Cook Organic Garden Club wrote:
> sal wrote:
>
> > Why can't their be a reciprocity between
> > agencies to be able to accept the work done by the other agencies, or
> > better yet only have to deal with one agency who can meet the needs and
> > requirements of all these other agencies?
>
> Sal, are you arguing in favor of the new rules or against? The
> reciprocity argument and dealing with only one set of standards and one
> agency is the reason that the USDA keeps giving FOR the new rules.
>
> > There is inequality and disparate treatent in how different states either
> > encourage and promote organic farmers or place such onerous restrictions on
> > the farmer that they are unable to remain viable into the future.
>
> And the other reaon the USDA gives is disparity between states, which
> they would like to do away with. If your state permits something and my
> state does not, for example sewage sludge application or genetically
> engineered produce, the new law will not allow my state to reflect the wishes
> of its
> consumers in its laws. I have trouble seeing the disparity between the
> states as a problem, given that possibility. The new law seems to
> recommend doing what you seem to be in favor of. Am I misunderstanding?
> Loren
> Am I misunderstanding?
I think you are, a little. OFPA will permit states to implement a stricter
norm, but not the contrary. Therefore, OFPA will be a MINIMUM standard, but as
Sal points out, it will not necessarily be a consistent one, from state to state.
The basics of OFPA are not so bad. However, there are aspects of it that will do
a lot of harm and are blatantly (to my point of view) not only unjust, illogical
and unnatural but in fact unconstitutional. However, I can remember when buses
and schools where segregated, when "universal" conscription was the order of the
day, and it took a lot of doing and cost a lot of lives to correct those things.
The presence of organic produce in the marketplace predates certification by a
long shot. Certification developed as a response of the market itself to
advertising fraud. (However, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. And
when that's not the case, the side effects can still be quite adverse at times.
It's a mixed bag).
Due to the prior existence of established and accepted certifying agencies, the
government was forced to provide for that fact (the existing certifiers) by
regulating them, subjecting them to a consistent standard (that had to be
developed and committing them to certain standards. So far so good, although
it's questionable to what degree the feds were really interested (after all the
DOG food market is bigger than the market for organic food), and to what degree
it was responding to the petitions of a vocal few, some of whom held legitimate
interests (like that of developing consistent national standards for organically
grown food; i.e. DEFINING what is and what isn't organic), while others mixed
that issue up with their avarice and greed - they wanted to corner the market -
to set themselves up as a direct channel for "cashing in on the lucrative organic
market", as experts or guides for wading through the ever more complicated and
costly process of "getting certified", the organic farmer's "meal ticket". These
people (and if you want names, a number of us have had personal and very negative
contact with them), have highly placed contacts in the USDA and have become
recognized figures in the organic movement. In fact, they've got their double
dialog down fairly pat. On the one hand, they're in favor of consistent
standards and against fraud. But at some point it takes a turn. What happened
(and is happening) is this: Government funds were used to organize meetings
related to the development of OFPA, BUT - the results of that "altruistic" labor
turns out to be a PRIVATE marketing organization, set up by those who received
that $166,000 grant. But that's not all. It could be said that maybe there's a
need for what they're doing. After all, Kissenger (and many others) set up a
consultancy after he was Secretary of State. However, here what we have is a
captive market, because the ONLY word that's achieved consumer recognition, the
only established market that exists, the only certification program and
regulatory framework that exists is the ORGANIC one. So it's very important that
the procedures be transparent, that they be supportive generally speaking, to the
values that organic foods represent and cater to. And remember that these values
sprang, not from any desire to make more money but to grow, offer and (yes)
consume whole, uncontaminated healthy food.
Another important point is the major factor that impedes the growth of the
organic market: A lot of people can't afford it. Aside from the buzzards I've
referred to above, I've also dealt with some of the major distributors and I know
for a fact that some do NOT WANT enough product on the market to satisfy the
demand, in order to keep prices high. In other, words, their major interest lies
in their own profits, and not in getting more healthy food to more people at a
lower price. Therefore - since the bureaucratic aspects of OFPA (which raise the
cost of organic foods and make it less competitive), as well as its insistence
that all products sold as organic be certified or it illegal to SAY they're
organic (even if they DO meet the federal standard in so far as how they were
grown and handled), I had to conclude that OFPA goes too far, and unnecessarily
so. There are MANY instances related to agricultural products where federal
standards are prescribed by law but the implementation is left to those producing
and handling those foods (i.e. meat & milk). There may be occasional inspections
(generally with no cost involved except to the tax payer), and of course there
are sanctions that were set for failure to comply. THAT'S ALL THAT'S NEEDED TO
BE DONE. There was no need to set up an encapsulated, captive market to be
created, that isolates the organic industry from the rest of agriculture and
makes it less competitive with conventionally grown products, and that caters to
and reinforces the privileged position that some of those who DID participate in
the development of OFPA (using government grants yet) will achieve from this
encapsulation (these are the same people that DENY the existence of a new organic
insider power elite- yet they're all related to the grant recipient and form part
of his now private marketing group). I wish I knew of a way to say this more
concisely. I wonder how many fail to read it due to it's length. But it needs
to be said. I've seen this up close and it's real.
In my case, the principal figure here calls me one day and it turns out he's a
few blocks away. And he want's to set up ANOTHER marketing unit, this time for
MEXICAN organic produce. Fine. We talk and come to an understanding. In fact,
his call came in response to a post of mine regarding my desire to link growers
directly with consumers, so that BOTH get a better deal. CeDeCoR is commit to
that, especially so in relation to the farmer (because we can't always deal
directly with consumers). In any case, we want to cut out the speculation. But
when it comes down to the wire, all that was promised on HIS end disappears. And
what's worse, the strictly commercial aspects are ALSO filled with double talk
and discretional privileges on his end. HEY, I may live in mexico, but I'm not
that stupid. When it starts to feel like I'm dealing with a con artist, I know
how to get to the bottom of it, to get things pinned down. And I know when the
person I'm dealing with is trying to prevent that, and is intentionally
maintaining the give and take - costs and profits, if you will, unclear on his
end. That's what it was, and THIS EXPLAINS HOW and WHY some of the things in
OFPA wound up getting there. Where were we all? Asleep or whatever. I didn't
much like what I saw regarding the compulsory certification provisions when I saw
them in 1990 or 91 (although in practice the market itself - not the law - may
well require it in many cases. Still that is between buyer and seller), but I
didn't yet see how us lambs were being led to slaughter. Your question is like
"why did you let us get involved in the Viet Nam war?" But that war changed the
public's perception of the whole "patriotism" scam. Maybe a lot of people didn't
get it. And maybe a lot of them haven't yet. But for the first time in history,
the dirty details of what war is was displayed on worldwide TV and millions of
people mobilized against it. So here we are and what are we going to do about
OFPA? Is is too late? It's harder now than it would have been way back then.
But it's not taken effect yet. It's like, you've received your draft notice but
you're not yet in uniform yet. So you're still subject to civil, not martial
law, and there's a big difference. It may be late - but it's not TOO late. And
it will get later (and more difficult) yet, if something isn't now. We can't go
back in time. But the real and most germane issues can be addressed:
Are we going to collaborate as a group or not? There are no "correct" answers.
Mine is: To the greatest degree possible, without anyone's going against his /
her own conscience or principles. There is not "correct" answer to OFPA.
there's good and there's bad elements in it. But the bad are VERY bad, worse
than the good elements are good, in my opinion. (The market was working, albeit
imperfectly), States Rights is a political sacred cow that wound up clouding the
possibility of a consistent national standard, but it doesn't (as stated above)
undo what's done. What could undo what's done, is the compulsory aspect of
certification, but many (myself included) will prefer to start over and develop a
new (or many new) standards, rather than accept the totally unnecessary and
incongruent forced organic certification / monopolizing the O word aspects of
organic.
I may be going against the tide, but I'm used to that. In fact, it's in my
blood. And I never give up, nor am I afraid of sacrifice for what I believe.
I'm not dogmatic. and I'm ready to be convinced by anyone with a more profound
perspective on the matter. OFPA's errors can be corrected, although not without
some risk to the positive elements it contains. And THAT'S what should have been
considered at the time by those involved, instead of leaving the task for others
like myself to clean up afterwards.
Rose, those were good questions. And I'm in favor of OFPA, but like Dan Worley,
not as it stands. The evil that does will live on, so I'd rather bury the good
with it's bones if it isn't cleaned up. (It's malignant). If anyone is
interested, I would be glad to post again the few specific changes to a small
number of articles that this would require. Maybe I should do that now. This was
posted Nov. 10th on sanet:
FEDERAL ORGANIC FOODS PRODUCTION ACT OF 1990
141012.547 21-1 S.L.C.
(TITLE XXI OF 1990 FARM BILL)
§2103 DEFINITIONS.
As used in this title:
(14) CERTIFIED ORGANICALLY PRODUCED. The term "certified
organically
produced" means an agricultural product that is produced and handled and
certified in
accordance with this title.
(20) STATE ORGANIC CERTIFICATION PROGRAM.--The term "State
organic
certification program" means a program that meets the requirements of
section 2107, is approved by the Secretary, and that is designed to
ensure that a product that is sold or labeled as "certified organically
produced" under this title is produced and handled using certified
organic methods.
§2105 NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR ORGANIC PRODUCTION.
To be sold or labeled as a certified organically produced agricultural
product under this title agricultural product shall --
§2106 COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS.
(a) DOMESTIC PRODUCTS.
(1) IN GENERAL. On or after October 1, 1993
(A) a person may sell or label an agricultural product as
certified
organically produced only if such product is produced and handled in
accordance with this title; and
(B) no person may affix a label to, or other provide
market
information concerning, an agricultural product if such label or
information implies, directly or indirectly, that such product is
produced and handled using certified organic methods, except in
accordance with this title.
(2) USDA STANDARDS AND SEAL.--A label affixed, or other market
information provided, in accordance with paragraph (1) may indicate that
the agricultural product meets Department of Agriculture standards for
certified organic production and may incorporate the Department of
Agriculture seal.
(b) IMPORTED PRODUCTS. Imported agricultural products may be sold or
labeled as certified organically produced if the Secretary determines
that such products have been produced and handled under an organic
certification program that provides safeguards and guidelines governing
the production and handling of such products that are at least
equivalent to the requirements of this title.
(c) EXEMPTIONS FOR PROCESSED FOOD. Subsection (a) shall not apply to
agricultural products that--
(1 ) contain at least 50 percent certified organically produced
ingredients by weight, excluding water and salt, to the extent that the
Secretary, in consultation with the National Organic Standards Board and
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, has determined to permit the
words "certified organic" to be used on the principal display panel of
such products only for the purpose of describing the certified
organically produced ingredients; or
(2) contain less than 50 percent certified organically produced
ingredients by weight, excluding water and salt, to the extent that the
Secretary, in consultation with the National Organic Standards Board and
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, has determined to permit the
words "certified organic" to appear on the ingredient listing panel to
describe those ingredients that are organically produced in accordance
with this title.
(d) SMALL FARMER EXEMPTION. Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to
persons who sell no more than $50,000 annually in value of agricultural
products.
§2107 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.
(a) IN GENERAL. A program established under this title shall--
(1) provide that an agricultural product to be sold or labeled as
certified organically produced must--
With these changes incorporated, I for one would be glad to support
OFPA. However - as stated above, there is room for additional
improvement. More on that later.
--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: 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".