From rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org Mon Nov 1 22:27:20 1999 Date: 15 Oct 99 07:28:41 From: Roberto Verzola To: WILSONDO@phibred.com Subject: RE: monsters that change? >1. I don't think they (we) are monsters, just all too human >2. Your tone is sort of like "kick em good when they're down" >3. You are not adding anything to the debate, just engaging in personal >attack. > >The people I know in Monsanto, and in the industry in general are operating >with good intentions. Sure, they want to make money, but they believe (and >so do I) that the current GMO products are good, healthful, useful to >farmers of all sizes, and mostly harmless to the environment. Their big >fault is being politically naive. Dale, I think you mistake the persons you know for the corporation. Remember that a corporation is a separate personality from its individual shareholders, directors, managers and employees. Monsanto (and Pioneer too) is a separate legal personality of its own. It is literally a monster, with neither heart nor soul (even if some of its component parts might have them). It might be helpful to consider a corporation *as if* it were a different species, with humans among its component parts. What these humans think is relevant only in so far as they aid what the corporation itself, as a business firm with its own legal personality, is programmed to do -- which is to maximize profits. Chairman Shapiro himself is expendable and can be replaced anytime. I had been thinking, actually, of writing a piece I'd entitle: "How do you slay a corporation?" Our ancestors could slay the biggest monster of their time, the wooly mammoth. The biggest monsters of our time are corporations. And our communities have not yet learned the ABC of slaying a corporation that is a threat to their survival. Some have tried bombing its headquarters, or killing its managers, taking it to court, and a thousand other tricks, but they don't work. The corporation is very good at healing its wounds and replacing its constituent parts. On the other hand, corporations have learned how to domesticate human beings, like we domesticate cats and dogs. Such domesticated human beings think they can't live without corporations, and, like guard dogs, will defend their masters with their lives and attack even their fellow dogs. Corporations have also learned to expand their own legal rights ("liberalization"), to stay clear of human laws ("deregulation") or to even take over human functions ("privatization"). Through lobbying, they are also rewriting the laws that we must live under. Need I define what "globalization" means? You don't like the "kick them good, when they're down" attitude towards a corporation? A wounded elephant is very dangerous. A wounded corporation is even more so. We now learning how to inflict wounds on a corporation, but we have not learned yet how to slay one. But we're getting there. Soon, I hope. Roberto Verzola To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From mmiller@pcsia.com Mon Nov 1 22:27:46 1999 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 06:45:17 -0500 From: mmiller@pcsia.com To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Slaying Monsters >You don't like the "kick them good, when they're down" attitude >towards a corporation? A wounded elephant is very dangerous. A wounded >corporation is even more so. We now learning how to inflict wounds on >a corporation, but we have not learned yet how to slay one. But we're >getting there. Soon, I hope. To quote a famous person in the Western World, "Ask and ye shall receive." Below is an address and a teaser bit of the article related to your thoughts. The author's address http://www.essential.org/monitor/monitor.html may also have more information. Mike Miller >From http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/charter/death.html Death Penalty for Corporations Comes of Age In two surprising recent cases, a law school professor and a circuit court judge seek to revoke the charters of corporate lawbreakers. By Russell Mokhiber We know what the death penalty for individuals means: Commit an egregious crime, die at the hands of the state. What does it mean to talk about the "death penalty" for corporations? Simply this: Commit an egregious wrong and have your charter revoked. In other words, lose the state's permission to exist. It's an intriguing concept, because most of us never think about corporations needing anyone's permission to exist. But they do. Throughout the nation's history, the states have had - and still have - the authority to give birth to a corporation by granting a corporate charter, and to impose the death penalty on corporate wrongdoers by revoking its charter. Activist-author Richard Grossman points out that in 1890, for example, New York's highest court revoked the charter of the North River Sugar Refining Corporation - referring to the judgment explicitly as one of "corporate death." It was once widely understood that the states had this power. "New York, Ohio, Michigan and Nebraska revoked the charters of oil, match, sugar and whiskey trusts" in the 1800s, Grossman wrote in the pamphlet, "Taking Care of Business: Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation," co-authored with Frank Adams. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From dmhinds@acnet.net Mon Nov 1 22:29:21 1999 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:20:54 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re[2]: monsters that change? Hello Roberto, Good Post! Friday, October 15, 1999, 1:28:41 AM, you wrote: ... RV> I had been thinking, actually, of writing a piece I'd entitle: "How do RV> you slay a corporation?" Our ancestors could slay the biggest monster RV> of their time, the wooly mammoth. The biggest monsters of our time are RV> corporations. ... RV> A wounded elephant is very dangerous. A wounded corporation is RV> even more so. We now learning how to inflict wounds on a RV> corporation, but we have not learned yet how to slay one. But RV> we're getting there. Soon, I hope. RV> Roberto Verzola It is very difficult to slay a corporation and the idea is not very compatible with sustainability. Think of them as pests, which you don't try to eradicate, but rather control; and the best way to do that is by establishing a healthy environment, on a global (literally and figuratively) scale, as well as implementing a strategy specific to the characteristics of the particular pest and it's needs and habits. While corporations obviously have ample means to work against this, the battle is there to be waged, from within and without. "Winning" requires being as well organized and efficient as a corporation, but in a more inclusive, comprehensive way. The "system" is more than what "they" take into account, and this is both the strength and weakness of the corporations. By limiting their focus and ignoring long term and wide spread damages, they can concentrate on short term and locally (i.e., good for the corporation, according to their own convoluted criteria) concentrated benefits. However, in the long term, the very factor of being exclusive is what generates "better", more universal alternatives outside of it, that focus on issues that while harder to define, culminate in a sense of the quality of life and even, of life versus death. The best case in point that comes to mind is that of big tobacco, It took a while, but they seem to be judicially dead, at least for now and in only some jurisdictions. This is all good theory but in practice, of course SOMEONE has to wage the battle and it will take a lot of unity on the part of many to accomplish this goal - just like the way a corporation works, with different, more limited goals. Dale may say that the goals of a "good" corporation are no different and he may be right. The problem is, for them to get to be good, they have to get their asses good and kicked once in a while. Right Dale? They don't do it alone. They do it in the context they are really in, once that's made known to (not by) them. Although they may deny that (which isn't important - the element of control is). In the end, the corporations are made up of people and you are right Roberto, in that people can lose control. When that happens, this must be corrected from without, in order for the people within to BE people again. Douglas Hinds CeDeCoR, A.C. dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From bluestem@webserf.net Mon Nov 1 22:33:27 1999 Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:34:42 +0100 From: Bluestem Associates To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Proposed organic cost share program On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 08:53:36 EDT, Erorganic@aol.com wrote: >Before signing on to letters to the Agricultural Marketing Service of USDA >supporting an organic cost share program for certification, it appears to me >members of the organic community should supply some thoughtful analysis of >its implications and possible effects on certified organic farmers and >handlers. >My concerns are gargantuan. Eric and I frequently disagree. Not this time. He who pays the piper, calls the tune. It would be entirely consistent with past bureaucratic motives if the purpose of this was simply to make certified farmers more dependent on bureaucrats, thereby securinging the bureaucrats' jobs in this little developing empire at the National Organic Program. >The Agricultural Marketing Service appears to >have proposed the organic certification cost share program. The cynical side of me sees this as a means of gaining more control over FVO and OCIA particularly, as these are both "high standards" programs, neither of which (to my knowledge) has ever taken a nickel of government money. We can't have such important programs so immune to our control, now, can we ...? In a private message to Anita Graf answering her question to me about how it is that Canada --- with its rather tight controls on election expenditures, PACs and such --- can still have so much of the same problems of favoritism, croneyism, special deals and so on, I said, ++Same shenanigans, same waste, same corruption as in the US. Most of the ++dirty work is done within the bureaucracy, as it is in the US. Bureaucrats are generally invisible, unavailable, and unaccountable. They can do a lot of good, and many are unsung heroes. More often they do an amazing amount of anonymous harm. >The money ultimately ends up going >first to certified farmers [snip] and then is passed >back to the Agricultural Marketing Service as fees for accreditation by them. > In fact the proposed organic cost share program is another way to use tax >money to support the Agricultural Marketing Service National Organic Program. In a time of tight budgets, bureaucrats are as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs... the most effective way to raise taxes is through all sorts of hidden fees, especially if they come direct to your little domain. >In the Midwest at least we have large numbers of farmers coming to >certification agency meetings wanting to sell crops as "organically produced" >for the increased income earning potential. This is a trend that has >increased markedly every year for 4 years now. Almost none of these farmers >have become really familiar with the principals, practices or system of >organic farming. There main objective is increase farm income. Such a >proposed organic cost share program will only increase the number of farmer >applicants with very little increase in applicant knowledge of organic >farming. Very sadly, Eric, you understate the case. I see these guys all the time as an inspector. Just one example, from your state of Iowa... Conventional farmer with many hundreds of acres in heavy duty corn (anhydrous, etc). He had 130 acres (55 ha) that had been in the federal Conservation Reserve Program (at a tidy annual rent) for ten years. The whole thing was planted to food soybeans for 1999, which he wanted certified. The entire 130 acres was going to go *back* into CRP in 2000. In the course walking the field it became obvious to me that he had used herbicide(s) --- probably Pinnacle and Pursuit --- on the whole field. He didn't get certified, but I'll bet there are a lot more out there like him, and some of them *do* get certified. The real weak link in the whole system right now is INSPECTION. Many inspectors do not have practical production experience or knowledge. Relatively few have any understanding of *conventional* production --- its methods, its materials, and (above all) its *attitudes.* Increasing the number of applicants by encouraging them with subsidies is potentially disastrous for the little credibility remaining in the industry. The organic industry has largely done this to itself, with its slavish and anal-retentive preoccupation with *materials* rather than farm systems. It simply doesn't take as much understanding of agriculture to haggle over materials as it does to codify the irreducible minimum of a healthy system management. Because it's easier for programs (and bureaucrats) to haggle over materials, we have ironically undermined the entire inspection process. Inspecting for materials use is *NOT* easy. In fact, it is probably the most difficult aspect of the entire system to monitor. There are farms I *know* got sprayed within hours of when I headed down the lane for my next inspection. What really matters is how the whole system is put together and managed. That is difficult to codify, but once codified is relatively easy to inspect, even for inspectors of modest ability. There is absolutely no way, for example, that I could determine whether or not an applicant as used 25 kg/ha of Chilean nitrate, or 125 kg/ha, other than to trust his answer. That standard, therefore, is un-inspectable, un-verifiable, and thereby useless. What is *easy* to inspect is whether or not there is at least 25% legume sod in the rotation, and whether or not the applicant has a *written* management protocol for standard materials and procedures used in that particular operation. Less than 2% of the farms I inspected in 1999 had a written protocol for mineral fertility management, even though it is clearly required in the standards. If you think that doesn't matter, go back to the archives and review my comments about soil minerals and crop quality from about 3 weeks ago. The key questions are: a) Is this system designed and managed so as maximise system health and crop quality; b) Is it designed and managed to minimise the need for chemical inputs; c) Is this management protocol documented and followed, and d) Is there a chain of custody guaranteeing that the harvest has not been contaminated or co-mingled. Having de-emphasised these most important managerial elements (which are the *easiest* to inspect), and having over-emphasised materials (which are very difficult to inspect), the organic business has left itself extremely vulnerable. Federal cost sharing and the resultant influx of desperate conventional growers may well be all that is needed to tip an already-unstable system into the abyss. >There is a question whether large numbers of new "cost share" applicants for >organic farming certification will not stimulate oversupply of organic >product. Every since passage of the Organic Foods Production Act, staff of >the Agricultural Marketing Service have been trying to expand organic markets >for us, expand organic supply for us. That is not their mandate under OFPA. >Let the markets and supply expand without, absolutely without, Federal >government intervention. All such intervention twist the internally, >continually re-balancing organic supply and demand system in directions that >are simply un-natural, not "organic." This is an additional cause for concern, but if the inspectability problem isn't resolved, it may not matter. There are inspectors (and certification committee members) out here with enough concrete examples to seriously damage the demand side of "organic" equation in the course of a single interview on '60-minutes.' Bart To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From Erorganic@aol.com Mon Nov 1 22:33:39 1999 Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 08:53:36 EDT From: Erorganic@aol.com To: Organic4um@aol.com Subject: Against a proposed organic cost share program Hello all, Before signing on to letters to the Agricultural Marketing Service of USDA supporting an organic cost share program for certification, it appears to me members of the organic community should supply some thoughtful analysis of its implications and possible effects on certified organic farmers and handlers. I have heard none. My concerns are gargantuan. Firstly, organic farming and handling is a free market activity now, with the only authorized activity of USDA or the Federal government made by Congress is to establish the National Organic Program. That has taken 10 years primarily because up until most recently qualified people were not hired to manage the proposed program. The Agricultural Marketing Service appears to have proposed the organic certification cost share program. What is this saying by the Agricultural Marketing Service initiating this proposal? Could it be that the cost for certification are going to be so high that we have to have government assistance to be a USDA certified organic farm or handling operation? Doesn't such a proposed cost share diffuse and cover over the much more important OFPA mandated statement of "reasonable" cost of certification and accreditation to all parties? Who really gains form such a program? --The money ultimately ends up going first to certified farmers (or more probably anyone applying for certification) (are handler applicants included also and if not why not?) who pay the money to USDA accredited certifiers (allowing their expansion of operations and farm/handler certification market share) and then is passed back to the Agricultural Marketing Service as fees for accreditation by them. In fact the proposed organic cost share program is another way to use tax money to support the Agricultural Marketing Service National Organic Program. I am not clear on how fees collected from farmer/handler applicants and/or accredited certifying agents must be used by USDA. Perhaps, such funds cannot be directly deposited to AMS/NOP accounts. In the Midwest at least we have large numbers of farmers coming to certification agency meetings wanting to sell crops as "organically produced" for the increased income earning potential. This is a trend that has increased markedly every year for 4 years now. Almost none of these farmers have become really familiar with the principals, practices or system of organic farming. There main objective is increase farm income. Such a proposed organic cost share program will only increase the number of farmer applicants with very little increase in applicant knowledge of organic farming. I have not heard any statement that this might be a one time cost share, meaning that such a program will probably become an annual conditioned response for those so applying. We see the utter collapse of the conventional farming "community" under the now 65 year continuous "cost share" program initiated during the 30's depression. A cost share program is worth the organic community considering as all options are, but why would any of us want to become dependent for part of our farming or handling operations on a government hand-out program? There is a question whether large numbers of new "cost share" applicants for organic farming certification will not stimulate oversupply of organic product. Every since passage of the Organic Foods Production Act, staff of the Agricultural Marketing Service have been trying to expand organic markets for us, expand organic supply for us. That is not their mandate under OFPA. Let the markets and supply expand without, absolutely without, Federal government intervention. All such intervention twist the internally, continually re-balancing organic supply and demand system in directions that are simply un-natural, not "organic." And lastly, anyone that is seriously considering organic farming or handling businesses can surely pay a "reasonable" fee for certification. If a farm or handling operation falls under the $5000 level of gross income stated in OFPA, they do not need to apply for certification. With this statement, Ripplebrook Organic Growers would like to bring everyone's attention to fact that supporting iinstituting of such programs without forethought may lead us to many more problems than we think. We fully understand that inserting such a program as part of the language of the second Proposed Organic Rule in the Federal Register for public comment does offer some degree of public dialogue. But, we question whether this proposal originated or has been thoroughly discussed within the private sector organic farming and handling community, which is where the effect will be felt. Best regards, Eric Kindberg From sals@rain.org Mon Nov 1 22:34:44 1999 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:21 -0800 From: Sal To: "Harris, Craig" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, 'Bluestem Associates' Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] ----- Original Message ----- From: Harris, Craig To: ; 'Bluestem Associates' Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 2:08 PM Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program > it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of > problems with certification . . . . > > first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that USDA develop > a national program of standards setting and certification . . . if one has > disagreements with those two objectives, then one's disagreements are with > the legislation as passed by congress and signed by the president, not with > the USDA-ams implementation of the legislation calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy now I pay a certifier, a inspector ,the state of Ca. etc how many pencil pushing bureaucrats do I have to pay off just for telling the truth and they all require paper work and can all charge me what they want. whats with that. no one can tell you what you will have to pay to be organic because every one charges what they want and u have to pay. it's a rip off there are too many folks NOW with their hands in our pockets now. I can't afford to give all these folks money now. the organic tax is a rip off. > second, when the first draft of the proposed implementation was released for > review last year, one of the major criticisms was that the cost of > certification would be unduly burdensome for small organic farmers . . . it > seems to me that a cost-share arrangement addresses that criticism . . . if > one is going to be critical of the cost-sharing proposals, i think one has > to suggest ways in which they can be revised (or alternatives implemented) > which at the same time mitigate the undue cost burden easy take the burden off the backs of the growers. they are paying to much now. why do I have to pay a certifier and the state of Ca. both for the same thing and why should I pay the USDA for the same thing I am paying everyone else for. why do I have to give paper work to the state and be inspected by the state and the certifier and pay them both for the same dam thing. its a big rip off NOW and the USDA are talking about adding to the burden not lifting it. I say let those that are lying pay and those that are telling the truth not pay this whole thing is a rip off. Mafia protection money . you get a letter from the state of Ca. ok your organic now you have to pay us every year and kiss up to us and the certifier sends a letter ok your organic now You have to pay us every year year after year and the inspector sends us a bill yes you are organic now you have to pay me every year year after year for the rest of your life . I know I am organic what did i get from all this nothing but a stinking little piece of paper more work. more bosses more slavemasters now the USDA want to get into the act. ok your organic now every year year after year after year you have to pay us. bull shit how many pencil pushing bottom feeders do u have to pay off to tell the truth organic Gestapo extortion force labor slavery the Mafia won they are now the Government and they got the organic grower by the cohoniess and all these folks can charge what every they want and we have to pay. I can go on and on . those that feel it know it. I say organic growers should not have to pay one cent more than any other grower to grow and sell their crops and if they are organic they should be able to tell anyone the truth. if the USDA wants to set a standard let them if the USDA wants to regulate certifiers let them but don't tax the organic grower for doing the good that he knows. Its too much now not one more cent I need my money go rob someone else. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From dmhinds@acnet.net Mon Nov 1 22:35:27 1999 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:21:10 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds To: Sal Cc: "Harris, Craig" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, 'Bluestem Associates' Subject: Re[2]: Proposed organic cost share program Hello Sal & all Sal was very eloquent and is totally right! OFPA is fundamentally wrong in mandating obligatory USDA Organic Certification. Once a decent Organic Rule has been developed and supported by the organic community, those that need it will adhere to it and participate; but USDA Organic Certification is going to have to be either non compulsory or unconstitutional. Let it rest on it's own merit and let the buyer insist on which certification program he, she or it requires, if any. Craig too is correct when he says: > first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that usda > develop a national program of standards setting and certification . > . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's > disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and > signed by the president, not with the usda-ams implementation of the > legislation Having been passed by congress and signed by the president does not make the obligatory aspect of USDA Organic Certification constitutional (much less necessary or fair), and Sal is right again when claiming that the $5000 limit for exemption is a "rip off". In fact, it's ridiculous and offensive. OFPA as written will either be amended or become bogged down in court. If implemented as it now reads, there will be serious liabilities generated that will have attended to at a high cost, in the end. Douglas Hinds Monday, November 01, 1999, 9:21:21 AM, you wrote: S> ----- Original Message ----- S> From: Harris, Craig S> To: ; 'Bluestem Associates' S> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 2:08 PM S> Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program >> it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of >> problems with certification . . . . >> >> first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that USDA S> develop a national program of standards setting and certification . S> . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's S> disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and S> signed by the president, not with the USDA-ams implementation of S> the legislation S> calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off S> taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off S> set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks S> if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the S> inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy S> now I pay a certifier, a inspector ,the state of Ca. etc how many pencil S> pushing bureaucrats do I have to pay off just for telling the truth and S> they all require paper work and can all charge me what they want. whats S> with that. no one can tell you what you will have to pay to be organic S> because every one charges what they want and u have to pay. it's a rip off S> there are too many folks NOW with their hands in our pockets now. S> I can't afford to give all these folks money now. S> the organic tax is a rip off. >> second, when the first draft of the proposed implementation was released S> for review last year, one of the major criticisms was that the cost of >> certification would be unduly burdensome for small organic farmers >> . . . S> it seems to me that a cost-share arrangement addresses that S> criticism . . . if one is going to be critical of the cost-sharing S> proposals, i think one has to suggest ways in which they can be S> revised (or alternatives implemented) which at the same time S> mitigate the undue cost burden S> easy take the burden off the backs of the growers. they are paying to much S> now. why do I have to pay a certifier and the state of Ca. both for the same S> thing and why should I pay the USDA for the same thing I am paying everyone S> else for. why do I have to give paper work to the state and be inspected by S> the state and the certifier and pay them both for the same dam thing. its a S> big rip off NOW and the USDA are talking about adding to the burden not S> lifting it. I say let those that are lying pay and those that are telling S> the truth not pay S> this whole thing is a rip off. Mafia protection money . you get a letter S> from the state of Ca. ok your organic now you have to pay us every year and S> kiss up to us and the certifier sends a letter ok your organic now You have S> to pay us every year year after year and the inspector sends us a bill yes S> you are organic now you have to pay me every year year after year for the S> rest of your life . I know I am organic what did i get from all this S> nothing but a stinking little piece of paper more work. more bosses more S> slavemasters now the USDA want to get into the act. ok your organic now S> every year year after year after year you have to pay us. bull shit how S> many pencil pushing bottom feeders do u have to pay off to tell the truth S> organic Gestapo S> extortion S> force labor S> slavery S> the Mafia won they are now the Government and they got the organic grower by S> the cohoniess and all these folks can charge what every they want and we S> have to pay. S> I can go on and on . those that feel it know it. S> I say organic growers should not have to pay one cent more than any other S> grower to grow and sell their crops and if they are organic they should be S> able to tell anyone the truth. if the USDA wants to set a standard let them S> if the USDA wants to regulate certifiers let them but don't tax the organic S> grower for doing the good that he knows. S> Its too much now S> not one more cent S> I need my money go rob someone else. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From bluestem@webserf.net Mon Nov 1 22:35:46 1999 Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 19:16:24 From: Bluestem Associates To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: 'Small' farms & certification On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:21 -0800, Sal wrote: >calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off I believe that the US Small business Administration sets the threshhold for 'micro' businesses at $250,000 annual sales and below. That covers 94% of all American farms. I don't know where the upper threshold is, but it's probably more than my businesses are ever likely to gross. Half of US farmers have less than $10,000 in annual sales. *However* when I was living in Wisconsin I was tangentially involved in a case in which an organic grower was routinely using calcium nitrate and some other prohibited materials. If he was bigger than $5,000, it wasn't by a lot. Cheaters come in all sizes, including small, which is why they, too, need to be certified. The organic premium is supposed (in part) to cover the *additional* costs of producing organically, is it not. Additional costs like paperwork and certification. I'm not sure who is "ripping off" whom when organic growers want the full premium for their production, but seem pathologically unwilling to make the efforts in soil care and recordkeeping (including certification) to justify that premium. I have been on 2 acre organic vegetable farms with 125-150 ton/acre annual erosion rates. They were pocketing their premium and giving absolutely nothing back to the land. Their sales were under $5,000 but they should no more have the right to call themselves organic than if they had been using Sevin to control squash bugs. It us the certification process --- with all its flaws --- that should be making that determination. Self-definition as organic, regardless of size, is simply wrong. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From ps@erinet.com Mon Nov 1 22:36:01 1999 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:20:58 -0500 From: Paul Schmitmeyer To: Sanet Subject: proposed organic cost share legislation [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Hi all, This is quite an interesting thread. I'm not really where to attack it, I just know I don't like the direction this legislation is all leading. There is a proplem in as much as there are too many certification agencies with too many different sets of rules and regs. Compound that with the different inspectors and how they might interpret different regs. It reminds me a lot of the current crop insurance program we have currently in place. If you happen to get a sympathetic adjuster they will work things as far as he knows he can get away with. Also just the opposite is true. Another thing that worries me is that this is all leading towards federal involvement, something none of us should want. Like someone wrote earlier said, there will be a day of reconning, a day to pay the Piper. They have screwed up our ag system completely. Subsidies have only helped the Big farmer get bigger yet. Yes, it helps out the small farmer also, but at what price? Paul To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From tabeles@tmn.com Mon Nov 1 22:36:15 1999 Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 19:52:43 -0500 From: tabeles To: Douglas Hinds Cc: Sal , "Harris, Craig" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, 'Bluestem Associates' Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program It is interesting to look at this exchange. A number of years ago I warned those in the organic industry that if they got gov't in the middle it would be a muddle (hmm, sounds like Dr. Seuss). The rationale was that if the gov't provided the cert that it would be a seal of uniform approval and a way to keep interlopers and the greedy out of just labeling something as organic. The industry was self regulating- once upon a time. But now you can't unscramble eggs and you get a half baked, expensive omlet that, like any gov't reg, has enough loopholes that you can drive a big 4WD right through it. sounds like that old Abbott/Costello exchange "Who's on First?" thoughts tom abeles Douglas Hinds wrote: > Hello Sal & all > > Sal was very eloquent and is totally right! OFPA is fundamentally > wrong in mandating obligatory USDA Organic Certification. Once a > decent Organic Rule has been developed and supported by the organic > community, those that need it will adhere to it and participate; but > USDA Organic Certification is going to have to be either non > compulsory or unconstitutional. Let it rest on it's own merit and let > the buyer insist on which certification program he, she or it > requires, if any. > > Craig too is correct when he says: > > > first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that usda > > develop a national program of standards setting and certification . > > > . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's > > disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and > > signed by the president, not with the usda-ams implementation of the > > legislation > > Having been passed by congress and signed by the president does not > make the obligatory aspect of USDA Organic Certification > constitutional (much less necessary or fair), and Sal is right again > when claiming that the $5000 limit for exemption is a "rip off". In > fact, it's ridiculous and offensive. > > OFPA as written will either be amended or become bogged down in court. > If implemented as it now reads, there will be serious liabilities > generated that will have attended to at a high cost, in the end. > > Douglas Hinds > > Monday, November 01, 1999, 9:21:21 AM, you wrote: > > S> ----- Original Message ----- > S> From: Harris, Craig > S> To: ; 'Bluestem Associates' > S> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 2:08 PM > S> Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program > > >> it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of > >> problems with certification . . . . > >> > >> first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that USDA > S> develop a national program of standards setting and certification . > S> . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's > S> disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and > S> signed by the president, not with the USDA-ams implementation of > S> the legislation > > S> calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off > S> taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off > S> set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks > S> if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the > S> inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy > S> now I pay a certifier, a inspector ,the state of Ca. etc how many pencil > S> pushing bureaucrats do I have to pay off just for telling the truth and > S> they all require paper work and can all charge me what they want. whats > S> with that. no one can tell you what you will have to pay to be organic > S> because every one charges what they want and u have to pay. it's a rip off > S> there are too many folks NOW with their hands in our pockets now. > S> I can't afford to give all these folks money now. > S> the organic tax is a rip off. > > >> second, when the first draft of the proposed implementation was released > S> for review last year, one of the major criticisms was that the cost of > >> certification would be unduly burdensome for small organic farmers > >> . . . > S> it seems to me that a cost-share arrangement addresses that > S> criticism . . . if one is going to be critical of the cost-sharing > S> proposals, i think one has to suggest ways in which they can be > S> revised (or alternatives implemented) which at the same time > S> mitigate the undue cost burden > > S> easy take the burden off the backs of the growers. they are paying to much > S> now. why do I have to pay a certifier and the state of Ca. both for the same > S> thing and why should I pay the USDA for the same thing I am paying everyone > S> else for. why do I have to give paper work to the state and be inspected by > S> the state and the certifier and pay them both for the same dam thing. its a > S> big rip off NOW and the USDA are talking about adding to the burden not > S> lifting it. I say let those that are lying pay and those that are telling > S> the truth not pay > S> this whole thing is a rip off. Mafia protection money . you get a letter > S> from the state of Ca. ok your organic now you have to pay us every year and > S> kiss up to us and the certifier sends a letter ok your organic now You have > S> to pay us every year year after year and the inspector sends us a bill yes > S> you are organic now you have to pay me every year year after year for the > S> rest of your life . I know I am organic what did i get from all this > S> nothing but a stinking little piece of paper more work. more bosses more > S> slavemasters now the USDA want to get into the act. ok your organic now > S> every year year after year after year you have to pay us. bull shit how > S> many pencil pushing bottom feeders do u have to pay off to tell the truth > S> organic Gestapo > S> extortion > S> force labor > S> slavery > S> the Mafia won they are now the Government and they got the organic grower by > S> the cohoniess and all these folks can charge what every they want and we > S> have to pay. > S> I can go on and on . those that feel it know it. > S> I say organic growers should not have to pay one cent more than any other > S> grower to grow and sell their crops and if they are organic they should be > S> able to tell anyone the truth. if the USDA wants to set a standard let them > S> if the USDA wants to regulate certifiers let them but don't tax the organic > S> grower for doing the good that he knows. > S> Its too much now > S> not one more cent > S> I need my money go rob someone else. > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From dmhinds@acnet.net Mon Nov 1 22:36:28 1999 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:55:15 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds To: tabeles Cc: Sal , "Harris, Craig" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, 'Bluestem Associates' Subject: Re[2]: Proposed organic cost share program Hi Tom & all, Monday, November 01, 1999, 6:52:43 PM, you wrote: TA> It is interesting to look at this exchange. A number of years ago I TA> warned those in the organic industry that if they got gov't in the TA> middle it would be a muddle (hmm, sounds like Dr. Seuss). It could have been done right. There IS a proper role for government in the matter, but that ISN'T the role that OFPA designates. TA> The [ostensible] rationale was that if the gov't provided the cert TA> that it would be a seal of uniform approval and a way to keep TA> interlopers and the greedy out of just labeling something as TA> organic. The industry was self regulating- once upon a time. Not quite. That is why third party certification organizations were created. Undoubtedly some are better than others, but truly interested and involved parties have or will develop (alone or with help), an appropriate criteria that gets to the medulla of what organic means and represents. They'll know who to trust, and falsehoods will be exposed, just as they are in politics or what have you. In the end, the products own quality speaks for itself and buyers already specify which certifying bodies they'll accept, when they require certification. (There are many instances when it's not needed, as in many CSA operations). Still, there is a need for an OFPA, but not the way this one reads at present. TA> But now you can't unscramble eggs and you get a half baked, TA> expensive omlet that, like any gov't reg, has enough loopholes TA> that you can drive a big 4WD right through it. Not only are there loopholes (that is, there is no guarantee that it will produce the desired results), OFPA creates abuses and injustices of it's own. I suspect that it will never be implemented, at least not as presently written. And if it is, the following morass in the courts will obviate any benefits it could have brought. All it needed to do was develop a consistent national standard that is congruent with organic principles and tradition, and achieves a consensus with the organic community. But any certification program that is linked to it will have to be voluntary: i.e., one option among others. This is not to say that the above mentioned consistent national standard wouldn't be backed truth in labeling laws and penalties for misrepresentation; but as Sal suggested (and he did this in 1997 as well - I happened to be searching the sanet archives for something else and ran on to this thread), just as was done with drag racers who questioned whether their opponents car was "stock" or not (requiring the the engine be dismantled), the cost of this was born by the party that was proved right - a cheater was penalized, while he who accused falsely the other without foundation was also. In short, we don't need a police state (and another bureaucracy with links to "friends" in the industry) running the show, we need a valid legal structure to provide an effective recourse for allowing consumers, growers and "value added" intermediaries to operate within defined limits that they themselves have defined and control. If government eats this, it will bloat, die and go rotten. TA> sounds like that old Abbott/Costello exchange "Who's on First?" Except that it's not funny. TA> thoughts TA> tom abeles nothing new follows below. -------------- TA> Douglas Hinds wrote: >> Hello Sal & all >> >> Sal was very eloquent and is totally right! OFPA is fundamentally >> wrong in mandating obligatory USDA Organic Certification. Once a >> decent Organic Rule has been developed and supported by the organic >> community, those that need it will adhere to it and participate; but >> USDA Organic Certification is going to have to be either non >> compulsory or unconstitutional. Let it rest on it's own merit and let >> the buyer insist on which certification program he, she or it >> requires, if any. >> >> Craig too is correct when he says: >> >> > first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that usda >> > develop a national program of standards setting and certification . >> >> > . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's >> > disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and >> > signed by the president, not with the usda-ams implementation of the >> > legislation >> >> Having been passed by congress and signed by the president does not >> make the obligatory aspect of USDA Organic Certification >> constitutional (much less necessary or fair), and Sal is right again >> when claiming that the $5000 limit for exemption is a "rip off". In >> fact, it's ridiculous and offensive. >> >> OFPA as written will either be amended or become bogged down in court. >> If implemented as it now reads, there will be serious liabilities >> generated that will have attended to at a high cost, in the end. >> >> Douglas Hinds >> >> Monday, November 01, 1999, 9:21:21 AM, you wrote: >> >> S> ----- Original Message ----- >> S> From: Harris, Craig >> S> To: ; 'Bluestem Associates' >> S> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 2:08 PM >> S> Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program >> >> >> it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of >> >> problems with certification . . . . >> >> >> >> first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that USDA >> S> develop a national program of standards setting and certification . >> S> . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's >> S> disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and >> S> signed by the president, not with the USDA-ams implementation of >> S> the legislation >> >> S> calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off >> S> taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off >> S> set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks >> S> if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the >> S> inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy >> S> now I pay a certifier, a inspector ,the state of Ca. etc how many pencil >> S> pushing bureaucrats do I have to pay off just for telling the truth and >> S> they all require paper work and can all charge me what they want. whats >> S> with that. no one can tell you what you will have to pay to be organic >> S> because every one charges what they want and u have to pay. it's a rip off >> S> there are too many folks NOW with their hands in our pockets now. >> S> I can't afford to give all these folks money now. >> S> the organic tax is a rip off. >> >> >> second, when the first draft of the proposed implementation was released >> S> for review last year, one of the major criticisms was that the cost of >> >> certification would be unduly burdensome for small organic farmers >> >> . . . >> S> it seems to me that a cost-share arrangement addresses that >> S> criticism . . . if one is going to be critical of the cost-sharing >> S> proposals, i think one has to suggest ways in which they can be >> S> revised (or alternatives implemented) which at the same time >> S> mitigate the undue cost burden >> >> S> easy take the burden off the backs of the growers. they are paying to much >> S> now. why do I have to pay a certifier and the state of Ca. both for the same >> S> thing and why should I pay the USDA for the same thing I am paying everyone >> S> else for. why do I have to give paper work to the state and be inspected by >> S> the state and the certifier and pay them both for the same dam thing. its a >> S> big rip off NOW and the USDA are talking about adding to the burden not >> S> lifting it. I say let those that are lying pay and those that are telling >> S> the truth not pay >> S> this whole thing is a rip off. Mafia protection money . you get a letter >> S> from the state of Ca. ok your organic now you have to pay us every year and >> S> kiss up to us and the certifier sends a letter ok your organic now You have >> S> to pay us every year year after year and the inspector sends us a bill yes >> S> you are organic now you have to pay me every year year after year for the >> S> rest of your life . I know I am organic what did i get from all this >> S> nothing but a stinking little piece of paper more work. more bosses more >> S> slavemasters now the USDA want to get into the act. ok your organic now >> S> every year year after year after year you have to pay us. bull shit how >> S> many pencil pushing bottom feeders do u have to pay off to tell the truth >> S> organic Gestapo >> S> extortion >> S> force labor >> S> slavery >> S> the Mafia won they are now the Government and they got the organic grower by >> S> the cohoniess and all these folks can charge what every they want and we >> S> have to pay. >> S> I can go on and on . those that feel it know it. >> S> I say organic growers should not have to pay one cent more than any other >> S> grower to grow and sell their crops and if they are organic they should be >> S> able to tell anyone the truth. if the USDA wants to set a standard let them >> S> if the USDA wants to regulate certifiers let them but don't tax the organic >> S> grower for doing the good that he knows. >> S> Its too much now >> S> not one more cent >> S> I need my money go rob someone else. >> >> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command >> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". >> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". >> >> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: >> http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail Douglas Hinds, Dir. Gral. - CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil (Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization) Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico Apdo. Postal No. 171 Fortin de las Flores, Veracruz 94471 Mexico Tel: 011 522 713 2888 (Direct at present) U.S. Voicemail (email linked) 630 300 0550 U.S. Fax Mailbox (email linked) 630 300 0555 dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org Tue Nov 2 01:01:57 1999 Date: 02 Nov 99 12:13:23 From: Roberto Verzola To: dmhinds@acnet.net Subject: high cost of organics >Incidentally, another of the hidden foibles of OFPA is the certainty >of elevating (or maintaining elevated) the cost of "organically" >produced food stuffs. (Could this have been intentional)? Of course, it is intentional. There are two options for the government to do: 1) if you choose to be organic, you must pay me to inspect you that you don't use chemicals blah blah, as Sal said. 2) if you use chemicals, you must pay me to inspect you that you don't use too much blah blah The first option favors the chemical firms, because it makes organic expensive, even with lower inputs. In effect, it makes chemical use the default. The second option favors organics, because it makes chemically-grown crops more expensive. It makes organic the default. If the government used the first option (we're not even talking of subsidies here!). Organics will take over very quickly. This approach will automatically take care of the cheats who falsely claim they are organic, but use chemicals. They can be prosecuted for evading inspection. No chemicals, no need for certification. This should be the goal. Roberto To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From sals@rain.org Tue Nov 2 14:13:20 1999 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:45:58 -0800 From: Sal To: Bluestem Associates , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: 'Small' farms & certification [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Bluestem Associates To: Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 7:16 PM Subject: 'Small' farms & certification > On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:21 -0800, Sal wrote: > > >calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off > >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off > > I believe that the US Small business Administration sets the threshhold > for 'micro' businesses at $250,000 annual sales and below. That covers > 94% of all American farms. I don't know where the upper threshold is, > but it's probably more than my businesses are ever likely to gross. > > Half of US farmers have less than $10,000 in annual sales. all the more reason not to charge these poor farmers money they need to live on. The government they love duplication and overlap and easy made jobs and powertrips. they feel organic growing is the cash cow and they are all out to milk it . Mafia protection money if you don't pay you can't do business. I have to pay a certifier,an inspector,the state of Ca. and now you want me to pay the Fed. USDA for the same dam thing. send paper work to all four and bow down to the power trips that all four are on. Your a farmer king of you farm and you get all these powertripers tell you what u have to do to meet their power trip and the funny part is that it has nothing to do with if u are organic or not but how u cross your ts and dot your i. this is every year over and over . it is getting to be real bull shit. and every year someone else forces you to pay them. it is always let the farmer pay for it all he can get the money back from his customers. where is that guarantee at. and why should I tax my customers who are the only folks I care about. > *However* when I was living in Wisconsin I was tangentially involved in > a case in which an organic grower was routinely using calcium nitrate > and some other prohibited materials. If he was bigger than $5,000, it > wasn't by a lot. so what if there is a thief in a town they don't search every ones house in the whole town to find the one thief why make the honest folks pay because someone cheats. > Cheaters come in all sizes, including small, which is why they, too, > need to be certified. The organic premium is supposed (in part) to > cover the *additional* costs of producing organically, is it not. > Additional costs like paperwork and certification. this is bull shit I don't get a organic premium and I'm lucky to sell my stuff at the same price big farmers get. this is the most bullshit I ever heard . are u going to guarantee me a premium? who guarantees me a supposed premium the certifier the inspector the state of ca the usda . > I'm not sure who is "ripping off" whom when organic growers want the > full premium for their production, but seem pathologically unwilling to > make the efforts in soil care and recordkeeping (including > certification) to justify that premium. all these certifiers and inspectors and usda made jobs and state run rip-offs don't make me organic and don't justify any premium I may get it is the fact that I farm organic my own labor not what these pencle pushers do . if you don't trust me and you don't trust CCOF and you don't trust IFOAM and you don't trust the state of Ca. what makes you think they will trust the USDA. i don't understand if I did not do anything different this year than last year why just because the date changes and it 99 or 20000 why do they all get to line up and get paid again . just because the year changes does not mean I changed anything. so why every year what does that date change have to do with being organic . > I have been on 2 acre organic vegetable farms with 125-150 ton/acre > annual erosion rates. They were pocketing their premium and giving > absolutely nothing back to the land. Their sales were under $5,000 but > they should no more have the right to call themselves organic than if > they had been using Sevin to control squash bugs. It us the > certification process --- with all its flaws --- that should be making > that determination. Self-definition as organic, regardless of size, is > simply wrong. so what! you know a cheater big deal so make every one doing good give up their right to innocent until proven guilty and the organic grower is guilty until he pays to prove he is innocent. and pays and pays and pays over and over again every year. year after year.to more and more people. bullshit. I did not do anything different this year than last year yet they line up to get their pound of flesh every year. are you organic ok pay us. bullshit why should I pay more than a chemical farmer to sell my goods . whats is fair about that. who is this USDA and STATE and inspector and certifier that their word is better than mine and why should I pay all of them. What happen to my robe of innocence? you mean the state does not trust the certifier and the certifier does not trust the inspector and the USDA does not trust any of them. hehe I am certified for my customers but this is getting nuts. I can't even support me let alone a big bureaucratic sink hole. every one charging what they like and I am in the middle being force to pay what every they ask and do what every they ask and bow to all these folks that don't do shit for me but take my money. My customers are happy with my CCOF and IFoam certification and I don't need any more people to pay off. so you know a cheater turn him in don't make me pay for his wrong doing I can't afford it. turn in his certifier turn in his inspector but because some one growing organic may cheat don't make me pay over and over again to more and more people what ever they bill me. the inspectors just gave themselves another raise now they get full pay for driving to your house plus gas and motel room . the state guy is getting paid and only works a three day week is on a real powertrip just talking to him makes me sick and they did not send me my registration for over 8 months just to show me how much power they have. powertripers they got to show you they got the power if you are cheating or not and the USDA is releasing living Frankenstein plants that will make organic growing imposable. you think drift was a problem wait till these GMO start to drift. and you want me to bow down and kiss up to these folks. don't get me started. they all got to show you how much power they got don't do any thing to help u only there to whip their power trip on you . yes boss slavemasters extortionists the Mafia won that's why you don't hear about them. now the government controls the gambling and the loan sharking and the extortion. When the Mafia did it they called it numbers game now the government calls it the lottery . you better worry about the real cheaters the fox you all want to watch the hen house. Just say no to the organic tax just say no to oppression of the poor and rightous. > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From bluestem@webserf.net Tue Nov 2 14:28:05 1999 Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 15:59:19 From: Bluestem Associates To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: The word "organic," a right? Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word "organic" in the marketplace. He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious who-knows what. I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be earned. There are many other marketing words for which you must earn the privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet all the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher unless I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups offering that service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* not matter. The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." Bart To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Tue Nov 2 16:09:58 1999 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:17:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: Sal Cc: Bluestem Associates , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: 'Small' farms & certification For those interested in following this thread and who may have missed reading any of the messages in it I am archiving it, on an ongoing basis, in its entirety at: http://metalab.unc.edu/intergarden/issues-and-news-issues/The.Truth.About.Organic.Certification Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Sal wrote: <><><> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Tue Nov 2 16:10:27 1999 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:11:02 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: Sal Cc: Bluestem Associates , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: 'Small' farms & certification WHAT HE SAID! Sal, you're the man! You should become head of NOP! USDA organic certification is just (yet) another example of undo government intrusion and heavy handed intervention in our fine system of free enterprise and directly in the lives and livelihoods of many good hardworking, productive, resourceful, taxpaying citizens. Certtification of organic food production systems should not be mandatory, it should only be voluntary. The american consumer is intelligent enough to discern what products are worth buying in the marketplace. Retailers are fully capable of "certifying" the organic certifiers. Customers can simply look at a regularly-updated chart posted in plain view in a store to see which certifying agencies the store recommends, details on their track record and how to find certification information on each product labelled "organically produced" in the store. The government cannotget a patent on "I grew this product with materials suppied by Nature" using methods emulating natural processes." Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Sal wrote: > Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:45:58 -0800 > From: Sal > To: Bluestem Associates , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: 'Small' farms & certification > > > check out a organic growers web page > http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bluestem Associates > To: > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 7:16 PM > Subject: 'Small' farms & certification > > > > On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:21 -0800, Sal wrote: > > > > >calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off > > >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off > > > > I believe that the US Small business Administration sets the threshhold > > for 'micro' businesses at $250,000 annual sales and below. That covers > > 94% of all American farms. I don't know where the upper threshold is, > > but it's probably more than my businesses are ever likely to gross. > > > > Half of US farmers have less than $10,000 in annual sales. > > all the more reason not to charge these poor farmers money they need to live > on. The government they love duplication and overlap and easy made jobs > and powertrips. they feel organic growing is the cash cow and they are all > out to milk it . Mafia protection money if you don't pay you can't do > business. I have to pay a certifier,an inspector,the state of Ca. and now > you want me to pay the Fed. USDA for the same dam thing. send paper work to > all four and bow down to the power trips that all four are on. Your a > farmer king of you farm and you get all these powertripers tell you what u > have to do to meet their power trip and the funny part is that it has > nothing to do with if u are organic or not but how u cross your ts and dot > your i. this is every year over and over . > it is getting to be real bull shit. and every year someone else forces you > to pay them. it is always let the farmer pay for it all he can get the > money back from his customers. where is that guarantee at. and why should > I tax my customers who are the only folks I care about. > > > > *However* when I was living in Wisconsin I was tangentially involved in > > a case in which an organic grower was routinely using calcium nitrate > > and some other prohibited materials. If he was bigger than $5,000, it > > wasn't by a lot. > > > > so what if there is a thief in a town they don't search every ones house in > the whole town to find the one thief why make the honest folks pay because > someone cheats. > > > > Cheaters come in all sizes, including small, which is why they, too, > > need to be certified. The organic premium is supposed (in part) to > > cover the *additional* costs of producing organically, is it not. > > Additional costs like paperwork and certification. > > > this is bull shit I don't get a organic premium and I'm lucky to sell my > stuff at the same price big farmers get. this is the most bullshit I ever > heard . are u going to guarantee me a premium? who guarantees me a > supposed premium the certifier the inspector the state of ca the usda . > > > I'm not sure who is "ripping off" whom when organic growers want the > > full premium for their production, but seem pathologically unwilling to > > make the efforts in soil care and recordkeeping (including > > certification) to justify that premium. > > all these certifiers and inspectors and usda made jobs and state run > rip-offs don't make me organic and don't justify any premium I may get it > is the fact that I farm organic my own labor not what these pencle pushers > do . if you don't trust me and you don't trust CCOF and you don't trust > IFOAM and you don't trust the state of Ca. what makes you think they will > trust the USDA. i don't understand if I did not do anything different this > year than last year why just because the date changes and it 99 or 20000 why > do they all get to line up and get paid again . just because the year > changes does not mean I changed anything. so why every year what does that > date change have to do with being organic . > > > > > I have been on 2 acre organic vegetable farms with 125-150 ton/acre > > annual erosion rates. They were pocketing their premium and giving > > absolutely nothing back to the land. Their sales were under $5,000 but > > they should no more have the right to call themselves organic than if > > they had been using Sevin to control squash bugs. It us the > > certification process --- with all its flaws --- that should be making > > that determination. Self-definition as organic, regardless of size, is > > simply wrong. > > > so what! you know a cheater big deal so make every one doing good give up > their right to innocent until proven guilty and the organic grower is guilty > until he pays to prove he is innocent. and pays and pays and pays over and > over again every year. year after year.to more and more people. bullshit. > I did not do anything different this year than last year yet they line up to > get their pound of flesh every year. are you organic ok pay us. bullshit > why should I pay more than a chemical farmer to sell my goods . whats is > fair about that. > who is this USDA and STATE and inspector and certifier that their word is > better than mine and why should I pay all of them. > > What happen to my robe of innocence? > > you mean the state does not trust the certifier and the certifier does not > trust the inspector and the USDA does not trust any of them. hehe I am > certified for my customers but this is getting nuts. I can't even support > me let alone a big bureaucratic sink hole. every one charging what they > like and I am in the middle being force to pay what every they ask and do > what every they ask and bow to all these folks that don't do shit for me but > take my money. My customers are happy with my CCOF and IFoam certification > and I don't need any more people to pay off. > so you know a cheater turn him in don't make me pay for his wrong doing I > can't afford it. turn in his certifier turn in his inspector but because > some one growing organic may cheat don't make me pay over and over again to > more and more people what ever they bill me. > the inspectors just gave themselves another raise now they get full pay for > driving to your house plus gas and motel room . the state guy is getting > paid and only works a three day week is on a real powertrip just talking to > him makes me sick and they did not send me my registration for over 8 months > just to show me how much power they have. powertripers they got to show you > they got the power if you are cheating or not and the USDA is releasing > living Frankenstein plants that will make organic growing imposable. you > think drift was a problem wait till these GMO start to drift. and you want > me to bow down and kiss up to these folks. don't get me started. they all > got to show you how much power they got don't do any thing to help u only > there to whip their power trip on you . yes boss slavemasters extortionists > the Mafia won that's why you don't hear about them. now the government > controls the gambling and the loan sharking and the extortion. When the > Mafia did it they called it numbers game now the government calls it the > lottery . you better worry about the real cheaters the fox you all want to > watch the hen house. Just say no to the organic tax just say no to > oppression of the poor and rightous. > > > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Tue Nov 2 16:10:58 1999 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:27:17 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: Bluestem Associates Cc: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Bluestem Associates wrote: > Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 15:59:19 > From: Bluestem Associates > To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" > Subject: The word "organic," a right? > > Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word > "organic" in the marketplace. > > He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious > who-knows what. I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be > earned. > > There are many other marketing words for which you must earn the > privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet all > the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher unless > I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups offering that > service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* not matter. It is not the government's business to enforce this process. Private organic certification agencies and discerning consumers are all that is required to carry this out successfully. Of course if "We're THE Organic People", Inc. UnLtd. wants to mass market "official USDA Certified Organic soy doodles" to 1 billion dumbells who can't or won't read the label, then that's another matter, but WHY do skilled, committed, productive, deserving small organic growers have to make huge sacrifices to make this scam possible both for the government and their favored buddies in the corporate megalith agribiz world. I know, Dennis Avery told them it was OK. > The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone > can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." > > > Bart Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Tue Nov 2 17:13:23 1999 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:08:27 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Bluestem Associates wrote: > Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word > "organic" in the marketplace. > > He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious > who-knows what. I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be > earned. To repeat your words, "a *privilege* to be earned" is exactly right in the context of a producer wishing to market products labelled CERTIFIED organic as opposed to "organic", a label that anyone should be free to use, putting their credibility, accountability and quality assurance on the line for public scrutiny of, course. Organic certification agencies not given a free ride through government enforcement of organic labelling laws it creates and tailors to its own desired ends, would be motivated to compete with fellow certification agencies for clients seeking certification, touting their standards as the most exacting and reliable. Producers would strive to attain certification from the best agencies in order to gain maximum market access. "Letting the government do it" simply gives certification agencies a free ride and opens the door to abuse of the system, on the backs of the small organic grower who cannot afford the time and expense of getting certification and would rather rely on nearby local sales and building reputation and sales by "word of mouth", a perfectly legitimate and extremely effective way of doing business. Customers would gain by participating in such a system by having access to a broader range of products, possibly of better or equal quality to "certified organic" ones and participaion in a time-honored traditional marketing system that is more farmer, customer and and community-friendly, a system modeled in part on the Fertile Crescent, foodshed and food circle concepts. Get and keep the government out of the organic labelling business and let it stick to enforcing truth-in-labelling laws and monitoring the safety of products. > There are many other marketing words for which you must earn > the privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet > all the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher > unless I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups > offering that service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* > not matter. > The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone > can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." Nothing wrong with that and it usually comes with a high price tag these days as so many food products in the marketplace continue be adulterated and of poor nutritional quality. Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From sals@rain.org Tue Nov 2 17:53:27 1999 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:36:40 -0800 From: Sal To: Bluestem Associates , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Bluestem Associates To: Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 3:59 PM Subject: The word "organic," a right? > Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word > "organic" in the marketplace. > > He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious > who-knows what. I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be > earned. > > There are many other marketing words for which you must earn the > privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet all > the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher unless > I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups offering that > service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* not matter. > > The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone > can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." > I have been certified for over 15 years and have my land inspected and have paid a certifier and a inspector and the state of ca. all that time every year,year after year and I do care what is called organic what u talking about. and if a Rabbi comes to my house and kills a chicken and tells me it is kosher I would trust him . You trust the paper more than the Rabbi. hehe whats up with u telling folks How I feel. I been playing by the books for so long because I do care where organic is going and I don't like what I see. you going to force your powertrip on me telling me how I feel and saying I need some big brother to watch over me because I am "growing organic"I don't know what non natural and natural is and saying I have to bow to the USDA who are the real folks that don't know GMO from natural. your right I do disagree with you I feel if you grow organic you should be free to tell the world you do by growing organic that is what give me the right to use that word. I feel I have as much a right to use that word as anyone because I grow organic. ... .they have turned the word organic into a political football subject to hard money and soft money and back door money and under the table money and we want our word back. I have been using it and folks have grown organic for 6000 years and only now this generation of vipers want to tax u for being natural . they want to make you pay for the chemicals you don't use.is this a joke or what. is this backwards or what. and u bluestem associates what ever that means don't tell folks what I think I can tell them my self. I don't think this take over of the word organic and the con job by the USDA is a good idea and I don't like paying the state of Ca. just because I am organic why should they get extra money from me just because Im organic. . you are right I do feel if I grow organic I have the right to tell folks how I grew their food something the USDA does not feel folks have a right to know. we are paying too many people to much of our hard earned money. its a rip off. how many bureaucratic pencil pushing bottom feeders do I have to pay off just to be able to tell the truth. farming is hard enough with out all these bosses working their power trips on you . the bureaucratic bullshit is harder than the farming. they are all on powertrips who needs it. the biggest pest i have is this bureaucratic bullshit pest . they don't pick up a hoe or help u pick food or even pull a weed yet they feel they have a right to your money and the feel they have the right to tell you what they want from u because u are organic. they do nothing only boss u each with his own power trip what a night mare . they love to show you how much power they have. I don't need anymore more bosses . they think they are such bigshots give them a little power and they powertrip on you. It is that old slavemaster sprit they still have it. the USDA in all my years has not been the organic growers friend or the small farmers friend or the black farmers friend in fact they are the biggest reason you don't see many of these kinds of farmers. the fox watching the hen house . we don't need no stinking badges. > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From loscott@envsci.rutgers.EDU Tue Nov 2 21:32:00 1999 Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 18:10:38 -0800 From: Loren Muldowney To: Bluestem Associates Cc: sanet Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? Bluestem Associates wrote: > > Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word > "organic" in the marketplace. > > He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious > who-knows what. I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be > earned. There exists at least one other option, and I would welcome commentary from everyone involved in buying, selling, marketing, or regulating, since the concept can be applied much more widely than just to the "organic" market. This option is basing the regulatory frame, not upon the dollar amount sold, but on the level of anonymity involved in the transaction chain, or the number of steps between producer and consumer, or some kind of measure other than a financial one. So, if I am buying personally, face to face, from a local farm, and I know these people and my kids go to school with their kids, and I see every day how they live their lives and I go past their fields and can ask them personally about various practices and problems, that is really very different than if I am making an anonymous purchase through a third party. Why not make the exemptions based, not on income, but on the relationship between buyer and seller? If I am in position where t's physically possible to decide personally whether I trust that specific producer personally, what is the interest of the Federal Government, state government, or anybody else in that transaction? The matter is in the realm of personal affairs between two individuals. This can apply to buying milk, eggs and butchered livestock from my neighbors as easily as to organic produce. When I am "protected" only from making my own decisions, who is really served? Who would object to making the criteria based on relationship? > There are many other marketing words for which you must earn the > privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet all > the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher unless > I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups offering that > service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* not matter. Well, actually, some individuals accept one organization's standards of kosher and not others. And as long as the consumer knows who is doing the certifying, who is harmed? It's just like when the different organic certifiers didn't have to pretend they were all the same, when in fact they were not. I used to be able to purchase based on who did the certifying, and those days will be over soon, probably devolving to the lowest common denominator, but possibly even worse. In the case of kosher food, the word "kosher" is not the deciding thing, it is the registered trademark of the certifying organization which carries the weight. Speaking here from the hub of orthodox Judaism in the USA...... LM To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From bluestem@webserf.net Tue Nov 2 21:32:30 1999 Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 01:07:53 From: Bluestem Associates To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? On Tue, 02 Nov 1999 18:10:38 -0800, Loren Muldowney wrote: >There exists at least one other option, and I would welcome commentary >from everyone involved in buying, selling, marketing, or regulating, >since the concept can be applied much more widely than just to the >"organic" market. This option is basing the regulatory frame, not upon >the dollar amount sold, but on the level of anonymity involved in the >transaction chain, or the number of steps between producer and consumer, >or some kind of measure other than a financial one. I agree totally, big or small, size has nothing to do with it. Certification is institutionalised trust. When the trust relationship is there, you don't need the institution. In fact, I'll take well-placed trust over 'institution' any day of the week. The question of certification has everything to do with distance and intermediaries. Allow me to quote from an article I wrote in Growing for Market in May of 1999. I was referring to lot numbers, but that is a good substitute for the whole system of certification. "[certification] is almost always unnecessary for vegetables sold primarily into local markets (CSA, farmers' markets, farm stand, a few restaurants, etc.) In broad terms, if there is no more than one intermediary between you and the customer you can dispense with [certification] altogether for produce. Once you get into wholesale markets, however, where there are two or more intermediaries, [certification] is generally more important." (page 8) Let me add, since some folks seem to have some confusion about the matter, that I am categorically opposed to government involvement in certification beyond (possibly) the establishment of minimum standards as a mandatory *floor* (not ceiling), thereby eliminating all the California Code charlatans currently undermining the market for legitimate organic growers of all sizes. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From dmhinds@acnet.net Tue Nov 2 21:32:54 1999 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:17:32 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds To: Bluestem Associates Cc: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? Hi Bart (and all the rest of you fellow saneters), Before going any further, I want to say that I have tremendous respect for Bart and consider many of his accomplishments to be extremely important. Having said that, I must state that I seem to share the "fundamental difference over use of the word "organic" in the marketplace" that he says he seems to have with Sal; except that in this instance I share it with Sal. Here's why (we'll continue below): Tuesday, November 02, 1999, 9:59:19 AM, you wrote: BA> Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word BA> "organic" in the marketplace. BA> He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious BA> who-knows what. Here's what: It is true that the word "organic" has more than one usage. On the one hand, it represents a set of philosophic principles that in turn, have become embodied in specific farm production systems and the products that emanate from same. On the other hand, it is a word that has arrived at, through the hard work, perseverance and integrity of many (not the least of which is Bart Hall), at an important level of public and specifically, *consumer* recognition. In other words, the word organic itself has become imbued with it's own market value and can be considered a valuable commodity, the control of which lends considerable power and opportunity to whoever holds it. The meaning of a word is invariably related to it's etymology, or origins; coupled with the more recent and current common usage the word has been given, in practice. As things now stand, organic foods are those that were produced, handled and sometimes processed, using methods consistent with the organic philosophy and tradition. Additionally, an industry of third party "objective witnesses" has also developed, some of which have achieved a fair degree of respect within certain circles of buyers, be they consumers of intermediaries. These self proclaimed "objective witnesses", supported by those that value their "services" proportion a kind of affidavit as to the products' adherence to organic principles and processes, a "certification" as it were. Some state governments, building on their ability to make obligatory the use of this service from the vantage point of the political power they wield, have themselves entered into the "certification business". >From this perspective (a third definition), a product isn't organic on the basis of the way it was cultivated, handled and sometimes processed (Sal says it is, but Bart says it isn't), because from *this* perspective, the product is organic at the moment THE MAN with the POWER says it is, and not before. In short, words define states. The question is, which definition are we to accept? Which state is the real one? (Can states stand up and talk? You're damn right they can. Read on). BA> I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be BA> earned. And WHO, good buddy, doles out that *privilege*? Do we have to stand in line for it, after having followed all the appropriate principles, precepts and practices? Are our buyers and those who consume our products demanding that? BA> There are many other marketing words for which you must earn the BA> privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet all BA> the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher unless BA> I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups offering that BA> service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* not matter. We are not even going to discuss in this forum, the power that religion holds over it's disciples. BA> The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone BA> can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." BA> Bart Bart, what we really need is a comprehensive and consistent definition of what "organic is and isn't". But leave the need for verifying or not verifying that to those involved in each and every transaction. Once a valid legal definition that in turn is congruent with organic principles and tradition, one that is supported by the organic community exists; the state of being organic or not organic is INHERENT IN THE PRODUCT. The product embodies that state, and this state is something VERIFIABLE when this is appropriate; that is, when for the demand for it arises. This is true because we are talking about the possibility of consumer fraud having been committed. The questions Sal raised (and they're good ones) is WHO should bear the cost of verification and when should that cost be incurred. The answer is simple. (In reverse order): When reasonable doubt exists as to the veracity of the claims made, the cost being born by those that have made false claims when these have been proved false. On the one hand a given product is proclaimed to be organic, and on the other a suspicion has been raised that it isn't. Payment for the verification procedure should depend on the outcome of those tests. This is what Sal is saying. Let the USDA get into the certification business if it wants to, but let it compete in the market for those services like anybody else: Based on the merit of the service provided, as judged by those who use the service. For many, verification on demand will be preferable to obligatory and universal certification, and the legal basis for needs to be created. We can talk about legal definitions, talk about congress and the president of the united states if you like - but reality is not created by decree, my friends; nor is the meaning of words, particularly when they've been around as long as this one has, and has come to mean what it does precisely because there IS a difference in the value and results of different types of agricultural production systems, one founded on biological principles and processes, the other on easily commercialized bottles of chemicals that make little or no effort to account for the effects on the environment and human health they produce. I share Sal's outrage and find ample basis for his totally sincere and well founded analysis of the present situation. He's getting screwed as things stand and deserves much better treatment from the elected authorities who've sworn to uphold the public good, with liberty and justice for all. He's supporting a whole network of bureaucrats that add no value to the crops he himself produces, at his own cost. The idea that someone farther away from the scene is better equipped to determine whether or not his product is as he and his clients say it is, is an insult. If a reasonable doubt exists, that that doubt be raised in an appropriate forum, with the risk shared by both parties. If periodic inspections are called for due to public health concerns (as they could be in any industry and for organic and conventional farmers alike), funding for these should be derived from the same tax moneys that fund any other governmental activity at present, without penalizing the farmers that are doing more than the rest to produce a healthy, nutritious product without damaging the environment, and doing so on the basis of their own effort and conviction, with no help from those now living off these farmers hard work: Harvesting without having planted, cashing in without having to take a product to market I find this recent statement of yours inconsistent with the extremely well documented statements you sent to the NOP in relation to the Organic Rule which you were kind enough to send me copies of, and hope that it's a passing thing. Best regards, Douglas Hinds To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From WIEGAND@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de Wed Nov 3 20:04:07 1999 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:56:00 +0200 From: Klaus Wiegand To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program hello sal, >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off >set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks >if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the >inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy >calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off >set the standards and fine those that break the law not the >honest folks if you come and inspect me and i am telling the >truth u pay for the inspection if I am lying I pay and get a >fine. easy no, sal. it's not that easy ! let me speak as a consumer, not as a public consultant (yes, from time to time i also consume and stop analysing and consulting). you won't get away with that so simple. in case you acted against organic rules i believed your statements and you cheated me ! the usual result of a consumer would be: stay away from you FOREVER and try his luck elsewhere. your idea is: just pay a fine and then you are allowed a second try of cheating me. fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. why do you think, you can get away with just a fine ? the system you imagine will work for you yourself, but never under a label, because you have competors, who will not accept, that they should stay honest and you only risk a fine 20 or even 80% of your net gain by cheating. so most important question: what's your idea of the fine ???? 1000 $, 10% of your annual income, 1/2 year of a selling ban (who will control the last two things?) ???. and to whom do you PAY the fine ?? >the organic tax is a rip off. stay away from from it, but also don't use the advantage of the label as consumers understand it... every other thing is a free ride on a train the others pay for.. > I know I am organic what did i get ..... YOU know, but that's your personal business. eat your own food, be content with your own pure fruits, but don't expect me to believe, what you know... you certainly would convince some dear friends, who know you're an honest guy, but do not believe (or know), that i from the village nearby am going to trust you automatically. that's exactly the problem with the word "organic". to everyone it has a different meaning. 8 years ago we made an analysis on food bought a) under certified labels and b) bought under the non-regulated name "organic". while a) was almost! free of pesticide residues, b) had about one third the levels of chemical residues of conventional farmers. evidently one third of the uncertified "organics" cheated consumer's assumption of what they understood by "organic". so if you think, you can have your way without certification, that's ok (i'm against obligatory certification for anyone, who uses the name organic), but don't ride the same train, others pay for by certification. it's what i wrote long ago: if organic growers will not find an agreement on what "biologic", "organic", "natural", "bio-dynamic" really means for ALL, who use these labels, you will VERY SOON run into trouble of not being able to explain for what reasons i should prefer your products. time will show the wiser and in my opinion it will largely depend on how trustworthy you are on EVERY INDIVIDUAL consumer. but anonymously selling your products won't work.... at least not here in europe. i checked it: for more than 10 years we had a MAJOR food scandal at least every 3 months !! trust from the consumers to an anonymous producer ? forget it !!! klaus To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From dmhinds@acnet.net Wed Nov 3 20:05:34 1999 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:30:23 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds To: Klaus Wiegand Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re[2]: Proposed organic cost share program Dear Klaus, With all due respect, your comments are strictly hypothetical and only complicate a practical concrete situation that has existed for some time between Sal and the buyers / consumers of his products. While legal penalties and appropriate remedies for consumer fraud are certainly subject to debate in a public forum, the relationship between grower and his customers should NOT be open to such Governmental intervention (or theoretical posturing) without a demonstrably reasonable basis in fact. What is at issue here is the proper role of government in the matter of organic certification, which has failed to differentiate between "organic" (as defined by law*, in terms of the materials and procedures used), and "certified organic" which defines* the role of certification organizations and their services (and thank you Larry for reminding me of that important distinction that we had emphasized back in 1997). This is an important distinction and should NOT be glossed over. * Once accomplished As for the rest of the philosophical end of it, I've got a few practical issues of my own to face and can't promise to engage in much further discussion of this thread at present. (Incidentally Klaus, I've agreed with many of your informative posts). Douglas Hinds Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 4:56:00 AM, you wrote: KW> hello sal, >>taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off >>set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks >>if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the >>inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy >>calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off >>taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off >>set the standards and fine those that break the law not the >>honest folks if you come and inspect me and i am telling the >>truth u pay for the inspection if I am lying I pay and get a >>fine. easy KW> no, sal. it's not that easy ! let me speak as a consumer, not as KW> a public consultant (yes, from time to time i also consume and KW> stop analysing and consulting). KW> you won't get away with that so simple. in case you acted against KW> organic rules i believed your statements and you cheated me ! the KW> usual result of a consumer would be: stay away from you FOREVER KW> and try his luck elsewhere. your idea is: just pay a fine and KW> then you are allowed a second try of cheating me. fool me once, KW> shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. why do you think, you can KW> get away with just a fine ? the system you imagine will work for you KW> yourself, but never under a label, because you have competors, who KW> will not accept, that they should stay honest and you only risk a KW> fine 20 or even 80% of your net gain by cheating. KW> so most important question: KW> what's your idea of the fine ???? 1000 $, 10% of your annual KW> income, 1/2 year of a selling ban (who will control the last KW> two things?) ???. and to whom do you PAY the fine ?? >>the organic tax is a rip off. KW> stay away from from it, but also don't use the advantage of the KW> label as consumers understand it... every other thing is a free ride KW> on a train the others pay for.. >> I know I am organic what did i get ..... KW> YOU know, but that's your personal business. eat your own food, KW> be content with your own pure fruits, but don't expect me to KW> believe, what you know... you certainly would convince some dear KW> friends, who know you're an honest guy, but do not believe (or KW> know), that i from the village nearby am going to trust you KW> automatically. KW> that's exactly the problem with the word "organic". to everyone KW> it has a different meaning. 8 years ago we made an analysis on KW> food bought a) under certified labels and b) bought under the KW> non-regulated name "organic". while a) was almost! free of KW> pesticide residues, b) had about one third the levels of chemical KW> residues of conventional farmers. evidently one third of the KW> uncertified "organics" cheated consumer's assumption of what they KW> understood by "organic". KW> so if you think, you can have your way without certification, KW> that's ok (i'm against obligatory certification for anyone, who KW> uses the name organic), but don't ride the same train, others pay KW> for by certification. it's what i wrote long ago: if organic KW> growers will not find an agreement on what "biologic", "organic", KW> "natural", "bio-dynamic" really means for ALL, who use these KW> labels, you will VERY SOON run into trouble of not being able to KW> explain for what reasons i should prefer your products. KW> time will show the wiser and in my opinion it KW> will largely depend on how trustworthy you are on EVERY INDIVIDUAL KW> consumer. but anonymously selling your products won't work.... KW> at least not here in europe. i checked it: for more than 10 years KW> we had a MAJOR food scandal at least every 3 months !! KW> trust from the consumers to an anonymous producer ? forget it !!! KW> klaus KW> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command KW> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command KW> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". KW> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command KW> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". KW> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: KW> http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From dmhinds@acnet.net Wed Nov 3 20:05:46 1999 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:30:58 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds To: Klaus Wiegand Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re[2]: Proposed organic cost share program Dear Klaus, With all due respect, your comments are strictly hypothetical and only complicate a practical concrete situation that has existed for some time between Sal and the buyers / consumers of his products. While legal penalties and appropriate remedies for consumer fraud are certainly subject to debate in a public forum, the relationship between grower and his customers should NOT be open to such Governmental intervention (or theoretical posturing) without a demonstrably reasonable basis in fact. What is at issue here is the proper role of government in the matter of organic certification, which has failed to differentiate between "organic" (as defined by law*, in terms of the materials and procedures used), and "certified organic" which defines* the role of certification organizations and their services (and thank you Larry for reminding me of that important distinction that we had emphasized back in 1997). This is an important distinction and should NOT be glossed over. * Once accomplished As for the rest of the philosophical end of it, I've got a few practical issues of my own to face and can't promise to engage in much further discussion of this thread at present. (Incidentally Klaus, I've agreed with many of your informative posts). Douglas Hinds Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 4:56:00 AM, you wrote: KW> hello sal, >>taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off >>set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks >>if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the >>inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy >>calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off >>taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off >>set the standards and fine those that break the law not the >>honest folks if you come and inspect me and i am telling the >>truth u pay for the inspection if I am lying I pay and get a >>fine. easy KW> no, sal. it's not that easy ! let me speak as a consumer, not as KW> a public consultant (yes, from time to time i also consume and KW> stop analysing and consulting). KW> you won't get away with that so simple. in case you acted against KW> organic rules i believed your statements and you cheated me ! the KW> usual result of a consumer would be: stay away from you FOREVER KW> and try his luck elsewhere. your idea is: just pay a fine and KW> then you are allowed a second try of cheating me. fool me once, KW> shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. why do you think, you can KW> get away with just a fine ? the system you imagine will work for you KW> yourself, but never under a label, because you have competors, who KW> will not accept, that they should stay honest and you only risk a KW> fine 20 or even 80% of your net gain by cheating. KW> so most important question: KW> what's your idea of the fine ???? 1000 $, 10% of your annual KW> income, 1/2 year of a selling ban (who will control the last KW> two things?) ???. and to whom do you PAY the fine ?? >>the organic tax is a rip off. KW> stay away from from it, but also don't use the advantage of the KW> label as consumers understand it... every other thing is a free ride KW> on a train the others pay for.. >> I know I am organic what did i get ..... KW> YOU know, but that's your personal business. eat your own food, KW> be content with your own pure fruits, but don't expect me to KW> believe, what you know... you certainly would convince some dear KW> friends, who know you're an honest guy, but do not believe (or KW> know), that i from the village nearby am going to trust you KW> automatically. KW> that's exactly the problem with the word "organic". to everyone KW> it has a different meaning. 8 years ago we made an analysis on KW> food bought a) under certified labels and b) bought under the KW> non-regulated name "organic". while a) was almost! free of KW> pesticide residues, b) had about one third the levels of chemical KW> residues of conventional farmers. evidently one third of the KW> uncertified "organics" cheated consumer's assumption of what they KW> understood by "organic". KW> so if you think, you can have your way without certification, KW> that's ok (i'm against obligatory certification for anyone, who KW> uses the name organic), but don't ride the same train, others pay KW> for by certification. it's what i wrote long ago: if organic KW> growers will not find an agreement on what "biologic", "organic", KW> "natural", "bio-dynamic" really means for ALL, who use these KW> labels, you will VERY SOON run into trouble of not being able to KW> explain for what reasons i should prefer your products. KW> time will show the wiser and in my opinion it KW> will largely depend on how trustworthy you are on EVERY INDIVIDUAL KW> consumer. but anonymously selling your products won't work.... KW> at least not here in europe. i checked it: for more than 10 years KW> we had a MAJOR food scandal at least every 3 months !! KW> trust from the consumers to an anonymous producer ? forget it !!! KW> klaus KW> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command KW> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command KW> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". KW> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command KW> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". KW> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: KW> http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From sals@rain.org Wed Nov 3 20:05:54 1999 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 06:37:50 -0800 From: Sal To: Wiegand@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Re: Proposed organic cost share program Venting and Stressing! [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Klaus Wiegand To: Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 2:56 AM Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program > hello sal, > > >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off > >set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks > >if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the > >inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy > > >calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off > >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off > >set the standards and fine those that break the law not the > >honest folks if you come and inspect me and i am telling the > >truth u pay for the inspection if I am lying I pay and get a > >fine. easy > > > no, sal. it's not that easy ! let me speak as a consumer, not as > a public consultant (yes, from time to time i also consume and > stop analysing and consulting). > > you won't get away with that so simple. in case you acted against > organic rules i believed your statements and you cheated me ! the > usual result of a consumer would be: stay away from you FOREVER > and try his luck elsewhere. your idea is: just pay a fine and > then you are allowed a second try of cheating me. fool me once, > shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. why do you think, you can > get away with just a fine ? the system you imagine will work for you > yourself, but never under a label, because you have competors, who > will not accept, that they should stay honest and you only risk a > fine 20 or even 80% of your net gain by cheating. I never acted against any rules you have not been cheated it is me that is getting cheated who is watching out for me where is protection the honest organic grower from this witchhunt from this organic rip-off from high fees and powertripers . when did I act against organic rules what u talking about I have been inspected for 15 years and passed every time I have paid of many folks every dime they asked for what the heck are u talking about. > so most important question: > what's your idea of the fine ???? 1000 $, 10% of your annual > income, 1/2 year of a selling ban (who will control the last > two things?) ???. and to whom do you PAY the fine ?? .> >the organic tax is a rip off. . this whole thing is turning into a witch hunt. let me tell u some stories. true stories. once a chemical farmer came to inspect me and he charged me 4 time more than anyone else he drove down from SF and I paid for the gas he stay in a motel and I paid for it and he charged me for this and for that and he lied to me and I can go on and on about this jerk. anyway to make a long story short you can't blame him because the money he makes depends on how much he can squeeze out of me. where is my protection another story the state of Ca. ag girl inspected me the same week that the certifier inspected me two inspections the same week. the state of Ca. AG is the biggest witchhunt of all . one year they said you are not organic because u did not put the variety of the fruit u sold was that anna apple or pearman or was that a white or a booth no verity on the paper no registration and no registration mean your not organic. once they said your not organic because you did not put the state registration number of the person you sold too on the paper so your not organic because you don't have his number . to top it all off last year I sent my hard earned money into the state and the paper work and they did not send me my registration number for 10 months. if you call up there they said Sals registration expired yet they then sent it to me one month before I had to pay them again. its is a organic growers witch hunt. they give us bull like it just depends on what your idea of is is. it is not if your organic it is a witch hunt. the state ag man makes his bones by how many organic growers he can nail to the cross. this whole thing is a dog pile on the organic grower and is a bullshit witchhunt. you don't even know the bullshit you have to go through . every year year after year you have the army of folks trying to get u and you have done nothing wrong. and I go through that over and over year after year and it is getting old. once they said you not organic because you did not fill out the unit column right and our computers could not handle it. so the computer is down Im not organic any more. you folks that buy organic food have no idea what hops we have to jump through and what evil sprits we have to put up with. it is a witchhunt every year. its not about organic its about making your bones building a reputation on the killing off of organic growers. where is my protection from powertripers that can ruin my life . i could be a little more organic and it would make no difference because that is not what this is about. the question asked have little to do with if your organic or not. its a power trip why did not I get my registration for 10 months because they have the power that's why. they can just not send it. and you can't do nothing. its not about if you are organic it about power slavemaster extortion and most of all its about letting evil in the gate and on your land and in your life. you have to pay them because your not chemicals and your not using herbicides or GMO yet those that do don't pay . they all want to show you how much power they got and you can do nothing but take it . non funded state and fed. mandates ripping off honest business folks and making it imposable for the poor man to live. > stay away from from it, but also don't use the advantage of the > label as consumers understand it... every other thing is a free ride > on a train the others pay for.. I have not had a free ride I pay and pay and pay year after year and I put u with their wickedness and I let folks with that spirit of we are going to get u on my land. who needs that spirit of wickedness around me. > > I know I am organic what did i get ..... > > YOU know, but that's your personal business. eat your own food, > be content with your own pure fruits, but don't expect me to > believe, what you know... you certainly would convince some dear > friends, who know you're an honest guy, but do not believe (or > know), that i from the village nearby am going to trust you > automatically. that bull about if you don't have anything to hide why not let a army of folks screw with u well I thought that too but u see you can be a little more organic it would make no different because this is not about organic it is a witchhunt. I thought at one time so what let them come and check me out but now I see they can not give you your registration just because they want to show you how much power they have. > that's exactly the problem with the word "organic". to everyone > it has a different meaning. 8 years ago we made an analysis on > food bought a) under certified labels and b) bought under the > non-regulated name "organic". while a) was almost! free of > pesticide residues, b) had about one third the levels of chemical > residues of conventional farmers. evidently one third of the > uncertified "organics" cheated consumer's assumption of what they > understood by "organic". sorry you are out of it folks know what organic is I have been paying to be certified organic for 15 years folks understand what organic is you are so out of it you want to oppress the organic grower and tax him and it has nothing to do with if you are organic or not. its a witch hunt . > so if you think, you can have your way without certification, > that's ok (i'm against obligatory certification for anyone, who > uses the name organic), but don't ride the same train, others pay > for by certification. it's what i wrote long ago: if organic > growers will not find an agreement on what "biologic", "organic", > "natural", "bio-dynamic" really means for ALL, who use these > labels, you will VERY SOON run into trouble of not being able to > explain for what reasons i should prefer your products. If you can't find a reason to buy my product thats your problem. this is just a witch hunt . it is a non funded fed. and state mandate who gets it funds but bleeding the turnips. what is this all about. laying the burden of this bureaucratic nightmare on the backs of the organic grower. time will show who the wiser is and you can just eat the paper. > time will show the wiser and in my opinion it > will largely depend on how trustworthy you are on EVERY INDIVIDUAL > consumer. but anonymously selling your products won't work.... > at least not here in europe. i checked it: for more than 10 years > we had a MAJOR food scandal at least every 3 months !! > trust from the consumers to an anonymous producer ? forget it !!! > > > klaus where is the protection for the organic grower. there is non any one of a army of folks can screw you up and you have no no protection. if the state of Ca. does not want to send you the registration for 10 months and tells every one it has expired and you are not organic and they don't need a reason . its a power trip they make their bones by nailing organic growers and it is a big witch and getting worse every day. it just depends on what your definition of is is. I don't deserve this kind of treatment just for growing organic. I got two words for you and one of the is OFF. where is my protection? > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From fullcircle@jps.net Wed Nov 3 20:06:06 1999 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:08:29 -0800 From: Marcie Rosenzweig To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? Maybe the third time's the charm. I'm receiving mail from the list but my replies are bouncing back. M- Bart, I'm afraid I must agree with Sal. Our farm has been known as Full Circle Organic Farm since before any of this certification business got started on the state (CA) or federal level. We use the word in our name to indicate how we treat our plnats and soil as opposed to the conventional folks around here. We "were organic when organic wasn't cool." I have no need or desire to ship grain, beans, or produce all over the world - the real genesis of the federal regs - I don't even have a need or desire to truck my produce two counties away. My personal belief is that sustainable, organic growing is about local distribution of locally grown products with local inputs, as much as humanly possible, put back into the soil. I've detailed the enormous cost of certification for us both on this list and to the national committee so I won't rehash it here. But there is also the matter of principle involved. I should not be forced to change the name of my farm after all these years simply so someone else can have rules allowing them to sell in interstate and international commerce. Nor should I have to pay for the privilege of keeping the name. Organic was an ecological, soil-saving/building, non-chemical paradigm long before it was co-opted as a marketing word. Kosher was a religious paradigm long before it became a marketing word. Neither needed "certification" until they were used to sell products outside the local community. Marcie Marcie A. Rosenzweig Full Circle Organic Farm To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From awiediger@Hart.k12.ky.us Wed Nov 3 20:06:17 1999 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:26:16 -0500 From: awiediger@Hart.k12.ky.us To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: The word "organic," a right? [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] I have watching this discussion for several days - ready to wade in. We have been growing organically since 1974 - again since before organic was 'cool'. We grow this way because for us, it is the only sane way to grow food. We sell at the local Farmers' Market. It is in a city of about 50,000, which is also the "market" city for all the counties around. If I had to put a number to the customers that buy from us because we are organic, it might be 5% of our customers. We do not get any premium - if we put our prices above the rest of the vendors (many of which are resellers, not farmers), we'd come home with our produce. We are organic because we believe in it, not for any premium. We are also certified. Mostly because the state of Kentucky has a program that is cheap ($10.00/year). We have been certified since 1991, when the program began - farm 28 to do so. Most of the farms that were certified in 1991, are no longer growing organic produce. It is so difficult to make a living growing produce on a small and sane scale. We have beef, lamb, cut flowers, potted perennials and an outside income to be able to stay on the farm. When the USDA, in 1997, asked for input on whether the word organic(or any phrase implying that the product was grown without ag chemicals, in a sane manner, etc) should be allowed only from certified organic producers, we got worried. Depending upon what the certification costs became under federal labeling, certification may or may not be economically feasible for our operation. I wrote a strong letter to the Department urging that it not happen. As long as we are in a local selling situation, our customers will certify us. However, that said, there are large producers that need to sell food outside their local area. Even for us, we'd probably make more money selling wholesale to the nearest large city than we do retailing locally. For those sales, some sort of certification is necessary so the customers, whether stores or wholesale brokers, know what they are buying. It may well be a necessary evil for those wanting to sell organic produce outside a local buying area - especially overseas. There has to be some kind of commonality. Yes, there will be people cheating - it seems to be part of the human condition. Yes, there will be too much bureaucracy - there always is. And, yes, it may put a lot of small operators in a bind. For us, we'll wait and see. Maybe our state will retain some sort of program under the federal regs. Maybe we'll just have to grow more cut flowers and perennials (which are a lot more profitable) and less food - which most Americans don't appreciate anyway. We hope we'll still be able to say "we grow all our food organically" without being certified. If not, well, maybe it won't make much difference in our sales, and we'll still farm organically because, for us, it is the only sane way to steward our land. Paul and Alison Wiediger Au Naturel Farm Smiths Grove, KY To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From glenn@smallfarms.com Wed Nov 3 20:06:30 1999 Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 09:30:28 -1000 From: Glenn To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: The word "organic" a right? [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Sal, Bart, Klaus, Paul and Alison, and others who have contributed to this thread: You^Òve made for riveting reading for me, and others, I^Òm certain. Sal and the farmers have stated their case with the same passion that they farm. They/I/we/ produce the best foods on the market and we are looked upon to bear additional costs when outside and neutral entities like government, certifying agencies and even consumer groups feel the need to certify, standardize our products. Bart and Klaus have risked our wrath by saying that standardization, certification are necessary evils in the world they/I/we live and work in that demands some sense of uniformity for the consumer and to a lesser extent, for government and certifying agencies. This discussion needs to be taken to the consumer because they now have only the foggiest sense of how complex our work and lives are. Bring people to the sanet archives or post a summary of this discussion elsewhere. In my opinion, this is uncanned and unlabeled, very powerful education. It^Òs too important for our limited group even as we seem to deal with each other in stereotype. Allison and Paul, and Sal indicated that their customer contacts are one on one. (Have you seen Sal^Òs web site, my web site, and our attempts to go beyond the face to face relationship?) Bart and Klaus, do you have web sites? Will you add your site addresses to your signatures if they^Òre not already there? Your customers need to know this. glenn Buy from the Farmer http://www.smallfarms.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Wed Nov 3 20:06:38 1999 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:50:49 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: Klaus Wiegand Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Klaus Wiegand wrote: > > I know I am organic what did i get ..... > > YOU know, but that's your personal business. eat your own food, > be content with your own pure fruits, but don't expect me to > believe, what you know... you certainly would convince some dear > friends, who know you're an honest guy, but do not believe (or > know), that i from the village nearby am going to trust you > automatically. What a hard, cold attitude. You're throwing the whole Fertile Crescent concept out the window - and the process of consumers getting to know the farmers in their area, those they buy food from, how they farm, how they grow their crops, livestock, how they manage their farmland, treat their animals, and so on. You go into a store, you see products on the shelf from a farmer you've never heard of; the store tells you who he is and how to get in touch with him, you follow up and make your own decision as to whether his products are as he says they are or if he makes no statement aboout his products you find out for yourself how they are produced by asking him or going to his farm to see exactly how he runs his operation. Those with farms too far away for you to visit can, in order to market successfully in your town, can, voluntarily, simply pay to have his farm certified by the agency he chooses. If he picks an agency lacking in skills and credibility he looses, if he picks one that is good, and the store he wants to market through endorses this agency, he wins, the store wins and the customer wins. A win-win-win situation. Read Edwards Deming about win-win business deals. > that's exactly the problem with the word "organic".to everyone > it has a different meaning. 8 years ago we made an analysis on That's not a "problem", its human nature and individual choice. Here you, again, open the door to competition in the true spirit of free enterprise, between competing farmers and competing certification agencies and between competing, discerning stores. What is organic? Let the government define, it based on input from the cream of the expertise in the organic industry, so as to provide everyone with a minimum standard to follow and abide by. > so if you think, you can have your way without certification, > that's ok (i'm against obligatory certification for anyone, who Amen. > uses the name organic), but don't ride the same train, others pay > for by certification. it's what i wrote long ago: if organic Customers and store owners are fully capable of deciding which growers are providing a good product, the rest will fall by the wayside if they cheat, its that simple. > growers will not find an agreement on what "biologic", "organic", > "natural", "bio-dynamic" really means for ALL, who use these Sure they will. > labels, you will VERY SOON run into trouble of not being able to > explain for what reasons i should prefer your products. That should not be a problem for any grower, any credible grower, that is. > time will show the wiser and in my opinion it > will largely depend on how trustworthy you are on EVERY INDIVIDUAL > consumer. Absolutely true. > but anonymously selling your products won't work.... Voluntary certification will take care of that problem. Competition between growers and competition between certifiers will ensure that all participants maintain high standards of production and certification and will ensure that all comply with the minimum government standards. > at least not here in europe. i checked it: for more than 10 years > we had a MAJOR food scandal at least every 3 months !! > trust from the consumers to an anonymous producer ? forget it !!! That's an isolated example and mere scare tactics. Most people involved in the organic food industry are better than that and those are who you need to rely on to make the system work so that consumers will have access to high quality, affordably priced, naturally grown food. LL Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Wed Nov 3 20:06:47 1999 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:14:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: Marcie Rosenzweig Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Marcie Rosenzweig wrote: > I'm afraid I must agree with Sal. Good decision. > Our farm has been known as Full Circle Organic Farm since before any of > this certification business got started on the state (CA) or federal level. > We use the word in our name to indicate how we treat our plnats and soil as > opposed to the conventional folks around here. We "were organic when > organic wasn't > cool." > > I have no need or desire to ship grain, beans, or produce all over the > world - the real genesis of the federal regs - I don't even have a need or > desire to truck my produce two counties away. > My personal belief is that > sustainable, organic growing is about local distribution of locally grown > products with local inputs, as much as humanly possible, put back into the > soil. A very special Amen to that statement!. > I've detailed the enormous cost of certification for us both on this list > and to the national committee so I won't rehash it here. But there is also > the matter of principle involved. I should not be forced to change the > name of my farm after all these years simply so someone else can have rules > allowing them to sell in interstate and international commerce. Nor should > I have to pay for the privilege of keeping the name. Good heavens, I had overlooked that impact on existing organic farms from the mandatory certification debacle. I don't seem to remember anything about federal compensation of farmers for loss of business resulting from having to change the name of their business, much less some other competing, "certified" farm snatching up their name and making hay off the years of work and reputation building by the farmer who lost his business name because he stood firm and refused to be railroaded by a government-sponsored scheme to rid the nation of good organic small farms in order to help the corporate world market adulterated products to even more unsuspecting consumers. > Organic was an ecological, soil-saving/building, non-chemical paradigm long > before it was co-opted as a marketing word. Kosher was a religious > paradigm long before it became a marketing word. Neither needed > "certification" until they were used to sell products outside the local > community. Voluntary 3rd-party organic certification can do all that is needed for remote marketing of organic products and spare the small organic local grower in the process. Again, its a win-win proposal. How can anyone lose? Except the evil, greedy, non-caring power freaks. LL Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Wed Nov 3 20:07:01 1999 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:27:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: awiediger@Hart.k12.ky.us Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: The word "organic," a right? On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 awiediger@Hart.k12.ky.us wrote: > As long as we are in a local selling situation, our customers will > certify us. There you have it. It is a compliment to your customers that they are discerning enough to appreciate the good job you are doing on your farm and that you are producing a quality product for their benefit and that they know the difference between your product and what is offered in the supermarket. > which most Americans don't appreciate anyway. We hope we'll still be able > to say "we grow all our food organically" without being certified. If not, > well, maybe it won't make much difference in our sales, and we'll still farm > organically because, for us, it is the only sane way to steward our land. Beautifully put. LL Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From markl@buylocalfood.com Wed Nov 3 20:07:22 1999 Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 15:49:49 -0500 From: Mark To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Organic vs. organic Here's a little tangent off the organic thread. I was told recently by a certified organic farmer that she suspects that another certified organic farmer (certified by a different body) has been bad-mouthing her to a retailer she has been selling to for years. She thinks this farmer raised questions about the validity of the certifying body she works with and now the retailer is not buying much from her. This is a retailer she has been selling to for many years and their order has decreased dramatically. I've suggested she talk openly to the retailer and ask what is the reason behind the drop in business (her fear could be unfounded or there could be another explanation; or she may be given an opportunity to defend her certifying agency) but I wonder this: have any other farmers had this problem and if so is it widespread enough to warrant concern? If it does happen a lot will the proposed USDA regs make it less easy for unscrupulous competitors to damage one's business this way? Mark ---------------------------------------------------- Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) An independent non-profit organization. http://www.buylocalfood.com 893 West Street Amherst MA 01002-5001 T: 413-559-5338 F: 413-559-5404 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From bluestem@webserf.net Wed Nov 3 20:07:32 1999 Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 22:08:47 From: Bluestem Associates To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: Organic vs. organic On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 15:49:49 -0500, Mark wrote: >I was told recently by a certified organic farmer that she suspects that >another certified organic farmer (certified by a different body) has been >bad-mouthing her to a retailer she has been selling to for years. She >thinks this farmer raised questions about the validity of the certifying >body she works with and now the retailer is not buying much from her. This >is a retailer she has been selling to for many years and their order has >decreased dramatically. This kind of stuff has gone on for nearly twenty years. That aside, not all organic certification programs are equal. Politically incorrect to say so, but some programs *are* better than others, sometimes a LOT better. It is exasperating for me as an inspector to have a guy I've inspected deservedly be refused certification, only to crop up a couple of months later certified by a weaker program. Certain programs have built their business by being *easy,* and picking up the farms that can't make it with FVO or OCIA. Frankly, the average consumer is a long way from being sophisticated enough that any of this matters --- as long as it says 'organic,' they'll buy it without asking any questions. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From dmhinds@acnet.net Wed Nov 3 20:07:48 1999 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:31:58 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds To: Glenn Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: The word "organic" a right? Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 1:30:28 PM, Glenn said: ... G> This discussion needs to be taken to the consumer The discussion has and always will be with the consumer, in spite of the lame attempts to claim otherwise and co-opt both the innate authority of the author-creator of the product when presenting it, as well as that of the buyer of the product when exercising with his freedom of choice. The issue here hinges on the free exchange of information, as well as the right to earn one's livelihood. Certain groups seem to feel they've got a corner on the truth, and that's a dangerous point of view. All that's required is complete and truthful information, along with a standard (that doesn't even exist yet), the truth in labeling laws that mandate the penalties and the existence of an appropriate forum in which to ventilate disputes, along with mechanisms for making claims. Why "fix" what isn't broken? (All those who would privatize the use of the O word really want is a sure corner on the market, not consistent standards. Why? Read on). Once a definition that's consistent with the principles and tradition of the organic movement (which has always included consumers) has reached a consensus (and this is where the effort should have been made before even attempt to legislate. OFPA seems to have been drawn up by people with little or no juridical experience - as a piece of legislation it's the parody of what a law should be), then and only then will it be relevant to attempt for force compliance with a given standard. OFPA forces open (and and the same time tries to close) the door to a myriad of new "green" labels, while spelling the death of the word organic (but not the organic movement, which simply simply disperse and regroup around new words and differentiated standards - right, just like things are as is), in relation to the use for which it was originally intended. What a circus! (And the past nine years events bear me out). To those who insist on making this happen by obligating certification, I strongly suggest looking for another way to feel important, like producing and and offering an outstanding product (and call it what you damn well please - just don't lie). Douglas Hinds (one of the "others" Glenn referred to) ---------- No soy una monedita de oro, para caerle bien a todos. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From dmhinds@acnet.net Thu Nov 4 01:55:42 1999 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:48:44 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds To: Glenn Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re[2]: The word "organic" a right? [ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] OK Glenn, go for it! Douglas Hinds ------------- Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 9:10:12 PM, you wrote: G> Dear Douglas, G> The discussion with the consumer is taking place and always has taken G> place as you said. And the farmers who have consumer contact, I^Òm G> guessing, have done a splendid job of cultivating the customer G> relationship with good sound information. One of the activities I enjoy G> most at my farm is talking with my customers and sharing with them what G> we do here that^Òs beneficial to them, to me and to the pastureland. I G> have been told that my current farm practices would qualify as ^Óorganic^Ô G> by one of the certifying organizations, and the fee is very attractive. G> Our current discussion on the subject of organic certification needs to G> be taken beyond the limits of this list and this group of participants G> because of the well stated, genuine, and I believe honest perspectives G> of all the participants. My hunch is that consumers don^Òt have any idea G> that we see certification through such different eyes. This issue is G> complex with many potential winners and losers, and I don^Òt believe that G> consumers appreciate this. G> Please remember that I^Òm a marketer of small farm and small ranch G> products also. At small farms.com, we intentionally created a structure G> for selling by the farmer, where the farmers use their own words to tell G> consumers what they offer, where the products are available, and how the G> farmer can be contacted. We fully expect and desire to facilitate G> customer to farmer contact. I believe smallfarms.com to be the best G> small farmer / small rancher marketing web site on the internet. We G> have free registration offers to farmers right now. Most of you know G> this as I have taken every opportunity to talk about the site. So how G> come if it^Òs free and has good features, I still need to promote G> smallfarms.com? G> People are busy. They have many, many other concerns, causes, and G> interests to pursue. If we^Òre to be successful at informing consumers G> of the organic certification quagmire we need to ramp up what we^Òre G> doing. G> glenn G> Buy from the Farmer G> http://www.smallfarms.com G> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command G> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command G> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". G> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command G> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". G> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: G> http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From WIEGAND@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de Thu Nov 4 11:49:37 1999 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:02:18 +0200 From: Klaus Wiegand To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re[3]: Proposed organic cost share program hello douglas, >It is true that the word "organic" has more than one usage. not only that, it means everything, someone likes to put into it.. >As things now stand, organic foods are those that were produced, >handled and sometimes processed, using methods consistent with >the organic philosophy and tradition. few people would doubt that. but most consumers do NOT know the producer of his food. maybe i'm the deepest sceptical in the whole world and all the trustful people left europe with the mayflower, but trust is earned, but not just given away ! once you're trusted by someone, that one needs no other proof (as long as no competor spreads wrong bads about him, which also happens and not so rarely, and that's something even worse to deal with, because it's like a dagger from behind). BA> The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone BA> can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." here in germany it goes even to the extremes with a group of growers, who sell their products as "naturgemaess". a rough translation would be equivalant to "natural". now comes the tricky part. they are sailing under the flag of "organic" (which is also no label, but better known in the public as a GENERAL way of producing and even more of thinking about nature), but they use anything THEY mean it would be natural. some of these natural products: slaugtherhouse byproducts like undigested gastric residues, grinded chicken manure, mined potash salt and phosphorus, arsen, copper, maggots grown on dead english horses for fish-feeding. and all of these products may very well be claimed "natural". (who decides, if mining is a natural method?) during our large residue study we went to local markets and also sold their products. we asked them about them and all you heard from them was "all natural". they are SOO right ! 3 to 4 times a week people call me on the phone and ask me about "organic" food. that's what i have to tell them: there is "organic", "biological", "bio-organic", "bio-dynamic", "natural", "organic-dynamic", "naturgemaess".... once i've reach the 3rd or 4th group and their different definitions, i hear a gasp and a "stop!". >But leave the need for verifying or not verifying that to those >involved in each and every transaction. > The product embodies that state, and this state is something >VERIFIABLE when this is appropriate; that is, when for the demand >for it arises. you know very well, that it's an impossiblity for a single consumer, who has a strong doubt to test the efficiency of a drug or the claim of a pesticide-free food. simply unpayable !! for a simple test for a pesticide you pay 300$, provided you are able to name the effective substance (if you don't, it depends on the experience of the analytic lab to GUESS, what might be used. if you're successful at the 6th try, that makes 1.800 $. if there are 5 people, who have doubts, that makes 9.000$. how uneffective for the whole society..) >The questions Sal raised (and they're good ones) is WHO should >bear the cost of verification and when should that cost be >incurred. The answer is simple. (In reverse order): When >reasonable doubt exists as to the veracity of the claims made, >the cost being born by those that have made false claims when >these have been proved false. after the bse-scandal in england meat could only be sold at a ridiculous price not even worth buying the calf. consumption went down for half a year to 40-50% of the consuption before. not even farmers can be convinced by you, that british farmers or the feeding industry there could be made responsable for the damage. and most of the cheating isn't "big-bang". most of it is done the "smart" way: heat up the gasoline at the gasoline station, add old leathersoles to the feed instead of proteins, put in only 95% of the usual weight in the package, "forget" a vitamin in the mix, used old stuff over the limit-date, selling pse-meat, replacing a natural flavor with a synthetical one, dyeing with roasted malt, the "wonderful" multiplication of yields in "organic" fields... 700 eggs a year from each free- ranging hen... simple example: our analysis has a tolerance of 5%, the machine for mixing has one of 1% (due to the large amount). you can be ABSOLUTELY sure, that the company selling feedstuff will adjust their machine to 96%, because they know, that due to the tolerance they can not be fined before a court. several years ago we invented a method for measuring the hormone DES (it was known, that it was used for years). immediately after we published the method, DES disappeared from the market. our chemists were glad and proud - until we heard, that feed producers switched to hexoestrol. we found a method (chemists proud again), only to hear, that feed producers having heard about it, switched to dienoestrol.... for us that's more like a funny game, for the consumer that's a real threat. now you may ask: what has this all to do with organic procducers? it's simple: most of the consumers live in cities and cannot have direct contact to the farmer. so why believe them more than the rest of the world ? the situation is only different, if you know the farmer by person and then it's exact the same situation as having trust in a friend of yours. another example, which is very comparable to certification re no certification. beginning from next year every wine-farmer in germany will be obliged to do a soil analysis for nitrogen content. you may say, that's thanks to the soil lab lobby. you're wrong. it's the consumers, who pressured the water companies and were tired of paying higher and higher prices due to increasing elimination costs for nitrate and the closure of wells nearby vineyards. your system of charging the source of the contamination won't work again. especially if brought forward by a single person. do you think tobacco companies could have been sued by individuals ?? >come to mean what it does precisely because there IS a difference >in the value and results of different types of agricultural >production systems, one founded on biological principles and >processes, the other on easily commercialized bottles of >chemicals that make little or no effort to account for the >effects on the environment and human health they produce. douglas, i worked in developing countries and you should know better, that especially there private farmers have neither the knowledge nor the money for individual defense. one day i went to the agricultural supply company, and the first thing i saw, was the lack of the plastic container on top of it for dosing. NONE of the farmers around knew about it, they were put away by the employees of the supply company and sold as schnaps glasses. the farmers were sold rotten equipment, they tried to sell usual NPK-fertilizer for a higher price, because the same fertilizer was "exlusively" designed for the higher-prized tobacco and not for my cabbage. a dr. fausto (a studied farmer) even claimed, that i could not use this fertilizer on cabbage, because "tobacco fertilizer can exclusively be used on tobacco and would kill my vegetables". he offered me fertilizer bags with a nice collard with vegetables on it - it was his "tobacco" fertilizer with the tobacco collard put away. LOTS of cheating even in countries most people believe their inhabitants to be more familiar with each other and less "wall-street-trimmed" .. and you want a number ? 