Dale, although it may not be ideal, I AM assuming most growers WILL sell
through distributors who will insist that their purchases be certified
by specified (not just any) certifying organisms. This is how the
market works. Anyone farther on down the line (i.e. retailer or
consumer) who is concerned about verifying the organic nature of his
food purchase is free to ask who did the certifying, and there are not
that many of certifiers that are universally accepted. If the buyer
cares, he'll (or she'll) ask. In the case of a known brand, that may be
enough in itself.
We seem to be in basic agreement, so there's no point in dragging this
out.
The USDA is not bad. Compulsory certification is bad, unless a given
certification scheme is demanded by the buyer, in which case the grower
or seller has the choice of complying or not with the prerequisites.
USDA Certified Organic should be AN option like any other, and stand on
it's own merit, not jamed down anybodies throat.
A USDA sponsored national definition of organic would not be unwelcome
if a consensus can be reached, and that definition could be supported by
a USDA Certified Organic label option when desired or required by the
buyer. The word "organic" itself could be given a minimum national
definition w/o requiring certification and lastly, truth-in-labeling
laws provide all the teeth necessary to ensure compliance w/o the undue
abuses OFPA as written (i.e. w/ compulsory certification) is already
fomenting.
...
> I couldn't agree with you more. However it is administered, go ahead
> and provide organic certification, call it "certified" organic, but why
> try to restrict the use of the term "organic" itself? After all, there
> is a history to the term. Then, consumers have a choice. If they want
> the government stamp of certification, they can have it (and probably
> pay more). If they are satisfied with regular "organic" (let the buyer
> beware) then fine.
>
> >
> ...Only "certified organic" could have a commercial definition.
> Regular "organic" would be, basically, whatever the producer believed,
> personally, to be "organic."
Not if OFPA were successful in providing a minimum national definition
w/o requiring certification. Verification could be contested by
interested parties, rather than required Carte Blanche.
>
> > Why fence off the range when the situation is not out of control as
> > is?
> >
> I don't know. Who is pushing for regulation of organic foods anyway? I
> assumed it was organic farmers.
It was mainly marketers, looking for a way to control the market.
> Suppose (post certification) I illegally market something as
> "certified organic" when in reality it isn't. The organic police are
> going to fine me big time. Right? On the other hand, if I just market
> it as regular organic (let the buyer beware), I can sell whatever I
> want, and it is none of the government's damned business. The "teeth"
> constitute the "fence."
One more time: Most if not all distributors already require
certification and the differences between one major certifiers practices
and anothers are not as great as some have maintained. Not all
certifiers have established enough of a following to be accepted by most
buyers.
As stated: The word "organic" itself could be given a minimum national
definition w/o requiring certification and lastly, truth-in-labeling
laws provide all the teeth necessary to ensure compliance w/o the undue
abuses OFPA as written (i.e. compulsory) is already fomenting.
The label is not as important as the product itself. And quality
differences will continue to exist even if all organic products WERE
certified. People are not so stupid that they need a governmental label
on their purchases to know what they're getting. If someone wants to
buy a Rolex watch, the watch should be made by Rolex and if not it's
fraud. It also ought to be accurate.
The major problem as I see it, is that the revised Rule may not consider
revising OFPA itself to remove mandataory certification, in which this
will go to court. Nuff said.
DH
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".