depends on how far back you go. If you go back about 100 years, "conventional" was something very different from what it is now. 100 years is a very short span of time compared to how long humans have practiced agriculture.

[KYHeirloomer]

And even at the same time, "conventional" could mean different things depending on where you farmed.

The dry-land practices of the American plains, for instance, were conventional there. But far from the conventional terraced, intensive gardens that supplied Paris during the same time frame.

But, if we forego common meaning then we won't be communicating at all. It's hard enough, as we've seen in this thread, when we all think we're using the same language.

"Conventional," as I use it here, means planting in rows utilizing vast amounts of synthetic chemicals. Taking it a step further, when discussing factory farms it also includes concepts such as monoculture.

By the same token, "organic" meant something different as little as ten years ago, because there was a patchkwork of definations, approaches, and metodology used.

[KYHeirloomer]

In one of my replies on this thread I wrote: "But are the standards established by FDA and USDA meaningful?"

Further evidence that they are often not meaningful, and are established capriciously with little or no clinical evidence, comes to us from the recent furor over lead found in the White House garden.

Apprently, recent soil testing indicates that Mrs. Obama's garden soil contains lead levels of 93 parts per million. Some media made a big deal out of this, even going so far as to turn it into a polical football by claiming it was a legacy from the Clinton days.

So, let's examine what that 93 ppm means.

At the federal level, our standards for lead presence are 400 ppm in area where children play, but 1,200 ppm elsewhere (as in a garden). By that standard, the White House Garden is perfectly safe.

The question is, does 1,200 ppm represent a clinically tested safe level? Or was it picked randomly? Other areas of the world have much stiffer protocols. For instance, in the Netherlands, only 40 ppm is allowable.

Even locally, in the U.S., there are more stringent protocols. In Minneapolis, for instance, the protocols only allow 100 ppm. Under those standards, the White House Garden is almost at risk.

Everybody "knows" that injested lead is dangerous, and related to all sorts of medical problems, including death. But it's a long way between 40 ppm and 1,200 ppm. The question is, with all the studies that have been done, surely there must be some clinical evidence as to what constitutes a dangerous level. Yet, the vast spread in these allowable levels indicates that the standards are, to put it mildly, arbitrary.

Extend this out to all standards prolmulgated by EPA, FDA, USDA, etc., and you have to wonder are they established out of true concerns with our safety, or are they just paternalistic, bearing no relationship to actual clinical evidence?