Is "going organic" too political? - Page 2

>I don't for one moment pretend to undestand the scope and true definition of the term "organic" farming.<

DC, our discussions re: the definition of organics doesn't apply to you. Here in the U.S., however, there is a federal law spelling out exactly what organics means. That law includes everything from a listing of what is or is not an organic chemical (i.e., it isn't enough that a pesticide, or fertilizer, etc. is a natural product. The product is either approved by the law, or you can't use it and call what you grow organic), to the condition of your soil, to a whole slew of other requirements.

The law also specifies that you have to use organic seed, unless you can demonstrate that it isn't available for that veggie. The onus of proof is on the grower. This is one of the dumbest legal requirements the world has ever seen, because the growing method has, from a horticultural viewpoint, absolutely no effect on the seed.

With one minor exception*, any market grower who wants to use the term organic must be certified as an organic grower, and is subject to continual inspections to assure complience. There's also an incredible amount of onerous paperwork involved. And, of course, application fees, and inspection fees, etc.

What this law did was all but drive out the legitimate organic growers, most of whom are relatively small, diverse farmers who cannot afford either the costs, or the time it takes to do the paperwork. Each vegetable you grow requires this paperwork. A friend of mine once figured out that the paperwork entailed maintaining her certification would take 26 hours each season---unless she added new veggies, in which case the time would increase.

If you had been around when the law was first proposed you'd have seen that the major inputs to the law came from the factory farmers---big surprise. And they made sure that it would favor them to the detriment of the true organic grower.

This, in turn, led to some awkward phraseology on the part of growers, who would identify their produce as being "grown using organic methods, but not certified," and similar terms. Consumers, who by and large do not understand the law, naturally looked on such phrases with suspicion. So organizations sprang up, such as CNG (Certified Naturally Grown) which gave members a logo that was more acceptible.

If you think this sounds like an incredibly politicalized situation, you don't know the half of it.

*The exception is if you earn less than $5,000 from all agricultural products annually, in which case you can claim to be an organic grower without earning certification.

Just to clarify a bit, the federal organics law did spring up out of good intentions. The idea was to create a consistent, evenly applied certification system.

Until then, every state had it's own organic regs and definitions, ranging from virtually none (Kentucky), to some very fine systems such as those found in California and Oregon.

Indeed, if the feds had merely used either the California or Oregon Tilth certification systems as models, nobody would have been overly upset.

BTW, none of this has anything to do with home gardeners. For instance, I only use organic methods (and, fwiw, won't put a hybrid in the ground). But I'm not concerned about certification, so it doesn't matter what I call the veggies from my gardens.

Wow, KYHeirloomer, you are a great source of information. I didn't know anything about most of what you said. Apparently it is a passion of yours to know what's what in horticulture. I'm getting a lot of great information from you, straight up, no kidding.

It's really screwed up that big money can buy that economic advantage, at the expense of the consumer. I hope that the Obamas are making a difference in this, whether they were trying to make a big point of it or not.

I dont think anyone's daft enough to believe that mrs Obamas family will be eating brocolli she has lovingly tended all through the summer. Going out on slug and snail patrol. Or laying awake nights worrying about how to keep the pigeons off her peas and strawberries.

But good on her for encouraging folk to be more aware.

You can argue the pros and cons of organic till the grass fed sourcable cows come home. But surely, If theres a way (And i'm talking small growers here. Including thee n me) to produce fruit, veg and blooms without pouring poison into the ground, shouldnt we at least give it a go.

On a grander scale. I dont have enough knowledge to diss the supermarket organic produce, but as always my cynicism gets the better of me, and like politicians, i dont trust any of them. No mater how much they try to sell us their magic solutions.

I do feel sorry for the small commercial producers who simply cannot afford to legally print "organic" on their packaging. Surely they should be encouraged.

We've become so de-sensitised to the plight of the third world growers. Some are maimed or even killed by the poisons they are forced to ingest while treating crops.
At home too, locals are suffering the effects of phosphates being sprayed on carrot feilds and so ad infinitum.

I swore years ago to always be organic. My husband persists in using weedkiller. I cant stop him.
My greenhouse that he has almost finished building will be completely organic. I've just been sent a list from the royal horticultural society, of organic predator suppliers and using them doesnt seem much more expensive than the chemical method.

As far as taste goes, I've had some absolute rubbish organic food. No-one ever gave any guarentees did they. On the whole though, its good stuff and the joy i get from my home grown is worth all the extra trouble it takes to look after the crops the "right" way.

Maybe one motivation of the gardening was for their children to have a somewhat "normal" life as much as possible.

You think? Yes, I can see that.

