Re: Organic Foods Production Act Implementation

David DeCou (david_d@efn.org)
Tue, 1 Oct 1996 09:05:24 -0800

Pam-
As an organic farmer and an individual involved in attempting to
get the USDA to publish the "Final Rule" to implement the National Organic
Program I am very concerned about your letter. One of the primary reasons
for the writing of the law in 1990 was to provide meaning to the word
"Organic" all of the different certifier's and many different individuals
were using the term but many with a different definition, sometimes very
significant differences. That the USDA has not not been able to yet come
out a set of rules is largely due to these differing opinions. Some of the
opinions are based upon philosophy, some based upon regional experience,
some upon one aspect or another of science, and some are based upon a
desire make a great deal of money. It is clear that the Organic Industry
has come of age because there are people making fortunes in it in some
places. As a grower I would like to assert that very few growers are
getting rich, the big money is to be made by controlling a portion of the
market. This hue and cry about wishing to be able to label products as
having a "higher standard" than the USDA standards seems to be an attempt
to make money by some influential individuals. If there is a higher
standard how do you measure this? Is my standard higher than yours? Who
judges? If someone meets the standards of USDA we know who judges, if
someone proclaims their standards to be higher do they have some validity
or are they just trying to get more of your hard earned money with a
baseless PR blitz. You come right back to the reason Congress passed the
National Organic Law in 1990. Given the money which is driving some
individuals and corporations to participate in influencing these standards
it is important to gain a larger perspective. Some in the Biotechnology
industry are upset that the NOSB has recommended to not allow plants
derived through biotechnology to be used under Organic production, there
will be pressure exerted by some strong moneyed interests around this
issue, be sure to understand what is really behind these issues.

>Finally inspired by Susan Jarnagin's appeal on Sanet last Tuesday, I wrote
>that letter about OFPA that I've been intending to write. If any of you can
>use all or part of this language, please let me pass along the inspiration.
>Addresses are included below the letter.
>
>Does anyone know a timeline on decisions and implementation?
>
>Pam Kasey
>1835 Addison Street, Apt. B
>berkeley CA 94703
>510/548-6675
>ehansen@garnet.berkeley.edu
>-------------------
>
>I am writing to you with concern about the proposed implementation of the
>Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990.
>
>As a consumer who cares about the nutritional quality and environmental
>impact of the foods I eat, I have been buying mostly certified organic food
>for the past seven years. I want to know that the farmers who grow the food
>I eat are attending to the health of their soil. It's also important to me
>to support them in using the least harsh methods we have to manage pests
>and weeds. And when processors, warehousers, and distributors handle these
>products, I expect them to honor the farmers' intentions by protecting the
>products' integrity. Stringent, private organic certification is the only
>assurance I have of these standards.
>
>Certified organic foods are often more expensive, and my personal financial
>commitment to the highest quality organic foods has been rewarded. From a
>time when my choices were very limited, I have seen the variety of products
>and producers increase, as well as the number of grocery stores carrying
>these products. Having visited many farmers who have taken the trouble to
>certify their operations, I am satisfied that my commitment is contributing
>to a deepening lifestyle and land stewardship ethic that I feel good about.
>
>The growers, processors, and distributors who have devoted resources to
>implementing high nutritional and environmental standards for their foods
>and to communicating those standards to consumers through private organic
>certification have made a considerable investment in the meaning of the
>word "organic." Federal regulation of minimum organic standards as proposed
>in the OFPA honors their good faith.
>
>However, I do not agree with any interpretation of the OFPA that prevents
>private certifiers from establishing additional, more stringent guidelines
>for their seals. The proposed implementation violates certifiers' right to
>free speech. Further, the enforcement of maximum organic standards would
>make it impossible for growers to realize a return on any investment in the
>more ambitious standards that I and many other consumers value.
>
>The Final Rules for implementation of the OFPA must not restrict private
>certifiers' rights to establish independent standards for food quality.
>Such a restriction will only plunder our hard-won equity in the term
>"organic" for the short-term benefit of minimally compliant growers and
>processors. Please don't let this happen.
>
>
>I sent this to:
>
>Mr. Albert Gore
>Vice President of the United States of America
>The White House
>Washington DC 20500
>
>Mr. Daniel Glickman
>Secretary
>U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
>14th & Independence Avenues, S.W.
>Washington DC 20250
>
>Mr. Richard G. Lugar
>Chairman
>Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
>U.S. Senate
>Washington DC 20510-6000
>
>Mr. Pat Roberts
>Chairman
>Committee on Agriculture
>104th Congress
>U.S. House of Representatives
>Washington DC 20515
>
>Mr. Robert B. Anderson
>Chair
>National Organic Standards Board
>Walnut Acres Road
>Penns Creek PA 17862
>
>Ms. Kathleen Merrigan
>Chair, Accreditation Cttee
>National Organic Standards Board
>517 C Street, N.E.
>Washington DC 20002

David DeCou
93780 River Road
Junction City, OR
97448
541 998-2110

david_d@efn.org
QUESTION AUTHORITY
ACT RESPONSIBLY.