[I don't see a need for uniform standards. Let the buyer beware and let
the buyers and growers form organizations to keep informed about which
certifiers are best and what each one's certifying means, which is
already being done. That's a lot better than expecting the big biz
controlled gov't to straighten out the conflicting standards. As I said
before, they'll just take over the whole process and make "organic" and
"natural" meaningless and unavailable thru obscure legalisms.]
>On slaughter livestock, I reported that each certifier will certify to
>own standards. One of the largest certifiers still calls for antibiotic
>with twice the FDA withdrawl time prior to slaughter. Consumers don't
>anitbiotics used in organic farming, and all the other producers who
>under standards that prohibit antibiotics will be poorly served if the
>believes that organic meat products still don't assure that antibiotics
>not used. It is a double standard.
[Some consumers aren't concerned about some practices that others are
concerned about. Let them find or create a certifier that suits their
particular preferences. It's easier to inform the public and influence
certifiers than it is to make the gov't responsive to our wants over
those of big biz, who obviously want a monopoly in the food industry
just as in every other industry.]
>If you think that its only the government that we have to be concerned
>perhaps you should tune in to what is going on in the organic "
>where the NOSB ( our private sector would-be champions) are now
>special criteria to allow synthetics in processing. Or large organic
>operations that are now allegedly using an MSG product on potatoes
>harvest. Or certification agencies that refuse to accept the standards
>other agencies ( reciprocity its called), obligate producers to have
dual >certification, and listen to the bigger players in organic
>they do to small growers.
[Why can't the consumers organize well enuf to demand meaningful
certification? Can't Community Supported Agriculture and the like
provide an endrun for us around the misbehaving certifiers?]
>I don't take offense at your criticism of my writing. I agree that it
>have been better done, but I was already working beyond my deadline and
>send it as written. I also had to get that behind me and move on to the
>step....or at least figure out what that is going to be..
>Do you have any comments about my letter to VP Gore, also sent to
>Are you in Hawaii?
>Thanks for your reply. Steve
I'm glad you're polite enuf not to take offense for my voicing my
concerns. I'm concerned about the message, not the messenger, except
that you seem to favor gov't intervention, which I feel would make
matters a lot worse, not better. I understand that article may have had
to meet some standards, like maximum lengthiness, etc, for the magazine,
but I don't feel that lengthiness really serves most readers. I hope
this helps you move on to the next step, which is to get real, i.e.
don't expect the corrupt gov't to do us any favors. I didn't read the
letter to Gore, because I feel that he is an opportunist, like most of
the politicians, who is more interested in "fund-raising" than in
helping consumers or the planet. I'm not from Hawaii most of my life. I
just like that greeting. Aloha. Lloyd
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command