From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: government organic food purchase
Date: 7 Nov 92 11:36:19 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <224400111@peg.pegasus.oz.au>, acampbell@peg.pegasus.oz.au writes:
> 
> 
> GREEN ISSUE?
> 
> Food certified as organic ie produced without any artificial
> fertilisers, herbicides, or pesticides and processed in an
> appropriate way is moving slowly but surely from being the concern
> of a minority to the mainstream.
> 
> This trend seems positive as certified organic food production
> encourages sustainable use of resources.
> 
> A shift by Australia to an all organic agriculture would possibly
> have the following affects.
> 
> 1.A massive reduction in asthma, skin disease, immune deficiency
> problems etc.
> 2.A reduction in blue algae pollution.
> 3.Elimination of the foreign currency spent on imports of various
> chemicals and fertilisers.
> 4.Either elimination of imports of food or a change by foreign
> farmers to organic production.
> 5.A massive increase in the acceptability of Australian exports of
> food particularly to Europe.
> 6. A massive rise in local employment.
> 
> i.e. healthier people, a healthier environment and wealthier to
> boot.( it might even be wise as well )
> 
> It seems to me that if all levels of government in this country
> were to take the lead and insist that where at all practical they
> would buy organic only that the present trend to organics would
> receive a massive boost.
> 
> It also seems to me to be not a bad political issue. Local
> employment up, imports down, exports up, foreign debt reduced, and
> a healthier environment and population.
> 
> Of course there would be a large and loud scream from various
> powerful interest groups but the claim that it can not be done is
> untrue. There are many successful organic farmers in this country
> and overseas and they are represented by articulate organisations.
> e.g. Biological Farmers of Australia
> 
> Does anyone out there think it is a worthwhile issue to take up
> with an aim of achieving this change to the extent of a stated
> political intention within say three years?
>
It would be an outstanding issue on which to take a firm stand and
push the politicians to the wall.  You're right...there are nothing
but benefits involved.  I've worked the other side of the street
on this one as I used to help design agri-chemical projects when
I was employed as a chemical engineer.  We are doing nothing but
making hard-pan out of good top-soil as we poison it with excessive
doses of nitrate fertilizers and pesticides.  Runoff is meanwhile
doing great damage to our waterways and lakes.  And our health is
suffering from eating the great-looking vitamin-poor pesticide-
soaked food.

Now we in the United States are fixing to take more of our food
supply out of Mexico which uses more toxins on vegetables than
allowed in this country.

I don't know how realistic a three year goal is but certainly
a worthwhile start could be made within that time.  In the US
energy companies control a lot of the nitrate fertilizer industry
and even some of the phosphate industry.  They don't roll over
and play dead easily, but I am convinced that the long term
economics are in favor of organic food, particularly when the
life of the soil and health effects are taken into consideration.
A lot of people would prefer life in a rural setting over living
in the shadow of a big-city smokestack and I would think such
a trend would be a tremendous stimulous to the economy.

Good luck to you guys down under on this.  Lead the way and show
us how!