Maybe she really loves gardening. I would miss it sooo much if i was too busy to really give it my time, and her spare time must be at a premium eh?

Its bad enough my next door neighbour scutinises my efforts without the world press. OOh! now that made me smile. Just imagine...

Bughut, although the Royal Hort is an ok source, organics (and, indeed, vegetable growing overall) is just a small part of what they do.

You really should be involved with HDRA (Henry Doubleday Research Assn.) It's really the leading voice of organic growing in the British Isles.

In addition to its work with organic growing it also maintains the Heritage Seed Library, which makes otherwise unavailable seed (i.e., heirlooms and non-white-list open pollinated varieites) available to the gardening public.

Contact info on HDRA: Ryton Organic Gardens, Coventry CV8 3LG, Great Britain, 024 7630 8210, enquiry@hdra.org.uk.

I'll look into it. Thanks for the info.

I expect you use them a lot. Is it just heirloom tomatoes you grow, or other produce and is there a big marKet for it in America.

Cant say i've ever seen heirlooms for sale in any markets i've been to over here. Our loss i guess

Everything I grow is an heirloom, Bughut. I won't put a hybrid in the ground, as much for political reasons as horticultural ones.

I try to specialize in growing Kentucky heirlooms whenever possible. If there are no Kentuckies available I broaden out to varities from other Appalachian states. There's no particular virtue in this. Trouble is, once the heirloom bug bites you start collecting like crazy. Pretty soon, unless you limit yourself somehow, you have so many seeds you'd have to bid on Rhode Island to have enough room to grow them.

Even as a regional specialist I have to alternate among the varieties. Plus there are "new" ones added every season. In a typical year, for instance, I'll grow two or three tomatoes, six legumes, etc.

Among the veggie types I grow regularly are tomatoes, beans (I'm known in the heirlooms community as a bean guy, and have more than a hundred varieites), chilis and sweet peppers, cowpeas (the oldest seed in my collection is a cowpea, in fact. Been in the same family since 1820) okra, cucumbers, summer and winter squashes, lettuces and other greens, brassicas of all types, all sorts of alliums, root veggies of several kinds, and I'm sure I'm leaving something out.

Doesn't surprise me that you don't see heirlooms for sale in Great Britain. Two reasons for that. First off, they're called "heritage varieties" over there. Second, and more important, is that if they're not on the white-list (and few are), then market growers cannot produce them, nor shops sell them.

Due to the white-list, it's even difficult for home gardeners to obtain heritage seed, because the commercial seed houses aren't allowed to sell them. So you have to obtain them from specially licensed groups, like HDRA, or by trading with other home growers.

If you want. let's talk privately about getting you some seed. I know many of my varieties will grow in England (I used to trade seed with some folks there), but don't know if they'll do well as far north as you are. So we'd have to focus on the kinds of things you can grow, length of your growing season, etc.

>is there a big marKet for it in America.<

Potentially there's a huge market for them. Heirlooms have become mainstream over here, and everybody wants them. Especially chefs.

Until recently, however, it was hard to get the chefs and growers together. Heirlooms, by and large, do not travel well. But the locovore movement, along with several organizations that exist to set up grower/user partnerships, plus the exponential growth in farmers markets and CSAs has changed that.

One of the unfortunate problems, though, is that many of the people who tout heirlooms do not really know what they are. You see TV chefs, for instance, talking about "good heirloom tomatoes" as if "heirloom" was a specific variety. And most of them do not realize that there is more to the heirloom veggie thing than just tomatoes.

In addition, the mainstream seed houses all offer seed for at least some heirlooms. But, again, they don't always know what they're talking about. Many modern open pollinated varieties, for instance, are touted as heirlooms. And, marketing people being what they are, there are an awful lot of phony stories being promulgated about them.

If I here one more sappy, made-up story about the origination of Cherokee Purple tomatoes, for instance, I think I'll go in the corner and spit up.

The sad thing about that is that many heirlooms really do have great stories associated with them. And collecting the stories is as interesting, and as much fun, as collecting the seed itself.

I am wondering if this is a rebuttal for the political message.

Organic food is no healthier, study finds - Yahoo! News

It addresses the comparative nutritional value of organically grown foods versus others, but not the possible negative of the other stuff you might be eating along with the produce. It's a popular article in Yahoo news.

From my point of view, the nutritive value as measured by vitamins and minerals and all was not the point. The point, to me, was first of all what stuff am I eating along with the produce than might be not so good, and second, is this a more reliable way of maintaining crops for many years . . .l

It looks to me like a strong PR message avoiding certain questions.

I read the article a couple of days ago in one of online trade magazines and I was speaking with some of the scientists that I work with about it. A vegetable is what it is and its nutrtional value is what it is whether its organic or grown in a huge commerical farm. PPl need to see the truth for what it is, I personally support some of the small local farms in the central Pa area where I live and buy most of my produce and meats weekly at one of the farmers markets. I dont think they are organic but they certainly arent large scale farms. That is where ppl should be concerned, not with how its grown but how far it has to travel to get to you. I'm sure most of you know that more harm is done to the environment via the OTR freight that most of our food travels than the fertilizers that are used to grow them yet we continue to focus on the farmer and not the distance at which it travels. I think we need to open our eyes to the real problem and begin to support the local guy.

Until recently, however, it was hard to get the chefs and growers together. Heirlooms, by and large, do not travel well. But the locovore movement, along with several organizations that exist to set up grower/user partnerships, plus the exponential growth in farmers markets and CSAs has changed that.

KY, I have a ton of respect for you and the wealth of knowlege that you bring to the table, but with the exception of the big box chains many of us little independent owners have been supporting and working with the small local farmers for years, at least in the circles I have been in over the past 15 years. The owner/farmer coops have been around in the SE, in particular TN, GA and FL since I opened my first place in 1995. I bought ALL my meats and produce every few days according to what was on the truck and made menu changes accordingly.

>I am wondering if this is a rebuttal for the political message.<

Certainly it's part of the anti-organics message. And it's precisely the point I made earlier; that so long as organics activists make false claims that are easy to refute it just provides ammo to the opposite camp.

Keep in mind that the activists aren't lying, per se. They really believe some of the things they spout about flavor and nutritional benefits. Which, in turn, leads others to believe it.

But, as I've said before, if you provide the nutrients that a plant needs for healthy growth, the fruit will be the same---same taste, same nutritional value, same everything---whether you grow conventionally or organically.

Organic growing has to do with long-term concern for the land, and for not adding poisons and adulterants to the food supply.

>A vegetable is what it is and its nutrtional value is what it is whether its organic or grown in a huge commerical farm.<

Isn't that what I said? Several times?

>not with how its grown but how far it has to travel to get to you.<

The two tend to be interrelated. So long as varieties are choosen to meet the needs of the food distribution system other things---like flavor and nutritional value---can suffer. The closer one is to the food supply, the more the farmer can concentrate on growing the best vegetable possible.

The classic example: You buy tomatoes at a farmers market where a member grows the same hybrid you buy at the supermarket. But the one from the farmer's market tastes so much better. Why? Because the local farmer waited until it was ripe before he picked it to sell to you. The supermarket 'maters were never ripe nor ever will be.

>many of us little independent owners have been supporting and working with the small local farmers for years,<

Certainly you have, and I laud your efforts (although you, as a chef, probably never heard of heirlooms 15 years ago, let alone bought them). And there are even stronger efforts. Among others: The Blackberry Inn is one of several resorts with it's own working farm on the property to provide produce for its kitchens. MiLa, down in New Orleans, has a contract with a farm for exclusive rights to its entire production. Mario Batalli gets his eggs directly from a grower who raises free-range chickens. I could provide numerous other examples.

But that doesn't detract from what I said. The fact is, it is difficult, even today, for the average chef to connect with a local grower. Surely it's easier than it was ten years ago, and exponentially easier than it was 30 years ago when Alice Waters turned a sensible approach into a movement. And the number of channels that facilitate grower/user relationships is also growing. So it gets easier every day.

>owner/farmer coops have been around in the SE,<

One thing we should beware of is attributing certain characteristics to groups that exist for other reasons. Agricultural co-ops are marketing organizations that allow a group of smaller farmers the economy of scale enjoyed by factory farmers. They do not, necessarily, reflect a local-sales bias. For the most part, just the opposite is true; co-ops form so that the farming community can broaden its marketing reach, either regionally or locally.

Examples: Until the foreign invasion changed it, all the garlic you bought came from Gilroy, a co-op. Virtually all the white rice sold in America comes from a handful of huge co-ops. Citrus products are marketed through a number of co-ops. So, too, are avocadoes (and, indeed, almost everything grown in California's central valley) and most nut products.

Chances are, if there's a X Council or Assn, there is at least one co-op involved marketing that agricultural product on a national or international level. "Beef--It's What's For Dinner" did not originate with a local farmer raising half a dozen grass-fed steers.

The downside is that once a co-op is successful it has to follow many of the same food-distribution-system constraints as the factory farms. Which puts the chef back where he was; scrambling around for locally grown produce.

Wow! Thank you very much for your knowledgeable response.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

>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.

> 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.

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.

>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.

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.

>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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?