(long)
Fellow Sanet subscribers:
I am redirecting this back to sanet with a bit of punctuation and
formatting added, in order to help perceive the very real, pertinent
and profound commentary offered by a long time, very dedicated,
sincere, passionate organic grower considered by Larry Lawrence
(himself a key figure in the organic movement who's heard many and
ought to know) to be one of the 3 best keynote speakers he's ever
heard in relation to organic / sustainable / biological / ecological
agriculture. What he says here makes perfect sense to me. It's
crystal clear that Sal KNOWS exactly what's happening to many long
time organic growers as a result of relatively recent US federal and
state agricultural policies in relation to organic agriculture.
While Sal may be mentioning some points that were included in the in
the Organic Rule originally proposed by the USDA and since
rescinded, his comments reflect a state of affairs that
unfortunately is representative of a current trend empowered largely
by an incongruent and baseless (or poorly based) governmental
intervention. While I myself am NOT opposed to appropriate
governmental intervention, the fact sheet on OFPA indicates a clear
lack of capacity to accomplish the pretended goal and no profound
corrective measures seem to have been contemplated, to date. The
result of ineffective and / or inappropriate intervention has only
made the plight of the organic farmer and organic consumer worse
instead of better, with apparently still worse yet to come.
Fortunately, OFPA IS repairable (or at least made less dangerous),
but that depends on removing mandatory certification (as defined by
OFPA, that's the USDA regulated certification process Sal refers to)
as a requisite for using the word organic in relation to goods sold
to the public.
It should be understood that USDA regulated organic certification
will NOT guarantee a product is organic in any case, and will
certainly not guarantee that a truly organic product (in every
accurate, traditional and responsible sense of the word - both
philosophically and procedurally) is not worthy of being called
organic by virtue of having been brought to market without the
highly dubious "benefit" of having "passed" the USDA / OFPA
regulated organic certification rigmarole (more like a nightmare,
judging from Sal's expert - if lyrical, testimony).
OFPA must focus on what is and what isn't organic in terms of the
process - what happens in the field and in handling; as Craig and
many others assumed it does. If and when a consensus has been
reached on that score, truth in labeling laws plus development of
review and appeal procedure regulations that permit invoking and
redressing same, are all that are needed (or feasible, for that
matter).
I've been saying this for years and I hope to tell you that the
issue isn't going to go away until redressed, whether I let up
(which is highly unlikely) or not.
(more follows at the end of Sal's text).
Douglas
<============== Reformatted Text of Sal's Original message ==========>
I was reading my The Tillage Voice the other day and Gregory House had
a article about Hydroponics and Organics. I can't get it out if my
mind.
Is this what organic has come too? Sophisticated systems, computer
driven; measuring light, air, climate, [and] constantly [making]
adjustments-- No soil - _NO SOIL_, hehe - using ONLY the USDA approved
organic soil-less nutrient solution taken off the USDA list of stuff.
No soil [or] food web - the same chemistry that we were running from
when we started to call ourselves organic - only under a new name:
USDA organic (hehe). One size fits all. Not biology at all but the
same old same old chemistry, chemistry and more chemistry - get the
usda [approved] materials that can dissolve in water the best and pump
the plants up. Feed the plant and now there is not even soil. Organic
with no soil - that's a good one. Is this what you have in mind when you buy
that next organic tomato? hehe.
USDA organic food that has never seen the soil... How far a way can we
get from the natural environment and still be called organic? The USDA
say: how low can we go? Now manure is bad. Both organic and manure are
the new whipping boys and they now want us all to pay to dump our good
organic shit and then buy pelletize shit from someone else. yeah. sure.
Chicken tractors are not organic anymore and ally farming may be
outlawed. Manure is bad and if your cow farts and you say your organic
we will have to test that fart for e. coli. Only organic growers have
cows that shit. . , hehe. One size fits all... hehe.
$5000 [gross yearly income] is small farm, $5001 and you are a big
farm and must pay for all this shit . this must be part of our USDA
help the small farmer program . $5000 is the small farmer - they want
to help You. hehe
Organic food no safer no better for the earth [says the USDA's head
man] but if you use that word you must register like a sex offender
have your land searched, pay for extra tests,and fees and taxes be
certified and who knows what else and every one that handles your
stuff must also go through all this extra shit every year year after
year for as long as you both will live. I Do. . hehe
That your organic list that you have been working on for years and
folks have been paying for and working on for years is now our USDA
material list and the USDA will change it anytime we want and add
and take stuff off and you have to do what we say because you are
using a word that does not mean safer for man or better for the earth
and the USDA owns it now. .. hummmm
I DO and that the word organic is now a political football and hard
money and soft money and under the table money will determine what
organic means not the buyer/ seller. And you must give up part of your
land if anyone sprays or if anyone releases stuff that will
contaminate your stuff like USDA [approved] GMOs, then you must move
your barriers back and back until you can no longer be organic. I DO.
And do you promise to pay anyone anything they ask and pay anyone that
comes up to you or sends a bill saying you must pay us no matter how big
that bill is or that lists gets if they say that [they] are part of the
organic Gestapo. I do and if we should contaminate your place even
after years and years of being organic will you must just take what
ever we give you and shut up and don't call yourself organic till the
heat wears off. I Do.
And will you sign this paper that organic is not safer nor is it any
better for the earth and that you will never ever say it is safer than
other kinds of growing, so help me God or you can never use that word
organic again. you have a choice. This is the part I like: YOU HAVE a
CHOICE - no one is forcing you. They always say that when they have a gun
to your head. You can never use the word you have been working with
for most all your life [yet] you do have a choice. You can never tell any one
how you farm so kiss up or get out - that's your choice.
What the heck - look your certifier already sold out! Hey - your list
is our list. Hey - all your inspectors that you have been training at
the great cost to the organic farmer they are now the USDA inspectors.
Sold out, Sold out, Sold out. They got their 30 pieces of silver and
the USDA says: "hey - tell you what I am going to do . 1st year is
free".
Like the 1st shot [of heroin] just sign right here and bend over - I
mean roll up your sleeve - I mean register here and bring in the map
to your place and the book work! You are now a registered sex offender
or I mean organic grower, and you well stand for forced searches. You
have no more rights - I mean inspection at any time and reregister
every year and pay every year and maybe we will let you farm organic -
maybe! Depends on what all the organic Gestapo says about you in their
little meetings. Maybe every year, even though you have not done
anything different for over 20 years. Maybe [then and only then] you
can use that word Organic. Maybe...
Can I ask one question? Maybe you have never heard it before. How many
pencil pushing bureaucratic bottom feeders in MADE jobs does one have
to pay off to be able to use this word organic or to tell folks how
you farm. I think I am paying too many already. There are too many
already for a word that does not mean safer or better for the earth,
according to this standard. That is on the 1st page so watch what your
signing. And [one] simple question: how much will it cost?
Do you think I should get paid for writing the farm plan at least as
much as the one that has to read it? Do you think I should get paid
for the land I have to give up? Do you think I should get paid as
much as the inspector when I am forced to stand inspection. Is my time
worth as much as theirs? Shouldn't I get paid for doing the paper work
the inspector has to read at lest as much as they are paid then I
would not care about their slow walking and looking around searching
or here and there?
Do you think I should get paid at least as much as a book keeper and
records keeper and product tracker and don't you think I should get
paid for my extra time as much as you get paid for yours? And if you
the USDA do something or release something that takes away my
"organicness", should I not get paid for all those years and all that
time I spent building up a balance? And not just paid for that little
time it takes to get the ok from you. [Do you really think I ever
asked for this, or that ANYBODY who's not on the bureaucratic payroll
is really going to benefit from all this in any way? If even this were
so, the benefit is not likely to be commensurate with the excessively
high cost paid by the small organic farmer].
I was inspected twice in one week one year once by the state of Ca.
once by my certifier - and guess what: my certifier had to also pay
the state out of my money to be a certifier and may soon have to pay
the USDA out of my money - and guess what: my handler also has to pay
the state and guess what: the state of Ca. certifies the certifier yet
doesn't trust them and inspects you anyway - the same dam week - and
guess who pays for both of them? (Right, I do - and you would too, if
you were an organic grower in California]; and guess who gives up his
time again for free twice the same week. [Right again . I do]. Now if
I was getting paid as much as all them that would have been a good
year for me too.
So we growers really lose twice. not only do we not get paid for our
time but we have to lose the time anyway - [we're] *forced* to lose
the time under law [just for growing uncontaminated food ecologically,
without contaminating the land, water or soil] and in fact we get
taxed 3 times because we usually pay for their time beside loosing
ours.
So we are hours behind and moneys behind and for what? Because we farm
in a way that is no safer nor not any better for the earth (according
to the new head of the organic movement, the USDA - who is also the
head of the GMO movement and the pesticide and herbicide movement [and
yet there's supposedly] no conflict of interest here). Not much! Even
a dumb organic grower can see no conflict of interest here (just as
the emperors new clothes look perfectly beautiful sir, they sure do,
if you say so sir]; but let me get one thing perfectly clear: organic
is not better than or safer then herbicide (can u pass me the
herbicide i mean the glass of drinking water please) and pesticides
and poison gas that is killing the ozone and GMO farming.
This is NOW PART of the definition of organic or the standard or what
ever they are calling this joke. [Sal is referring to OFPA and the
supporting legislation now under consideration. It *would* be a joke if
it weren't so sadly destructive to the very cause it pretends to
address]. That's Rule #1: lets get that clear right off the bat and in
fact most of those organic growers are still using dirt that alone is
dirty. Part of the organic standard from the USDA is that organic food
is not safer for man or better for the earth. Do you really want to
sign on to that? Is that what you all have been working all these year
for. What a sell out!
<========= End of Reformatted Text of Sal's Original message =====>
Sal is a long time organic grower and here too has provided us with a
lot of food for thought. While there may be a few inaccuracies in his
claims, it's hard to fault the basic congruence of his discourse or
ignore the tremendous discrepancy between the worthy values he upholds
(in the face of ever increasing costs and the sacrifice that entails
on his part) and the results of current governmental priorities
related to organic agriculture, the environment, public health and
rural development in general, that have inf fact made his worthy and
admirable efforts increasingly fruitless.
The problem goes much deeper than OFPA, which is no more than another
symptom of an underlying and pervasive pathology. The priorities and
fundamental concepts of agricultural production systems in the US
require a long, hard and deep look on the part of those authorities
responsible for overseeing these activities.
The question is: Does the political will exist to fund the studies
required in order to accurately define the true costs to the
environment and public health involved in conventional and alternative
agricultural production systems? What do Bush and Gore have to say on
that?
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 - 20:00:34 EDT