> Hi Sal,
>
> Thanks for the quote from the CCOF newsletter. I'll have to look
> into this. It's been about 5 months since I worked on this issue,
> but it was my understanding that those convoluted and confusing
> ISO-65 rules specifically required "third party" certification which
> supposedly meant a gov't body. I think that maybe those big
> certifiers have gotten around this (not being able to use US gov't
> program) by getting the EU-approved certifiers to automatically
> "re-certify" their products when they go to the EU. But the whole
> thing is very confusing. I'm going to have to also look into all
> those taxes you're talking about too. I work on a couple of projects
> at once, and I have two on the back burner right now that are
> relevant to this conversation. One is regarding the cost of
> certification (I compared different types of certifiers around the
> country) and the other is looking at the barriers to export of US
> organic product. Part of the problem with keeping up with all this
> too is that it's constantly changing.
.
there was more to that USDA Approves CCOF's ISO-65 Complance
it went like this
"Site evaluators,Jim Riva from MCGP and Beth Heyden from the National
Organic Program visited CCOF August 24-27. The evaluators checked to see
that CCOF had documented certification policies and procedures, and that it
was following these policies and procedures. The evaluators (I like the
sound of that evaluators)also paid a visit to the office of CCOF's Central
Coast Cortication Coordinator to assess ISO-65 conformance at the chapter
level. Though the evaluators found a few points of non-conformance all were
considered "areas for continuous improvement" and did not negatively affect
final approval.
now that is what I call the way to do it. short and sweet
.
> If it's any consolation to you, the organic people at USDA that I
> have met (and work with) are very sincere in their desire to help the
> organic farmers and the organic market. Also, there have been some
> changings of the guarde since the first organic rules came out, and
> in general, I think that the people in charge of this program are
> genuinely interested in it and committed to good outcomes. (However,
> I don't know about whatever constraints to this they may be facing
> still.) I would, say that anyone's comments to the USDA at this time
> will probably be received in the most positive environment they have
> had there to date.
> Anita
Good that is good to hear. I don't think we need to be inspected every year
. certifiers say they don't have enough inspectors now and I don't feel
that my organicness has changed enough from year to year to warrant these
cost every year. If you want to save the farmers money this is one way to
do it . I think the years of transition a inspection is needed and the
inspector can point out what is not organic and a inspection when granted
organicness. but once a grower knows what is right and not they don't really
need to be inspected so much. I have trees and they are in the same spot
every year I do the same things every year and my farm plan is really the
same year in and year out. there is no reason for this cost just because
the year changes I really need my money so you could make it a lot cheaper
if you hold those inspections down to once every 5 years or so or just once
and again if there are complaints or changes in the way one farms . no
changes no inspection
you think that is a unreasonable request. the cost of inspection is high
and if there is no need for so many so why beat the grower out of his money.
and what I mean by so many taxes on the grower in Ca. will the state of
Ca. charges us by how much we make and they also charge our certifier which
hand that cost down to me and my certifier charges me for the same thing the
state charges me for and also wants paper work and then the inspector
charges me for the inspection and the fed . gov. wants to charge my
certifier maybe my inspector and me for the same thing they all charge me
for. don't you think that is a little to much . don't you think just an
inspector would be enough or the state or the certifier or the fed. gov. do
I really need all these folks all charging me what the market will bear. I
was inspected twice the same week one year once by my inspector and 4 days
later by the state and handed them both the same paper work and it hit me
this is over regulation and no one care because I am paying for it all. if
they were paying for it I bet they would not inspect so often but because I
am paying for it all what the heck. I have been to meeting and I have heard
with my own ears make the farmers do this and lets make them do that and
someone says who is going to pay for it and it ends up the grower pays for
all if it. the inspection the soil test the certifier the state the USDA
and on and on everyone want to get into the act. I am not complaining I am
trying to change it and make it more fair to the grower. no one is
protecting the grower by over taxing I count all this a tax on growing
organic every one of these players demands his pound of flesh. to many to
much
thanks for taking the time and lending an ear.
> > thank you for you thoughts and ideas
> > I read in the CCOF newsletter that "The USDA's Meat Certification and
> > Grading Program (MCGP) has verified that CCOF conforms to the basic
> > requirements of ISO -65, the international standard for certification
> > programs. The approval means that CCOF-certified products should now be
> > approved for entry into European Union (EU) countries. The EU organic
> > regulations require imported organic products to be certified by an
> > organization that meets the ISO-65 Standards. Other ISO-65 approved
> > certification programs includes Farm Verified Organic-Quality Assurance
> > International and Organic Growers and Buyers Association . Several
other
> > certifier site evaluations and approvals are pending. so u see all I
need
> > is CCOF or QAI or OG or FVO and I can voluntary join them if I need
that.
> > easy
> > see how easy things work out .
> > so why make a federal case out of it? why the extra state Ca. tax and
the
> > Fed Tax and the force certification for all and the once size fits all
and
> > the pay pay pay year after year. give us a USDA definition of organic
and
> > lets get on with business you don't have to take us over you don't have
to
> > make this any harder . you see Anita we are making it work out now .
this
> > should also make for more reciprocity between group of certifiers and a
lot
> > has changed . it has been years when the USDA started this and now the
> > government has seen it does not want to be a burden to small folks with
> > extra paper work (save those trees) and their non funded state and fed.
> > mandates so now is the time to stop the Ca. Ag. organic tax if one is
> > already certified by a recognized certifier. and it is time the Fed.
gov.
> > lets business take care of itself, as it is doing for itself now quite
will
> > thank-you.
> Anita Graf
> Research Coordinator
> Market Development of Organic Agricultural Products
> 313-F Conner Hall
> Dept. of Agricultural and Applied Economics
> University of Georgia
> Athens, GA 30602-7509
> (706) 542-1915 phone
> (706) 542-0739 fax
> agraf@agecon.uga.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