Message not deliverable
Wed, 08 Oct 1997 14:52:44 -0700
>These are only my thoughts yet I can not help but feel there are other
>small growers that feel the same way. Yes David I understand but you see
>organic farmers already have to fill out the spray forms and do what any
>other farmer has to do also we already have to follow food production
>methods and facilities . This is going to be a extra tax because of the
>chemicals we are not using. NOT USING This is an extra tax on only
>organic farmers over and above what farmers have to do. If an organic
>farmer uses a pesticide even if it is organic we still have to do the paper
>work. We are not asking to be treated better that any other farmers it is
>just we don't want to be treated worse. We have to do what regular farmers
>do plus a tax and paper work for what we don't use. Can you see the
>chemical farmers being tax for what they don't use? No way why because
>they are will repesented. You know when a big farmer changes to organic
>they only want to know what can I substitute for this and what can I use
>instead of this poison . for the big boys it is easy because the big
>chemicals companies help them with all the paper work and most are under
>contract to do the work for them. but when a small farmer wants to grow
>organic he alone has to eat all the extra paper work and pay all the extra
>cost and when they take one look at all the bullshit they will have to do
>and all the extra expense they will have to pay for not using poisons the
>small farmer will run. Organic food is about 1% of the game. Do you
>really think the USDA is going to put their arm around the organic farmer
>and help them along. (JOKE) They are in bed with the big farming business
>and chemical companys. Do you think the ag. guys want to stop checking
>Menthol bromide spraying to go check some organic farmer that is not using
>anything harmful . I think even those that wanted teeth will be greatly
>disappointed when the USDA comes out with their idea of what organic is .
>The USDA is pushing DNA changing of life forms as the new fronteer. They
>are taking over our certifiers and the certifiers will become domicile
>sheep being lead around by government enforcement on a path they do not
>want to follow . They are putting stuff in this bill that will hurt the
>small farmer and burden him . Any one that thinks $5000 anual sells is
>giving considered concern to the small farmer is heartless and this is
>absurd and if put in the act it will take a act of congress to change it.
>this is no game it WILL be a very real hardship on the small farmer that
>the USDA says they are trying to protect. It is easy for the big boys
>(Dole.hines ,gurber) to be organic and grab market share and soon there
>will be no small organic farmers and that is to bad . It would have be a
>nice niche where small growers could stay on the small farms. but big
>fish will eat little fish and life go on.
>At 10:08 PM 10/8/97 +1000, David Hine wrote:
>>There is a feeling of injustice amongst some of the posts on this issue. Sal
>>has been prominent in criticizing the impact on small growers - in this
>>case organic growers.
>>Organic growers are not alone in being asked to provide evidence/meet
>>standards on their food production methods and facilities.
>To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
>To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command