Say goodbye to Organic farming???

The local FOX network news just ran a story about how a pest called the 'eye gnat' is creating trouble for conventional farmers. The kicker was that the farmers are blaming Organic farmers for the growing 'eye gnat' problem. Because the Organic farmers don't spray pesticides on their crops, the 'eye gnats' are increasing in numbers.
The news caster then stated that there is an Ordinance being drafted which would "require" Organic farmers to spray pesticides on their crops to help control this 'eye gnat' pest.

I think this could make for a serious threat to the Organic farming industry.

Is anyone else aware of this ordinance?

Side Note: Aug 31, 2007.
The CCOF (California Certified Organic Farmers) supports the use of a biopesticide against the Light Brown Apple Moth, the so called LBAM spray. There appears to be a lot of controversy over the efficacy and safety of this pesticide. It just goes to show me that Organic farming is not what people think it is. Or more accurately, the so called Certified Organic foods are not what most people believe them to be.

I think Organic farming should mean nothing but water and sunshine added during the entire life cycle of the crops, and nothing added to the produce after harvesting.
As far as fertilizers, I don't know that I could even call any of them organic because of their potential for being contaminated with heavy metals, synthetic chemicals and pathogens.

reply to post by AutomaticSlim


They will add compost, organic fertilizers, and use natural, organic pest control like diatomatious earth and neem oil. If they only used water and sunshine, the soils would be depleted and the crops would be poor.

I agree that you need to question the source of manures. If they come from animals that have been given hormones or antibiotics, I wouldn't want to use that on my soil.

Organic farmers have it rough. But they have it right, too. We're growing a lot of our own vegetables now, and we do NOT use chemicals.

I agree that if Organic farmers just kept planting the same crops on the same plot of land it would become depleted. However what about crop rotations and leaving a portion of the field fallow for a period of time? Also using those nitrogen fixing crops during the rotations should help too.

you may find it interesting to note that the USDA considers anything used to treat a pest problem to be a pesticide, so i'm unsure how we would know what organic even means on a commercial scale.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle


They have a list of approved organic pest control and soil amendments. Anything not on that list is a no no. Even if they are certified organic, though, there is no 100% assurance that they are totally compliant.

Grow your own produce if you can. Or know the farmers whose produce you buy, i guess.

Currently I read that a huge number of organic farmers were taking Monsanto to court, so this must be a threat, eh?

Anyway, they need to keep firing that gun off until the bad guys lose.

People should be passing the hat in every community and continually, not stopping, challenge all these NWO and control things in court including the war on drugs laws.

All farming is environmentally unfriendly. The organic farming movement was a response, not to environmental degradation, but to the fact that the artificial fertilizers, pesticides, etc. in use a couple of generations ago were harmful to humans. Organically grown food was thought to be healthier, less full of poisons.

If we want to make sure the world stays fed, we cannot depend on organic farming. There just isn't enough arable land, unless we want to cram everybody into cities and turn most of what is left of the world's wildernesses into farmland.

Opposition to the use of pesticides allows plant pests and parasites a breeding window, just as opposition to vaccination allows human disease vectors a breeding window. Both have the potential to cause plagues and epidemics.

There really is no way for the human race to win this one.

Originally posted by Astyanax
All farming is environmentally unfriendly.

I love this statement. It's so obvious it has escaped my attention. Farming is not a natural process, it is man changing his environment to suit his needs.

The original issue is that the organic farmers are going to be forced to accept more chemicals usage, and all that has to happen is the so called regulatory agencies to allow more chemicals on their 'approved for organic farming' list.

People need to vote with their dollars, it's the only way. Nothing synthetic and nothing created in a lab or by a 'food scientist.'

WTF do we need food scientists for anyhow??? We never needed them for 99.9999999% of human existance.

reply to post by AutomaticSlim

WTF do we need food scientists for anyhow??? We never needed them for 99.9999999% of human existance.

Not sure where you got the statistic. We became agriculturists about 10-12,000 years ago, which is about five percent of our estimated history of a species. Human beings have practised 'food science' and genetic engineering since that time.

Many years ago, I wrote this post on a thread about genetic engineering. It contains an explanation, with pictures, of how maize (corn) was created from a primitive grassy plant called teosinte.

Nearly all the food we eat nowadays is artificial. Cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli and other leafy vegetables of that kind were all originally domesticated from the wild mustard plant. Few of the vegetables eaten in the West could grow in the wild. Similarly, most domestic animals (apparently with the exception of pigs) couldn't survive in the wild, either.

The human race could not survive without its 'food scientists'.

reply to post by Astyanax


Clearly I was wrong in my assumption that by using so ridiculous a number as 99.99999999% that it wouldn't be taken literally. However, i think you are splitting hairs... unevenly.

Cross pollenating plants to exploit hybrid vigor is not genetic engineering in the sense that most people understand it when they hear the term 'engineering'. You could go on to say that the world is a laboratory and it's all one big "science" experiment, but that would be a topic for another thread.

My point is that the modern science of food production and alteration is not completely safe, and may even prove dangerous.

Yes, man has done a lot of work to improve his lot in life, even soy beans are toxic unless they are soaked, and treated/processed with calcium salts; making cheese, beer and wine are a type of early food science if you will, blue corn is not very nutritious unless it is ground up and mixed with wood ash which changes the pH and allows certain vitamins to become bioavailable.
These situations in history compared to what is being done today hardly can be considered the same.

reply to post by AutomaticSlim

My point is that the modern science of food production and alteration is not completely safe, and may even prove dangerous.

It was always dangerous. The first result of widespread agriculture was a decline in human lifespan and general health.

Modern food science is a thousand times safer than the trial-and-error agricultural and culinary experimentation of former times. It is, above all, infinitely safer than testing out a food for the first time by eating it and waiting to see what happens, which is what our ancestors did with pretty much every new thing they put in their mouths. We benefit today from their incredible courage and curiosity. And it is up to us to continue their work for the benefit of future generations. Thanks to modern science, we can do this in relative safety, without running the risks our forefathers did.

Bottom line is, we humans have gotten lazy when it comes to farming. And the further we become REMOVED from nature the worse it will become.

reply to post by Astyanax


I will presume that your number of "a thousand times safer" is more of a hunch than any particular research supported number, much like my 99.9999999% number.

However, I don't believe that using the techniques of the early humans compares to the production and use of modern chemicals and additives, some of which have NEVER existed in nature as part of the food supply/chain.

How can you then say that these modern sciences of food are safer? We don't have sufficient data.
As you probably are aware, most of the toxicity tests are performed in animal models, are short term and use very high dosages of the chemical agent, they don't study the long term effects of typically expected exposures.

Concerning the alleged willy-nilly approach that primitive man used to find out what was edible and what wasn't, as that being so dangerous. The truth is in the numbers, once that first person died from eating the thing, no one else would likely eat it too, but nowadays, they are putting these chemicals on/in the food supply for millions upon millions of people all at the same time! If one dies, there is no way to opt out, it's too late, you were not in the placebo group, sorry Charlie!

Acute toxicity is not the same as the long term low level exposure. Take the Bisphenol A research coming out now, it is a good example of the case of a toxicity which wasn't studied or anticipated. I fear that the same will hold true of many of the synthetic food dyes and additives.
And what about those clever scientists who invented Transfats and partially hydrogenated oils? Wow, that was a great idea, thanks guys >

reply to post by AutomaticSlim


This is just one of the many attacks that will ultimately coming together to manipulate society into banning organic foods entirely. Stand up for the truth now or risk consuming poison forever. This kind of poison kills slow and will not be noticed for thirty years.

reply to post by henryharrison1984


I'm not yet to the point of seeing this resulting in the banning of organic farming, yet, but I couldn't rule it out. I could see them creating new regulations and enforcing these rules on food production and distribution to such an extent to make it near impossible to grow organic foods or to even have a backyard garden.

I do agree that the results of this experiment are now starting to show up in the number of autoimmune, endocrine and cardiovascular diseases, not to mention the cancers. 30 years from now?...I shudder to think.

reply to post by AutomaticSlim

organic farming has some bad effects...it doesnt help in production much if compared with chemical fertilizers.Organic farms use some pesticides although they are often allowed to use naturally derived ones.Studies have shown that people who work with pesticides have an increased risk of developing disease
.........................
Debra Fine

Originally posted by Unity_99
Currently I read that a huge number of organic farmers were taking Monsanto to court, so this must be a threat, eh?

Anyway, they need to keep firing that gun off until the bad guys lose.

People should be passing the hat in every community and continually, not stopping, challenge all these NWO and control things in court including the war on drugs laws.

And THIS is what its really all about, 300,000 organic farmers filed a lawsuit against Monsanto. Here's a link
jhaines6.wordpress.com...

Now the sneaky bastards they are, are going to try every tactic in the book to get rid of the "enemy".

Nothing is untouched and sacred in American society. Everything is tainted with some added chemical or spray, fluoride, sugar and whatnot. Nothing is sacred...

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
Nothing is untouched and sacred in American society. Everything is tainted with some added chemical or spray, fluoride, sugar and whatnot. Nothing is sacred...

So true. I don't fear change, but I fear reckless headlong running with scissors in both hands towards change.
Much of what humans ate in the past was pretty basic. Spices were a rarity, natural flavors were the in thing. Eating for survival eventually turned into eating for survival and pleasure. Many of the processed foods really don't seem to satisfy either survival or pleasure it seems.


Sacred things...clean air, water, food, earth, life

Originally posted by AutomaticSlim

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
Nothing is untouched and sacred in American society. Everything is tainted with some added chemical or spray, fluoride, sugar and whatnot. Nothing is sacred...

So true. I don't fear change, but I fear reckless headlong running with scissors in both hands towards change.
Much of what humans ate in the past was pretty basic. Spices were a rarity, natural flavors were the in thing. Eating for survival eventually turned into eating for survival and pleasure. Many of the processed foods really don't seem to satisfy either survival or pleasure it seems.


Sacred things...clean air, water, food, earth, life

There was a video I saw on youtube a few months ago where they interviewed some hardcore capitalist and he said that he would like to see every square inch of earth, water and air turned into private property that is to be bought and sold. What do you think of that? This monetary/market system we have today seems to me to be a big unnecessary game, I don't think we really need this system at all. Why can't we have a system that takes care of people?