> >On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 email@example.com wrote:
> >> If some one of us will write a single page explanation of the threat to
> >> Organic food and we coin a new phrase that will carry us through to
> >> what was formerly 'Organic', we can each take responsibility to send
> >> like crazy and get hard-copy printed information sheets to CSA's, health
> >> food stores, food co-ops, book stores, health clubs...LET PEOPLE KNOW and
> >> organize ourselves, new nomenclature and all.
> It seems to me the Section 205.103 effectively prohibits any such effort.
> This has to be one of the most egregious aspects of USDA's proposed rules,
> because Congress specifically intended for OFPA not to have this effect. In
> any case, as Douglas Hinds has repeated ad nauseum, if the mandatory
> certification aspect of OFPA is not amended, everything else is so much
> window dressing. In the short term we have little recourse but to inundate
> USDA with comments and objections to their disastrous proposed rules.
> Steve Moore
The whole thing IS certainly disgusting, but I see no other way out. Any
comments sent to the USDA during the Rule Commentary Period by anyone who's in
agreement, ought to specifically mention their opposition to Section 205.103 and
sugest that obligatory certification is not only an unfair and unworkable
solution, but that it will cause many more (and far more serious) problems than
it attempts to resolve.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
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".