The question is, which definition are we to accept? Which state is the
real one? (Can states stand up and talk? You're damn right they can.
BA> I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be
And WHO, good buddy, doles out that *privilege*? Do we have to stand
in line for it, after having followed all the appropriate principles,
precepts and practices? Are our buyers and those who consume our
products demanding that?
BA> There are many other marketing words for which you must earn the
BA> privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet all
BA> the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher unless
BA> I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups offering that
BA> service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* not matter.
We are not even going to discuss in this forum, the power that
religion holds over it's disciples.
BA> The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone
BA> can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural."
Bart, what we really need is a comprehensive and consistent definition
of what "organic is and isn't". But leave the need for verifying or
not verifying that to those involved in each and every transaction.
Once a valid legal definition that in turn is congruent with organic
principles and tradition, one that is supported by the organic
community exists; the state of being organic or not organic is
INHERENT IN THE PRODUCT. The product embodies that state, and this
state is something VERIFIABLE when this is appropriate; that is, when
for the demand for it arises. This is true because we are talking
about the possibility of consumer fraud having been committed.
The questions Sal raised (and they're good ones) is WHO should bear
the cost of verification and when should that cost be incurred. The
answer is simple. (In reverse order): When reasonable doubt exists as to
the veracity of the claims made, the cost being born by those that
have made false claims when these have been proved false.
On the one hand a given product is proclaimed to be organic, and on
the other a suspicion has been raised that it isn't. Payment for the
verification procedure should depend on the outcome of those tests.
This is what Sal is saying.
Let the USDA get into the certification business if it wants to, but
let it compete in the market for those services like anybody else:
Based on the merit of the service provided, as judged by those who
use the service. For many, verification on demand will be preferable
to obligatory and universal certification, and the legal basis for
needs to be created.
We can talk about legal definitions, talk about congress and the
president of the united states if you like - but reality is not
created by decree, my friends; nor is the meaning of words,
particularly when they've been around as long as this one has, and has
come to mean what it does precisely because there IS a difference in
the value and results of different types of agricultural production
systems, one founded on biological principles and processes, the other
on easily commercialized bottles of chemicals that make little or no
effort to account for the effects on the environment and human health
I share Sal's outrage and find ample basis for his totally sincere and
well founded analysis of the present situation. He's getting screwed
as things stand and deserves much better treatment from the elected
authorities who've sworn to uphold the public good, with liberty and
justice for all. He's supporting a whole network of bureaucrats that
add no value to the crops he himself produces, at his own cost. The
idea that someone farther away from the scene is better equipped to
determine whether or not his product is as he and his clients say it
is, is an insult. If a reasonable doubt exists, that that doubt be
raised in an appropriate forum, with the risk shared by both parties.
If periodic inspections are called for due to public health concerns
(as they could be in any industry and for organic and conventional
farmers alike), funding for these should be derived from the same tax
moneys that fund any other governmental activity at present, without
penalizing the farmers that are doing more than the rest to produce a
healthy, nutritious product without damaging the environment, and
doing so on the basis of their own effort and conviction, with no help
from those now living off these farmers hard work: Harvesting without
having planted, cashing in without having to take a product to market
I find this recent statement of yours inconsistent with the extremely
well documented statements you sent to the NOP in relation to the Organic
Rule which you were kind enough to send me copies of, and hope that
it's a passing thing.
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: