As I understand it, Sal's not using the word organic is due to the fact that
if OFPA (the Organic Foods Production act of 1990) is implemented as it now
reads, growers who participate in CSA or other programs that provide organic
foods directly to consumers will no longer be able to use the word "organic"
when referring to their products. OFPA makes this illegal, since it requires
that any product sold as "organic" be certified according to the terms OFPA
itself - it's not organic if not certified.
This is bad for a number of reasons:
1).- We have already seen that the federal government's Proposed Rule
submitted in accordance with OFPA would have permitted products to be labeled
organic that are not incompatible with the traditional meaning of the word. In
fact, products grown using methods and/or materials that are not only outside
the established definition of what is now considered organic, but which are
actually anti-organic would have been allowed.
2),- Unless fraud is committed (and this is why an ACCURATE legal definition -
i.e. true to traditional organic methods and materials - that does NOT
require certification WOULD be welcome), the type of Information passed from
seller to buyer is best left between the parties involved. If the information
offered is truthful and important to the buyer, he or she can make an informed
decision on that basis.
3).- Organic Certification as defined and stipulated by OFPA requires a
monetary expenditure that raises costs for grower and consumer alike, making
organic food (as defined by cultivation method, not bureaucratic procedure)
less accessible and less competitive in relation to products grown using
environmentally destructive methods and materials. In many circumstances (and
CSA is a good example), certification is neither appropriate nor desirable.
4).- Mandatory organic certification is demeaning to:
a).- Growers (who are presumed to be incapable of properly representing
their products in their preferred marketplace); to
b).- Consumers (who are presumed to be incapable of making an informed
choice on the basis of their own criteria and information sources) and to
existing;
c).- Certification providers, (who are presumed to be incapable of doing
exactly what they have been doing with no "help" from the federal government,
ever since third party certification became relevant in many cases (i.e. when
buyers require and sellers provide it voluntarily).
5).- No overriding need in favor of the public good has been established for
making organic certification compulsory, nor has it been demonstrated that
voluntary certification based on a legal definition of organic (that relates
to methods and materials - not the process of certification itself), is not a
viable system.
6).- OFPA's mandating certification constitutes both a conflict of interest
(im which OFPA justifies itself by making other options illegal and erecting
itself as Judge and Jury) and Bill of Attainder - presuming guilt on the part
of growers who call their product organic and targeting them for a punitive,
costly, anti-competitive and unconstitutional piece of badly flawed
legislation (OFPA), which could be cleaned up by the simple expedient of
allowing it to create a new and separate certification alternative which could
compete with and potentially include existing alternatives, based on it's own
merit. Let the buying public be the judge!
In short: The new product category that Sal and others are creating,
represents a choice that was forced on them by OFPA's co-opting the word
organic.
I agree with you - lets not give up the word organic - let's insist that OFPA
be amended to the effect that "USDA Certified Organic" becomes an separate
OPTION in addition to those that already exist, thus freely the word organic
(which as you say, has developed a significant degree of consumer trust and
recognition on IT'S own merit), from the kind of governmental monopoly that
can only benefit an undeserving few, to the detriment of many!
Establishing a consistent national Standard for organic products is a worthy
goal if a consensus can be reached, but that in no way requires compulsory
certification. Compulsory certification must be stricken from OFPA or OFPA
itself will never be successfully implemented!
Douglas Hinds
Cecile Mills wrote:
> >We are considering a new certification program tentatively
> >called "community certified" which would not used word organic at all.
>
> I favor using the word *organic* because it has a clear meaning to
> me and my friends who shop and buy organic foods. To us, it
> means that the foods (and processes) have been inspected by
> knowledgeable people and certified to not contain chemicals
> or other substances harmful to my health.
>
> The word means I could, with children, go harvest my own vegetables
> (which I have done at my CSA) and munch on carrots while I work
> without danger of chemical poisoning.
>
> Organic means all those years of reading Organic Farming and
> discussing how to get rid of ants and how to stop aphids at
> parties; it also means no one fiddled with my food!
>
> Don't give up that word--it is grand!
>
> 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".
--------------DC8B8B3A891E45E918A5A999
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
As I understand it, Sal's not using the word organic is due to the fact that if OFPA (the Organic Foods Production act of 1990) is implemented as it now reads, growers who participate in CSA or other programs that provide organic foods directly to consumers will no longer be able to use the word "organic" when referring to their products. OFPA makes this illegal, since it requires that any product sold as "organic" be certified according to the terms OFPA itself - it's not organic if not certified.
This is bad for a number of reasons:
1).- We have already seen that the federal government's Proposed Rule submitted in accordance with OFPA would have permitted products to be labeled organic that are not incompatible with the traditional meaning of the word. In fact, products grown using methods and/or materials that are not only outside the established definition of what is now considered organic, but which are actually anti-organic would have been allowed.
2),- Unless fraud is committed (and this is why an ACCURATE legal definition - i.e. true to traditional organic methods and materials - that does NOT require certification WOULD be welcome), the type of Information passed from seller to buyer is best left between the parties involved. If the information offered is truthful and important to the buyer, he or she can make an informed decision on that basis.
3).- Organic Certification as defined and stipulated by OFPA requires a monetary expenditure that raises costs for grower and consumer alike, making organic food (as defined by cultivation method, not bureaucratic procedure) less accessible and less competitive in relation to products grown using environmentally destructive methods and materials. In many circumstances (and CSA is a good example), certification is neither appropriate nor desirable.
4).- Mandatory organic certification is demeaning to:
a).- Growers (who are presumed to be incapable of
properly representing their products in their preferred marketplace); to
b).- Consumers (who are presumed to be incapable
of making an informed choice on the basis of their own criteria and information
sources) and to existing;
c).- Certification providers, (who are presumed
to be incapable of doing exactly what they have been doing with no "help"
from the federal government, ever since third party certification became
relevant in many cases (i.e. when buyers require and sellers provide it
voluntarily).
5).- No overriding need in favor of the public good has been established
for making organic certification compulsory, nor has it been demonstrated
that
voluntary certification based on a legal definition of organic (that
relates to methods and materials - not the process of certification itself),
is not a viable system.
6).- OFPA's mandating certification constitutes both a conflict of interest (im which OFPA justifies itself by making other options illegal and erecting itself as Judge and Jury) and Bill of Attainder - presuming guilt on the part of growers who call their product organic and targeting them for a punitive, costly, anti-competitive and unconstitutional piece of badly flawed legislation (OFPA), which could be cleaned up by the simple expedient of allowing it to create a new and separate certification alternative which could compete with and potentially include existing alternatives, based on it's own merit. Let the buying public be the judge!
In short: The new product category that Sal and others are creating, represents a choice that was forced on them by OFPA's co-opting the word organic.
I agree with you - lets not give up the word organic - let's insist that OFPA be amended to the effect that "USDA Certified Organic" becomes an separate OPTION in addition to those that already exist, thus freely the word organic (which as you say, has developed a significant degree of consumer trust and recognition on IT'S own merit), from the kind of governmental monopoly that can only benefit an undeserving few, to the detriment of many!
Establishing a consistent national Standard for organic products is a worthy goal if a consensus can be reached, but that in no way requires compulsory certification. Compulsory certification must be stricken from OFPA or OFPA itself will never be successfully implemented!
Douglas Hinds
Cecile Mills wrote:
>We are considering a new certification program tentatively--------------DC8B8B3A891E45E918A5A999-- 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".
>called "community certified" which would not used word organic at all.I favor using the word *organic* because it has a clear meaning to
me and my friends who shop and buy organic foods. To us, it
means that the foods (and processes) have been inspected by
knowledgeable people and certified to not contain chemicals
or other substances harmful to my health.The word means I could, with children, go harvest my own vegetables
(which I have done at my CSA) and munch on carrots while I work
without danger of chemical poisoning.Organic means all those years of reading Organic Farming and
discussing how to get rid of ants and how to stop aphids at
parties; it also means no one fiddled with my food!Don't give up that word--it is grand!
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".