I think this is an excellent discussion of the generally accepted principles of sustainability in relation to agriculture. I like the extension of the definition/priniciples of sustainability to systems thinking and completely agree that "A standard for sustainable agriculture should aim to improve agriculture’s performance on systemic indicators as well as farm-scale metrics, and both may help guide decision-making by producers, processors, distributors, retailers, and consumers. "
Jesse Singerman
Don Hodge - Mar 2, 2009 10:32 AM
I have updated the sustainability issue paper to provide author contact information in the Notes. This paper presents the views of the author only and does not reflect official U.S. EPA policy.
RussellW@fb.org - Mar 10, 2009 5:45 AM
A precautionary approach is simply not workable. There is a body of evidence that claims cell phones may cause cancer, if we are going to apply the precautionary principle to GMO's why not everything else? We should stop the use of cell-phones until it is proven that the technology is safe. So until science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that magnetic fields generated by cell phones will not cause cancer, we must strictly prohibit its use among employees.
While this is sarcasm, it demonstrates the problem with precaution. You are asking a supporter of a technology to prove a negative, which is a logical impossibility especially when you are outlawing the use of that technology. If this standard is going to be credible, it must rely on proven metrics to measure indicators of sustainability. Disallowing a technology based on anything but measurable outcomes is not science based and completely contradicts the official U.S. coordinated framework and the body of scientific knowledge regarding the application of technology in agriculture.
Don Hodge - Mar 30, 2009 4:56 PM
I have replaced the issue paper on sustainability principles with a slightly revised version.
I appreciate Russell's comment on other applications of precaution, and I agree that electro-magnetic radiation is a challenging case. I don't know as much about the body of evidence that Russell cites, but if it is strong enough to generate some agreement among people with the necessary expertise and independence to evaluate the evidence, and they agree that the evidence raises reasonable concerns of ethically significant human health risks, then I would argue that the principle should apply until, as my paper says, transparent science and inclusive process generates a consensus on a policy decision. I suppose the dismantling of cell phone transmitters could be on such decision -- society functioned without cell phones in the not-too-distant past -- but others are also conceivable. However, the two cases are not entirely analogous, as the use of cell phones is voluntary (though exposure to EMF from cell transmitters may not be) and I can choose not to use one, but without a clear labeling scheme for food products, it is difficult to choose not to consume GMOs except by buying organic, or by knowing my suppliers and their practices personally, or by knowing that they are credibly certified as meeting another sustainability standard. There are other differences also -- the risk of cell phone use is primarily to human health whereas plant genetic engineering presents ecological as well as human health risks, and the effects of cell phone use (on society if not on individuals) are reversible whereas the spread of GMOs through gene flow or "adventitious presence" may be irreversible and may limit plant genetic diversity and options for future generations who have no input into the decision unless we represent their interests.
Amanda Raster - Apr 27, 2009 12:03 PM
Follow-up comment from Don Hodge regarding discussion of his sustainability principles white paper during the April 21st Mission & Principles / Needs Assessment / Outreach TF conference call:
"As the paper points out, the risk of ignoring these fundamentals is that sustainability proponents will not accept the resulting standard and will propose competing standards, negating much of the benefit of this effort. These principles form the background of my thinking about sustainability, but I am not sure that that is so important except as it might be representative of a broader acceptance of these principles. The exchange during the conference call also included the idea that the EPA or government should not be telling producers what to do; it should be noted, however, that this paper does not represent EPA policy."
I think this is an excellent discussion of the generally accepted principles of sustainability in relation to agriculture. I like the extension of the definition/priniciples of sustainability to systems thinking and completely agree that "A standard for sustainable agriculture should aim to improve agriculture’s performance on systemic indicators as well as farm-scale metrics, and both may help guide decision-making by producers, processors, distributors, retailers, and consumers. "
Jesse Singerman
I have updated the sustainability issue paper to provide author contact information in the Notes. This paper presents the views of the author only and does not reflect official U.S. EPA policy.
A precautionary approach is simply not workable. There is a body of evidence that claims cell phones may cause cancer, if we are going to apply the precautionary principle to GMO's why not everything else? We should stop the use of cell-phones until it is proven that the technology is safe. So until science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that magnetic fields generated by cell phones will not cause cancer, we must strictly prohibit its use among employees.
While this is sarcasm, it demonstrates the problem with precaution. You are asking a supporter of a technology to prove a negative, which is a logical impossibility especially when you are outlawing the use of that technology. If this standard is going to be credible, it must rely on proven metrics to measure indicators of sustainability. Disallowing a technology based on anything but measurable outcomes is not science based and completely contradicts the official U.S. coordinated framework and the body of scientific knowledge regarding the application of technology in agriculture.
I have replaced the issue paper on sustainability principles with a slightly revised version.
I appreciate Russell's comment on other applications of precaution, and I agree that electro-magnetic radiation is a challenging case. I don't know as much about the body of evidence that Russell cites, but if it is strong enough to generate some agreement among people with the necessary expertise and independence to evaluate the evidence, and they agree that the evidence raises reasonable concerns of ethically significant human health risks, then I would argue that the principle should apply until, as my paper says, transparent science and inclusive process generates a consensus on a policy decision. I suppose the dismantling of cell phone transmitters could be on such decision -- society functioned without cell phones in the not-too-distant past -- but others are also conceivable. However, the two cases are not entirely analogous, as the use of cell phones is voluntary (though exposure to EMF from cell transmitters may not be) and I can choose not to use one, but without a clear labeling scheme for food products, it is difficult to choose not to consume GMOs except by buying organic, or by knowing my suppliers and their practices personally, or by knowing that they are credibly certified as meeting another sustainability standard. There are other differences also -- the risk of cell phone use is primarily to human health whereas plant genetic engineering presents ecological as well as human health risks, and the effects of cell phone use (on society if not on individuals) are reversible whereas the spread of GMOs through gene flow or "adventitious presence" may be irreversible and may limit plant genetic diversity and options for future generations who have no input into the decision unless we represent their interests.
Follow-up comment from Don Hodge regarding discussion of his sustainability principles white paper during the April 21st Mission & Principles / Needs Assessment / Outreach TF conference call:
"As the paper points out, the risk of ignoring these fundamentals is that sustainability proponents will not accept the resulting standard and will propose competing standards, negating much of the benefit of this effort. These principles form the background of my thinking about sustainability, but I am not sure that that is so important except as it might be representative of a broader acceptance of these principles. The exchange during the conference call also included the idea that the EPA or government should not be telling producers what to do; it should be noted, however, that this paper does not represent EPA policy."