Kitchen Garden Forum

With all due respect Mr Potato head I think you are also getting a bit hot under the collar. As for 'organic' burgers, or organic anything, I really don't think that one can be sure that it is 'organic' simply because of different (and changing) definitions by different organisations both here and overseas. Certainty in this life is a very worthwhile objective, but apart from the usual birth, taxes and death, life itself is full of uncertainty and one has to learn to live with it as best one can. It is ironic that the safer life becomes the more we worry about risks. As mentioned in New Scientist, eating dirt (literally not metaphorically) can be good for you.

I don't care what potty rules SA come up with, I would never join, but it's the idea which is too generally accepted that if it's not from an organically registered source it is somehow below par, not worth eating, could be harmful etc. This now comes from not SA themselves, hopefully not from the top level which would be illegal, but various media persons who have mouths bigger than their brains.
Allan

Hi Allan,
You say in your letter that the things said about non-organic produce does not come from the SA themselves but they DID come from them originally.
The Advertizing Standards people stopped them producing literature that said virtually that.
A short while ago there was a posting on this forum pointing out that there is a current website of a SA registered producer saying just that. Do you think the SA should step in and deregister that producer?
Sadly the SA will take no action because it is still being said but it is not the SA saying it.
I do wish that Mr PH had listened to the week long debate that went on on the Farming Today Programme
between Conventional Farming, Organic Farming and Farming using Integrate Farming Methods.
Strangely Integrated Farming Methods was voted the method more likely to produce the nations food with less enviromental impact on the land and wildlife and therefore less impact on the inhabitants of this land. Organic and the Soil Association in particular was single out as one huge marketing ploy and was the envy of the other two methods. With IFM there was less impact on the land, better conservation, more species of Birds and Common Mammals with crop yields way in excess of the others on less land using less fossil fuel.
Organic Farming under the directions of the SA uses considerably more Diesel than the other two, used more chemicals than IFM and used more land to produce less food and was the worst when conservation came into it.
It seems to have escaped the notice of some organic practitioners that land is finite and to produce sufficient organic food to feed this nation we would have to put into production land that is not suitable for growing anything. Lord Melchet, who was taking part and making comment, like it or not, had to agree with the findings.
Remember this is Farming and not Gardening or Allotmenteering and certainly it is in the interest to try and grow as organically as possible but as I have said, probably too many times, that you should also be Pragmatic. I do not see why I should end up with poor results because of somebody else's principles.

On this mornings Farming Today programme BBC Radio 4
05.45Hrs.
The Soil Association have acquired by devious means a NFU Internal Policy Discussion docuument with regards to GM and the growing of Organic and GM crops in close proximity.
The SA have not only published this document, which is an afront in itself, it has added words of their own which are not in the NFU document prior to doing so. This has now gone to their members who now have a completely incorrect understanding of that document. To me this is grossly dishonest.
A spokesman for the NFU says this is simply mischief making on the behalf of SA.
To me this is why the SA should not be trusted with anything let alone Organic Certification.

As it happens, my natural pedantry (would you believe ) leads me towards strict definitions of word usage - so I'm inclined to like the legality of the situation. However, this is balanced by my general distrust of any organisation, of any colour, that seeks to make money or gain influence by doing so.

I think that what we can say for certain about this discussion is that opinions are divided. The Soil Association certainly seems to have many good intentions, but is perhaps alienating those that might be its supporters by being perceived to be in thrall to 'rules' over principles.

It's also fair to say that there's a lot of talk about 'Science' being somehow opposed to the organic argument, but I am very wary of this. Surely science is a methodology, not a political stance? It is too often wielded in a 'no-one has proven that it's bad, so we'll carry on until they do' way of doing things, whereas I feel that the organic movement is coming from the 'no-one has proven that it's good, so why do it' side. Both principles certainly have their good and bad points (and I'll happily cite some if you'd like) .

Without 'crackpots' we wouldn't have many things that we now take for granted as perfectly normal. So, is it arguable that without organisations like the SA and FoE that we might well be considerably less able to twist the arms of mega-agriculture, heavy industry and the big supermarkets? Or perhaps we should just let Tesco, Glaxo-SmithKlein and BP look after us - after all they have our best interests at heart...

Mr Potato head - I have to say that slagging off 'big business' is just too facile. Most of the ordinary folk who work in these companies are as committed to the environment as any in the SA, FOE and other such organisations, if not more so. And they do have influence in these organisations.

As for quote:

'It's also fair to say that there's a lot of talk about 'Science' being somehow opposed to the organic argument, but I am very wary of this. Surely science is a methodology, not a political stance?'

Yes - of course it is a methodology. But isn't it you who are making it into a political stance?

As for the 'noone has proven it good' stance - come on now - mankind wouldn't even exist if it hadn't taken some risks!

As for strict legal definitions and word usage - you lost me there.

Johnboy has raised many valid and pertinent points and it would be nice to see some of these in KG. But I suppose that is too much to ask for?

Sorry, but I have to take issue with the idea that Tesco (or any other big business) are more likely to be more committed to the environment than the SA. I would concede that individuals within it may well be dedicated environmentalists, but the company is only interested in one thing, and that's their bottom line. However, as a charity, the SA is not allowed to make profits for shareholders, and must declare in its charitable charter what its aims are. (Regardless of whether we agree with them)

I completely agree with the risk-taking argument (and I did offer to cite examples from both sides) but if risk-taking means feeding sheep-brain to cattle, I think I can understand why people now feel a little wary of 'messing' with what we eat. On a personal level, my mind is still to be made up on the GM crops debate, but I do understand why an increasingly nervous public feels a need to be cautious.

As for the opening line about word usage, yep it was pretty woolly. I think I meant I tend to like things that have nice cosy legal definitions, but reserve the right to be a contrary bugger sometimes...

Companies are made up of individuals, as are all organisations. They are influenced by many things and yes, the bottom line is profit. But if it becomes profitable to be environmentally friendly then I think that you will find they can be far more efficient at it than the supposedly non-profit making charities. Charters are all very well, but what actually happens may not correspond with what is supposed to happen.

Ultimately we, as shoppers, are probably the most important people to influence big business. So rather than rail against them we should go out and shop 'positively'.

The main reason why the public are nervous about the GM debate is because the issue has become an emotional one. Unfortunately the press in the UK are very good at stirring things up and the British public has a soft heart. It is very difficult to have reasoned, public arguments.

Many of the issues and problems that we face in modern life are very complex and much of the science underlying them cannot be used to give the immediate, definitive answers which the press demand. As many of these issues affect many people, indeed if you take global warming, they affect everyone, it is perhaps not surprising that emotion rather than reason rules. But I ramble...

Human beings are emotional beings, it is what makes us human.

If we start on objective versus subjective that could keep the argument flowing subjectively for a while.

Lets use bacon production as an argument, apologies to Piglet.

Objective has to be quantifiable, measurable and capable of comparison, it tends to be cold, practical and un-emotional, for how can you measure emotion, it is the scientific approach. Hence how much bacon can you produce given x space, y food and pigs that average z piglets per litter, starting from z sows and a boar.

Subjective is emotional, tinted or slanted with the viewpoint and prejudices of the person making the statement. It is the human approach. Hence, I want the money, provided my pigs are not physically harmed I am treating them well. Hence also, I cannot countanance keeping pigs in cages in barns with no space to rummage around and be pigs.
Viewpoint one is the selfinterested one, viwepoint two is more humane.

So Colin and Mr PH are both advancing a mixture of the objective and subjective, as well as a mixture of the self-interest and humane/altruistic to futher their arguments.

I would take a different view however. There is a sequence of human behaviour, which I will treat simplistically.
First, we satisfy the short term goal of survival, so we work where we can get a job that allows us to survive.
Second, survival achieved, we do things that we prefer to do.
Third, our satifaction achieved, we do things to help other people.

Those with no food don't care how they get it.
Those with sufficient food for survival will make choices as to which items they consume and how the items are produced or obtained.
Those with an over sufficiency of food will become faddish, rejecting apples with blemishes for example.

I think both Colin and Mr PH have valid arguments, the bridge between them is their concern to do things in a better way, the definition of better is subjective and is where the argument lies.

Companies are made of individuals, but so was the SS, unless truely communist, the nearest we have being John Lewis, the individuals are subject to the diktats of the managers, who are subject to the board, who are subject to the shareholders and the stockmarket. So the individuals will only do as they wish up to the point where it contravenes company policy or they will be invited to work elsewhere, thus potentially affecting survival.

Pressure groups, the SA for example, exist to convert people to their cause, usually a subjective stance, this means an emotional approach which tends to preaching the gospel. The more committed are seen as examples to others and become quasi-religious in their commitment with the cause taking over their lives. The various Animal Welfare groups offer an example of how pressure groups become more extreme as their aims are met. What originally started to prevent blatant cruelty, overloading beasts of burden, or, neglecting animals basic welfare, became more politicised as the definition of basic welfare "evolved" subjectively, now that fox-hunting is banned something else will become the target, recreational fishing, the keeping of pets?

Back to where I started, consider the root of the two words, human, humane.
If we all try to be more humane in our lives and businesses then life would be nicer.

You got well into your train of thought there Peter,phew.
I certainly agree with you on the religous extremism aspect of these groups,it's the way that you are made to feel morally inept if you don't agree with their views.I was listening to a debate between the League against Cruel Sports and a Master of Foxhounds and the LACS man used the phrase 'any right thinking person...' which immeadiately negated the view the other person might have held,he was by definition then a'wrong thinking person? I find the inability to accept others points of view disturbing regardless of the debate subject.
Do these bodies actually do any good?Do they have an effect which betters the lives of people in general? or do we just end up with an unworkable,badly written piece of legislation after all the noise has died down?

The RSPCA has over it's lifetime done a great deal to improve the lot of the domestic and farmyard animal, to the extent that the vast majority of the population now view beating a dog or horse as an unacceptable act.

The RSPCA has lost the plot lately Peter and involved itself in politics,unless you class giving a bung to labour party funds as helping dumb animals.......
I don't think thats what people putting their pennies in the pot had in mind.
I give to the PDSA instead now.

Hi Peter,
As a committee member responsible for trying to arrange a programme of talks throught the Autumn and Long Winter months for people interested in Flora and Fauna I tried to get the RSPCA to give us a talk thinking that it would assist them propably more than it would us. It came as no supprise that they simply were not really interested and I persivered and spent about £5.00. in phone calls trying to get the interest of somebody in that organization. I failed miserably and in it's place I got a couple of Small Holders who are dedicated organic practitioners to give us a talk on how they manage their holding which was absolutely fantastic even though it had most of the farmers in the audience tut tutting most of the time.The time that they had spent and the thought that had gone into it was truly amazing and the things that they had overcome by sheer determination were countless. I have since spent a very pleasant day with them and it truly took me back to my childhood with the methods they were prepared to use.
An example of what they did: because a pond needed clearing and it would have meant heavy machinery crossing and, in their eyes, damaging a field that had never been ploughed (and the flora absolutely gobsmacking) they dug this pond out by hand and built a hand dredger for the purpose and the before and after photos showed the amount of work that they had lavished on the project. It was certainly an eye opener. However they produced next to nothing and although the have Pigs, (rare breeds) Cattle (Rare Breeds) Sheep (Rare Breeds) even the Hens and Roosters were Rare Breeds they grew nothing not even a row of Beans to feed themselves. It must have cost them an absolute fortune to produce nothing.
However that was not the purpose of their aim.
I asked them if they belonged to any organic orgaization and it was like as though I had banged their heads together and sadly they were rather offended by my question.
Clearly they didn't need the Soil Association FOE or anybody to tell them what to do and how to do it.
Their remit was clear and they simply got on with it and I feel that most gardeners are the same and have no truck with quassi organizations.
They are a wonderful couple but if all the land was used like that we would all starve.
The question I ask is what is the happy medium?

Johnboy wrote:The question I ask is what is the happy medium?

Johnboy, therin lies the rub.

Dear Mr Potato Head

In response to your reply to my posting about the legal monopoly of the word organic.

If I or any one else chooses to call them selves an engineer, if they are involved with engineering, that is completely legal and proper. Look at the vans of many companies of electricians, motor mechanics, construction builders etc. and many will describe themselves as engineers, such as electrical engineers, motor engineers, civil engineers etc.

Learned institutions may argue that none of these people should describe themselves as engineers since they are not certified members of an institution which sets particular standards. However, these institutions have no legal monopoly on the word engineer since the word (amongst other arguments) was in use long before the institutions were founded. The same should apply to the SA regarding the word organic.

You may join the SA and meet their qualifications of standards like an engineer joins an institution. There is nothing wrong at all in saying your food meets the SA (or any other certifying authority) standard. To be able to describe your food as certified organic by an association is also clearly helpful for the consumer, but to imply that no one else is growing ‘organic’ food is misleading and clearly wrong.

Two weeks ago I had the quality assurance from a large retailer reject some of my broad beans as a small proportion of the pods were discoloured by chocolate spot; they then asked me if I had used a spray against it. I told them no sprays were used, she then replied that I perhaps should consider going organic. My point is the beans were grown organically but as a part time small grower registration is also too costly. So I have a choice to grow vegetables as Johnboy says as organically as pragmatism allows or to drench the food with every chemical going to make it look nice. I do not have to rely on vegetable growing for my living and fortunately like Allan, have no problem selling the produce I do grow; keeping up with demand is the problem.

Surely this is not the case for other small growers or young people wishing to start in horticulture. It can only be a hindrance and disincentive to growing foods organically

Perhaps fellow like minded people should form an association for growers that defines and certifies the word ‘natural’ and thus have a monopoly on the word ‘natural’ and only allow it for their use. I can see it now - Naturally grown produce for sale- then all other food not certified cannot be described as natural!

In essence any one growing food as organically as pragmatically possible should be able to describe it as organically grown, if some can afford and wish to join an association which certifies their food as meeting their definition of organic let them publish the fact as certified organic by the SA, like a chartered engineer is certified by his institution, but it is wrong to imply that no one else grows food organically

Barney.