Organic Company Articles

Articles updated April 2004

Organic Matters – bi-monthly magazine of the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association. Articles, by Jim O’Connor:
Nov/Dec 2002 Sept/Oct 2002 July/August 2002 May/June 2002 March/April 2002 Jan/Feb 2002 Nov/Dec 2001 Sept/Oct 2001 July/August 2001Johannesburg Summit 2002. Grace Maher, a lecturer at the Irish Organic College, Limerick reports from the Summit (to which she traveled at her own expense) in an article entitled, Agriculture and the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
Organic Attacks Dr. Angela Ryan answers point-by-point the spurious arguments put forward by Prof “Tony” Trewavas and Sir John Krebs and others.
Organic can feed the world – by Calofornian academic, Christos Vasilikiotis. The link to this important article had corrupted. This is the latest 14th April 2004 http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html
Genetically engineered bull. My letter in 1999 replying to claims that organic farming was a major threat against biodiversity and that organic potatoes are poisonous.
Sustainable agriculture can feed the world, not GM crops says Prince Charles, reported by John Vidal, The Guardian, Jan 16 th 2001. The Hi-tech road is not for 800 million starving who cannot even remotely afford GM crops – sustainable farming however is producing “astonishing results”. www.purefood.org/gefood/sustainableprince.cfm
Killing Fields This is an essay I wrote four years ago that was widely distributed to the media and politicians. I also delivered it as a talk at a Growing Awareness conference in Co.Cork.
Messers, visionaries and organobureaucrats : dilemmas of institutionalisation in the Irish organic farming movement. By Hilary Tovey. Published in Irish Journal of Sociology, Vol. 9, 1999, pp. 31-59.
Organic farming background A potted history of organic farming
Defining farming systems An attempt to clarify what is meant by Traditional, Sustainable, Intensive, Biodynamic …
What’s the beef? All farmers are organic anyway! Letter to the Irish media.
Mastitis Control in Organic Herds
Studies suggest that traditional farming methods are still the best; article by George Monbiot in The Guardian, 24th August, 2000, www.guardianunlimited.co.uk . On a planet wallowing in surfeit, people starve because they have neither the land on which to grow food for themselves nor the money with which to buy it. Even a Novartis director admits that GM will not feed the world, to do which, he says, takes political and financial will.
Manure heaped on organic industry. A now notorious, anti-organic programme was aired on ABC 20/20, in Feb 2000. This is one of the quality replies to the allegations against the organic industry. http://www.vegsource.com/articles/organics.2020.htm
Iceland Supermarket launched organics to fail, claims Catherine Sleep, managing editor of www.just-food.com, (31st Jan 2001) the authoritive food industry website. Organic project as cause of Iceland’s problems, described by insider as “absolute unadulterated rubbish”.
When they say we cannot feed the world without chemicals and biotechnology, they are lying, says Prof. Jules Pretty, Director of the Centre for Environment and Society at the University of Essex and champion of sustainabe agriculture. http:// www.members.tripod.com/~ngin/feedtheworld.htm
Behind the Organic-Industrial Complex by Michael Pollan of the New York Times. Part of this article refers to the non-organic food industry riding the coat-tails of the organic industry. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/13/magazine/13ORGANIC.html
?pagewanted=1
The organic revolution – Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
The Killing Fields
Stitching up Time (magazine).
Recognising and realising the potential of organic agriculture
Can Organic Farming feed the world? EFRC
Rice Revolution
Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture
Backlash against Organic Food – GM Godfathers and Organicised Crime
Soil Association action plan
Castro topples pesticide in Cuba
Organic farming report – Uk govt., Jan ’01 – 37 recommendations
Benefits of organic food
To be published. This is a list of subjects I would like to see articles on. I can, if necessary, write all these myself, over time. I would prefer however to have our visitors or invited authors write on some of the subjects or others suggested. I have been volunteered some pieces already by, amongst others, a leading bio-technologist, a well-known investigative journalist, a celebrity chef, a historian, an organic fish-curer and a leading naturopath.
Frank Newman Turner – the unacknowledged pioneer – soiled by MAFF?
Organic fascism – by an organic processor.
The Velvet Bean, Mucuna. Now at least partially covered; see New internationalist, Jan/Feb 2003, p 32, The Magic Bean by Jules Pretty
Plasticultura Pollution – Almeria, Spain. Touched on in The Ecologist, Feb 2003, p 36, Blood is thicker than water….by Ros Coward, columnist with The Guardian.
The empire fights back – anti-organic backlash. Have done items from time to time on this in my News. See Archives and Answering the organic attacks of Trewavas, Avery, Krebs et al.
Defining Organic
For peat’s sake, save our bogs.
Are supermarkets the key to organic expansion?
Andean Macha – the Viagra Organic Alternative? Search www.google.com
“Stop all meetings on BSE”- What did Irish, EU Agricultural Minister, Ray Mc Sharry, mean by this in Sept. 1990?
The rain in Spain falls mainly in the mountains. The Spanish wars over water. Touched on in The Ecologist, Feb 2003, p 36, Blood is thicker than water….by Ros Coward, columnist with The Guardian.
Are oganic bodies really interested in mass markets?
MAFFia tactics destroyed organic farming pioneer, Newman Turner.
Organic farming – Theology?
The not-so-lazy, lazy-beds . Have Stuart Trench’s description from Realities of Irish Life, 1868 need to type it up (March 2003).
The Food Wars.
Flowers of death – blood on Valentine roses?
Farmer’s markets – the way forward?
One man’s mission to clean up Ireland’s water supply – Walter Graham, American living in N. Ireland who almost single-handled, persuaded all water authorities in the North to abandon fluoridation.
Are supermarkets making a killing with organic food?
Labeling GM – ABC’s refusal, their downfall?
What is organic? IFOAM call all alternative systems organic!
Is Organic mono-culture the way to go?
A fly in the ointment – Mark Purdey’s Warble Fly theory on source of BS
Cuba spreading Organic Revolution?
The Vegan organic challenge.
Ireland Green – a myth?
Does organic food taste better?
The use of antibiotics in organic farming.
Grapes of Wrath? – organic wine makers frustrated over copper sulphate use.
Homeopathy and organic farming
A load of manure – who knows how to compost?
The organic pioneers – Turner, Sykes, Wookey,Rodale, Howard, Balfour, Hills.
Bio-Intensive Farming – less land, more food, more soil.
Arthur Young, 18th C. organic agriculturalist.
Should organic be diluted?
Who is Bruno Manser?
Garlic pearls before pigs
A season in the Valle de la Drome
On the organic breadline in Germany
The Salmon of Knowledge
WWOOF give tongue
The Prince and the Professor
Sustainable Art – Tony O’Malley (due June)
Highbrow organics at Highgrove
Not just a Pretty face – Jules Pretty elucidates
Getting an organic roasting in Brittany
Art for conservation’s sake
Ned Kelly and the runaway pig
Working on the right honourable Helen’s farm.
Walking on eggshells – working at Radford Mill
Daring Darina – Celtic Chef
Walking on lemons – Andalucia.
Slavery in Ireland
Munich Organic Beer Fest
F.Newman Turner – a MAFF martyr?
Paraquat – a blast from the past.
Cuba to spread organic revolution?
Who is Alex Avery?
” Roundup is so safe, you can drink it”!!!
The Earth Goddess and the Garlic Rot.
Famine Fables – the great lie about the Great Irish Famine
A real Green Guide to Ireland
What the Irish Tourist Board doesn’t tell you about the Irish environment
<>AGRICULTURE AND THE WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – Grace Maher, September 2002 The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg was attended by representaives from countries and cultures from all corners of the world. The summit was held in three central areas; at the Sandton Convention Centre, where the UN Delegates and some representatives from non governmental organisations (NGO’s) met to discuss the issues at hand; at Nasrec, members from NGOs, community groups and members of civil society met to debate the same issues; and at Ubuntu Village, where culture and arts were represented. For many organisations the key challenge was to ensure that the focus of the WSSD remained sustainable development and was not overshadowed by trade negotiations.

The impetus for the summit was to build on the principles outlined in Rio ten years ago. The permanent addition of sustainable development to the agenda was a significant advancement.

Trade issues attempted to dominate the summit but due to the courageous steps taken by some progressive governments and the pressure exerted by NGO’s they were not allowed to push the sustainable development agenda to one side.

The WSSD was attended by approximately 60,000 delegates. The fact that the summit was held in Africa projected some of the current problems of the continent to the fore.

The dominant one was the issue of HIV/AIDS and the poverty and suffering that it is creating in all sectors. The populations of HIV/AIDS sufferers in some communities is as high as 65%. This is having devastating effects in those areas.

The other backdrop to the summit was the current droughts that are effecting large parts of the African Continent.This made the issues of agriculture and water, and access to resources, key topics at the summit.The impact of agricultural subsidies on developed and developing countries, market access for the products of the developing world and support for small farmers were all issues which were covered in relation to the agricultural sector.

In many developing countries agriculutre is stilll the engine for economic growth. The summit offered the opportunity for the global community to address key actions on agriculture with a view to sustainability and reducing poverty and hunger, protecting biodiverstiy and accesss to resources for small farmers everywhere. Many developing countries called for an end to the current system which allows for subsudies in the norh while at the same time such subsidies are crippling farmers in the developing world. This is viewed by many as a major barrier to sustainable development.

The issue of genetically modified (GM) food was also a contentious one at the summit. Many organisations, like the WWF, felt that the agricultural debates were once again dominated by corporate agendas trying to push for the widespread introduction of GM foods. This took place against the outspoken refusal from Zambia to accept genetically modified food aid from the US. The US has been unrelenting in putting pressure on countries in Southern Africa to accept GM food in the form of food aid and through credit assistance. The fact that countries and people require food assistance should not be a reason to deprive them of the choice to obtain non-GM food. The hungry have dignity and the human right to choose food they believe to be safe for consumption.

The UN World Heath Organisation and the UN Food and Agriculutre Organisation irresponsibly advised Southern African countries that GM food is “not likely to present a human health risk”. The Zambian government with the suppport of its people and following a national consultation process, has chosen to reject GM food aid. This decision was taken based on the absence of national bio-safety regulations and adequate capacity to carry out reliable risk assessments and the safety threat to human health. It also took into consideration the threat of contamination to indigenous seed varieties. The Zambian policy decision is fully in line with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which enshrines the soverign right of counties to be informed of, and to take precautionary decisions on, imports of GM foods. Non GM food aid is readily available in the US and also from other counties such as Tanzania, Kenya, China and India who have already offered assistance.

The position taken by the Zambian government should be applauded as taking a stance aganist multi-billion dollar biotech companies looking for overseas markets.

Much to the disgust of many in the audience the US Foreign Secretrary Colin Powell announced that he deplored the action of counties that rejected US food aid that contained GM ingredients. Farmers who have experimented with GM crops expressed disappointment with crop yields and problems with super-weeds and super-pests which developed after a couple of seasons. Contamination of seed varieties was also highlighted as a problem which is having negative effects on local seed varieties.

There were very few voices which stated that they had better returns from the use of GM seed, a lesson which must be taken to heart by producers
Grace Maher Johannesburg, September 2002.
Mastitis control in organic herds
1. Mastitis and mastitis control strategies. Researchers at Reading University in the UK say there is a need to develop new mastitis control strategies for organic dairy producers. The recent, rapid growth of the organic dairy sector in the UK has highlighted mastitis as one of the key health concerns among organic dairy farmers and the unsuitability of the Five Point Plan for organic management practices.

A two-year (1997-98) longitudinal mastitis survey of organic dairy herds in England and Wales suggested that, whilst mastitis risk for organic cows was no greater than for conventionally managed cows, some herds experienced problems with high levels of mastitis during the dry period. Overall, organic herds had higher somatic cell count (SCC) levels. The treatment strategies for organic and conventional herds differed markedly, with the majority of organic dairy farms using homeopathy as an alternative to antibiotics. Control strategies, however, were similar in both groups of farms, apart from less emphasis on SCC control in organic herds compared to the conventionally managed herds. In the light of these findings, the researchers suggest a new management strategy for a sustainable udder health promotion in organic dairy herds. For further information, contact Malla Hovi (m.hovi@reading.ac.uk).Reference: Hovi, M. and Roderick, S. (2000) Mastitis and mastitis control strategies in organic milk. Cattle Practice 8(3) 259-264.

Messers, visionaries and organobureaucrats:’This paper asks what happens to ‘alternative’ social movements like the Irish organic farming movement, which try to promote sustainable forms of rural development, when they begin to be incorporated into state policy for farming and the countryside. Does this provide a context in which farming and food industry can begin to be ‘restructured from below’, or does it lead to ‘deradicalisation ‘ of the movement and its ideas? ….institualisation is often experienced by movement members themselves as a critical, even highly divisive development, which can result in severe damage to the movements’s core ideology and values.’ IOFGA’s experience, analysised in the paper, points to ‘the corrosive effects on movement participants of incorporation of the movement organisations into state corporatist types of structure.’
The article goes on to conclude that ‘institutionalisation will profoundly affect the movement while leaving the state relatively untouched – that the organobureaucrats will become another species of state agents and those who want a ‘real alternative, regroup and start all over again’.
Defining Farming Terms
There is some confusion in the terms describing different kinds of farming today. Before the 1950’s, “farming” was largely applied to all agricultural activity whether it was practised on a prairie or a peasant scale. However, since then, various new terms have evolved and it may be useful to clarify, as much as possible, what is understood by them.
1. Traditional farming
This is the type of farming carried out throughout the world for millennia past. It is characterised by self-sufficiency, age-old traditions of husbandry and natural methods of fertilizing (e.g. recycling animal and vegetable waste) weed and pest control. On the whole, early, traditional farming was environmentally friendly and sustainable but there were periods when mistakes were made and over-use and deforestation resulted. Some desertification, as in the Sahara, the Middle East, Peru and the US are examples of such early environmental disasters.
2. Modern farming
Modern farming, as we know it, began to develop, particularly in the West, from the 1920’s. It is typified by a more intensive use of land and buildings, mechanisation and the use of artificial chemical fertilizers and weed and pest control. Labour was increasingly being replaced by machines and chemicals. Specialisation in crops and animals became the norm and a reliance built up on bought-in chemical and processed inputs. This was farming becoming industrialised and large companies developed to stimulate and supply its needs.

3. Factory farming
In the last half of the 20th Century certain areas of modern farming have become even more intensive and farm animals are now being mass-produced in industrial conditions. The most extreme example would be poultry where in some units millions of birds are kept in small, individual cages. Pigs are probably the next most intensively produced farm animal with units of hundreds of thousands (and in the US, millions) housed in factory-like buildings. Beef and other farm animals are also produced in large feed lots and in slatted-floor housing. High-protein rations (including until recently, meat and bone meal) artificial hormones and antibiotics are fed to improve productivity.
4.Biotech farming
This controversial type of farming has developed mainly in the last 20 years. The technology is designed to increase agricultural productivity by genetically engineering or manipulating (GM ) genes in plants sometimes by adding animal genes. GM crops have been developed to be resistant to specific herbicides and pests. In one case seed was designed so that it could not germinate the following year. Although millions of acres are grown it seems as if the AgBiotech industry is in trouble. Governments are insisting on labelling or in some cases even banning GM foods, farmers are angry as productivity and profit targets have not been met and public and scientific distrust of the technology is growing.
5. Sustainable farming
This is a term that needs some standardising. Organic and sustainable are often used interchangeably. Yet organic can be unsustainable in certain circumstances, and sustainable need not be organic. Sustainable farming as described by Prof. Pretty *seems to be emerging as the standard explanation of the term. In many respects, as he describes it, it is similar to organic farming. Sustainable agriculture encourages the recycling of natural wastes as manures and encourages appropriate technology, such as surface cultivation, rather than deep ploughing. It is different from organic farming in that it doesn’t exclude artificial fertilisers and chemicals but attempts instead to optimise their use. Recent reports show that thousands of communities and millions of acres are now involved and are showing dramatic increases in productivity combined with increasing soil fertility and an improved environment.
* Prof.Jules Pretty is Director of the Centre for Environment and Society at the Univ. of Essex. A world expert on sustainable agriculture he is the author of a world-wide report launched in Jan ’01.
6. Biointensive Farming
Biointensive gardening, sometimes called mini-farming is a combination of Irish lazy-bed, 19th C. French raised-bed, and Chinese traditional methods of farming. It claims enormous outputs from a very small area – enough to feed a family from a few hundred square feet – whilst building uo the soi.More about this method developed by American, John Jeavon, based on the work of English gardener, Alan Chadwick at; www.growbiointensive.org
7. Vegan organic farming
www.veganvillage.co.uk Promotes vegan organic farming.. “Can’t feed two populations, animals and people…” they argue. Vegans criticise extensive, organic, animal husbandry systems as, “disastrous” and “irresponsible”. It takes, they say, 85% of UK farmland to feed the one billion animals slaughtered there each year.
8. Biodynamic farming
Basically the same as organic farming but with a more esoteric and philosophical base. Part of the anthroposophic teaching of Austrian, Rudolf Steiner, it purports to help the health-giving forces of nature with special methods and preparations. Steiner admirably emphasised the absurdity of agricultural economics being determined by people who have never farmed. www.biodynamics.com
9. Organic farming
Organic farmingdeveloped in modern times as a response to what was perceived to be the polluting of our food supply by modern and factory farming methods and the ensuing degradation of the environment with chemical and other by-products of the industry.
ORGANIC FARMING BACKGROUND
It is difficult, and perhaps not that important, to indicate a definite point where the modern organic farming movement began. But there were certainly people who can be identified as being innovators and leaders. Organic farming owes more to traditional farming than anything else. It could be said that organic farming is traditional farming with a modern philosophical head and mechanical technology. So it is reasonable therefore to say that organic farming, in its essence, is traditional farming and therefore can be traced back to prehistoric times. As with the other types of farming there is some confusion about terminology.
Organic farming is often perceived by its critics to be a regressive back-to-nature type of activity. The image still persists of hippy drop-outs retreating to a remote crumbling cottages with impossibly overgrown acres armed with little other than a John Seymour, grow-your-own book and a conviction that modern society was crazy. And the image is not altogether incorrect. Many thousands of young people did leave their mainly urban and privileged backgrounds in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s to forge their own way in the countryside. Many of them subsequently contributed substantially to the modern organic movement and, although this might embarrass them, they should perhaps be considered the pioneers from which a large and complex revolutionary agricultural movement has grown. Statues may not be in order yet but perhaps they will still come!
For some the subsistence way was satisfying enough but others went a different route, perhaps a more missionary one, growing and rearing more intensively and selling their produce in markets and shops. This led in turn to the development of larger organic farms and horticultural units, retailers, wholesalers and distributors. In parallel, groups, committees and societies were formed, some of which became certification bodies to regulate and guarantee the quality of their members’ produce. The growth rate in the last ten years has been phenomenal increasing by up to 40% per annum and sales value has now reached approx. $50 billion world-wide.

It is not a little astonishing that organic food is still regarded by some, especially in conventional farming circles and government departments, as marginal niche-market stuff. It is not regarded as being scientific or capital intensive . It is hard not to conclude that they currently have their heads in the sand but that, in the not too distant future, they will have to follow as more organically progressive countries like Austria, Cuba, Denmark, Sweden etc.

Although “Organic ” is now an officially recognised term enshrined in law in the US, the EU and some other countries there is still considerable confusion about what it means.

In many ways modern organic farming resembles traditional farming and is often confused with it. This is perhaps understandable because at times there were different messages coming from the organic movement itself. In fact its critics constantly refer to it as ” back-to-nature farming” implying that it is a regression to traditional peasant farming. It does rely largely on the same principles of recycling animal and crop waste and natural methods of controlling pests and weeds. The differences are, that organic farming consciously recognises the fragility of the environment and the dangers of modern chemical and other inputs and works to exclude them from its farm practices and find natural alternatives.

Contrary to what its opponents sometimes suggest, organic farming is not in the least anti-science and looks to biological science particularly for assistance in dealing with fertility, crop pests and diseases. Although research institutes in Europe have done much pioneering work and several new centres are coming on-stream, Cuba probably has more scientific resources employed in organic farming research than the rest of the world combined. It had to – otherwise there could have been famine back in the ’90s when it was largely abandoned by its major supporter, the USSR.

Good traditional farming practice involved knowing your soil, plants and animals well and the nutrient, shelter and health requirements needed to keep all in balance. The astute farmer worked at building up fertility, i.e.the organic matter, including living organisms such as soil-producing worms in the earth, and keeping down animal and plant diseases. Crop rotation e.g. pasture, followed by cereals, followed by vegetables was one of the best tools of the trade. Fertiliser was supplied by recycling animal and vegetable wastes, legume crops, rock minerals and extra soils such as marl.

When he did the job well he could pass on the farm “in good heart” to the next generation. Traditional farming began to give way to a more intensive, industrialised agriculture about 70 years ago as artificial chemical fertilisers, mechanisation and chemical weed and pest control began to be developed. Millennia-old skills were abandoned practically overnight as the race to modernise began.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Whats the beef?
Dear Sir
Every time I hear Bord Bia referring to us as “The Food Island”, and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland declaring our food to be safe, I squirm. I marvel too at their ineffable cheek and the enormity of the budgets they consume.

We may be the largest exporter of food within the EU but we have little right today to trade on our former reputation as a producer of clean, safe food.

Their marketing is hollow and transparent – and not only to me.I talk to many Europeans who tell me they go out of their way not to eat Irish food: a complete reversal of how it used to be back in the 1960s and before. There is a way however of turning the situation around, restoring our reputation and creating considerable wealth and jobs in the process – a rapid and extensive adoption of organic farming methods. The fascinating thing is that organic farming is nothing new to us in Ireland and comparatively it should be a doddle for us to implement.

To explain: on my father’s mixed farm, in the 1950’s and19 60’s we produced wonderful, healthy food without reliance on chemical fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides or fungicides. Crop and animal rotations, farm-yard manure and cultivation were our natural farming aids. We ate our delicious produce with complete confidence. Mouth-watering, Golden Wonder potatoes (so aptly named), generously dolloped with butter, succulent meats and other vegetables fresh out of the garden, graced our table. Relatives returning to the still-rationed UK loaded their luggage with presents of these wonderful foods, particularly the bacon, sausages (Dennys Gold Label – they were real sausages then) eggs and butter.

In the 60’s and 70’s things changed and we became intensive users of agri-chemicals. Like almost everyone else we were quickly attracted to them because they were so convenient and easy to use and labour was becoming expensive. But we knew in our bones it was wrong – we could see that we were poisoning our produce and our environment.

For example, it was frightening how a herbicide, paraquat, burnt a field to the ground in preparation for potato harvesting; we turned a blind eye to the probability of dangerous residues in and on the potatoes. We were, we claimed, subject to irresistible economic and advertising pressures. We dealt with the problem badly. We convinced/deluded ourselves that the government and agri-industry knew what they were doing and that therefore it was safe to sell our bulk produce to consumers. How wrong we were!

However, we provided for our personal qualms by keeping a few free-range animals and a near-organic kitchen garden far away from the factory-farming sheds, the hedge-less and poisoned fields. This is the sense in which I say all farmers are organic.

They know their onions! They know what’s good and bad practice and they know how to look after themselves. Many farmers don’t eat themselves what they mass-produce.

Of course it is utterly hypocritical and contemptible. But farmers are not alone, are not the only players in all this.

Governments and consumers demanded cheaper and cheaper food. This was delivered but the real costs were hidden.The environmental and human health problems created by these poitico/economic policies over the last 50 years were ignored.

Personally I want to apologise to consumers – I meant no harm – I was caught up in bigger things I didn’t really understand at the time.

I now know better and have changed.

And I would like to make up by passing on what I have learned.

I would urge shoppers to seek out organic food as much as possible – if not for their own sakes then for their childrens’. Organic and locally-produced would be the ideal.

Try to grow your own if you can and support the ever-increasing farmers’ markets.

Demand safe food through your politicians, your community organisations and your shops. It is after all a basic human right.Be aware of the counter-propaganda of agri-industry and bureaucracies that have become powerful through the servicing of industrialised agriculture. They know the trends better than anybody. They see that organic farming is growing enormously, in the US and western Europe and poses a considerable threat to their share prices, indeed to their very existence.

And in consequence, they are fighting dirty and pitching large resources into ant-organic and pro-GM campaigns to maintain their dominance.

But they will only succeed if you remain indifferent.

Use your considerable consumer power to resist them and demand healthy, affordable food as your basic human right.

Then perhaps some day we will again see visitors to Ireland pack their suitcases with healthy, delicious Irish produce.Then, and only then, will we be entitled to call ourselves, without a trace of guilt, “The Food Island” .
Yours etc
_____________________________________________________________________________
Counterblast – the cynical BBC TV programme that attempted to rubbish the organic movement. My letter to the Beeb.
Dear Ms Doak (of the BBC)

I received your letter of 9th Feb last week.

I find it very surprising that you justify the programme because it “…..air(s)views that are either normally misrepresented or under-represented in the mainstream media.”

On the contrary, if anything, the view presented by Mr Bates is one that is over-represented. To many it was all too-familiar territory. We hear the same arguments constantly from farmers, their politicians, the farming press, the GM food industry, scientists and indeed from all areas of the mainstream media. Until now their arguments were fragmented, vicious, incoherent, and even anti-scientific( yes; it constantly amazes me how illogical scientists can be when they and their funds are threatened); they hadn’t got their act together, possibly because they felt that organic farming was only a marginal activity that could be side-swiped out of existence or ignored altogether. It is a measure of the success of the organic movement that the vested interests are now being forced to confront it with all their resources – it is fast becoming a mainstream competitor. There is also a strong suspicion that the GM industry, smarting heavily from its recent setbacks, is deeply involved in slandering organic farming because they see this as a more productive, longer term, stategy than immediately trying to stuff their GM products down reluctant Euro-consumers’ throats.

You have to hand it to them now though, because they are finally getting it together. And they are doing it very professionally: they can afford it .

There have been a whole series of attacks in the media in recent times.The Counterblast programme is a good example of this effective if Goebbels-like propaganda. The ABC 20/20 John Stossel programme in early Feb. was another attempted hatchet-job on the organic sector – its principal contributor has since been completely discredited.

The sad thing about all of this is that, to a very large extent, it is a done deed that organic farming is going to be the main type of European farming in the future – eg see Agenda 2000 proposals. It is depressing that the agri-industries of countries like the UK and Ireland are prepared, obstinately Canute-like, to fight the inevitable to the bitter end. This is a terrible waste of all our energies. On the other hand, major food-producing countries like Dennmark are planning a national organic industry and considering how best to capitalise on the huge opportunities presented.

With regard to the BBC’s role in this affair I would think that you have allowed yourself to be used in this propaganda campaign and permitted a programme to be aired of monumental, mischievous misinformation. Common justice can simply be served by allowing the organic movement an equal airing of their case. How about it?
Thank you.
Jim O’Connor, West Cork.
_____________________________________________________________________________
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED BULL – June 6th 1999 – published in the Irish Times and several other papers
Dear Sir
Astute food-producing countries like Denmark are racing to become organic (and thus GM free) to meet the astronomical European demand for clean food.

Ireland should be doing the same.

Instead we have our bio-industry and agricultural education establishments (Sutton Castle, GM hearing, last week) doing their utmost to kill a potential golden goose. “Commercial organic farming is the greatest threat to bio-diversity.”, says Prof. Whittaker, Maynooth. His argument is based on ” one study” that says organic production levels are 50% lower than conventional agriculture and thus requires correspondingly more land.

I vehemently disagree.

Contrary to the professor’s contention, output levels in organic farming can match and exceed that of chemical farming – eg see Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, recent report,. And where they don’t, decent research funds would undoubtedly raise productivity.There are many more studies – I’d be glad to cite them if requested.

But, at a practical level, take even my own humble case; I grow garlic, organically, about 40,000 plants, and get yields over 100% more than the European commercial average. Furthermore, a study I made on potatoes shows, remarkably, that modern agriculture still hasn’t equalled the output levels achieved in Ireland before the 1840′s Famine.

Chemical farming has left us a legacy of a degraded environment, mountains and lakes of surplus produce, factory farming of animals, decreased employment and profits in agriculture, and, of course, food contamination. Directly add the costs of these effects to our conventional food (which we pay for indirectly anyway) and we’ll see the real price of food.

The men in white coats are scraping the bottom of the barrel for arguments to bolster a losing case. Again, a pro-GM scientist (Conference on GM food, Skibbereen, Feb ’99 ) said – almost with a giggle! – that; “….organic potatoes are poisonous and you organic farmers here should throw them all away”.

Nonsense! And I told him so. His experiments lacked even the most basic of controls. As for the ridiculous notion of being poisoned by organic potatoes; as an act of commemoration two years ago I ate a pre-Famine diet of organic potatoes and mostly buttermilk for six months. It’s the simplest and healthiest diet possible – recently confirmed by a US diet study.

Organic farming is good for the environment, for the economy (huge import savings as well), for rural employment but above all for the health of our people. Substract these benefits from the cost of organic produce and you’ll see the true value of healthy food.
Far from bowing to the dictates and mega-buck research funds of a discredited bio-engineering industry (see Ecologist, Sept/Oct, ’98 – The Monsanto Files) we should follow Denmark’s example and start our own race to be first in the fast-developing organic industry.

Chemical and GM farming is the real threat to the environment and bio-diversity – not organic farming.
Jim O’Connor

Waterfall,

Beara,

Co.Cork.
Tel 027 70717

6th June ’99
Back to top