On this page:

• Credibility of Organic Farming Under Attack, and a neighbour's response
• Corsican Food
• Can we count on our food supply?
• Discussion of industry practices - Loblaws
• Monsanto ripped over wheat experiments
• AgCan investment in Monsanto
• Public Markets: News and thoughts from Project for Public Spaces
• Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada Website
• La Siembra Co-op

Credibility of Organic Farming Under Attack, and a neighbour's response

From our Sept 9, 2004 weekly market notes

Last but not least: attached you'll find an article Wallie Seto forwarded from the LA Times. Apparently organic farming is about to come under expert attack, on the grounds that claims made for the superiority of organic produce can be scientifically disproved. There is no mention in the article about the joys of eating food grown nearby by farmers you can get to know, on local soils that are more likely bolstered by legumes or manure than by numbered fertilizers synthesized in a lab. Who can quantify the pleasure of linking the foods on the plate with the people who grew them/ raised them and picked them, and with the people who did the preparations to ready them for the market? Not me. ("Beyond rubies" is as precise as I can get.)

Read the article >>

A neighbour's response, from Reema Tarzi

I read the attachment about organic food. It's been a while since I've read such an unscientific load of nonsense. Mostly it's about 'scientists' making unspecific claims. They mention one person who is 'on the cusp of retirement' and 'has kept his head down' who says something vague about there not being enough proof for the claims of organic food producers - very damming. Another person claims - there's not a lot of literature out there - hmm. There are no references, and just one study quoted:

"Last June, the Organic Center released a study, based on data collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, that found conventionally grown fruits and vegetables were eight times more likely to contain pesticide residues than organically raised crops."

Then they say Michael F. Hare working for 'American Chemical Society' found 'of the fewer than 20% of conventionally grown samples in which a pesticide residue was found, the amount usually fell between 1% and 5% of the limits considered safe by federal government standards.' Do you need a translation for that one?

Other than that, there are no specific studies, just general claims about fecal matter and pesticides. In what? Organic crops. Hmm that's specific, we know organic crops are the same the world over.

In fact this reminds me of a documentary that aired in the states, 20/20, a few years ago. My friend saw it and it said pretty much the same things about pesticides and fecal matter in 'organic crops' . He believed it and was gloating. The next week they issued a quiet retraction - it turns out the documentary wasn't based on any specific studies and the presenter was on the payroll of some big Chemical corporation to the tune a few million bucks.

reema

Corsican Food

From the Editor

Deirdre Newman, a good friend of the market who lives part of every year in Corsica, sent this e-mail:

"You might be interested in the following group: association.capvert@wanadoo.fr This is our local, organic group, Les jardins traditionnels du Cap-Corse. What is so sweet is that the normal, lowest level of food quality here is so high in comparison with what we have in Canada. The level of health here is VERY high."

The closest to a website we got was this.

Interesting! And there are other sites as well, from other branches of this group. It sounds like another version of the slowfood efforts to re-join food to culture.

Can we count on our food supply?

An article in the Globe and Mail by Harriet Friedmann

Can we count on our food supply?

Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute has once again warned of looming food scarcity: Measured against consumption, there's just 59 days' worth of grain, according to some reports. "The chances of farmers digging their way out of this hole are less than one in 10," he says.

This has been a refrain of environmentalists since the 1972 warning by Club of Rome scientists that finite resources in a growing world will lead to collapse. Does the recent series of poor harvests mean impending disaster?

Read more >>

Discussion of industry practices - Loblaws

Dear organic farmers,

Yesterday I did the shopping for my ailing in-laws at the Loblaws around the corner from them and found that

1. all the iceberg lettuce in the store is certified organic
2. you have a choice of organic or non-organic bananas, both at 79 cents a pound, only that the organic ones looked better.

Can you give me a hint about the economics of that industry? Doesn't make sense to me.

- Jutta

Reply from Lorenz Eppinger (of Greenfields Farm):

Loblaws are the absolute king at organic bananas when it comes to price - organic iceberg lettuce is available in abundance right now, just name a price you are willing to pay and they will give it to you. However, most organic consumers are aware of the low nutritional value of iceberg lettuce and it's relatively high probability of contamination, hence it isn't moving too well.

Reply from Alvaro Venturelli, who sells at our market:

Loblaws has been trucking through Ippolito trucking, not the produce outlet at the Food Terminal. They were bringing in seven full trucks a week just of organic produce. They also have a huge buying power as they are the larget supplier of Organic Food to Canada. This means bulk buying power. As well, these stores are famous for operating on the concept of loss leaders. As long as they bring them in, they don't mind losing money, and produce is the number one loss leader due to its perishable nature. Also, on my trip through Mexico, I ran into many organic farming situations where the farmers were stuck with many tons of produce. One farm alone left over 100 tonnes of mangoes on the trees. There is not a distribution system set up to get so much organic food out. The large distributors would rather sell less food at a higher profit margin. This leaves large buyers in the position of picking and choosing who they'll buy from, as well as in as position to demand certain prices from the farmers. Why would they build more infrastructure to bring in more food, at a lower profit margin? They wouldn't. Also these bananas though they're from Ecuador, are probably from a US owned corporation. This past year, the US gave out more than $28 Billion in Agriculture subsidies, mainly aimed at export surplus, to throw food at other countries, in the interest of establishing preferrence for their buyers, and also to kill off local competition from local farmers by dumping on their seasonal markets. We do not have any remotely comparable subsidy here and yet our distributors prefer US goods because of the price difference they can offer. They can sell it for less than it cost to produce. Pretty nasty. The Romans did it,and the Egyptians before them. It's a tool of imperial domination via the creation of trade imbalances.

A generally accepted premise from those in food security fields is the idea of building local food webs. Know your farmer. Truthfully, you are the answer. Direct farmers markets are a huge step in the right direction. The US has done this a while ago in the interests of stronger local food systems. Its protectionism which comes not in a form of subsidy but just the elimination of foreign competition. Europe does it, the US does it and for some reason, our government has not. This is done by only allowing local farmers to sell food at our venues.Those of us in the true north strong have a bit of a disadvantage here but it doesn't exclude us from making good connections directly with southern farmers, or not allowing them to dump on us and kill our seasonal markets. Basically, the delivery mechanism is in the wrong hands;. The truth is that it is very easy to overproduce food. The problem lies in the way it is suppy managed. Currently food and agriculture development are all being looked at with a prime directive of profit generation. I believe that until we begin to build our communities with community health as the most important factor, things will most likely only get worse. Britain has decided that future agriculture policies need to have just this concept as their main focus.

If we create 50 markets like ours in Toronto we will take over a good portion of the food chain and put decision making for importation into the farmeras hands, while encouraging through our policies the betterment of local agriculture through season extension and healthier food via this organic thing we do.

Monsanto ripped over wheat experiments

From Canoe.ca (Thanks to Wallie Seto for forwarding this)

August 17, 2004

Monsanto ripped over wheat experiments

By COLIN PERKEL

TORONTO (CP) -- Field trials of genetically modified wheat are still being conducted in Canada by multinational biotech giant Monsanto despite a pledge earlier this year that the testing would be abandoned, critics said Tuesday.

In a letter to Greenpeace Canada late last month, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency confirmed that 16 Monsanto trials of so-called Roundup Ready wheat are continuing "to allow researchers to complete their research."

Greenpeace, one of several environmental groups opposed to the trials, said Monsanto should have torn up the fields as it said it would.

"The trials are a danger for both the environment and for the potential for release for farmers," said Pat Venditti, genetic engineering campaigner for Greenpeace.

"It could pose a serious threat to Canada's ability to export wheat crops."

Monsanto did not immediately return phone calls Tuesday.

Genetically modifying crops involves manipulating their genetic material to produce special characteristics. In May, Monsanto declared it would "discontinue breeding and field-level research" into wheat resistant to the popular herbicide Roundup.

Many export markets, Japan and the European Union among them, have warned they would stop buying wheat from Canada if any of it is genetically modified.

Monsanto's decision followed a campaign by critics who argue that little is known about the impact of genetically altered crops on the environment or human health.

Also, a government report in January suggested farmers would need to use more pesticides if the wheat were to be widely cultivated.

Monsanto also withdrew requests to Ottawa to allow unconfined environmental release of the crop and assessments of the wheat's safety for animals and people.

While Ottawa insists it has tough rules to isolate the fields, critics maintain there are no guarantees contamination of other fields won't occur.

"It is worrisome they would be doing this," said Marc Loiselle with the Organic Agriculture Protection Fund from Hague, Sask.

"The understanding was that all trials were to be abandoned and . . . existing test plots would be destroyed."

Citing concerns about vandalism, the federal government refused to disclose the locations of the 16 plots.

The secrecy is another problem, said Venditti.

"If you are a farmer or producer half a mile or 100 yards from a genetically engineered wheat trial, you have no way of knowing if what's growing next door is genetically engineered," Venditti said.

"We don't think there should be any field trials of this crop . . . particularly if it's not going to be commercialized."

AgCan investment in Monsanto

This bit of news from the CBC likely resulted in more letters like Richard Boehnke's to the Federal Minister of Industry:

Federal government invested in GM wheat

WINNIPEG - Agriculture Canada invested nearly $2.5 million in genetically modified wheat and stands to make money if it approves the product for sale, CBC News has learned.

... According to documents obtained through access to information, the government department:

• committed $850,000 to Monsanto to develop GM seeds;
• provided unfettered access to test the crops in the department's fields;
• assigned three key scientists to work with Monsanto on the wheat.

Read more of this article at cbc.ca.

Richard Boehnke's letter:

The Honourable Alan Rock, M. P.

Sir:
Agriculture Canada and Monsanto
(see attached article)

It is outrageous that a government department (Agriculture Canada) who is in charge of the testing and the approving of agricultural commodities for use or sale in Canada would also be 'investing' my tax money in a project with Monsanto, and then bringing the product of that 'investment' to itself for approval.

Even the very slow can predict the happy outcome - an approved product! This is like asking the foxes whether everything's good in the chicken coop.

Regardless of what your position may be on genetically modified foods (personally I am not persuaded that they are as wonderful as Monsanto claims and believe that there are very real risks), I assume you are against such an obvious and egregious conflict of interest.

To read that "... John Cully, the department's director of intellectual property, said the department can manage the conflict" makes a mock of the concept of keeping the regulator and the proponent separate. What makes Mr. Cully so wonderful that he can separate himself from the 'investment' of his own department in such decisions. Surely he would not find that his own service had invested in a loser, eh!

Please take the necessary action to extract Agriculture Canada from this incredible mess, and stop permitting them to use my money to 'invest' in private ventures.

Yours truly,

Richard H. Boehnke
67 Markland Drive
Etobicoke, ON M9C 1N4
(416) 621 5089

Public Markets: News and thoughts from Project for Public Spaces

The PPS (Project for Public Spaces) newsletter for November 2003 includes a feature story by Benjamin Fried: "Shedding Light on Markets : We should invest more in public markets. Here's why." He discusses the the economic and social benefits of the public market, and draws on research PPS has done in partnership with the Partners for Livable Communities and the Ford Foundation.

Public market managers have traditionally operated in relative isolation, when in fact markets should be of interest to organizations that target economic equity, neighborhood stabilization, civil rights, and economic development, in addition to organizations with deeper pockets, such as transit and redevelopment authorities, health centers, educational institutions, libraries, and faith-based institutions.

Get the full story in the November edition of MAKING PLACES, now available online: http://www.pps.org/newsletter/Nov2003.htm.

Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada Website:

Recently we had a visit from a professor at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College. His name is Ralph Martin and he told us that there's a website for a new federal government service: the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada (OACC> at www.organicagcentre.ca. We took a look at it and took the 'virtual farm tour' that it offers, with pictures and stories from various organic farms across the country. Very nice.

La Siembra Co-op

La Siembra Co-operative, fair trade, worker owned. Visit their website at www.lasiembra.com.