[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SMALLFARM-MG> Organic Produce



Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote:
> 
> >> I think I'll label my produce Naturally Grown (w/o synthetic pesticides
> >> and fertilizers).
> 
Sal said:

> > No sorry I think the USDA owns that word too.  I am trying to get a list of
> > all the words we are no longer able to use if we farm organic and don't pay
> > off all these people.  But I think that naturally grown w/o synthetic
> > pesticides and fertilizer is a no no and if one of the organic Gestapo hear
> > you saying such things at a farmers market even wispier it (no matter if it
> > is true  ) you are in deep do do.  

> LL wrote:

> I will use Naturally Grown as I please. If the Organically Grown Gestapo
> (oxymoron), choose to take issue with that. so be it. I've had a
> KKK sign hung on my driveway gate (guess they thought I was one of those
> hippie organic farmers - you know, they take after their patron Uncle
> Adolf & go after minorities & others they can label as "the enemy" w/o
> too much thinking) and I can handle the 'OGG's too.

As I recall, according to the federal (U.S.) Organic Foods Production
Act of 1990, the two words whose use is restricted in the terms of that
Act are "organic" & "natural".  In other words, a legal definition of
those two words is established and linked obligatorially to having your
product certified by independant certifiers who in turn must file with
the U.S. federal government and meet certain requirements.  Pre-existing
state laws like California's contemplated certification but did not
require that - although they too restrict the use of those words to a
legal defination, but leave the burden of determining compliance to an
interesteed party.  However:  In practice, a given buyer will dictate
which certifaction organisms are acceptable to him/her, so the criteria
(and expense) stopped there.  
Looks like the feds want more control and don't want to tax the general
public for any expenses incurred in overseeing compliance, which also
explains the new tax issue (that I was not aware of when I sent my
earlier post), so maybe a little unity and alternative methods for
shifting the burden of any costs involved in assuring compliance are in
order.  

To that end, I suggest that linking other issues to this one (i.e.
whether communists, non-profits, the Washington Post or people who want
to eat food grown somewhere else are good or bad), is confusing, doesn't
help and so should be avoided in relation to this issue.  (I myself
haven't done any grant mongering as yet but are willing to run the risk
of being labeled a grant monger some day, since so many of our
activities are not income producing, are supportive of many - if not all
- of the values shared but others on this list, involve costs on our
part and may well deserve foundation based support.  Incidentally, eak
claimed to be good at getting that and offered to intervene in our
behalf but basically, lied about that and a few other things, following
instead followed an agenda that involves more personal gain than
anything else, judging from what I've seen to date. Sure talks pretty
though).

The idea of letting the claimant pay may be fair and could follow the
cost of a lab test for residues as the basis of his claim.  He could
recover that and other legal expenses if he won his claim for damages to
his own organic status caused by someone else´s fraudulent claim. 
However, it's still complicated and letting the certifier's handle it
may be best, particularly in the case of a cooperative certifier, if
members are willing to contribute collectively toward that end.  In any
case, all the fed needs to do is develope a legal structure / procedure,
not tax the organic growers.  (Legislators are already well paid).  

If the tax is extended to growers of all products sold as organic in the
U.S., it will be harder to get more growers in our area involved in
using non-toxic agiculural technology. There's no developed market here
for organic produce and the economic pressures farmers face are not
going to be alliviated by philosphic evangelism. (Even when "saving the
world" may be a real issue, it's a little too abstract and far removed
from resolving day to day, season to season committments).
The market is an important factor and is based on a consciousness that
has at least already partially raised among consumers of organic
produce.

I am personally interested in determining whether viable alternatives to
Organic labeling exist, but the legal manuvers being discussed in this
forum (including those being insiduously advanced by Manzanto et. al.)
are designed to control the marketplace, which is where these issues
will ultimately be decided.  Perhaps the real problem is consumer
ignorance and a dependance on labels that in turn have legal
definitons.  There are freedom of speech issues involved and a real
danger of losing the genetic (and intellectual) diversity that
unfortunately, few seem able to appreciate.  (My earlier post regarding
the similarities between GE and propietary / private adgendas on the the
one hand and grafted trees and their standardized - but not genetically
stable, non-biologically reproduced fruit that all of you eat on the
other, went largely ignored and apparently forgotten.  I've carried that
one forward 25 years now and will pick it up again publically myself
when better able.  The research was never done. Maybe a grant can be
mongered some day, but even doing that takes time and money only too
scarce.  Now's your chance, all you academics and institutional folks
out there).

Declaring your product to be free from toxic pesticides and / or
synthetic agrochemicals seems to me to be a legally defendable position,
even if a law exists that mandates against such distinctions (the law
itself would be unconstitutional).
The final solution of course would be to establish a client base and
label recognition for YOUR own product and keep those customers happy.

-- 

Douglas M. Hinds, Director General
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR)
(Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit)
Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address)
Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address)
Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO
U.S. Voice Mailbox:  1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked)
U.S. Fax Mailbox:  1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked)
Tel. & Fax:  011 523 413 5222 (not functioning properly)
Tel. & Fax:  011 523 412 6308 (direct)
e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx