Fw: "Organic" rip off, Fees AND Dutch public on GE foods.
sals at rain.org
Thu Apr 27 09:00:35 EDT 2000
check out an organic farmers homepage
sals at rain.,org
----- Original Message -----
From: "sal" <sals at rain.org>
To: "wytze" <geno at zap.a2000.nl>; <sanet-mg at ces.ncsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: "Organic" rip off, Fees AND Dutch public on GE foods.
> good folks want to thank the certifier and the inspector and the USDA but
> they don't make the produce organic the farmer and the way he farm does.
> its is not some stamp or some paper that makes the food organic it is the
> food itself. go eat the stamp go eat the paper the certifier the
> does not grow anything they get paid by bleeding the turnips. and they
> want a raise. what gets me is they have a Regulatory Impact Assessment
> There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that consumer fraud involving
> food does occur (Mergentime 1997). Criminal prosecutions involving felony
> pleas and fines have taken place (Mergentime 1997). However, we have no
> evidence to suggest that this problem is wide-spread (Mergentime 1995).
> Also, it is important to recognize that the organic industry=s effort to
> police itself and the remedies provided by the judicial system may be
> adequate to address consumer fraud. Mergentime (1997) documents the effect
> of litigating fraud cases on the industry.
> The costs of the proposed regulation are the direct costs of complying
> the specific standards. It is important to note that while some costs
> associated with accreditation and certification are quantified, costs
> stemming from other provisions of the proposed regulations are not.
> -charge the farmer what ever the market will bear.
> Based on experience with ISO Guide 65 verifications, we project that small
> applicants with a simple business structure will require 3 days and large
> applicants with more complex business structure will require 5 days. Thus,
> the total number of hours to be charged would range from 24 to 40 hours.
> the base rate of $95.00, the charge for hours of service would be
> Per diem costs would cover 3 to 5 days, totaling $240-$400. A review of
> domestic travel by USDA staff during fiscal year 1999, indicates that
> transportation costs ranging from $500-$600. Miscellaneous costs are
> estimated to add another $50 to each site visit. Thus, the total site
> cost would range from $3,070 to $4,850.
> and the organic farmer will pay
> sucked right out of the organic growers pockets.
> For the purposes of estimating the cost of the paperwork burden on
> certifying agents, USDA has valued their time at $27 per hour. Thus, the
> $250 limit, if the certifying agent chooses to require it, would cover
> approximately 9 hours of work. The $250 limit protects applicants from
> paying large fees up front when their ultimate eligibility for
> is unknown. The $250 limit is believed to be low enough to ensure
> and handlers can afford to take the first steps for certification but high
> enough to ensure certifying agents will have an incentive to initiate
> certification when the prospects that the applicant will qualify are
> we the farmer have to do the paper work free and pay someone to read it.
> Residue Testing. Lacking information, we have not quantified the cost
> associated with this provision, but we assume that this provision may have
> guess who pays
> Certified handlers will have to comply with requirements regarding the
> approved use of labels. The estimated annual cost for 1,977 certified
> handlers to determine the composition of 20 products to be reported on
> labels is $948,960. This figure is based on an average of 1 hour per
> and an hourly cost of $27. Similarly, certified handlers will have to
> their labels to comply with the regulation. This is expected to take 1
> per label at $27 per hour for a compliance cost of $948,960. Total label
> costs for certified handlers are $1.9 million.
> Any producers, processors, and retailers who are not currently certified
> who package organic products are also subject to the labeling
> Any changes to existing labels and new labels that need to conform to the
> proposed regulation will incur a cost. The costs associated with these
> activities are not quantified. Hence, the lower bound on the labeling cost
> is approximately $2 million.
> A national program may impose additional costs on States by requiring
> changes in their existing programs
> States will be charged for accreditation, something none of them pay for
> The estimated annual reporting and recordkeeping burden reported is
> approximately $6.8 million. This figure should be understood within the
> context of the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Paperwork
> Reduction Act requires the estimation of the amount of time necessary for
> participants to comply with the proposed regulation in addition to the
> burden they currently have.
> the organic farmer pays for it alll
> The regulation will impose administrative costs on certifying agents for
> reporting and recordkeeping
> they get their money from the organic farmer
> . Documentation on the qualifications of all personnel used in the
> certification operation, annual performance appraisals for each inspector
> and personnel involved in the certification, and an annual internal
> evaluation. Existing certifying agents may already perform these
> New certifying agents will have to establish procedures to achieve these
> Documentation on the financial capacity and compliance with other
> administrative requirements (e.g., fee structure, reasonable security to
> protect the rights of the certifying agents= clients as provided in the
> yep we the farmer will cover that no problem
> yep the organic farmer will pay for this too.
> check out an organic farmers homepage
> sals at rain.,org
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "wytze" <geno at zap.a2000.nl>
> To: <sanet-mg at ces.ncsu.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 10:28 AM
> Subject: "Organic" rip off, Fees AND Dutch public on GE foods.
> > To show how correct Sal is on gmo's I sent a report on a TV programme
> > yesterdayevening. Concerning fees and organic certification; as I see it
> > a consumer, at the end of the day it to a large extend comes down to
> > in spite of certification. I know a little bit how the certification
> > works and it is open for fraud, like any control system, I guess. So,
> > go to the farmers market here (Fortunately we have one here) I look for
> > farmers like Sal and others and fortunately there still are some real
> > and honest organic farmers, indeed an honesty I do not find in industry
> > lot, where I mostly get an overload of PR.
> > I pay more for organic foods and I like to pay the farmer, not the
> > certifier, because I have to mainly rely on the farmer, not on the
> > certifier. I pay more because I want not all kind of chemicals in and on
> > food, and what imo is good agricultural practice foods. Certification
> > value. I guess there are pros and cons to certifying, organic foods in
> > supermarkets etc. The rules Sal sent around look proposterous. It seems
> > certification fees could be related to income at the least, and not so
> > excessive. Farmers are being sucked. Thanks Sal.
> > Wytze
> > > Dutch TV yesterday had another item on GE and a good one. Paneldebate
> > > and "streetresearch". The streetresearch was one of the most exciting
> > > parts. Living in Holland, reading the press, seeing the huge political
> > > support for GE and all the usual GE PR, one tends to think that by now
> > > only a small minority of the population still has reservations and
> > > nobody else cares. Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs recently
> > > the number of "sceptics" at 30%. The interviewer for the TV show
> > > into a housewivefair with a plate with two kind of tomatoes. A small,
> > > light-red non-ge tomato and a bigger, redder and very good looking GE
> > > tomato (not reallly GE ones, but that's how he presented it) He
> > > these tomatoes to the ordinary public. A few people did not care and
> > > took the GE tomato, but the VAST majority rejected the GE tomato,
> > > though it looked better than the small one. In the end all the non-GE
> > > tomatoes were gone, and almost all GE tomatoes still were on his
> > > Also, people can send in written reactions about the programme and
> > > the vast majority is on our side. Finally also space for a scientist
> > > made clear that safety is but one aspect of all the possible reasons
> > > reject GE foods and a molecular biologist who, in spite of working
> > > transgenic plants, declared not to eat them until he has a lot more
> > > questions answered. This is good news and significant, because it
> > > really was the "normal public" that was questioned, and especially
> > > the attitude from our big newspapers, which are quite different from
> > > their UK colleagues. Somehow, with all the limited access we have to
> > > press, our scepticism is really shared by the public. I am pleasantly
> > > surprised.
> > > IKON TV-programme: Babylon (tuesday 25-4-2000)
> > > wytze
> > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo at ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the
> > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo at ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
> > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo at ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo at ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
More information about the permaculture