Grace, I have deleted most of your letters that I saw posted to Sanet. I
looked and cannot find a specific reference where you stated that
maintaining higher standards and labeling products as such would be allowed.
Perhaps I read something into one of your notes that was not intended. Or,
maybe the exact wording of what you said indicated to me (and possibly
others) an allowance that, when those words are read in the strictest sense,
is not there. See more comments below.
>GG: You are quite correct, the law is pretty clear on this point, and
>this is what we have been saying all along.
I am glad to see this. The "Proposed Rules" do not seem to reflect that
approach. In fact, the rules (as proposed) are in direct conflict with the
law in at least one, and maybe two major areas.
But, in all fairness, the law is sadly lacking in many areas and goes to
far in others. the law actually requires the watering down of the existing
standards to the point the word "Organic" will have no real meaning if it is
implemented as written.
>GG: The proposed rule is pretty clear on this. Accreditation will not be
>granted to any organization that violates the law.
Unless they are violating the law in strict accordance with the rules (see
>GG: Watch out for the confusion between individual producers or
>handlers making production claims that exceed USDA standards (which
>is fine as long as it's truthful), and certifies claiming to be
>certifying to different standards, which will not be permitted.
Left unsaid here is the fact that, under the law and the rules, no
producer or handler making production claims that exceed the USDA standards
will be permitted to be "Certified" and cannot use the "Organic" label nor
any words that imply organic production on their labels.
What I read from your statement is that they can make all the claims they
want. But when I read the rules, I find they will not be allowed to SELL
their products as organic because they can't label them with their claims.
> Also try to understand the distinction between certification
>(of farmers and handlers) and accreditation (of certifiers).
>There is no process for registration in this program.
OK. you got me on that one. I should have known to be more careful in
the usage of words, terms, and phrases. I used the word "registered" in a
general sense. As far as I am concerned, and I think as far as most
consumers are concerned, it is all one big process. You want to break it
down into its component parts and discuss the producer (farmer), the
processor (handler, shipper, warehouse, retail outlet, etc. and the
certifies separately. I, on the other hand, am more interested in the
overall process from planting to me carrying the finished product into my
kitchen. So, OK. Everyone doing the work of production and delivery gets
"Certified" and the certifiers get "Accredited". To the consumer who isn't
interested in all the details, it is all "registering".
When we all take two steps backward and start to look at the forest, we
find that this fine, organic forest that has been nurtured for many years by
caring stewards of the land who are trying to grow all the trees without any
of the artificial additives that the guys on the other side of the mountain
have been using on their land to attempt to force production and have ended
up with stunted, diseased, ugly trees, wake up one morning to find the USDA
has sneaked in at night and planted a bunch or already tampered with trees
that have had genes from fish added, have been sprayed with poison
chemicals, and who knows what else. Then has set up an irradiation plant
and wants us to pass all our products through it to insure safety because
those guys on the other side of the mountain got careless and shipped some
"Organic Farming" started as a very small movement by people who were
labeled as "Nuts" and the traditional farming community thought it would die
out as the fad they assumed it to be. To their surprise, it didn't die. It
grew, and grew, and grew. Now it is big enough that the big Ag corps want
to get in on some of those "big profits". But they don't want to bother
with the labor intensive practices that is required to produce true organic
products. So now they are pushing for a watering down of the standards to
allow for all kinds of in-organic practices, but yet be allowed to call it
Fortunately, a goodly sized portion of the public is not being fooled by
all this nonsense and is demanding that the proposed rules be modified to
restore "Organic" to what it is supposed to be.
Now, there are some who read the law a bit differently than I. Some seem
to think the law allows the use of a stricter standard by state certifiers.
And the law does say this in one part. But in another it forbids the use of
the word Organic except as authrized with in the law and in yet another it
forbids the use of descriptive words and phrases that imply organic.
The inclusion of GMOs and biowaste (slude) in the preemble of the proposed
rules may have been just totest the waters, so to speak. But I think it isd
obvios now that the organic community does not want either allowed.
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command