Re: Holy Organic was: sources for middle TN -Katja

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:43:23 -0400

katja <katja@...> wrote:

> as a farmer (and an organic farmer at that) i may be biased, but i'm going

> to have to disagree heartily with this.

> first off, certified or not, organic food costs more.

Maybe so but then again maybe not. I have purchased some very fine

produce that was organic for all intents and purposes (but not certified) for

a reasonable price.

Nevertheless, my point was that organic certification unnecessarily

raises the cost of produce, regardless of what that original price might

have been. Whatever the original price, it will be more expensive than

the non-certified organic produce, *if* the market will bear a price

increase to the consumer. Otherwise the producer will have to eat the

cost (yes it is a common economic fallacy to believe that all price

increases to the producer can automatically be passed on to the consumer.

It all depends).

>getting the

> certification allows you to recoup your costs better.

How is that? By allowing you to charge a higher price than you otherwise

would?

> also, getting the certification counts for more than just the label: it

> funds education and legislation, among other things. even farmer technical

> support! and while i am not a big fan of legislation, it's the system we

> have, so ya know. we do what we can.

Education from and for whom? I personally want to just pay for food, not

not some certifying body's educational program that I may or may not

agree with.

The reason we have national organic standards in the first place is that

the organic food industry went to the federal gov't and asked them to

create standards. And now they are complaining and moaning about the

results. Talk about naive in terms of how the gov't operates.

> certainly not all organic food is equally swank, and i've even heard of

> farmers cheating, but you can't dis the whole movement for that.

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.

The organic label tells us nothing more than what is *not* in the food.

It doesn't tell us one iota about what is *in* the food. It is no

guarantee of quality nutrition. If I'm going to pay premium prices (let

alone fund educational efforts), I want it to be for high quality

produce. The organic label guarantees no such thing.

Below my signature you will find a previous post that accurately sums up

my thoughts on the whole subject.

The *New* Ten Commandments

http://tinyurl.com/245sr

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

" Standard Brix levels have been worked out for most crops, ranging from

" Poor "   at around 5% to " Excellent " at 10% +. "  

" It's common with monoculture produce to have Brix values as low as 3%,

compared with organic produce invariably at 10% or higher. "

=====================================

Statements like the above make me cringe. Does anyone here want to go with

me to the local Holy Organic store and take a few brix readings? My

experience has been that Holy Organic produce RARELY measures " 10% or

higher. "

I love when Chi comes on this newsgroup now and then to point out that [my

paraphrase] " It ain't so much anything toxic put on your food as the

everyday lack of true nutrition built in that will hurt you in the long

run. "

Does that mean I condone pesticides? Hell, no! What I am against is food

of such poor quality that it requires pesticides to save it from Nature's

clean up crew long enough for it to be harvested. It's really absurd to

think that our ordinary agriculture rescues lousy quality food and then

expects such trash to support building of healthy human bodies.

What I support is the growing of food so healthy that pesticides are simply

not needed. I want food that will not rot, but that will easily digest. I

want to see an agriculture that stops using pesticides mainly because there

is no need to waste money on them and the poisonous junk then sits unsold

on the toxic chemical companys' shelves. Trying to play pesticide police

by demanding Holy Organic is a waste of energy.

I have repeatedly posted Dr. Andersen's findings that high-brix food grown

in toxic-laden soil will have LESS pesticide than low-brix Holy Organic

food grown in pristine pesticide-free soil. All living things have the

power of selective absorption. Heck, life would never have started without

that power. A simple illustration is when, say, we need calcium in our

bodies. Our organism will work overtime to recover calcium from whatever

is passing through us. If the food is calcium-rich, the job is easy and

the organism goes on to other tasks. However, if there is a calcium

shortage, the organism may struggle and end up using varying amounts of

some other substance in calcium's place.

The above is a classic case of where toxic substances and poor-quality

substituted building materials get in the door. This is why so many

American children of today need braces: there wasn't enough calcium to fill

out their jaw wide enough to have space for the genetically-sized teeth. I

suggest you watch those same children shy away from football because their

under-built bones hate impact with kids who have stronger calcium-rich

skeletons.

It works about the same way with plants. Give them what they need and they

will increase their brix. Cheat them of that and they will take in what

they really shouldn't. Low brix is the result and increased toxicity comes

right along with that.

It's simple in my mind: quit worrying whether something is Holy Organic and

concentrate instead on whether it has any nutrition or not. A brixmeter is

mighty handy for that.

And then again maybe I'm just an insane man raving out here in the land

Wilderness.

Regards,

Rex Harrill

[Guest guest]

At 02:53 AM 7/3/2004, you wrote:

>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.

>

>The organic label tells us nothing more than what is *not* in the food.

>It doesn't tell us one iota about what is *in* the food. It is no

>guarantee of quality nutrition. If I'm going to pay premium prices (let

>alone fund educational efforts), I want it to be for high quality

>produce. The organic label guarantees no such thing.

wow, michael - your arguments fail logic.

just because the organic label doesn't promise that the food is up to all

of your standards, (which i'm not disputing - you still need to have a

brain) doesn't mean that organic food doesn't cost more to produce. and

further more, if a farmer incurs X cost to produce something, and you claim

he shouldn't be able to pass that along to the consumer, exactly how do you

expect a farmer to make a living? you have a lot of theoretical ideas about

economics and that's great, but when farmers are folding because they can't

make a living wage, well they can't eat your ideas. and when that happens,

then you'll only be able to purchase from big producers.

arg, and not only that, but your argument that you've purchased " good food "

at a " reasonable price " (which you imply is because it wasn't organic) is

completely useless! you may or may not think that any given item is

reasonably priced, but what you imply is that all organic producers are

price gouging, merely because you don't think the price is reasonable.

trust me, the 350 that i pay a year is the truly smallest part of any cost

i incur. i spend more than that on...on...ohmigod, i just can't even get

over this thing you're passing off as logic! having the organic label means

that if i tell a customer my beef was raised on pasture and was not ever

given antibiotics or doused in pesticide, they can believe it, because

someone was paid to come and make sure i didn't do that. and all the

records were kept and all the way down the line, we know everything about

that cow. i just can't believe that you don't think it's reasonable to pay

for that.

no one owes us cheap food, michael.

-katja

[Guest guest]

comments imbedded below

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 08:42:38 -0400

katja <katja@...> wrote:

> At 02:53 AM 7/3/2004, you wrote:

> >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.

> >

> >The organic label tells us nothing more than what is *not* in the food.

> >It doesn't tell us one iota about what is *in* the food. It is no

> >guarantee of quality nutrition. If I'm going to pay premium prices (let

> >alone fund educational efforts), I want it to be for high quality

> >produce. The organic label guarantees no such thing.

>

> wow, michael - your arguments fail logic.

>

> just because the organic label doesn't promise that the food is up to all

> of your standards, (which i'm not disputing - you still need to have a

> brain) doesn't mean that organic food doesn't cost more to produce.

Here is what I said:

" Nevertheless, my point was that organic certification unnecessarily

raises the cost of produce, regardless of what that original price might

have been. Whatever the original price, it will be more expensive than

the non-certified organic produce... "

If you will read that closely you will notice that I didn't address the

issue of whether or not organic produce is more expensive. My point is,

even if it is more expensive, certification *raises* the price in most

instances.

So you are arguing with a straw man of your own making. You are

interacting with and tearing down something I never said.

and

> further more, if a farmer incurs X cost to produce something, and you claim

> he shouldn't be able to pass that along to the consumer, exactly how do you

> expect a farmer to make a living?

Ummm...I didn't claim that a farmer shouldn't be able to pass on the

cost to the consumer. What I did say is that it is not always automatic

that added costs can be passed on. In such cases, the producer of the

good or provider of the service must eat the cost. I'm not sure where

you got this idea that I said they shouldn't pass it on, only that

sometimes they couldn't. My words again:

" Nevertheless, my point was that organic certification unnecessarily

raises the cost of produce, regardless of what that original price might

have been. Whatever the original price, it will be more expensive than

the non-certified organic produce, *if* the market will bear a price

increase to the consumer. Otherwise the producer will have to eat the

cost. "

Notice the second part of the next to last sentence, " if the market will

bear a price increase to the consumer. " That has nothing to do with me

or what I think should or should not happen. Unless I'm a gov't

bureaucrat, what I think should or should not happen in any given market

transaction is irrelevant. I'm just pointing out a reality of the

marketplace. If the consumer doesn't want to spend more money on any

given product or service, then it will be impossible to pass on any

increased costs. I fail to see how that fails logic.

Let me put it another way. If I run XYZ hotel, and some regulating body

in my area does something that raises the cost of me providing hotel

service, it is not axiomatic that I can pass on such cost to those who

consume hotel services.

In fact, if the market will only bear a given price of say $56, and the

increased cost to me means that I have to raise the price to $60 in

order to keep my same level of profit, and yet people are unwilling to

pay $60 for my hotel services, then I have one of two choices:

1. Eat the cost and get a lower profit or

2. Raise the cost and go out of business because no one is willing to

pay for service at that price.

There is no way to get around that.

you have a lot of theoretical ideas about

> economics and that's great, but when farmers are folding because they can't

> make a living wage, well they can't eat your ideas. and when that happens,

> then you'll only be able to purchase from big producers.

Katja, that is not an argument you are making, but a fallacious appeal

to emotion which has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

And while you might be of the school of thought that economics is just

a bunch of theoretical ideas, subject to one's own personal preference,

I hold to no such thinking.

The laws of economics are just as sure as the laws of biology and

physics, whether one is aware of them or not. If someone jumps off a

twenty story building, they don't break the law of gravity, they confirm

it.

That was just as true before the discovery of gravity as it was after

the discovery of gravity. In other words, economic laws work

independently of us, whether or not we are aware of them or believe in

them.

" The laws of the universe about which physics, biology, and praxeology

(essentially economics) provide knowledge are independent of the human

will, they are primary ontological facts rigidly restricting man's power

to act...

" Only the insane venture to disregard physical and biological laws. But

it is quite common to disdain economic laws. Rulers do not like to admit

that their power is restricted by any laws other than those of physics

and biology. They never ascribe their failures and frustrations to the

violation of economic law "

Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action, page 67.

