good folks want to thank the certifier and the inspector and the USDA but
they don't make the produce organic the farmer and the way he farm does.
its is not some stamp or some paper that makes the food organic it is the
food itself. go eat the stamp go eat the paper the certifier the inspector
does not grow anything they get paid by bleeding the turnips. and they all
want a raise. what gets me is they have a Regulatory Impact Assessment
There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that consumer fraud involving organic
food does occur (Mergentime 1997). Criminal prosecutions involving felony
pleas and fines have taken place (Mergentime 1997). However, we have no
evidence to suggest that this problem is wide-spread (Mergentime 1995).
Also, it is important to recognize that the organic industry=s effort to
police itself and the remedies provided by the judicial system may be
adequate to address consumer fraud. Mergentime (1997) documents the effect
of litigating fraud cases on the industry.
The costs of the proposed regulation are the direct costs of complying with
the specific standards. It is important to note that while some costs
associated with accreditation and certification are quantified, costs
stemming from other provisions of the proposed regulations are not.
-charge the farmer what ever the market will bear.
Based on experience with ISO Guide 65 verifications, we project that small
applicants with a simple business structure will require 3 days and large
applicants with more complex business structure will require 5 days. Thus,
the total number of hours to be charged would range from 24 to 40 hours. At
the base rate of $95.00, the charge for hours of service would be
Per diem costs would cover 3 to 5 days, totaling $240-$400. A review of
domestic travel by USDA staff during fiscal year 1999, indicates that
transportation costs ranging from $500-$600. Miscellaneous costs are
estimated to add another $50 to each site visit. Thus, the total site visit
cost would range from $3,070 to $4,850.
and the organic farmer will pay
sucked right out of the organic growers pockets.
For the purposes of estimating the cost of the paperwork burden on
certifying agents, USDA has valued their time at $27 per hour. Thus, the
$250 limit, if the certifying agent chooses to require it, would cover
approximately 9 hours of work. The $250 limit protects applicants from
paying large fees up front when their ultimate eligibility for certification
is unknown. The $250 limit is believed to be low enough to ensure producers
and handlers can afford to take the first steps for certification but high
enough to ensure certifying agents will have an incentive to initiate
certification when the prospects that the applicant will qualify are
we the farmer have to do the paper work free and pay someone to read it.
Residue Testing. Lacking information, we have not quantified the cost
associated with this provision, but we assume that this provision may have
guess who pays
Certified handlers will have to comply with requirements regarding the
approved use of labels. The estimated annual cost for 1,977 certified
handlers to determine the composition of 20 products to be reported on
labels is $948,960. This figure is based on an average of 1 hour per product
and an hourly cost of $27. Similarly, certified handlers will have to design
their labels to comply with the regulation. This is expected to take 1 hour
per label at $27 per hour for a compliance cost of $948,960. Total label
costs for certified handlers are $1.9 million.
Any producers, processors, and retailers who are not currently certified but
who package organic products are also subject to the labeling requirements.
Any changes to existing labels and new labels that need to conform to the
proposed regulation will incur a cost. The costs associated with these
activities are not quantified. Hence, the lower bound on the labeling cost
is approximately $2 million.
A national program may impose additional costs on States by requiring
changes in their existing programs
States will be charged for accreditation, something none of them pay for
The estimated annual reporting and recordkeeping burden reported is
approximately $6.8 million. This figure should be understood within the
context of the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Paperwork
Reduction Act requires the estimation of the amount of time necessary for
participants to comply with the proposed regulation in addition to the
burden they currently have.
the organic farmer pays for it alll
The regulation will impose administrative costs on certifying agents for
reporting and recordkeeping
they get their money from the organic farmer
. Documentation on the qualifications of all personnel used in the
certification operation, annual performance appraisals for each inspector
and personnel involved in the certification, and an annual internal program
evaluation. Existing certifying agents may already perform these operations.
New certifying agents will have to establish procedures to achieve these
Documentation on the financial capacity and compliance with other
administrative requirements (e.g., fee structure, reasonable security to
protect the rights of the certifying agents= clients as provided in the NOP
yep we the farmer will cover that no problem
yep the organic farmer will pay for this too.
check out an organic farmers homepage
----- Original Message -----
From: "wytze" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 10:28 AM
Subject: "Organic" rip off, Fees AND Dutch public on GE foods.
> To show how correct Sal is on gmo's I sent a report on a TV programme here
> yesterdayevening. Concerning fees and organic certification; as I see it
> a consumer, at the end of the day it to a large extend comes down to
> in spite of certification. I know a little bit how the certification thing
> works and it is open for fraud, like any control system, I guess. So, when
> go to the farmers market here (Fortunately we have one here) I look for
> farmers like Sal and others and fortunately there still are some real good
> and honest organic farmers, indeed an honesty I do not find in industry a
> lot, where I mostly get an overload of PR.
> I pay more for organic foods and I like to pay the farmer, not the
> certifier, because I have to mainly rely on the farmer, not on the
> certifier. I pay more because I want not all kind of chemicals in and on
> food, and what imo is good agricultural practice foods. Certification has
> value. I guess there are pros and cons to certifying, organic foods in
> supermarkets etc. The rules Sal sent around look proposterous. It seems
> certification fees could be related to income at the least, and not so
> excessive. Farmers are being sucked. Thanks Sal.
> > Dutch TV yesterday had another item on GE and a good one. Paneldebate
> > and "streetresearch". The streetresearch was one of the most exciting
> > parts. Living in Holland, reading the press, seeing the huge political
> > support for GE and all the usual GE PR, one tends to think that by now
> > only a small minority of the population still has reservations and
> > nobody else cares. Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs recently estimated
> > the number of "sceptics" at 30%. The interviewer for the TV show went
> > into a housewivefair with a plate with two kind of tomatoes. A small,
> > light-red non-ge tomato and a bigger, redder and very good looking GE
> > tomato (not reallly GE ones, but that's how he presented it) He offered
> > these tomatoes to the ordinary public. A few people did not care and
> > took the GE tomato, but the VAST majority rejected the GE tomato, even
> > though it looked better than the small one. In the end all the non-GE
> > tomatoes were gone, and almost all GE tomatoes still were on his plate.
> > Also, people can send in written reactions about the programme and again
> > the vast majority is on our side. Finally also space for a scientist who
> > made clear that safety is but one aspect of all the possible reasons to
> > reject GE foods and a molecular biologist who, in spite of working with
> > transgenic plants, declared not to eat them until he has a lot more
> > questions answered. This is good news and significant, because it
> > really was the "normal public" that was questioned, and especially given
> > the attitude from our big newspapers, which are quite different from
> > their UK colleagues. Somehow, with all the limited access we have to
> > press, our scepticism is really shared by the public. I am pleasantly
> > surprised.
> > IKON TV-programme: Babylon (tuesday 25-4-2000)
> > wytze
> To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:02:12 EDT