Mr PH,
I have watched the antics of the Soil Association since the late 1940's. They were looked on then as a load of cranks because that is what they were.
Now if we are able to read all about their history they were formed by Scientists which is an absolute load of old Codswallop. The main man was Rudolf Steiner who far from being a scientist was an Educationalist who had these wonderful theories about growing. I never did learn if he ever grew anything or not.
Lady Eva Balfour, gracious lady as she was, she too was a crank. She was a Land Girl during the war on a farm where the farmer died and she rallied through and ran the farm without the use of anything artificial. 90% of the farms during the war were run the same way I know because I lived and worked on one at the time so there is nothing miraculous about that yet I have read a report that describes her as a Scientist.
So what have you actually have is an Association founded on Theory and fresh air.
In the late 1950's they could make no headway so they decided to adopt the the antics of their American counterpart who had hit upon a scheme to obtain notoriety by causing panic using scare tactics closely followed by emotive campaign using Peat as the medium.
The people who actually run the Soil Association are exceedingly few in number so they can be as Dogmatic as they like because they themselves do not have to abide by their own stupid rules.
To me they are a shower of nobodies with an enormous amount of clout. This is thanks to John Gummer who used the "Organic Bit" as a vote catching exercise which would cost the government nothing if they chose the Soil Association. Remember John Gummer is the person who swept BSE under the carpet for 4 years and cost this country £6,000,000,000,000.
If there are to be Organic Standards they should be in the hands of a Government Department where they are fully accountable to the public not in private Dogmatic Hands.
Fiends of the Earth. Your Freudian slip is nearer the point than you actually meant it to be.
They are the pain in the arse of this nation.
Simply another very dangerous bunch of Purists and when Purists cannot get their own way they become activists and I view them in the same vein as the I do Animal Rights People.
Instead of targetting people they are the sort that
Trash Crops. They are International and they, as an international organization, are responsible for trashing GM crops all over the place.
We could well do without FOE.
If this is the sort of thing that TKG intend to become you will lose the interest of normal gardeners and with dire consequences.
You are stirring up a 'Hornets Nest'and you may just live to regret you ever asked the questions.
Fiends of the earth...
Moderators: KG Steve, Chantal, Tigger, peter, Chief Spud
To go back to the Organic reputation point. I don't pay any fee at all. I can do exactly what I think is appropriate to produce the best fruit and vegetables. I could if I so chose copy exactly the Organic blueprint. If I then took the produce to the shop I would get exactly the same price as I do at present while selling everything under my own brand name. Why should I therefore pay money to the Soil Association?
Our method of trading is Sale or Return, we fix the price and carry the can and the shop never makes a loss on unsold goods. If we don't satisfy the customer on quality of goods we don't sell. So everybody is happy except SA.
Allan
Our method of trading is Sale or Return, we fix the price and carry the can and the shop never makes a loss on unsold goods. If we don't satisfy the customer on quality of goods we don't sell. So everybody is happy except SA.
Allan
-
peter
- KG Regular
- Posts: 5845
- Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:54 pm
- Location: Near Stansted airport
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 36 times
- Contact:
When FOE wield the scythe on GM crops I have to admit that I am with them all the way, provided they got the right field. 
All that government "science" abot one hundred metre pollen exclusion zones.
What blew across the north sea from Denmark in sufficient quantity to show up on satellite photographs and the surface of peoples cars?
Yes pollen.
When FOE tell me I must live a certain way I'm against them.
But, and its a big but, I can argue the dichotomy away. Provided what I do does not adversley affect others then thats fine, someone growing GM crops does adversely affect any crop, honey, person, or genetically cross contaminated weed within a vast range, kilometres not metres.
All that government "science" abot one hundred metre pollen exclusion zones.
What blew across the north sea from Denmark in sufficient quantity to show up on satellite photographs and the surface of peoples cars?
Yes pollen.
When FOE tell me I must live a certain way I'm against them.
But, and its a big but, I can argue the dichotomy away. Provided what I do does not adversley affect others then thats fine, someone growing GM crops does adversely affect any crop, honey, person, or genetically cross contaminated weed within a vast range, kilometres not metres.
Do not put off thanking people when they have helped you, as they may not be there to thank later.
I support http://www.hearingdogs.org.uk/
I support http://www.hearingdogs.org.uk/
My objection to all these groups is that they are all non-elected bodies with puritan views of Cromwellian proportions whose egos are growing by the day.They seek to control the actions of others by rules and regulations,I just hate the superior attitude that there is only one point of view....and it's theirs.....and it's right. The aims and ideas of many of them are good (not all,don't get me started on wind generated electrical installations,I refuse to call them farms)but they operate with scare tactics using manipulated figures to sway opinion then politicians take it up in the belief that it's public opinion because of the high profile.
They're control freaks,the lot of them,that sort of job attracts them like magnets.
I'm going for a little lie down now......
They're control freaks,the lot of them,that sort of job attracts them like magnets.
I'm going for a little lie down now......
Hi Barney,
I described Lady Eva Balfour as a gracious lady and so she was. Her aims were very clear in an obscure sort of way. That sentence seems to to be a contadiction in terms but she was of the opinion that the soil gave off detectable vibrations and it was these vibrations that radiated the goodness of the soil. Chemicals could only destroy these vibrations which would then cease to vibrate.
I attended her meeting in Braintree and she stood on the stage in the crucifix position with her hands upraised and her fingers waggling saying "can you not feel the vibrations from the soil!"
A well know person was heard to utter in a course stag whisper "silly old beezom thats the 8.30pm train to Chelmsford" which was exactly that. Had you been at that meeting you, I feel sure, would have formed the same conclusion as I did. All the speakers at that meeting were all of the same opinion. I put them down as cranks and I am still of the same opinion.
I am sure that if Lady Eva had read the report that I read about her she would not have recognised herself.
She was as honest as the day is long but today it cannot be said about the same Association.
I described Lady Eva Balfour as a gracious lady and so she was. Her aims were very clear in an obscure sort of way. That sentence seems to to be a contadiction in terms but she was of the opinion that the soil gave off detectable vibrations and it was these vibrations that radiated the goodness of the soil. Chemicals could only destroy these vibrations which would then cease to vibrate.
I attended her meeting in Braintree and she stood on the stage in the crucifix position with her hands upraised and her fingers waggling saying "can you not feel the vibrations from the soil!"
A well know person was heard to utter in a course stag whisper "silly old beezom thats the 8.30pm train to Chelmsford" which was exactly that. Had you been at that meeting you, I feel sure, would have formed the same conclusion as I did. All the speakers at that meeting were all of the same opinion. I put them down as cranks and I am still of the same opinion.
I am sure that if Lady Eva had read the report that I read about her she would not have recognised herself.
She was as honest as the day is long but today it cannot be said about the same Association.
JB.
Right Carole B you are making generalisations that do not apply to 'all of these groups'. I don't know about all of them, but I can write with authority about Friends of the Earth (FoE), as I was a director for about eight years.
FoE in England, Wales and Northern Island is organised into two companies, a charitable one which concentrates on education and research, and a Limited one which does the campaigning. The directors of the limited company are elected from the regions by local groups for three year terms, although they can stand for as many terms as they want few stand for more than two. It is hard, unpaid work with all the legal responsiblities that any company director has. The local groups can also pass resolutions at conference to force the Board of FoE to consider any given issue.
Anyone who agrees with the aims of FoE can start a local group provided there is not one in the area already. They have to be run democratically and are composed entirely of volunteers. Local groups work on national campaigns, but also on local issues and can often be found in alliances with a wide range of other groups. They represent a view point that is perfectly valid and are certainly no more puritanical than say the Womens Institute.
FoE does not use scare tactics, it's campaigns are based on science and not just on potentially nutty individuals, but on replicated work. Friends of the Earth seeks to influence policy and practice through an honest, accurate and open approach. They do this by:
- Working local to global. From over 200 local groups to more than 70 Friends of the Earth International groups - they are the only local-global environmental campaign group.
- Solutions based research. They don't just look for problems - they find credible alternatives.
- Enabling campaigning, they provide information and tools so anyone can act.
FoE consults its local groups on policy and as it relies on them to further it's campaigns at a local level, it has to pay attention to what they say, you can't make volunteers work on something they don't agree with. Three beliefs underpin their work:
-We must look after our planet. Live within the limits of the natural world. This means polluting and using less.
- Everyone has a right to a fair share. Meet our needs - and keep the environment safe - now and in the future. This is environmental justice.
- Realistic alternatives are possible. Only grow the economy in ways that focus on quality of life and protection of the planet.
The means to these ends is just as important. They won't compromise their principles:
- Work within the law - campaign to change it.
- Independence from political parties.
- Don't take money from big companies.
If you have hard evidence that FoE has acted other than I have described I would be most interested. It is worth considering that one of the main reasons there are a variety of environmental groups is that they do have significantly different priorities and ways of working. Lumping them all in the same group is no more useful than doing so with every political party from the WRP to the BNP.
FoE in England, Wales and Northern Island is organised into two companies, a charitable one which concentrates on education and research, and a Limited one which does the campaigning. The directors of the limited company are elected from the regions by local groups for three year terms, although they can stand for as many terms as they want few stand for more than two. It is hard, unpaid work with all the legal responsiblities that any company director has. The local groups can also pass resolutions at conference to force the Board of FoE to consider any given issue.
Anyone who agrees with the aims of FoE can start a local group provided there is not one in the area already. They have to be run democratically and are composed entirely of volunteers. Local groups work on national campaigns, but also on local issues and can often be found in alliances with a wide range of other groups. They represent a view point that is perfectly valid and are certainly no more puritanical than say the Womens Institute.
FoE does not use scare tactics, it's campaigns are based on science and not just on potentially nutty individuals, but on replicated work. Friends of the Earth seeks to influence policy and practice through an honest, accurate and open approach. They do this by:
- Working local to global. From over 200 local groups to more than 70 Friends of the Earth International groups - they are the only local-global environmental campaign group.
- Solutions based research. They don't just look for problems - they find credible alternatives.
- Enabling campaigning, they provide information and tools so anyone can act.
FoE consults its local groups on policy and as it relies on them to further it's campaigns at a local level, it has to pay attention to what they say, you can't make volunteers work on something they don't agree with. Three beliefs underpin their work:
-We must look after our planet. Live within the limits of the natural world. This means polluting and using less.
- Everyone has a right to a fair share. Meet our needs - and keep the environment safe - now and in the future. This is environmental justice.
- Realistic alternatives are possible. Only grow the economy in ways that focus on quality of life and protection of the planet.
The means to these ends is just as important. They won't compromise their principles:
- Work within the law - campaign to change it.
- Independence from political parties.
- Don't take money from big companies.
If you have hard evidence that FoE has acted other than I have described I would be most interested. It is worth considering that one of the main reasons there are a variety of environmental groups is that they do have significantly different priorities and ways of working. Lumping them all in the same group is no more useful than doing so with every political party from the WRP to the BNP.
Re GM crops, I agree that there could be a cross-pollination problem but only in certain circumstances. I see a parallel with the idea in Organics that all 'chemicals' are harmful.It is wrong to condemn ALL GM because of this. There are some crops grown which never reach the flowering stage, others with sterile flower etc. Also it is wrong to condemn all GM when there are very good reasons for doing it.
I don't accept the need for growing GM soya just so that the weeds can be controlled more easily nor the need for GM rape as that is a notorious escapee.
As in all things one should take a balanced view.
Re the FOE, my wife was accosted in the local town with their volunteers who wished her to become anti-GM on the grounds that the genes of the scorpion were being added to our food at risk to us. I have never found this allegation proven nor the logic that any particular gene necessarily carried the dangers of its venom, but it is a good example of ill-informed scare tactics used to support a campaign.
Allan
I don't accept the need for growing GM soya just so that the weeds can be controlled more easily nor the need for GM rape as that is a notorious escapee.
As in all things one should take a balanced view.
Re the FOE, my wife was accosted in the local town with their volunteers who wished her to become anti-GM on the grounds that the genes of the scorpion were being added to our food at risk to us. I have never found this allegation proven nor the logic that any particular gene necessarily carried the dangers of its venom, but it is a good example of ill-informed scare tactics used to support a campaign.
Allan
So would that be Hereford? And when was this?
I really want to know, local groups have to sign a licensing agreement, which includes a clause promising not to bring FoE into disrepute, and this would certainly contravene that wouldn't it ?:?
I really want to know, local groups have to sign a licensing agreement, which includes a clause promising not to bring FoE into disrepute, and this would certainly contravene that wouldn't it ?:?
Monmouth High Street, can't quote the date but it was at least 3 years ago. We haven't seen any more FOE around these parts since but we rarely go into that town since the Farmers Market collapsed. From what I gather the town is suffering badly from shop closures since the 'improvements' to the bridge and Post Office. Hereford isn't doing any better either, fancy closing main thoroughfare for improvements at the height of the tourist season.
Hi Beccy,I've taken your points on board and this morning I had a look at the FoE web site and yes a lot of the aims are very good but why do the public in general give FoE stands and campaigners a wide berth? because they feel they are going to get nagged and made to feel guilty by very ernest campaigners who will talk to them about international agreements and lobbying government,most people,like me,feel probably that this is way beyond anything that they can do anything about and so do nothing.If on the other hand they were approached by someone wearing a t-shirt which said 'YOU CAN CUT YOUR ELECTRIC BILL IN HALF' you might have got their attention.
For campaigns to work you have to make it easy and preferably profitable for people.Just imagine if half the population did cut their electric consumption by half there would be a lot less to generate and could solve a lot of the problems that FoE would rather do by legislating.(I did cut mine in half but I got the info I needed from a T.V.prog.not FoE).
I support the HDRA as they take their message out to the public on a human scale that people can relate to,they give out the message that YOU can make a difference by doing something small and if everybody did something small then it becomes something BIG!!
On the subject of elected bodies as you point out the people at the top of FoE are elected but only by members of the organisation not the general public.
So convince me Beccy,tell me something that makes me change my mind,I'm listening.
For campaigns to work you have to make it easy and preferably profitable for people.Just imagine if half the population did cut their electric consumption by half there would be a lot less to generate and could solve a lot of the problems that FoE would rather do by legislating.(I did cut mine in half but I got the info I needed from a T.V.prog.not FoE).
I support the HDRA as they take their message out to the public on a human scale that people can relate to,they give out the message that YOU can make a difference by doing something small and if everybody did something small then it becomes something BIG!!
On the subject of elected bodies as you point out the people at the top of FoE are elected but only by members of the organisation not the general public.
So convince me Beccy,tell me something that makes me change my mind,I'm listening.
-
Mr Potato Head
A quick aside... FoE's structure is not unusual. Most organisations have members-only elections to choose representatives. e.g. The Conservative Party, The National Trust, Trade Unions... None of which make the organisation any more or less 'democratic' than any other, surely?
A group of people that have the same views (however erroneous) are perfectly entitled to group together and put pressure on government to make or change laws, but last time I heard, they can't actually make them themselves... don't forget, if you don't like something... form a pressure group of your own.
or Write to your MP!
(Yes, I know that the Conservatives can make rules, if they're elected to govern, but the party still elects who can stand as an MP!
)
A group of people that have the same views (however erroneous) are perfectly entitled to group together and put pressure on government to make or change laws, but last time I heard, they can't actually make them themselves... don't forget, if you don't like something... form a pressure group of your own.
or Write to your MP!
(Yes, I know that the Conservatives can make rules, if they're elected to govern, but the party still elects who can stand as an MP!
)
-
Colin Miles
- KG Regular
- Posts: 1025
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:18 pm
- Location: Llannon, Llanelli
Like Allan's wife I had the experience of being accosted in Covent Garden a number of years ago by FOE representatives with placards which were scientifically dubious. I can't remember exactly what as it was so long ago.
The problem with all of these organisations is that, no matter how well-meaning they are, their very nature makes it difficult for the directors or anyone else 'in charge' to police what is happening on the ground.
And we all of us also suffer from a surfeit of 'information', much of it in the form of 'the latest research shows that..' which contradicts last weeks research. And any pronouncements by FOE, Greenpeace and others may suffer the same reaction.
The problem with all of these organisations is that, no matter how well-meaning they are, their very nature makes it difficult for the directors or anyone else 'in charge' to police what is happening on the ground.
And we all of us also suffer from a surfeit of 'information', much of it in the form of 'the latest research shows that..' which contradicts last weeks research. And any pronouncements by FOE, Greenpeace and others may suffer the same reaction.
-
Mr Potato Head
Well, how about seeing it from the consumers end. I can eat that 'organic' burger, safe in the knowledge that it doesn't come from cows that have been fed bits of sheep... Not just that some branding company have cottoned onto a handy buzzword...
There seems to be two contrary gripes with the SA, i.e. that on one hand that 'organic' is withheld from all those that don't pay... but also that 'organic' is a crackpot idea! I don't get it
Why are some of you hot under the collar about not being allowed to join a club that you don't want to become a member of? (The inverse Groucho principle? )
There seems to be two contrary gripes with the SA, i.e. that on one hand that 'organic' is withheld from all those that don't pay... but also that 'organic' is a crackpot idea! I don't get it
Why are some of you hot under the collar about not being allowed to join a club that you don't want to become a member of? (The inverse Groucho principle? )