Fwd: Re: fox guarding the hen house

sal (sals@rain.org)
Sun, 22 Mar 1998 08:54:18 -0800

>
> From: sal
> Subject: Fwd: Re: fox guarding the hen house
>
>
>>
>> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 08:49:15 -0800
>> To: bd-l@biodynamics.com, bd-l@biodynamics.com
>> From: sal
>> Subject: Re: fox guarding the hen house
>>
>> WE must stop Non funded federal and state mandates that take money out of
>> the organic movement!  The state of Ca.  have already taken hundred of
>> thousands of dollars from us in Ca. and we don't need more of the same. 
the
>> only thing I disagree with is the sliding fees as I feel there should be no
>> fees. .No sliding fees no flat fees no fees at all if you truly are organic
>> you owe no one .we owe you.  lets get it right .  I don't want my handler
>> poor Jim to have to pay a handling fee ether because he is my friend and I
>> know he has 2 kids and a wife to support and he has to send those kids to
>> school and If I am certifier I don't see why he should have to pay just for
>> taking my boxes and sending them to his customers.the handler fee must go.
>> and I don't want the my certifier to be forced to pay a fee as they will
>> just pass it down to me.  (I don't feel my processor should have to pay one
>> cent because he wants to use only organic ingredients not one cent and I
>> don't want my customers to have to pay one cent just because they chose to
>> buy organic .  Not one cent. Down with NON FUNDED federal and state
mandates
>> If I want to volunteer to pay a certifier and an inspector that is
volunteer
>> I should be free to join .   I say no forced fees to sell organic if they
>> want to inspect a grower  they must have just cause and pay for it .    I
>> should not have to be forced to pay one cent extra because I chose to grow
>> food organic and sell food it as such.  This is what is backwards.  The
>> polluters get a free ride and we pay who are not doing anything wrong.  No
>> non funded laws that make the farmer pay to prove he is honest year after
>> year  Not one cent !  Forced.  Join what you want to join but this force
>> fees by the government and state is wrong and because the farmer pays
for it
>> they just keep adding test and inspections on top of tests and inspection. 
>> The customers and the farmer are not as dumb as the USDA take them to be
nor
>> is the organic movement as confused as much as the USDA seems to be about
>> what is organic.  We don't need all these extra fees to keep us honest. 
An 
>> organic farmer is like anyone other business if your caught lying the
people
>> buying from you will not do business with you.  If I ever lost my certifier
>> because I lied or did something wrong I suffer greatly now and adding all
>> these fees and paper work does nothing compared to my reputation loss with
>> my customers.  let business take care of business.  Sliding fee or flat fee
>> are both wrong as I feel that  there should be no fees.  NO Fees NO Tax no
>> sir charge Not one cent extra just because I am organic .  The certifiers
>> were doing great working things out with each other.  Those that ship can
>> use IFOAM and other international certifiers .  What we are doing now is
>> working great and my customers are not confused in the least.  If people
>> don't know what organic is then how is the state of Ca. getting away with
>> taking my money every year and inspecting my land and my books and telling
>> me yes Sal you are organic.  And how come CCOF has been taking my money and
>> their inspectors have been taking my money for 10years and every year they
>> say Sal you are organic .   Some one must know what organic is and it is
not
>> the USDA or the Ca. state ag people.  Free the word organic and give it
back
>> to the people .  No non funded federal mandates that require organic
farmers
>> to come with money out of pocket year after year because they are
organic it
>> should be it must be stop.  No non funded state programs that force those
>> that have to follow the law to pay for it even if they are doing nothing
>> wrong.  There are fraud charges on the books now.  Let us talk about forced
>> fees for those  growing and selling organic. Has anyone got any idea what
>> the heck this is going to cost every organic grower selling 5001 or more
of 
>> dollars of organic food.  There is the certifier every one will now be
>> forced to join,the inspector ,the state here in Ca.for the same dam
thing we
>> pay the inspector and the certifier  for . the USDA for the same thing we
>> pay the certifier,inspector,state for and the residue tester who also gets
>> paid by the grower for the same thing the certifier does  the inspector
>> does  the state does the USDA and who know what who else .All these folks
>> doing the same thing asking me the same questions.  I got inspected
twice in
>> one week last year. This is getting nuts  there are so many people with
>> their hands out that they are running into each other.  How many pencil
>> pushing bureaucrats do organic farmer have to pay off and why.   when I
>> started growing years ago I never thought I would be penalized because I
>> chose to be organic. this idea that we cannot do business without paying
off
>> all these folks is a Mafia idea called protection money .  who is
protecting
>> me from all these folks that are asking protection money.  An to all those
>> good folks that are volunteers in the organic movement please don't
>> volunteer for me by telling these government folks not to worry the farmer
>> will pay for it .  This is getting real old.
>>
>>
>> IAt 06:43 AM 3/22/98 -0500, S. Moore wrote:
>> >Jane,
>> >
>> >Here is the text of my remarks to NOSB.  Oral presentations were
limited to
>> >three minutes, so my spoken comments were much condensed.
>> >
>> >Steve Moore, Carpinteria, CA
>> >sfmoore@earthlink.net
>> >
>> >AB,
>> >
>> >You are welcome to post these remarks to the bd-list if they do not
violate
>> >any bandwidth rules you have in place.
>> >
>> >=========================
>> >
>> >Oral Presentation to NOSB
>> >Stephen F. Moore, Ph.D.
>> >Moore Ranch, Carpinteria, CA
>> >March 16, 1998
>> >Ontario, CA
>> >
>> >
>> >Introduction
>> >
>> >My name is Steve Moore.  I manage my family’s 60-acre farm in Carpinteria,
>> >Ca.  My great grandparents originally homesteaded the farm in the 1870’s.
>> >In the early 1980’s my brothers and I began conversion of the farm to
>> >organic and then biodynamic methods.  We have been certified organic and
>> >biodynamic since 1985.  Our primary crops are lemons, avocados, and other
>> >orchard fruits for wholesale, and mixed vegetables for a 250 member CSA. 
>> In
>> >addition to my involvement with biodynamics as a farmer, I am also
>> president
>> >of the board of directors of the bd association.
>> >
>> >Taken as a whole, USDA’s proposed rules for organic are a disaster.  It is
>> >hard to imagine they could have done a worse job, given all of the time,
>> >energy, and resources, which have gone into producing these rules. 
>> However,
>> >I never expected anything more.  USDA has never been a friend of organic
>> >farming and they did not want the job of setting these standards in the
>> >first place.
>> >I have opposed OFPA since its inception.  Time does not permit me to
>> >elaborate all the reasons for my opposition, however, I refer you to the
>> >Demeter Association OFPA position paper (BIODYNAMICS #188, July/August
>> >1993), which was submitted to NOSB several years ago. The proposed
rules we
>> >have today simply affirm my reasons for opposing OFPA.
>> >
>> >Although we are essentially forced by the rule making process into
>> >commenting on the specifics of the proposed rule, what is needed is to
>> >repeal OFPA.  It is a misguided and fatally flawed piece of legislation. 
>> At
>> >most what is needed from USDA is to facilitate development and
>> communication
>> >of a national definition of  “organic”, which is created and controlled by
>> >the community of organic farmer’s and consumers.  Certification and
>> >accreditation should be voluntary and private.  We do not need a large,
>> >costly bureaucracy, which is what we will get with OFPA.  What we do need
>> is
>> >a secure and safe food system built on community based partnerships
between
>> >farmers and consumers.
>> >
>> >The foregoing remarks notwithstanding, I want to comment on three specific
>> >aspects of the proposed rules: 1) USDA’s proposed restrictions on the use
>> of
>> >certifying logos to represent higher standards than the NOP (section
>> >205.301); 2) restrictions on eco-labeling (section 205.103); and 3) I want
>> >to propose that NOP differentiate certifying procedures for farmers
serving
>> >local, direct markets and farmers serving larger scale, national and
>> >international markets.
>> >
>> >Time restraints prevent me from saying much about the first two issues.
>> >Numerous comments regarding their inappropriateness have already been
>> >submitted.  At this point I only want to say that taken together these two
>> >sections of the proposed rule are nothing short of an assault on my rights
>> >as a farmer to inform consumers about my farm practices; and on my rights
>> as
>> >a consumer to know how my food is grown.  However, I see them as perfectly
>> >consistent with other efforts by USDA and FDA, especially with regard to
>> >genetically engineered foods, to restrict open and free communication
>> >between agricultural producers and consumers.
>> >
>> >The issues
>> >
>> >Stifles efforts to seek excellence (not presented orally)
>> >
>> >The proposed rule would prohibit private organic certifiers from
certifying
>> >or labeling products that differentiate "any farming or handling
>> >requirements other than those provided for" under OFPA and USDA’s
>> >regulations (Sec. 205.301). The issue has been widely discussed by many
>> >people, including Fred Kirschenmann.  As Fred has already stated, “Such
>> >regulations not only take power and preference away from consumers, and
>> >limit the market opportunities of producers, they restrict commercial free
>> >speech and leave chemically sensitive and allergic people without any
>> >reliable choices in the marketplace that can potentially protect them from
>> >harm.”
>> >
>> >Under such rules, where is the incentive to improve? To raise the
standard?
>> >What right does the government have to restrict a certifying group from
>> >exceeding the standards set by USDA and telling the consumer about that?
>> >This is exactly the kind of outrageous proposal we can expect when we
>> invite
>> >the government to take on the job of regulating organic farming.  As
>> >expressed by D.B. Johnson, “is it the USDA's intent to restrict the
>> >certifying agent from evolving their business toward the future and
>> >communicating extraordinary, beyond-compliance ethics, processes, and
>> >products in the marketplace?”
>> >
>> >What does this clause mean for Demeter certification and biodynamic farms?
>> >I generally market my produce as organic, but I also label my produce as
>> >Demeter certified biodynamic; and I make a point of telling consumers that
>> >this is a higher standard.  Am I to believe that under USDA’s proposed
>> rules
>> >I can no longer do that?
>> >
>> >According to the USDA’s preamble, NOSB “adopted a recommendation as a
>> policy
>> >matter that was consistent with the provisions” of the proposed section
>> >205.301.  Is that true?  Does NOSB support section 205.301 as
proposed?  Do
>> >you agree that certifiers not be allowed to use their seal or logo to
>> >recognize “additional achievements?”
>> >
>> >Eco-labeling Issues (not presented orally)
>> >
>> >Section 205.103 prohibitions against eco-labeling are another outrageous
>> >flaw in the proposed rules.  Unfortunately, the problem is OFPA itself.
>> >Section 2106(a)(1)(B) of OFPA refers to "any terms or phrases that
directly
>> >or indirectly imply that a product has been organically produced". 
>> Although
>> >the crafters of OFPA may not have intended it, this section allows rules
>> >which attempt to extend control beyond the word "organic" to encompass an
>> >entire concept.  It is nothing less than attempt at mind control.  It is
>> >absolutely unacceptable and probably unconstitutional.  Is there any doubt
>> >that it will ultimately be tested in court?  Although wording of the
USDA’s
>> >rules might alleviate some questions arising from this section, it is OFPA
>> >itself that must ultimately be amended.
>> >Again I ask, where does this section leave me as a biodynamic farmer?
>> >Unfortunately, biodynamics implies organic, in spite of its historical
>> >precedence and significant different practices.  If I choose not to become
>> >certified under OFPA, am I prohibited from claiming to be biodynamic? 
This
>> >is simply another example of the absurdity of OFPA and these rules.
>> >
>> >Certification for Direct Market Farms
>> >
>> >USDA’s proposed rules and your own recommendations to USDA attempt to
>> >develop a “one size fits all” certification program for organic farms. 
The
>> >diversity of organic farms and markets is ignored in this myopic
>> >bureaucratic mentality.  In reality what we have is a proposed rule which
>> is
>> >motivated by and intended for industrialized organic agriculture, in which
>> >the farmer and consumer are disconnected and remote from one another. The
>> >heart and soul of the organic community, the typical smaller grower,
>> serving
>> >farmer’s markets, CSA’s, and roadside stands, is lost in the shuffle.  Why
>> >is it necessary or appropriate to apply the same system to local,
>> >direct-to-consumer markets? .  Farmer's Markets, roadside stands, CSA's
>> >should be exempt from whatever rules are adopted.
>> >Although farms coming under this heading will be predominantly smaller
>> >farms, I am not talking about a “small farm exemption”.  I am talking
about
>> >the nature of the market, and more importantly the relationship between
>> >farmer and consumer.  Isn't fair to assume that when the consumer and
>> farmer
>> >meet in a face-to-face transaction they don't need the federal government
>> to
>> >intervene, or even a third-party inspector? When has the USDA demonstrated
>> >it better understood these issues than the typically well-informed
consumer
>> >perusing the aisles at the local farmer's market, or the family making
>> their
>> >weekly trip to the farm to pickup their CSA share?
>> >
>> >Although I have proposed an exemption for such markets, it appears that
>> OFPA
>> >prohibits such exemptions.  (More nonsense from this ill-conceived
>> >legislation.)  If an exemption is prohibited then, I suggest that, if an
>> NOP
>> >is established, it utilize a different certification process for direct to
>> >consumer markets.  USDA marketing programs often contain special
provisions
>> >for direct to consumer markets.
>> >
>> >Direct market farm certification should require minimum paperwork and fees
>> >and be largely based on the ability of consumers to judge for themselves
>> >whether or not the farmer with whom they are dealing is making an
authentic
>> >claim of farming organically.  Here is an outline of how such a
>> >certification program might look:
>> >
>> >? Proposed Certification Elements
>> >    ? Paperwork submitted to chosen certifying agent (private or state)
>> >    ? Simple farm plan questionnaire (2 pages maximum)
>> >    ? Affidavit regarding compliance with OFPA
>> >    ? Written policy of accessibility of farm to customers (see below
under
>> >“on-site inspection”)
>> >    ? Maintain records applicable to organic farm
>> >? Fees
>> >    ? Sliding scale fee based on gross annual income
>> >? On-site inspection
>> >    ? OFPA (§6506(a)(5)) provides for annual on-site inspection.  The
>> >premise of this proposal is that in the case of growers serving local
>> >markets, an elaborate and costly inspection is not necessary.  The
>> >accessibility of the farm to local consumers supercedes the need for
costly
>> >outside inspection.  Therefore, it is proposed herein that as long as the
>> >farm maintains a policy of accessibility to its local customers,
additional
>> >annual site visit by the certifier’s representative is not required.
>> >? Labeling and signage
>> >    ? Labeling, brochures, P-O-P materials must indicate that products are
>> >certified organic for local market consumption, i.e., not for sale outside
>> >local farmer’s market, CSA, or roadside stand.
>> >
>> >Closing remarks
>> >
>> >The needs of small growers have been overlooked since the inception of
>> OFPA.
>> >I suspect that you will no doubt tinker with your past effort, but not
>> >really address the tough questions presented by the reality that OFPA is
>> >fatally flawed and should be repealed.  I have no expectation that USDA’s
>> >second iteration of proposed rules will serve the organic community any
>> >better than the current proposal.
>> >
>> >In my opinion, the NOSB will ultimately be populated with persons
>> >sympathetic with the agri-business special interests, which currently
>> >control USDA.  None other than Congressman Peter DeFazio himself,
co-author
>> >of OFPA, recognizes this problem in relation to the national materials
>> list:
>> >“The USDA's interpretation of the law threatens the future of the organic
>> >food industry. Even if the current administration has the best intentions
>> >toward the organic industry, future administrations may not.
Unfortunately,
>> >even this administration has used this authority to add items to the list
>> >that the public has already rejected.”
>> >
>> >As far as I can see his remarks are applicable to the entire proposed NOP,
>> >not just the list.
>> >
>

An organic growers homepage check out

http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html

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".