Re: [compost_tea] USNOP Example

From: David Anderson <danderson_at_backpackgeartest.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:37:16 -0700
John Cowan wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> Anything can be done for a "price". That is time, money and resources. To
> make compost tea fail-safe is not practical. Are pathogens from reasonably
> made CT a significant safety issue. I don't think anybody really knows for
> sure. There needs to be some really world field testing not contrived lab
> "experiments".

I agree that there needs to be field experiments, but don't downplay lab
experiments.

And while fail-safe tea is not practical, should there be safeguards in
place to help make things fail-resistant? Even if the manufacturers
already do this to a point, is it documented and agreed on? Is there a
standard that the machines are tested against?

What we are talking about is getting approval from a government body for
something where they have already said "no".

> Consider chemical pesticide application. Here are some very toxic substances
> that are applied with no one looking over the farmers "shoulder". They are
> regulated but what does that mean really? One has to pass a written test?

As I have already stated, the chemical comparison is a non-starter. It
will get you exactly nowhere with the bureaucracy.

Actually, where you compare very unfavorably against the chemical
companies is that they *are willing to spend the money* required for
testing. It may still be insufficient testing, but it is a hell of a lot
more than is done on ACT. Monsanto incinerates thousands of acres of
crops and kills thousands of laboratory animals running their tests.
They have the paper that I am suggesting that CT advocates need to get.

>>My point, and I assume their point, was that there is no experimental
>>data on it, so the wise course is to ban it until such time as it is
>>considered safe.
>
>
> There are all sorts of safety issues in many area of life and business. Many
> of them are actually controlled by the common sense of those involved.
> Banning something that has not had serious safety issues is not what I would
> call wise.

To put it in context, this was about use of CT on sprouts.

You don't have to call it wise. If there are suspicions that *could* be
unsafe, and there is no known upside, and no supporting data, then a ban
is appropriate.

Most people that are interested in organic produce would ban several
agricultural chemicals that have had no serious safety issues. In fact,
they are banned until they are "shown to be safe". (I put hat in quotes,
because I know that many are not safe, but they do go through an
approval process)


>>Again, I am not saying that all of what I am suggesting is necessary to
>>produce good healthy tea. What I am suggesting is the way to force their
>>acceptance of the tea. Basically, what it would take to make a
>>presentation in a court challenge to their rulings.
>
>
> Who wants to go there? There is no guarantee of the outcome if you go down
> this road? Who has the time and money to pursue this?

If you want it approved, then that might just be what it takes.

The NOP has said "no"

They have the power to say "no"

If you want to be certified, you have to accept their "no"

There are several groups that have the power to make them say "yes", and
they also have the power to change their vote to "yes". (any of the
three branches of government, the cheapest route is the judicial)

None of the groups with the power to change their vote will use that
power without additional supporting documentation.

That supporting documentation will cost money. There is no way around it.

I'm telling you how to get approval playing by their rules. If you don't
really care about the approval, and you are willing to let it happen
when it happens, that is fine with me. I have my own garden, and I can
use it all I want. I can use it on my lettuce just before harvest, and I
can use it to grow my sprouts. I don't need their approval.

Approval will probably happen at some point anyway, but I got the
impression that some of you want it to happen now. My way will get it to
happen sooner, but it will cost money, and will lead to more expensive
"approved" machines, at least to start with. You can argue with me all
you want, I don't make the decision. And you can continue the same
arguments with those that do, but if they have not worked for you yet,
they aren't likely to work for you in the future.

Dave

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Wed Jul 21 2004 - 16:22:27 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:25 EST