high cost of organics

Roberto Verzola (rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org)
02 Nov 99 12:13:23

>Incidentally, another of the hidden foibles of OFPA is the certainty
>of elevating (or maintaining elevated) the cost of "organically"
>produced food stuffs. (Could this have been intentional)?

Of course, it is intentional. There are two options for the government
to do:

1) if you choose to be organic, you must pay me to inspect you that
you don't use chemicals blah blah, as Sal said.

2) if you use chemicals, you must pay me to inspect you that you don't
use too much blah blah

The first option favors the chemical firms, because it makes organic
expensive, even with lower inputs. In effect, it makes chemical use
the default. The second option favors organics, because it makes
chemically-grown crops more expensive. It makes organic the default.

If the government used the first option (we're not even talking of
subsidies here!). Organics will take over very quickly. This approach
will automatically take care of the cheats who falsely claim they are
organic, but use chemicals. They can be prosecuted for evading
inspection.

No chemicals, no need for certification. This should be the goal.

Roberto

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail