First a bit of a side note:  The early morning is a good time for me to get work done; few people around, few distractions, and nothing new yet added to the plate as will inevitably happen as the day goes on.  These last three mornings have been special, however.  There are few places better to sit at this hour than the deck off the dining room of the Ross Point camp looking out through the Ponderosas to the Spokane River.  Wi-fi, 24/7 coffee, scenic, and quiet -- except for the Osprey whistling just over there...

Now to the meat of the post.  I have commented before the complexity of "organic" agriculture (and conflicted ideas of what really constitutes organic).  Several days ago, I came across this op-ed piece in The New York Times, which got me to thinking about it from a different angle.  Tomato blight, which has been on the rampage in the Northeast this summer, threatening entire crops.  Apparently the losses are potentially so great in some cases that some organic farmers are faced with this ... lose your crop, or break organic and bring out heavier chemicals to save at least some of a crop.  A dilemma indeed.  Just more evidence, I guess, that things usually are not simple.

The thing I found most interesting in this commentary, however, was the speculation that the blight was exacerbated, in part, by the increasing local/sustainable movement (so-called locavores).  I think is a great idea in general; grow your own and/or buy locally (as in the farmer's markets in Pullman and Moscow).  An interesting point in this analysis, however, is that the increase in locally grown tomatoes in the region placed a demand on "imported" young plants, which came from, say, the Southeast U.S. where such things can get started earlier in the season (apparently not many local gardeners start their own plants from seed). Perhaps, the author speculates, the fungus came along.  The author recognizes that climate (a cooler, wetter June than normal) and other factors may be involved as well.  But the essential point is fairly clear:  local gardening and growing of produce depends on a nation-/world-wide web of commerce, with practices and decisions made miles away that makes local ... not so local after all.

Not an argument against growing your own and/or buying locally, mind you.  Just an observation that, trite as it may seem, solutions are rarely as simple as they may seem.

In his comment in response to my previous post, Roger points out an article that I think is worth a read, if only for the humor.  A physician in Britain has penned this article to provide commentary on human health care systems and health care reform from his vantage point in the UK.  As one means of doing so, he contrasts health care access of UK citizens to their national health care system with what he thinks are some better features of a dog accessing (through an intermediary, as he puts it) the veterinarian of their choice in the veterinary health care system. 

There are multiple levels on which this commentary works, aside from its main purpose to weigh in on human health care reform.  For starters, it touches on the different payment systems in human medicine vs. veterinary medicine, one of the issues I think is raised by the notion of a tax deduction for qualified pet care expenses.

It also touches strongly on the role of the value of veterinary services to the consumer of such services, ... the client must think the services are worth the charge, or go elsewhere (with or without complaint).  Every practicing veterinarian knows, or soon learns, of the struggle to ensure that the value of services -- usually paid directly at the time of service and not by some mostly invisible third party -- is perceived by the client.  With respect to this latter point, this small piece frames the latter issue nicely; so many misconceptions...where to start? (thanks Charlie for pointing this out)

Another blog, another acronym...in this case the Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years act, known officially as HR 3501, recently introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. McCotter of Michigan.  This bill would amend the Internal Revenue Service code to allow up to $3,500 in deduction for expenses "paid in connection with providing care (including veterinary care) for a qualified pet".  I have not explored the bill in depth to discover what "care" other than veterinary care would be allowed, but I presume this would mean such things as "doggie day care", grooming, and so on.

More details, including a link to the text of the bill, can be found here.  I will mostly let this pass without comment, although in spite of the importance of our cats to my family, my recognition of the changing role of companion animals in society, and my involvement in this profession, I am still taking a bit of a sideways glance at this.

I am very curious as to what you might think.  Is this a good idea in general?  What about the proposed deduction in relation to the structure of the deduction to your own health care costs?  Do you think this would, in fact, increase pet care utilization, for the benefit of the pet?

Organic agriculture has seen strong growth in the past two decades, to the point where it is now a $14 billion industry in this country, representing about 2% of retail food sales (in 2007;others have suggested it is a bit larger).  It has been so successful that there is now debate about its industrialization into "big organic" as opposed to the rootsier "small organic", which is how things started off.  This New Yorker article from 2006 is quite a good read for anyone wanting to delve deeper into this and other related issues. 

By coincidence, later the day of my recent post on the brouhaha about the WSU Common Reading Program and Omnivore's Dilemma I found this New York Times article about the economic troubles of the organic dairy industry (this article focuses on New England farms).  As a discussion of organic farming plays a prominent role in Omnivore's Dilemma, I found this juxtaposition interesting.

Certainly, what the consumer pays at retail for food influences what they buy, no matter how it is produced.  Organic farm products come at a hefty premium of 50%, or more.  When the economy is strong and enough people have money in their pockets to feel comfortable paying this premium for the health, environmental, and/or social benefit they perceive, conversion to organic agriculture looked like the thing to do for many small operations.  But market forces being what they are...

The dairy industry as a whole has been struggling with a significant downturn, and it should be no surprise that the organic segment is also struggling.  Although the bottom line for both conventional and organic is prices that cannot support production in current world or local markets, the Times article outlines some factors that make small organic dairying especially vulnerable.

As with most things, the solutions to our many problems, including how to eat healthfully in the developed world and how to eat enough and healthfully in the developing world, are intertwined and complicated.  And worthy of well-informed discussion in our classrooms.