Fw: Re[2]: [SANET-MG] INTERVIEW-USDA aims to finish organic, meat, ...

["sal" <sals@rain.org>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Douglas Hinds" <cedecor@gmx.net>
To: "sal" <sals@RAIN.ORG>
Cc: <SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 8:34 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [SANET-MG] INTERVIEW-USDA aims to finish organic, meat, ...


> 
> Hello sal & others involved in this thread,
> 
> Thursday, November 30, 2000, 7:45:14 AM, sal wrote:
> 
> s> the OTA may have told the USDA not to hurt the small growers but
> s> so what. it did not work. i talked to Brian Leathy head executive
> s> director of CCOF a big organic certifier. they have to double the
> s> price of the smallest growers in order to meet the USDA burden of
> s> cost.
> 
> If anyone knows what the results of implementing the OFPA with it's
> "mandatory USDA certification in order to call it organic" are or
> will be in California (biggest ag and organic ag state in the US),
> it's sal.
> 
> Bargyla also said:
> 
> >> I have a feeling that there is going to be a real earthquake
> >> dimension upheaval, ending in really organic growers using some
> >> other term and completely bypassing "organic" label completely.
> 
> That and there are unconstitutional aspects to the OFPA that will
> have to be addressed in the courts, if implemented with "mandatory
> USDA certification in order to call it organic" (i.e. as it now
> reads). Many of those who pioneered the use (and therefore developed
> the meaning) of the term (whose market value is now unquestionably
> strong) are being robbed here, as is their right to earn a
> livelihood through honest (and nutritious) work that shouldn't
> rightfully be considered illegal .
> 
> The distance between consumers and organic growers is being widened
> by OFPA, giving a greater market advantage to those growing
> conventional rather than organic food. The very (supposed) intent
> (as professed) of the Act is being subverted and lamentably, few
> seem to realize this.
> 
> Sal and Bargyla are not among those unconscious to the significance of
> this contradictory (yet sadly consistent) government policy, which
> hurts those it was designed to benefit, and puts that which it
> professes to promote at a still greater disadvantage.
> 
> Let no one be confused. We are not discussing the establishment of
> consistent minimal industry standards on the national level - we are
> discussing "mandatory USDA certification in order to call it
> organic".
> 
> Let USDA organic certification stand on it's own hook. If it's
> there's value added by it, there will be a demand for it. Otherwise,
> an adequate enforcement of Truth in Advertising laws would be
> sufficient, if a consumer or competitor initiated organic quality
> review procedure were added to OFPA, with costs to be born buy the
> losing party and appropriate sanctions applied to those committing
> infractions.
> 
> 
> The solution:
> 
> Keep the consistent minimal industry standards on the national level
> in OFPA;
> 
> Add a measure for any interested party's initiating a judicial
> review process of organic quality of a given product on the market
> w/ sanctions where appropriate; and
> 
> Separate the above from "mandatory USDA certification in order to
> call it organic" by removing the latter from OFPA.
> 
> Very few changes would be required to accomplish this (check old
> sanet archives for which - or ask & I'll dig them out again). It's
> just a question of the matter being presented to Congress. (Bart H.
> had developed what could form part of a very good legal foundation
> for this, if I recall). A focus group should formed by those
> interested. (If those that agree contact me, we can get a list
> server set up for it. Or if someone else does this, I'll subscribe).
> 
> Otherwise, expect a rash of new labels while the issue of and the
> constitutional rights of those who continue to use the term organic
> in accordance with established organic principles and practices (but
> decided not to use USDA Organic Certification), reaches the Supreme
> Court (eventually).
> 
> Douglas Hinds
> 
>