> arg, and not only that, but your argument that you've purchased " good food "

> at a " reasonable price " (which you imply is because it wasn't organic) is

> completely useless!

No, I didn't imply that the food was priced reasonably because it wasn't

organic, I said it was priced reasonably because it wasn't *certified.*

The farmer was even quoted in the local COOP newspaper as saying the

reason he wasn't certified organic was because the process of

certification was expensive, and he would have to charge higher prices

if he went through it.

What I *did* say, rather directly and not by implication, was that for

all intents and purposes it *was* organic. but lest you think I'm

fudging, below are my *exact* words:

" I have purchased some very fine produce that was organic for all

intents and purposes (but not certified) for a reasonable price. "

you may or may not think that any given item is

> reasonably priced, but what you imply is that all organic producers are

> price gouging, merely because you don't think the price is reasonable.

No I'm not implying that at all. See above where I talk about this issue

of passing on costs. If an organic producer can get a higher price for

their produce, more power to them. But I'm not paying for something just

because it is organically certified under the assumption that means

anything of value to me.

Also, I don't believe there is such a thing as price gouging anyway, so,

at least in respect to me, its a moot point.

> trust me, the 350 that i pay a year is the truly smallest part of any cost

> i incur. i spend more than that on...on...ohmigod, i just can't even get

> over this thing you're passing off as logic! having the organic label means

> that if i tell a customer my beef was raised on pasture and was not ever

> given antibiotics or doused in pesticide, they can believe it, because

> someone was paid to come and make sure i didn't do that. and all the

> records were kept and all the way down the line, we know everything about

> that cow. i just can't believe that you don't think it's reasonable to pay

> for that.

No I don't. I think it is reasonable to pay for nutritious food, cheap

or not. And if everything an organic producer goes through fails to meet

that goal, then I think it unreasonable to pay for such fare.

And your litany above about what you do as an organic farmer only proves

my point. Organic doesn't tell us whether or not our food is

*nutritious*, only what isn't in it. Optimally nutritious food will be

devoid of the bad things. But organic food, which is " presumably " devoid

of bad things, is by no means necessarily nutritious. It fact, most

likely it is not optimally nutritious.

>

> no one owes us cheap food, michael.

Indeed. And I never said they did.

War, the God That Failed

http://tinyurl.com/2npch

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

>Here is what I said:

>

> " Nevertheless, my point was that organic certification unnecessarily

>raises the cost of produce, regardless of what that original price might

>have been. Whatever the original price, it will be more expensive than

>the non-certified organic produce... "

>

>If you will read that closely you will notice that I didn't address the

>issue of whether or not organic produce is more expensive. My point is,

>even if it is more expensive, certification *raises* the price in most

>instances.

>

>So you are arguing with a straw man of your own making. You are

>interacting with and tearing down something I never said.

no, i am disagreeing. i don't believe that paying $350 per year to be

certified is what is raising the price of the produce. it's the work of

producing the [meat/eggs/milk/veggies] is what raises the price, regardless

of whether the product is certified.

>and

> > further more, if a farmer incurs X cost to produce something, and you

> claim

> > he shouldn't be able to pass that along to the consumer, exactly how do

> you

> > expect a farmer to make a living?

>

>Ummm...I didn't claim that a farmer shouldn't be able to pass on the

>cost to the consumer. What I did say is that it is not always automatic

>that added costs can be passed on. In such cases, the producer of the

>good or provider of the service must eat the cost. I'm not sure where

>you got this idea that I said they shouldn't pass it on, only that

>sometimes they couldn't. My words again:

>

> " Nevertheless, my point was that organic certification unnecessarily

>raises the cost of produce, regardless of what that original price might

>have been. Whatever the original price, it will be more expensive than

>the non-certified organic produce, *if* the market will bear a price

>increase to the consumer. Otherwise the producer will have to eat the

>cost. "

>

>Notice the second part of the next to last sentence, " if the market will

>bear a price increase to the consumer. " That has nothing to do with me

>or what I think should or should not happen. Unless I'm a gov't

>bureaucrat, what I think should or should not happen in any given market

>transaction is irrelevant. I'm just pointing out a reality of the

>marketplace. If the consumer doesn't want to spend more money on any

>given product or service, then it will be impossible to pass on any

>increased costs. I fail to see how that fails logic.

>

>Let me put it another way. If I run XYZ hotel, and some regulating body

>in my area does something that raises the cost of me providing hotel

>service, it is not axiomatic that I can pass on such cost to those who

>consume hotel services.

>

>In fact, if the market will only bear a given price of say $56, and the

>increased cost to me means that I have to raise the price to $60 in

>order to keep my same level of profit, and yet people are unwilling to

>pay $60 for my hotel services, then I have one of two choices:

>

>1. Eat the cost and get a lower profit or

>2. Raise the cost and go out of business because no one is willing to

>pay for service at that price.

>

>There is no way to get around that.

except that you're taking the luxury of arguing in a theoretical world, or

at the very least, a farm is not an hotel. in the real world of food

production, the implications of this are that the only place you will have

left to buy your food will be from large conglomerates. which may be fine

for you, but not for me.

