>From: Erorganic@aol.com
>Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:26:32 EST
>To: arc@sunsite.unc.edu
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Subject: Reports on the Ames and Austin USDA Organic Hearings
>
>NCAMP/OFMA PRESS RELEASE:
>
>Organic Farmers Marketing Association,
>8364 S SR 39, Clayton, IN 46118
>515-472-3272, erorganic@aol.com
>Further information at: www.iquest.net/ofma/
>
>National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides,
>701 E Street, Washington, DC 20003,
>202-543-5450, (fax) 202-543-4791, ncamp@ncamp.org
>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
>Contact: Eric Kindberg, OFMA
> Jay Feldman, NCAMP
>
>February 25, 1998
>
>Testimony at the Ames Iowa USDA Hearing on the Proposed Organic Rule Calls for
>Complete Overhaul
>
>Quoting Dale Cochran, the Iowa Secretary of Agriculture made at the recent
>Ames Iowa Hearings on the Proposed Organic Rule, February 18, 1998.
>
>" The task of the National Organic Program is to set national standards for
>the organic industry. Diluting the standards in use by many in the industry
>undermines the integrity of the organic industry and places well-established
>markets at risk.
>I believe that national organic standards should explicitly differentiate
>organic production and handling and be maintained at the level of existing
>certifying agencies.
>
>"....genetically engineered organisms, ionizing radiation, and the land
>application of biosolids...are just the tip of the iceberg, and other less
>publicized issues in relation to national standards could also have
>devastating impacts on the organic industry...Definitions must be added,
>clarified or, in some cases, deleted."
>
>" The terms ' bio-diversify" and "ecological harmony," long accepted by the
>industry have been removed from the definition of the " system of organic
>farming and handling."
>
>Over 80 consumers, organic farmers, an former NOSB Board Member, coops and
>handlers unanimously testified that the USDA Proposed Organic Rule, if
>implemented, would destroy the credibility of "organic" for consumers. 100%
>of the statements made at the Hearing were against implementation of the
>Proposed Rule as written.
>
>Expressions at the hearing were explicit, extremely well thought out and
>presented with gusto bordering on rebellion. Every speaker received a
>clapping ovation. Organic farmers wanted to know who wrote the Proposed
>Rules. The single USDA representative at the meeting, Eileen Stommes, refused
>to answer the question. A consumer asked why the existing standards of
>organic certifiers were not synthesized with the Organic Foods Production Act
>to compose the Proposed Rule. Ms Stommes responded they had to follow the
>Act. At that point people in the audience responding without recognition
>asking "Than why didn't the USDA follow the Act in the Proposed Rule?" Joe
>Vogelsberg from Kansas along with many others said when ever you use a
>synthetic medicine on livestock, divert that livestock to the conventional
>market after the FDA withdrawal time. Questions were raised how do you know
>your not feeding organic livestock genetically modified feed products if 20%
>not organically produced feed is allowed? A former USDA DC employee, now
>organic dairyman, stated the reason USDA is holding these 4 public meetings is
>so the USDA building doesn't get burned down. He further pointed out that
>Eileen Stommes, in her position is personally responsible for the Proposed and
>Final Rule. Many testifiers presented detailed listings of the contradictions
>between the Proposed Rule and the Organic Foods Production Act. USDA stated
>that the quantity and quality of the testimony was extremely helpful. And the
>Greenpeace Fishberry costume symbolizing the genetically modified strawberry
>was ever present.
>
>
>
>
>Subj: Fwd (2): Austin hearing: 100% opposed USDA rules!
>Date: 98-02-15 02:25:17 EST
>From: Neil_Carman@greenbuilder.com (Neil Carman)
>To: Erorganic@aol.com, cvof@iquest.net
>
>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.
>
>
>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.
>
>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. 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.
>Wiggle words ("incidental additives," "non-active residues," "active or inert
>ingredient in any input other than pesticide formulations," "commercially
>available," etc.) are legal loopholes. These are another major reason why the
>rules are poorly written if we 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
>
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".