I would appreciate knowing more about the European organic certification policy and
specifically how farmers in transition are subsidized for going toward organic. I
recently met with a colleague from Italy who had statistics on organic acreage --
Sweden and Austria are up to almost 10% of their land in organic production. In her
opinion much of the switch to organic production is occuring 1) because of consumer
demand, but 2) the EU policy of encouraging organic agriculture through the CAP's
rural life development program. (I hope I'm making sense to you; I don't have some
of the exact terminology on EU programs etc.)
Thanks for any info you have.
Mary
-- Mary Hendrickson, Ph.D. Department of Rural Sociology University of Missouri Columbia, MO 65211 Tele: 573-882-7463 Fax: 573-882-1473
> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 18:14:50 +0000 > From: "Frits v/d Laan" <F.vd.Laan@inter.nl.net> > Subject: > Any other opinions? compulsery certification > > Douglas > > > Compulsory certification is bad for many reasons: > If you mean to use the word 'Organic' > The word ORGANIC is only alowed to be used by CERTIFIED > growers/farmers in Europe. > There are lots of farmers working organic but not certified, they > cannot use the word Organic, or the national equivalent of the word. > > > > It is inconsistent with the needs of CSA operations and local consumption > > preferences in general; > If you know your farmer/consumer this works fine. > > > It drives costs up unnecessarily for many long time, truly organic farmers > > incapable of covering those costs; > There should be some subsidising from the government. > conventional farmers let the environment and later generations pay > for there way of producing. > > > 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; > You can still say that yyour produce is grown organicly but you can't > prove it. > > > > There are alternative and depending on the circumstances, frequently > > preferable methods of determining whether a given product complies with the > > standard; > someone has to check it and someone has to pay for checking the > farms/products > > 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; > The certifier has to be independant in the way they work from the > government but dependent from international organic rules. > > > 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; > I would't trust market driven certifiers. > > > > 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; > Countries like Germany, brittain, belgium have more than one > organisation for certification. The Netherlands only have one. > All EU certifiers use the same rules. > > Frits v/d Laan > Biologische boomkwekerij/ > Organic horticulture > Gouda - Netherlands > http://web.inter.nl.net/users/F.vd.Laan/ > f.vd.laan@inter.nl.net
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".