Nutrition and Physical Regeneration

Suze Fisher, Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, and the editor of Swine Flu Shots, asks in a recent chapter leader group post:

Uh oh, now we have to worry about GM alfalfa and grassfed milk products?

So of course I sauntered over to the link to see what was going on, and this is what I found:

CFS has begun analyzing the EIS and it is clear that the USDA has not taken the concerns of non-GE alfalfa farmers, organic dairies, or consumers seriously.

What bothers me about the above quote is the organization writes as if this is a surprise of some sort. When has the USDA or any other alphabet soup agency ever taken non-GE farmers, organic dairies, or consumers seriously? When?

Now I don't know anything about the Center For Food Safety, and I'm sure they have nothing but good intentions, but why oh why do we continue to think that the government's primary concern among the alphabet soup agencies that have jurisdiction over this matter, is with the consumer's health?

My post from January 17 starts with this rather straightforward statement:

When it comes to our health, one would assume that the government is there to protect us through reasonable and sensible regulations. This is, however, far from the truth. The FDA in particular has been the cause of misery for those who have been unable to legally seek cures and treatment, the result of which ranges anywhere from health complications to death.

Confronted with the evidence, anyone who insists on believing that these government alphabet soup agencies exist to protect our interest is someone who is in the grip of a very bad idea, on par with the diet-heart hypothesis that blinds and deludes many a mainstream medico and nutritionist (even though it doesn't carry much cache with many diet-heart researchers today).

The real problem, and what keeps groups like the Center For Food Safety going in the face of overwhelming evidence that suggests they should take this issue head on in a different manner, is their undying belief in the efficacy of national politics to substantially change matters. It is certainly understandable, as politics is America's national religion.

Now a close look at the three centuries prior to the last century (the 20th century represented regression in many ways – the revenge of the State, so to speak) and one can't help but notice all the great and positive changes that occurred in society that happened outside of politics.

Yet we moderns, ignorant of much of western history, trudge along thinking that somehow we are going to implement permanent change via the ballot box (I challenge my readers to put forth one major substantive issue that wasn't largely won before the government ever got involved or didn't deteriorate after the government got involved).

Moving along…

USDA’s preliminary determination is to once again deregulate GE alfalfa without any limitations or protections for farmers or the environment. Instead USDA has completely dismissed the fact that contamination will threaten export and domestic markets and organic meat and dairy products.

I seriously doubt the USDA dismissed this fact, rather more likely the USDA did a risk reward analysis and decided the folks behind GE are are better for their bread buttering than the organic food movement. Folks, in the world of politics, the big boys play for keeps, and our occasional pissing on city hall normally doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

And, incredibly, USDA is claiming that there is no evidence that consumers care about such GE contamination of organic!

It should be obvious by now why the USDA would make such a statement, and there is nothing incredible about it. What is incredible is that anyone would be surprised by such behavior.

USDA also claims that consumers will not reject GE contamination of organic alfalfa if the contamination is unintentional or if the transgenic material is not transmitted to the end milk or meat product, despite the fact that more than 75% of consumers believe that they are purchasing products without GE ingredients when they buy organic.

This just points out the need to go back to what we had before the Feds were invited by the natural food industry to get involved with the formulation and certification of organic standards (talk about being blind to the nature of politics) – independent 3rd party verification based on more scrupulous standards.

USDA claims that Monsanto’s seed contracts require measures sufficient to prevent genetic contamination, and that there is no evidence to the contrary. But in the lawsuit requiring this document, the Court found that contamination had already occurred in the fields of several Western states with these same business-as-usual practices in place!

USDA predicts that the approval of GE alfalfa would damage family farms and organic markets, yet doesn’t even consider any limitations or protections against this scenario. Small, family farmers are the backbone and future of American agriculture and must be protected.

Indeed! As the above two quotes illustrate the small family farmer needs protection from the USDA, the FDA, and any number of ABC's with a gun that present themselves as knights in shining armor. "Wait", you say, "what about the big boys like Monsanto who will wipe up the field with 'protectors' like the USDA out of the way?" Well in case you missed it, the big boys are already wiping up the field by having an undue influence on the very agencies supposedly looking out for the family farmer!

For some preliminary suggestions as to the how government has made the situation worse and allowed companies like Monsanto to get the upper hand, check out my post of Anthony Gregory's review of Food, Inc. – In The Light Of Freedom.

Organic agriculture provides many benefits to society: healthy foods for consumers, economic opportunities for family farmers and urban and rural communities, and a farming system that improves the quality of the environment. However, the continued vitality of this sector is imperiled by the complete absence of measures to protect organic production systems from GE contamination and subsequent environmental, consumer, and economic losses.

I hope it is clear that organic agriculture, whatever its plusses or minuses (and yes organic agriculture has big problems), is imperiled by the very existence of these agencies, not the measures they do or do not pass.

It seems to me our energies and efforts should be put into bringing about real change, rather than giving legitimacy to the very system that is causing the problems in the first place.
______

Michael Miles is the editor of Nutrition and Physical Regeneration