3 percent of german "organic" food have normal conventional pesticide residues. meaning 3% are lying to consumers and also meaning 32 out of 33 organic farmers are honest. >I share Sal's outrage and find ample basis for his totally >sincere and well founded analysis of the present situation. He's >getting screwed as things stand and deserves much better >treatment from the elected authorities who've sworn to uphold the >public good, with liberty and justice for all. He's supporting a >whole network of bureaucrats that add no value to the crops he >himself produces, at his own cost. The idea that someone farther >away from the scene is better equipped to determine whether or >not his product is as he and his clients say it is, is an insult. >If a reasonable doubt exists, that that doubt be raised in an >appropriate forum, with the risk shared by both parties. i understand sal's situation very well (please sal, believe that's not intended towards you, as i do not know neither you nor your situation, it's NOT intended as an insult against you, you might be the most honest person on the whole planet.) but even he can't garantuee, that his co-farmers have the same honesty. one year ago a large manipulation with organic food from israel was detected. i also bought of these fruits, BUT: who am i to blame ? and what's the compensation for having eaten pesticide residues i expected not to eat with these fruits?? i did not even know the name of any grower. did they all cheat (CERTAINLY not, but do i have to test every avocado in the lab? - once tested, it's gone!) can i restrict future buys to certain people among them? certainly not. so what shall i do and what's within the range of my possibilities ? ? usually there's only one thing: avoid ALL products from israel, and with them those from the innocent and honest growers.... any better solution ? >If periodic inspections are called for due to public health >concerns (as they could be in any industry and for organic and >conventional farmers alike), funding for these should be derived >from the same tax moneys that fund any other governmental >activity at present, without penalizing the farmers that are >doing more than the rest to produce a healthy, nutritious product >without damaging the environment, and doing so on the basis of >their own effort and conviction, with no help from those now >living off these farmers hard work: Harvesting without having >planted, cashing in without having to take a product to market here you have my full support and it is exactly the way, it's done in germany and most european countries and everybody is lucky with the system !!!! there are 6 or 7 governmental food inspection units in germany, fully supplied and the analysts paid by the government (meaning everyone). they do the tests and report violations to a special task force with full investigation rights like the police. per chance about 1 of every 1000 individual products is controlled on actually known problems. so the price for society is quite low, the risk of detection also, but the mere fact, that there is a control system at all, seems to make troublemakers think twice. the fact, that fines go down very fast as soon as the information gets around in producer circles, that a method exists, speaks for itself... some of the controlling agencies are no governmental ones, they are private companies, who have a long history of trustworthy behavior and that's all, the public needs to trust them. one case of a detected palm greasing and they are out of business. the organic grower pays only his membership in HIS organisations like IFOAM, demeter or naturland. at least now i do understand much better, what sal is critizing !!!. here you have the choice of getting certified for an annual fee or you may just call yourself "organic". that's so logical to me, that at first i did not understand, that sal is being FORCED to pay for naming his business organic. that would be the same, as if government would give out order, that a chemical plant has to get certified, for being allowed to name itself a "chemical" plant. an iso-certified enviromental friendy chemical plant would be another thing. klaus --------------- klaus wiegand +-[Quote of the day, powered by k. wiegand]------+ | | | "The bad news is Americans are much more | | cynical about business. The good news | | is that Americans' expectations for honesty | | among businesses have gone down." | | - Roper Vice President Tom Miller | +------------------------------------------------+ To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From dmhinds@acnet.net Thu Nov 4 11:56:55 1999 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:23:43 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re[4]: Proposed organic cost share program (Originally sent off list on Nov. 3) Hello Klaus, Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 8:46:09 AM, you wrote: ... KW> maybe i did not understand correctly: KW> is he as "organic" farmer OBLIGED by american law to get certified KW> or is the certification a decision of each farmer for a certain KW> label ?? OFPA (Organic Foods Production Act) The US federal law, was passed in 1990 but not yet implemented due to controversies involved with the Organic Rule proposed last year that as far as I know have not been resolved. (I've been offline of most of the past year). Additionally, a number of us have opposed the mandatory certification that OFPA calls for. Sal is a good example of why intervention by the US Government as a certifier (or the agency that controls the certifiers) is unwise, except as an alternative available by free choice. That is, by making the distinction between organic and certified organic a legal one, so that the word organic does not become property of a select organic insider power elite, both within and outside of (but with strong ties to) the Government. In California, where Sal is located, certification was optional but I believe became mandatory. [Others here may care to update this]. To me, there is a legal issue involved regarding the proper role of government (not precisely of the people and for the people in the US, but rather the corporations), as well as a moral one, regarding the authority of the individual to freely make true claims, until proven otherwise. I enjoy your posts and read them (there are many posts I don't read for lack of time). I am aware that we share many values and perceptions and think that differences in the European situation and tradition are responsible for most of any differences that may lie between us on this issue. KW> here in europe "organic" growers are an extreme mixture of highly KW> qualified people with a perfect observation and on the other side KW> real dumb farmers, who will never be able to compete on a KW> professional market and they just try their luck by naming their KW> products "organic". that means nothing (except: a higher price KW> consumers are willing to pay for the most important claim - no KW> pesticides). KW> but: if i came to mexico and tell you: "i'm a golf trainer and KW> will give you golfing lessons for 50$ each", do you EXPECT me to be KW> a "trained" trainer or just a guy, who names himself a trainer. and KW> what, if you find out, that i'm not the slightest part better KW> at golf than you (it's highly probable, but of us have not the KW> slightest idea of golf) here in germany this would not be forbidden, KW> although everyone would expect a certified trainer.... so: how to KW> proceed, if you feel cheated and i'm not willing to pay back your KW> 100$ paid meanwhile ?? with fists ?? KW> klaus The justice system is not functioning well in Mexico as yet. Delays are rampant and corruption still exists. But in any country, a legal structure is a required condition for procuring justice, where Governments sets the rules and a forum to hear disputes, but DOESN'T get into the certification business or force measures that inhibit the competitiveness of organic farmers and their products in the open food market, in the case of organic food labeling. Other effective measures involve public expose of consumer fraud and any legitimate company will go out of it's way to avoid being publicly denounced, with the consequent damage to it's image and reputation, and the effect that this can have on their trade. At the same time, a company or grower unfairly slandered has recourse to forums to hear and rectify this too. Governments should provide the laws and forums and not attempt to change the meaning of words. Whether a product is organic or not depends on factors that can be measured and verified because they are inherent in the product and that is where the meaning comes from. In short, organic refers to a production and handling system and he who implemented it is best qualified to state whether or not he used a given set of principles and practices as his agricultural production system; while certified organic refers to an outside authority. The distinction is important. Douglas P.S.: After participating in something like the above, I often want to share it. Any objections to posting it? (He said no privately and here it is). To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From glenn@smallfarms.com Thu Nov 4 19:17:12 1999 Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 09:43:20 -1000 From: Glenn To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program Dear Klaus and David, Since both of you live outside the USA, and see what's happening here throught slightly different eyes, what do you see as the building blocks for farmer first national certification? Do you see leaders, friends or obvious single issues to pursue we don't see because we're in the forest and can't see the trees? glenn Buy from the Farmer htt://www.smallfarms.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From sals@rain.org Thu Nov 4 19:51:57 1999 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:08:01 -0800 From: Sal To: Wiegand@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Re[3]: Proposed organic cost share program [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] .> > the organic grower pays only his membership in HIS organisations > like IFOAM, demeter or naturland. > > > at least now i do understand much better, what sal is critizing > !!!. here you have the choice of getting certified for an annual > fee or you may just call yourself "organic". that's so logical to > me, that at first i did not understand, that sal is being FORCED > to pay for naming his business organic. that would be the same, > as if government would give out order, that a chemical plant has > to get certified, for being allowed to name itself a "chemical" > plant. an iso-certified enviromental friendy chemical plant would > be another thing. > > > > klaus > > > --------------- > klaus wiegand > you have no Idea what I am talking about. .I think the way it worked before this force stuff was I joined CCOF and IFOAM because I wanted my customers to trust what I grow. I volunteered to have them come and inspect me and I know they want organic to grow and like me we want to see this thing work and we work together we were the volunteers of America and being a volunteer thing it was like we were asking to be inspected we were glad and proud to be organic growers .. we volunteered to grow food organic and be inspected from the folks the industry respects but that all gone now. the USDA has taken over the word organic and we are no longer volunteers but forced labor. our inspectors belong now to the USDA there will be no IFOAM rule book no CCOF list only a USDA rule book it is all to be force now and the volunteers of America will be working for the USDA the same folks that bring u GOMs and all the other wonderful things Ag has to offer. there will be one book the USDA book and you will do what the MAN says and you better not tell anyone how you grow food unless you pay and jump through the hoops most all of witch has little to do with the organic of the food. What ever they make the organic grower do they should make all growers do. no one wants pesticides in there food no one want farmers that lie if you don't trust me how can u trust any grower. how do we know what any farmer is really doing out there . don't single out organic growers how can we trust any one selling food. your right but you don't take it far enough and in fact only want to hurt the ones on your side. you single out organic farmers as the liars how do we know what any farmer is doing. what ever you make the organic farmer do u must make all growers that sell food do . every one wants to trust the food they eat the water they drink and the air they breath. check all those farmers not just the organic ones why only check them? do you think those that don't buy organic want pesticides in their food . do you think every farmer out there is using everything like the label says and law says . come on only organic growers lie. come on now. don't just beat up on the organic grower. what ever you make the organic growers do and pay u must make the all growers do. good for the goose good for the gander . grrrrrrrrr To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org Thu Nov 4 23:18:59 1999 Date: 05 Nov 99 07:28:59 From: Roberto Verzola To: WIEGAND@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de Subject: Re: Re[3]: Proposed organic cost share program >certainly not. so what shall i do and what's within the range of >my possibilities ? ? usually there's only one thing: avoid ALL >products from israel, and with them those from the innocent and >honest growers.... > >any better solution ? Yes, mandatory government certification if a farm uses pesticides, chemical fertilizers, to ensure they use within official limits. For other farms, certification should be optional. In the future, at the proper time, a ban on the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Roberto To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From agraf@agecon.uga.edu Fri Nov 5 23:31:03 1999 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:19:45 EST5EDT From: "Anita Graf (Staff)" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: USDA organic certification Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind in reading the Sanet posts. I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in international markets, and those who only want domestic certification could opt for a cheaper private label certification? It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to have a national organic program that is put out by the government. This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big, internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA, etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for this sort of two-tier certifying. I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended for export. These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a "prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in this scenario. Anita Anita Graf Market Development of National Organic Products University of Georgia make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From sals@rain.org Fri Nov 5 23:31:34 1999 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:55:50 -0800 From: Sal To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: USDA organic certification [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] thank you for you thoughts and ideas I read in the CCOF newsletter that "The USDA's Meat Certification and Grading Program (MCGP) has verified that CCOF conforms to the basic requirements of ISO -65, the international standard for certification programs. The approval means that CCOF-certified products should now be approved for entry into European Union (EU) countries. The EU organic regulations require imported organic products to be certified by an organization that meets the ISO-65 Standards. Other ISO-65 approved certification programs includes Farm Verified Organic-Quality Assurance International and Organic Growers and Buyers Association . Several other certifier site evaluations and approvals are pending. so u see all I need is CCOF or QAI or OG or FVO and I can voluntary join them if I need that. easy see how easy things work out . so why make a federal case out of it? why the extra state Ca. tax and the Fed Tax and the force certification for all and the once size fits all and the pay pay pay year after year. give us a USDA definition of organic and lets get on with business you don't have to take us over you don't have to make this any harder . you see Anita we are making it work out now . this should also make for more reciprocity between group of certifiers and a lot has changed . it has been years when the USDA started this and now the government has seen it does not want to be a burden to small folks with extra paper work (save those trees) and their non funded state and fed. mandates so now is the time to stop the Ca. Ag. organic tax if one is already certified by a recognized certifier. and it is time the Fed. gov. lets business take care of itself, as it is doing for itself now quite will thank-you. . ----- Original Message ----- From: Anita Graf (Staff) To: Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 8:19 AM Subject: USDA organic certification > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) > > However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the > products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near > international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they > want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big, > internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA, > etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic > Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous > and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for > this sort of two-tier certifying. > > I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look > alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide > range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with > the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a > bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra > certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at > the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic > label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can > produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended > for export. > > These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck > chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to > say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer > Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose > to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a > "prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this > new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann > mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture > curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in > this scenario. > > Anita > > Anita Graf > Market Development of National Organic Products > University of Georgia > > make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Sat Nov 6 14:11:44 1999 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:33 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: USDA organic certification On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Anita Graf (Staff) wrote: > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic - > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence - > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) Yes, and It is one that makes not a particle of sense. How would "they" (those participating in such a "lucrative" scheme) expect small or medium-sized organic farmers, opposing mandatory certification, to be fooled by such a ploy. 1) Government sets the standards for what constitutes organically produced products - defines the O word 2) Certifying organizations are forced by law to meet these USDA standards or the may exceed, to any degree they choose, these standards 3) Grower, if he wishes to sell to EU, Japan or wherever, hires the certifier of his choice, gets certified and moves on to export his product(s) overseas or at home 4) EU or other, by buying GrowerX's CertifierX-certified product gets "a stamp of approval from USDA" automatically. How could it be otherwise? So, what could possibly be wrong with this system? Tell us what the big mystery is all about, the "that is a whole other discussion/dilema" part. Curious, Lawrence > > However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the > products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near > international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they > want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big, > internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA, > etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic > Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous > and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for > this sort of two-tier certifying. > > I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look > alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide > range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with > the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a > bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra > certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at > the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic > label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can > produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended > for export. > > These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck > chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to > say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer > Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose > to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a > "prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this > new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann > mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture > curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in > this scenario. > > Anita > > Anita Graf > Market Development of National Organic Products > University of Georgia > > make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From dmhinds@acnet.net Sat Nov 6 14:12:55 1999 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:51:25 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: USDA organic certification and the way things really are (long - enough) Hello Anita, nice to hear from you again. Interesting idea, but as you previously discovered, many countries (including Mexico) lack a developed market for Organic food products and their patterns of consumption are also much different than those prevalent in the U.S. I am unaware of the existence of a significant market for organic products outside of the US/Canada, Europe and to a lesser degree, Japan. (While Japan seems to show a strong preference for foods free from toxic elements, specifically "organic" food as such is of less relative importance than it is in the U.S. and Europe). Neither Japan nor Europe adheres to US standards. On the contrary, in order for US products to find acceptance in those markets, they must adhere to the respective Japanese or European standard. In view of this, within the context of foreign trade, OFPA is important NOT in the sense that you suggest, but rather for the purpose of regulating IMPORTED organic products. I'm sure you're aware of OFPA's stipulation to the effect that any country exporting organic food products to the USA MUST have a similar (to OFPA) set of regulations in place, in order for those products to be given entry into the US. THIS is exactly why Mexico has such a structure in place, and that is exactly why none of the government people you talked to before consulting with the writer of this note, knew anything about the existence of such regulations. They simply are not intended for the Mexican market, they were created to satisfy the requirement OFPA imposes on imported goods, so that Mexico can export organic tropical and off season fruits and vegetables to the US market, the biggest market in the world for organic products, and one that continues to grow exponentially. (I recall explaining this to you many months - over a year - ago. Perhaps being the "Market Development of National Organic Products" person there at the U of G has made assimilating it more difficult). In order for the OFPA legislation enacted en 1990 to actually take effect and become implemented, several significant issues that remain unresolved must be successfully dealt with. These include: What is the proper role of the federal government in relation to the cultivation and marketing of organic food products, and how can it perform that role without preventing farmers, consumers and others from exercising their right to the freedoms that the constitution guarantees them? (Among others): The freedom of speech (to impart and receive meaningful and truthful information), freedom of association and the freedom to earn a gainful living! When one is dealing with the right to drive on public roads and highways, governments can limit the right to drive on those thoroughfares to those holding current licenses issued by that state. But even this obviously appropriate privilege of governments (after all, they own the roads and have clear purview over public safety issues), becomes complicated when they must respect the licenses of drivers in transit who reside in different state or country. And where private property is concerned, governments are even further removed from holding authority over the events that occur there. The problem with OFPA is that it didn't address the appropriate task, that of arriving at a widely held consensus defining a consistent, national minimum threshold for organic products and then (and only then) have that consensus become written into law, to (hopefully) make the meaning and quality of organic foods more precise and (presumably) minimize abuses, while upholding the newly and more precisely defined standards. But no, that hasn't happened (& from the looks of things it may NEVER be accomplished, but let's not be pessimistic). Instead, the law was created but the task has yet to be done. What happened was, the legislature decided to a create a CONTROL mechanism for something that it (collectively) clearly failed to minimally understand, and the same mentality that gave us conventional agricultural practices, gave us OFPA. (Should we be surprised at that)? The concepts OFPA puts forth: Dominate (or appear to) that which you neither fully identify with or comprehend, manipulate (rather than work with or sustain) it until it reflects your own limitations and contradictions, fence it off and box it in (rather than encourage or help it grow), chop it up, make it change it's nature and direction, poison it, make it much more complicated (and more expensive) that it needs to be, until it becomes incapable of performing the function for which it was originally intended, created, and/or evolved, create doubt and place the burden of proof on those that least deserve it... AM I OR AM I NOT TELLING IT LIKE IT IS? Instead of directing it's energies toward reaching a consensus and arriving at a working definition of "organic" that's consistent with the tradition, spirit and principles and practice of organic agriculture, a definition that would legally define the State of Being Organic, the legislation decided to emphasize: That which is organic is organic when I or my cronies say it is. You bet. And then the emperor said: How do you like my new clothes? (Probably made with organically grown cotton, invisible except to the truly enlightened). Instead of being a big help, what resulted was a big cop out - a gross abdication of responsibility. A convoluted trip to nowhere. And this dear readers, is all that lies behind the decision to control the O word (as if that were where the answer was to be found). Instead of doing the job at hand, someone wanted to put it off and create a bureaucracy around that. Anyone here really believe that this is going to function? OFPA didn't put much stock in or give much attention to defining the State of Being, it elevated the certification and the "Word" that the certification certifies. However, the truth (State of Being) is not in the certification, and certifying something doesn't make it so. The certification simply states that whoever certified verifies, confirms a given claim. However, a more substantial foundation is required for any real degree of security. Otherwise, we have a closed circuit here. The opportunity for further recourse must exist, and must be grounded in a both congruent set of principles and the method that can be used to confirm this for the process of certification, but not for creating the State of Being, which precedes this. The certification can't confirm the State of Being, only that the certifier himself followed a given set of procedures for arriving at the conclusion he arrived at. The methods for legally determining the State of Being must ALSO be defined, as well as the procedures that determine when and if doing that is appropriate or necessary, but this is not related to the certification (although it could be, if the certification was suspect) so much as to a separate claim instituted by an interested party. In other words, this event can occur ONLY as a result of a claim being made, which itself must conform to a reasonable standard. Sal's point is that the interested party who institutes a claim should bear the cost of same, if his claim is not substantiated. Otherwise, the innocent are being prejudged as guilty, and in fact this is exactly what is happening. Things are turned around. And my point is that words are pointers to States of Being, and not subject to decrees (or acts) that lose track or their purpose. They are not so easily controlled as public, governmentally owned highways. They have a life and traditions of their own, that spring from the people that created and used them. Yes dear friends, that is how the leopard got it's spots, the USA got it's OFPA, sanet got this post, and the U of G got ... -------------- Friday, November 05, 1999, 10:19:45 AM, Anita Graf wrote: AGS> Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind AGS> in reading the Sanet posts. AGS> I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR AGS> EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in AGS> international markets, and those who only want domestic certification AGS> could opt for a cheaper private label certification? AGS> It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national AGS> standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without AGS> national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, AGS> less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not AGS> have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the AGS> EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get AGS> national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic AGS> label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the AGS> Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me AGS> repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to AGS> have a national organic program that is put out by the government. AGS> This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life AGS> more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and AGS> potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence AGS> and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and AGS> who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM AGS> or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) AGS> However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the AGS> products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near AGS> international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they AGS> want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big, AGS> internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA, AGS> etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic AGS> Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous AGS> and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for AGS> this sort of two-tier certifying. AGS> I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look AGS> alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide AGS> range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with AGS> the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a AGS> bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra AGS> certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at AGS> the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic AGS> label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can AGS> produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended AGS> for export. AGS> These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck AGS> chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to AGS> say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer AGS> Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose AGS> to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a AGS> "prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this AGS> new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann AGS> mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture AGS> curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in AGS> this scenario. AGS> Anita AGS> Anita Graf AGS> Market Development of National Organic Products AGS> University of Georgia AGS> make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com AGS> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command AGS> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command AGS> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". AGS> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command AGS> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". AGS> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: AGS> http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail Douglas Hinds, Dir. Gral. - CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil (Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization) Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico Apdo. Postal No. 171 Fortin de las Flores, Veracruz 94471 Mexico Tel: 011 522 713 2888 (Direct at present) U.S. Voicemail (email linked) 630 300 0550 U.S. Fax Mailbox (email linked) 630 300 0555 dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From donald@mich.com Sat Nov 6 14:13:18 1999 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 07:10:13 -0500 From: Donald E Davison To: Will Arnold Cc: "'Anita Graf (Staff)'" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, Walker Bennett Subject: Let's move Congress back home to where they belong. Reply to Will's political change post. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11/06/99 Dear Will, Your suggestion is good as far as it goes, but let's go all the way to the final step - let's move Congress back home to where they belong. Let us have every member of Comgress remain in the district or state in which they were elected. Every member would be online. Every committe would be connect via a subscription list. They could feel the pulse of the people in their district 52 weeks of the year. One more thing - the way they vote should be changed. Instead of a yes or no vote, they should be required to vote both a Percent-Yes and a Percent-No according to the feelings of all the people in their district. If they are going to represent the district then they should be representing all the people in the district, and all the people do not vote 100% Yes or 100% No. Yours for better government, Donald ------------Forwarded Letter ----------- From: "Will Arnold" Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:36:00 -0700 Subject: RE: political change A few years ago I heard someone on NPR relate how they thought if we moved the decision makers out of Washington D.C. and held legislative sessions every two years in different states we would remove much of the corruption we now face. I really liked the idea. The scerio would go something like this. For the House we elect representatives to serve four year terms, (Senate stays 6) butboth houses only meet every two years. Each state makes available on a rotational basis their state houses for a 12 week session. All business not accomplished would table over until next session. The President has the authority to call special sessions in times of dire need that would meet in D. C.. Committee work ( where I think the most damage is done anyway would begin over e-mail) and then the last four weeks of the normal yearly session (off year) would be devoted to this work in various sites around the U.S.. I don't know what we would do with all those buildings but maybe we could quit building new ones for quite some time and rent out the others for other purposes. Of course this is pie in the sky but I liked the concept. Will Will Arnold Regional Extension Specialist/RC&D Community Development, P.O. Box 157, Hugo CO 80821 warnold@coop.ext.colostate.edu +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ | Q U O T A T I O N | | "Democracy is a beautiful thing, | | except that part about letting just any old yokel vote." | | - Age 10 | +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ N E W S L E T T E R Worldwide Direct Democracy Newsletter Four Issues per Year by Postal Mail Cost per year: Czech Republic 200 Kc, Europe 12 DM Outside of Europe $10 Make check payable to: Mr. Bohuslav Binka Mail to: Mr. Bohuslav Binka Bellova 15 Brno 623 00 Czech Republic - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N E W D E M O C R A C Y A Source of Study Material for Political Change http://www.mich.com/~donald - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From bluestem@webserf.net Sat Nov 6 14:14:17 1999 Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 16:47:08 From: Bluestem Associates To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Civics lesson --- off topic thread (was: Let's move Congress ) On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 07:10:13 -0500, Donald E Davison wrote: > Let us have every member of Comgress remain in the district or state >in which they were elected. > Every member would be online. > Every committe would be connect via a subscription list. > They could feel the pulse of the people in their district 52 weeks of >the year. > > One more thing - the way they vote should be changed. Instead of a yes >or no vote, they should be required to vote both a Percent-Yes and a >Percent-No according to the feelings of all the people in their district. > If they are going to represent the district then they should be >representing all the people in the district, and all the people do not vote >100% Yes or 100% No. Sorry to be a bit blunt, but statements like these display a significant lack of understanding about (at least) American government. The politicians in Washington are *representatives,* not delegates. The system was designed specifically to diminish the force of *day-to-day* public opinion in the crafting of our laws. The Senate, especially, was designed to incorporate a significant lag time by virtue of the longer (and staggered) terms of office. The framers of the American Constitution understood (well, and quite correctly) that the greatest threat of tyranny faced by the American people was tyranny on the part of *government,* and most particularly a tyranny of the majority. That is the basis of the balance of powers laid out in the Constitution. Direct democracy, or near substitutes such as suggested in Mr. Davidson's post, is perhaps the speediest and most direct path to tyranny of the majority, if for no other reason than that the decisions arising therefrom are subject to the *unbuffered* whims of day-to-day public opinion. No quality is so deeply lacking in American current affairs than true *leadership.* Government by public opinion poll and focus group --- brought to the fore by the current administration --- is not leadership of any sort. Rather, it is *followership.