Are you kidding? Some example you picked!
Diane said > > Let those that want the rules abide by them.
> If I were an organically-inclined consumer, about to be charged $1.50/lb
> for "organic" onions, I would want to know that the term organic has a
> consistent meaning. An argument can be made that this is essential for
> the growth of the organic foods industry.
All anyone needs to do is know who grew and/or certified the product.
Anyone interested enough to do that is either knowledgeable enough to
judge on that basis, or can contact grower and/or certifying agency for
more details - and even visit the farm. This has nothing what-so-ever
to do with organic foods's being required to be run the gamlet of a
federally administered program that substantially increments costs and
attempts to transfer authority from the grower and/or certifying agency
to itself (with the help of a few organic turncoats and a lot of others
who haven't quite managed yet to cut through the hyperbole (where do you
fit in, Dale)?
Why are some folks so anxious to have the federal government (which
already has plenty to do in areas that are within their scope - how
about a getting a little more research done on bio-control, for
instance), step in between the grower and the consumer? Consumers were
never the driving force for OFPA, it was the marketers (and would be
I myself am not opposed to either a (legitimate) legal defination of
organic nor a USDA administered organic program. I AM opposed to
mandatory certification, and the usurpation of the term organic by a
goverment only too sensitive to private interests that are either
affluent or by coincidence have managed to develope a cozy relationship
with a few of the powers that be within the Agency (and I don't mean
with the foot soldiers).
In commerce, the meaning of the word organic must remain relevant to a
series of land husbandry and growing methods and not a certification
procedure, which will clearly establish a class of organic high priests
who both work less and are much less important than they'd like others
to think they are.
> I don't believe the US government is out of control.
That doesn't mean the US government (or ANY government) should be handed
a degree of control it doesn't merit nor have competence in. Why fence
off the range when the situation is not out of control as is?
And there's a big difference between drawing lines and putting up
still down at the border
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command