Re The labels said 'organic.' But these massive imports of corn and soybeans weren't.

["Dave Farber" <dave () farber net>]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <mary () hodder org>
Date: Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [IP] Re The labels said 'organic.' But these massive imports
of corn and soybeans weren't.
To: <dave () farber net>, <dewayne () warpspeed com>


Richard Bennett posts a number of incorrect statements.

First, the Stanford study was a meta study of other studies cherry
picked to come to the conclusion that organic foods had no nutritional
value over conventional. However, there are many studies that show that
conventional foods grown with synthetic fertilizers are 'bigger' in
size, but have less vitamins or minerals per ounce -- the way the
Stanford study showcased these, if they used them, was simply to say the
overall piece of food had inconclusively better nutrition.. and
therefore you couldn't really take a conventional carrot, say over an
organic one, as more or less nutritious. It was a weak way of twisting
the cherry picked studies to dampen the evidence that most organic foods
are more nutritious ounce for ounce over conventional.

The Standford study also ignored, but footnoted, that yes, conventional
foods are full of chemical pesticides that depending on the foods, end
up in the food's flesh and cannot be washed off (berries, green beans,
bell peppers, etc). The study also footnoted that conventional farming
"leaks" up to 90% of these synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides
into runoff and then environment / water systems including aquifers and
drinking water supplies.  And the study was done just after Monsanto
gave Stanford a $40m grant for unrelated work, and the implication was
they asked Stanford to do a study that would not be directly funded by
them but would say that conventional foods were equally nutritious as
organic foods. Lastly, the Standford meta-study also ignored but
footnoted that conventional foods have thousands of times more roundup
and we don't know the implications of that on us (consuming it) or the
effects on the environment since this practice of using 10-100x more
roundup (compared to the 90s and 2000s) on conventional crops started in
about 2010 -- see Monsanto's financial statements where they show a
massive increase in US purchasing of Roundup because of the massive
increase in their GMOs that can take it. This has resulted in superweeds
that cannot be stopped by Roundup. It's an arms race.

Secondly, there are many studies that show that conventional foods, blow
up by synthetic fertilizers don't have the vitamins and minerals, ounce
for once, that organic foods do. Vitamins and minerals are associated
with flavors (and colors), and we evolved to like flavor (and colors)
because we need the vitamins and minerals. If you've eaten a ripe
organic peach compared to a conventional one that is blown up by
synthetic fertilizers and water logged in order to make it bigger and
heavier, you've tasted the difference and studies have shown that
organic fruits and veggies concentrated with flavors (and in a variety
of colors) are more nutritionally packed. It depends on the crop, but
for example, organic carrots were shown to have 30-40 times more
vitamins and minerals than their conventional counterparts.

Lastly, organic food production of the "boutique" foods we like to eat
(ie, not staples like corn, soy etc) is not environmentally wasteful.
Farmers don't overapply composted organic manure as it costs them a lot
-- much more than synthetic fertilizers -- and they are careful to use
organic fertilizers well. Farmers I know personally, from almond to
hazelnut to lettuces and other fresh row crops to berries to stonefruits
to citrus growers who are organic are careful and conscious of the use
of organic pesticides and fertilizers. They are very expensive and used
sparingly. Organic doesn't mean pesticides and fungicides aren't used,
but rather are used from an approved organic list. You still have to
wash them off, because if they are sprayed a few days before harvest,
they can still have them. However, a conventional item might have
something on it with a 2-month half-life -- still fully functional as
you eat it, where an organic crop is likely to have something on it with
a 3-day half-life... so the chances we will ingest the organic pesticide
are less. But you do still have to wash them.

I don't know where Bennett gets his information but his assertions are
not accurate based upon farming today -- of the sort of foods we enjoy
like veggies, fruits, and nuts, in places like California where most of
the "fun" (ie non-staple) foods we get are grown.. as the organic
farmers here and in other places are not doing the things he states.

