Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Fw: "Organic" rip-off

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "sal" <sals@rain.org>
  • To: "permaculture" <permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>, <OGL@LSV.UKY.EDU>, <bdnow@envirolink.org>
  • Subject: Fw: "Organic" rip-off
  • Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 06:08:41 -0700



check out an organic farmers homepage
http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html
sals@rain.,org
----- Original Message -----
From: "sal" <sals@rain.org>
To: "sal" <sals@rain.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 5:02 PM
Subject: Fw: "Organic" rip-off


>
> check out an organic farmers homepage
> http://www.rain.org/~sals/.my.html
> sals@rain.,org
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "sal" <sals@rain.org>
> To: "permaculture" <permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 4:57 PM
> Subject: Re: "Organic" rip-off
>
>
> > Fees and other charges will be assessed and collected from applicants
for
> > initial accreditation and accredited certifying agents submitting annual
> > reports or seeking renewal of accreditation organic farmer pays
> >
> > When service is requested at a place away from the evaluator's
> headquarters,
> > the fee for such service shall include a per diem charge if the
> employee(s)
> > performing the service is paid per diem in accordance with existing
travel
> > regulations. Per diem charges to applicants and certifying agents will
> cover
> > the same period of time for which the evaluator(s) receives per diem
> > reimbursement
> > organic farmer pays
> >
> > The certifying agent may require applicants for certification to pay at
> the
> > time of application a nonrefundable fee of no more than $250.00 which
must
> > be applied to the applicant's fees-for-service account.
> > organic farmer pays
> >
> > When costs, other than fees-for-service, travel charges, and per diem
> > charges are associated with providing the services, the applicant or
> > certifying agent will be charged for these costs. Such costs include,
but
> > are not limited to, equipment rental, photocopying, delivery, facsimile,
> > telephone, or translation charges incurred in association with
> accreditation
> > services. The amount of the costs charged will be determined
> > administratively by the Department. Such costs will become effective for
> all
> > applicants for initial accreditation and accredited certifying agents on
> the
> > effective date of subpart F.
> >
> > the organic farmer pays
> >
> > ) Application and Administrative Fees. We have removed the provisions
> which
> > required certifying agents to pay application and administrative fees.
> These
> > fee provisions have been replaced with provisions for the assessment of
> fees
> > for service equal as nearly as may be to the cost of the accreditation
> > services rendered under these regulations. In other words, we will be
> > assessing fees and charges only for activities related to accreditation.
> > These fees and charges will be assessed and collected from applicants
for
> > initial accreditation and accredited certifying agents submitting annual
> > reports or seeking renewal of accreditation.
> > organic farmer pays
> > We have retained the requirement, with modification, that certifying
> agents
> > reimburse the Department for travel, per diem, and related other costs
> > associated with providing accreditation services
> > organic farmer pays
> >
> > State and private entities as accredited organic certifying agents are
> > similar to those used to certify other types of product or system
> > certification programs under the QSCP, we have decided to use this
> existing
> > program and its staff in examining certifying agents' operations and
> > evaluating their compliance with the Act and these regulations. Using
the
> > QSCP and its staff will enable the NOP to provide the necessary services
> > without creating a separate bureaucracy. Hourly fees to be charged for
> > services under this program will be the same as those under the QSCP,
> > currently estimated at $95.00 per hour.
> >
> > organic farmer pay
> >
> > Certifying agents will be charged for accreditation service at the
> published
> > hourly rate on the first day of the nineteenth month following the
> effective
> > date of subpart F.
> >
> > Over 15,000 comments were received on fees, with
> > organic farmer pays
> >
> > The Act provides that each State may implement a certification program
for
> > producers and handlers of agricultural products that have been produced
> and
> > handled within the State, using organic methods that meet the
requirements
> > of this regulation
> >
> > Such a State may request that its more restrictive buffer zone
> requirements
> > be established as the minimum buffer zone requirements of this
regulation.
> >
> >
> > the organic farmer pay
> >
> > Under the residue testing requirements of the NOP, we propose that all
> > agricultural products sold, labeled, or represented as organically
> produced
> > be available for inspection by the Administrator, State program's
> governing
> > State official, or certifying agent. Organic farms and handling
operations
> > must be made available for inspection under proposed Subpart E,
> > Certification. In addition, products from the aforementioned organic
> > operations may be required by the State program's governing State
official
> > or certifying agent to undergo preharvest or postharvest testing when
> there
> > is reason to believe that agricultural products to be sold or labeled as
> > organically produced have come into contact with prohibited substances.
> The
> > cost of such testing will be borne by the applicable certifying party
and
> is
> > considered a cost of doing business. Accordingly, certifying agents
should
> > make provisions for the cost of preharvest or postharvest residue
testing
> > when structuring certification fees.
> >
> >
> >
> > the organic farmer pays
> >
> > ) any harvested crop or plant part to be harvested that has contact with
a
> > prohibited substance applied as the result of a Federal or State
emergency
> > pest eradication or disease treatment program cannot be sold, labeled,
or
> > represented as "100 percent organic," "organic," or "made with organic
> > (specified ingredients)"; and (2) any livestock that are treated with a
> > prohibited substance applied as the result of a Federal or State
emergency
> > pest or disease treatment program or product derived from such treated
> > livestock cannot be sold, labeled, or represented as "100 percent
> organic,"
> > "organic," or "made with organic (specified ingredients)."
> >
> > State programs' governing State officials and certifying agents may test
> > agricultural inputs used for organic production and require preharvest
or
> > postharvest testing of any agricultural product to be sold, labeled, or
> > represented as "100 percent organic," "organic," or "made with organic
> > (specified ingredients)" when there is reason to believe that the
> > agricultural product has come into contact with prohibited substances.
> This
> > change allows State programs' governing State officials and certifying
> > agents to perform preharvest and postharvest residue testing on a
> > case-by-case basis
> > Drift is defined as the physical movement of prohibited substances from
> the
> > intended target site onto an organic production operation or any portion
> > thereof. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB or Board)
recommended
> > that agricultural products exposed to drift not be sold, labeled, or
> > represented as "100 percent organic," "organic," or "made with organic
> > (specified ingredients)" or fed to livestock on organic operations.
> >
> > the organic farmer pays and pays and pays
> >
> > no due process/ the organic farmer is always guilty and has to prove he
is
> > not guilty every year for the rest of his life. the organic farmer pays
> and
> > pays and proves and proves and still here they come again.
> > I can go on and on and don't think things like Regulatory impact
assesment
> > or Unfunded mandates act or Paper work reduction act or civil justice
> reform
> > or federalism will help because they don't mean what they claim its only
> > smoke and mirrors. the usda say they want to help the small grower but
> the
> > shepherd feeds the flock and not just fleeces it. they are taking they
> are
> > not giving us anything and they just took our word. Organic
> >
> > then u got your certifier and the local chapter and the inspector and
the
> > state and their cars and their computer and their kids need their teeth
> fix
> > and on and on . you get the idea . a big hole a bottomless pit needs
> > feeding and the organic farmer will pay and pay and pay and for what to
be
> > known as no safer or no better for the earth than conventional farmer.
> > not a good deal= u think
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > check out an organic farmers homepage
> > http://www.rain.org/~sals/.my.html
> > sals@rain.,org
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Schinnerer" <John-Schinnerer@data-dimensions.com>
> > To: "permaculture" <permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 3:49 PM
> > Subject: "Organic" rip-off
> >
> >
> > > Aloha,
> > >
> > > My hat is off to all those who worked to keep GMOs, irradiation,
sludge
> > and
> > > so on out of the "organic" standards proposal. This is a good thing.
> An
> > > irradiation plant is almost certain to be built on the Big Island, but
> > even
> > > if "organic" food goes in what comes out can't be labeled "organic."
> >
> >
> > the USDA did not stop GMO and Irradiatiion and sludge we did my
certifier
> > and most all others did . the USDA only tried to make that stuff
organic.
> u
> > got it wrong. they are not savors of organic the people said no way and
> they
> > for once bowed to the people and took that off for now but don't forget
> the
> > USDA has taken over organic and that may be all back on tomorrow . they
> got
> > our word we don't have it anymore. so lots of folks did fight and I
> rejoice
> > but that was the big smoke screen for the takeover. those were never
> > organic so don't take we will give u a inch and take a mile as a
friendly
> > jester. folks already have to be certified to sell abroad and folks
> alread
> > have to be certified to sell to the big players we don't need this add
> pain
> > and complete takeover. bussiness was and is taking care of bussiness
> those
> > that need certification can get it those that don't are not forced into
it
> .
> > This is a game and it is the organic grower that is being gamed.
already
> I
> > am paying way to many folks don't need even more fees and even more
paper
> > work and even more time kissing up. read the fee part and know one
thing
> > every time is says pay its the farmer that is paying even when they say
> > certifier pays it is the farmer that pays every time and they don't say
> the
> > amount because all these folks get to charge what they can. the
> inspectors
> > want another raise ok the farmer pays we don't care they want a nother
> > residue test ok the farmer will pay they want a new computer ok the
farmer
> > will pay a we need to take a trip and have a meeting ok the farmer can
pay
> > we need to hire more help ok the farmer will pay we need the state to
> > regester every one ok the farmer will pay we need the fed gov. in on
this
> ok
> > no big deal the farmer will pay. were im I suppose to get all this
extra
> > money they will not let u print it. we need barriers from folks that
> spray
> > ok the farmer will give up his land and if we release GMO or spray the
> > organic farmer will pay don't wory. the inspector has to come from tin
> buck
> > too and needs a motel and massage don't worry the farmer will pay. and
> must
> > pay force to pay under law if he want to tell his customers he is
organic
> > he will pay of get out. read the fees and tell me what will it cost .
it
> > is all up in the air all I know is the farmer will pay does pay and will
> pay
> > more and more and for what . a stamp that will not mean anything in a
> few
> > year now that the USDA owns the name. don't give them kodos for not
> > allowing the big three we knew the big three were not organic all along.
> > Just so No to making the farmer pay to grow organic. enough is enough .
> > > And...
> > >
> > > A pattern I see is that the USDA/agribusiness complex (the USDA is
> > > systemically wedded to agribusiness, not small growers) is doing what
it
> > > does as a system to make sure that "organic" as a certification will
> > profit
> > > "organic" agribusiness (an oxymoron if ever I heard one). The big
ones
> > can
> > > afford the overhead of paying multiple layers of fees and/or payoffs
to
> > > government certification agencies and/or agents. Small growers can't,
> and
> > > will be squeezed out. This is the dominant business model in all
other
> > > arenas of commodity commerce, so if one wishes to play that game there
> are
> > > plenty of examples of what course that game will take. The details of
> the
> > > "organic standards" rules and regulations do not significantly affect
> the
> > > nature of the larger game. MegaOrganics, Inc. (a wholly owned
> subsidiary
> > of
> > > Monsanto) here we come... ;-)
> > >
> > > Sal offers solutions in his comment about how the food speaks for
> itself -
> > > *if*a grower steps out of the agribusiness food-as-commodity box and
> does
> > a
> > > CSA or local direct farmer's market or alternative currency or barter
or
> > > other clever schemes yet to be designed. The common pattern in such
> > designs
> > > is that there is a close relation between food-producer and client -
> they
> > > know each other personally as human beings and that *is* the
> > > "certification." Of course there can be betrayals of trust in these
> > > relations, but at least each party is taking direct responsibility for
> > these
> > > relations rather than wanting to place that responsibility somewhere
> else.
> > >
> > > One of the most basic pathologies here is the desire to "own" some
> > > "standard" called "organic" and use it in place of actual human
> relatings
> > > and personal responsibility for one's choices and actions.
> > >
> > > John Schinnerer
> > >
> > > ---
> > > You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: sals@rain.org
> > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > $subst('Email.Unsub')
> > > To subscribe send email to lyris@franklin.oit.unc.edu
> > > with message text containing: subscribe permaculture
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: sals@rain.org
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> > To subscribe send email to lyris@franklin.oit.unc.edu
> > with message text containing: subscribe permaculture
> >
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page