Thanks for passing along that useful information on copyrights vs.
trademarks. It's valuable for people to know the difference between this.
I did want to make a comment on what you said.
<<<From where I stand, the fragmentation of response to the draft
organic standards seems to argue against Betty's notion that there
has been "general agreement" on what organic means. It seems to me
that if there was general agreement, the organics community
(industry) would have formulated a single response, organized
consumers to communicate that to the USDA, and, having fed that into
the executive rulemaking process, stood back and waited to see the
revised rule, with a Big Fat Hammer waiting if the USDA didn't do
what the organics community/industry wanted. >>
I'm very involved with this issue, and my perception is that the industry
HAS had a remarkably cohesive response to the proposed rules, and their IS
remarkable agreement on what organic means. There are small areas of
disagreement, sure, but the USDA proposed rules have gone far beyond those
areas and would allow into organic things that pretty much EVERYONE in the
organic industry would not. The industry IS in the process of educating
the public on their issues with the rules and the public IS responding -
strongly! My understanding that every speaker at all four USDA hearings
was against the rules!
But this isn't the first time the industry has participated in the
development of national rules. Many have spent many hours of volunteer
labor over the past 7 years working out the details, through public
hearings, meetings, letters, etc., which resulted in the NOSB (National
Organic Standards Board) draft rules. There are many positive aspects of
the NOSB draft rules, although some feel they should've been stronger in
some areas to better align with organic principles and the Organic Foods
Production Act (OFPA) of 1990. However, it'd be a lot harder to find
anyone in the organics industry who would've like to have seen the rules as
weakened as the USDA proposes to do.
So the USDA has had their input from a remarkably unified industry, and
have gone against it. Sure, we're giving feedback now in the official
process. But given the way that the USDA disregarded the industry's prior
feedback, it's reasonable to think beyond this official process to ask what
it will take to get the USDA to respect the way the organic industry has
defined itself - a definition that consumers have so strongly supported,
even when it cost them more money for their food!
To me, the point is that the organic industry has a right to define itself.
They came up with this idea. What they do isn't harmful, in fact it is
healthier. The government wasn't authorized to change the definition of
organic, only to put it into law. In fact, the value of organic is that it
comes from a more purist perspective than mainstream ag. To impose the
values of mainstream ag ("a little poison is ok") on organic is to miss the
point and value of organic entirely.
One of the clearest analogies I've seen is - what would we say if the USDA
redefined kosher to include pork? Same thing. They don't have the
authority, and they miss the point.
Regarding trademarks - I've heard as rumor that Rodale/Organic Gardening
might have a trademark standing on the word organic. Does anyone know
anything about that?
Hope these thoughts are useful -
Patricia Dines
Community Action Publications
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".