No one is opposed to certification - some people need it and some don't. The
problem is with the COMPULSORY certification that the US OFPA mandates, and the
negative effects this has already produced (in spite of not having yet become an
active law) on farmers like Sal and many more.
The word organic refers to a set of practices and principles which were being used
by those who pioneered organics, long before certification became common. Now that
the term organic has earned a significant degree of consumer recognition,
intermediaries who contribute little or nothing to the process seek to restrict the
rights of independant farmers in order to create a climate that provides them with
an unearned economic benefit. This is nothing more than influence peddling - a long
standing form of corruption. In many cases no value is added by certification, in
others it is. Let it stand on it's own merit.
Let those who want or need it subscribe to it. In any case, the word organic's
meaning is inherent to to the growing and handling process, not the label; and
therefore belongs to those who do things organically (not those who claim an
exclusive right to say what is or isn't organic). In short: The seal of a
certifier may or not enhance the credibility of the claim.
Let those who need it use it, without forcing all concerned to do the same.
Compulsory certification has no place in OFPA and should be removed. This may not
be a trivial task - but if itīs not done, OFPA will cause more harm than good and
most likely fail as a result, obviating the benefits it's capable of bringing as a
consistent definition (consistent with the organic tradition and international
standards that now exist), founded in a national law of the world's biggest consumer
of organic products . Nothing more follows.
Frits v/d Laan wrote:
> With thanks to Kathryn & Douglas for the reply.
> Sal wrote.
> > Compulsory certification is a rip off.
> > One year $50 the next $250 the next who knows they just gave them
> > self a raise now they get 2/3 of their pay just for driving over to the farm
> >. I got inspected 2 times
> As far as I know I pay about $ 300 a year for certification.
> I get a few checks and a lot of thrust (positive) from them in
> > last year in the same week once by a Ca state inspector (who has a job also of
> > checking for bad and rare diseases and pest which they can carry here and
> > once by my certifier who may be carrying diseases and pest from the last
> >farm they checked
> On my "farm' I have a sign saying : No walking between the plants!
> and I make sure that any customer or inspector keeps to it.
> When asked if they can go between the plants I will say no if they
> are wet.
> > Just say no to the compulsory certification rip off.
> I think IF you want to use the word ORGANIC there has to be
> inspection so any customer knows that it is checked and certified.
> > . Growing organic has been free for 60000 years only this
> > generation of vipers wants to charge a grower because he is organic and force
> > you to pay to prove it every year Year after year.
> I do agree that not the organic farm should pay but the ones that
> pollute, that's why I argued for (government)subsidies.
> Frits v/d Laan
> Biologische boomkwekerij/
> Organic horticulture
> Gouda - Netherlands
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: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".