hello hugh,
whenever the quarrel of "label" names will go to the court,
it will have a disastrous effect on ALL parties involved.
it's my understanding, that ALL these groups are not so
far away in their opinions and ideas, that it is worth to
get divided by labels (which soon will lead to: "we're better
than them" pr campaigns). and more important: consumers will get
the impression, that "organic" (no matter under what name) is not
a way of producing under generally KNOWN conditions (no mineral
fertiliser, no pesticides, no gmo's and no ratiated food) and
also some other things, on which there is only a rough agreement
(better care for soil, smaller animal herds with less
antibiotics, higher biodiversity), but INSTEAD just a marketing
label (something like wheeties).
the division will give the impression, that not even you believe,
that certain things are useful/good/accepted (these you disagree
on). you NEED _ONE_ label, the consumer is aquainted with and then -
and only then - you may split in your opinions and SUPERSEED this
ONE label with an addition. all else will lead to confusion. i
already see some disagree, but that one label might be a minimum
definition of "organic" like in the usda proposal (without the
gmo's and without radiation).
at least here in europe demeter also has an image of more
farm-community-based interaction, better production provisions
and of less aggression in marketing than producers for
supermarkets and even more a positive image of "friendly
direct-marketers". if I WERE demeter, i would consider VERY !!!!
(lots of exclamation marks) careful, if i would make "biodynamic"
a label for CERTAIN groups among the organic movement and risk
the image of a lawyer-ready-at-hand association.. to their
defense: this might be one of these superseeds mentioned above,
if they think, they can do better than the rest.
but i'm NOT them !!
>So far all I've heard from JPI, the BDA and Demeter is disbelief
>that placing the term Biodynamic or the term BD preps in the
>public domain is an option. Greg assures me his lawyer says it is
>no problem. Courtney seems to have been advised it cannot be
>done.
i can only tell you, how things like these are regulated in
europe, but our way seems quite logical to me. if someone asks
for a certification mark / trademark, any party has 6 months to
object. no more, after that it's tied and fixed. to object
(successfully) you will have to prove, that the name biodynamic
was already in use BEFORE DEMETER itsself became a trademark. a
book or something alike, where the name "biodynamic" is written
down or if the name was already in "common language" use, would
be enough to kill the process of registering. but, remember,
that's the legal european way and it MIGHT be totally different
in america. nevertheless to me that's absolutely reasonable.
from anne mendenhall's letter:
>There was no opposition during the public comment period.
from this i conclude, that the comment peroid has already passed.
and you:
> Many thanks for your kind response.
her letter does not sound SO kind to me. and large parts are
EVASIVE !! the only kind person is you in thinking that letter a
kind one. see her sentence above and the cc to seidel esq., which
gives the impression, that DEMETER wants to see the label legally
exclusive and definitely owned.
organic agriculture needs such legal battles among itsself as
urgent as someone needs a lung cancer or a hit on the forehead
with a baseball bat.
march alone, but battle as a joint movement...
klaus
My lawyers, while suspending me upside-down over a huge vat full
of hungry piranhas, have suggested that I state: "mr. wiegand
assumes no responsibility for the content of any of his mails
except in the case of original material, which is ALMOST always
clearly marked as such.
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.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@cals.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 : Fri Jul 21 2000 - 09:00:32 EDT