Re: USDA Position Paper #1 on Proposed US Federal Organic Regulations verbatem - go to this site: -
Sal (sals@rain.org)
Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:01:36 -0800
How can you have a law and not tell the folks how much it will cost them.
don't you know people have to plan out their life and need information.
This not knowing what the USDA is going to do for 10 years is not good for
the growers planing their life. The USDA could have informed the public all
along of what it intended to write in the first proposed rule and there
could have been discussion of the merits all along but noooo. it has been
over ten years of this kind of bs. other agendas out there got in like
genetic engineering and sludge etc got a shot at killing the word organic
but the public. You post your little bs USDA papers and then when people
question your intent you say oh we were just asking it does not mean what it
says. . You sit in your little rooms and frame your mischif and call it
law and use that law to in slave the people. you are going to take over our
Certifiers our inspectors our growers and there will only be one hand book
of organic and it will say USDA and there can be no other higher
certification but USDA. I have never seen where a non funded fed. mandate
can be the rule maker the police the judge and and the jury and charge us a
fee for all the bs. the USDA can cut off dialogue at anytime and go into
secret meetings and come out with a new bag of tricks. this can go on for
years and years more and will if we people don't put a stop to it. .We
wanted a refree not a dictator. I just want to know what we the people can
do to "abandon implementation" and go to an independent standard and
regulatory. what can we do to get USDA/OGC/OMB off our backs. What would
happen of all our certifiers and all our inspectors and all our growers say"
hell no we won't go" Kiss off! What would happen if the whole organic
community tell you that we are not playing your stinking little game any
more and we take our ball and go home.
The USDA does not establish clear,consistent regulations that stimulate the
growth of organic nor do they satisy consumer expectations. The total
federalization of certification is not what anyone who was there in 89-90
envisionded and is not what we have been working for and it turned out to be
a failed approach. We don't need the goverment to micro manage our life.
The OFPA was intitiated and brought to fruition by a coalition of the
organic community and consumer interest and it can be abandon the same way.
the intent was to further the development of a more ecological
agriculture -organic farming-by enhancing the organic market and providing
consistent standards nationwide in the first place but it has turned into a
federalization of the whole movement and a complete takeover. it is no
longer a grower/consumer coaliton but a dictatorship run and controled by
the USDA. Ten years later we all can see something has Failed. it is time
to cut our losses and take our ball and go home.
> "Non-cooperation with injustice is a sacred duty."
>
> Mahatma Gandhi
>
> "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for enough good
> people to do nothing"
>
> Edmund Burke
-----Original Message-----
From: Grace J Gershuny <Grace_J.Gershuny@usda.gov>
To: Receipt Notification Requested <guldann@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: Receipt Notification Requested <OGL@LSV.UKY.EDU>; Receipt Notification
Requested <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Date: Friday, November 20, 1998 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: USDA Position Paper #1 on Proposed US Federal Organic
Regulations verbatem - go to this site: -
>Dear Sanet,
>
>This statement is another of the many myths about the USDA's proposed
>rule. The proposal merely repeated the phrase that is in the law, which
>is: "Any label, labeling or market information that implies directly or
>indirectly that a product, including an ingredient, is organically produced
>and handled may be used only for an agricultural product, including an
>ingredient, that has been produced and handled in accordance with the
>Act and the regulations in this part."
>
>The preamble to this provision requested comments from the public
>concerning what phrases might be construed to "imply directly or
>indirectly" that a product was organic, and gave examples of terms
>currently being used on products. There was no intent or implication that
>everything on that list would be prohibited. The purpose of a request for
>public comment is just that--we want to know what consumers find
>misleading before putting it in a final regulation.
>
>I find it ironic that the questions posed in the preamble in this case have
>been construed as meaning that the examples were intended as the
>actual regulation, whereas similar examples given in the preamble
>concerning questions such as livestock confinement were ignored by
>those accusing USDA of proposing to allow perpetual confinement of
>farm animals.
>
>The statement about USDA certification costing $2000 a year is
>inaccurate--this figure in the proposed fee schedule related to the cost
>of accreditation, while certifiers would continue to set their own fees.
>
>Grace Gershuny
>USDA National Organic Program Staff
>
>*********
>If I recall correctly, I was told that the USDA is trying to make it
>illegal to call anything organic, natural, or free of various additives
>like hormones, chemicals, antibiotics, etc, unless one gets certified by
>the USDA, which would cost $2000 or so per year. Therefore private
>certifiers would be illegal. My source is Juli Brussel of Illinois OCIA.
>Aloha. Lloyd
>***********************
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".