permaculture

["Sal" <sals@rain.org>]

check out a organic growers web page
http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Ikerd, John E. <IkerdJ@missouri.edu>
To: 'Debbie Ortman' <safefood@cp.duluth.mn.us>; sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
<sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Date: Friday, December 11, 1998 8:56 AM
Subject: RE: Join the SOS-Save Organic Standards Campaign


>Sanetters;
>
>"Outlaws Higher Standards," (from Debbie Ortman's communication below), in
>my opinion, is the single most important battle ground of the continuing
war
>over national organic standards.  If the organic market continues to
grow --
>as it almost certainly will - pressure will mount on USDA from
agri-industry
>to develop national organic standards that will allow mass production and
>distribution of organic products - i.e. industrialization of organic
>markets.   Odds are agri-industry eventually will prevail.  At that point,
>most independent organic producers will lose their markets because they
>won't be able to compete for shelf space in supermarkets against the
>corporate giants.  The only concerns of these investor-owned corporations
>will be to meet minimum legal standards at the lowest possible cost  -- a
>corporation is not a person and can have no other.
>
>The only hope for independent producers will be to exceed USDA standards or
>to produce to a different set of standards -- to meet the preferences of
>customers who are not satisfied with products that meet minimum USDA
>standards.   Independents will have to be able to market their products as
>better than organic or different from organic - from organic as defined by
>national standards - if they are to effectively serve the multitude of
niche
>markets made up of ecologically sensitive consumers.  Some will succeed
>through relationship marketing - marketing person to person.  The
government
>can't keep you from explaining to your customers in person exactly what you
>do and don't do in producing your products.   But, a prohibition on
private,
>non-governmental certification and a ban on eco-labels would severely
>restrict independent producers' access to eco-niche markets - essentially
>taking them out of competition with industrial-organic production.
>
>Independent organic producers can lose every other battle in the national
>organic standards and survive - even prosper - except for one.  They cannot
>give up their right to develop and promote private, non-government organic
>certification and to truthfully and ethically label and promote their
>products in any way they choose.  Some will argue that the only purpose of
>the one-label requirement is to prevent confusion.  One-label may well
>reduce confusion, but its primary motivation and principal effect will be
to
>prevent non-price competition.   Independents can't win a competition to
>produce the most "stuff" at the cheapest price - i.e. price competition.
>But they can win a competition to give their customers what they really
want
>and need at a price they can afford to pay - if they are allowed to
compete.
>
>The most important provision of the previously proposed national organic
>standards to oppose is the provision that ...
>OUTLAWS HIGHER STANDARDS
>* The new laws will make it illegal for private, non-governmental
>organic certifiers to uphold higher standards than the minimum standards
>dictated by the USDA. The rules will also ban "eco-labels," making it
>illegal to even imply through labeling or advertising that a product
exceeds
>USDA standards.
>
>Good luck,
>
>John Ikerd
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Debbie  Ortman [mailto:safefood@cp.duluth.mn.us]
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 9:33 AM
> To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
> Subject: Join the SOS-Save Organic Standards Campaign
>
> S.O.S. SAVE ORGANIC STANDARDS! ROUND TWO
> _____________________________________________
> NATIONWIDE BATTLE CONTINUES
>
> Earlier this year the U.S. Department of Agriculture
>proposed national
> organic standards that were so weak, they threatened the
>entire future of
> organic foods. In response over 275,000 people wrote the
>USDA demanding
> that these proposed organic rules be changed. The USDA
>backed off
> temporarily, but is expected to issue a new set of highly
>controversial
> regulations later this year or early in 1999.
>
> There are conflicting factions inside the Clinton
>administration. While
> some have heard the thunderous response from consumers,
>others are as ready
> as ever to: lower pre-existing organic standards, allow
>industrial-style
> factory farming, and suppress the free speech of the organic
>community by
> making it illegal to set standards higher than the USDA's.
>
> Consumer rebellion has forced the USDA to temporarily back
>down on the "Big
> Three," genetically engineered food, toxic sludge, and
>nuclear irradiation.
> But most organic consumers have dozens of additional
>objections to
> regulations which disregard almost entirely the
>recommendations of the
> National Organic Standards Board. We remain concerned that
>agribusiness and
> its friends inside the USDA will subvert those legitimately
>seeking change
> and once again propose federal regulations which include:
>
> TOTAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL
>
> * The USDA will possess a "legal monopoly" over the word
>"organic." Only
> one organic label, "USDA Organic" will be allowed. The USDA
>will have the
> sole power to appoint members to the National Organic
>Standards Board,
> giving them the ability to weaken standards by "stacking"
>the NOSB with
> appointees sympathetic to industrial agriculture and genetic
>engineering.
>
> OUTLAWS HIGHER STANDARDS
>
> * The new laws will make it illegal for private,
>non-governmental organic
> certifiers to uphold higher standards than the minimum
>standards dictated
> by the USDA. The rules will also ban "eco-labels," making it
>illegal to
> even imply through labeling or advertising that a product
>exceeds USDA
> standards.
>
> FACTORY FARMING
>
> * "USDA Organic" will allow inhumane, intensive confinement
>of farm animals
> and a host of other industrial, factory farm production
>practices
> (non-organic feed, toxic inert ingredients in pesticides,
>antibiotics,
> additional synthetic chemicals, etc.).
>
> THREATENS SMALL FARMERS
>
> * The USDA's proposed fees for government certification
>and/or residue
> testing will be prohibitively expensive for small and
>medium-sized farmers,
> certifiers, and producers.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> SAVE ORGANIC STANDARDS! IT'S IN OUR HANDS!
>
> This year's mass outcry from organic consumers, producers,
>and farmers to
> the USDA's first proposed organic rules made history--with
>over 275,000
> official comments. The SOS campaign has now given birth to
>Organic
> Consumers Action--a nationwide grassroots organization
>dedicated to
> protecting the integrity of organic food and promoting
>sustainable
> agriculture.
>
>  JOIN Organic Consumers Action (OCA) in your local area. If
>you want to
> become a member or make a donation--call 218-726-1443 or
>e-mail us at:
> <safefood@cp.duluth.mn.us> Before the USDA issues its new
>proposed organic
> regulations you will be contacted by an OCA volunteer in
>your local area.
>
>  VOLUNTEER to become part of an OCA Coordination Team in
>your area. Help
> us mobilize consumers and retailers, carry out public
>education and events,
> and generate media coverage.
>
>  ASK your local natural food stores, coops, community
>restaurants, and
> farmers markets to contact the OCA campaign so that we can
>send them
> posters and literature.
>
>  SUBSCRIBE to Food Bytes, our free electronic newsletter,
>by sending an
> e-mail to:
> majordomo@mr.net
> with the simple message in the body of your email:
> subscribe pure-food-action
>
> If you don't have access to a computer, and want to receive
>Food Bytes by
> mail, send us $20 for a year subscription.
>
> 
 Visit our web sites (and links) regularly for updates and
>background
> information:
> http://www.purefood.org
> http://www.icta.org
>
>  SEND us a letter, fax, or e-mail which we will forward to
>President
> Clinton and Vice-President Gore, your U.S. Senators, and
>Congressional
> Representative. Tell your elected public officials that you
>want the USDA
> to preserve strict organic standards, and that any final
>rule must not
> contain any of the objectionable provisions outlined in this
>leaflet.
> Demand especially that the USDA allow private,
>non-governmental organic
> certification bodies to maintain and publicize stricter
>organic standards
> than the minimum standards proposed by the USDA.
>
>
> Organic Consumers Action
> 860 Highway 61
> Little Marais, Minnesota 55614
> Tel. 218-726-4792
> Fax. 218-226-4157
> e-mail <oca@purefood.org>
> http://www.purefood.org
>
>
>
>
> Ronnie Cummins
> Campaign for Food Safety/Organic Consumers Action
> 860 Hwy 61
> Little Marais, Mn. 55614
> Tel. 218-226-4164
> Fax 218-226-4157
> email alliance@mr.net
> http://www.purefood.org
> To subscribe to the free electronic newsletter, Food Bytes,
>send an email to:
> majordomo@mr.net
> with the simple message:
> subscribe pure-food-action
>
>
>
> Debbie Dunbar Ortman
> National Field Organizer
> Organic Consumers Action
> 3547 Haines Rd.
> Duluth, MN 55811
> (218) 726-1443
> (218) 726-1446 Fax
> safefood@cp.duluth.mn.us
> http://www.purefood.org
> Join the Organic Consumers Action in
> your local area. If you want to become a member or a
>volunteer--or make a
> donation--call (218)726-1443
> To subscribe to the free electronic newsletter, Food Bytes,
>send an email
> to: majordomo@mr.net
> with the simple message: subscribe pure-food-action
>
>
>
>
>