On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Douglas M. Hinds wrote:
> Subject: Re: OFMA site address
> All that's needed is a legal defination of organic with penalties established
> for fraud.
Farmer's could also apply for use of the term USDA Certified Organic.
That would be right to the point and serve a useful purpose.
They can't co-op the word organic, though. If they do there will be
lawsuits well into the next century and the credibility of organic
agriculture will suffer greatly.
> Also, the fact that OFMA (a private marketing group) sprang directly from a
> USDA funded grant that supposedly was to be used for reviewing the opinions of
> organic farmers all over the U.S., added to the cosy (close and priviliged)
> relationship maintained with the USDA and NOP officials up to now, plus the
> personal contact I and others have had with some of the founding members (and
> grant receivers), makes us very leery of their intentions, beyond the rules
Oh yes. Somewhere around $175,000 of US taxpayer's dollars funded that
"government project". You should have seen the lame excuse for an
educational symposium they put on in North Carolina as they performed
their contractual obligations with America in perfunctory fashion.
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command