* The dithering and flip flops on everything from agriculture to defence to taxation policy merely reflect the innate problems of government by followership. To embed the system of followership in the American way of government would only insure an institutionalisation of the lack of direction we see from both Congress and the Executive. The only leadership we're seeing is from the one branch of American government that should be *following* ---- the judiciary. Justice should follow the laws and Constitution as written, that's their job, and activist judges of all political stripes do Americans a great disservice when they legislate from the bench. Given the drift towards followership in American politics these days, activist judges (again, of all political stripes) are merely filling a void that never should have been allowed to develop in the first place. The US Constitution is by far the oldest working constitution in the world. Second place used to be held by Sweden (1809, I think) and third by Canada (1867). Both those nations promulgated new constitutions in the early 1980s. That the US Baby Boom generation (at least its earlier cohorts) have strong tendencies towards both self-righteousness and authoritarianism is not particularly comforting. Given that they are arriving in the decade of their peak political power, the fact that American government is often slow and inefficient should be seen as a *triumph* of the US Constitution, not a flaw. Quick, 'efficient' governments can become quickly and efficiently tyrannical, especially when those governing have that tendency in the first place. Bart To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From tabeles@tmn.com Sat Nov 6 14:14:30 1999 Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 12:56:38 -0500 From: tabeles To: Bluestem Associates Cc: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: Civics lesson- a critical topic for sanet Bluestem Associates wrote, in a small part: > The politicians in Washington are *representatives,* not delegates. The > system was designed specifically to diminish the force of *day-to-day* > public opinion in the crafting of our laws. The Senate, especially, was > designed to incorporate a significant lag time by virtue of the longer > (and staggered) terms of office. > > The framers of the American Constitution understood (well, and quite > correctly) that the greatest threat of tyranny faced by the American > people was tyranny on the part of *government,* and most particularly a > tyranny of the majority. That is the basis of the balance of powers > laid out in the Constitution. Direct democracy, or near substitutes > such as suggested in Mr. Davidson's post, is perhaps the speediest and > most direct path to tyranny of the majority, if for no other reason > than that the decisions arising therefrom are subject to the > *unbuffered* whims of day-to-day public opinion. ----------------------------------------------------- Bart's entire post is worth serious reflection. As he states, the framers of the Constitution were indeed concerned about the uninformed populus and saw the elected representatives as individuals who had a serious commitment to governance and the time and capabilities to act in an informed manner for the long term benefit of the country. As a group, these founding fathers had reservations as to who should even have the ability to vote and thus we have a republic and not a democracy (but then, even the Greeks did not have a true democracy either) Given the current participation in public debate and in the election of officials, one may even believe that the founding fathers were prescient. Given the willingness of the public to become informed and to actively participate, even at the local level, one might also have serious questions. Then, again, we must ask, in relationship to sustainable agriculture, whether this wisdom of our representatives ever existed in spirit or in fact. This becomes questionable when one looks at the history of the legislation which has been enacted in support of taking this country from sea to shining sea in a couple of centuries and has, by legislative fiat created and promoted the implementation of the current policies which are and have been impacting on the entire past, present and future of agriculture in the US and, to a large extent, globally. thoughts? tom abeles To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Sun Nov 7 14:10:02 1999 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 13:01:32 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: USDA organic certification On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote: > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:33 -0500 (EST) > From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." > To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Anita Graf (Staff) wrote: > > > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? > > > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic > - > > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence > - > > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) > > Yes, and It is one that makes not a particle of sense. How would "they" > (those participating in such a "lucrative" scheme) expect small or > medium-sized organic farmers, opposing mandatory certification, to > be fooled by such a ploy. > > 1) Government sets the standards for what constitutes organically > produced products - defines the O word > 2) Certifying organizations are forced by law to meet these USDA > standards or the may exceed, to any degree they choose, these standards > 3) Grower, if he wishes to sell to EU, Japan or wherever, hires the > certifier of his choice, gets certified and moves on to > export his product(s) overseas or at home > 4) EU or other, by buying GrowerX's CertifierX-certified product > gets "a stamp of approval from USDA" automatically. How could it be > otherwise? > > So, what could possibly be wrong with this system? Tell us what the big > mystery is all about, the "that is a whole other discussion/dilema" part. > > Curious, > > Lawrence And, as an afterthought, it occured to me that it would be nice for our government to tell its citizens that USDA Certified Organic means "your government says its really organic, go ahead and buy with confidence". However, they have not bothered with such quality assurance for conventionally-grown products to the tune of USDA Certified Analysis of Produxt X reveals the following levels of pesticide residues or breakdown products thereof OR the following levels of contaminants from materials used in production other than pesticides found in this product OR our environmental impact study revealed that production of this box of soy doodles will contribute % to degradation/contamination/desertification of square feet of farm soil. Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees why should it be allowed to force the burden of mandatory organic certification on small farmers trying to maintain a favorable position in our free enterprise system for the benefit of consumers IN OTHER COUNTRIES? Take the paranoia about cheating farmers and feed it to the birds. What about the farmers allowed to cheat by using vast arrays of poisons to grow their crops, without a thought about its impact on the health of the consumers - when half or 75% of the time none of it is needed, only to increase windfall profits for the agrichemical industry. LL > > However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the > > products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near > > international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they > > want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big, > > internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA, > > etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic > > Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous > > and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for > > this sort of two-tier certifying. > > > > I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look > > alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide > > range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with > > the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a > > bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra > > certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at > > the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic > > label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can > > produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended > > for export. > > > > These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck > > chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to > > say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer > > Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose > > to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a > > "prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this > > new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann > > mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture > > curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in > > this scenario. > > > > Anita > > > > Anita Graf > > Market Development of National Organic Products > > University of Georgia > > > > make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/intergarden /permaculture /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Mon Nov 8 00:40:01 1999 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 13:01:32 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: USDA organic certification On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote: > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:33 -0500 (EST) > From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." > To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Anita Graf (Staff) wrote: > > > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? > > > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic > - > > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence > - > > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) > > Yes, and It is one that makes not a particle of sense. How would "they" > (those participating in such a "lucrative" scheme) expect small or > medium-sized organic farmers, opposing mandatory certification, to > be fooled by such a ploy. > > 1) Government sets the standards for what constitutes organically > produced products - defines the O word > 2) Certifying organizations are forced by law to meet these USDA > standards or the may exceed, to any degree they choose, these standards > 3) Grower, if he wishes to sell to EU, Japan or wherever, hires the > certifier of his choice, gets certified and moves on to > export his product(s) overseas or at home > 4) EU or other, by buying GrowerX's CertifierX-certified product > gets "a stamp of approval from USDA" automatically. How could it be > otherwise? > > So, what could possibly be wrong with this system? Tell us what the big > mystery is all about, the "that is a whole other discussion/dilema" part. > > Curious, > > Lawrence And, as an afterthought, it occured to me that it would be nice for our government to tell its citizens that USDA Certified Organic means "your government says its really organic, go ahead and buy with confidence". However, they have not bothered with such quality assurance for conventionally-grown products to the tune of USDA Certified Analysis of Produxt X reveals the following levels of pesticide residues or breakdown products thereof OR the following levels of contaminants from materials used in production other than pesticides found in this product OR our environmental impact study revealed that production of this box of soy doodles will contribute % to degradation/contamination/desertification of square feet of farm soil. Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees why should it be allowed to force the burden of mandatory organic certification on small farmers trying to maintain a favorable position in our free enterprise system for the benefit of consumers IN OTHER COUNTRIES? Take the paranoia about cheating farmers and feed it to the birds. What about the farmers allowed to cheat by using vast arrays of poisons to grow their crops, without a thought about its impact on the health of the consumers - when half or 75% of the time none of it is needed, only to increase windfall profits for the agrichemical industry. LL > > However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the > > products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near > > international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they > > want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big, > > internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA, > > etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic > > Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous > > and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for > > this sort of two-tier certifying. > > > > I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look > > alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide > > range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with > > the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a > > bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra > > certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at > > the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic > > label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can > > produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended > > for export. > > > > These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck > > chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to > > say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer > > Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose > > to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a > > "prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this > > new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann > > mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture > > curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in > > this scenario. > > > > Anita > > > > Anita Graf > > Market Development of National Organic Products > > University of Georgia > > > > make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/intergarden /permaculture /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From Craig.Harris@ssc.msu.edu Mon Nov 8 00:40:08 1999 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:06:30 -0500 From: "Harris, Craig" To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" , "'Lawrence F. London, Jr.'" Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: USDA organic certification [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] "Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees . . ." i think the premise here is false . . . usda does certify both the safety and various qualitative attributes of meat and eggs . . . usda establishes standards and grades for most other commodities, and, in cooperation with the states, operates inspection programs for those commodities . . . where inspection and grading is done by a private firm, it must still conform to usda standards, and not to conform is a violation of federal law in general the cost of the usda services are actually paid by the processor or first handler . . . presumably those costs are factored into the price which the processor or first handler offers the producer for the commodity . . . similarly, even if the first handler does the certification, presumably the cost is reflected in the price received by the grower thus the effect of the ofpa, if it is ever implemented, will be to bring organic commodities in line with other commodities, not to make organic commodities different from other commodities cheers, craig craig k harris department of sociology michigan state university 429b berkey hall east lansing michigan 48824-1111 tel: 517-355-5048 fax: 517-432-2856 > ---------- > From: Lawrence F. London, Jr.[SMTP:london@metalab.unc.edu] > Sent: Sunday 7 November 1999 1:01 PM > To: Anita Graf (Staff) > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:33 -0500 (EST) > > From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." > > To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" > > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Anita Graf (Staff) wrote: > > > > > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > > > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > > > > > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > > > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > > > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > > > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? > > > > > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > > > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > > > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > > > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > > > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > > > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > > > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic > > - > > > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > > > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > > > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > > > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > > > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > > > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > > > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence > > - > > > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > > > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > > > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) > > > > Yes, and It is one that makes not a particle of sense. How would "they" > > (those participating in such a "lucrative" scheme) expect small or > > medium-sized organic farmers, opposing mandatory certification, to > > be fooled by such a ploy. > > > > 1) Government sets the standards for what constitutes organically > > produced products - defines the O word > > 2) Certifying organizations are forced by law to meet these USDA > > standards or the may exceed, to any degree they choose, these standards > > 3) Grower, if he wishes to sell to EU, Japan or wherever, hires the > > certifier of his choice, gets certified and moves on to > > export his product(s) overseas or at home > > 4) EU or other, by buying GrowerX's CertifierX-certified product > > gets "a stamp of approval from USDA" automatically. How could it be > > otherwise? > > > > So, what could possibly be wrong with this system? Tell us what the big > > mystery is all about, the "that is a whole other discussion/dilema" > part. > > > > Curious, > > > > Lawrence > > And, as an afterthought, it occured to me that it would be nice for > our government to tell its citizens that USDA Certified Organic means > "your government says its really organic, go ahead and buy with > confidence". However, they have not bothered with such quality > assurance for conventionally-grown products to the tune of USDA Certified > Analysis of Produxt X reveals the following levels of pesticide residues > or breakdown products thereof OR the following levels of contaminants > from materials used in production other than pesticides found in this > product OR our environmental impact study revealed that production of this > box of soy doodles will contribute % to > degradation/contamination/desertification of square feet of farm soil. > > Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the > > benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees why should it be > allowed to force the burden of mandatory organic certification on small > farmers trying to maintain a favorable position in our free enterprise > system for the benefit of consumers IN OTHER COUNTRIES? > > Take the paranoia about cheating farmers and feed it to the birds. > What about the farmers allowed to cheat by using vast arrays of poisons > to grow their crops, without a thought about its impact on the health of > the consumers - when half or 75% of the time none of it is needed, only > to increase windfall profits for the agrichemical industry. > > LL > > > However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the > > > products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near > > > international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they > > > want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big, > > > internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA, > > > etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic > > > Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous > > > and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for > > > this sort of two-tier certifying. > > > > > > I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look > > > alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide > > > range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with > > > the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a > > > bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra > > > certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at > > > the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic > > > label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can > > > produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended > > > for export. > > > > > > These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck > > > chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to > > > say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer > > > Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose > > > to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a > > > "prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this > > > new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann > > > mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture > > > curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in > > > this scenario. > > > > > > Anita > > > > > > Anita Graf > > > Market Development of National Organic Products > > > University of Georgia > > > > > > make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com > > > Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm > http://metalab.unc.edu/intergarden > /permaculture /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech > lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > From Craig.Harris@ssc.msu.edu Mon Nov 8 00:40:15 1999 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:06:30 -0500 From: "Harris, Craig" To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" , "'Lawrence F. London, Jr.'" Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: USDA organic certification [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] "Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees . . ." i think the premise here is false . . . usda does certify both the safety and various qualitative attributes of meat and eggs . . . usda establishes standards and grades for most other commodities, and, in cooperation with the states, operates inspection programs for those commodities . . . where inspection and grading is done by a private firm, it must still conform to usda standards, and not to conform is a violation of federal law in general the cost of the usda services are actually paid by the processor or first handler . . . presumably those costs are factored into the price which the processor or first handler offers the producer for the commodity . . . similarly, even if the first handler does the certification, presumably the cost is reflected in the price received by the grower thus the effect of the ofpa, if it is ever implemented, will be to bring organic commodities in line with other commodities, not to make organic commodities different from other commodities cheers, craig craig k harris department of sociology michigan state university 429b berkey hall east lansing michigan 48824-1111 tel: 517-355-5048 fax: 517-432-2856 > ---------- > From: Lawrence F. London, Jr.[SMTP:london@metalab.unc.edu] > Sent: Sunday 7 November 1999 1:01 PM > To: Anita Graf (Staff) > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:33 -0500 (EST) > > From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." > > To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" > > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Anita Graf (Staff) wrote: > > > > > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > > > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > > > > > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > > > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > > > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > > > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? > > > > > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > > > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > > > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > > > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > > > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > > > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > > > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic > > - > > > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > > > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > > > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > > > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > > > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > > > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > > > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence > > - > > > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > > > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > > > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) > > > > Yes, and It is one that makes not a particle of sense. How would "they" > > (those participating in such a "lucrative" scheme) expect small or > > medium-sized organic farmers, opposing mandatory certification, to > > be fooled by such a ploy. > > > > 1) Government sets the standards for what constitutes organically > > produced products - defines the O word > > 2) Certifying organizations are forced by law to meet these USDA > > standards or the may exceed, to any degree they choose, these standards > > 3) Grower, if he wishes to sell to EU, Japan or wherever, hires the > > certifier of his choice, gets certified and moves on to > > export his product(s) overseas or at home > > 4) EU or other, by buying GrowerX's CertifierX-certified product > > gets "a stamp of approval from USDA" automatically. How could it be > > otherwise? > > > > So, what could possibly be wrong with this system? Tell us what the big > > mystery is all about, the "that is a whole other discussion/dilema" > part. > > > > Curious, > > > > Lawrence > > And, as an afterthought, it occured to me that it would be nice for > our government to tell its citizens that USDA Certified Organic means > "your government says its really organic, go ahead and buy with > confidence". However, they have not bothered with such quality > assurance for conventionally-grown products to the tune of USDA Certified > Analysis of Produxt X reveals the following levels of pesticide residues > or breakdown products thereof OR the following levels of contaminants > from materials used in production other than pesticides found in this > product OR our environmental impact study revealed that production of this > box of soy doodles will contribute % to > degradation/contamination/desertification of square feet of farm soil. > > Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the > > benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees why should it be > allowed to force the burden of mandatory organic certification on small > farmers trying to maintain a favorable position in our free enterprise > system for the benefit of consumers IN OTHER COUNTRIES? > > Take the paranoia about cheating farmers and feed it to the birds. > What about the farmers allowed to cheat by using vast arrays of poisons > to grow their crops, without a thought about its impact on the health of > the consumers - when half or 75% of the time none of it is needed, only > to increase windfall profits for the agrichemical industry. > > LL > > > However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the > > > products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near > > > international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they > > > want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big, > > > internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA, > > > etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic > > > Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous > > > and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for > > > this sort of two-tier certifying. > > > > > > I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look > > > alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide > > > range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with > > > the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a > > > bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra > > > certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at > > > the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic > > > label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can > > > produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended > > > for export. > > > > > > These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck > > > chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to > > > say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer > > > Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose > > > to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a > > > "prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this > > > new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann > > > mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture > > > curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in > > > this scenario. > > > > > > Anita > > > > > > Anita Graf > > > Market Development of National Organic Products > > > University of Georgia > > > > > > make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com > > > Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm > http://metalab.unc.edu/intergarden > /permaculture /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech > lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Mon Nov 8 00:40:22 1999 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:25:47 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: "Harris, Craig" Cc: "Anita Graf (Staff)" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: USDA organic certification On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Harris, Craig wrote: > "Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the > benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees . . ." > > i think the premise here is false . . . usda does certify both the safety > and various qualitative attributes of meat and eggs . . . usda establishes > standards and grades for most other commodities, and, in cooperation with > the states, operates inspection programs for those commodities . . . where > inspection and grading is done by a private firm, it must still conform to > usda standards, and not to conform is a violation of federal law That does not include vegetables, herbs, fruits, nuts and seeds, as you well know. Regarding meat: Remember the deaths of the poultry processing workers in the plant in Raeford, NC when the plant caught fire and workers were trapped inside because the exit doors were locked from the outside - the USDA plant inspectors had not done the job they were PAID to do, had hardly ever visited the plant. Despicable b......s. > in general the cost of the usda services are actually paid by the processor > or first handler . . . presumably those costs are factored into the price > which the processor or first handler offers the producer for the commodity . > . . similarly, even if the first handler does the certification, presumably > the cost is reflected in the price received by the grower This has nothing whatsoever to do with informing the public as to any contamination (pesticide residues constitute contamination, in case you weren't aware of this fact) from pesticides or soil supplements, i.e. toxic waste incinerator by products incorporated into fertilizer and sewage sludge, of marketed products. > thus the effect of the ofpa, if it is ever implemented, will be to bring > organic commodities in line with other commodities, not to make organic What do you mean by "in line"? > commodities different from other commodities Sure, organic and "other" commodities are both food. Organic food, though, needs a minimum standard clearly defined and enforced by government in an impartial and fair manner. What do you mean by "different". > cheers, > > craig > > > craig k harris > department of sociology What is your agricultural background? > michigan state university > 429b berkey hall > east lansing michigan 48824-1111 > tel: 517-355-5048 > fax: 517-432-2856 Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/intergarden /permaculture /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From sals@rain.org Mon Nov 8 00:40:30 1999 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 18:20:31 -0800 From: Sal To: "Harris, Craig" , "Anita Graf (Staff)" , "'Lawrence F. London, Jr.'" Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: USDA organic certification [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Harris, Craig To: Anita Graf (Staff) ; 'Lawrence F. London, Jr.' Cc: Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 11:06 AM Subject: RE: USDA organic certification > "Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the > benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees . . ." > . . where > inspection and grading is done by a private firm, it must still conform to > usda standards, and not to conform is a violation of federal law yes and I am getting tired of this we pay for the grading and inspection like everyone else now you want to put a extra tax on us. sure there are grading laws and we have to follow them sure there are pesticide regestration also and we also pay those when and if we buy pesticides so yes and organic growers have to follow those laws already. if I sell lemons I have to pay the lemon commodities tax the grading tax like all growers what your talking about is a extra tax on me above and be on what other growers have to pay because those lemons are organic and a extra tax because that apple is organic you can't see that this is a grading tax on top of a grading tax . > in general the cost of the usda services are actually paid by the processor > or first handler . . . presumably those costs are factored into the price > which the processor or first handler offers the producer for the commodity . > . . similarly, even if the first handler does the certification, presumably > the cost is reflected in the price received by the grower yes organic growers pay that too we are no different what you want us poor growers to do is pay for that service and a extra tax for organicness of the fruit . double and triple taxation with out representation I might add. if Ca. they are double and triple dipping from organic growers now what you are saying is another layer on top of the layers already. any fool can see that . I know when it come time to pay all these bottom feeders every year I feel it. don't u understand a regular meat raiser pay a usda tax and you want them to pay extra because they don't use hormones and GMO . you want them to pay more than regular growers . why why don't you trust organic grower and you trust chemicals growers in how the meat is raised. FRom the time this law was past till now a lot has happen and the law is not needed nor the extra fees. we don't do that any more you know force poor folks to pay extra fees and do extra paper work and hinder business . this is one business that is doing a great job of regulating it self. I can not sell to wholesalers now with out a certification . I can not sell over seas now without a certification. so this law will just be a extra unneeded tax on us that is not needed.. also if you charge our certifier money they will pass the cost on to us and that's another tax we don't need. what gives here this is bull. right now I have to pay the state of Ca. a certifier, a inspector . how many pencil pushing bureaucratic does one small organic grower have to pay off to be able to tell the truth. also I think one certification inspection at the transition period to make sure the new growers understands what organic is and then one inspection maybe every five years or so if nothing on the farm changes .. why make me pay all these folks over and over every year if my organicness is the same. what does the change in the year have to do with being organic . I was the same organic in 98 as 99 so why pay pay pay over and over for nothing. once one knows what organic is he should be left to grow organic . we are not such big liars that we need a yearly inspection what is that all about. you see the same stuff every years only I have to pay you to come over again and again and again to look at the same old same old.. what is that all about. . this is just a rip off they don't have to make life that hard on us because we grow organic. > thus the effect of the ofpa, if it is ever implemented, will be to bring > organic commodities in line with other commodities, not to make organic > commodities different from other commodities organic commodities are all the other commodities just grown organic so why charge us extra . what is your reasoning for all this burdening of the organic growers. lets get to the bottom line why you doing this to me I have done nothing wrong. cheers yourself. there is nothing cheerful to me in these years of being ripped off from folks that don't do nothing here but take my money. Where is the cheers in that. powertripers extortionist con men Mafia where is the farmers protection . > cheers, > > craig > > > craig k harris > department of sociology > michigan state university > 429b berkey hall > east lansing michigan 48824-1111 > tel: 517-355-5048 > fax: 517-432-2856 > > > > ---------- > > From: Lawrence F. London, Jr.[SMTP:london@metalab.unc.edu] > > Sent: Sunday 7 November 1999 1:01 PM > > To: Anita Graf (Staff) > > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote: > > > > > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:33 -0500 (EST) > > > From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." > > > To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" > > > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > > > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Anita Graf (Staff) wrote: > > > > > > > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > > > > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > > > > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > > > > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > > > > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? there already is and to ship international you have to be certified now > > > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > > > > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > > > > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > > > > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > > > > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > > > > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > > > > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic national standards are one thing fees and extra unneeded paper work is another > > > > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > > > > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > > > > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > > > > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > > > > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > > > > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > > > > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence > > > - > > > > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > > > > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > > > > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) I hope you got my post about how the certifiers and the USDA are taking care of that now . > > > > > > 1) Government sets the standards for what constitutes organically > > > produced products - defines the O word > > > 2) Certifying organizations are forced by law to meet these USDA > > > standards or the may exceed, to any degree they choose, these standards > > > 3) Grower, if he wishes to sell to EU, Japan or wherever, hires the > > > certifier of his choice, gets certified and moves on to > > > export his product(s) overseas or at home > > > 4) EU or other, by buying GrowerX's CertifierX-certified product > > > gets "a stamp of approval from USDA" automatically. How could it be > > > otherwise? > > > > > > So, what could possibly be wrong with this system? Tell us what the big > > > mystery is all about, the "that is a whole other discussion/dilema" > > part. > > > > > > Curious, > > > > > > Lawrence > > > > And, as an afterthought, it occured to me that it would be nice for > > our government to tell its citizens that USDA Certified Organic means > > "your government says its really organic, go ahead and buy with > > confidence". However, they have not bothered with such quality > > assurance for conventionally-grown products to the tune of USDA Certified > > Analysis of Produxt X reveals the following levels of pesticide residues > > or breakdown products thereof OR the following levels of contaminants > > from materials used in production other than pesticides found in this > > product OR our environmental impact study revealed that production of this > > box of soy doodles will contribute % to > > degradation/contamination/desertification of square feet of farm soil. the head of the USDA said organic food is not safer than conventional food so what is the reasoning for this extra tax. this is getting old. other folks if they do paper work they get paid and you want me to do paper work you pay me. you want me to take time out of my day to show you around you pay me you slavemaster you you want to look get a search warrant its the American way. you want me to not use the word organic take the o and the r and the g and the a and the n and the i and the c out of the alphabet. as long as every one else gets to use those letters so should i. Give me a o O give me a r R give me a g G give me a a A give me a n N give me a i Eye give me a C SEE hehe what does that spell? hehe ORGANIC What does that Spell Organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic naw naw na naw naw I think I will say the word ORGANIC CINAGRO IS ORGANIC SPELLED BACKWARD BECAUSE YOU GET IT ALL BACKWARDS you make the contaminated pay and not the contaminator. backwards I think I will call my product CINAGRO in honor of the USDA that has everything backwards. what you make the organic grower do all growers must do. good for the goose good for the gander. From sals@rain.org Mon Nov 8 00:40:38 1999 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 18:20:31 -0800 From: Sal To: "Harris, Craig" , "Anita Graf (Staff)" , "'Lawrence F. London, Jr.'" Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: USDA organic certification [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Harris, Craig To: Anita Graf (Staff) ; 'Lawrence F. London, Jr.' Cc: Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 11:06 AM Subject: RE: USDA organic certification > "Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the > benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees . . ." > . . where > inspection and grading is done by a private firm, it must still conform to > usda standards, and not to conform is a violation of federal law yes and I am getting tired of this we pay for the grading and inspection like everyone else now you want to put a extra tax on us. sure there are grading laws and we have to follow them sure there are pesticide regestration also and we also pay those when and if we buy pesticides so yes and organic growers have to follow those laws already. if I sell lemons I have to pay the lemon commodities tax the grading tax like all growers what your talking about is a extra tax on me above and be on what other growers have to pay because those lemons are organic and a extra tax because that apple is organic you can't see that this is a grading tax on top of a grading tax . > in general the cost of the usda services are actually paid by the processor > or first handler . . . presumably those costs are factored into the price > which the processor or first handler offers the producer for the commodity . > . . similarly, even if the first handler does the certification, presumably > the cost is reflected in the price received by the grower yes organic growers pay that too we are no different what you want us poor growers to do is pay for that service and a extra tax for organicness of the fruit . double and triple taxation with out representation I might add. if Ca. they are double and triple dipping from organic growers now what you are saying is another layer on top of the layers already. any fool can see that . I know when it come time to pay all these bottom feeders every year I feel it. don't u understand a regular meat raiser pay a usda tax and you want them to pay extra because they don't use hormones and GMO . you want them to pay more than regular growers . why why don't you trust organic grower and you trust chemicals growers in how the meat is raised. FRom the time this law was past till now a lot has happen and the law is not needed nor the extra fees. we don't do that any more you know force poor folks to pay extra fees and do extra paper work and hinder business . this is one business that is doing a great job of regulating it self. I can not sell to wholesalers now with out a certification . I can not sell over seas now without a certification. so this law will just be a extra unneeded tax on us that is not needed.. also if you charge our certifier money they will pass the cost on to us and that's another tax we don't need. what gives here this is bull. right now I have to pay the state of Ca. a certifier, a inspector . how many pencil pushing bureaucratic does one small organic grower have to pay off to be able to tell the truth. also I think one certification inspection at the transition period to make sure the new growers understands what organic is and then one inspection maybe every five years or so if nothing on the farm changes .. why make me pay all these folks over and over every year if my organicness is the same. what does the change in the year have to do with being organic . I was the same organic in 98 as 99 so why pay pay pay over and over for nothing. once one knows what organic is he should be left to grow organic . we are not such big liars that we need a yearly inspection what is that all about. you see the same stuff every years only I have to pay you to come over again and again and again to look at the same old same old.. what is that all about. . this is just a rip off they don't have to make life that hard on us because we grow organic. > thus the effect of the ofpa, if it is ever implemented, will be to bring > organic commodities in line with other commodities, not to make organic > commodities different from other commodities organic commodities are all the other commodities just grown organic so why charge us extra . what is your reasoning for all this burdening of the organic growers. lets get to the bottom line why you doing this to me I have done nothing wrong. cheers yourself. there is nothing cheerful to me in these years of being ripped off from folks that don't do nothing here but take my money. Where is the cheers in that. powertripers extortionist con men Mafia where is the farmers protection . > cheers, > > craig > > > craig k harris > department of sociology > michigan state university > 429b berkey hall > east lansing michigan 48824-1111 > tel: 517-355-5048 > fax: 517-432-2856 > > > > ---------- > > From: Lawrence F. London, Jr.[SMTP:london@metalab.unc.edu] > > Sent: Sunday 7 November 1999 1:01 PM > > To: Anita Graf (Staff) > > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote: > > > > > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:33 -0500 (EST) > > > From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." > > > To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" > > > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > > > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Anita Graf (Staff) wrote: > > > > > > > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > > > > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > > > > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > > > > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > > > > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? there already is and to ship international you have to be certified now > > > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > > > > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > > > > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > > > > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > > > > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > > > > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > > > > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic national standards are one thing fees and extra unneeded paper work is another > > > > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > > > > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > > > > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > > > > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > > > > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > > > > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > > > > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence > > > - > > > > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > > > > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > > > > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) I hope you got my post about how the certifiers and the USDA are taking care of that now . > > > > > > 1) Government sets the standards for what constitutes organically > > > produced products - defines the O word > > > 2) Certifying organizations are forced by law to meet these USDA > > > standards or the may exceed, to any degree they choose, these standards > > > 3) Grower, if he wishes to sell to EU, Japan or wherever, hires the > > > certifier of his choice, gets certified and moves on to > > > export his product(s) overseas or at home > > > 4) EU or other, by buying GrowerX's CertifierX-certified product > > > gets "a stamp of approval from USDA" automatically. How could it be > > > otherwise? > > > > > > So, what could possibly be wrong with this system? Tell us what the big > > > mystery is all about, the "that is a whole other discussion/dilema" > > part. > > > > > > Curious, > > > > > > Lawrence > > > > And, as an afterthought, it occured to me that it would be nice for > > our government to tell its citizens that USDA Certified Organic means > > "your government says its really organic, go ahead and buy with > > confidence". However, they have not bothered with such quality > > assurance for conventionally-grown products to the tune of USDA Certified > > Analysis of Produxt X reveals the following levels of pesticide residues > > or breakdown products thereof OR the following levels of contaminants > > from materials used in production other than pesticides found in this > > product OR our environmental impact study revealed that production of this > > box of soy doodles will contribute % to > > degradation/contamination/desertification of square feet of farm soil. the head of the USDA said organic food is not safer than conventional food so what is the reasoning for this extra tax. this is getting old. other folks if they do paper work they get paid and you want me to do paper work you pay me. you want me to take time out of my day to show you around you pay me you slavemaster you you want to look get a search warrant its the American way. you want me to not use the word organic take the o and the r and the g and the a and the n and the i and the c out of the alphabet. as long as every one else gets to use those letters so should i. Give me a o O give me a r R give me a g G give me a a A give me a n N give me a i Eye give me a C SEE hehe what does that spell? hehe ORGANIC What does that Spell Organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic naw naw na naw naw I think I will say the word ORGANIC CINAGRO IS ORGANIC SPELLED BACKWARD BECAUSE YOU GET IT ALL BACKWARDS you make the contaminated pay and not the contaminator. backwards I think I will call my product CINAGRO in honor of the USDA that has everything backwards. what you make the organic grower do all growers must do. good for the goose good for the gander. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From sals@rain.org Mon Nov 8 00:41:05 1999 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 18:20:31 -0800 From: Sal To: "Harris, Craig" , "Anita Graf (Staff)" , "'Lawrence F. London, Jr.'" Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: USDA organic certification [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Harris, Craig To: Anita Graf (Staff) ; 'Lawrence F. London, Jr.' Cc: Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 11:06 AM Subject: RE: USDA organic certification > "Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the > benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees . . ." > . . where > inspection and grading is done by a private firm, it must still conform to > usda standards, and not to conform is a violation of federal law yes and I am getting tired of this we pay for the grading and inspection like everyone else now you want to put a extra tax on us. sure there are grading laws and we have to follow them sure there are pesticide regestration also and we also pay those when and if we buy pesticides so yes and organic growers have to follow those laws already. if I sell lemons I have to pay the lemon commodities tax the grading tax like all growers what your talking about is a extra tax on me above and be on what other growers have to pay because those lemons are organic and a extra tax because that apple is organic you can't see that this is a grading tax on top of a grading tax . > in general the cost of the usda services are actually paid by the processor > or first handler . . . presumably those costs are factored into the price > which the processor or first handler offers the producer for the commodity . > . . similarly, even if the first handler does the certification, presumably > the cost is reflected in the price received by the grower yes organic growers pay that too we are no different what you want us poor growers to do is pay for that service and a extra tax for organicness of the fruit . double and triple taxation with out representation I might add. if Ca. they are double and triple dipping from organic growers now what you are saying is another layer on top of the layers already. any fool can see that . I know when it come time to pay all these bottom feeders every year I feel it. don't u understand a regular meat raiser pay a usda tax and you want them to pay extra because they don't use hormones and GMO . you want them to pay more than regular growers . why why don't you trust organic grower and you trust chemicals growers in how the meat is raised. FRom the time this law was past till now a lot has happen and the law is not needed nor the extra fees. we don't do that any more you know force poor folks to pay extra fees and do extra paper work and hinder business . this is one business that is doing a great job of regulating it self. I can not sell to wholesalers now with out a certification . I can not sell over seas now without a certification. so this law will just be a extra unneeded tax on us that is not needed.. also if you charge our certifier money they will pass the cost on to us and that's another tax we don't need. what gives here this is bull. right now I have to pay the state of Ca. a certifier, a inspector . how many pencil pushing bureaucratic does one small organic grower have to pay off to be able to tell the truth. also I think one certification inspection at the transition period to make sure the new growers understands what organic is and then one inspection maybe every five years or so if nothing on the farm changes .. why make me pay all these folks over and over every year if my organicness is the same. what does the change in the year have to do with being organic . I was the same organic in 98 as 99 so why pay pay pay over and over for nothing. once one knows what organic is he should be left to grow organic . we are not such big liars that we need a yearly inspection what is that all about. you see the same stuff every years only I have to pay you to come over again and again and again to look at the same old same old.. what is that all about. . this is just a rip off they don't have to make life that hard on us because we grow organic. > thus the effect of the ofpa, if it is ever implemented, will be to bring > organic commodities in line with other commodities, not to make organic > commodities different from other commodities organic commodities are all the other commodities just grown organic so why charge us extra . what is your reasoning for all this burdening of the organic growers. lets get to the bottom line why you doing this to me I have done nothing wrong. cheers yourself. there is nothing cheerful to me in these years of being ripped off from folks that don't do nothing here but take my money. Where is the cheers in that. powertripers extortionist con men Mafia where is the farmers protection . > cheers, > > craig > > > craig k harris > department of sociology > michigan state university > 429b berkey hall > east lansing michigan 48824-1111 > tel: 517-355-5048 > fax: 517-432-2856 > > > > ---------- > > From: Lawrence F. London, Jr.[SMTP:london@metalab.unc.edu] > > Sent: Sunday 7 November 1999 1:01 PM > > To: Anita Graf (Staff) > > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote: > > > > > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:33 -0500 (EST) > > > From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." > > > To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" > > > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > > > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Anita Graf (Staff) wrote: > > > > > > > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > > > > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > > > > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > > > > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > > > > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? there already is and to ship international you have to be certified now > > > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > > > > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > > > > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > > > > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > > > > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > > > > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > > > > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic national standards are one thing fees and extra unneeded paper work is another > > > > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > > > > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > > > > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > > > > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > > > > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > > > > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > > > > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence > > > - > > > > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > > > > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > > > > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) I hope you got my post about how the certifiers and the USDA are taking care of that now . > > > > > > 1) Government sets the standards for what constitutes organically > > > produced products - defines the O word > > > 2) Certifying organizations are forced by law to meet these USDA > > > standards or the may exceed, to any degree they choose, these standards > > > 3) Grower, if he wishes to sell to EU, Japan or wherever, hires the > > > certifier of his choice, gets certified and moves on to > > > export his product(s) overseas or at home > > > 4) EU or other, by buying GrowerX's CertifierX-certified product > > > gets "a stamp of approval from USDA" automatically. How could it be > > > otherwise? > > > > > > So, what could possibly be wrong with this system? Tell us what the big > > > mystery is all about, the "that is a whole other discussion/dilema" > > part. > > > > > > Curious, > > > > > > Lawrence > > > > And, as an afterthought, it occured to me that it would be nice for > > our government to tell its citizens that USDA Certified Organic means > > "your government says its really organic, go ahead and buy with > > confidence". However, they have not bothered with such quality > > assurance for conventionally-grown products to the tune of USDA Certified > > Analysis of Produxt X reveals the following levels of pesticide residues > > or breakdown products thereof OR the following levels of contaminants > > from materials used in production other than pesticides found in this > > product OR our environmental impact study revealed that production of this > > box of soy doodles will contribute % to > > degradation/contamination/desertification of square feet of farm soil. the head of the USDA said organic food is not safer than conventional food so what is the reasoning for this extra tax. this is getting old. other folks if they do paper work they get paid and you want me to do paper work you pay me. you want me to take time out of my day to show you around you pay me you slavemaster you you want to look get a search warrant its the American way. you want me to not use the word organic take the o and the r and the g and the a and the n and the i and the c out of the alphabet. as long as every one else gets to use those letters so should i. Give me a o O give me a r R give me a g G give me a a A give me a n N give me a i Eye give me a C SEE hehe what does that spell? hehe ORGANIC What does that Spell Organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic organic naw naw na naw naw I think I will say the word ORGANIC CINAGRO IS ORGANIC SPELLED BACKWARD BECAUSE YOU GET IT ALL BACKWARDS you make the contaminated pay and not the contaminator. backwards I think I will call my product CINAGRO in honor of the USDA that has everything backwards. what you make the organic grower do all growers must do. good for the goose good for the gander. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From bluestem@webserf.net Mon Nov 8 00:41:23 1999 Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 04:29:49 From: Bluestem Associates To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: USDA organic certification On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 18:20:31 -0800, Sal wrote: > why why don't you trust organic grower I trust organic growers. Not everyone selling food as organic, however, *is* an organic grower. There are a number of people who cheat. Guess what? They also lie. Just because someone *says* they're organic doesn't mean as much as it used to. Sal, as onerous as certification can be, would you really prefer to have 117 customers coming out to your farm and checking it in sufficient detail to decide if you're organic enough? Visitors can be a very expensive drain on your time, and may well end up costing you more that writing out a check for the certification agency. We got around it by limiting visitors to one field day per year. >maybe every five years or so if nothing on the farm changes .. why make me >pay all these folks over and over every year if my organicness is the same. >what does the change in the year have to do with being organic . I was the >same organic in 98 as 99 so why pay pay pay over and over for nothing. You know, when I was being inspected for certification I happily paid the fees to have another set of eyes look at what I was doing. Sure I was organic, but I definitely wasn't a perfect farmer, and having someone who had seen a lot of other farms helped me get better at what I was doing. BTW, at the time I was also *training* inspectors, so I knew at least as much about the deal as they did. They were *still* a good use of my money, whether or not I ever shipped a thing more than 5 miles from home. Just a reminder here. I think you and I are in pretty close agreement about USDA involvement. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From sals@rain.org Mon Nov 8 00:46:52 1999 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:55:50 -0800 From: Sal To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: USDA organic certification [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] thank you for you thoughts and ideas I read in the CCOF newsletter that "The USDA's Meat Certification and Grading Program (MCGP) has verified that CCOF conforms to the basic requirements of ISO -65, the international standard for certification programs. The approval means that CCOF-certified products should now be approved for entry into European Union (EU) countries. The EU organic regulations require imported organic products to be certified by an organization that meets the ISO-65 Standards. Other ISO-65 approved certification programs includes Farm Verified Organic-Quality Assurance International and Organic Growers and Buyers Association . Several other certifier site evaluations and approvals are pending. so u see all I need is CCOF or QAI or OG or FVO and I can voluntary join them if I need that. easy see how easy things work out . so why make a federal case out of it? why the extra state Ca. tax and the Fed Tax and the force certification for all and the once size fits all and the pay pay pay year after year. give us a USDA definition of organic and lets get on with business you don't have to take us over you don't have to make this any harder . you see Anita we are making it work out now . this should also make for more reciprocity between group of certifiers and a lot has changed . it has been years when the USDA started this and now the government has seen it does not want to be a burden to small folks with extra paper work (save those trees) and their non funded state and fed. mandates so now is the time to stop the Ca. Ag. organic tax if one is already certified by a recognized certifier. and it is time the Fed. gov. lets business take care of itself, as it is doing for itself now quite will thank-you. . ----- Original Message ----- From: Anita Graf (Staff) To: Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 8:19 AM Subject: USDA organic certification > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind > in reading the Sanet posts. > > > I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR > EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in > international markets, and those who only want domestic certification > could opt for a cheaper private label certification? > > It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national > standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without > national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved, > less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not > have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the > EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get > national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic > label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the > Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me > repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to > have a national organic program that is put out by the government. > This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life > more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and > potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence > and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and > who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM > or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.) > > However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the > products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near > international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they > want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big, > internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA, > etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic > Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous > and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for > this sort of two-tier certifying. > > I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look > alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide > range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with > the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a > bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra > certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at > the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic > label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can > produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended > for export. > > These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck > chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to > say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer > Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose > to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a > "prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this > new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann > mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture > curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in > this scenario. > > Anita > > Anita Graf > Market Development of National Organic Products > University of Georgia > > make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From WIEGAND@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de Mon Nov 8 11:28:13 1999 Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:56:25 +0200 From: Klaus Wiegand To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program hello glenn, >Since both of you live outside the USA, and see what's happening >here throught slightly different eyes, what do you see as the >building blocks for farmer first national certification? Do you >see leaders, friends or obvious single issues to pursue first: these are my personal opinions and experiences from here, as i'm not familiar with the american organic movement and you will be surprised, how often behavior of americans seems extremely strange to us europeans. it might be totally wrong under your conditions. first i'm highly surprised about the way government is involved in regulating your life. and i thought germany has a bureaucratic system ;-]. today i read in the newspaper, that califorians have to pay a charge of 100$, if they exchange radiators in their houses and the bill to reduce it or put away with it was stopped by the democrats and several CONSUMER organisations. government should only be involved in cases, where individuals might be harmed or as a arbitrator or better as a mediator, where people can't agree on important things of a society, but not in other cases. the old sentance of a greek philosopher comes to mind, which says, that government should never ever regulate something, which it cannot control or garantuee. there are 3 groups of consumers: a) those, who know you personally and with which you live more closely together in a community. this is the simplest and maybe most satisfying and most sustainable way of selling and dealing with. as selling healthy food is (as every other question concerning health) a very SENSIBLE thing, it depends on personal relations and mouth-to-mouth propaganda. you do not need an extra propaganda or some kind of PR. a certification is useless here and a waste of money you better spend somewhere else on your farm !! b) those, who do not know you, but do not live VERY far away (maybe your farm nearby a larger town or a city). here you will already see my doubts, if it is sustainable, if people are driving 40 or 50 miles to your farm to buy food for 3 or 5 days. the pollution from the gasoline will contradict any sustainability (the real price for environmental damage is 2-3$ a liter of gasoline) ! ignoring that, these people still are preferring organic food ! i think, i need not tell anyone, how to market your products. just make it reasonable to him, why he should buy especially at your farm... maybe take a look into the faith popcorn's book (the popcorn report), how to "cocoon" people. c) people farer away, which can only be reached by distribution channels. it's your individual decision, if you want to reach them, but remember: they are the majority. you only need to think about them, if you cannot make a living from direct marketing. and here starts, what i see as the largest problem: the ambiguity between consumers. they do not behave, like you would like them to do (meaning 100% supporters of the organic idea and consistant). i know people, who eat their dinner at some fast-food restaurant and in the evening go to a restaurant and insist on an nice organic supper, because it's healthier. if i can convince 100 consumers to buy 20% of their food organic, that's better than 10 people living for 100% on organic food. but a lot of organic farmers also try to sell their philosophy instead and only live in "inner circles of alumni" their slogan: entirely organic or nothing at all. organic farmers tend to be much less consume-orientated, more individual and environmental sensible than conventional ones (and I myself like their attitude very much), but do they need to tell others, that this is "the sacred way"?. here in germany there even is an entirely anthroposophic way of living and children's education behind the organic movement. that's ok, but organic farmers not only try to sell their fruits, but with them also their anthroposophic philosophy and that's something a lot of people dislike. they can think for themselfes and chances are, that sooner or later they come to the same conclusions all by themself. they do NOT care about your internal quarrels, whether 80 or 90% of the manure needs to be from your own farm. and these are USELESS quarrels. in case the different organic groups cannot agree, just make a compromise: 85%. but don't weaken your image by internal battles taken to the public !!. one of these battles is the question: "what means organic?" why not a part of their farm organic and the other part conventional ?? i know of at least one farmer here, who tried it and was bashed and isolated from his organic-cofarmers. IFOAM rules allow that very well !!! 2 consequences: the absolutism, with which organic growers see their business, is an enormous restriction for them. maybe you remember my question, what organic growers can sell in winter. with an annual income of 10.000$ i see this absolutism a personal problem of the farmer's philosophy, which i as a consumer need not share. an example: i'm just involved in a project of small farmers, who offer a complete bundle of vegetables for a complete salad (like a colorful mixture of different salads for a "ceasar's salad".) all works well except the question of some organics, if the dressing also NEEDS to be organic and as a ready-to-eat dressing cannot be organic, they prefer to renounce the 95% of the total buy because of the 5% for the dressing. 2nd consequence: beginning from a certain distance from consumers your farm it is obligatory to go TO the consumer, instead the other way round (that might not be valid for some of the vast and unpopulated american regions like the apallachians. again, that's MY guess from far away. you better ask your own consultants). and here starts the problem with certification. selling into a city again has 2 options: if you sell on a farmer's market, certification MIGHT not be needed and diversification is more important. option 2 is the main problem: most part of a city's food need is based on a professional and ANONYMOUS distribution system and here it is very important to create a chain of trust and discriminate by kind of a (certified?) label. that needs not necessarily be a governmental system. here in europe at the lower level there are EU regulations, which you HAVE to meet to get the EU label for organic production and beginning with august, 2000 they will be unique in the whole EU. additionaly in germany there's a private system, supported and paid by the organic movement (yes, you WILL need a professional system, more and more people are living in cities and consequently more and more consumers, i.e. the people, you get the money from). at the moment there are 6 small and 3 large and successful groups ("BIOLAND", "NATURKIND" and "DEMETER", makes 9, all agree, that that's too much, none of them wants to be the first to quit. in denmark and austria there is just 1 organisation), who set their own internal and stricter rules as the EU for their own certification and who also do internal random control analyses. it works fine, as NONE (with VERY few exceptions) of the governmental analytical controls on pesticide residues and additives (they are restricted to these 2 items, because governent does not care about these group's internal rules) find any violations. so confidence in these 2 labels is very high and consumers trust them almost blindly. fresh products are mostly sold on farmer's markets, but they also are selling their other products (like noodles, flour, corn flakes, sea salt, dried spices and a whole bunch of readily prepared foods..) in supermarkets with increasing success (in germany 30%, in the UK 67%, in austria 70% and in denmark 90 of total organic sales. compare it with the number of organisations in these countries !!). selling in supermarkets needs some additional things like a nice design of the package, the right size (increasing market for singles), a moderate price (still 30-40% higher than conventional food) and a good positioning. and most important: it needs an organisation, which manages the distribution, deals with the supermarkets (which more and more become pure commisionaries for a place to sell and are insisting on "entry fees" too high for single farmers). and it needs a farewell from the usual absolutism and negiotiation of consumer's attitudes (still i never saw a TV ad for organic food, BUT WHY NOT?? and why not a nice designer package, it needn't have the overhead of a perfume?). that's too much for an individual farmer and needs something like an organisation. together with a friend i initiated another project (again not esp. intended for organics, but more for better prices.) years ago we "pushed" a special potato variety. a very small potato looking like a little cucumber (kind of a "bonsai" potato, 2-3 cm thick and 6-8 cm long) i got the idea, when i sold a bag of potatoes in the french alsace. there an old and honest woman sold me the bag with these potatoes, which are quite common there. when i asked her, why the potatoes were so small, she answered: "well, they are especially graded and taste better and are more convenient for cooking". when i asked her, what they do with the large ones, she answered with a smile: "we feed them to the swine or sell them to the germans". we convinced two farmers to try them and at the end of the 2nd year they mourned "if only we had planted twice as much fields". that would also be an option for organics: 2 different potato varieties for sale and one of them an unusual one. this way you can satisfy the "traditional" buyer, who wants no "gimmicks" AND the people looking for some sensation. and it's the sensation i'm missing at organic sellers on farmer's markets. argument: "we aren't interested in gimmicks". OOPS ??? when i'm buying noodles, i can choose between several dozens of conventional labels, when i buy organic noodles, they usually come in a neutral and wretched looking package. in sum: what organic agriculture needs, is a "corporate identity". the average consumer has not the slightest idea, what the behinds of a cover crop or soil fertility are (and doesn't care, YOU are the experts, so he can expect to a certain degree, that you think about, what's good and what's bad). hardly anyone of the consumers is in still in touch with nature or agriculture. compared with earlier eras in human history, we live in a society so artificial, so divorced from the natural environment, that it would be simply incomprehensible to our forefathers. this is not only true for people living in inner city areas, but also just about everybody else. but people are WILLING to support, what organic food can offer them. that's why the government still pays 15.800 !! marks every year as subsidy to every organic farm or 330 dm/ha. but for this people do expect a bullet-proof system (it's THEIR tax money), which can garantue 4 things: free from pesticides, free from additives, a prevention of cruelities to animals and free from gmo's. they don't care very much about the rest, at least much less than organic farmers expect. so what is needed, are for example convincing slogans, which sound logic to the consumer. example: "what was not put onto the field, can't be in the fruit" or "what quality can you expect from 5 sausages in a tin priced 80 cents?" or "caring about pesticide residues ? - we needn't", "lucky with a soup with 8 gramms of dehydrated meat?" or "our cows are called sandra, milka and linda and not #234, #743 and #1254". DON'T argue about healthier food! and for all this you need a professional distribution system with knowledge in PR and you need (few) special wellknown labels, with which consumers can identify a special quality, whereever they buy. it needn't be a governmental system, but instead one, that is trusted. i'm sure, the amish will never need an extra label for selling food, because they have their own "control" system and a well-known way of living (their "label"). in germany there are about 10% people, who need not be convinced, for whom no certification or PR is needed, about 30-50%, who need to be convinced and who want a certain kind of proof and a control system, because they are sceptical against just a claim and the rest can't be reached by you by ANY mean (they buy, what's cheapest or don't care about food at all.) here it needed about 20 years until these labels became really known among all consumers and you might have expected it: these labels started with about 50 farmers organising themselfes and agreeing on an internal control system. p.s: your smallfarms.com system might be a nice possibility to inform people, where i can buy organic food nearby and can show the differences between production systems much cheaper than flyers or media advertisement. it can be modeled to be an (farmer-restricted) information system about prices and trends in the market (provided farmers are willing to inform others about prices. that's not always the case. here we had a system called pool-marketing. everyone added to a common pool and the large batch was marketed, so everyone got the same price. the better farmers soon left). there definitely is competition and there are bad farmers, who will have to leave the market. another thing, organic farmers are more likely to ignore than conventional ones, as they see themself as ONE big friendly community of equal thinkers, ignoring that life in the city is more like life in a jungle than in a small town. but i have some doubts, if it can be a information system for market chains looking for larger batches. nicely programmed it can create desires and serve as a guide for food choices. (i have not the SLIGHTEST idea, if it can be useful to attract consumers to direct-selling farm, because, as i already wrote above, driving 50 miles for food in my view is not sustainable, but europe is totally different, because MUCH smaller and more densely inhabited. it might be a chance for buying on the way home from work, if nearby.) and a last thing (in case you think i'm talking purely theoretical): our institute meanwhile pays for 3 certification systems: ISO, GLP and DQS. it costs a lot of money, but we decided to pay it, because more and more of our costumers demand a proof, that our analysis is done according to international standards. the funny thing: we also worked by these standards before and certification hasn't changed the slightest thing in our daily work except additional paperwork and time-consuming work for the analysts (who asked almost the same questions as in this discussion about certification) and me - i'm one of the 2 internal quality assurance inspectors. either we have the certificate or our customers go elsewhere and we must live from those, who do not insist on a certificate (and therefore pay less, the others are charged for the extrawork). it's that simple and IT'S NOT ABOUT QUALITY. it's the same process of concentration as in agriculture and it's also an assurance against complaints and legal actions against us. puuh, finally finished.. any future mails will be fax-style... klaus To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From sals@rain.org Mon Nov 8 11:30:06 1999 Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:16:39 -0800 From: Sal To: Wiegand@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Re: Proposed organic cost share program [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Klaus Wiegand To: Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 3:56 AM Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program .let me give you my thoughts from here in the USA. the 3 kinds of buyers 1 . CSA and farmers and direct mail and even roadside stands are in close contact with the grower and can make up their mind from what they know. I agree with you the extra cost and burden is a waste. 2. the wholesale and retail and brokers - they already say I must be certified or they will not buy from me. they protect their store customers and their self's by making sure we are certified already and we don't need the added expense of the STATE Of CA. and the Fed. government to make that happen it happens now with out the extra organic tax from the state and fed gov. 3.the international market I read in the CCOF newsletter that "The USDA's Meat Certification and Grading Program (MCGP) has verified that CCOF conforms to the basic requirements of ISO -65, the international standard for certification programs. The approval means that CCOF-certified products should now be approved for entry into European Union (EU) countries. The EU organic regulations require imported organic products to be certified by an organization that meets the ISO-65 Standards. Other ISO-65 approved certification programs includes Farm Verified Organic-Quality Assurance International and Organic Growers and Buyers Association . Several other certifier site evaluations and approvals are pending. so u see all I need is CCOF or QAI or OG or FVO and I can voluntary join them if I need that. easy I don't need the extra tax imposed by the state of Ca. or the fed government. I don't need them to charge my certifier money because they only pass that on to me and we don't needed it. so you see that USDA and STATE of Ca. takeover of the word organic and taxing all those who use that word for business and the forcing them to jump through hoops and boss them around is not needed. business is taking care of business already here the USDA tried to sneak GMO, irradiation and sweagesluge in on us already and only a great out cry from the people stopped it. we don't need them forcing their ways on us. anything the state or fed government makes organic growers do they must make all farmers do. good for the goose good for the gander. make all farmers have material lists on what comes on their farm and were it is used and where all the GMO are sent and how they are sent so they don't contaminate good organic food and inspect them all so u can see that all growers of food are the same honest. why pick on organic growers? no fair its not fair now and it is getting worse. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From sals@rain.org Mon Nov 8 11:30:18 1999 Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:33:36 -0800 From: Sal To: Bluestem Associates , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: USDA organic certification [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Bluestem Associates To: Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 4:29 AM Subject: Re: USDA organic certification > On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 18:20:31 -0800, Sal wrote: > > > why why don't you trust organic grower > > I trust organic growers. Not everyone selling food as organic, however, > *is* an organic grower. There are a number of people who cheat. Guess > what? They also lie. Just because someone *says* they're organic > doesn't mean as much as it used to. so what there are cops that cheat every group of folks have liars you don't have to single out organic growers as the only cheats what about chemical growers that don't use the chemicals on the crops they are supposed to be used on . who checks out chemical growers. > Sal, as onerous as certification can be, would you really prefer to > have 117 customers coming out to your farm and checking it in > sufficient detail to decide if you're organic enough? Visitors can be > a very expensive drain on your time, and may well end up costing you > more that writing out a check for the certification agency. We got > around it by limiting visitors to one field day per year. I don't have to let anyone come and check me and decide if I am organic enough. I grow by the rules and don't need any big brother watching over me . if you think I am lying get a searchwarrent convince a judge you have a reason to look. this is America I don't have to prove I am not guilty every year year after year. you don't ask that of chemical grower why pick on me. > > >maybe every five years or so if nothing on the farm changes .. why make me > >pay all these folks over and over every year if my organicness is the same. > >what does the change in the year have to do with being organic . I was the > >same organic in 98 as 99 so why pay pay pay over and over for nothing. > > You know, when I was being inspected for certification I happily paid > the fees to have another set of eyes look at what I was doing. Sure I > was organic, but I definitely wasn't a perfect farmer, and having > someone who had seen a lot of other farms helped me get better at what > I was doing. BTW, at the time I was also *training* inspectors, so I > knew at least as much about the deal as they did. They were *still* a > good use of my money, whether or not I ever shipped a thing more than 5 > miles from home. so what you want to start telling stories about what makes you feel good go ahead I don't like spending anymore time or money than I have too. this is one good reason one size does not fit all . you like it I hate it. that is why you forcing us to play these games is wrong. in some states you pay $10 in some states you pay 2000 dollars for the same verification whets is fair about that. why do I pay more in Ca. than Ky. what is far about that. how the Fed. gov. and state force me to pay more here than in KY. good for the goose good for the gander. they cannot tell you what it will cost to be organic because there are so many folks with their hand in our pockets and all get to charge whatever they want and you are forced to pay them. this is wrong. it is wrong now and it is getting worse. where is the protection for the grower? where is the due process? where is the fairness of the same prices for the same thing ? where is my robe of innocence why am I guilty and have to pay to prove I am telling the truth over and over again just because the year changes. > Just a reminder here. I think you and I are in pretty close agreement > about USDA involvement. > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From janebug@hotmail.com Mon Nov 8 13:33:22 1999 Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 08:05:39 PST From: J. S. To: Wiegand@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program Not to disregard the many interesting comments in the rest of this letter, but i think it is pertinent to point out that california is quite atypical of the US in terms of regulation; especially as pertains to anything in the environment--they are heavy regulators, encourage citizens to report their uncompliant brethren and generally the consumer foots the bill. >From: "Klaus Wiegand" >Reply-To: Wiegand@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de >To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program >Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:56:25 +0200 > >hello glenn, > > >Since both of you live outside the USA, and see what's happening > >here throught slightly different eyes, what do you see as the > >building blocks for farmer first national certification? Do you > >see leaders, friends or obvious single issues to pursue > >first: these are my personal opinions and experiences from here, >as i'm not familiar with the american organic movement and you >will be surprised, how often behavior of americans seems >extremely strange to us europeans. it might be totally wrong >under your conditions. > >first i'm highly surprised about the way government is involved >in regulating your life. and i thought germany has a bureaucratic >system ;-]. today i read in the newspaper, that califorians have to >pay a charge of 100$, if they exchange radiators in their houses >and the bill to reduce it or put away with it was stopped by the >democrats and several CONSUMER organisations. government should >only be involved in cases, where individuals might be harmed or >as a arbitrator or better as a mediator, where people can't agree >on important things of a society, but not in other cases. the old >sentance of a greek philosopher comes to mind, which says, that >government should never ever regulate something, which it cannot >control or garantuee. > > >there are 3 groups of consumers: > >a) those, who know you personally and with which you live more > closely together in a community. this is the simplest and > maybe most satisfying and most sustainable way of selling and > dealing with. as selling healthy food is (as every other > question concerning health) a very SENSIBLE thing, it depends > on personal relations and mouth-to-mouth propaganda. you do > not need an extra propaganda or some kind of PR. a > certification is useless here and a waste of money you better > spend somewhere else on your farm !! > >b) those, who do not know you, but do not live VERY far away > (maybe your farm nearby a larger town or a city). here you > will already see my doubts, if it is sustainable, if people > are driving 40 or 50 miles to your farm to buy food for 3 or 5 > days. the pollution from the gasoline will contradict any > sustainability (the real price for environmental damage is > 2-3$ a liter of gasoline) ! ignoring that, these people still > are preferring organic food ! i think, i need not tell anyone, > how to market your products. just make it reasonable to him, > why he should buy especially at your farm... maybe take a look > into the faith popcorn's book (the popcorn report), how to > "cocoon" people. > >c) people farer away, which can only be reached by distribution > channels. it's your individual decision, if you want to reach > them, but remember: they are the majority. you only need to > think about them, if you cannot make a living from direct > marketing. and here starts, what i see as the largest problem: > the ambiguity between consumers. they do not behave, like you > would like them to do (meaning 100% supporters of the organic > idea and consistant). i know people, who eat their dinner at > some fast-food restaurant and in the evening go to a > restaurant and insist on an nice organic supper, because it's > healthier. if i can convince 100 consumers to buy 20% of their > food organic, that's better than 10 people living for 100% on > organic food. but a lot of organic farmers also try to sell > their philosophy instead and only live in "inner circles of > alumni" their slogan: entirely organic or nothing at all. > organic farmers tend to be much less consume-orientated, more > individual and environmental sensible than conventional ones > (and I myself like their attitude very much), but do they need > to tell others, that this is "the sacred way"?. here in > germany there even is an entirely anthroposophic way of living > and children's education behind the organic movement. that's > ok, but organic farmers not only try to sell their fruits, but > with them also their anthroposophic philosophy and that's > something a lot of people dislike. they can think for > themselfes and chances are, that sooner or later they come to > the same conclusions all by themself. they do NOT care about > your internal quarrels, whether 80 or 90% of the manure needs > to be from your own farm. and these are USELESS quarrels. in > case the different organic groups cannot agree, just make a > compromise: 85%. but don't weaken your image by internal > battles taken to the public !!. one of these battles is the > question: "what means organic?" > > why not a part of their farm organic and the other part > conventional ?? i know of at least one farmer here, who tried > it and was bashed and isolated from his organic-cofarmers. > IFOAM rules allow that very well !!! > > >2 consequences: the absolutism, with which organic growers see >their business, is an enormous restriction for them. maybe you >remember my question, what organic growers can sell in winter. >with an annual income of 10.000$ i see this absolutism a personal >problem of the farmer's philosophy, which i as a consumer need >not share. > >an example: i'm just involved in a project of small farmers, who >offer a complete bundle of vegetables for a complete salad (like >a colorful mixture of different salads for a "ceasar's salad".) >all works well except the question of some organics, if the >dressing also NEEDS to be organic and as a ready-to-eat dressing >cannot be organic, they prefer to renounce the 95% of the total >buy because of the 5% for the dressing. > >2nd consequence: beginning from a certain distance from consumers >your farm it is obligatory to go TO the consumer, instead the >other way round (that might not be valid for some of the vast and >unpopulated american regions like the apallachians. again, that's >MY guess from far away. you better ask your own consultants). and >here starts the problem with certification. selling into a city >again has 2 options: if you sell on a farmer's market, >certification MIGHT not be needed and diversification is more >important. option 2 is the main problem: most part of a city's >food need is based on a professional and ANONYMOUS distribution >system and here it is very important to create a chain of trust >and discriminate by kind of a (certified?) label. that needs not >necessarily be a governmental system. > >here in europe at the lower level there are EU regulations, which >you HAVE to meet to get the EU label for organic production and >beginning with august, 2000 they will be unique in the whole EU. > >additionaly in germany there's a private system, supported and >paid by the organic movement (yes, you WILL need a professional >system, more and more people are living in cities and >consequently more and more consumers, i.e. the people, you get >the money from). at the moment there are 6 small and 3 large and >successful groups ("BIOLAND", "NATURKIND" and "DEMETER", makes 9, >all agree, that that's too much, none of them wants to be the >first to quit. in denmark and austria there is just 1 >organisation), who set their own internal and stricter rules as >the EU for their own certification and who also do internal >random control analyses. it works fine, as NONE (with VERY few >exceptions) of the governmental analytical controls on pesticide >residues and additives (they are restricted to these 2 items, >because governent does not care about these group's internal >rules) find any violations. > >so confidence in these 2 labels is very high and consumers trust >them almost blindly. fresh products are mostly sold on farmer's >markets, but they also are selling their other products (like >noodles, flour, corn flakes, sea salt, dried spices and a whole >bunch of readily prepared foods..) in supermarkets with >increasing success (in germany 30%, in the UK 67%, in austria 70% >and in denmark 90 of total organic sales. compare it with the >number of organisations in these countries !!). > >selling in supermarkets needs some additional things like a nice >design of the package, the right size (increasing market for >singles), a moderate price (still 30-40% higher than conventional >food) and a good positioning. and most important: it needs an >organisation, which manages the distribution, deals with the >supermarkets (which more and more become pure commisionaries for >a place to sell and are insisting on "entry fees" too high for >single farmers). and it needs a farewell from the usual >absolutism and negiotiation of consumer's attitudes (still i >never saw a TV ad for organic food, BUT WHY NOT?? and why not a >nice designer package, it needn't have the overhead of a >perfume?). that's too much for an individual farmer and needs >something like an organisation. > >together with a friend i initiated another project (again not >esp. intended for organics, but more for better prices.) years >ago we "pushed" a special potato variety. a very small potato >looking like a little cucumber (kind of a "bonsai" potato, 2-3 cm >thick and 6-8 cm long) > >i got the idea, when i sold a bag of potatoes in the french >alsace. there an old and honest woman sold me the bag with these >potatoes, which are quite common there. when i asked her, why the >potatoes were so small, she answered: "well, they are especially >graded and taste better and are more convenient for cooking". >when i asked her, what they do with the large ones, she answered >with a smile: "we feed them to the swine or sell them to the >germans". > >we convinced two farmers to try them and at the end of the 2nd >year they mourned "if only we had planted twice as much fields". >that would also be an option for organics: 2 different potato >varieties for sale and one of them an unusual one. this way you >can satisfy the "traditional" buyer, who wants no "gimmicks" AND >the people looking for some sensation. and it's the sensation i'm >missing at organic sellers on farmer's markets. argument: "we >aren't interested in gimmicks". OOPS ??? when i'm buying noodles, >i can choose between several dozens of conventional labels, when >i buy organic noodles, they usually come in a neutral and >wretched looking package. > >in sum: what organic agriculture needs, is a "corporate >identity". the average consumer has not the slightest idea, what >the behinds of a cover crop or soil fertility are (and doesn't >care, YOU are the experts, so he can expect to a certain degree, >that you think about, what's good and what's bad). hardly anyone >of the consumers is in still in touch with nature or agriculture. >compared with earlier eras in human history, we live in a society >so artificial, so divorced from the natural environment, that it >would be simply incomprehensible to our forefathers. this is not >only true for people living in inner city areas, but also just >about everybody else. but people are WILLING to support, what >organic food can offer them. that's why the government still pays >15.800 !! marks every year as subsidy to every organic farm or >330 dm/ha. but for this people do expect a bullet-proof system >(it's THEIR tax money), which can garantue 4 things: free from >pesticides, free from additives, a prevention of cruelities to >animals and free from gmo's. they don't care very much about the >rest, at least much less than organic farmers expect. > >so what is needed, are for example convincing slogans, which >sound logic to the consumer. example: "what was not put onto the >field, can't be in the fruit" or "what quality can you expect >from 5 sausages in a tin priced 80 cents?" or "caring about >pesticide residues ? - we needn't", "lucky with a soup with 8 >gramms of dehydrated meat?" or "our cows are called sandra, milka >and linda and not #234, #743 and #1254". > >DON'T argue about healthier food! and for all this you need a >professional distribution system with knowledge in PR and you >need (few) special wellknown labels, with which consumers can >identify a special quality, whereever they buy. it needn't be a >governmental system, but instead one, that is trusted. i'm sure, >the amish will never need an extra label for selling food, >because they have their own "control" system and a well-known way >of living (their "label"). in germany there are about 10% people, >who need not be convinced, for whom no certification or PR is >needed, about 30-50%, who need to be convinced and who want a >certain kind of proof and a control system, because they are >sceptical against just a claim and the rest can't be reached by >you by ANY mean (they buy, what's cheapest or don't care about >food at all.) here it needed about 20 years until these labels >became really known among all consumers and you might have >expected it: these labels started with about 50 farmers >organising themselfes and agreeing on an internal control system. > > >p.s: your smallfarms.com system might be a nice possibility to >inform people, where i can buy organic food nearby and can show >the differences between production systems much cheaper than >flyers or media advertisement. it can be modeled to be an >(farmer-restricted) information system about prices and trends in >the market (provided farmers are willing to inform others about >prices. that's not always the case. here we had a system called >pool-marketing. everyone added to a common pool and the large >batch was marketed, so everyone got the same price. the better >farmers soon left). there definitely is competition and there are >bad farmers, who will have to leave the market. another thing, >organic farmers are more likely to ignore than conventional ones, >as they see themself as ONE big friendly community of equal >thinkers, ignoring that life in the city is more like life in a >jungle than in a small town. > >but i have some doubts, if it can be a information system for >market chains looking for larger batches. nicely programmed it >can create desires and serve as a guide for food choices. (i have >not the SLIGHTEST idea, if it can be useful to attract consumers >to direct-selling farm, because, as i already wrote above, >driving 50 miles for food in my view is not sustainable, but >europe is totally different, because MUCH smaller and more >densely inhabited. it might be a chance for buying on the way >home from work, if nearby.) > >and a last thing (in case you think i'm talking purely >theoretical): our institute meanwhile pays for 3 certification >systems: ISO, GLP and DQS. it costs a lot of money, but we >decided to pay it, because more and more of our costumers demand >a proof, that our analysis is done according to international >standards. the funny thing: we also worked by these standards >before and certification hasn't changed the slightest thing in >our daily work except additional paperwork and time-consuming >work for the analysts (who asked almost the same questions as in >this discussion about certification) and me - i'm one of the 2 >internal quality assurance inspectors. either we have the >certificate or our customers go elsewhere and we must live from >those, who do not insist on a certificate (and therefore pay >less, the others are charged for the extrawork). it's that simple >and IT'S NOT ABOUT QUALITY. it's the same process of >concentration as in agriculture and it's also an assurance >against complaints and legal actions against us. > > >puuh, finally finished.. any future mails will be fax-style... > > >klaus > > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". >To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > >All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: >http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From bluestem@webserf.net Mon Nov 8 13:35:25 1999 Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 17:03:31 From: Bluestem Associates To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Certification and other regulation (was USDA...) On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:33:36 -0800, Sal wrote: >I don't have to let anyone come and check me and decide if I am organic >enough. I grow by the rules and don't need any big brother watching over me >. if you think I am lying get a searchwarrent convince a judge you have a >reason to look. this is America I don't have to prove I am not guilty every >year year after year. you don't ask that of chemical grower why pick on me. >why you forcing us to play these games is wrong. in some states you pay $10 >in some states you pay 2000 dollars for the same verification whets is fair >about that. why do I pay more in Ca. than Ky. what is far about that. how >the Fed. gov. and state force me to pay more here than in KY. >the fairness of the same prices for the same thing ? where is my robe of >innocence why am I guilty and have to pay to prove I am telling the truth >over and over again just because the year changes. What does a "robe of innocence" have to do with anything? We are talking about regulation within the *commercial* sphere, not a criminal proceeding. And while we're at it, what ever led you to expect that regulation would be uniform (you call it "fair") from state to state, or even town to town? That sort of variation is precisely what localised (rather than federal) control is all about. This is America, and there is absolutely nothing preventing you from moving to Kentucky if you find the regulatory and administrative environment in California so onerous. I've built and renovated several houses over the years, and what do you know --- there's variation in building codes, permit requirements, fee structure, and administrative burden from place to place. Big deal. I've also done a major renovation in a jurisdiction where there is no code at all or even any requirement to get a permit. I've always built to code (actually, way better than code). I *know* that I build better than code, but I don't run around being a cry-baby about permits, fees, and building inspections in those places where they are required. Regulations, inspections, permits, fees, and paperwork are absolutely normal in the commercial sphere. If you're selling food, you're in the commercial sphere, and you should *expect* regulation. Organic farmers, especially small growers, would do far better to stop moaning about organic certification --- which can help their businesses --- and start paying attention to the REAL threats to their survival. a) the looming application of HACCP requirements to *all* produce growers, regardless of size. b) the possible application of migrant labor laws to "apprentices / interns" on organic farms. c) the rapid disappearance of small processing plants and slaughterhouses. If you're an organic produce grower on this list and you *don't* know about HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) I suggest you find out sooner rather than later. It *will* affect your operation within a few years, maybe a few months. It is a major food safety issue (far more important than chemical residues in terms of the number of acute illnesses). It can shut you down. The application of HACCP requirements to produce will almost certainly be nationwide. State application of migrant labor laws to apprentices/interns has already put one vegetable farm out of business. There may be more. Small scale processing is one of the best ways for the small grower to add value to crops. Unfortunately, it is getting harder and harder to find places who will do this work for you. Many slaughterhouses now set minimum-kill requirements far in excess of what small growers are able to bring forward --- 5000 turkeys, for example. Energy spent complaining is far better applied to a serious and dispassionate analysis of the opportunities and threats facing the business. Coupled with honest analysis of strengths and weaknesses, such study can make the difference between success and failure. Where strengths overlap an opportunity, there is the potential for substantial profit. Where weaknesses overlap a threat, there is a serious problem. HACCP and other potential regulations *are* a substantial threat, especially for the small grower. In that environment, reactive (as opposed to adaptive) attitudes towards regulation would seem to be a significant weakness with the potential to undermine survivability. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail