> The time is very late to draw up further criteria for developing the Final
> Organic Rule as authorized under OFPA. Congress passed the Act and it is time
> to implement the Act. There is only one criterion left the Act itself...
Despite the legitimate reasons for legislating consistent, minimum standards for
organic products at the national (and international) level(s), the compulsory
aspects of organic certification as provided by OFPA will assure it's eventual and
rapidly increasing irrelevance. Any meaning the word "organic" may now have is
founded in a reality with three basic roots:
1).- The principles governing
compatible/socially responsible agriculture;
2).- The spirit that guided those that founded the "organic movement"; and
3).- The understanding of it held by those who use the word (i.e. the way it's
When a word (or in this case, the market value of a word embodying a high degree
of consumer recognition) is "expropriated" by a law mandating a process (third
party certification) controlled by private interests (SOME - and only some of
which are legitimate), the word is abstracted; that is, removed from it's roots.
This creates a vacuum, an absence of authority; both morally (due to the profit
motive guiding the highly vocal aspirants of the new organic insider, power
elite), and legally (since both the USDA and Congress were duped into becoming two
of the three stooges now on stage).
That vacuum will soon be filled by a plethora of alternative choices (and labels),
and the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of appropriating
words through acts of congress (with all that this implies for those whose rights
are affected by it).
Codex Alimentarius, ISO 14000 and Gertrude Stein not withstanding, organic is as
organic does. Long live diversity, evolution & the biosphere. And let's all go
naked, at least in our hearts. Now let the dogs bark!
> why should anyone or I address your opinions and
> "interpretations" ... it is misleading the discussion to bring new ...
> intellectual criteria into
> public discussion of the Proposed Rules...There is only a single criterion to
> consider...If USDA does not use this criterion, my assessment is USDA will
> become involved in extended litigation.
You can count on it.
> "USDA's ability and willingness to accept recommended changes in the rule will
> be a function of three things---unanimity, consistency with the
> Statute and the justifications offered for changes in light of the general
> goals of OFPA and "good government."...
> The National Organic Program is empowered by OFPA to collect fees from all
> participants, that includes accredited certifiers who in turn charge
> applicants...On a secondary issue, determination of equivalency of imports or
> for that
> matter in answering foreign countries request for information on equivalency
> of US exports should certainly not be born by certified organic farmers and
> handling operations producing for the domestic US market.
> As a last statement, the only interest group that really matters is the
> consumer...[and his wallet]...Eric Kindberg
Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, dhinds@.ucol.mx
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".