>Hello Sal,
On
>balance in regards to organic farming, handling or certification I would
be
>interested in knowing of any existing standard of any certifier that
is
>higher then the language in OFPA.
this is what worries me about the language in the USDA law are things I
hear like:
Under heavy pressure from factory farm and biotechnology interests, the
>>USDA intends to decisively weaken current organic standards, which
are
>>presently upheld and enforced by 40 private and state organic
certification
>>boards. The most controversial proposed regulations to be put forth
in
>>November by the USDA will include: (1) allowing genetically
engineered
>>foods and crops to be eventually considered on a case-by-case basis as
an
>>allowable "synthetic" and thus be labeled as "organic"; (2) allowing
>>inhumane, intensive confinement of farm animals, and not explicitly
>>prohibiting factory farm-style operations; (3) precluding "private
label"
>>and state organic certification programs from upholding and enforcing
>>stricter organic standards than those required by the USDA.
>>
>>Finally the USDA plans, according to government sources, to work with
the
>>Congress and the Clinton administration to amend the 1990 Organic
Foods
>>Producion Act so as to weaken or eliminate the present "veto power" of
the
>>National Organic Standards Board, an official advisory group, over what
can
>>be considered as an allowable "synthetic." The fourteen member NOSB
>>currently supports relatively strict organic standards, at least in
>>comparison to what the USDA advocates, including a recommended
prohibition
>>on considering genetically engineered foods and crops as an allowable
>>"synthetic."
what do you think of this one I think we can protect ourselves from this
kind of baloney by keeping our label and allowing labels more strict
that the USDA?NOB and the other the political bullshit that comes with
turning over the word organic to the USDA and making our word organic a
political football .
The USDA, reacting to unexpectedly determined resistance, has decided on
a
>>more subtle strategy than what they initially envisioned to deal with
the
>>genetically engineered foods controversy. Instead of using relatively
>>explicit language in the proposed federal rules that would allow
>>genetically engineered foods to be labeled organic on a case-by-case
>>basis--a move opposed by nearly everyone in the natural foods
industry--the
>>USDA has decided on a different tactic: basically to use ambiguous
language
>>for the moment (an outright prohibition has never even been seriously
>>considered) and then wait for Congress to weaken or eliminate
altogether
>>the veto power of the National Organic Standards Board. With the
passage of
>>time the USDA will be able to "stack" the NOSB with more agribusiness
and
>>biotech-friendly appointees. With this more sophisticated strategy the
USDA
>>intends to divide and coopt its critics, including those on the NOSB,
get
>>its new proposed rules in place, and then to lift the gene-foods
>>prohibition, with or without the support of the NOSB, when it is more
>>politically convenient.
what do we think of this now that our word organic is a political
football subject to hard money soft money and under the table money also
check out<bold><bigger> "Whose Organic Standards: USDA Prepares for an
Unfriendly Takeover' of the Natural Foods Industry" at
</bigger></bold>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1527/infoJu97.html
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".