I wanted to contribute to the forum a resource on documenting changes in the organic food industry from 1997 to 2007. The work has been done by Philip Howard, an assistant professor at Michigan State University, my alma mater. Go Spartans. I think a picture is worth a thousand words. And we've got several charts including a chart on the remaining independent organic companies.

[www.msu.edu]

I think a fair question is of what value is this to a raw food vegan who is probably either buying most of her food locally and/or in season or otherwise growing her own. And to be honest, I'm not sure. The best answer I could give to Prana would be maybe to raise awareness among raw vegans talking with those in transition, that is if I wanted to be sure. For me, I know I'm not pure meaning I buy fruit juices still in some cases because its cheaper (e.g. buying the pomegranates to make the juice was both more expensive and more messy) or more convenient. And it helps when I'm cutting corners to know who I'm buying from.

I think also maybe as a reminder to me and anyone similarly situated that just because it's organic and vegan, doesn't mean it's the best choice. YMMV.

Paul

Just to clarify,what I meant by my last sentence is that local organic vegan is better than industrial organic vegan. Other things being equal.

Paul

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just to clarify,what I meant by my last sentence
> is that local organic vegan is better than
> industrial organic vegan. Other things being
> equal.
>
> Paul

I agree there, for sure.

But I don't think we can conclude that new, more concentrated ownership of small organic companies necessarily means that the product declines. I think in many cases, the actual farmers remain the same. Many large companies accumulate their products from a number of small farmers, rather than doing the farming themselves.

And the organic rules haven't changed.

The fact that these large companies have bought out many of the smaller companies is an indication of a successful market for organic food, and that of course is a good thing for our planet and ourselves.

People often are suspicious of the organic market because of the higher prices. As a former certified organic farmer myself, I can be just one person to attest to the higher cost of farming on a smaller farm, without the labor and cost-saving advantages of using dangerous herbicides, pesticides, or petroleum-based fertilizers.

I can also attest to the commitment of the great majority of organic farmers to simply try to do something good for the planet and at the same time, offer the very highest-quality produce to their consumers.

The best option of course is to grow our own. If we can't, the criticism of our food supply is probably best directed towards those farming methods that are killing us, while we direct our praise toward the methods that are saving us - no matter who is responsible for moving the food to market after it's grown. (It's also worth noting that organic rules forbid commingling organic with nonorganic product)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2010 07:44PM by suncloud.

I forgot to say that I think there's no shame in buying nonorganic when organic isn't affordable.

Buying local over buying organic, to me is iffy, because I've seen first hand some of the terrible stuff people spray on their crops and put on their soil. And I don't like supporting Monsanto. Monsanto makes the Round-up that so many nonorganic farmers use so much of, and of course Monsanto uses a portion of their profits towards the development of GMOs. But that's an individual choice, of course.

Paul,

This was very interesting. Very enlightening. This chart is the most cogent and easily read breakdown I've seen on this subject. The acquisition by major companies of smaller, regional producers was quite shocking to see laid out that way. One hears of so and so buying out such and such, but I didn't know it was to this great an extent.

My local health food store, and my local Meijer[thanks goodness for Meijer], clearly label the origin of all their produce, my primary concern, and most of the organic shelf stable products. But this chart makes filling in the blanks easier.

Whenever someone ropes me into a terse discussion about organics bought at the grocery store, rather than from the farmer at a farmers market, I always mention that organic is more expensive to produce, and is unsubsidized, both of which necessitate higher sale cost. I am lucky to live in the[great]state of Michigan, where there's a lot of choice about where to shop for organics, because more and more organic fresh foods and prepared foods are being grown/manufactured here for large farmer-friendly concerns like Meijer, or are being distributed from here by companies like Eden Foods.

suncloud,

I'm just curious about whether, with your background, you've read Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak's book, Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food? I am intrigued, but am so wary that they may be Monsanto shills in hippy drippy clothing that I have balked at getting it out from the library.

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wanted to contribute to the forum a resource on
> documenting changes in the organic food industry
> from 1997 to 2007.

Thanks for sharing. The other tabs on the site, such as Seeds (ownership and the changes over the years) and Food Systems, including the diagram on the Ecoli outbreak were also insightful.

Hi Tamukha,

I've never heard of the book. What's it about?

suncloud,

[www.amazon.com]

The book reviews are particularly insightful.

Thanks for the link Tamukha.

Oh my God. Of course I haven't read the book, but a statement from one of the reviews is an eye-popper:

"Pam and Raul's very well written book makes the rational and even emotional argument that biotechnology is fully compatible with the core ideals of the organic movement."

And this next statement, from another review, made me actually LOL, and then I wanted to cry:

"RoundUp ready crops have made it possible for farmers to stop using much more damaging and toxic herbicides and to go to no-till farming to preserve topsoil."

Reality (and a bit of history): Monsanto wanted to sell more of their chemical herbicide RoundUp (for killing weeds). But too bad, it seemed that using more Roundup damaged the crops (of course). So....Monsanto's solution?: Create genetically engineered (RoundUp Ready) crops that can handle mega-doses of Monsanto's toxic RoundUp herbicide. That way farmers can use (buy) more RoundUp without taking a loss on their crops.

Of course this means more toxic exposure for the planet, the wildlife, and us. And weeds have become more resistant in response, creating new breeds of "superweeds" that require using even more RoundUp. Good deal for Monsanto! So why should the rest of us care? It seems that according to this book, Monsanto is doing us all a favor and saving us from global warming or something.

Here's a good article about RoundUp and RoundUp Ready crops:

[www.sourcewatch.org]

And from Wikipedia:

[en.wikipedia.org])

I hope not too many people will get sucked into believing this book. Might be an interesting read though, if you can get it from the library and don't have to pay money for it.

As far as the Organics industry ever accepting RoundUp or RoundUp Ready crops, NO WAY!

If this book is a Monsanto shill, then maybe Monsanto feels a little bit threatened by the Organic competition... Yet another reason to buy organic!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2010 08:42PM by suncloud.

suncloud,

I am lately noticing this subtle trend, it's hard to describe, but it's sort of an absolutism about capital "S" science. Like, anything that is based on science, at least on the face of it, is inherently valid, and anything that isn't is not valid. And I don't mean here to suggest that what is outside the realm of science is rubbish(there's a thread on here somewhere about this). Many ideas that originate in creative or intuitive systems are valid. That is not what I'm referring to. I am referring to the ever more prevalent and false preconception that people have that the true scientific method is commonly and stringently applied to research, and that research is automatically valid because it is disinterested and rigorous. I suspect that people who believe this have no idea that there is almost no disinterested third party research anymore. Because someone in a white lab coat, whose education, financial vested interests, and biases aren't known, recommends a particular pharmaceutical product or procedure, or fuel source or technology or farming method, or whatever, because someone with apparent scientific training approves it, that confirms the merit of a thing. Take fluoride for example: everyone I've met that scoffs at those of us that are anti-fluoridation hasn't had the slightest idea what fluoride is, what its actions are on human biochemistry, and what data exist showing its efficacy as a dental prophylactic. Not the slightest idea. They merely parrot the scientific echo chamber in which some clinical researchers(perhaps those proverbial four out of five dentists), somewhere, at some time, must have established that fluoridation is effective. And that's why it's in our water and toothpaste. There's no understanding of industry quid pro quo, or that there is such a thing as bad science, that is, specious or plain fraudulent science. There is no understanding that to question the methods of studies and the origins of scientific pronouncements isn't to join the Tin Foil Hat Brigade--it is to employ critical discernment. Thus you have intelligent seeming people at the book reviews for Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food mentioning Roundup as a safe alternative to "dangerous" substances, because Roundup is "safer," because Monsanto says it is. The intellectual tautologizing is shocking.

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am referring to the ever more prevalent and
> false preconception that people have that the true
> scientific method is commonly and stringently
> applied to research, and that research is
> automatically valid because it is disinterested
> and rigorous. I suspect that people who believe
> this have no idea that there is almost no
> disinterested third party research anymore.

Tamukha, yes I agree totally. Such a shame too. "True scientific method" requires questioning, again and again. I believe that the potential of the "true scientific method" is so huge - now maybe more than ever before, and yet who will fund it? So much of today's research is funded by companies looking for a "product" they can sell for lots of money - not for a solution that can be inexpensively shared for everyone's benefit, and certainly not with the environment in mind.

I do believe though that there are presently some outstanding researchers - Dr. Colin Campbell for one - who aren't afraid to look for the truth and to speak it. And there is significant movement away from destruction of the planet.

I noticed on the reviews of Tomorrow's Table that about 4 times as many people found the reviews helpful that opposed the book's message. That's encouraging.

On the positive side, I really believe that every lie takes many times more effort to sell than every truth. It doesn't matter how much money or power is behind the lie. Eventually the lie will get tired and pass away. Not sure if all the lies will die before they kill everything else though. Hope so.

Thank you for this post - I am really horrified. Not sure if round up ready crops are used in the UK - must investigate immediately. I don't think I wil be buying any more american produce.