Organic Food

Who Should Decide if 'Hydroponic' is 'Organic'?

A controversy highlights the need to get the USDA out of organic food altogether. (Even a major newspaper thinks so!)

|

Hydroponics
FoxTravels / CC BY-SA

When most people think of hydroponics, marijuana and tomatoes come to mind. But there's more to hydroponics. And—wouldn't you know it—the "more" involves more regulations.

The USDA is currently considering whether hydroponic crops should be eligible to earn the USDA organic seal. They've been eligible to earn that status since 2002. But that could change thanks to a USDA-appointed "Organic Hydroponic and Aquaponic Task Force" that's making recommendations on the issue.

Under USDA rules, the term "organic" is as much about what is used to produce food as what isn't produced.

Organic food means 1) the food is "[p]roduced without excluded methods," which include genetic and the use of sewage sludge; 2) the food is "[p]roduced using allowed substances[,]" which are reflected on a list the USDA's controversial National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) maintains and updates; and 3) the food produced under the rules above is "[o]verseen by a USDA National Organic Program-authorized certifying agent[.]"

The NOSB suggested in the mid-1990s that hydroponics can be organic, but suggested in later years that they can't.

A recent meeting of the agency's NOSB, which is deliberating the hydroponics issue, ended with a call for more deliberation.

The Cornucopia Institute, which recently filed a complaint with the USDA over hydroponic organics, has denigrated hydroponic crops as "largely imported" and grown "on an industrial scale." But the same is also often true of soil-grown, organic-certified crops.

The idea that hydroponic crops might be organic, says Civil Eats, is "causing considerable distress among the many farmers who believe the U.S.—like elsewhere around the world—should forbid organic certification of food grown in anything other than soil." But if this image is to be believed, farmers opposed to the USDA continuing to grant organic status to hydroponic crops appear to be suffering from something closer to mild consternation, rather than considerable distress.

Supporters of organic hydroponics make a strong case for continuing its status under USDA law.

Marianne Cufone, an adjunct environmental law professor at Loyola University New Orleans, listed many benefits of hydroponic farming in a recent CNN op-ed and noted "a number of scientists, researchers, and industry experts support that many such farms are ideal for organic growing, because, among other benefits, they make smart use of resources and thus have less negative impact on the natural environment."

So are organic hydroponics the end of the world? Or are they, rather, its savior? I neither care nor need to decide that here.

It's not hard to make the case that soil is as central to the concept of "organic" as any other idea or thing. As one history of the early organic food movement in America suggests, soil was at the heart of the country's first organic-certifying body, Oregon Tilth, which was founded in the early 1970s and still serves as an organic certifier today. The word "tilth" means cultivated soil.

On the other hand, it's also not hard to make the case that soil isn't central to the concept of what is and isn't organic. While most of our food is grown in soil, only a small percentage of that food is "organic" under USDA rules. In other words, whether or not food is grown in soil tells us little that's useful about whether that food is "organic" or not.

It's worth noting too that—any way you look at it—the "hydro" in hydroponic refers to water, which is organic by any conceivable definition. It's both a naturally occurring compound and a necessary component of organic agriculture. In fact, it's necessary in a way that soil isn't. Without soil, there's hydroponics. Without water, there's no life. And no organic agriculture.

All that said, it seems we've a robust debate about the issue. The only downside to that debate is that it pertains to regulations, and that one side will win not because it prevailed within consumers in the marketplace of ideas but because it won over a majority of the handful of members of a USDA-appointed committee.

It was, in this spirit, that a truly wonderful Boston Globe editorial last week argued that organic food is not "about facts and dictionaries" and called on the USDA to get out of the organic-oversight business altogether.

"It would be better for the authorities to focus on ensuring the safety of food and the accuracy of label information about things like nutrition and allergens, while letting consumers figure out for themselves what organic means to them," write the Globe's editors. "Farmers who grow crops only in soil and want to market themselves to consumers that way have every right to try, and if enough customers care then they'll be successful. But asking the federal government to define and enforce the boundaries of personal beliefs is just too much to ask."

Amen to that.

NEXT: Fidel Castro Dies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “But asking the federal government to define and enforce the boundaries of personal beliefs is just too much to ask.”

    Mmmm… What could possibly go wrong with government intervention?

    1. Ahh, the Science President.

      1. Unless there is a new silica based type of vegetation I think every carbon based life form is organic. By default./ (science pedant)

        1. I knew someone had beat me to it.

          1. “But asking the federal government to define and enforce the boundaries of personal beliefs is just too much to ask.”

            Methinks that in my personal beliefs about “blut unt boden” (AKA blood and soil), not only should my fuds all be growed in real soil, it should be soil fartilized by the blood of true-blue-eyed Aryan blood. Will Government Almighty certify my “blood and soil” food?

  2. ” USDA-appointed “Organic Hydroponic and Aquaponic Task Force” ”

    Nothing left to cut.

    1. The entire USDA should be burnt to the ground and the ashes scattered onto corn fields

      1. Why stop there?

        1. Burn the corn fields then put those ashes in a rocket and launch into the sun?

          1. Sounds like a start.

  3. I’m not sure yet where this falls on the too hipster/actually kind of great axis.

    1. White patriarchy again dominating another oppressed living being. Privilege.

      1. Cigars and cigarettes and all tobacco products are cultural appropriation of oppressed victims of genocide.

    2. I pictured Flordia Man as being a lager, possibly adulterated with lead.

    3. Smells like desperation, tastes like regret.

    4. Cigar city is the tits. The owner is Joe Redner’s son. Joe owns one of the best titty bars in Tampa called Mons Venus.

      1. Calling Mons a titty bar is missing the aspect that makes it rather unique.

  4. I thought organic chemistry deals with compounds 18th carbon. Water, containing no carbon, is inorganic.

    1. That should be with, not 18th. Ducking auto-correct is really screwing up.

    2. It’s pretty commonly a solvent in organic chem, though.

      1. Cool story, bro.

      2. As a solvent it doesn’t actually take part in the chemical reaction though.

    3. That is what struck me when I read “which is organic by any conceivable definition”.

      It is my impression that hydroponic agriculture is largely incompatible with the use of organic fertilizers, since a) they are mostly insoluble and b) the molecules in them are too large for the plants to absorb without the medium of the soil
      to break them down*.

      *something which lends another level of inefficiency to organic farming itself.

    4. Maybe they are talking about the inorganic mineral based seasoning elements of food?

      Too simple, I know.

  5. I want to be the person who decides what things are. For everyone.

    Speaking as someone who owns land but no bodies of water, I don’t like the idea that water could replace soil as a valuable farming commodity.

    1. I don’t like that women wear clothes.

      1. I like how you think.

    1. What the hell does Britain need with a new surveillance bill? In what way were they restricted from spying on people already?

      1. They never saw the brexit vote coming, so obviously the peasants are too free to communicate with each other.

        1. Should be “to communicate bad think with each other”.

          1. I can’t believe I didn’t hear about this law until it already passed. This has to be fake news, no way are the British this stupid.

      2. Yeah, but currently, ISPs are not required to retain records of everyone’s internet history and allow a backdoor so that any parasite working for a government agency can peruse them. The limeys have completely lost it and I look for that hag Theresa May and her crummy little toadies to try to cheat them out of their Brexit vote.

    2. I wish the Queen would grow a pair and put a stop to her realm swirling down the drain.

      1. Even if she was lucid enough to do so, that ship sailed long ago. The queen is little more than a live action puppet for the government of the day and the Lords has been almost completely neutered as a bulwark against the Commons.

        1. Oh I know but from what little we’ve gathered of her views over the years you know she (and yeah the Lords too – forgot about them) can’t like what they’re seeing.

          1. Yeah, but the booze and bling helps to ignore that.

            I wonder how much is the government doing it and how much is the civil service pushing for ever more power and authority.

            1. Two sides of the same coin.

              The rest of us don’t stand a chance.

              1. I guess I’ll skip the bling, and proceed to the booze then.

  6. How are GMOs not organic? I thought lesse need for fertilizers and such was one of the selling points (not that fertilizer is necessarily inorganic either). “Organic” doesn’t mean “good for you” anyhow. Larry niven came up with some acronym that defines”organic” much more accurately. I don’t remember the whole thing but it started with CHO (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen). Obviously nitrogen’s gotta be in there somewhere, but I just keep thinking”CHOAM”. But that’s a guild or something from dune.

    1. How are GMOs not organic?

      The same way shrimp aren’t kosher- it’s a theological term, it has nothing to do with reality.

      1. But, science!

        1. “Back off, man, I’m an attorney!”

          1. “Back off, man, I’m a scientist!”

    2. Damn, I meant “hydroponics”, not ” gmos”, but the same argument applies to both. I have a hard time keeping all the things I’m outraged about straight.

      1. I suppose as long as the fertilizer you’re using is organic, then it’s organic. Aquaculture would do I believe as long as your fish food is organic.

        1. In my admittedly limited experience (and as corroborated by the internet), pests arent really an issue with hydroponics, so that should help minimize the things you need to add too.

          1. I would suppose not as much since hydroponics are mainly done indoors.

      2. As I noted above, the molecules in organic fertilizers are too large for the plants to absorb without the medium of the soil to break them down.

        Fertilizers used in hydroponics my be sourced from organic fertilizers but they have to go through some kind of industrial processing to make them usable.

        1. An organic hydro fertilizer is just broken down by bacteria first. You can do it at home.

    3. “How are GMOs not organic? ”

      These crops are often sprayed with pesticides. That’s how.

      1. That’s not an inherent feature of GMO plants, though. You could easily use GMO plants in “orgnic” farming if that was the issue.

        Your definition makes sense though, if we assume organic is used as a synonym for “retarded”.

  7. the “hydro” in hydroponic refers to water, which is organic by any conceivable definition.

    Lawyers avoid chemistry classes.

  8. Bullshit is organic, so yeah, I guess so.

    1. The reverse is also true.

  9. organic food is not “about facts and dictionaries”

    No, it’s about snobbery and cronyism for the existing practitioners of the scam.

    1. I find it amusing watching the hipsters buy really shitty looking produce marked organic and paying 3x the price for it as the nice looking produce not marked organic. But it gives them that extra touch of smugness they need to survive the Trumpocalypse.

  10. OT: Fucking Fedex has decided to take the rest of the weekend off and call in sick Monday. Package scheduled for today, shows on truck for delivery this morning, but is now rescheduled for Tuesday.

    1. Despite being rescheduled for Tuesday, they just delivered it. Obviously bitching anonymously here made the difference.

      1. Been there man – going an entire weekend without a Real Doll is not fun. I’m glad it worked out for you.

  11. I, for one, look to the “organic” label for peace of mind that I am exposing the members of my family, as well as myself, to pathogens transmitted via the fecal-oral route.

    1. ATM! ATM!

      *looks around*

      Nobody is going to chant with me?

  12. Trump National Links at Guantanamo.

    Where are my investors?

    1. Technically, Guantanamo is leased property. I’ll wait for him to make an eminent domain play before committing any of my money.

  13. It’s amazing that they can use a word like “organic” for rent-seeking.

    The term used to mean something–before the government got involved. Back then, whether it meant the pesticides and herbicide were minimal or, later, that it wasn’t from genetically altered seed (and hence not grown with RoundUp), “hydroponic” would have meant that.

    Another case of regulation failing where the market succeeded. Isn’t it great that the regulators took everyone’s thoughts into consideration before they made their rules–even the Big Ag players, too? Why would the big guys want rules that make it hard for them to chase those fat “organic” margins?

    It should be noted that the label was always meant to differentiate “organic” food from what Big Ag was doing. One of the reasons labels like “GMO free” became important was because “organic” became meaningless in terms of differentiation.

    1. The term used to mean something–before the government got involved. ….Another case of regulation failing where the market succeeded.

      Not really.

      The definition of “organic” was very different across the dozen states that had their own certification-label, prior to the USDA organic standards /OFPA.

      If you bought an organic product in California, it might mean something completely different than something bought in Vermont.

      The issue might seem simple if all you were talking about were raw produce, but the fact is that the real growth (*and profit for producers) was in slapping an organic label on a wide variety of processed food products… everything from canned foods to breakfast cereals to dairy products, etc etc.

      but even in the raw-produce area, it could be wildly different, because the people invested in the concept in each state
      has different ideas about how the industry should expand. Growers in Cali already had large scale operations and so tended to have concerns about labor intensity that smaller farmers elsewhere did not

      The reason the label ended up largely meaningless is because it was mostly a list of “what you can’t do” rather than “how to do it best”. And even the things you ‘cant’ do’ were disagreed about, being mostly irrelevant to the nature of the produce (*e.g. they banned irradiation = which would have reduced risks of contamination and allowed faster processing)…


      1. I also think its wrong to think of the subject as “big ag” vs. Smaller farmers.

        There was some of that involved in the standards-debate…. but even many of the people you think of as “Small” farmers aren’t small at all. They’re just as factory-farm as the Big Corporate ones – if you visited the farms where many of the things you buy @ Whole Foods are made? You would not be able to distinguish them from some other place that produced ‘non-organic’ product for Kroger or Safeway. They’re just as industrial-scale, they’re just as mechanized, and the only difference is that they have some slightly different regulations and different chemicals involved. And they want to make a large profit margin just as much as the Big Evil Frankenfood people.

        The entire Organic Food industry is built on one fundamental un-truth = that “Regular” food practices are somehow ethically /environmentally/ nutritionally unsound… That “regular” farmers are Earth Rapists, and all the Organic people somehow ‘do it better’.

        The other thing i think people don’t get is that Organic means very different things depending on the food-item. It basically doesn’t matter how you produce some things, whereas it matters very much with other things. Simply being “organic” is not necessarily good or better. It *can* be (tomatoes); and sometimes it makes absolutely no difference (any grains?)

        what people want is “quality” food. however, they prefer a myth that “quality” means “unspoiled by modernity”

        1. The reason the definition of “organic” was watered down so thoroughly is because Big Ag couldn’t produce organic produce under the old market definition in large quantities.

          The reason they need to use the pesticides, herbicides, and genetic seed they use is because they work in such large quantities. There are some markets you just can’t compete in because your scale is too large–and this was an example of that.

          My business is like that. I can raise $4 million in equity to offer people a 25% return. $1 million is a nice paycheck to me, but to a large scale developer, that deal isn’t worth doing. That isn’t even a drop in the bucket because of their scale–they have $1 billion in equity, but they only need a $100 million return. Even if that’s only a 10% return, they can’t properly oversee a hundred different deals like my 25% deal. So they lose out on higher percentage returns because they’re too large.

          1. The reason the definition of “organic” was watered down so thoroughly

            I already pointed out that the “definition” didn’t exist in any consistent form on a national basis. and that the current definition isn’t “Watered Down” – it simply lists a few things you can’t do. If people want to go farther, there’s nothing stopping them.

            And big-scale operations were involved both before and after the standards were written. The narrative that its all about ‘selling out to the man’ is part of the same myth that i describe above. Small farms are not the main constituents in the US agricultural world = they weren’t the main players before or after. Everyone who is selling product across state lines is Big Ag.

            It wasn’t ‘better’ before. and there’s no barrier to smaller-producers doing what they want. The fact is that the standard has little to do with some vast disparity in produce-supply between small farms and big ones – its about leaving enough flexibility so that food-processors can make finished products and slap the label on their cornflakes / maple syrup / salsa.

            iow, its not really about some bullshit “big farmer/small farmer” dichotomy at all. Its about expanding the market for goods with a certain label.

        2. In 1990, Whole Foods was charging yuppies $5 a pop for an organic apple. Big Ag wanted to compete with those suppliers for those high margins that specialty grocers were getting for organic produce–but they couldn’t compete because they were scaled too large and you couldn’t grow $5 organic apples (or whatever) on scale without pesticides, herbicide, genetically modified seed, etc. The old market definition of “organic” wouldn’t allow them to sell like that, so Big Ag resorted to rent seeking. They colonized the regulators, they absconded with the label “organic”, and they redefined it legally to mean what it never meant before.

          Now they can produce “organic” apples at scale and undercut the cost of smaller suppliers!

          Fuck them.

        3. “The other thing i think people don’t get is that Organic means very different things depending on the food-item. It basically doesn’t matter how you produce some things, whereas it matters very much with other things. Simply being “organic” is not necessarily good or better. “

          Some of the confusion you’re talking about is a result of the certification and the government taking over the market differentiated term.

          If organic had a specific meaning, but then the government came along and let Big Ag companies start using the terms for things that the market term specifically didn’t allow, then the problem wasn’t with the term itself. The problem was with the government of using the term to help Big Ag with their rent seeking.

          If hydroponic produce that uses no pesticide, no herbicide, and no genetically modified seed someone fails to achieve the definition of organic, according to the government, then that just underscores the point.

          1. Yeah, you don’t really understand anything i said.

          2. I would suggest a very simple definition that would make all the organic people feel good:

            Organic food is food that is grown using the same documented techniques that were used before 1000BC, using only seeds and animals that can be demonstrated to be “heirloom” and in existence in 1000BC.

            This means:
            No mechanical tractors, only plows drawn by animals. No mechanical harvesting, only harvesting by hand (by women and children, if that was the norm back in 1000BC). No pesticides or herbicides that cannot be documented to have been in existence and used in 1000BC. The farmers have to dress like they did back then, using organic materials and methods of production that were used in 1000BC. Irrigation would be permitted if it used the same methods proacticed in 1000BC – no electric pumps. No plastic or any other metal piping, tools, packaging, or any other use, unless they existed in 1000BC (e.g., bone and balleen would be acceptable, as would bronze knives and leather containers). No refrigeration except for ice harvested from natural snowfalls. No other preservation methods except those available in 1000BC. No transportation except by animal-drawn cart, constructed from wood, or wooden sailing ships..All containers to use only materials and techniques available in 1000BC.

            All paper used for documentation should also be organic and comply with these rules, as well.

            1. Again, I think the market was fine with coming up with its own definition. Whatever the market comes up with is fine. It was fine.

              I don’t think the government needs a better definition of “organic”. I think they need to stop regulating the use of words.

        4. I remember when organic meant that there was minimal use of pesticide and herbicide. I remember when organic came to mean that it didn’t use genetically modified seed. Now, I understand that you can call anything organic so long as 75% of it doesn’t use genetically modified seed! Tell me that hydroponic produce that doesn’t use pesticide, herbicide, or genetically modified seed can’t be organic, and I’m going to tell you that the differentiating term has lost its meaning–and its only value now is as a brand name.

          But don’t blame the term. The term meant something once. Because the government changed what used to mean something into a term that also includes what the term used to specifically exclude, that isn’t a problem with the term itself. It’s a problem with the government.

          1. I remember when organic meant that there was minimal use of pesticide and herbicide. I remember when organic came to mean that it didn’t use genetically modified seed. Now, I understand that you can call anything organic so long as 75% of it doesn’t use genetically modified seed!

            No, you’re confusing the standards for raw produce and finished goods.

            You can’t sell produce w/ GMO and call it organic.

            Processed foods have a ‘minimum amount’ required… mainly for the reasons i pointed out above – which is that *certain* food items… particularly common inputs like “wheat or soy”… get zero actual benefit from Organic production methods. It would impose gigantic costs for literally no improvement of the final product. And you couldn’t make anything without those inputs.

            1. You’re right. I don’t remember seeing much in the way of “organic” finished good before 1990.

              And maybe that was fine.

              Maybe people knew back then that when they saw that something had organic ingredients, they should check the label.

              Maybe a lot of producers didn’t put the organic label on things that weren’t 100% organic before 1990 because the fear of pissing off your customers was more than sufficient to prevent a lot of the horseshit labeling the government permits by fiat today.

              Other than the fear of false advertising suits and the fear of pissing off their customers, what would have stopped Big Ag food companies from calling things organic that weren’t prior to 1990?

              Apparently, that was all that was needed to stop them from doing that before. Certainly, truly organic products were better differentiated in the market before regulation in 1990 than after. Before then, the consumers would take you to task for ripping them off. Now it’s all, “Regulations were followed”.

              Fuck regulations. It’s a bullshit excuse to protect big food companies from shifts in consumer demand–and this libertarian thinks consumer demand should make the rules and define terms like “organic”.

      2. “The definition of “organic” was very different across the dozen states that had their own certification-label”

        I’m talking about before certification.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Organic_Foods_Production_Act_of_1990

        When farmers marketed their stuff as “organic” before certification, people had a better idea of what organic meant than they do now.

        Now that “organic” is certified to be things that were not organic under the old market definition, it made the term meaningless.

        A turd blossom is not a rose just because the government calls it one.

        1. When farmers marketed their stuff as “organic” before certification, people had a better idea of what organic meant than they do now.

          This is absolutely not true.

          I did about 3 years of research on behalf of the industry in the mid 1990s; everything from consumer-surveys to executive consulting Consumers had wildly different ideas about what “organic” meant in the mid-1990s. Mainly because the things being marketed as such in different places (e.g. the same Cali vs. Vermont distinction) were concentrated in different industries.

          In VT, where dairy was most-important, the concept was about anti-biotics, feed, and other dairy-specific types of issues. In Cali, it was “pesticides” (but not fertilizers), in the midwest it was something else, etc. Some people thought it was about environmental benefit, some people thought it was about health, etc.

          Now that “organic” is certified to be things that were not organic under the old market definition, it made the term meaningless.

          No, because there was no “one-market-definition” before. You couldn’t sell one state’s organic products in a different state because it would need to meet two different (and sometimes contradictory) sets of rules. You couldn’t GET many of the “super-authentic-real-organic” stuff anywhere except where regulations permitted it.

          What’s stopping anyone from adding a 2nd “Cali-organic” label now? Nothing.

          1. “What’s stopping anyone from adding a 2nd “Cali-organic” label now? Nothing.”

            Would the federal government let you use the word “organic”?

            “everything from consumer-surveys to executive consulting Consumers had wildly different ideas about what “organic” meant in the mid-1990s.”

            1) I’m talking about what it was like before 1990. After 1990, when the government got involved at the behest of industry, things got even more confusing.

            Back before then, even if different people had different ideas about what organic was, it was still clearer then than it is now.

            I don’t think anyone was confused before about whether hydroponic produce that didn’t use pesticide, herbicide, or GMO seed could be called “organic”. Again, if being none of those things doesn’t make it “organic”, then it’s no wonder if people are confused.

            2) The word “organic” has brand value–like the word “fresh”. Because different people might have different ideas about what makes something qualified as “fresh”, that doesn’t mean the government coming in and standardizing usage for the benefit of the biggest players will make the terms less confusing. It doesn’t mean that consumers don’t understand what they mean when they see the word “fresh” either.

            People know what they think they’re buying when they see the word “fresh”, and they knew what they thought they were getting before 1990 when they say the word “organic”. They understood it then a whole lot better than they understand it now.

  14. And it isn’t just that the government’s solutions are the problem–again. It’s that they’re destroying the most libertarian way for people to work against pesticides, herbicides, etc. As a libertarian I can say, “Well, if you don’t like what the Big Ag is doing with those chemicals, then just avoid buying their products”, but how absurd is that argument when the regulators have successfully undermined the market’s ability to differentiate their products?

    If the government interferes in the market’s ability to differentiate products so thoroughly that consumers who care have a hard time figuring out what they’re buying, it’s no wonder that environmentalists would turn to regulation. But the failure of the market to differentiate their products isn’t really a market failure–it’s the result of government regulation.

  15. I Quit my office-job and now I am getting paid 99 USD hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after…I can say my life is changed-completely!

    Check it out what i do:===> http://www.NetNote70.com

    1. $99 an hour? We know what you do – low-rent prostitute.

      Hell, back when Craigslist was allowing ‘adult’ ads you could see the going price in San Diego was $130-$150 *a half hour*.

  16. All food is organic. Using “organic” as a marketing term is bullshit.

    -jcr

  17. The NOSB suggested in the mid-1990s that hydroponics can be organic, but suggested in later years that they can’t. A recent meeting of the agency’s NOSB, which is deliberating the hydroponics issue, ended with a call for more deliberation.

    I’m just so relieved that there are dozens of government bureaucrats being paid to do such vital work as to debate whether “hydroponically grown” can be “organic”! It so nicely illustrates the achievements of the progressive regulatory state!

  18. “Organic Hydroponic and Aquaponic Task Force”

    Jesus, Adult Swim is really grasping for reboot material.

  19. The best part of work is from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week. Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more info Check the following link

    ==================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  20. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ……………….. http://YoutubeJobs.Nypost55.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.