National Organic Program "Final Rule"

Lawrence F. London, Jr. lflondon at mindspring.com
Sat Dec 23 14:06:38 EST 2000


On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:43:54 -0500, "Hook Family"
<guldann at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>I have to say I agree with Robert.  

Seconded with great enthusiasm here.

>As a tiny grower dealing with only local
>customers (CSA and maybe future farm stand) I don't ever see us getting USDA
>certification.  We started the local certification process last year (great
>timing) and will continue (must do this for 3 yrs) but if our local cert.
>agent gets voided I do not think we will continue to try and become USDA

>cert. We will of course continue our organic (whoops probably shouldn't have
>used that word) techniques.  I will simply explain in what ever language we
>are allowed to use, I thought there was free speech around here, that we use
>xyz growing techiques.  We barly break even now I see no business benefit
>from a USDA label in our local market.  

See below ...

>Is there any loophole for the local
>cert such as if you are only selling within a certain state you do not need
>USDA you may stay locally cert.?  Thanks  Beth

Probably not but there may be a $5000/year gross farming income
exemption but you still have to do the same amount of paperwork
as for normal certification. Again we are paying huge sums of money,
time and energy to non-farming bureaucratic paper-pushers for the
privilege of using a word that belongs to us exclusively in the first
place, organic, all the while having to fight for credibility for
organics in the face of Avery's adverse propaganda. A nice thing for
the USDA to do would be to debunk Avery alongside announcing the new
organic rule - _and_ since CES is part of USDA, reinstating the
Extension agent in Virginia who lost his job for confronting Avery in
our "free" press. Avery should move to Russia to become part of
Putin's repressive regime; he'd be right at home within a system of
socialism for the wealthy and powerful.

I'll repeat my previous question again since it applies to your post:
<>
Subpart D - Labels, Labeling, and Market Information

§ 205.300 Use of the term, "organic."

(a) The term, "organic," may only be used on labels and in labeling of
raw or processed agricultural products, including ingredients, that
have been produced
and handled in accordance with the regulations in this part. The term,
"organic," may not be used in a product name to modify a nonorganic
ingredient in the product.

<><>

So,  we are free to call our produce natural, biological or
biointensive in the marketplace without any certification other than
what we choose to provide?

-
I would prefer to call mine biointensive anyway as it conveys more
meaning for those looking for clean, healthy produce. Then there's
also biodynamic.

Has anyone found anything in the rule that would prevent us from using
meaningful alternates to the word organic?







>
>> It is good that GMO food or food grown in sludge can not be labeled as
>> organic.
>>
>> But, pray tell, what is the government doing in our business?
>> Government regulation of this issue will increase prices of
>> certification - and ultimately lead to the growth of agri-business at
>> the expense of the small farmer.
>>
>> There is NOTHING good about the new regs.  NOTHING -
>>
>> --
>> Robert Farr
>> (540) 668-7160
>> Check out http://www.chileman.com
>> for ALL Natural Cooking & Grilling Sauces!
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> You are currently subscribed to market-farming as: guldann at ix.netcom.com
>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>leave-market-farming at franklin.oit.unc.edu
>> Get the list FAQ at:
>http://www.ibiblio.org/ecolandtech/documents/market-farming.faq
>
>

Lawrence F. London, Jr. 
lflondon at mindspring.com    
london at metalab.unc.edu
http://www.ibiblio.org/london
http://www.ibiblio.org/permaculture



More information about the Market-farming mailing list