<<My question is: is this definition actionable? The proposed definition
posted is based on a standard for crop/livestock quality. There is no way
you can meet this standard unless you are using the methods defined above.
Rather than debate the acceptable inputs and methods that may or may not
organic farming standards, I am proposing that we let the outputs from the
farm determine whether the inputs and methods are compatible with the
definition that you have quoted.>>
This statement sets forth a couple of the important general principals for
organic farming. A statement that includes the term "where possible" really
leaves ever avenue of practice and substance use open. That is not what
organic farming is about. It is very postive to look at output qualities and
criteria from farming and handling, but there is noway of getting around
stating input substances, techniques and systems.
Moreover, the definition does not include any mention of the post harvest
handling of organic food and fiber products--processing, packaging or
storing--an absolute necessity if consumers want a pure and unadultureated
"My question is: is this definition actionable?" My comment is absolutely
not. The Organic Foods Production Act is a definition. The above definition
is really at most an inadequate representation of organics for the customer.
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command