[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fw: sanet-mg-digest V1 #1760
- To: permaculture
- Subject: Re: Fw: sanet-mg-digest V1 #1760
- From: "Ava Devenport" <essenheal@iname.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 12:37:52
- Newsgroups: permaculture
Hi Sal:
Went and visited your webpage, very impressive!
Just a quick note, 'Alex' is obviously just envious of healthy, nutritious
food, probably doesn't have the energy to grow his own, maybe he was just
slighted as child... had to eat processed/pre-packaged meals. In other
words, I just find his statements to be hateful and wouldn't waste too much
energy on the comments he's made. I don't believe many reasonable
individuals would take his statements to heart without having pity upon his
attitude.
But I do understand your growing impatience and intolerance of the
"organic standards and certification". It is hard for us to believe that
sometimes there are dishonest people out there, but, how will we know who
is who without the 'stamp of approval'. And, of course, if we want it,
we'll have to pay for it, nobody else will. Possibly in the near future
some of the organic lobbyists can come up with a better plan of action to
bring down the costs and all of the seemingly cross-over testing, etc. Too
many people involved.
Dependant upon who your customers are, do you really need the organic stamp
at this time? I purchase quite a bit of organic product from others that I
know and trust. They haven't been certified and don't care to be certified
at any time in the future. Instead of using the 'organic' label, they
simply label their product as 'non-irradiated/no-chemicals
added/all-natural'. Could you possibly use the same terminology to forgo
the cost of the organic certification process until 'somebody' can get a
'single-source' together for the purpose of certifying at a reasonable
cost?
Blessings,
Ava