But the way.. weed control in organic farms is not just done with
"pulling or plowing".. many farmers don't plow in organic farms as it
ruins the top soil nutritionally. Instead, they mow depending (fruit and
nut tree farms for example) and use techniques to keep weeds out. But
all the organic and "sustainable" farmers I know complain about how the
conventional overuse of Roundup has led to superweeds and even though
they are not using it, the superweed seeds have migrated, and they see
6' high weeds in a matter of weeks between mowing.. because other
conventional farmers overused roundup. Note that "sustainable" is a
category with standards now, and depending on crop has different
requirements. But it's a good step for many farmers to go to before
organic, as they learn how to do part of it, see some market benefits
because sustainable and organic is a lot more work for people, and then
they can move the final step to organic.

Mary


On 2017-05-13 16:49, Dave Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > FROM: Richard Bennett <richard () bennett com>
> > DATE: May 13, 2017 at 4:42:53 PM EDT
> > TO: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> > CC: ip <ip () listbox com>
> > SUBJECT: RE: [IP] THE LABELS SAID &#39;ORGANIC.&#39; BUT THESE
> > MASSIVE IMPORTS OF CORN AND SOYBEANS WEREN&#39;T.
>
> > This is a good practice that should be encouraged. Organic food is
> > basically a scam because it's not more nutritious that conventional
> > GMO food, and it's much worse for the environment that food grown
> > with modern methods. Stanford did a monster analysis on the
> > nutrition issues, and there have be numerous studies on the
> > environmental impact.
> >
> > It comes down the fact that organic is less productive than
> > conventional farming, so it takes more acres of land for organic to
> > produce the same output. This means more water, more CO2 from
> > tractors, and more runoff. Organic food has to be fertilized with
> > manure, which doesn't have precise doses of nutrients. So farmers
> > have to over-apply, which leads to runoff. Modern farming methods
> > called "precision agriculture" apply water, pesticides, and
> > nutrients on-demand and in the doses needed. This stuff is all
> > enabled by IT, GPS, and networking in general.
> >
> > Organic is also horrible at carbon sequestration because its only
> > effective weed control methods are manual pulling and plowing, while
> > GMO farmers can use zero-till methods with herbicide-tolerant
> > plants.
> >
> > Many people mistakenly believe that organic food is pesticide-free,
> > while it isn't. Organic farmers are permitted to use a broad panoply
> > of pesticides from the OMRI registry and even to use synthetic
> > pesticides in low doses when all else fails. As one would expect,
> > naturally-derived pesticides are less effective than synthetics,
> > hence higher doses and greater environmental impact.
> >
> > So the best solution for people who want to eat organic is to apply
> > the organic label to conventional foods. This allows consumers to
> > overpay and enjoy the placebo effect without harming the planet.
> >
> > Bravo.
> >
> > RB
> >
> > On May 13, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > FROM: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> > DATE: May 13, 2017 at 12:15:01 PM EDT
> > TO: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
> > SUBJECT: [DEWAYNE-NET] THE LABELS SAID &#39;ORGANIC.&#39; BUT THESE
> > MASSIVE IMPORTS OF CORN AND SOYBEANS WEREN&#39;T.
> > REPLY-TO: dewayne-net () warpspeed com
> >
> > The labels said 'organic.' But these massive imports of corn and
> > soybeans weren't.
> > By Peter Whoriskey
> > May 12 2017
> <
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-labels-said-organic-but-these-massive-imports-of-corn-and-soybeans-werent/2017/05/12/6d165984-2b76-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html
> > A shipment of 36 million pounds of soybeans sailed late last year
> > from Ukraine to Turkey to California. Along the way, it underwent a
> > remarkable transformation.
> >
> > The cargo began as ordinary soybeans, according to documents
> > obtained by The Washington Post. Like ordinary soybeans, they were
> > fumigated with a pesticide. They were priced like ordinary soybeans,
> > too.
> >
> > But by the time the 600-foot cargo ship carrying them to Stockton,
> > Calif., arrived in December, the soybeans had been labeled
> > "organic," according to receipts, invoices and other shipping
> > records. That switch -- the addition of the "USDA Organic"
> > designation -- boosted their value by approximately $4 million,
> > creating a windfall for at least one company in the supply chain.
