Print

Print


From: Suzanna Raker <[log in to unmask]>

To: Susan Houghton <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:42:50 -0400

Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] organic vs. local...

Hello, All:

 

I am disgusted with the original letter claiming 'government takeover'

of organic, and the vapid solution proposed by the 'alternative'

proposal to certify products as "local, natural" etc.

 

The purpose of certification and standards; federal and otherwise, was to stop confusion and clearly delineate _organic_ as just that.

Consumers deserve to get what they are seeking and in many cases involving chemical sensitivity, need.  All of us who have certified with credible agencies know just how thorough and even tedious this procedure can be.  Further, the expectations of _real_ certification expect learning and improvement of agricultural skills, building up soil and livestock health.  Up here, we've had a distinct problem with MSU-Extension misinforming individuals who simply labeled their product "organic", but could no more even read a soil test than become an astronaut.  (Thanks, MDA, for stepping in and educating as well as

clarifying!)  Further, we've had a rush of deceptive labels, and those crying 'wah-baby' about certification and inspection.  These arguments have been uniformly specious and seem to come from those wanting the premium price without the effort of complying with standards and enforcement.

 

We all fought hard to have _organic_ not be diluted or compromised by any entity, corporate or individual.  We still have work to do.  But, by allowing a misleading additional label such as described in previous e-mails, we do these efforts in.

 

To those in the U.P. wailing about "I won't allow the government on my land..", I'd suggest you get busy building your own roads, purifying your own water, and learning how to perform activities like food

inspection and air traffic controlling.   We need better explanation of

our food sources and ingredients, across the board, not weakening of organic definition and certification.

 

Thanks,

sue raker

(Calumet, MI)

 

 

On Mar 14, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Susan Houghton wrote:

 

> I agree with Jim and Linda, this is almost like starting over. Those

> of us who worked hard to promote a good organic law with protection

> for consumers and growers, do not want to start over with an arbitrary

> set of standards that do not mean anything to the consumer, or add to

> the confusion.

> 

> There are things wrong with the organic law and its promulgation, but

> working to make it better seems to me a better way to spend my time.

> 

> Susan

> 

> 

>> ----- Original Message -----

>> From: Jim Moses

>> To: [log in to unmask]

>> Sent: 3/14/2007 9:57:41 AM

>> Subject: Re: FW: [SANET-MG] organic vs. local...

>> 

>> 

>> Regarding Certified Naturally Grown--

>> 

>> I checked this label out two years ago and was not impressed.They

>> claimed that their "standards" were the same as NOP. But at that time

>> you could access application forms of certified growers and many

>> listed violations of NOP standards like prohibited inputs, commercial

>> transplants, treated seed etc.

>> It is time to deal seriously with nostalgia for the "good old days"

>> of organic agriculture, that never really existed. The fraud and

>> ignorance that existed when everyone had their own standard is

>> nothing we should want to return. There is a cost involved in

>> offering the public third-party certified organic products. Anyone

>> who wants to make these claims should be willing to contribute. If

>> you want to identify who is getting the short end of the stick, ask

>> yourself this. What about the growers who pay their dues and receive

>> no protection from the state and federal agencies who are pledged to

>> eliminate fraud? What about the increasing number of questionable

>> labels backed by foundation money that undermine certified organic?

>> What about the whole phony "Local" verses "Organic" campaign that

>> clearly has some BIG money behind it? Divide and conqueror, it is an

>> old story, but it still works.

>> 

>> Jim Moses

>> 

>> Vicki Morrone <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>> Hey folks

>>> This is an interesting alternative to certified organic and probably

>>> would do well at small markets and farmers markets, at this time.

>>> But then a farmer could combine organic certification with the

>>> farmer pledge that MOFFA is promoting and cover all the bases and be

>>> able to sell foods labeled organic.

>>> 

>>> Have you looked into Certified Naturally Grown? It's a great

>>> alternative and self governing as it was in the old days of Organic.

>>> You

>>> rely on other local farmers, customers or the County Extension to

>>> inpect your farm.

>>> It's a non profit organization. They do ask for donations and they

>>> also sell stickers with the CNG logo. You can download brochures

>>> online for hand outs explaining the program. The website address is

>>> www.naturallygrown.org They have a questionaire to cover all aspects

>>> of Naturally Grown so inspection is easy and informative to the

>>> consumer, too.

>>> I wonder if this program is catching on yet in California?

>>> 

>>> -----Original Message-----

>>> >From: Douglas Hinds

>>> >Sent: Mar 10, 2007 3:03 PM

>>> >To: [log in to unmask]

>>> >Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] organic vs. local...

>>> 

>>> >

>>> most left because of the State and USDA take over of the

>>> >> word organic, we were the volunteers of America now we are forced

>>> >> slaves to the USDA the certifier and the inspector and the state.

>>> >> On years like this one with the freeze they make their money even

>>> >> when I loose money. hehe . My customers that I had for years

>>> >> forced me to be certified after the USDA takeover if I wanted to

>>> >> keep selling to them so if I want to tell my customer I'm organic

>>> >> I have to pay the organic police.

>>> 

>>> >

>>> >We knew this would happen, ahead of time, of course (and there

>>> >weren't that many of us that knew what to expect).

>>> >

>>> >> I pay a organic tax because I don't use anything.

>>> >

>>> >You pay the penalty for the OFPA's having the wrong focus. (And

>>> third

>>> >party certification became a big industry, with greater authority

>>> >than the farmers themselves, thanks to OFPA).

>>> >

>>> >> I have to fill out reports and pay the USDA saying I don't use

>>> >> anything while the USDA will not label GMOs, pesticides,

>>> >> herbicides, fertilizers that kill life on the earth. Its all

>>> >> backwards.

>>> 

 

If you would like to access a searchable archive of the all the previous Mich-Organic listserv postings copy this URL and paste in your browser address field http://list.msu.edu/archives/mich-organic.html