Why me why not you.
folks don't trust GMOs
what u are seeing in the organic movement will be required by all
farmers..this will set the president. it does not have to be a safely issue
any more or what is better for the earth it is just because people want to
know. Now a lot of folks want to know if and what GMOs they are eating they
want a label and tracking and certification of non gmos . So GMOs will
probably be next ,then on to herbicides and then on to pesticides. It is
not a question of safety any longer it only take a small group of folks that
want to know and there is a large group of folks that don't trust GMOs so
they want to know and because its no longer a case of safely for the earth
or man and it is just a group of folks that don't trust GMOs so they want
certification and proof . proof that what they are eating are NON GMOs
proof that NON GMO mean NON GMOs 100percent . they want to know what the
farmer says he is using and the only way to find out if he is telling the
truth is make him do what the small organic farmer is forced to do you need
more regulation in your business. . what you are doing is not enough MORE
More inspectors more paper work after all these folks have to make a good
living we need more and lets give them all a raise . the farmer will pay
for it. Im glad to see you feel this way my friend if folks want non
GMO and labels for GMO someone must pay and you can just pass the cost along
. Safety has nothing to do with it , good for the goose good for the gander
How are you going to know if what u are eating is a NON GMO well u can't
tell that without some kind of publicly verifiable and
> defined certification and inspection and residue testing. we want to know
that what we are eating does not contain GMOs. This doesn't really have
anything to do with protecting
> the earth,or safety we just want to know. residue testing , and
inspection is legitimate
> work. so lets start inspection for GMOs How are you going to know non
GMOs without some kind of publicly verifiable and
> defined certification and residue test all crops must be tested. if I
have to be inspected all farmers have to be inspected what ever I am forced
to do all farmers should be forced to do . it has nothing to do with what
is safely it only take folks that don't trust you and want proof .
Im glad you feel this way
out an organic farmers homepage
http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html
sals@rain.,org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wilson, Dale" <WILSONDO@phibred.com>
To: "sanet" <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Cc: "'sal'" <sals@rain.org>; "'wytze'" <geno@zap.a2000.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 6:40 AM
Subject: RE: "Organic" rip-off
> Sal and Wytze,
>
> Sal wrote:
> >> then u got your certifier and the local chapter and the
> >> inspector and the state and their cars and their computer
> >> and their kids need their teeth fix and on and on. you get
> >> the idea. a big hole a bottomless pit needs feeding and the
> >> organic farmer will pay and pay and pay and for what to be
> >> known as no safer or no better for the earth than conventional
> >> farmer.
>
> Don't you think the certifier and inspector have a right to earn a living
> doing their job? This doesn't really have anything to do with protecting
> the earth, it is a truth-in-labeling issue, and inspection is legitimate
> work.
>
> Wytze wrote:
> > As an "organic consumer" I like to know that the products I
> > buy are indeed organic.
>
> How are you going to know that without some kind of publicly verifiable
and
> defined certification?
>
> > That does not mean the farmers should have to bleed to death in
> > order to show that they are organic.
>
> Well, someone has to pay, right? The grower will pass these increased
costs
> on to the consumer. Consumers of "organic" food (including you) want some
> sort of certification, and they will have to pay for it.
>
> IMO the real irritating problems include:
>
> 1. Inefficiency of public sector (hopefully inspection can be a private,
> competitive enterprise)
>
> 2. Regressive nature of certification. Do farmers who gross, say,
$50,000,
> have to pay the same fees as farmers who gross $5,000,000? If that is the
> case, then the certification cost per production unit is way higher for
the
> small farmer. Maybe there should be a sliding fee scale to make this more
> equitable. For example, in US SEED certification systems, seed producers
> pay a fee by-the-bag for certification. This makes the cost
scale-neutral.
>
> > The same thing more or less happens here in my own country.
> > The fees just make it impossible for small organic producers
> > to get their businesses from the ground. I really hope you
> > manage to stop this fee madness.
>
> This is the complaint of all small business owners regarding government
> regulation of all sorts. IMO, this is the dark side of the
> liberal-progressive vision of government involved in the details of
economic
> life. I would always rather see industry self-regulation, than government
> regulatory systems. Yet, there may be a role for government in overseeing
> the self-regulatory process. Isn't that what is going on with this
organic
> definition thing? Isn't it just the government trying to standardize
> vocabulary and regulatory procedures? Won't inspection continue to be
done
> by private certifiers? (please forgive my ignorance about this)
>
> Is this a case of a clique of large growers trying to ram through a
> regressive fee structure in order to enhance their competitiveness?
>
> Dale
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 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:02:12 EDT