>you have a lot of theoretical ideas about

> > economics and that's great, but when farmers are folding because they

> can't

> > make a living wage, well they can't eat your ideas. and when that happens,

> > then you'll only be able to purchase from big producers.

>

>Katja, that is not an argument you are making, but a fallacious appeal

>to emotion which has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

also not true. i may have been making an argument poorly, but the fact is

that farmers are going out of business every day, and some of them are my

neighbors. and the reason is that they can't make a living wage because

people don't think food is valuable.

> " Only the insane venture to disregard physical and biological laws. But

>it is quite common to disdain economic laws. Rulers do not like to admit

>that their power is restricted by any laws other than those of physics

>and biology. They never ascribe their failures and frustrations to the

>violation of economic law "

>

>Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action, page 67.

that's fine. but if you don't have money, you don't eat. and i'm not really

certain that economic laws weren't made up by men with money.

regardless, that's not what's at issue.

> > arg, and not only that, but your argument that you've purchased " good

> food "

> > at a " reasonable price " (which you imply is because it wasn't organic) is

> > completely useless!

>

>No, I didn't imply that the food was priced reasonably because it wasn't

>organic, I said it was priced reasonably because it wasn't *certified.*

>The farmer was even quoted in the local COOP newspaper as saying the

>reason he wasn't certified organic was because the process of

>certification was expensive, and he would have to charge higher prices

>if he went through it.

that might be true - i am merely arguing for vermont, where our costs are

quite inexpensive, as i've show. what he might actually mean is that the

process of organic OPERATION is expensive, which is also my point.

>What I *did* say, rather directly and not by implication, was that for

>all intents and purposes it *was* organic. but lest you think I'm

>fudging, below are my *exact* words:

>

> " I have purchased some very fine produce that was organic for all

>intents and purposes (but not certified) for a reasonable price. "

it might be and it might not be, but there's no proof. and like i said,

it's hard to tell if it's the $350 filing fee that's going to raise his

prices, or the costs of actual organic operation, which is what you're

paying for. his definition of " for all intents and purposes " are likely not

mine.

>you may or may not think that any given item is

> > reasonably priced, but what you imply is that all organic producers are

> > price gouging, merely because you don't think the price is reasonable.

>

>No I'm not implying that at all. See above where I talk about this issue

>of passing on costs. If an organic producer can get a higher price for

>their produce, more power to them. But I'm not paying for something just

>because it is organically certified under the assumption that means

>anything of value to me.

>

>Also, I don't believe there is such a thing as price gouging anyway, so,

>at least in respect to me, its a moot point.

>

> > trust me, the 350 that i pay a year is the truly smallest part of any cost

> > i incur. i spend more than that on...on...ohmigod, i just can't even get

> > over this thing you're passing off as logic! having the organic label

> means

> > that if i tell a customer my beef was raised on pasture and was not ever

> > given antibiotics or doused in pesticide, they can believe it, because

> > someone was paid to come and make sure i didn't do that. and all the

> > records were kept and all the way down the line, we know everything about

> > that cow. i just can't believe that you don't think it's reasonable to pay

> > for that.

>

>No I don't. I think it is reasonable to pay for nutritious food, cheap

>or not. And if everything an organic producer goes through fails to meet

>that goal, then I think it unreasonable to pay for such fare.

>

>And your litany above about what you do as an organic farmer only proves

>my point. Organic doesn't tell us whether or not our food is

>*nutritious*, only what isn't in it. Optimally nutritious food will be

>devoid of the bad things. But organic food, which is " presumably " devoid

>of bad things, is by no means necessarily nutritious. It fact, most

>likely it is not optimally nutritious.

but the thing is, nutritious food is about what IS in food and what ISN'T

in food - not just one or the other. so if you show me a convenional dairy

with high-brix milk, that's great, but it also has antibiotics and

pesticides. and if you show me organic dairy with low-brix milk, well, i'm

glad there's no chemicals but the milk still sucks.

so one benefit of having an organic certification is that you can guarantee

there's not chemicals. beyond that it's about individual products - you

know what's not in it, so now you can find out what IS in it.

-katja

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 16:52:15 -0400

katja <katja@...> wrote:

> no, i am disagreeing. i don't believe that paying $350 per year to be

> certified is what is raising the price of the produce. it's the work of

> producing the [meat/eggs/milk/veggies] is what raises the price, regardless

> of whether the product is certified.

>

Okay let me try another way to explain this. Lets say your organic

produce is $500 a pound. I think we would both agree that is expensive.

Lets say the conventional produce is $50 a pound. In either instance, if

the regulatory costs go up, the organic produce *and* the conventional

produce will go up in price, *if* the consumer is willing to pay the

higher price. If not the price remains the same, assumming the producer

wants to sell his stuff.

The point is that certifying authorities which pass regulations that

businesses must adhere to, impose a cost of doing business, no matter if

you are a farmer, hotel owner, pimp or prostitute for that matter. That

is simply a mathematical equation that no one can get around.

Perhaps we are talking about two different things. I think you are

talking about conventional produce versus organic produce, and trying to

argue as to why organic produce is typically more expensive. I'm not

arguing that at all. I'm simply stating a fundamental fact. In most

instances, " regulatory " compliance raises the cost of anything,

including food. And that organic produce is not in and of itself worthy

of anyone's extra dollars.

If the only burden and impact on you is $350 dollars, and that allows

you to fetch higher prices as a result, sounds like a great deal. But

that isn't the case in most parts of the country. And probably isn't

really true of you either, as the organic farming process does *not*

automatically

raise nutrition, while it often *does* (as you have pointed out

repeatedly) increase the cost of production.

> >Let me put it another way. If I run XYZ hotel, and some regulating body

> >in my area does something that raises the cost of me providing hotel

> >service, it is not axiomatic that I can pass on such cost to those who

> >consume hotel services.

> >

> >In fact, if the market will only bear a given price of say $56, and the

> >increased cost to me means that I have to raise the price to $60 in

> >order to keep my same level of profit, and yet people are unwilling to

> >pay $60 for my hotel services, then I have one of two choices:

> >

> >1. Eat the cost and get a lower profit or

> >2. Raise the cost and go out of business because no one is willing to

> >pay for service at that price.

> >

> >There is no way to get around that.

>

> except that you're taking the luxury of arguing in a theoretical world, or

> at the very least, a farm is not an hotel.

It is not a theorectical world unfortunately. I was using an example

that came immediately to mind. I could have just as easily put " farmer "

in the place of " hotel " and it wouldn't affect the argument whatsover.

A farm is not a hotel. And a wine shop is not a taxi cab company. And a

repair shop is not graphics design business. But if they all want to

make a profit and stay solvent, then revenue better outrun expenses, or

they won't be around for very long. That is because , while they are

different types of businesses, they are *all* businesses, subject to the

laws of economics. Just like I'm not you and you are not me, but the law

of gravity will treat us both the same should we jump out of that twenty

story building.

That is one of those pesky little realities of economics that is

difficult to get around.

> in the real world of food

> production, the implications of this are that the only place you will have

> left to buy your food will be from large conglomerates. which may be fine

> for you, but not for me.

Forgive me if I don't share your pessimism. One of the implications of

what I said above is that it would be better to get these

quasi-governmental (or governmental) regulatory bodies out of the way so

good nutritious food can be had by all, if they so choose.

The other implication is that if regulation is expensive enough it could

force people who can't readily absorb the cost (or pass it on to the

consumer) to go out of business. That is usually more true of the

smaller producer than it is of the larger producer. Thus, as a general

principle, the huge regulatory maze that exists in just about every

aspect of the food industry (and is quite breathtaking when examined up

close) becomes a tool by which the big conglomerates can keep the little

guy off the playing field.

Nothing I said cahnges or makes worse that reality. I'm just simply

pointing out what in fact happens in the marketplace.

> >you have a lot of theoretical ideas about

> > > economics and that's great, but when farmers are folding because they

> > can't

> > > make a living wage, well they can't eat your ideas. and when that happens,

> > > then you'll only be able to purchase from big producers.

> >

> >Katja, that is not an argument you are making, but a fallacious appeal

> >to emotion which has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

>

> also not true. i may have been making an argument poorly, but the fact is

> that farmers are going out of business every day, and some of them are my

> neighbors. and the reason is that they can't make a living wage because

> people don't think food is valuable.

It is very true. That might in fact be the case, and it is sad, but it

is not the subject of *this* discussion.

And yes people *do* think food is valuable, just maybe not your

neighbor's particular food. But the answer to that is not throwing on

the organic label, pretending that it is something which it isn't, and

hoping that helps farmers by helping them to recoup their costs.

And if I am reading you correctly, it is not working anyway, since they

(your neighbors) can't seem to make a living wage.

> > " Only the insane venture to disregard physical and biological laws. But

> >it is quite common to disdain economic laws. Rulers do not like to admit

> >that their power is restricted by any laws other than those of physics

> >and biology. They never ascribe their failures and frustrations to the

> >violation of economic law "

> >

> >Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action, page 67.

>

> that's fine. but if you don't have money, you don't eat.

If you think your business is unique from any other other business, just

because you are a farmer and Marriot is a hotel owner, you will soon be

out of business. And as you say, if you don't have money, you don't eat.

> and i'm not really

> certain that economic laws weren't made up by men with money.

> regardless, that's not what's at issue.

That is *the* issue. And probably indicates why this discussion is going

nowhere fast.

> >No, I didn't imply that the food was priced reasonably because it wasn't

> >organic, I said it was priced reasonably because it wasn't *certified.*

> >The farmer was even quoted in the local COOP newspaper as saying the

> >reason he wasn't certified organic was because the process of

> >certification was expensive, and he would have to charge higher prices

> >if he went through it.

>

> that might be true - i am merely arguing for vermont, where our costs are

> quite inexpensive, as i've show. what he might actually mean is that the

> process of organic OPERATION is expensive, which is also my point.

But that wasn't *my* point, and you were responding to me, not

vice-versa, so its not germane to what we are talking about.

> >What I *did* say, rather directly and not by implication, was that for

> >all intents and purposes it *was* organic. but lest you think I'm

> >fudging, below are my *exact* words:

> >

> > " I have purchased some very fine produce that was organic for all

> >intents and purposes (but not certified) for a reasonable price. "

>

> it might be and it might not be, but there's no proof.

Huh? And there is proof that certified organic is better? Well I'm all

ears. Lay it on me.

I *know* what I bought, and I knew his biodynamic methods and his

produce was far better than anyone else in the area, most who had the

imprimateur of " Holy Organic. "

By the way, that is one of the nice things about the brixmeter, it gives

us another tool by which we can know what we are getting, rather than

listening to or believing the hype.

>and like i said,

> it's hard to tell if it's the $350 filing fee that's going to raise his

> prices, or the costs of actual organic operation, which is what you're

> paying for. his definition of " for all intents and purposes " are likely not

> mine.

First it is not hard to tell the impact of regulation on prices. It is

easily demonstrated with any product or service. Anyone who wants to

stay in business (which means maintaining a sufficient profit margin)

will attempt to pass the costs of regulation on to the consumer. Whether

that is successful or not depends on the market.

And private volunatry regualtion of this nature can be a very good thing

(not the federal regualtions which have simply destroyed what little

credibility " organic " had left, IMO).

My real beef with " organic " is not that it raises prices, but that it

decieves people into believing they are getting something more than what

they are actually getting.

Second, no doubt his definition of good food is different than yours if

you follow the organic standards. He thought such standards were bunk,

and with the intervention of the federal gov't only serve to water down

what is really needed for good food and allows inferior produce to

enter the marketplace and in many instances command a higher price

because it is labeled " organic. " .

By the way, nor is automatic that organic produce necessarily costs more

to produce. That too depends on a number of factors.

> but the thing is, nutritious food is about what IS in food and what ISN'T

> in food - not just one or the other.

Right, but *organic* doesn't tell me what *is* in the food (although it

implies it), and in the end, that is what I am paying for. Most people

assume that organic means higher quality which means more nutritious,

which is *not* true, not even *most* of the time.

Keeping out bad things doesn't guarantee quality. Raising for good

things however does, because by doing so it keeps the bad things out.

Foods grown in extremely fertile soil do not take up bad things whether

or not they are organic. The reverse is not true of organic food, not by

a longshot.

" Organic " has become a synonym for high quality/high nutrition. It is

totally unworthy of that apellation. Weston Price talked specifically

about how to have high quality food. None of what he said or pointed to is

incorporated into the organic motif in more than a cursory way.

>so if you show me a convenional dairy

> with high-brix milk, that's great, but it also has antibiotics and

> pesticides. and if you show me organic dairy with low-brix milk, well, i'm

> glad there's no chemicals but the milk still sucks.

> so one benefit of having an organic certification is that you can guarantee

> there's not chemicals. beyond that it's about individual products - you

> know what's not in it, so now you can find out what IS in it.

" Modern " conventional dairies by definition don't have high brix milk,

so its not a valid point. Just about all organic dairy is low brix, so

both the conventional and organic dairies suck.

High brix foods do not take up lots of bad toxins. So why should I pay

for organic produce to guarantee there is no " chemicals " when what I'm

really after is highly nutritious foods which lack those toxins anyway?

Besides, organic is *not* a guarantee of a lack of toxins. Here is an

excerpt from my original post:

" I have repeatedly posted Dr. Andersen's findings that high-brix food

grown in toxic-laden soil will have LESS pesticide than low-brix Holy Organic

food grown in pristine pesticide-free soil. "

The upshot of it all is that it is about individual products *period*.

If some people want to spend their money just buying organics thinking

it is buying them quality food, IMO, they are sadly mistaken.

War, the God That Failed

http://tinyurl.com/2npch

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

i have to admit, michael, that i'm not even reading this whole post. i

tried, but i just can't.

you so clearly are not arguing in the same world i am, and we will never

come to an end with this, so i'm not going to bother.

-katja, top-posting because oh good gods, i can't possibly wade through all

this muck.

At 07:30 PM 7/3/2004, you wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 16:52:15 -0400

>katja <katja@...> wrote:

>

> > no, i am disagreeing. i don't believe that paying $350 per year to be

> > certified is what is raising the price of the produce. it's the work of

> > producing the [meat/eggs/milk/veggies] is what raises the price,

> regardless

> > of whether the product is certified.

> >

>

>Okay let me try another way to explain this. Lets say your organic

>produce is $500 a pound. I think we would both agree that is expensive.

>Lets say the conventional produce is $50 a pound. In either instance, if

>the regulatory costs go up, the organic produce *and* the conventional

>produce will go up in price, *if* the consumer is willing to pay the

>higher price. If not the price remains the same, assumming the producer

>wants to sell his stuff.

>

>The point is that certifying authorities which pass regulations that

>businesses must adhere to, impose a cost of doing business, no matter if

>you are a farmer, hotel owner, pimp or prostitute for that matter. That

>is simply a mathematical equation that no one can get around.

