i think the premise here is false . . . usda does certify both the safety
and various qualitative attributes of meat and eggs . . . usda establishes
standards and grades for most other commodities, and, in cooperation with
the states, operates inspection programs for those commodities . . . where
inspection and grading is done by a private firm, it must still conform to
usda standards, and not to conform is a violation of federal law
in general the cost of the usda services are actually paid by the processor
or first handler . . . presumably those costs are factored into the price
which the processor or first handler offers the producer for the commodity .
. . similarly, even if the first handler does the certification, presumably
the cost is reflected in the price received by the grower
thus the effect of the ofpa, if it is ever implemented, will be to bring
organic commodities in line with other commodities, not to make organic
commodities different from other commodities
cheers,
craig
craig k harris
department of sociology
michigan state university
429b berkey hall
east lansing michigan 48824-1111
tel: 517-355-5048
fax: 517-432-2856
> ----------
> From: Lawrence F. London, Jr.[SMTP:london@metalab.unc.edu]
> Sent: Sunday 7 November 1999 1:01 PM
> To: Anita Graf (Staff)
> Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
> Subject: Re: USDA organic certification
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:44:33 -0500 (EST)
> > From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." <london@metalab.unc.edu>
> > To: "Anita Graf (Staff)" <agraf@agecon.uga.edu>
> > Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
> > Subject: Re: USDA organic certification
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Anita Graf (Staff) wrote:
> >
> > > Excuse me if these ideas have already been covered. I am very behind
> > > in reading the Sanet posts.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.)
> >
> > Yes, and It is one that makes not a particle of sense. How would "they"
> > (those participating in such a "lucrative" scheme) expect small or
> > medium-sized organic farmers, opposing mandatory certification, to
> > be fooled by such a ploy.
> >
> > 1) Government sets the standards for what constitutes organically
> > produced products - defines the O word
> > 2) Certifying organizations are forced by law to meet these USDA
> > standards or the may exceed, to any degree they choose, these standards
> > 3) Grower, if he wishes to sell to EU, Japan or wherever, hires the
> > certifier of his choice, gets certified and moves on to
> > export his product(s) overseas or at home
> > 4) EU or other, by buying GrowerX's CertifierX-certified product
> > gets "a stamp of approval from USDA" automatically. How could it be
> > otherwise?
> >
> > So, what could possibly be wrong with this system? Tell us what the big
> > mystery is all about, the "that is a whole other discussion/dilema"
> part.
> >
> > Curious,
> >
> > Lawrence
>
> And, as an afterthought, it occured to me that it would be nice for
> our government to tell its citizens that USDA Certified Organic means
> "your government says its really organic, go ahead and buy with
> confidence". However, they have not bothered with such quality
> assurance for conventionally-grown products to the tune of USDA Certified
> Analysis of Produxt X reveals the following levels of pesticide residues
> or breakdown products thereof OR the following levels of contaminants
> from materials used in production other than pesticides found in this
> product OR our environmental impact study revealed that production of this
> box of soy doodles will contribute <x>% to
> degradation/contamination/desertification of <x>square feet of farm soil.
>
> Since, so far, USDA has not bothered certifying conventional crops for the
>
> benefit of folks paying the salaries of its employees why should it be
> allowed to force the burden of mandatory organic certification on small
> farmers trying to maintain a favorable position in our free enterprise
> system for the benefit of consumers IN OTHER COUNTRIES?
>
> Take the paranoia about cheating farmers and feed it to the birds.
> What about the farmers allowed to cheat by using vast arrays of poisons
> to grow their crops, without a thought about its impact on the health of
> the consumers - when half or 75% of the time none of it is needed, only
> to increase windfall profits for the agrichemical industry.
>
> LL
> > > 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
>
>
> Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm
> http://metalab.unc.edu/intergarden
> /permaculture /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech
> lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu
>
>
> 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
>
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