This really begins half way down. DH
Michele Gale-Sinex/CIAS, UW-Madison wrote:
> Howdy, all -- An organic inspector here in Wis. asked if I'd pass this along
> to
> y'all. peace misha (the "ontological relativist" and wedge-driver--more
> later)
Many will be waiting for the next round.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> OMFA Website: www.iquest.net/ofma
>
> INFORMATION RELEASE: July 22, 1998
Please take note of where this is coming from, as indicated above
> Secretary Glickman of the USDA holds a public meeting on the role of
> the National Organic Standards Board. Washington DC
>
> An invitation to meet with Secretary Glickman and staff:
>
> Keith Jones, Director of the USDA National Organic Program invited the
> National Organic Standards Board members and the public attending the
> National Organic Standards Board Meeting to meet with Secretary
> Glickman at the USDA's Administration Building on Independence Ave.
> 3:30 PM, Wednesday, July 22.
Today's date is July 28, a little late for providing advance notice of this
event .
> Undersecretary Romminger, Assistant
> Secretary for Agricultural Marketing, Mike Dunn and Regulatory
> Services and Enrique Figuereo Administrator of the Agricultural
> Marketing Service were present along with other USDA staff.
>
> Secretary Glickman indicated that it is evident from the number and
> wide diversity of public comments received by the Department to the
> Proposed Organic Rule that organic is a mainstream concern in the US.
> The USDA is prepared to view it as such.
A mainstream concern with diverse currents and interests. The question is,
which and whose will be respected?
> During the meeting, Secretary Glickman indicated the USDA is not
> concerned about producing more corn and soybeans, but keeping more
> farmers farming.
So far so good - as far as it goes.
> In his statement, Secretary Glickman assured the attendees substances
> will be considered by the Department for inclusion on the National
> List only if they are a recommendation of the National Organic
> Standards Board after proper petition, review and evaluation. This is
> consistent with the language and spirit of the Organic Foods
> Production Act (OFPA) passed by the US Congress in 1990.
> The Organic Farmers Marketing Association [emphasis added] is appreciative
> that the USDA has publicly indicated its support for implementation of the
> Organic Foods Production Act as passed by Congress.
Uh-oh!
This statement is not consistent with the bulk of the wealth of comments
received by the USDA. OFPA itself contains seriously flawed aspects that run
counter to the spirit, tradition and best interests of both organic farmers
and consumers everywhere of organic products; the most serious of which is
compulsory certification, which is by no means necessary in order to achieve a
consistent, national (consistent with international) minimum standard for
organic food products.
Compulsory certification is bad for many reasons:
It is inconsistent with the needs of CSA operations and local consumption
preferences in general;
It drives costs up unnecessarily for many long time, truly organic farmers
incapable of covering those costs;
It is prohibitive of the right to free speech and to offer one's product to
the public of one's choice on the basis of it's own merits;
There are alternative and depending on the circumstances, frequently
preferable methods of determining whether a given product complies with the
standard;
It is a measure designed to provide unwarranted and unearned advantages to the
certifier and/or distributor rather than the farmer and/or consumer, and this
explains the push the measure has received from certain quarters;
Certification is a matter that's best left to be determined by buyers and
sellers of organic products. It will be indicated in many if not most
instances, but inappropriate to others;
The dangers of compulsory certification under the control of a single
governmental agency were amply demonstrated when the word "organic" came all
too close to legally meaning things it has NEVER been meant to mean by any
serious and dedicated participant, due to the excessive powers granted to
government and their "sweethearts" by OFPA;
The above should NOT be misconstrued - there is nothing is wrong with creating
a separate category: "USDA Certified Organic", or with developing a minimum
legal definition of the word organic, WITHOUT requiring certification or
excluding alternative certification procedures. As stated above, when
compliance is in doubt, other and more appropriate means exist to determine
whether a given product fulfills or not, a legal definition of the way it's
advertised. Truth in advertising laws are nothing new.
It represents the worst of Police State mentality; and lastly
It will NOT preclude the possibility of fraud, in ANY case.
The rest of what followed delves into the ingredients issue, and I've got no
quarrel with that. (I'll read it in depth and respond if necessary with more
leisure).
However, I AM unwilling to concede to ANY group (much less a group with well
known vested interests), regardless of the rightness of their stance on other
issues, the right to gloss over an issue as important as the evil inherent in
the compulsory aspect of OFPA. Congress was sold a bill of goods, and the
last on this matter has yet to be heard. Compulsory certification has no
place in OFPA, and invalidates any good OFPA itself is capable of producing.
And both the public and Congress are wiser than they were in 1990.
Any other opinions?
--
Douglas M. Hinds, Director General
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR)
(Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit)
Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO
e-mail: dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@ucol.mx,
cedecor@acnet.net, cedecor@ipnet.com.mx
--------------BFEC678FE797509A32C6B6E6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This really begins half way down. DH
Michele Gale-Sinex/CIAS, UW-Madison wrote:
Howdy, all -- An organic inspector here in Wis. asked if I'd pass this along toMany will be waiting for the next round.
y'all. peace misha (the "ontological relativist" and wedge-driver--more later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Please take note of where this is coming from, as indicated aboveOMFA Website: www.iquest.net/ofma
INFORMATION RELEASE: July 22, 1998
Secretary Glickman of the USDA holds a public meeting on the role ofToday's date is July 28, a little late for providing advance notice of this event .
the National Organic Standards Board. Washington DCAn invitation to meet with Secretary Glickman and staff:
Keith Jones, Director of the USDA National Organic Program invited the
National Organic Standards Board members and the public attending the
National Organic Standards Board Meeting to meet with Secretary
Glickman at the USDA's Administration Building on Independence Ave.
3:30 PM, Wednesday, July 22.
Undersecretary Romminger, AssistantA mainstream concern with diverse currents and interests. The question is, which and whose will be respected?
Secretary for Agricultural Marketing, Mike Dunn and Regulatory
Services and Enrique Figuereo Administrator of the Agricultural
Marketing Service were present along with other USDA staff.Secretary Glickman indicated that it is evident from the number and
wide diversity of public comments received by the Department to the
Proposed Organic Rule that organic is a mainstream concern in the US.
The USDA is prepared to view it as such.
During the meeting, Secretary Glickman indicated the USDA is notSo far so good - as far as it goes.
concerned about producing more corn and soybeans, but keeping more
farmers farming.
In his statement, Secretary Glickman assured the attendees substances
will be considered by the Department for inclusion on the National
List only if they are a recommendation of the National Organic
Standards Board after proper petition, review and evaluation. This is
consistent with the language and spirit of the Organic Foods
Production Act (OFPA) passed by the US Congress in 1990.
The Organic Farmers Marketing Association [emphasis added] is appreciative that the USDA has publicly indicated its support for implementation of theUh-oh!
Organic Foods Production Act as passed by Congress.
Compulsory certification is bad for many reasons:
It is inconsistent with the needs of CSA operations and local consumption preferences in general;
It drives costs up unnecessarily for many long time, truly organic farmers incapable of covering those costs;
It is prohibitive of the right to free speech and to offer one's product to the public of one's choice on the basis of it's own merits;
There are alternative and depending on the circumstances, frequently preferable methods of determining whether a given product complies with the standard;
It is a measure designed to provide unwarranted and unearned advantages to the certifier and/or distributor rather than the farmer and/or consumer, and this explains the push the measure has received from certain quarters;
Certification is a matter that's best left to be determined by buyers and sellers of organic products. It will be indicated in many if not most instances, but inappropriate to others;
The dangers of compulsory certification under the control of a single governmental agency were amply demonstrated when the word "organic" came all too close to legally meaning things it has NEVER been meant to mean by any serious and dedicated participant, due to the excessive powers granted to government and their "sweethearts" by OFPA;
The above should NOT be misconstrued - there is nothing is wrong with creating a separate category: "USDA Certified Organic", or with developing a minimum legal definition of the word organic, WITHOUT requiring certification or excluding alternative certification procedures. As stated above, when compliance is in doubt, other and more appropriate means exist to determine whether a given product fulfills or not, a legal definition of the way it's advertised. Truth in advertising laws are nothing new.
It represents the worst of Police State mentality; and lastly
It will NOT preclude the possibility of fraud, in ANY case.
The rest of what followed delves into the ingredients issue, and I've got no quarrel with that. (I'll read it in depth and respond if necessary with more leisure).
However, I AM unwilling to concede to ANY group (much less a group with well known vested interests), regardless of the rightness of their stance on other issues, the right to gloss over an issue as important as the evil inherent in the compulsory aspect of OFPA. Congress was sold a bill of goods, and the last on this matter has yet to be heard. Compulsory certification has no place in OFPA, and invalidates any good OFPA itself is capable of producing. And both the public and Congress are wiser than they were in 1990.
Any other opinions?
--
Douglas M. Hinds, Director General
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR)
(Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit)
Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO
e-mail: dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@ucol.mx,
cedecor@acnet.net, cedecor@ipnet.com.mx
--------------BFEC678FE797509A32C6B6E6--
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".