>

>Perhaps we are talking about two different things. I think you are

>talking about conventional produce versus organic produce, and trying to

>argue as to why organic produce is typically more expensive. I'm not

>arguing that at all. I'm simply stating a fundamental fact. In most

>instances, " regulatory " compliance raises the cost of anything,

>including food. And that organic produce is not in and of itself worthy

>of anyone's extra dollars.

>

>If the only burden and impact on you is $350 dollars, and that allows

>you to fetch higher prices as a result, sounds like a great deal. But

>that isn't the case in most parts of the country. And probably isn't

>really true of you either, as the organic farming process does *not*

>automatically

>raise nutrition, while it often *does* (as you have pointed out

>repeatedly) increase the cost of production.

>

> > >Let me put it another way. If I run XYZ hotel, and some regulating body

> > >in my area does something that raises the cost of me providing hotel

> > >service, it is not axiomatic that I can pass on such cost to those who

> > >consume hotel services.

> > >

> > >In fact, if the market will only bear a given price of say $56, and the

> > >increased cost to me means that I have to raise the price to $60 in

> > >order to keep my same level of profit, and yet people are unwilling to

> > >pay $60 for my hotel services, then I have one of two choices:

> > >

> > >1. Eat the cost and get a lower profit or

> > >2. Raise the cost and go out of business because no one is willing to

> > >pay for service at that price.

> > >

> > >There is no way to get around that.

> >

> > except that you're taking the luxury of arguing in a theoretical world, or

> > at the very least, a farm is not an hotel.

>

>It is not a theorectical world unfortunately. I was using an example

>that came immediately to mind. I could have just as easily put " farmer "

>in the place of " hotel " and it wouldn't affect the argument whatsover.

>

>A farm is not a hotel. And a wine shop is not a taxi cab company. And a

>repair shop is not graphics design business. But if they all want to

>make a profit and stay solvent, then revenue better outrun expenses, or

>they won't be around for very long. That is because , while they are

>different types of businesses, they are *all* businesses, subject to the

>laws of economics. Just like I'm not you and you are not me, but the law

>of gravity will treat us both the same should we jump out of that twenty

>story building.

>

>That is one of those pesky little realities of economics that is

>difficult to get around.

>

> > in the real world of food

> > production, the implications of this are that the only place you will have

> > left to buy your food will be from large conglomerates. which may be fine

> > for you, but not for me.

>

>Forgive me if I don't share your pessimism. One of the implications of

>what I said above is that it would be better to get these

>quasi-governmental (or governmental) regulatory bodies out of the way so

>good nutritious food can be had by all, if they so choose.

>

>The other implication is that if regulation is expensive enough it could

>force people who can't readily absorb the cost (or pass it on to the

>consumer) to go out of business. That is usually more true of the

>smaller producer than it is of the larger producer. Thus, as a general

>principle, the huge regulatory maze that exists in just about every

>aspect of the food industry (and is quite breathtaking when examined up

>close) becomes a tool by which the big conglomerates can keep the little

>guy off the playing field.

>

>Nothing I said cahnges or makes worse that reality. I'm just simply

>pointing out what in fact happens in the marketplace.

>

> > >you have a lot of theoretical ideas about

> > > > economics and that's great, but when farmers are folding because they

> > > can't

> > > > make a living wage, well they can't eat your ideas. and when that

> happens,

> > > > then you'll only be able to purchase from big producers.

> > >

> > >Katja, that is not an argument you are making, but a fallacious appeal

> > >to emotion which has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

> >

> > also not true. i may have been making an argument poorly, but the fact is

> > that farmers are going out of business every day, and some of them are my

> > neighbors. and the reason is that they can't make a living wage because

> > people don't think food is valuable.

>

>It is very true. That might in fact be the case, and it is sad, but it

>is not the subject of *this* discussion.

>

>And yes people *do* think food is valuable, just maybe not your

>neighbor's particular food. But the answer to that is not throwing on

>the organic label, pretending that it is something which it isn't, and

>hoping that helps farmers by helping them to recoup their costs.

>

>And if I am reading you correctly, it is not working anyway, since they

>(your neighbors) can't seem to make a living wage.

>

> > > " Only the insane venture to disregard physical and biological laws. But

> > >it is quite common to disdain economic laws. Rulers do not like to admit

> > >that their power is restricted by any laws other than those of physics

> > >and biology. They never ascribe their failures and frustrations to the

> > >violation of economic law "

> > >

> > >Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action, page 67.

> >

> > that's fine. but if you don't have money, you don't eat.

>

>If you think your business is unique from any other other business, just

>because you are a farmer and Marriot is a hotel owner, you will soon be

>out of business. And as you say, if you don't have money, you don't eat.

>

> > and i'm not really

> > certain that economic laws weren't made up by men with money.

> > regardless, that's not what's at issue.

>

>That is *the* issue. And probably indicates why this discussion is going

>nowhere fast.

>

> > >No, I didn't imply that the food was priced reasonably because it wasn't

> > >organic, I said it was priced reasonably because it wasn't *certified.*

> > >The farmer was even quoted in the local COOP newspaper as saying the

> > >reason he wasn't certified organic was because the process of

> > >certification was expensive, and he would have to charge higher prices

> > >if he went through it.

> >

> > that might be true - i am merely arguing for vermont, where our costs are

> > quite inexpensive, as i've show. what he might actually mean is that the

> > process of organic OPERATION is expensive, which is also my point.

>

>But that wasn't *my* point, and you were responding to me, not

>vice-versa, so its not germane to what we are talking about.

>

> > >What I *did* say, rather directly and not by implication, was that for

> > >all intents and purposes it *was* organic. but lest you think I'm

> > >fudging, below are my *exact* words:

> > >

> > > " I have purchased some very fine produce that was organic for all

> > >intents and purposes (but not certified) for a reasonable price. "

> >

> > it might be and it might not be, but there's no proof.

>

>Huh? And there is proof that certified organic is better? Well I'm all

>ears. Lay it on me.

>

>I *know* what I bought, and I knew his biodynamic methods and his

>produce was far better than anyone else in the area, most who had the

>imprimateur of " Holy Organic. "

>

>By the way, that is one of the nice things about the brixmeter, it gives

>us another tool by which we can know what we are getting, rather than

>listening to or believing the hype.

>

> >and like i said,

> > it's hard to tell if it's the $350 filing fee that's going to raise his

> > prices, or the costs of actual organic operation, which is what you're

> > paying for. his definition of " for all intents and purposes " are likely

> not

> > mine.

>

>First it is not hard to tell the impact of regulation on prices. It is

>easily demonstrated with any product or service. Anyone who wants to

>stay in business (which means maintaining a sufficient profit margin)

>will attempt to pass the costs of regulation on to the consumer. Whether

>that is successful or not depends on the market.

>

>And private volunatry regualtion of this nature can be a very good thing

>(not the federal regualtions which have simply destroyed what little

>credibility " organic " had left, IMO).

>

>My real beef with " organic " is not that it raises prices, but that it

>decieves people into believing they are getting something more than what

>they are actually getting.

>

>Second, no doubt his definition of good food is different than yours if

>you follow the organic standards. He thought such standards were bunk,

>and with the intervention of the federal gov't only serve to water down

>what is really needed for good food and allows inferior produce to

>enter the marketplace and in many instances command a higher price

>because it is labeled " organic. " .

>

>By the way, nor is automatic that organic produce necessarily costs more

>to produce. That too depends on a number of factors.

>

> > but the thing is, nutritious food is about what IS in food and what ISN'T

> > in food - not just one or the other.

>

>Right, but *organic* doesn't tell me what *is* in the food (although it

>implies it), and in the end, that is what I am paying for. Most people

>assume that organic means higher quality which means more nutritious,

>which is *not* true, not even *most* of the time.

>

>Keeping out bad things doesn't guarantee quality. Raising for good

>things however does, because by doing so it keeps the bad things out.

>Foods grown in extremely fertile soil do not take up bad things whether

>or not they are organic. The reverse is not true of organic food, not by

>a longshot.

>

> " Organic " has become a synonym for high quality/high nutrition. It is

>totally unworthy of that apellation. Weston Price talked specifically

>about how to have high quality food. None of what he said or pointed to is

>incorporated into the organic motif in more than a cursory way.

>

> >so if you show me a convenional dairy

> > with high-brix milk, that's great, but it also has antibiotics and

> > pesticides. and if you show me organic dairy with low-brix milk, well, i'm

> > glad there's no chemicals but the milk still sucks.

> > so one benefit of having an organic certification is that you can

> guarantee

> > there's not chemicals. beyond that it's about individual products - you

> > know what's not in it, so now you can find out what IS in it.

>

> " Modern " conventional dairies by definition don't have high brix milk,

>so its not a valid point. Just about all organic dairy is low brix, so

>both the conventional and organic dairies suck.

>

>High brix foods do not take up lots of bad toxins. So why should I pay

>for organic produce to guarantee there is no " chemicals " when what I'm

>really after is highly nutritious foods which lack those toxins anyway?

>

>Besides, organic is *not* a guarantee of a lack of toxins. Here is an

>excerpt from my original post:

>

> " I have repeatedly posted Dr. Andersen's findings that high-brix food

>grown in toxic-laden soil will have LESS pesticide than low-brix Holy Organic

>food grown in pristine pesticide-free soil. "

>

>The upshot of it all is that it is about individual products *period*.

>If some people want to spend their money just buying organics thinking

>it is buying them quality food, IMO, they are sadly mistaken.

>

>

>War, the God That Failed

>http://tinyurl.com/2npch

>

> " They told just the same,

>That just because a tyrant has the might

>By force of arms to murder men downright

>And burn down house and home and leave all flat

>They call the man a captain, just for that.

>But since an outlaw with his little band

>Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

>Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

>He only earns the title of a thief. "

> --Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 20:39:38 -0400

katja <katja@...> wrote:

> i have to admit, michael, that i'm not even reading this whole post. i

> tried, but i just can't.

> you so clearly are not arguing in the same world i am, and we will never

> come to an end with this, so i'm not going to bother.

>

> -katja, top-posting because oh good gods, i can't possibly wade through all

> this muck.

>

Okay then. Your charge of muck will be the last word on the subject.

War, the God That Failed

http://tinyurl.com/2npch

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale