1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

Shoemaking Techniques and Traditions--"...these foolish things..."

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by DWFII, Aug 23, 2014.

  1. brax

    brax Senior member

    Messages:
    633
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    

    That is not correct. While some terms are meaningless as there are no definitions from which to judge (free-range, and natural are two good examples), other terms (organic, for example) must meet certain standards imposed by the FDA. You can go beyond those standards but you cannot go below them and still use the term.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. DWFII

    DWFII Bespoke Boot and Shoemaker Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    8,235
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Location:
    The Highlands of Central Oregon
    


    Is that right?? But, like a good neighbor, here's a link from the FDA.Gov Webpage:



    As I said in another post people tend to believe what they want to believe.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
  3. ntempleman

    ntempleman Senior member

    Messages:
    488
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    Location:
    London, England
  4. JubeiSpiegel

    JubeiSpiegel Senior member

    Messages:
    5,380
    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Location:
    Sartorial Wasteland
  5. DWFII

    DWFII Bespoke Boot and Shoemaker Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    8,235
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Location:
    The Highlands of Central Oregon
    

    From the EU policy statement:

     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
  6. DWFII

    DWFII Bespoke Boot and Shoemaker Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    8,235
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Location:
    The Highlands of Central Oregon
    

    Well, maybe that's another story although the USDA was not mentioned.

    Maybe:

    And again, maybe...here is a list of synthetic substances that are allowed to be used in the production of "organic" livestock:

    §205.603 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic livestock production.
    In accordance with restrictions specified in this section the following synthetic substances may be used in organic livestock production:

    (a) As disinfectants, sanitizer, and medical treatments as applicable.

    (1) Alcohols.

    (i) Ethanol-disinfectant and sanitizer only, prohibited as a feed additive.

    (ii) Isopropanol-disinfectant only.

    (2) Aspirin-approved for health care use to reduce inflammation.

    (3) Atropine (CAS #-51-55-8)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

    (i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian; and

    (ii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 56 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 12 days after administering to dairy animals.

    (4) Biologics—Vaccines.

    (5) Butorphanol (CAS #-42408-82-2)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

    (i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian; and

    (ii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 42 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 8 days after administering to dairy animals.

    (6) Chlorhexidine—Allowed for surgical procedures conducted by a veterinarian. Allowed for use as a teat dip when alternative germicidal agents and/or physical barriers have lost their effectiveness.

    (7) Chlorine materials—disinfecting and sanitizing facilities and equipment. Residual chlorine levels in the water shall not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

    (i) Calcium hypochlorite.

    (ii) Chlorine dioxide.

    (iii) Sodium hypochlorite.

    (8) Electrolytes—without antibiotics.

    (9) Flunixin (CAS #-38677-85-9)—in accordance with approved labeling; except that for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires a withdrawal period of at least two-times that required by the FDA.

    (10) Furosemide (CAS #-54-31-9)—in accordance with approved labeling; except that for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires a withdrawal period of at least two-times that required that required by the FDA.

    (11) Glucose.

    (12) Glycerin—Allowed as a livestock teat dip, must be produced through the hydrolysis of fats or oils.

    (13) Hydrogen peroxide.

    (14) Iodine.

    (15) Magnesium hydroxide (CAS #-1309-42-8)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian.

    (16) Magnesium sulfate.

    (17) Oxytocin—use in postparturition therapeutic applications.

    (18) Parasiticides—Prohibited in slaughter stock, allowed in emergency treatment for dairy and breeder stock when organic system plan-approved preventive management does not prevent infestation. Milk or milk products from a treated animal cannot be labeled as provided for in subpart D of this part for 90 days following treatment. In breeder stock, treatment cannot occur during the last third of gestation if the progeny will be sold as organic and must not be used during the lactation period for breeding stock.

    (i) Fenbendazole (CAS #43210-67-9)—only for use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian.

    (ii) Ivermectin (CAS #70288-86-7).

    (iii) Moxidectin (CAS #113507-06-5)—for control of internal parasites only.

    (19) Peroxyacetic/peracetic acid (CAS #-79-21-0)—for sanitizing facility and processing equipment.

    (20) Phosphoric acid—allowed as an equipment cleaner, Provided, That, no direct contact with organically managed livestock or land occurs.

    (21) Poloxalene (CAS #-9003-11-6)—for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires that poloxalene only be used for the emergency treatment of bloat.

    (22) Tolazoline (CAS #-59-98-3)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

    (i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian;

    (ii) Use only to reverse the effects of sedation and analgesia caused by Xylazine; and

    (iii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 8 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 4 days after administering to dairy animals.

    (23) Xylazine (CAS #-7361-61-7)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

    (i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian;

    (ii) The existence of an emergency; and

    (iii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 8 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 4 days after administering to dairy animals.

    (b) As topical treatment, external parasiticide or local anesthetic as applicable.

    (1) Copper sulfate.

    (2) Formic acid (CAS # 64-18-6)—for use as a pesticide solely within honeybee hives.

    (3) Iodine.

    (4) Lidocaine—as a local anesthetic. Use requires a withdrawal period of 90 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter and 7 days after administering to dairy animals.

    (5) Lime, hydrated—as an external pest control, not permitted to cauterize physical alterations or deodorize animal wastes.

    (6) Mineral oil—for topical use and as a lubricant.

    (7) Procaine—as a local anesthetic, use requires a withdrawal period of 90 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter and 7 days after administering to dairy animals.

    (8) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s-42922-74-7; 58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling.

    (c) As feed supplements—None.

    (d) As feed additives.

    (1) DL-Methionine, DL-Methionine-hydroxy analog, and DL-Methionine-hydroxy analog calcium (CAS #'s 59-51-8, 583-91-5, 4857-44-7, and 922-50-9)—for use only in organic poultry production at the following maximum levels of synthetic methionine per ton of feed: Laying and broiler chickens—2 pounds; turkeys and all other poultry—3 pounds.

    (2) Trace minerals, used for enrichment or fortification when FDA approved.

    (3) Vitamins, used for enrichment or fortification when FDA approved.

    (e) As synthetic inert ingredients as classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for use with nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances listed in this section and used as an active pesticide ingredient in accordance with any limitations on the use of such substances.

    (1) EPA List 4—Inerts of Minimal Concern.

    (2) [Reserved]

    (f) Excipients, only for use in the manufacture of drugs used to treat organic livestock when the excipient is: Identified by the FDA as Generally Recognized As Safe; Approved by the FDA as a food additive; or Included in the FDA review and approval of a New Animal Drug Application or New Drug Application.

    And another list for "organic" crops:

    §205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.
    In accordance with restrictions specified in this section, the following synthetic substances may be used in organic crop production: Provided, That, use of such substances do not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water. Substances allowed by this section, except disinfectants and sanitizers in paragraph (a) and those substances in paragraphs (c), (j), (k), and (l) of this section, may only be used when the provisions set forth in §205.206(a) through (d) prove insufficient to prevent or control the target pest.

    (a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning systems.

    (1) Alcohols.

    (i) Ethanol.

    (ii) Isopropanol.

    (2) Chlorine materials—For pre-harvest use, residual chlorine levels in the water in direct crop contact or as water from cleaning irrigation systems applied to soil must not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except that chlorine products may be used in edible sprout production according to EPA label directions.

    (i) Calcium hypochlorite.

    (ii) Chlorine dioxide.

    (iii) Sodium hypochlorite.

    (3) Copper sulfate—for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.

    (4) Hydrogen peroxide.

    (5) Ozone gas—for use as an irrigation system cleaner only.

    (6) Peracetic acid—for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated planting material. Also permitted in hydrogen peroxide formulations as allowed in §205.601(a) at concentration of no more than 6% as indicated on the pesticide product label.

    (7) Soap-based algicide/demossers.

    (8) Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate (CAS #-15630-89-4)—Federal law restricts the use of this substance in food crop production to approved food uses identified on the product label.

    (b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable.

    (1) Herbicides, soap-based—for use in farmstead maintenance (roadways, ditches, right of ways, building perimeters) and ornamental crops.

    (2) Mulches.

    (i) Newspaper or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks.

    (ii) Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum-based other than polyvinyl chloride (PVC)).

    (iii) Biodegradable biobased mulch film as defined in §205.2. Must be produced without organisms or feedstock derived from excluded methods.

    (c) As compost feedstocks—Newspapers or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks.

    (d) As animal repellents—Soaps, ammonium—for use as a large animal repellant only, no contact with soil or edible portion of crop.

    (e) As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control).

    (1) Ammonium carbonate—for use as bait in insect traps only, no direct contact with crop or soil.

    (2) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand.

    (3) Boric acid—structural pest control, no direct contact with organic food or crops.

    (4) Copper sulfate—for use as tadpole shrimp control in aquatic rice production, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to levels which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.

    (5) Elemental sulfur.

    (6) Lime sulfur—including calcium polysulfide.

    (7) Oils, horticultural—narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils.

    (8) Soaps, insecticidal.

    (9) Sticky traps/barriers.

    (10) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s—42922-74-7; 58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling.

    (f) As insect management. Pheromones.

    (g) As rodenticides. Vitamin D3.

    (h) As slug or snail bait. Ferric phosphate (CAS # 10045-86-0).

    (i) As plant disease control.

    (1) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand.

    (2) Coppers, fixed—copper hydroxide, copper oxide, copper oxychloride, includes products exempted from EPA tolerance, Provided, That, copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil and shall not be used as herbicides.

    (3) Copper sulfate—Substance must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation of copper in the soil.

    (4) Hydrated lime.

    (5) Hydrogen peroxide.

    (6) Lime sulfur.

    (7) Oils, horticultural, narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils.

    (8) Peracetic acid—for use to control fire blight bacteria. Also permitted in hydrogen peroxide formulations as allowed in §205.601(i) at concentration of no more than 6% as indicated on the pesticide product label.

    (9) Potassium bicarbonate.

    (10) Elemental sulfur.

    (j) As plant or soil amendments.

    (1) Aquatic plant extracts (other than hydrolyzed)—Extraction process is limited to the use of potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide; solvent amount used is limited to that amount necessary for extraction.

    (2) Elemental sulfur.

    (3) Humic acids—naturally occurring deposits, water and alkali extracts only.

    (4) Lignin sulfonate—chelating agent, dust suppressant.

    (5) Magnesium sulfate—allowed with a documented soil deficiency.

    (6) Micronutrients—not to be used as a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or chlorides are not allowed. Soil deficiency must be documented by testing.

    (i) Soluble boron products.

    (ii) Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt.

    (7) Liquid fish products—can be pH adjusted with sulfuric, citric or phosphoric acid. The amount of acid used shall not exceed the minimum needed to lower the pH to 3.5.

    (8) Vitamins, B1, C, and E.

    (9) Sulfurous acid (CAS # 7782-99-2) for on-farm generation of substance utilizing 99% purity elemental sulfur per paragraph (j)(2) of this section.

    (k) As plant growth regulators. Ethylene gas—for regulation of pineapple flowering.

    (l) As floating agents in postharvest handling.

    (1) Lignin sulfonate.

    (2) Sodium silicate—for tree fruit and fiber processing.

    (m) As synthetic inert ingredients as classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for use with nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances listed in this section and used as an active pesticide ingredient in accordance with any limitations on the use of such substances.

    (1) EPA List 4—Inerts of Minimal Concern.

    (2) EPA List 3—Inerts of unknown toxicity—for use only in passive pheromone dispensers.

    (n) Seed preparations. Hydrogen chloride (CAS # 7647-01-0)—for delinting cotton seed for planting.

    (o) As production aids. Microcrystalline cheesewax (CAS #'s 64742-42-3, 8009-03-08, and 8002-74-2)-for use in log grown mushroom production. Must be made without either ethylene-propylene co-polymer or synthetic colors.

    (p)-(z) [Reserved]

    edited for punctuation and clarity
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
    1 person likes this.
  7. DWFII

    DWFII Bespoke Boot and Shoemaker Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    8,235
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Location:
    The Highlands of Central Oregon
    Now what does "organic" really mean?

    Parenthetically:

    I have a good friend and multi-order repeat customer who is a rancher out in Post, Oregon, who raises cattle for a Natural Beef Co-op which sells to "health" food stores like Whole Foods, etc.. He's but one of a number of ranchers who sell to this co-op. AFAIK, however, he is the only one who is a trained and licenced Large Animal Veterinarian.

    Frankly, I don't know what all this means. I'm not against "organic" or "natural" or "free range." I've raised chickens and hogs and goats and gardens following Rodale's books and magazines as closely as I could. And I've done it for over 40 years. The more the better as far as I'm concerned.

    I've also butchered, processed, and preserved all my animals...so I understand intimately the connection between leather and living organisms--it's not just red stuff in a plastic tray.

    edited for punctuation and clarity
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
  8. DWFII

    DWFII Bespoke Boot and Shoemaker Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    8,235
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Location:
    The Highlands of Central Oregon
    And on a side note...despite my distaste and antipathy for hormone raised cattle and the widespread implementation of other "factory" methods of agriculture, from what I understand, the US has had just 4 incidents of mad cow disease and all of these were isolated single individual incidents. (CDC https://www.cdc.gov/prions/bse/index.htmlhttps://www.cdc.gov/prions/bse/index.html )

    Whereas IIRC, it wasn't too long ago that bovine spongiform encephalopathy took out enough cattle in England to force a number of old and venerable tanneries to close...such as W. Pearce.

    I am not ascribing some moral or even mechanical superiority to US methods...and it is always a tragedy when ranchers and farmers are hit with diseases or acts of nature that wipe them and their crops out.

    But maybe it's not all so cut and dried..."him good, dem bad."

    Just sayin'....
     
  9. brax

    brax Senior member

    Messages:
    633
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    My apologies. It was not the FDA that sets the standards for organic food production. As JubeiSpeigel correctly pointed out, it is the United States Department of Agriculture that defines what qualifies as organic and what does not. I stand by my point that certain terms lack meaning but "organic" is not one of them as applied to food production.

    I, too, place relatively little reliance on labels. Some of the most conscientious farmers that I know, e.g. the Salatins of Polyface Farms, refuse the organic label. Not because their food fails to meet the standards but because compliance costs are too high and they'd rather plow their money back into their farms rather than into labeling requirements.
     
  10. DWFII

    DWFII Bespoke Boot and Shoemaker Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    8,235
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Location:
    The Highlands of Central Oregon
    We think we're safe...all the best people, and the internet, tell us so.

    But the question that isn't being asked is whether so-called standards are tough enough to really be "organic."

    What does "organic" mean? What chemicals / compounds are organic enough to be "organic" All the above are synthetic compounds. All the above are allowed. How is "synthetic" organic?

    Is iodine a natural part of an animal's environment (and that's one of the least suspect in the above lists). Iodine can cause severe allergic reactions in some organisms even from the same species or community.

    How is screw worm, or bot fly or warbles controlled in bovine populations? Answer: Some insecticides are applied to the animal, some to the ground...on which the cattle graze. Are the animals still "organic" if they've eaten grass that is covered with insecticide? No hormones, no antibiotics yet animals treated with external parasiticides are "organic' after 8 days.

    Sheep are regularly run through a trough of antibiotics and fungicide to prevent hoof rot. Then they're turned out on pastures where that same chemical leeches into the soil and grass. Is the chemical getting into their systems? And how long does it abide?

    And, if I read correctly, herbicides are acceptable to prevent encroachment on "organic' crops.

    Any trauma that is inflicted upon living flesh takes at least one year to completely heal...

    Think about it.

    --
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
  11. brax

    brax Senior member

    Messages:
    633
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    I don't really understand the point that you are trying to make. Most substances (like iodine in your example) are neither healthy or unhealtky to animals in and of themselves. It is a matter of dosage. Too much iodine and you die; too little iodine and you die. You can even say the same about water. Not enough water and you die; too much water and you die. Of course some compounds are flat out poisonous and are barred from food productin, like PCBs. "Organic" gives you a standard by which you judge food. If you want more "protection," have at it. The choice is yours. If you want less, eat conventional. Again, the choice is yours. But our food source is basically safe regardless of whether you eat conventional, organic, or super-organic. Yes, there are still outbreaks of listeria for example but those are due to enforcement issues or accidents but not because of a lack of safety standards. This is not to say that all food tastes the same, or has the same impact on an animal's quality of life or environmental impact (ever been to an industrial pig farm?). But food is safe. We all make judgments on what we value with our pocketbooks. I, personally, care very little about the organic label. There are organic mono-crop farms that are the size of small villages. I spend my money supporting farms like Polyface who share my values and don't get caught up in the cannard that science is bad and natural things are all good (eat a leaf or two of hemlock). But I make those judgments not on food safety but on the collateral (but important) consequences of food production.

    This all assumes that Trump doesn't dismantle the regulatory paradigm. If that happens, all bets are off.
     
  12. DWFII

    DWFII Bespoke Boot and Shoemaker Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    8,235
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Location:
    The Highlands of Central Oregon
    I'm just reiterating the point I made way back in post #1740...which you took issue with in an incorrect (and / or hasty) post #1741.

    To whit:

    As for iodine, yes you're correct. And I said as much when I said it was the least suspect of the substances listed among all those other "synthetics" which are allowed to be used in the production of organic food stuffs. I cited it because it was one that everyone would recognize.

    I suspect you also missed the point when I said I have nothing against organic. I am near-as-nevermind certain that I have been organic...lived organic...for longer than some people here have themselves been alive.

    But what you're really not understanding is that if "organic" means food grown by people or methods that we approve of...or that we pay extra for because it is ballyhooed as "hormone free" etc., then what I said is correct--there are no hard and fast standards.

    When synthetics are part of the formula for organic, the definition of organic becomes nonsense. And somebody (agri-business...large and small) is getting a pass for marketing reasons and somebody else's (many somebodies) assumptions and wishful thinkings are overriding science, logic and the facts.

    Then it truly is "food grown by people or methods that we approve of...or that we pay extra for" and there truly are no " firm, consistent, standards."

    Simple really...
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
  13. ntempleman

    ntempleman Senior member

    Messages:
    488
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    Location:
    London, England
    

    That's in reference to prepared food like a microwave lasagne, things like brocolli and cows are a bit more difficult to make from ingredients so the 95% thing is irrelevant
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
  14. brax

    brax Senior member

    Messages:
    633
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    

    At the risk of beating a dead horse, I don't think that I missed your point about not having anything against organic. My response was "I, too, place relatively little reliance on labels." In other words, the term "organic" will not cause me to buy it or cause me not to but it. I suspect the same is true of you as we are more concerned with other facets of food production.

    The only part where I strongly disagree with you is when you tried to equate meaningless words (and I agree with your assessment) like healthy, cage-free, natural etc. with words that do have meaning like organic. We can agree or disagree that the definition should be looser or stricter but there is no reasonable argument that the term is meaningless. The proof of that is that while organics sell at a premium most foods at your supermarket do not carry that label because they don't qualify because of the definition. If organic were truly meaningless, everything would be labeled organic as you could sell it for a lot more.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by