Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote:
> Erorganic writes:
> > Personally, I think I can feel at ease with OFPA because I believe "the
> > buying public" owns the word "organic", the right to know they are
> > what they are paying for. In fact, to be consistent I think "the buying
> > public" owns all advertisements and identities. When someone does not
> > "the public's" perception for a word used in commerce, "the public" has a
> > through their agencies to regulate the identity or advertisement.
6 lines, with 4 references to "the buying publicīs" right to sic the US
Federal Government's watchdog powers on someone who may have used a word
accurately and truthfully in relation to an agricultural product they
chose to grow in adherence with international organic standards (that
SHOULD be subject and ONLY subject to a legal definition). Below, the
writer's purpose is clearly expressed: To control trade. The obvious
question is, to who's benefit? Does Erorganic (that's "the public's"
word he's got sandwiched in there) stand to benefit? You bet he does,
because at some point (watch real close, because the change is fast and
rather slickly done), "the buying public", the one that "owns" the word
and has the big, mean but very useful to certain interests watchdog,
becomes - you guessed it, the same guy that wants you to sell your
organic produce through HIS channel, the inside track that just happens
to meet these proprietary standards belonging to "the buying public".
Words are founded in meaning and their rightful owners are those that
use them truthfully. The rest of it is self serving, sophistic garbage
(not all of you will appreciate the value of calling a spade a spade or
a manipulator a manipulator) and while I frankly have no desire to
continue this fruitless line of discussion, I feel it's imperative to
illuminate what's really at stake here. The line may sound so pretty
that it almost makes you want to become "selfless", "public" and
"regulated" yourself. But it's just soul-less, a rigged game of musical
chairs where you're sure to lose the seat you came in with, if you fall
for it. I say let the buyer beware, especially of con artists in
organic regulating sheepskins.
eak: There is a conspiracy under every rock, some people think. I do not
support this approach. Let the government do it, some people think. I know
that is an error. Either government is controlled by people or the
government(s) at all levels will control people. You all know the statement,
now we have an opportunity and an obligation to make government function in
the farmer, handler and consumers interest. The structure to control the
Federal Government in the US was greatly enhanced by recent laws, the
Amendments to the Regulatory Flexibility Law, the Administrative Procedures
Act. Quite frankly, government can be made to conform to its laws by the
outspoken and informed activity of concerned citizens in contacting their
Congressional Representatives, government officials and workers. All the
discussion we have had returns us to the question: is each one of us going to
actively participate in the Public Comment Period of the Proposed Rule and
after that, if necessary? OFMA is prepared to work with anyone and everyone
who wants to improve the USDA/NOP and make sure it fulfills the needs of its
clientele. Suspicion of everyone to such an extent that suspicion destroys
the individuals ability to function in a democratic society always needs a
remedy. In the US remedies are available. OFMA proposes we use them. You
are a US citizen Douglas. Are you going to join us with informed critique of
the Proposed Rule?
Best regards, Eric Kindberg
> > Such is the Constitution of the US, the Commerce Clause. All the levels
> > US government have the power in various situations, under the
> > other laws, to control trade in the US. As I pointed out before, if
> > Constitutional government does not create checks and balances through
> > regulations, etc, the small entities of the US would be at a great
> > disadvantage. The buying public is included in the small entity category.
> > are small to moderate size organic farmers and organic businesses. OFPA
> > protects them while protecting the public.
> Well said & thoughtful, Eric. Great input to the discussion, and a good
> pitch for OFMA.
> Lawrence F. London, Jr. - InterGarden - Venaura Farm
> mailto:london@sunSITE.unc.edu - mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
> owner organic-certification mailing list
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command