Hi Loren,
Thursday, March 23, 2000, 8:11:56 AM, you wrote regarding Graces'
statement:
>> USDA's attempt to provide flexibility for antibiotic use only "if
>> necessary" was attacked as contradicting consumer expectations,
LM> How do you think the "if necessary" idea could be implemented? I recall
LM> that the circumstances under which "necessary" might be determined were
LM> not specified.
But they *could* be - antecedents for this are found in most organic
certifier's regulations for organic honey (for example), where only
certain antibiotics can used, and only for certain bee diseases. Other
conditions could also be specified, such as the preliminary
precautionary measures that must be taken prior to treatment with
antibiotics, with a given minimum time interval stipulated between the
time those preventative measures are taken and the time the treatment
is applied, possibly along with alternative treatments methods that
must be tried prior to resorting to antibiotics.
However, my main point regarding OFPA is this: I have no quarrel with
the USDA's getting into the organic certification business as another
additional option for farmers (or processors) and consumers, since the
actual trade relationship occurs no where else - it's present only in
the buyer / seller relationship, which in turn can be subject to legal
review.
This means that (on the one hand) the USDA can compete on a level
playing field along with everyone else, offering a "value added"
service for those who feel there's value in it and are willing to pay
for it; and / or (on the other hand), in conjunction with the
traditional organic community, reach a consensus that establishes a
minimum, national standard for what is and what isn't organic, one
that's also congruent with international organic standards, so that US
certification processes remain credible or regain credibility.
That's ALL that's required and all that can be legitimately done.
BUT - that's NOT what OFPA sets out to do. Instead of doing the latter
and relying on "Truth in Labeling" laws along with provisions for
invoking a specialized organic review and appeals process, it's a
labeling law itself; thereby establishing a monopoly on the use of the
word "organic" - a word currently in the public domain, whose use is
supported by many more years of effort and much more philosophic basis
than went into (or came out of) developing OFPA. (Just ask Grace,
Bart, Chuck, Steve or Eric).
OFPA is doomed to fail unless the compulsory certification aspect is
removed. It spells the END of the organic market, as it has come to
exist. It simply achieves the opposite of what it supposedly set up to
do: Simplify and clarify the organic certification process, making it
more accessible to both growers (+ processors) and consumers.
Instead, OFPA drives a bureaucratic wedge between the organic buyer &
seller, between the organic and conventional markets (favoring those
in the latter with lower costs, in spite of the relative lack of
socially and ecologically conscious criteria applied to conventional
ag production and distribution systems), between the big and small
organic grower and between the public and the governmental bureaucracy
foisting this GMO (made of incongruent bits and pieces that don't fit
together) type, shoddy example of a piece of legislation.
The end result betrays EVERYBODIES best efforts and intentions. Is
there anyone as yet not convinced of that?
There you have it. Where do the comments have to go? (On the USDA /
NOP website, I assume). We're now in the second 90 comment period for
the Organic Rule?
LM> It seems safe to say that every time anybody gives an antibiotic to a
LM> cow, it has been decided that it is necessary to do so. There were and
LM> are a whole lot of people who think that methyl bromide is "necessary"
LM> and daily sub clinical antibiotics is necessary and anhydrous ammonia is
LM> necessary and the roundup ready trait is necessary too. So many things
LM> are necessary.
To some. What's necessary to organic milk production and under what
conditions, is what must be defined,
LM> And it DOES contradict consumer expectations. Does that count?
>> and so the purist position that penalizes farmers
>> like the Amish has won the day.
There were so many hurt by things OFPA didn't foresee, that more harm
than good is the result.
<snip>
LM> If I had a personal choice (perish the thought) between buying milk from
LM> a neighbor I trust and buying certified organic milk from some big
LM> store, I'd head to the neighbor's, for many reasons. Once that
LM> connection is severed and the trust aspect is missing, then no
LM> exceptions are possible, because that requires that I trust someone I
LM> don't trust, or even know.
Very true. The "label" mentality (let someone else decide), seems to be
winning out over the "observe, become informed and judge for yourself"
point of view. This is also exactly wherein lies the difference
between sustainable and conventional agriculture, and well as standard
and GMO seeds. The supposed equivalents - the proprietary, patented
inventions and easily bottled & sold concentrated substances, are far
removed from nature and the processes that gave rise to life as we
know it, just as the reasons for them have been abstracted to ad
nauseum and ad ridiculation.
LM> If it is really true that antibiotics are seldom needed for a properly
LM> managed milk cow, then the overall burden of removing from organic
LM> production those animals which must be treated will be light, and
LM> animals which have the lowest infection rate will be favored over those
LM> with the highest production.
The problem lies in defining seldom, if ever.
Douglas
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/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 05 2000 - 20:00:32 EDT