RE: [compost_tea] USNOP Example

From: John Cowan <vivax_at_northlink.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:16:33 -0700
Thanks for your perspective.

My point about chemical use is that their approval is based on "applied as
directed". There really is no oversite of this so chemicals can be abused
and no one knows. My argument is simply logic. It is not meant to convince a
bureaucratic mindset.

John Cowan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Anderson [mailto:danderson_at_backpackgeartest.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 12:37 PM
> To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [compost_tea] USNOP Example
>
>
> 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 Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links

Received on Wed Jul 21 2004 - 19:59:24 EDT

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