> >
> > After being contacted by The Post, the broker for the soybeans,
> > Annapolis-based Global Natural, emailed a statement saying it may
> > have been "provided with false certification documents" regarding
> > some grain shipments from Eastern Europe. About 21 million pounds of
> > the soybeans have already been distributed to customers.
> >
> > The multimillion-dollar metamorphosis of the soybeans, as well as
> > two other similar grain shipments in the past year examined by The
> > Post, demonstrate weaknesses in the way that the United States
> > ensures that what is sold as "USDA Organic" is really organic.
> >
> > The three shipments, each involving millions of pounds of "organic"
> > corn or soybeans, were large enough to constitute a meaningful
> > proportion of the U.S. supply of those commodities. All three were
> > presented as organic, despite evidence to the contrary. And all
> > three hailed from Turkey, now one of the largest exporters of
> > organic products to the United States, according to Foreign
> > Agricultural Service statistics.
> >
> > Agriculture Department officials said that they are investigating
> > fraudulent organic grain shipments. But the agency declined to
> > identify any of the firms or shipments involved.
> >
> > "We are continuing the investigation based on the evidence
> > received," it said in a statement.
> >
> > The imported corn and soybean shipments examined by The Post were
> > largely destined to become animal feed and enter the supply chain
> > for some of the largest organic food industries. Organic eggs,
> > organic milk, organic chicken and organic beef are supposed to come
> > from animals that consume organic feed, an added expense for farmers
> > that contributes to the higher consumer prices on those items.
> >
> > While most food sold as "USDA Organic" is grown in the United
> > States, at least half of some organic commodities -- corn, soybeans
> > and coffee -- come from overseas, from as many as 100 countries.
> >
> > USDA officials say that their system for guarding against fraud is
> > robust.
> >
> > Under USDA rules, a company importing an organic product must verify
> > that it has come from a supplier that has a "USDA Organic"
> > certificate. It must keep receipts and invoices. But it need not
> > trace the product back to the farm. Some importers, aware of the
> > possibility of fraud, request extra documentation. But others do
> > not.
> >
> > Regardless of where organics come from, critics say, the system
> > suffers from multiple weaknesses in enforcement: Farmers hire their
> > own inspection companies; most inspections are announced days or
> > weeks in advance and lack the element of surprise; and testing for
> > pesticides is the exception rather than the rule.
> >
> > These vulnerabilities are magnified with imported products, which
> > often involve more middlemen, each of whom could profit by
> > relabeling conventional goods as "organic." The temptation could be
> > substantial, too: Products with a "USDA Organic" label routinely
> > sell for twice the price of their conventional counterparts.
> >
> > In recent years, even as the amount of organic corn and soybeans
> > imported to the United States has more than tripled, the USDA has
> > not issued any major sanctions for the import of fraudulent grain,
> > U.S. farmers said.
> >
> > "The U.S. market is the easiest for potentially fraudulent organic
> > products to penetrate because the chances of getting caught here are
> > not very high," said John Bobbe, executive director of the Organic
> > Farmers' Agency for Relationship Marketing, or OFARM, a farmer
> > cooperative. In Europe and Canada, he said, import rules for
> > organics are much stricter.
> >
> > Moreover, even when the USDA has responded to complaints of
> > questionable imports, action has come too late to prevent the
> > products from reaching consumers.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/>
>
> --
> Richard Bennett
> Founder/Publisher, High Tech Forum [1]
>
> Consultant
>
>                Archives [2] [3] | Modify [4] Your Subscription |
Unsubscribe Now
> [5] [6]
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://hightechforum.org
> [2] https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> [3] https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/504846-379c89cb
> [4]
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> [5]
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?&&post_id=20170513164935:AA37CA38-381D-11E7-A15C-8C76975A6E18
> [6] http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170514145328:998BAB8C-38D6-11E7-95D6-B3536686AF25
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com