• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Let's be honest.

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Let's be honest.

    There has been more than a little discussion in these threads dealing with the quality of what we produce, and the consumers’ desires and demands.

    To begin with, I’ll lay my cards down. Face up. I am a so-called “conventional” grower. Yes, I want the ‘system cleansed’, as was claimed in a previous discussion. But not cleansed of the Triffid flax’s or the so many other allegedly harmful practices and products that thankfully, at least so far, are mostly still available to producers and consumers alike. I want it cleansed of the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy that has not been challenged sufficiently or rigorously enough to reveal the real issues behind the alleged dangers of Triffid flax and other equally deceptive matters. These issues and stories need to be revealed for just what they are - convenient myths for protectionists, scientific hoaxers, and exploiters.

    Myths and junk science perpetuated and reinforced from within the industry will eventually, if it hasn’t already happened, breed a well-earned distrust within the consuming public. That distrust will grow until we cannot be believed by a large proportion of the public, at which time the government will be forced to step in, through regulation, as the source of scientific truth. As laughable as that is (to wit, the global climate change debate) it will happen. Because it will be responsive, naturally, to political agendas it will therefore be prone to be even less honest than the industry itself. Consequently it won’t repair any damage or give consumers any more confidence that their food is safe and healthy. When we refuse to be scrupulously and honestly accountable for what we do and what we sell, we give up our moral and ethical authority, and the reality and perception as believable people - an industry with integrity.

    So until this industry we’re in decides to make honesty the hallmark of what we do and say, and valid quality a defining characteristic of what we sell, we’re all going to pay dearly. I’m afraid we may be too late.

    #2
    It's called branding and quality assurance which many on this site have dismissed as a bogeyman and not important in our relationship with our customers.

    Comment


      #3
      Marketing causes BS to be spread far and wide. Each time there is a reason given to downgrade, it follows throughout the so called system. Producer tells country cousin of problem he has with this grain, country cousin tells a friend, freind another friend, problems in ag explode, lead back to marketing BS. However 3 times a day the everyone pulls up to the table and eats the poor quality, unorganic food that they can afford to buy, and hopes to not be a victim of food poisoning......

      Comment


        #4
        I think that's aimed directly at me, Kodiak, so I'll address it.

        Everyone knows my name and telephone number listed on my blog, so I am indeed accountable in every way for what I say.

        1. First of all, I have always approached the marketing issue as a choice issue. Few would dispute it.

        2. Organics went into the EU with flax decades ago, and promoted ground flax, promoted flax as a healthy FOOD. A Quebec german-speaking company did a lot of work going into Germany in the late 70's . I think it benefitted all flax growers.

        3. Organics also set a high price. I think it benefitted all flax growers.

        4. Organics also establshed an audit trail. It works for us and seems to have been adopted by many in the valuie chain.

        5. Organics also established a third party audit. So far so good, with a few people getting kicked out.

        6. Organics also set a line in the sand that genetically modified grain was not allowed in organics.
        That's your point of contention. Am I right? Parsley

        Comment


          #5
          Which "honest" would you like to address, claws out full attack, like a Mama bear Kodiak:
          1/ Purging Triffid: the source of contamination revealed
          or
          2/ GMO: good or bad

          or shall we simply "eat cake"

          Comment


            #6
            Faceless card has already stated, "But not cleansed of the Triffid flax’s"

            Comment


              #7
              Kodiak... I once shared your perspective, and your
              passionate support of new age genetics and the
              "science" which supports this industry.

              The cross pollination of RR canola and Invigor
              canola has caused me to become skeptical of such
              science.

              Further, studies finding gene transfer from RR corn
              to the earth's micro organisms suggests much of
              the info regarding the safety and soundness of GM
              genetics is not valid.

              In fact I have been thinking the Climate Change
              industry and the GM industry are quite alike.

              They both have been making statements of fact
              which are at questionable, and indeed are being
              proven erroneous.

              They both are using their public spin to effectively
              build their empires.

              They both have the blessing of the mainstream
              media.

              Neither has shown much willingness to be
              accountable for their mistakes, it seems that court
              action is prerequisite.

              And both industries have enjoyed tremendous
              growth based upon yet to be proven science.

              BTW I think our entire industry needs "to be
              scrupulously and honestly accountable for what we
              do."

              However, I agree with your statement "I'm afraid we
              may be too late"..... Bill

              Comment


                #8
                Ahh the Leonard Cohen song that sounds this saga: "there is a crack, a crack in everything that's how the light gets in... the light gets in" Or, alternatively depending upon your point of view "the dark gets in". The crack or an abyss depending upon your perspective.

                A clever plot, for sum, if it was.
                Clear evidence to others, that the root of the problem is the control measures of an entire industry. A point the organic industry has been making for years.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Or is it possible that we honestly just got caught, like the 13th man on the field...?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Other buyers also set a line in the sand that genetically modified grain is not allowed for <div class="EC_style8ptBK">
                    [URL="http://parsleysnotebook.blogspot.com/2008/09/commentary-by-parsley.html"](Hasidic sales)[/URL]
                    </div>

                    No contention here, though. Am I right? Parsley

                    Comment


                      #11
                      OK - where to begin? I have a feeling passion and philosophy is going to make this an intense discussion. It already has! But, as the saying goes, “if you’re taking flak you must be hitting close to the target”.

                      First. Science MUST be the pursuit of truth. When we find that a particular area of science is not being truthful and scrupulously honest, its repute and its ability to speak with authority falls apart very quickly. It’s the same for business. We’ve all seen lots of examples of it. The tobacco industry is the prime example. AND because the basis of science IS the pursuit of truth, purveyors of many things try to be scientists, or at least masquerade as scientists. For example, someone should ask Al Gore if he is a professional climate scientist or a professional climate activist. His answer and body language would be interesting. Is David Suzuki a scientist or an economist - or a professional crusader? Why does he use his particular science credentials to try and demonstrate he knows with absolute certainty and is truthful about everything he promotes - including climatic and economic predictions?

                      Food production, nutrition, climate, pharmaceuticals, organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, physics, mathematics. All these ‘things’ (and more) are building blocks of science or a result of scientific processes. All these disciplines are completely objective, and must strive to be. If they don’t, convenience, subjectivity, and even deception creep in. Subjectivity, because of its very nature, is what science strives to eliminate in its pursuit of knowledge and truth.

                      So I go back to basics to form my views. Because I’m NOT a scientist, that’s where I have to start. I have basic questions. Are genetically engineered food and pharmaceutical products less safe than those produced by other scientific methodologies? Where is the evidence, even of significant risk? Are “inorganic” crops, food, and pharmaceutical products safer than “organic” ones(interesting, if not misleading terms in themselves)? Where is the evidence? Without evidence statements, assertions, and advertisements are just opinions or claims, not facts.

                      Until there is evidence that there are scientific problems or scientific benefits that arise as a result of various methodologies and products, all have equal standing. Any and all real or perceived benefits are then subjective, and not science based. And once we enter into the world of subjectivity, truth becomes secondary and trust is lost.

                      When trust is lost, what are the costs? To whom do the costs belong - are they accurately distributed?

                      One final thought for now. Subjectivity is fine; in certain things. I’m completely subjective about a lot of my choices. My spouse for example! My taste in music and art. Even the foods I enjoy (as opposed to the ones that are good for me!). Where I am a consumer, I am allowed to be subjective. But where I’m a producer and a marketer, I believe I must be scrupulously honest and truthful. And that can only be derived through science and its pursuit of truth. I don’t want agriculture to suffer the setbacks and costs of other industries or businesses where “truth in advertising”, indeed truth in everything they do, is not a hallmark of their business ethic. Enron was in the business of trading energy. Bre-X was in the business of gold mining. Madoff was in the business of investing. Those were individual businesses. Tobacco is a whole industry. I’m sure they didn’t start down their slippery slopes with the “big lie”. In each case, they likely found it expedient to start with small deceptions; things where maybe even initially nobody got hurt or the costs were minimal. A saying again comes to mind, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, whenever we practice......"

                      This is getting too long, so that’s all for now. Plus, I feel like I'm on a high horse, and I strive to not make that a big part of my character!

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I disagree with the statement that climate science and GM science are the same.

                        The climate guys would not let anyone look at their data or their calculations. It was just trust us. What it reminds me of is the wheat board.

                        On the GM side everything is on the table. All of the studies and data is out there for anyone and everyone to look at and duplicate. It is transparent, which is how it should be.

                        The side of the GM debate that can't back up what they claim are the ones who think it's somehow dangerous or there is some kind of health concern. Crying we just don't know what will happen is not good enough. It's an anti-intellectual argument. Without any evidence it has zero credibility.

                        There has been something like a trillion meals of the stuff eaten without so much as a sniffle resulting.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Other buyers also set a line in the sand stipulating that unblessed food by the rabbi is not allowed for

                          (Hasidic sales)



                          No contention here, though. Am I right? Parsley

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Kodiak,you stated:

                            "These issues and stories need to be revealed for just what they are - convenient myths for protectionists, scientific hoaxers, and exploiters."

                            Now, I am not going to debate whether or not grain in the field should be blessed, or not, or if buyers embrace or reject genetically modified food or not.

                            And yes, I fully noted, Kodiak, that you instruct:

                            "Subjectivity is fine; in certain things"

                            Kodiak, feel free to clearly inform AVer's what the correct "certain things" are.

                            Perhaps when you've compiled your list of acceptable "subjective things", you'll post them. I'll certainly read them.

                            But in fairnesss, I should tell you that I'm not prepared to promote regulatory enforcement of your personal pet list of "subjective things". Sorry. I'm trying to be upfront.

                            You see, I have adopted this "notion of requirement" from so many different buyers all wanting the same thing....well, it's so simplistic, nothing scientific about it, but it works well for them and for me:

                            It's their money.


                            Yup.

                            It's their money. Pars

                            Comment


                              #15
                              bduke "their public spin to effectively build their empires" and "neither has showen much willingness to be accountable for their mistakes" pretty will sums it up.
                              Is it only a matter of time before we see agriculture be challenged for our useage of the gamut of pesticides we put on our fields today? I don't know why, but,I can't help feel,especially north american ag that were not far from the challenges the tobacco industy went threw in the 80s and 90s.How soon before someone or group challenges farming practices and farm food saftey?

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...