sounds like that old Abbott/Costello exchange "Who's on First?"
Douglas Hinds wrote:
> Hello Sal & all
> Sal was very eloquent and is totally right! OFPA is fundamentally
> wrong in mandating obligatory USDA Organic Certification. Once a
> decent Organic Rule has been developed and supported by the organic
> community, those that need it will adhere to it and participate; but
> USDA Organic Certification is going to have to be either non
> compulsory or unconstitutional. Let it rest on it's own merit and let
> the buyer insist on which certification program he, she or it
> requires, if any.
> Craig too is correct when he says:
> > first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that usda
> > develop a national program of standards setting and certification .
> > . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's
> > disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and
> > signed by the president, not with the usda-ams implementation of the
> > legislation
> Having been passed by congress and signed by the president does not
> make the obligatory aspect of USDA Organic Certification
> constitutional (much less necessary or fair), and Sal is right again
> when claiming that the $5000 limit for exemption is a "rip off". In
> fact, it's ridiculous and offensive.
> OFPA as written will either be amended or become bogged down in court.
> If implemented as it now reads, there will be serious liabilities
> generated that will have attended to at a high cost, in the end.
> Douglas Hinds
> Monday, November 01, 1999, 9:21:21 AM, you wrote:
> S> ----- Original Message -----
> S> From: Harris, Craig <Craig.Harris@ssc.msu.edu>
> S> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; 'Bluestem Associates' <email@example.com>
> S> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 2:08 PM
> S> Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program
> >> it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of
> >> problems with certification . . . .
> >> first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that USDA
> S> develop a national program of standards setting and certification .
> S> . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's
> S> disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and
> S> signed by the president, not with the USDA-ams implementation of
> S> the legislation
> S> calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off
> S> taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off
> S> set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks
> S> if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the
> S> inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy
> S> now I pay a certifier, a inspector ,the state of Ca. etc how many pencil
> S> pushing bureaucrats do I have to pay off just for telling the truth and
> S> they all require paper work and can all charge me what they want. whats
> S> with that. no one can tell you what you will have to pay to be organic
> S> because every one charges what they want and u have to pay. it's a rip off
> S> there are too many folks NOW with their hands in our pockets now.
> S> I can't afford to give all these folks money now.
> S> the organic tax is a rip off.
> >> second, when the first draft of the proposed implementation was released
> S> for review last year, one of the major criticisms was that the cost of
> >> certification would be unduly burdensome for small organic farmers
> >> . . .
> S> it seems to me that a cost-share arrangement addresses that
> S> criticism . . . if one is going to be critical of the cost-sharing
> S> proposals, i think one has to suggest ways in which they can be
> S> revised (or alternatives implemented) which at the same time
> S> mitigate the undue cost burden
> S> easy take the burden off the backs of the growers. they are paying to much
> S> now. why do I have to pay a certifier and the state of Ca. both for the same
> S> thing and why should I pay the USDA for the same thing I am paying everyone
> S> else for. why do I have to give paper work to the state and be inspected by
> S> the state and the certifier and pay them both for the same dam thing. its a
> S> big rip off NOW and the USDA are talking about adding to the burden not
> S> lifting it. I say let those that are lying pay and those that are telling
> S> the truth not pay
> S> this whole thing is a rip off. Mafia protection money . you get a letter
> S> from the state of Ca. ok your organic now you have to pay us every year and
> S> kiss up to us and the certifier sends a letter ok your organic now You have
> S> to pay us every year year after year and the inspector sends us a bill yes
> S> you are organic now you have to pay me every year year after year for the
> S> rest of your life . I know I am organic what did i get from all this
> S> nothing but a stinking little piece of paper more work. more bosses more
> S> slavemasters now the USDA want to get into the act. ok your organic now
> S> every year year after year after year you have to pay us. bull shit how
> S> many pencil pushing bottom feeders do u have to pay off to tell the truth
> S> organic Gestapo
> S> extortion
> S> force labor
> S> slavery
> S> the Mafia won they are now the Government and they got the organic grower by
> S> the cohoniess and all these folks can charge what every they want and we
> S> have to pay.
> S> I can go on and on . those that feel it know it.
> S> I say organic growers should not have to pay one cent more than any other
> S> grower to grow and sell their crops and if they are organic they should be
> S> able to tell anyone the truth. if the USDA wants to set a standard let them
> S> if the USDA wants to regulate certifiers let them but don't tax the organic
> S> grower for doing the good that he knows.
> S> Its too much now
> S> not one more cent
> S> I need my money go rob someone else.
> To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: