Re: Holy Organic

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

>

July 4, 2004

>

>Hi Katja,

>

>I understand that you might feel a little attacked by the construct of " holy

>organic " as a new organic farmer. I empathize, and realize that you are

>making a great deal of effort to raise and grow high quality food. And I

>sincerely applaud you for your efforts. I WISH we had a nation of farmers,

>just like you, in fact.

>

>However, I must say that 's post is right on the mark when it comes

>to organic not being any guarantee *whatsoever* of nutritional quality, as

>seems to be the general impression. His post is well worthy of a read, IMO,

>for those who wish to become better educated on this issue.

>

>I will reiterate the main issue - organic labeling (with caveats because

> " organic " now only means 95% organic) ONLY means what is NOT in the food, it

>doesn't tell you what is IN it. And what is IN it is what WAP has showed us

>that determines our health. That is not to say that conventional produce or

>meat is worthy of our food dollars either. It only means that the " organic "

>label tells us nothing about the nutritional quality of the food. Period.

but i have no qualm with that. i agree that it doesn't tell you what's in

the food, and i thought i was clear about that.

my qualm is with people saying that it's useless, that the certification

process raises the cost of food, that the whole thing is just a ploy to

charge more money.

his post is all about economic theory justifying his lack of education

about what organic farmers are really doing. there's such a ridiculous

amount of work to be done to repair the damage that conventional farmers

have done to the land. organic regulations (in NOFA anyway) require soil

healing, which will automatically raise brix count, though not overnight.

maybe in other places they're different, but we're required to document

every year what we're working on for ammending the soil, whether it's

manure, sea-solids fertilizer, biodynamic compost...and most of us use

refractometers every day to work on this stuff, in addition to the regular

soil testing. i go to schools and give refractometer demonstrations with

shaw's tomatoes and local tomatoes to show the kids what this stuff is

about. just because everyone isn't there yet doesn't mean that the movement

doesn't encourage it.

sure, if you buy " organic cheetos " they're NOT going to be healthy. and

frankly, if you buy organic corn from some organic factory farm or

soybeans, or organic milk that is grainfed and pasteurized, sure it's not

going to be healthy. but that doesn't mean that the cost of certification

unnecessarily raises the price of the food (which is the only thing i was

arguing), and it doesn't make the organic movement un-worth-while (which

has come to be the argument). the organic movement is what's teaching

farmers about this stuff! sure, we have to put up with organic cheetos and

soybeans and lame low-brix milk while we get there (though we don't have to

buy it, just the same as we don't have to buy soymilk. if someone else

does, either teach them better or just ignore it), but you can't throw out

an entire movement just because it can't be everything to you. if you get

good meat that isn't certified organic and you can trust it, then yay for

you! but that doesn't mean that the whole movement is a price gouging

cartel only out to make a buck. the people who are doing this work - even

the ones farming soybeans - believe in what they're doing and we're making

huge sacrifices to do it. just because some of them still have bad info on

soy or because some of them still want to eat cheetos or because the

organic label doesn't include a brix count doesn't make it bad.

-katja

July 4, 2004

>organic regulations (in NOFA anyway) require soil

> healing, which will automatically raise brix count, though not

overnight.

I'm not sure what NOFA's relationship is with the various state

governments of the region it exists in, though as far as I can tell

it looks like a private institution that transcends state borders.

In any case, it's worth noting that the new Federal standards

basically obliterate any power NOFA had to ensure real quality. For

example, many MA organic farmers are angry because NOFA denied

certification to Country Hen because their chickens are not on

pasture, which is apparently required by the NOFA standards, and

their proposal to build a " porch " for the hens that went outside was

likely rejected by NOFA, so they took it to some Federal arbitration

board that gave them organic certification.

CH charges over $3 for a HALF dozen eggs, by the way.

Chris

July 4, 2004

At 01:22 PM 7/4/2004, you wrote:

>

> >organic regulations (in NOFA anyway) require soil

> > healing, which will automatically raise brix count, though not

>overnight.

>

>I'm not sure what NOFA's relationship is with the various state

>governments of the region it exists in, though as far as I can tell

>it looks like a private institution that transcends state borders.

>In any case, it's worth noting that the new Federal standards

>basically obliterate any power NOFA had to ensure real quality. For

>example, many MA organic farmers are angry because NOFA denied

>certification to Country Hen because their chickens are not on

>pasture, which is apparently required by the NOFA standards, and

>their proposal to build a " porch " for the hens that went outside was

>likely rejected by NOFA, so they took it to some Federal arbitration

>board that gave them organic certification.

i heard something about that but not the resolution on it. in vermont,

there isn't a separate board - VOF, which is the vermont " arm " of NOFA,

does the certifying for both the state and the federal stuff. prolly in MA

they have separate people or something - just in vermont we can't afford it

-katja

July 5, 2004

> RE: Holy Organic

>

>>

>>Hi Katja,

>>

>>I understand that you might feel a little attacked by the

>construct of " holy

>>organic " as a new organic farmer. I empathize, and realize that you are

>>making a great deal of effort to raise and grow high quality food. And I

>>sincerely applaud you for your efforts. I WISH we had a nation of farmers,

>>just like you, in fact.

>>

>>However, I must say that 's post is right on the mark when it comes

>>to organic not being any guarantee *whatsoever* of nutritional quality, as

>>seems to be the general impression. His post is well worthy of a

>read, IMO,

>>for those who wish to become better educated on this issue.

>>

>>I will reiterate the main issue - organic labeling (with caveats because

>> " organic " now only means 95% organic) ONLY means what is NOT in

>the food, it

>>doesn't tell you what is IN it. And what is IN it is what WAP has

>showed us

>>that determines our health. That is not to say that conventional

>produce or

>>meat is worthy of our food dollars either. It only means that the

> " organic "

>>label tells us nothing about the nutritional quality of the food. Period.

>

>but i have no qualm with that. i agree that it doesn't tell you what's in

>the food, and i thought i was clear about that.

>my qualm is with people saying that it's useless, that the certification

>process raises the cost of food, that the whole thing is just a ploy to

>charge more money.

I don't recall saying that it's just a ploy to charge more money. It

does have the effect of upping the price without any guarantee of being a

superior nutritional product though. So yes, it DOES up the cost to the

farmer, and IME raises the price for the consumer, at least it does around

here. As for it being useless, I don't know if he said that (I don't recall

it) but he did say the following:

" I'm not dissing the movement because of a few cheating farmers, or that

all organics is not equal in quality. No I'm dissing it because the

organic label has reached the level of godhood, and people believe that

because something is organic, they are getting good quality stuff as a

matter of course, which is often not the case. "

And I heartily agree. It seems to be the prevailing impression that

organic=quality, which is simply not true. That's what seemed to be

protesting. And frankly, many farmers and consumers feel the new federal

organic standards are too watered down to have any significant practical

use. Do you recall the case of the GA chicken farmer who complained to his

congressman that he couldn't afford organic feed when the new standards were

being voted on? And so they put in a clause that, if farmers can't afford

organic feed, that they could feed conventional feed and still be labeled

organic? It may have been a certain % of conventional feed that was allowed

(I don't recall), but the situation is an example of how organic is being

rendered meaningless by over regulation and lobbyists.

Additionally, as I think mentioned, several former organic farmers

are essentially being forced out of organic certification due to some of the

new federal regulations that they cannot afford to implement. I know of one

such local farmer. But for all intents and purposes his produce is TRULY

organic. How useful are the national organic certification standards when

they are absolutely NO guarantee of nutritional quality (first and formost),

are subject to special interest lobbyists, are watered down (organic by

national standards really means at least 95% organic), and force excellent

organic farmers to stop being certified?

>

>his post is all about economic theory justifying his lack of education

>about what organic farmers are really doing. there's such a ridiculous

>amount of work to be done to repair the damage that conventional farmers

>have done to the land. organic regulations (in NOFA anyway) require soil

>healing, which will automatically raise brix count, though not overnight.

I'm no expert on soil fertility, but it is my understanding that

conventional methods of " healing " soil often do not raise brix, do not often

actually " heal " the soil. I'm just beginning to research this topic now, but

it looks like the best way to increase soil fertility and raise brix are

through the methods advocated by Albrecht (who wrote a chapter of

NAPD on soil fertility). Not that really crappy soils can't be somewhat

healed by conventional methods, but if they are not getting the brix up to

" good " or " excellent " then they are falling short.

>maybe in other places they're different, but we're required to document

>every year what we're working on for ammending the soil, whether it's

>manure, sea-solids fertilizer, biodynamic compost...and most of us use

>refractometers every day to work on this stuff,

i would guess you folks are an anomoly then. My understanding is that

refractometers are not often used by small farms. They certainly aren't in

these parts. What type of brix readings are you and other local organic

farmers getting?

in addition to the regular

>soil testing.

That is the thing, apparently " regular " soil testing may not be giving

farmers an accurate picture of soil fertility. Again, I don't know enough

about it to talk about it much, but it seems like those using Albrecht's

testing and soil building are finding success in raising brix.

i go to schools and give refractometer demonstrations with

>shaw's tomatoes and local tomatoes to show the kids what this stuff is

>about.

What type of readings are you finding from the supermarket produce? So far

I've tested several items produced by local organic farms and the majority

fall into the " poor " brix range. A few tested " average. " The ONLY thing that

I've tested so far that's come out in the " good " range is a grape from

California bought at a local co-op! Probably the same brand that's available

in supermarkets. That's not to say that supermarket produce is generally

higher brix than local organic farms, but does point out that LOCAL organic

is also no guarantee of quality. Probably especially in places like here in

the Northeast where our soils are so bad. Again, I'm not arguing that

monocrops from agribiz is even remotely decent. But since I'm paying a

premium price for local organic produce, it would be nice if the items I'm

purchasing were remotely decent, rather than coming out at 4 brix or lower.

What the heck am I paying for? Lack of chemicals, I guess.

just because everyone isn't there yet doesn't mean that the

>movement

>doesn't encourage it.

I have no idea what our state organic association encourages, but I doubt

they encourage using rafractometers since several of the farmers I've spoken

with don't even know what they are or think they are only used by some

industries to measure sugar.

>

>sure, if you buy " organic cheetos " they're NOT going to be healthy.

And, IMO, that also goes for low nutrient (low brix) produce. How is

nutrient-deficient, high anti-nutrient produce any healthier than organic

cheetos? It is the produce *equivalent* of organic cheetos in that they have

the same effect - no contribution to health.

and

>frankly, if you buy organic corn from some organic factory farm or

>soybeans, or organic milk that is grainfed and pasteurized, sure it's not

>going to be healthy. but that doesn't mean that the cost of certification

>unnecessarily raises the price of the food (which is the only thing i was

>arguing), and it doesn't make the organic movement un-worth-while (which

>has come to be the argument).

I don't think it's " unworthwhile " - not the organic movement itself. But I

have a problem mainly with the national certification standards. There are

lots of organic farmers that are not certified but raising healthier food

than certified ones. And when the soil fertility reaches a state of

excellence, there is no need for pesticides or any conventional chemicals

anyway. So it seems to me the movement should be about nutritional quality,

which would necessarily put soil health (in a way that actually WORKS) and

brix as its primary goal, rather than what's not allowed to be sprayed on

the crop. Maybe that is the case and I'm not aware of it, but it sure

doesn't seem so by taking brix readings of local organic crops.

but you can't throw out

>an entire movement just because it can't be everything to you.

Well, as Price taught us, *nutritional quality* IS everything. Not only to

me or to , but to the human race. I say that, if the organic movement

produces high quality (high brix) food, then it is absolutely going in the

right direction. But so far, my experience, and the experiences of many

folks involved in agriculture, is that this is not the case. If it ever

becomes the case, then I'll be the first to shout it from the rooftops :-)

if you get

>good meat that isn't certified organic and you can trust it, then yay for

>you! but that doesn't mean that the whole movement is a price gouging

>cartel only out to make a buck. the people who are doing this work - even

>the ones farming soybeans - believe in what they're doing and we're making

>huge sacrifices to do it.

And I appreciate the efforts of farmers making such sacrifices. Again, if it

results in highly nutritious food, then it is indeed a worthwhile effort.

But if it doesn't (as seems to be the case) then the certification label may

not be worth the paper it's printed on.

Again, please understand I'm not taking a shot at organic farmers. I very

much appreciate their efforts and intents. But in the end, my body requires

*results*, as do all human bodies. And I'm more than willing to pay for it!

My goal is to find out WHO delivers results. So far, as a rule, organic

farms don't. Maybe *yours* does, or a handful of others do, but this seems

to be an anomoly :-(

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/

----------------------------

July 5, 2004

> i heard something about that but not the resolution on it. in

vermont,

> there isn't a separate board - VOF, which is the vermont " arm " of

NOFA,

> does the certifying for both the state and the federal stuff.

prolly in MA

> they have separate people or something - just in vermont we can't

afford it

I'm pretty sure the agency was Federal, not a state or private agency

executing Federal standards.

But in any case, it seems it can only be a net negative for the

certification agency to even be associated with the government, but

much worse to have a state-endorsed monopoly on certification.

There should be free competition between private certifiers, which

would quelch the natural tendency of the current system, most

recently manifested in the Federal so-called " standards, " to

centralize the certification, and thereby solidfy the influence of

the larger more moneyed producers, and which would also allow the

proliferation of different types of quality certification, rather

than an " organic " monolith. That would encourage consumers to

actually read about what is being certified rather than just

see " organic " and assume " healthy. "

Chris

July 5, 2004

>

>What type of readings are you finding from the supermarket produce? So far

>I've tested several items produced by local organic farms and the majority

>fall into the " poor " brix range. A few tested " average. " The ONLY thing that

>I've tested so far that's come out in the " good " range is a grape from

>California bought at a local co-op! Probably the same brand that's available

>in supermarkets. That's not to say that supermarket produce is generally

>higher brix than local organic farms, but does point out that LOCAL organic

>is also no guarantee of quality. Probably especially in places like here in

>the Northeast where our soils are so bad. Again, I'm not arguing that

>monocrops from agribiz is even remotely decent. But since I'm paying a

>premium price for local organic produce, it would be nice if the items I'm

>purchasing were remotely decent, rather than coming out at 4 brix or lower.

>What the heck am I paying for? Lack of chemicals, I guess.

suze:

that's exactly it: there is no High Brix Store where you can go buy high

brix stuff. so if the only option is a 4 brix broccoli, then isn't it far

better to have a chemical-free 4 brix broccoli?

and secondly, who is going to grow food for this High Brix Store? you can't

convince a monsanto farmer to care about brix, but an organic farmer is

already moving in that direction. you can walk up to any organic farmer and

say " hey, check out my refractometer - it helps you tell how good your

stuff is and how healthy your soil is " and to a wo/man each one will ask to

borrow the damn thing. so sure, organics is not perfect, but it's a tool,

and it's something. you can't hang your hat on something that doesn't yet

exist, so i'll take what's here and try to make it better. and maybe my

neighbor only has 4 brix broccoli today, but next year it's likely to be 5,

and there's value in that.

by the way, some of the federal organic standard evilness didn't actually

come to fruition in the 11th hour. i'm sure you'll want a reference for

that and i have it with some digging, but not right now cause i'm supposed

to be working. regardless, even with the evilness, at least in vermont,

it's still entirely worthwhile if for nothing else than the educational

medium. the organic label isn't meant to absolve people of the

responsibility of food selection, it just provides a baseline. so until

there's a High Brix Store, i'm glad for what we've got.

-katja

July 5, 2004

At 08:34 PM 7/4/2004, you wrote:

>There should be free competition between private certifiers, which

>would quelch the natural tendency of the current system, most

>recently manifested in the Federal so-called " standards, " to

>centralize the certification, and thereby solidfy the influence of

>the larger more moneyed producers, and which would also allow the

>proliferation of different types of quality certification, rather

>than an " organic " monolith. That would encourage consumers to

>actually read about what is being certified rather than just

>see " organic " and assume " healthy. "

>

>Chris

yeah. that would be so ideal! i'm not sure if oregon tilth is private or

not, but i know we could certify with them if we wanted. it's better with

the biodynamic certification - they're totally private.

state run or not though, i still think that people are responsible for

doing that reading-and-not-assuming thing anyway!

July 5, 2004

> yeah. that would be so ideal! i'm not sure if oregon tilth is private

> or

> not, but i know we could certify with them if we wanted. it's better

> with

> the biodynamic certification - they're totally private.

Oregon Tilth is private. From http://www.tilth.org/site/ABOUT.html:

Oregon Tilth is a non-profit research and education organization

certifying organic farmers, processors, retailers and handlers

throughout Oregon, the United States, and internationally.

Oregon Tilth is a member-driven organization with chapters throughout

the state, and members around the world.

Oregon Tilth's mission is to support organic and sustainable food

production practices.

Since 1974, Tilth has brought together individuals working to support

and promote biologically sound and socially equitable agriculture.

OT is a 501c3.

Lynn S

of the Oregon S's

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com/

http://www.democracyfororegon.com/

July 5, 2004

suze - sorry to dissect your email, but you guys are filling my brain and

i'm not able to digest the whole thing at once in a way that is useful for

responding. plus, it's painful. so, pieces it is. the part on soil

fertility is below:

At 07:12 PM 7/4/2004, you wrote:

> >

> >his post is all about economic theory justifying his lack of education

> >about what organic farmers are really doing. there's such a ridiculous

> >amount of work to be done to repair the damage that conventional farmers

> >have done to the land. organic regulations (in NOFA anyway) require soil

> >healing, which will automatically raise brix count, though not overnight.

>

>I'm no expert on soil fertility, but it is my understanding that

>conventional methods of " healing " soil often do not raise brix, do not often

>actually " heal " the soil. I'm just beginning to research this topic now, but

>it looks like the best way to increase soil fertility and raise brix are

>through the methods advocated by Albrecht (who wrote a chapter of

>NAPD on soil fertility). Not that really crappy soils can't be somewhat

>healed by conventional methods, but if they are not getting the brix up to

> " good " or " excellent " then they are falling short.

i think you misunderstand: conventional methods suck. conventional methods

burn the soil and cause more damage than if you'd done nothing at all.

that's what i'm trying to *un-do*, and albrecht agrees.

organic methods are much better - using just plain old manure, cover

cropping, or using sea-solids, for example, to put back the stuff that

years and centuries (in new england, at least) has taken out. biodynamic

methods are better still...but any way, i'm not not not arguing in favor of

tossing on some nitric fertilizer and hoping it grows faster. i am in favor

of healthy soil amendment, fewer and lighterweight tractors to avoid

compaction, permaculturing and at the very least cover cropping.

> in addition to the regular

> >soil testing.

>

>That is the thing, apparently " regular " soil testing may not be giving

>farmers an accurate picture of soil fertility. Again, I don't know enough

>about it to talk about it much, but it seems like those using Albrecht's

>testing and soil building are finding success in raising brix.

in this case i meant regular as in " regular intervals " , not regular as in

conventional. i would agree that regular-as-in-monsanto soil testing is not

giving farmers an accurate picture of soil fertility, and the people

interpreting those tests are not giving the farmers an accurate picture of

the steps to take to get healthy soil.

-katja

July 5, 2004

> state run or not though, i still think that people are responsible

for

> doing that reading-and-not-assuming thing anyway!

yeah, no kidding. this woman at work the other day was saying that

the herb and supplement industry needs to be regulated (after she

berated me for idiotically drinking a tea with ephedra in it, which

kills people) because they make claims that aren't necessarily backed

up, and kids believe everything they here, and then buy all these

products. hmm. so just because some people are too stupid to bother

having a clue about what they're buying, let's regulate the small

producers to death and let the pharmies take the whole thing over.

whee! :-/

Chris

July 5, 2004

I'd just like to point out that NOFA might not be your typical run-of-

he-mill organic certifier. They're pretty WAPish, and even have a

paid raw milk advocate whose job is to do pro bono legal

assistance/advice to dairy farmers going raw.

So they probably have a better idea of what good soil is, then, say,

the organic folks at the USDA.

Chris

July 5, 2004

In a message dated 7/5/04 10:42:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, katja@...

writes:

> but that's all it says! i've never seen anyone claim that an organic tomato

>

> has more vitamins than a conventional one.

That's a fairly regular claim, that organic food per se is more nutritious

than conventional.

Chris

July 5, 2004

> RE: Holy Organic

>

>>I'm no expert on soil fertility, but it is my understanding that

>>conventional methods of " healing " soil often do not raise brix,

>do not often

>>actually " heal " the soil. I'm just beginning to research this

>topic now, but

>>it looks like the best way to increase soil fertility and raise brix are

>>through the methods advocated by Albrecht (who wrote a chapter of

>>NAPD on soil fertility). Not that really crappy soils can't be somewhat

>>healed by conventional methods, but if they are not getting the brix up to

>> " good " or " excellent " then they are falling short.

>

>i think you misunderstand: conventional methods suck. conventional methods

>burn the soil and cause more damage than if you'd done nothing at all.

>that's what i'm trying to *un-do*, and albrecht agrees.

Actually, I was referring to conventional *organic* methods of increasing

soil fertility. Not agri-biz conventional soil treatment (which could never

be viewed as " healing " by any means!). Sorry for not being clearer.

Have you read the Albrecht papers and are you familiar with *his* methods of

improving soil fertility? Which, as I mentioned, I understand to be

unconventional even to organic farmers?

>> in addition to the regular

>> >soil testing.

>>

>>That is the thing, apparently " regular " soil testing may not be giving

>>farmers an accurate picture of soil fertility. Again, I don't know enough

>>about it to talk about it much, but it seems like those using Albrecht's

>>testing and soil building are finding success in raising brix.

>

>in this case i meant regular as in " regular intervals " , not regular as in

>conventional. i would agree that regular-as-in-monsanto soil

>testing is not

>giving farmers an accurate picture of soil fertility, and the people

>interpreting those tests are not giving the farmers an accurate picture of

>the steps to take to get healthy soil.

My understanding is that organic farmers are also not using useful soil

testing methods, at least in regards to buidling excellent soil fertility a

la Albrecht. Maybe you guys at NOFA are different as mentioned, but I

think the proof is in the pudding. What type of readings are NOFA farms

getting on their produce? If they're all using refractometers as you say,

they must have a record of what their results are. Are any of the farms

around you producing " average " , " good " or " excellent " brix food?

I do realize it takes time to rehabilitate bad soil, so the older farms

should be showing some results by now if their soil building methods are

working.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

July 5, 2004

> RE: Holy Organic

>

>>

>>What type of readings are you finding from the supermarket produce? So far

>>I've tested several items produced by local organic farms and the majority

>>fall into the " poor " brix range. A few tested " average. " The ONLY

>thing that

>>I've tested so far that's come out in the " good " range is a grape from

>>California bought at a local co-op! Probably the same brand

>that's available

>>in supermarkets. That's not to say that supermarket produce is generally

>>higher brix than local organic farms, but does point out that

>LOCAL organic

>>is also no guarantee of quality. Probably especially in places

>like here in

>>the Northeast where our soils are so bad. Again, I'm not arguing that

>>monocrops from agribiz is even remotely decent. But since I'm paying a

>>premium price for local organic produce, it would be nice if the items I'm

>>purchasing were remotely decent, rather than coming out at 4 brix

>or lower.

