USDA hearing: 100% oppose draft rule

Beth von Gunten (colibri@west.net)
Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:43:12 -0800 (PST)

>X-Sender: casawg@pop.igc.apc.org (Unverified)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:28:33 -0700
>To: casawg@igc.org
>From: Kai Siedenburg <casawg@igc.org>
>Subject: USDA hearing: 100% oppose draft rule
>
>From: Neil_Carman@greenbuilder.com (Neil Carman)
>Reply-To: Neil_Carman@greenbuilder.com (Neil Carman)
>Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 07:38:09 +0100
>Subject: Fwd: Austin hearing: 100% opposed USDA rules!
>Message-ID: <2485452799.22065846@greenbuilder.com>
>Organization: Sustainable Sources
>X-Gateway: FirstClass Gateway for SMTP/NNTP (Mac68K) version 1.02
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>
>Re: Information on Austin hearing
>
>1. Extraordinary -- 100% of the speakers opposed the USDA's proposed national
>rules!
>
>Every single person who spoke was strongly opposed to the USDA's proposed
>rules. In my 18 years dealing with state and federal regulatory agencies, I
>have never witnessed such lopsided testimony --100%--by the public for or
>against any proposed rules.
>
>Only about 65 people got to speak during the hearing while more than 100
>signed
>up. More people wanted to speak but were not allowed since it ended at 5:00
>pm.
>
>
>We saw few if any industry people and the people attending were strong organic
>food supporters since they clapped loudly after every speaker finished to show
>support.
>
>Who spoke? Mothers, farmers, retailers, consumers, wholesalers, health care
>professionals, scientists, attorneys, persons with chemical sensitivity,
>students, and others. This is also highly unusual in my experience.
>
>I expect that the industry people will begin to show up at the Ames hearing,
>but who knows, they may decide to avoid them altogether. But my experience
>indicates that industry will probably send several speakers to the upcoming
>hearings. If 100% of the public oppose they rules at every single hearing,
>USDA
>will look pretty bad.
>
>2. News coverage of the USDA's hearing in Austin - Excellent!
>
>We had live coverage by several tv stations during different times of the day,
>and four tv stations attended the event mainly in the morning. The Associated
>Press, Austin American- Statesman and local radio stations also covered the
>hearing.
>We had several dozen signs made up the night before and it helped make the
>200-300 people look like a rally for organic foods.
>
>3. Recommendations.
>
>A. Have enough copies of any handouts or testimony to give to the media and
>put
>out on tables to share with others.
>B. Talk to the media people about your concerns. The hearing did not get going
>with testimony until after 9:30 am. The media needs educating on this complex
>issue.
>C. Try to coordinate getting the press out for the hearing. I have heard that
>several organizations are planning press conf. on Feb 18th.
>D. If people had time and energy, they might consider some kind of a Camp Out
>at the site the night before to draw public attention to the hearing to help
>dramatize the nature of the bad rules and importance of starting over to write
>good ones. It is probably too late to do this in Ames, but folks could
>organize
>them for Seattle and News Brunswick. TV stations and reporters might cover a
>Camp Out the night before and help get more publicity.
>E. Signs--make 1 or 2 signs to bring and hold up at the hearing. They could
>also be used outside. We had a big sign that said: Don't Nuke Organic
>Standards!
>F. Networking--the hearing is a wonderful opportunity to meet people and share
>information and concerns. Some people are still learning about how bad the
>rules are .
>
>4. Comments.
>
>USDA officials wanted specific comments and most made general comments. One
>USDA official was overheard at the end of the hearing saying to another USDA
>official that it looks like the public is only against the Big Three: Genetic
>Engineering, Irradiation and Toxic Sludge, so if USDA gets rid of those three,
>then the rest of rule is OK! No way!
>
>The wiggle words ("incidental additives") and legal loopholes are another
>major
>reason why the rules are poorly written if you want to protect the integrity
>of
>organic.
>
>I think it is fine to make some general and specific comments.
>
>Let me know if anyone has any questions.
>
>Neil Carman, Ph.D.
>Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club
>Austin, Texas
>
>
>--
> http://www.greenbuilder.com
> telnet://fc.greenbuilder.com:3000
> modem: 512.462.0633
>---
>Green Building Professionals Directory at
>http://www.greenbuilder.com/directory/
>

Community Alliance with Family Farmers
P.O. Box 363 Davis, California 95617
530-756-8518 (phone) 530-756-7857 (fax)
caff@caff.org http://www.caff.org

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".