Re: A Few Thoughts

Douglas Hinds (dmhinds@acnet.net)
Tue, 07 Oct 1997 03:09:10 -0600

As always, CV. B.'s point is thoughtfully, constructively and patiently
presented. But I suggest the underlying issue goes beyond differences
in farming methods or healthier vs. less healthier food. It's who will
pay the cost of maintaining the biosphere habitable and above all, does
the political will exist to take that cost into account and mandate the
inclusion of that criteria in the marketplace. It's easier to cut
corners because vested interests and lazy perception on the part of both
the public at large AND many concerned professionals in the field would
rather sell out - or postpone excercising that basic responsibility. Am
I referring to an impractical or overly ambitious task? Some will say
yes. But then again, maybe complacency and / or inability to get to the
crux of the matter are too inbred among those intellectuals best capable
of acheiving that goal, and I don't expect much support for this point
of view from this forum at this time.

D.H.

Charles Benbrook wrote:
>

>the underlying and very real problems Sal has raised.
>
> Venting his spleen may make Sal feel better, but it does not a
> movement make. If Sal (and other farmers) were to divert his (their) time
> to making the case for change and coalition building, who would tend his
> (their) farm(s)? ... It remains
> unclear whether the organic farmer will receive a fair share of the
> benefits/burdens when all is said and done.
>
> How can Sal and other concerned and knowledgeful farmers help? By
> educating the variety of trade, consumer, environmental and other
> organizations that will be doing comments on the proposed organic program
> regulations. Sal has put some key issues on the table that WILL be addressed
> in the regs at length -- fee structures, the size of farms exempt from
> sales, how the exemption should be applied, need to avoid duplicative
> paperwork and overlapping certification, fair treatment of organic farms
> sprayed as part of APHIS region-wide programs (like med-fly control), role
> of genetic engineering in organic farming.
>
> In response to Deb's questions, both private NGO-like organizations
> and state governments run certification programs. The programs compete for
> business through price, quality, and links to the marketplace. ...
>
> The USDA is not going to get into the certification business
> directly; what they will do is accredit existing and future certification
> programs as "up to standards". ... At a minimum, USDA
> accreditation will catch, and deal with those certifiers not competing on a
> level laying field, i.e. by offering certification services for half the
> cost, and better yet, with NO PAPERWORK. Send us the money and we'll send
> you our seal. This is not the kind of certification Sal wants to see.
...
>
> Once the USDA regulations are in place, the Department will start
> accrediting certifiers, as the law requires. This need not add a new tax on
> organic farmers. Since the regulations are not out, I do not know how the
> costs of accreditation will be set or paid. I do not know how certifiers
> will pass on the costs to their growers. ...
>
> The basic purpose of certification is to gain and keep consumer
> confidence in organic food, whether grown on a large or small farm. ...
>
> Stepping back, there are two major dimensions of this debate. One
> dimension/question can be stated simply as -- Is certification needed at
> all? ... Enough said on this front.
>
> Second, if there is going to be certification, how can it be done
> fairly and efficiently, in ways that build consumer confidence in the
> industry, and which stand the tests of time? ...

> Certification is a formal way for the consumer and farmer to cut a
> deal within dynamic and open marketplaces. The consumer agrees to pay a
> little more, and sometimes go out of their way some, or alter their choices,
> in return for knowing, or at least believing that what they are buying has
> been grown and processed in a substantially different and less ecologically
> damaging way. ...
>
> Those who support organic farming need to keep their eye on the
> important balls as they work with colleagues, associates and organizations
> to respond to the USDA proposed rule. I think a broad coalition still might
> come together, and through speaking with a more or less united voice, could
> convince USDA to take some of Sal's advise. But there is much work to do to
> go from here to there. Its time to move ahead for those who want to make a
> difference.
>
>
>
> Note New New Address!!:
>
> Charles Benbrook 208-263-5236 (voice)
> Benbrook Consulting Services 208-263-7342 (fax)
> 5085 Upper Pack River Road benbrook@hillnet.com [e-mail]
> Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 http://www.pmac.net
>

-- 

Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address) Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked) U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked) Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".