Re: bits and pieces

sal (sals@rain.org)
Wed, 08 Oct 1997 16:43:15 -0700

.
>
>I was wrong . sorry. I agree I have not had an inspector yet that was not
honest
>even when inspections were free. Hope you can handle a little mistrust as
>we organic growers are the most mistrusted folks around. You see how
>seriously uptight you got well I am getting to feel that way all the time
>as my honesty is being call on to the carpet and it is starting to inflame
>me . you know how that feels. I am not that good at speaking or writing
>and I don't want to offend anyone. So I am sorry. Now inspectors will
>have to travel lots more that 2 hr. in some out of the way places and the
>poor farmer will be forced to pay for hours and hours of travel time and I
>don't feel the small farmer can afford it. IF you are in Ca. and you know
>even here it is hard to get a close inspector so think of the folks in Big
>Timber Wy. or anywhere that is not as well organized as Ca. These forced
>inspection at farmers cost is going to hurt and burden the small farmer.
>If I have my paper work and I am honest I am ready for inspection and have
>done every thing I need to do to be organic what else can I do and do you
>think it is fair that because it cost so must to inspect me that I should
>have to carry all that wight. Because the closest inspector is 500 miles
>or 20 miles away do you think the small grower should have to pay
>gas,food,motel,hour pay for driving plus inspection.plus certification.Why
>not let the inspector certify me. Because the inspector has to report to
>the certifier who we then have to also pay . Well that is what they want
>to do force us to pay for The whole ball of wax. Do you think that every
>year that I should pay a new inspector to read over my history . I have not
>change and my history has not change it is the inspector that has change
>and I have to pay over and over again.Just because the calender changes
>does not mean I have changed. 1967 1968 1969 I am still the same. Same as
>last year only the inspector name has change not me. .
Also because there is a thief in the US do we search every ones home . No !
and there would be a great outcry if we did and it should be the same with
organic growers just because someone is cheating in organic growing does
not mean we should search every organic growers farm in the whole US every
year over and over and charge them for it.

>
> At 07:31 AM 10/8/97 -0700, Diane Cooner wrote:
>>hi sal, I am glad that your posts to SANET have gotten the juices flowing
>>for lots of folks. but you can't demand that people not assign your name
>>to their actions - rather, you should be proud that what you're saying is
>>spurring people to comment, and (what a concept) even maybe action.
>>
>>I read your post to me last week, and got seriously uptight about it. At
>>first I was planning to go over your letter line by line, and I did. I
>>agree with a lot of what you had to say, specifically that it's no good
>>to keep burdening the small organic farmer with more & more $$ fees.
>>Also, that the consumer is the one left out of the paying scale here,
>>since the middleman seems to be the one making the $$. If the gov't
>>stopped commercial ag subsidies, then we would have TRUE costs of food in
>>the marketplace, and organic wouldn't seem so high.
>>
>>Anyway, we do agree on a lot, but what I finally have to say is that
>>while your message is heartfelt, your approach sucks! All your comments
>>did were to inflame me. There are lots of potential allies out there, who
>>all are trying to be positive forces in this organic movement, including
>>lots of inspectors such as Robert Dixon, but when you attack people, then
>>you are letting the corporate interests win, since we are now divided and
>>they are still getting away with crap.
>>
>>I agree that the small farmer shouldn't have to keep paying and paying -
>>but it is equally wrong to expect the inspector to pay for his time and
>>gasoline when he has to drive 2 hours to get to an operation, and no one
>>is closer that can inspect. Why should it be on his back? It SHOULD be on
>>the consumer's back. As Rob mentioned in his post, this is being left out
>>of the dialogue, and believe it or not, most inspectors agree that the
>>CONSUMER should be footing this bill - the question is how. This comes
>>back again to the true cost of comm'l ag, which I read a year or so ago
>>puts a head of lettuce at about $3.10 each! So we again learn something
>>we already knew - the system isn't perfect.
>>
>>I don't know which inspectors you have dealt with, but 90% of the ones I
>>know (around 100 worldwide) are as passionate about the integrity of
>>organic as you are. To say they have these part-time jobs just to bleed
>>organic growers is really an insult.
>>
>>I would like to continue this dialog, on a calmer tone. I enjoy your
>>posts, but please quit flaming folks - you're doing yourself a
>>disservice.
>>
>>diane
>>
>>
>
>

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".