I wonder why there couldn't be just a USDA "certified organic FOR
EXPORT" program for those who want to be able to participate in
international markets, and those who only want domestic certification
could opt for a cheaper private label certification?
It seems to me that the most compelling reason for national
standards is to facilitate international trade. For example, without
national standards, trade with the EU is quite a bit more involved,
less efficient (and for that reason more expensive) because we do not
have a federal govt program, and there is always the chance that the
EU will do what the Japanese have done and say "until you get
national govt-instituted standards, we won't accept your organic
label." (This is what I have been told is the latest stand of the
Japanese, though I don't have a reference for this info.) Let me
repeat this: there is tremendous pressure from external markets to
have a national organic program that is put out by the government.
This is not something that AMS invented just to make everyone's life
more difficult! Organic export markets are lucrative (and
potentially even more so) so this is an important issue. (Lawrence
and Sal, if you want to know why it is that the EU and Japan and
who-knows-next wants a stamp of approval from USDA rather than IFOAM
or OTA, that is a whole other discussion/dilema.)
However, in most cases, I'd guess (don't have stats) that the
products of the vast majority of organic producers never get near
international markets. Even now, most producers know that if they
want to sell abroad, they better certify with one of the big,
internationally recognized certifiers like Oregon Tilth, QAI, OCIA,
etc. They wouldn't certify with Podunk Certified Organic
Organization, even though the standards with Podunk might be rigorous
and respectable. So I think that there is already a precident for
this sort of two-tier certifying.
I think it should be recognized that not all organic producers look
alike. Bart has pointed out several time now that there is a wide
range of quality and integrity. So I guess we shouldn't do away with
the inspectors yet, as Sal suggests. But we could organize things a
bit and allocate extra costs to those who will benefit from extra
certification.. I don't see why a farmer who just wants to market at
the farmer's market or to national stores with a certified organic
label should pay the extra expenses incurred so that someone else can
produce a product (or an ingredient of a product) that is intended
for export.
These are some of my thoughts as to the arrangement of the deck
chairs, as long as we're consigned to life on the Titanic. I have to
say that if we have the choice of changing boats, I much prefer
Roberto's idea of putting the inspection burden on those who choose
to farm with chemicals. Maybe the "sick" farm should have to get a
"prescription" for his agro-chemicals! And while I'm designing this
new LIFE boat.... Let's put the ideas of that design guy that Ann
mentioned in charge of the Land Grant Schools of Agriculture
curriculae. I just love the whole change of perspecitive offered in
this scenario.
Anita
Anita Graf
Market Development of National Organic Products
University of Georgia
make a difference: http://www.thehungersite.com
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