There are so many people with their hand out now it is nuts.
and each one comes with its own bag of trash.
In Ca. you have your certifier and their bag of trash and you have the
State Department of Food and AGr that not only charges you money also but
make you do every thing that the certifier makes you do but adds an extra
bag of trash with extra information you have to give them in order to
provide a report on the size and scope of the Ca. organic industry and if
you don't provide it your not organic any more what trash. and so that is
where the slave master come in as you have to do their work because they
are not doing anything for the organic grower only giving us more trash. .
Yes master any thing you say master. that is just another bag of trash the
organic growers if forced to carry and the fed. thing with the USDA and boy
they will add even another big big bag of trash to being an organic grower.
Their bag of trash is so big people are saying at last no more trash please.
. I am up to here with all this . so not only do you have to farm organic
but you got to carry all these other peoples trash bags that are only a
burden to you and they do not help you to be organic. All these made
political jobs and all these extra hoops that have nothing to do with being
organic. The grower has to support the big buracratic Mafia that only takes
. Each with its own burden. The sheepard is suppose to feed the flock not
fleece it. Today we have a good system don't let chicken little scare you.
Today we have good Certifiers and good inspectors and darn good growers
coming together and folks have a choice as to witch certified and witch
farmer to buy from. There is a lot more right today with business taking
care of business then there is wrong. How many bureaucratic pencil pushers
does one have to pay off to be able to farm organic and how much extra trash
baggage come with it? Too much already. An organic growers Declaration of
independents
Option 3
Abandon implementation and go to an independent standard and regulatory.
Get the USDA/OGC/OMB/ and the Ca. Organic program monkey off our backs.
Look what the USDA has done for the small farmer they are almost all gone
and if you see one it is not because of the USDA and look at the black
farmer all most gone thanks to the USDA and you want to turn organic growing
over to these folks that do not love it like we do. Turn the chickens over
to the fox. The USDA are the wolf in sheep clothing pretending to be sheep
like us but they are not like use. They can fool some of the sheep some of
the time but not all the sheep all the time. And this thing about not giving
a organic farmer a fair hearing . Who don't want that?
check out a organic growers web page
http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Sprinkraft@aol.com <Sprinkraft@aol.com>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Date: Sunday, November 15, 1998 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: Organic Standards
>USDA National Organic Program: The Crisis Continues
>
>As I wrote earlier ten days ago, " Organic Agriculture began as a
revolution.
>Revolutions are always difficult to codify..."
>
>Now comes a counter-revolution, a wheel within the wheel.
>
>There is a fairly broad movement building now that calls for abandoning the
>federal process. Private certifiers, individual organic farmers, activists,
>some members of the National Organic Standards Board itself ( whose
allegiance
>to the process was never very firm), have just about had it with USDA.
>
>The folks who were initially repulsed by the very idea of USDA oversight on
>organic agriculture have every right and reason to say " I told you so!"
>
>The Organic Foods Production Act wasn't that bad of an effort. Eight years
>later, we have a pretty funky mess on our hands. There is not much of a
>salvage crew left to make sense of what WE have wrought during all this
time.
>We ignored it for years, and to ignore it now will be just as troublesome.
>Ignored it? Yes, we ignored the entire process. Very few people became
>familiar with the law, tried to comprehend the players and systems at USDA,
>worked for better representation on the NOSB, attended the meetings or
>corresponded with the Agricultural Marketing Service personnel when
>rulewriting began in 1991-92.
>
>Individuals have always had differing opinions about what organic
agriculture
>was. Few may remember that 20 years ago the use of urea was acceptable-to
>some- and I recall how we went round and round on that one, with one side
>reminding us that synthetic urea was just like its natural cousin. Never
mind
>that naturally ocurring urea is not a marketed commodity. The problem as
that
>there were some farmers who thought they needed it, and their peer group
was
>at first poorly prepared to explain why it was not acceptable. But
eventually
>we figured out some criteria- the natural versus synthetic paradigm.
>
>For a deja-vu, consider Biotech's argument to EPA that GMO soybeans are not
>substantively different from normal beans.
>
>We are still embroiled in subjective arguments based on "need" versus
absolute
>criteria.
>
>For example:
>We are still trying to finesse the use of synthetic paraciticdes on
livestock,
>according to regional need. Organic consumers are pretty well against
>antibiotics, and know very little about paraciticide use in organic
>agriculture. I imagine they would be surprised to learn that synthetic
>anthelmics like Abendiazole and Ivermectin are acceptable according to some
>certification organizations. This is what USDA/AMS Issue Paper Number Two
>covers, and for your viewing pleasure it is on the web at usda.ams/nop, and
>one may also comment via email.
>
>
>Issue Paper 2. The Use of Antibiotics and Parasiticides in Organic
Livestock
> Production
>
>1. Goal
>
> USDA's goal is to establish clear, consistent regulations that
stimulate
>the growth of the organic livestock sector, satisfy consumer expectations
and
>allow organic livestock producers flexibility in making site-specific,
real-
>time management decisions.
>
>2. Issue
>
> In its proposed rule published December 16, 1997 (62 FR 65850), USDA
>specifically requested public comment on the use of animal drugs in the
>production of organic livestock. Many commenters advocated the adoption of
>the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recommendations on both
>antibiotics and parasiticides. The NOSB recommendations prohibit the use
of
>antibiotics and parasiticides in organic production except under certain
>clearly delineated animal health conditions.
>
> Many other commenters go beyond the options proposed by USDA and the
NOSB
>by advocating an absolute prohibition on the use of antibiotics in organic
>livestock production. Further, commenters who specifically mention the use
of
>parasiticides as an area of concern assert that the language in the
proposed
>rule defining the term routine use of parasiticides as administering a
>parasiticide to an animal without cause is inadequate. These commenters
>suggest that it would be too easy for producers to find cause to administer
a
>parasiticide, and that they might therefore become reliant on parasiticides
>rather than on preventative measures. Some commenters would prefer a
complete
>ban on the use of all animal medications, including antibiotics and
>parasiticides, in organic livestock production.
>
>3. Background
>
> The OFPA prohibits only the use of subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics
>and of
>synthetic internal parasiticides on a routine basis. Since young animals
are
>especially vulnerable to disease, USDA believed there was sufficient
>justification for additional protection in the early days of life. To
ensure
>the health of animals during critical periods, USDA also allowed the
>therapeutic use of antibiotics in dairy and breeder stock because of the
>animals' longevity and the potential for infections arising from pregnancy
and
>delivery. USDA attempted to capture the statutory prohibition on routine
use
>of parasiticides by defining such use as, administering a parasiticide to
an
>animal without cause.
>
>4. Options
>
> In light of these comments, USDA is analyzing options to assist in
>determining the proper role for antibiotics and parasiticides in organic
>livestock production. Options under consideration, along with USDA's
>assessment of the pros and cons of each option, are listed below:
>
>Option 1 Prohibit all use of antibiotics and parasiticides
>
> Pros
>
> Consistent with many comments
>
> Cons
>
> Animal health could be adversely affected, particularly that of
>young animals
>
> Inconsistent with NOSB recommendations
>
> Compliance verification could be difficult
>
> Could limit industry growth by preventing the production of some
>types of
> livestock in specific geographic areas
>
>Option 2 Prohibit the use of all animal medications, other than
vaccinations,
> including antibiotics and parasiticides
>
> Pros
>
> Consistent with some comments
>
> Cons
>
> Animal health could be adversely affected, particularly that of
>young animals
>
> Inconsistent with NOSB recommendations
>
> Compliance verification could be difficult
>
> Could limit industry growth by preventing the production of some
>types of livestock in specific geographic areas
>
>Option 3 Allow the therapeutic use of antibiotics and the non-routine use
of
> parasiticides under specific animal health conditions
>
> Pros
>
> Consistent with NOSB recommendations
>
> Allows for the protection of animal health
>
> Animal production could be enhanced
>
> Provides producer/certifier flexibility to respond to rapidly
>changing animal
> health conditions
>
> Cons
>
> Compliance verification could be difficult
>
> USDA is interested in exploring other options. Additionally, we are
>seeking
>comments on the following questions: What economic impact would the
>prohibition of all medication, including antibiotics and parasiticides,
have
>on organic livestock producers?
>
> Under what conditions, if any, could an animal for slaughter receive a
>synthetic
>internal parasiticide? An external parasiticide? What about breeding
stock
>or dairy
>animals?
>
> Should we make provisions for the use of synthetic parasiticides where
>other
>measures has proven ineffective?
>
> Would annual or semi-annual organic certification site visits be
>sufficient to ensure that preventative measures are being carried out and
that
>antibiotics and parasiticides are being administered in accordance with the
>Act and its regulations? When permitted by regulation, should the use of
>antibiotics and parasiticides be resolved on a case-by-case basis between
>certifier and producer?
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^
>^^^^^^^
>
>>From SANET a few months ago: Please read with the total OFPA criteria for
the
>use of a synthetic substance in mind ( such substances can not be harmful
to
>human health or the environment)
>
>GREATER HORSESHOE BAT, DISAPPEARANCE - UK
>*****************************************
>A ProMED-mail post
>
>Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 18:29:27 -0500
>Source: The Times, August 5 1998
>Via: Martin Hugh-Jones
>
>Drug laden cowpats are threatening the survival of one of Britain's
>most endangered species of bat, it is claimed, because the pats no
>longer contain the rich supply of dung beetles and other insects that
>are an important source of food for the greater horseshoe bat [Bat
>News, the newsletter of the Bat Conservation Trust].
>
>A vital component of the bats' diet is one species of dung beetle,
>_Aphodius rufipes_, which favours fresh pats. As many as one hundred
>beetle larvae, providing many meals for infant bats when they hatch
>and fly, can be found developing in a single pat.
>
>David Appleton, working on behalf of the environmental group English
>Nature, recently toured farms in the West Country close to the
>maternal roosts of bats trying to persuade farmers not to use wormers
>based on the avermectin group of chemicals - which are believed to be
>causing the damage. Apparently avermectin renders the pats lethal for
>beetle larvae for up to 120 days. Mr Appleton told Bat News: "The
>female dung beetles can lay their eggs on it but the young die."
>
>It is estimated that there are only about 4,000 greater horseshoe bats
>left in Britain, mainly in the West Country.
>
>[Written by: MICHAEL HORNSBY]
>
>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".
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".