I feel you're being a little harsh on Larry. He has cause to adopt the
position he does, since he was involved from the very beginning in the
development of what became the NOP program, when he was asked by the
Ozark Valley something or other (as I understand it, a group that
received a $165,000 grant from the USDA to have other people (i.e.
Larry, in N. Carolina)organize events for them (primarily at these other
peoples own expense though), only to discover that when it got down to
it, what they evidently wanted (judging by the perfunctory effort that
was put into running the event itself), was the grant money and control
of the movement. (There were people high up in the USDA involved, close
to this group).
The USDA itself is made up of all kinds and the great majority of the
ones I've dealt with personally, have been very helpful. (They're just
people, after all, doing their job the best they can). The problem is,
like good people that do their jobs, they're subject to the official
line and the official line in THIS case, just doen't have any business
being involved in making ANY particular flavor of organic certification
the law of the land. It's totally unnecessary and can ONLY lead to
further abuse.
There's nothing wrong with attempting to arrive at a consistent, minimum
national standard of what is and what isn't organic, or making that a
binding legal definition (if legitimate); but that's a far cry from
requiring a complex and expensive burocratic procedure just to sell your
product to people who may already know you and your growing methods, in
order to be able to label it like it truely is.
The problem isn't the sewage sludge or genetically engineered organisms
- the problem is in the degree of control that OFPA pretends to achieve
through the USDA, a degree of control that goes far beyond compliance
with an organic standard. There are private interests at play and the
USDA is being used to further a number of private agendas. (There are
currents and cross currents under the water. It's a real political
snake's nest, full of intrigue).
However - there's a easy way of pulling the plug on all of that: By
simply removing the obligatory nature of organic certification. Let it
stand on it's own merit. If the NOP comes up with a good, legitimate
standard, there'll be no shortage of those who'll find it useful, on
both sides of the counter. But leave that to each buyer and seller and
let's keep the politicians and their cronies with their hands out of the
pie. The real issue is defining, what role is the proper one for
government in the matter.
And take note WHO tries to tell tell you that obligatory certification
is a necessary feature of evolving a consistent natioanl standard, then
think about what THEY stand to benefit by it, and at who's expense.
OFPA as written - with obligatory certification - will drive a deeper
wedge between the organic movement and food buyers, by needlessly
raising costs for grower and consumer alike, without providing any value
added! Let those who need it support it, without forcing it on the
rest.
Douglas Hinds
still down at the border
Wilson, Dale wrote:
>
> Lawrence,
>
> > Well here is the official notification of USDA's flanking maneuver.
> >
> Why are you so sure the USDA has a hidden agenda, or that they are
> negotiating in bad faith?
>
> > Now would also be a good time to bring pressure to bear on
> > Congressional Representatives and Senators to turn the screws on the
> > agency. They should be told that their constituents demand a strong
> > standard;
> >
> That is probably not true of all the constituents.
>
> > they should also be urged to begin an investigation of how USDA could
> > have spent so much
> > time and money and come up with such an egregiously weak and illegal
> > proposal.
> >
> The government wastes money on all sorts of things, I don't think they
> singled out the organic standards issue!
>
> > It is time for the heads to roll at USDA. I see no way that anyone
> > involved with this process could still be employed after demonstrating
> > such a mighty example of either incompetence or malfeasance.
> >
> For pete sake, they just wrote a proposal and put it out for comment!
> You hard core organic people made your point. Now is a good time to be
> gracious. This is an opportunity to have additional input in drafting
> an acceptable proposal. Why waste this opportunity just to make
> enemies?
>
> > It is also important that those of us with legal experience, or access
> > to legal experience, begin exploring ways to sue for redress of
> > grievances.
> >
> That is ludicrous, there is no damage.
> >
> > Lastly, we should also be working hard on an independent industry
> > standard to save the term.
> >
> It would seem that the political victory by groups in favor of very
> restrictive standards has strengthened and clarified the meaning of
> "organic." It looks like the system is working okay, and working in
> your favor.
>
> > I know that some have begun this process and I hope that we can all
> > join in the fun.
> >
> It looks like you are more interested in rubbing the nose of the USDA
> staff in it, than in constructive engagement.
>
> > I think that these are the topics that I would like the listserve to
> > focus
> > on now that the comment period is closed. What do others think?
> >
> Why don't you (politely) approach the program staff and try to get them
> to run ideas out on the Sanet for comments before incorporating them
> into the next draft (Well, maybe I am naive, perhaps this environment is
> too politically charged for something that friendly!)
>
> Dale Wilson
>
> 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".
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".