A Farm by Any Other Name . . .

Here’s a question. If you bought a pickled cucumber from Marge’s Farm at the farmers’ market and it made you sick, would you need to sift through a mound of paperwork to find out where that pickle came from? Not so much. But if the pickle that made you sick came from a jar on a supermarket shelf, you (or more accurately, others) would be grateful that the paper trail existed, so that source of bum pickles could be singled out before it caused harm to others. Two completely different scenarios, right? Not, right now anyway, according to the Food Safety Enhancement Act just passed by the House.

barn-post

This bill embodies both great opportunity (to improve food safety in a largely industrialized food system) and great threat (to quash the burgeoning small and organic farm movement in America), and I could write at length about any number of issues on either side of the coin. Right now, though, I’d like to focus in one aspect that I feel must be addressed not just in this bill, but in the way we view agriculture in America: specifically, that there is a fundamental difference in the way small—particularly organic—farms function and the way large, industrial outfits do.

One takes a long-term view with the goal of creating a healthy ecosystem. The farmer is continually observing, experimenting and adapting to foster the health of his land. It’s an inherently intimate relationship. The other depends largely upon efficiencies: soil amendments to boost short-term production; pesticides and herbicides to kill weeds and pests with minimal labor and cost; seeds that are engineered to increase yield. It, by contrast, is an inherently impersonal relationship.

Now I’m not arguing that all agriculture should be one way or the other; in the world we live in, there’s a need for some form of both. I’m simply saying that the first step to creating legislation that truly protects our food supply—all aspects of it—needs to acknowledge that there are some major differences between small and large.

The good news is, lawmakers are willing to address concerns about the bill before it goes before the Senate this fall. So stay tuned on NOURISH Evolution to learn more about the issues and how to make your voice heard.

Share!

6 Replies to “A Farm by Any Other Name . . .”

  1. Pingback: A Farm by Any Other Name . . . | health

  2. http://www.dailyblender.com/?p=1582

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/29/organic-food-nutrition-fsa

    “Organic food is no healthier and provides no significant nutritional benefit compared with conventionally produced food, according to a new, independent study. . .”

    “We are neither anti or pro organic food. We recognise there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns. We specifically checked claims that organic food is better for you.

    “This study does not mean people should not eat organic food. What it shows is that there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and there is not evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.”

    When asked whether consumers had been misled over the benefits of organic food, she said: “If they are buying organic on the basis that it is healthier, then that is not the case.”.. . . . .

    Hi Lia – coming from a farm family, we’ve been concerned about the lack of knowledge to the public about some aspects of organic foods – the added expense, etc. The science behind the pesticide/herbicide issues are also of concern – SOME of it is scare tactics. steph

  3. Steph . . . Awesome, thank you for both the link and your viewpoint. This is a charged topic and my hope is to get many voices involved so we can all broaden our perspectives. You have an “insider’s view,” so to speak, to one of the aspects and I look forward to hearing more from you on it. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*