permaculture

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

Joe say it an't so


To be labeled "USDA certified organic," the department's current
> proposal requires products to be at least 95 percent free of crops
> that were genetically altered, irradiated or grown with aid of sewage
> sludge.
opps there it is.  u caught it.  NO GMO means 5% . organic does not mean
organic anymore.   is this true?  what a rip off and talking about rip-off
I went to a CCOF meeting and they told us that they are going to double the
fees on the small grower. double on those that can afforded it the lest.
can u believe that and they say it going to get worse.they are now kissing
up to  big growers and taxing the small grower out of life.   so the double
the cost on the smallest grower and kiss up to the big grower that is how
its going now.  money talks and the small grower is open game for the for
certifiers. .  so when this new law goes into effect lots of folks will not
be able to afford to use the word organic.  I think the mafia won and they
are the government.  my inspection was double what cost of the last 5 years.
nothing one can do about it. they send u a bill and you have to pay it.
they can charge you whatever they want.  one year 100 next year 300 u never
know because it is what ever the market will bear . its about the money not
organicness any more.  .  we have to pay the state the feds the certifier
the inspector the soil tester and on and on and they all get to charge what
ever the market will bear.  .   they have taken a grass roots dream and they
have turned into a bureaucratic nightmare.  get ready the word organic is
now a political football.  CCOF a few year ago said they were there to help
the small growers and made the small grower price now they took that away
and  are doubling  the cost.  Next year they will probably double it again
and the year after that.  nothing u can do about it .  the big fish will eat
the small fish and don't look to your certifier for help.   it is what ever
the market will bear.  sure some small growers will take the food out of the
kids mouth and pay off the Mafia protection money and  do without more stuff
to be able to use the word organic.  it gets worse every year.  now the USDa
is saying no GMOs mean 95 % no GMOs .  so they run the small grower out of
business with erroneous costs and kill the word organic by making it 95%
organic.  its a big police movement on the organic grower while  the USDA
and EPA allow food not fit for humans to be sold to our kids.  it cost too
much to be organic and organic soon will not mean anything.  there are no
chemical or GMo trespass laws there is no protection for the organic grower
and he foots the bill for his own downfall.   the same state u pay to be
organic for years will come and spray you in a hot minute.  the USDA says no
GMO yet they have no GMO trespass law so you pay them to kill you. they said
no GMO now they say 95 percent no GMOs .    they talk about getting big
government out of small business yet they double the burden on those that
can afford it the lest.  Organic Gestapo- now they are having spot
inspections beside your regular inspection and the state can also inspect u.
once i was inspected twice in the same week.  hehe.   true story.  it is
getting nuts. NUTS  so you may get inspected 2 or 3 times a  year.  and the
price keep going up and up and up. what ever the market will bear.    why
just because u want to grow and sell organic  ,  They are once again killing
off the small grower and CCOF is helping by doubling the cost for the small
grower.  you can't trust any of them anymore.  its not about organic its
about money .  get big or get out that is what CCOF is saying and that is
what the USDA is saying.  get big or get out.
----- Original Message -----
From: <geno@ZAP.A2000.NL>
To: <SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 3:38 PM
Subject: INTERVIEW-USDA aims to finish organic, meat, ...


> 5% GE, irradiated crops/ingredients in organic foods????????
>
>
> --------------- Forwarded Story ---------------
>
> Headline: INTERVIEW-USDA aims to finish organic, meat, ...
> Wire Service: RTbr (Reuters Business Report)
> Date: Mon, Nov 27, 2000
>
>  Copyright 2000 Reuters Ltd.  All rights reserved.
> The following news report may not be republished or redistributed, in
> whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Reuters Ltd.
>   INTERVIEW-USDA aims to finish organic, meat, forest rules
>      By Randy Fabi
>      WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With only two months left on the job,
> Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said Monday he aimed to
> finalize
> several key policies including limiting roads in national forests,
> establishing organic food standards, and creating nutrition labels for
> raw meat.
>      "We still have some things to do before we leave, we have a few
>      very
> significant rules we will get out," Glickman told Reuters in an
> interview..
>      Glickman said the USDA will soon publish a final plan prohibiting
>      most
> road construction and timber harvesting on nearly 60 million acres
> (24.28 million hectares) of U.S. forest land. The plan, which was
> unveiled earlier this month, has been criticized by the lumber
> industry and Republican lawmakers in western states.
>      A final nationwide labeling standard for organic foods -- more
>      than a
> decade in the making -- was also on Glickman's to-do list.
>      To be labeled "USDA certified organic," the department's current
> proposal requires products to be at least 95 percent free of crops
> that were genetically altered, irradiated or grown with aid of sewage
> sludge.
>      Organic food and clothing standards currently fall under a
>      hodgepodge
> of state, regional and private certifier standards, giving rise to
> confusion about its meaning.
>      The USDA said the regulations, if implemented, would be the
>      strictest
> in the world, and may force other countries to tighten their own
> standards.
>      Glickman said a third priority for his remaining weeks on the job
>      is
> to publish a proposal to create nutritional labels for raw meat and
> poultry such as beef roasts, chicken breasts and ground beef. The
> labels, proposed last May, would give consumers the ability to easily
> compare fat, calorie and cholesterol content.
>      Nutrition labels have been required since 1994 on bacon, hot
>      dogs,
> beef stew and other processed meat and poultry dishes.
>      Glickman, who leaves the department as the longest serving
>      agriculture
> secretary since the Lyndon Johnson administration, hinted that he
> would likely remain in Washington and seek employment in the private
> sector.
>      Glickman, a former Democratic congressman from Kansas, has said
>      he
> would not seek reappointment as agriculture secretary.
>      "I think I'm going to stay around in some way, but I've been in
>      public
> life for almost 25 years now," Glickman said. "So its probably time to
> at least... pursue different options in my life."
>     Glickman said his chief accomplishments while heading the USDA for
> nearly six years included tightening food safety standards and
> improving civil rights for minority farmers seeking USDA loans as well
> as for minority employees.
>      Assistance to American family farmers at a time of huge grain
> inventories and low prices was also a top priority during the past
> three years. A record $28 billion in federal payments to farmers this
> year boosted farm income and saved thousands from going bankrupt.
> "We've saved an awful lot of people from going under," he said.
>      The USDA has also focused more attention on land conservation
>      issues
> during the past few years, he said.
>      "We have tried to make this department much more of a
>      conservation
> department," he said. "Two to three generations from now people will
> not remember what crop we planted but how we treated our land and
> whether it is capable of growing crops."
>   REUTERS
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> How to Use this Mailing List
> ============================================================
>
> You received this e-mail as a result of your registration on the
> biotech_activists mailing list.
>
> To unsubscribe, please send an email to listserv@iatp.org. In the body
> of the message type: unsubscribe biotech_activists
>
> For a list of other commands and list options, please send email to
> listserv@iatp.org. In the body of the message type: help
>
> Please direct content questions about this list to: mritchie@iatp.org
>
> Please direct technical questions about this service to:
> support@iatp.org