Re: [compost_tea] USNOP Example

From: Lloyd Charles <lcharles_at_iinet.net.au>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:35:25 +1000


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Anderson
  To: compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 5:37 AM
  Subject: Re: [compost_tea] USNOP Example


  John Cowan wrote:



  And while fail-safe tea is not practical, should there be safeguards in
  place to help make things fail-resistant? Even if the manufacturers
  already do this to a point, is it documented and agreed on? Is there a
  standard that the machines are tested against?

  What we are talking about is getting approval from a government body for=
 
  something where they have already said "no".

  As I have already stated, the chemical comparison is a non-starter. It
  will get you exactly nowhere with the bureaucracy.

  The NOP has said "no"

  They have the power to say "no"

  If you want to be certified, you have to accept their "no"

  There are several groups that have the power to make them say "yes", and=
 
  they also have the power to change their vote to "yes". (any of the
  three branches of government, the cheapest route is the judicial)

  Have you blokes lost the plot on this??
  If NOP says "no" because of some perceived food safety issue, then that m=
ust be applied across the board - all of agriculture gets the ban - if that=
 does not happen and chemical producers were allowed to use CT while organi=
c were not, then you have a legit argument for the courts. Simple!! . This =
is the first thing that needs clarifying.
  If NOP is not using the safety issue then what other basis can they possi=
bly have ?
  Lloyd Charles




Received on Wed Jul 21 2004 - 22:12:12 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:25 EST