I just want people to tell the truth and those that do that should not have
to pay one cent to grow and sell organic. Make those that break the law
pay for it. The way it is now the weight of the law and the cost of the law
is all on the righteous organic farmers back. We now have to pay them to
tell the truth . Now we have to feel out all this extra paper work and not
only that we have to pay everyone that reads it. We pay the certifier to
read it we pay the state to read it we pay the inspector to read and soon
we will have to pay the Feds for reading this extra paper work we are
forced to do. Then their is the certifier we have to pay for their office
and their local office and their offices workers and their computers and
their gas and their hotel rooms etc and don't forget we have to pay the
inspector and we have to pay the inspectors gas and his hotel rooms and his
food and etc and then the state wants to steal some money also and then the
feds are going to jump in and steal a little more of our money with this
extra tax . the poor small farmer has to carry the load and does not
have a chance. . The certifier will pass their cost down to the farmer so
that is another hit and the inspector will also pass his cost down that is
another hit. And this is every year . Year after year and the law keep
growing and the cost keeps growing and we loose more and more freedoms.
Please this kind of protection I don't need. what I need is need is
protection from all this protection . and now if you sell over $5000 you
are forced the key word here is forced to pay if you want to tell the truth
on your box.
> The whole industry was concerned a few "bad apples" would tarnish
>the image of all organic farmers, and hoped a certification program would:
>(1) weed them out, (2) provide cover for legitimate growers if some scandal
>erupted, eroding consumer confidence, (3) give established customers a
>reason to stick with known, certified growers.
The state of Ca. told us sure we will help you but you have to pay for it
because we have no money. So the sheep (organic growers) said ok. the
State of Ca. instead took our money and used it for other things maybe even
spraying insecticide. They have taking hundreds of thousands of dollars
from us organic growers and you seem to know a lot . how many of these
cheats did they catch in the whole state of Ca. maybe 2. Dont make me pay
for your perinoia. Please take this unfair tax of the backs of organic
growers they are not doing anything wrong. . first time shame on you 2nd
time shame on me. If they want to make these laws let them pay to enforce
them and get your hand out of my pocket as I am not the one breaking the law.
I went to a certifier and they told me what organic is and what I had to do
to be organic and I pay them . the state tells me what I have to do to be
organic and I am forced to pay them now the feds want to tell me what I
have to do to be organic and I will be forced to pay them too. Does anyone
else but me see how this is going. Mafia and strong arm men could not
have done a better job of stealing my money. The Mafia won and now it is
call the strong arm of the law. Pay us or you are out of bussiness.
Thanks for the shaft.
Much of the industry needed certification to gain access to
>high-profit European markets, where the market is much more demanding in
>terms of credible documentation that "greener" food is indeed greener.
>Ditto, other high value markets over seas.
I am a member of IFOM already I don't need the extra credible
documentation from the pesticide approving ,herbicide promoting,methal
bromine approving ,DNA changing USDA or State of Ca. In fact their seal to
me is the "mark of the beast. " Next year they may tell us organic growers
we all need to where arm bands or get a 666 tattooed on our forehands
because we grow organic and don't use USDA approved pesticides and
herbicides, The head of the USDA has said in a speech said they I am a
food purest and that the USDA is ready for a battle royal with Us.Please
don't put me in bed with these guys.
> The processed industry needed reciprocity across certifiers so
>ingredients for fruit cocktail, purchased for example from six different
>states certified by six different entities, could be processed by a seventh
>entity, without having to do the farm level work all over again. There had
>to be some way to "level the playing field" by establishing minimum
>standards for certifiers to follow.
It is the USDA that are releasing the stuff that will make processing
organic food impossible . they are responsible for the no labels of Gene
alter food . it is because of them all the soy oil or corn oil and corn
meal and soy meal etc is herbicide resistant and we organic processors can
not tell them from non gene alter . Also they have gene altered most the
enzymes and who know what else. You cannot know because they will not
label. If the USDA wants to help the organic movement label these thing.
the USDA are the folks that will make it impossible for organic processors
to process food not the organic grower.
The purpose of accreditation is to
>document that certifiers are doing a good job in applying the standards.
>Together, these formed the foundation for reciprocity.
If certifiers need some help establishing minimums ok if you want to help
go ahead just don't charge them money as they just pass the cost down to
us. A good sheapard feeds the flock and they want only want to fleece the
.> Sal, don't jump all over me. I am not saying that all money/effort
>made in the name of certification has been fair or well-invested. I agree
>it would be much more fair to tax pesticides to pay for organic
>certification, but that is not going to happen for reasons that have little
>to do with what is "right". I am saying there were and remain legitimate
>goals shared by most of the organic industry that gave rise to the
>collective sense a national program was needed. Much of the concern across
>the industry is the result of a long-delayed, very inefficient process for
>getting the proposed rule published. If there were no organic program in
>USDA and state departments of agriculture, we would no doubt be debating a
>different set of problems undermining the viability of small and mid-size
>organic producers, the solution of which would, you guessed it, require some
>sort of national program, if not an international alliance and institution.
This is funny all the rest of the US wants to let the private sector
regulate itself .And we were regulating our selfs . We formed the
Certifying Organizations in the first place and we voluntary paid for it
.Now voluntary is out and force is in. We have IFOM for international
alliance and we have freedom to join if we want. the stores are asking for
certification because we have showed them it works . we don't need these
extra taxes on our lifestyle and this extra strong arm of the law pushing
us around. its is us that made the organic movement what it is today not
the USDA or the State of Ca. We are catching the lies and exposing them
not the state or USDA. <
There is going to be an organic accreditation and certification
>program in the U.S. The industry and organic farmers need to fix the
>problems that arise, such as needless duplicative paperwork, excessive fees,
>and an unfair split between the private and public sectors. Solutions will
>come easier if different constituencies work together to cooperatively seek
>compromises and solutions (i.e., it is much more likely USDA will adopt
>concensus suggestions/revisions in the rule in contrast to divisive ones).
are you joking it is these folks that are making more needless duplicative
paper work and they are the ones charging excessive fees (not 1 cent)
this solution you want in this case is the problem.
> The organic industry, along with allies in the consumer and
>environmental community, need to make a stronger, more effective case for
>public (USDA) investment in the infrastructure supporting the organic
>industry. People and organizations have shied away from this because of the
>state of the budget, trends in politics and other reasons. In the meantime,
>other emerging industries have received billions in new dollars because,
>somehow, they made the case. Of course, an important time to make this case
>is in responding to the regs.
This is what you call public investment . forcing the organic grower to
pay for all this is not public investment and it is not supporting the
organic industry it is stealing money from it and stealing energy by making
us feel out paper work when we could be farming.
> Last, the whole arena of food labeling is just exploding in terms of
>importance and energy. The biggest issues today surround labeling of
>biotech foods, and this has already spilled over and onto (pardon the pun)
>the organic program regs. The biotech section of the rule will get more
>comments than any other, I predict. For information on IPM labeling, see
>the "IPM and the Marketplace" section of the PMAC webpage, www.pmac.net.
If you let the USDA make the rules we will have biotech in organic foods .
they have their own agenda and we have our . The USDA are fighting to not
label and in act whole countries say they will not take Unlabeled
trasnengenic food yet the USDA is going to force them to take that food and
they are going to force us to do the same.
> Consumers all over the world are asking for and responding to more
>information about their food -- what is in it, nutritional properties, how
>it was grown, the impacts of production practices on the environment.
>Organic labeling and certification is advanced relative to other areas of
>labeling policy, but it may soon find itself struggling to catch up.
we are already giving it to them.
We are not playing catch up it is the state and the feds that are not
giving the people the truth in labeling not us. The whole world is asking
the USDA to label their lab made DNA changing life forms and the USDA is
instead shoving it down there throats I see the people on TV raise up and
they do not trust the USDA for truth in labels yet they trust the organic
label that is until the USDA changes all that and makes us partakers of
their wickness. The USDA is pushing lab made DNA changing life forms and
pesticides and herbicides and hybrid seed they are not pushing organicness.
The world knows them and the world know us. We are going one way and they
are going the other way. Dont put me in bed with they guys and don't let
them lay an extra tax on my back.
Sal raised questions about what words farmers could use to describe
>their production -- natural, environmentally friendly, biological, etc.
>This is another key area where things are heating up and dynamic. I do not
>think the USDA/FTC are as aggressive as some allege; there is a ton of
>greenwashing going on in the food, chemical and produce industries, by
>proponents of "plant pesticides", and others trying to position themselves
>in the market. Just a few weeks ago, the Idaho Potato Commission announced
>the new banner/theme of its multi-million dollar consumer ad campaign for
>this year, prominently featuring the phrase "Nature's Friend." What do you
>suppose that means? Ask your grocer when you see this phrase on
>bags/cartons. What do you think the Commission can produce in terms of
>factual data to back up that claim? I suspect some groups will be asking.
>Anyone compared pesticide use on potatoes in Idaho to other states lately?
>Its a simple and reveling exercise.
> I would appreciate people posting from time to time, or e-mailing to
>me, new claims on food labels, point of purchase information, or in
>advertising that need to be assessed by the consumer and environmental
>community. I am involved with some projects doing just that, your help in
>identifying important examples would be appreciated.
are you kidding people all over the world are rising up asking the USDA to
label their GE life forms If you want to work on Labels chuck work on that
one . > chuck
>Note New New Address!!:
>Charles Benbrook 208-263-5236 (voice)
>Benbrook Consulting Services 208-263-7342 (fax)
>5085 Upper Pack River Road email@example.com [e-mail]
>Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 http://www.pmac.net