[compost_tea] Comment to Dave WAS:Re: USNOP non-example?

From: dkemnitz2000 <dkemnitz2000_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:40:53 -0000
--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, David Anderson <danderson@b...>
wrote:
> Hi Kirk,
>
> I finally got around to reading that report, and I think I am about
to
> make a few enemies on this list, but I hope you will all hear me
out.
>
> I think the report was a good one and that it came to the right
> conclusions *for now*. We are, after all, talking about our food
supply.
> I just wish they were as conscientious when it come to approving
> chemicals for use on our food.
>
> I really am on your side here, but I've got a lot of experience
battling
> bureaucracies, and I have come to learn that there is often a good
> reason when they throw up a roadblock in the early going.
>
> Right now, the way I see it, the best thing that can be done with
this
> document is to use it as a checklist for how to get more approval.
>
> First off, look at the list of ways that CT is approved for use.
You are
> seeing some of them as limitations, but they are infact limited
> approvals. When a new drug is released, they do the same thing.
Work on
> expanding the approved uses, going for everything all at once just
tends
> to lead to polarization.
>
> Why concentrate on human pathogens and manure? Because they first
have
> to decide if it is safe to use it on food before they can decide if
it
> helps the health of the plant. This is a good thing.
>
> Then there is the issue of them quoting a study done in sealed
> containers. Of course that is the wrong way to make ACT, but guess
what?
>   On this very list there is a lot of talk about people making bad
> batches of tea. They have to take into account all the idiots out
there
> (some of which are farmers that contribute to our food supply) that
do
> not want to take the time to understand the process. Whatever they
> approve *must* be idiot proof.
>


XXXXXXXXXXXX Why Dave?  I don't think so. Seems impossible to me.  It
would be just like legislating morality. The jail houses are full and
they're building them daily.  Impossible!!  Dennis Kemnitz




> As for your mention of the sprouts, I agree with their rule 100%.
> Sprouts are only alive for a few days before consumption, so there
is no
> time for pathogen die-off. They also have virtually no UV exposure.
> Pathogens on the sprouts *will* survive to be consumed. There needs
to
> be very specific research on this before it could be allowed in the
> commercial pipeline. And yes, people eat unwashed produce all the
time.
> Look through some seed catalogs and you are sure to see pictures of
the
> cute little kid picking strawberries and eating them in the field.
They
> have to be concerned about that.
>
> They also suggest that there is not enough research on this and
that the
> USDA needs to make it a priority. This is a very real problem. Dr.
> Ingham has done the majority of the work in this field, which has
the
> unfortunate side effect of she has to cite her own work more often
than
> not. This is in no way knocking what she has done, but to advance
CT
> into more acceptable uses, there needs to be a lot more variety of
> researchers involved.
>
> What I recommend for the next step would be to build a system, damn
the
> cost, that can repeatedly deal with a pathogen overload. By
overload, I
> am talking about doing something like going 50-50 compost and raw
> manure, with a good concentration of molasses added.
>
> Okay, I suppose that something like that might be over the top, but
the
> point is that you have to start meeting their objections and not
just
> objecting to their objections.
>
> Come up with a good specification for what is required of a tea
brewer
> for it to receive regulatory approval for tea on food crops. Then
they
> have a baseline to test "approved tea machines", because right now,
> there is no standard that they can use, so they must choose to use
the
> lowest common denominator for their testing.
>
> > Have you sent a CTTF report comment to nosb.crops_at_u...?  This is a
> > numbers game, folks.  The more they realize people are watching
and
> > concerned about what they are doing, the greater the chance
they'll come
> > down ok on compost tea.
>
> I agree here, let them know that you care about this issue, and you
want
> that additional research done.
>
> Fighting this report will get you nowhere, but *using* this report
to
> increase the interest in more research is the way to get things
moving.
> And don't just send the comments to the nosb, copy the message to
your
> congresscritters.
>
> Dave


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Wed Jul 14 2004 - 19:09:28 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:24 EST