>>What the heck am I paying for? Lack of chemicals, I guess.

>

>suze:

>that's exactly it: there is no High Brix Store where you can go buy high

>brix stuff. so if the only option is a 4 brix broccoli, then isn't it far

>better to have a chemical-free 4 brix broccoli?

I think " far " better is stretching it. Neither one is giving me what I need.

I'd rather continue searching for a producer who doesn't settle for

producing such poor foods. The chemicals won't be an issue once the brix is

taken care of. Aside from that, I don't think that the ONLY choices are low

brix with chemicals or low brix without chemicals. I think with enough

effort it's possible to identify better quality foods, organic or not. And

that is and has been my goal since obtaining the refractometer. That is, in

fact, the whole point of having one as a consumer. If all we had available

were low brix food (with or without chemicals) there is absolutely no reason

to have a refractometer (as a consumer).

>and secondly, who is going to grow food for this High Brix Store?

It is not necessary to have a " high brix store " when you have a

refractometer. That is the reason for having one. I am testing samples from

several local farms in search of ones that produce higher brix foods.

Unfortunately, the one farm that I suspect would have higher brix readings

than the others, is no longer in operation. But I'll keep testing others

till I know which produces more nutritious food.

>you can't

>convince a monsanto farmer to care about brix, but an organic farmer is

>already moving in that direction. you can walk up to any organic

>farmer and

>say " hey, check out my refractometer - it helps you tell how good your

>stuff is and how healthy your soil is " and to a wo/man each one

>will ask to

>borrow the damn thing.

that hasn't been my experience so far. I've had only one organic farmer ask

me to take readings of some tomato samples. Not to say that's typical of all

organic farmers, but they're definitely not lining up in droves around here

to borrow my refractometer. I DO however think they are a more receptive

crowd than the monsantos of the world, but that's fairly obvious. Maybe some

of the local NON organic farmers will be receptive too - I haven't chatted

with any yet.

so sure, organics is not perfect, but it's a tool,

>and it's something. you can't hang your hat on something that doesn't yet

>exist,

But they DO exist. It's a matter or *finding* them. But yes, if we don't

KNOW where they are or have access to them, IF indeed organic farmers are

moving toward high fertility soil, then that is certainly a good thing. But

there ARE high brix producers out there.

so i'll take what's here and try to make it better. and maybe my

>neighbor only has 4 brix broccoli today, but next year it's likely

>to be 5,

>and there's value in that.

It's still below " poor " on the brix scale. There will be real value in it

when it gets to be around 10, which is " good " . So it could take 6 years at

the rate of 1 brix improvement per year. IF they keep increasing it, then

it's true that in 6 years the results will indeed be valuable.

>by the way, some of the federal organic standard evilness didn't actually

>come to fruition in the 11th hour. i'm sure you'll want a reference for

>that and i have it with some digging, but not right now cause i'm supposed

>to be working. regardless, even with the evilness, at least in vermont,

>it's still entirely worthwhile if for nothing else than the educational

>medium.

But, as said before, when I pay a premium price for organic food I

don't want to be paying for education that I may or may not agree with. I

want to be paying for the *food*.

the organic label isn't meant to absolve people of the

>responsibility of food selection, it just provides a baseline. so until

>there's a High Brix Store, i'm glad for what we've got.

Right, it definitely shouldn't absolve people of the responsibility of food

selection. However, I think may people are selecting organic because, by and

large, it claims to be *better* than conventional produced foods leading

consumers to believe they are getting a more nutritious product. If organic

advertising were honest, it would just say that it's got less chemicals. But

then consumers might think twice about paying a premium price if they knew

that!

Anyway, I'm not saying that what you are doing with NOFA is worthless

whatsoever. IF NOFA and other state or even better - private certifying

bodies (don't count on the Feds for this) get farmers at least interested in

soil fertility and nutritional quality, even if their methods don't work,

perhaps those farmers will keep digging deeper until they find a method that

does work such as Albrecht's and Reams'.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics