Grace Gershuny
National Organic Program Staff
>>> owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu@i 03/12/98 04:10pm >>>
Hi Michelle (misha) -
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!
GG: If one were to probe that position of being "against the rules," I
think you would find that the understanding of what they were in fact
opposing was quite different for many commenters (at least the ones
I've read and listened to thus far). So, the simple "yes" or "no" question
does not reveal the amount of confusion and internal contradiction
within the community.
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.
GG: This is in fact the first time that the general public has been asked
to comment on a set of proposed rules. The NOSB's recommendations
were not proposed rules, and were used along with public comments
received at NOSB meetings, existing certification programs, consultation
with stakeholder groups, etc. to draft the proposed rules.
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.
GG: The law did not provide a definition of organic, and so we had to
construct one based on what the law says, as well as the prevailing
definitions used by the industry. I think we did pretty well on that
one--please refer to the proposed definition of "a system of organic
farming and handling."
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.
GG: Good analogy. The answer is that USDA has as much intention of
redefining organic to mean what it isn't as it has of trying to make kosher
include pork.
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".
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".