graceg’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The Times' editorial of November 4th expressing concern about the appointment of Dr. Islam Siddiqui as chief agricultural negotiator for the office of the United States trade representative was right on the money. With all the positive changes at USDA, it is time to bring agricultural trade policy in line with the momentum towards responsible, sustainable agriculture. It is also time to retire the “urban legend” about the ill-fated first draft of the organic regulations, in which Dr. Siddiqui had a role. As a staff member of the National Organic Program from 1994-1999, I helped write that draft rule, which the Times (and almost everyone else) characterizes as “notoriously loose about allowing genetically engineered crops and the use of sewage-sludge fertilizers to be labeled as ‘organic.’” The actual first draft of that rule, which gained approval all the way up the USDA hierarchy, including by Dr. Siddiqui, included explicit prohibitions on genetic engineering and irradiation. These prohibitions (and a few other important provisions) were subsequently deleted by OMB (Office of Management & Budget), which cited Administration policy supporting both genetic engineering and irradiation. Dr. Siddiqui was well aware of the importance the staff attached to keeping the prohibitions in, and did not include us in negotiations with OMB. In desperation, we added a request for comments on genetic engineering and irradiation to the Preamble when the proposed rule was finally published, knowing what the comments would be, and expecting to use those comments as ammunition to restore the prohibitions in the final rule. EPA, which was lobbying hard to allow "biosolids" (aka sewage sludge) in organic production then asked that a similar request for comments be included for their pet issue - but at no time was any of the “big three” of sewage sludge, genetically engineered organisms or irradiation ever proposed to be permitted. This is just a small slice of the story of how the vision of organics has been subverted by those who claim to defend "organic integrity." Thanks - Grace GershunyOn New allies in fight against Obama's pesticide lobbyist nominee posted 3 days, 16 hours ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Ag Secretary choices

  Many--not all--of those listed might make good Ag appointees, but have obvious problems with the breadth of their experience. It is hard to imagine Obama appointing an Ag Secretary who is not acceptable to corporate agribusiness, which none of these folks would be--in some cases for good reason.  It would be nice to have someone acceptable to both them and us, who at least has "street cred" with conventional agriculture. I haven't seen many names floated that could do that, unfortunately.

  I would also personally have problems with several of the "progressive" names listed, who like to promote themselves far more knowledgeable and wise than is justified from my experience with them. So what is the point of such a petition?  I'm not sure, but endorsing someone who has no chance and is not qualified makes no sense to me.On Activists circulate last-minute petition to urge progressive farm-policy chief posted 11 months ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Nonsense about organic standards

  Please stop laughing and start thinking.  I suppose you could say the same thing about any organic product -- how can something as environmentally destructive as beef or soybeans be allowed to be organic?  Duh -- if you follow the organic rules, it can't be environmentally destructive.  

  So you're saying that wild caught fish are okay for people to eat, but please don't feed them to farmed fish?  Even with all the restrictions included in the recommended standards? Where's the logic in that?  

  Meanwhile, there's plenty of farmed organic fish coming from Europe, where they believe that we need to encourage fish farming that is ecologically benign--or would you prefer to keep that from happening here?

  The best organic standards are neither "weak" nor "strong."  They are ecologically sensible.On USDA close to approving relatively weak organic standards for fish posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "organically killed"

  There are lots of tools that organic farmers can use that can also be misused. You generally offer helpful observations--but one common misconception you repeat is that larger farms are more likely to want to "bend" the rules, and to use "pseudoorganic" practices.  Not true, as a general statement.  The bigger guys use preventive practices like insectary crops between rows of strawberries, good rotations, and similar measures.  Often smaller farmers can't afford things like flame weeder rigs, let alone decent wages for farm help.  

  The use of any pest or weed control substance is intended to be a fall-back measure, as enshrined in the NOP rules by having to be justified in the farm plan when prevention, mechanical and biological measures don't work.

  Rather than pounding organic farmers for failing to live up to the mythology, how about applauding the effort to play by the rules and show the world that organic is a viable alternative for any farmer?On Are 'organic pesticides' the way forward for organic agriculture? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 16 Responses