Fwd: NOP Rule flyer
sal (sals@rain.org)
Thu, 02 Apr 1998 06:59:23 -0800
>Reply-to: bd-l@biodynamics.com
>Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 23:51:50 -0500
>To: bd-l@biodynamics.com
>From: "John P. Thomas and Kathleen Barrett" <jpt@ime.net> (by way of
> BIODYNAMIC MAIL LIST)
>Subject: NOP Rule flyer
>
>Here is what we wrote for mailing with our latest St. George Farm Update.
>We attached the response sheet (RULE.PDF) from the Save Organics WEB site.
>Contact us for a copy of our update. Feedback on the following will be
>appreciated. Is there anything which is incorrect?
>
>Happy reading
>
>Thanks
>John and Kathleen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>DO YOU WANT THE RIGHT TO KNOW
>WHAT IS IN THE FOOD YOU EAT?
>
>Proposed Federal Organic Food Certification Standards
>Would Prevent You From Making Informed Decisions!!!
>
> Under the proposed National Organic Program Rule, the following
>practices
>could be labeled as organic: Genetic engineering techniques could be used
>to take a gene from a fish cell and place it into a strawberry cell to make
>a more disease resistant plant. The "fishberry" plant could then be grown
>in fields which are fertilized with human sewage sludge. The
>"strawberries" from the fishberry plant could be exposed to ionizing
>radiation to extend their shelf life. All this could be done and the
>strawberries could still display the label "ORGANIC".
>
> The proposed regulations also would prevent organic growers and food
>processors from stating that any of the above practices were not used.
>This means that when consumers buy organically labeled foods they would
>really have no idea of how the foods are grown, what they contain, and how
>they have been processed.
>
> Even more alarming is that the regulations would make it illegal for a
>farmer to say what he/she does not do. This means a grower would be
>prevented from saying "I don't use biosolids, genetically engineered seeds,
>irradiation, etc." They couldn't say "I don't feed animal byproducts from
>slaughterhouses to my cows, and I don't keep my animals confined in
>buildings". What is happening to our freedom of speech? Under the
>proposed rule , farmers who wish to be certified as organic could only use
>the government's standards. No independent organization could certify that
>a farm operates at a higher standard. This means that Demeter could not
>certify a biodynamic farm. The word biodynamic would become illegal when
>connected to a specific farm.
>
> Who would benefit from the new organic regulations? The answer is
>complex
>and up to your imagination. Perhaps some of the following might benefit:
>agribusiness which sees the organic market growing at 20% per year,
>manufacturers of agricultural chemicals who are now investing in the
>production of disease resistant genetically engineered plants, utility
>companies who are looking for ways to use their nuclear waste and
>manufacturers of ionizing radiation equipment, and cities who are looking
>for a place to dump their sewage sludge. What are the spiritual forces of
>darkness who want to paralyze the will of human beings by taking away
>healthy food and replacing it with lifeless dead matter? Who is it that
>wants us to believe that stones are bread?
>
> Who will be hurt by the adoption of the proposed regulations?
>People who
>want the right to choose foods that are grown and processed in ways they
>believe are safe. People who believe that many of our most prevalent
>illnesses are linked to poor food quality and environmental toxicity.
>People who believe children need healthy food to develop into strong and
>fully conscious adults. People who are ill and require the highest quality
>foods to promote health.
>
> How is evil portrayed as good in these proposed regulations? Why do
>farmers who choose to farm organically or biodynamically have to be
>certified by the government? Why are those who use chemicals in farming
>free to do as they will without identifying what chemicals they use to the
>government or to the public? Why can't we have a law which simply says
>that all growers and food processors must give full disclosure regarding
>substances and processes used? This would force the users of possibly
>toxic chemicals and genetically manipulated plants, irradiation, etc. to
>state the facts to the public. Why should it be illegal for someone to say
>that they do not use these and many other practices? Why are the "good"
>health-giving practices of organic and biodynamic farming under scrutiny
>while the "evil" life-taking practices of chemical agriculture being left
>alone?
>
> Is the long term practice of eating genetically altered plants
>safe? Is
>it safe for genetically engineered plants to cross pollinate with wild
>plant species and form unplanned and unknown plant varieties? Why should
>this be called organic agriculture? Why have many European countries
>banned genetically engineered plants from being grown or imported?
>
> What are the dangers of eating plants grown in sewage sludge
>(biosolids)?
>Biosolids contain human excrement in addition to everything else that we
>put down our drains, flush away in our toilets, and industry dumps down
>sewers. What are the spiritual and energetic consequences for human beings
>who eat food grown in chemical laden human waste?
>
> What are the long term consequences of using radiation to preserve
>food?
>Can human life be sustained when we eat foods that have been stripped of
>their etheric life forces by ionizing radiation? Do we live by the matter
>in bread alone?
>
> How can you help preserve the quality and integrity of organic and
>biodynamic food?
>
> Please write a letter to the US Department of Agriculture
>expressing your
>thoughts and feelings about the proposed rule. Refer to items by section
>number and describe the specific reasons for your comments. State that you
>are writing as a concerned consumer (or farmer, retailer, etc.) Refer to
>the Federal Register docket #TMD-94-00-2 in your letter. The attached
>response/information sheet provides specific information about some of the
>most offensive sections of the proposed regulations. This response sheet
>can be used as an alternative to a letter. However, it does not address
>the free speech issues raised by the Mandatory and Exclusive Standard
>(Section 205.301) or provide positive alternatives to the proposed rule.
>Please remember, personal letters are more meaningful. The deadline for
>receiving responses is April 30, 1998. It is extremely important to send a
>copy of your letter to your U.S. Senators and Representatives.
>
>MAIL TO:
>Eileen S. Stommes, Deputy Administrator
>USDA-AMS-TM-NOP
>Room 4007 South
>AgStop 0275
>PO Box 96456
>Washington, DC 20090-6456
>Or FAX TO (202) 690-4632
>
>For Additional Information Contact
>John P. Thomas or Kathleen Barrett
>207-338-9732 or 207-589-4179
>
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".