To: "permaculture" <permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: RE: permaculture digest: November 30, 2000
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 00:06:24 -0800
This has been an enlightening Digest, even upsetting for that matter. Sorry
if i offended you toby but I am not a great fan of, or diviner of special
meanings assigned to statements known to the aficiandos. Just a long time
professional ecologist, horticulturist and organic farmer. I too have been
to the wars about riparian matters in the southwest and agree with your
judgments about the true effects of tree/brush removal...my comments were
restricted to nonriparian and oases situtations. Sorry you don't believe in
evaportranspiration rates...guess my orchard clients are losing money and
the State-wide CIMAS system is a ripoff.
But Sal is my biggest disappointment. Sal and I go way back; I farm maybe 7
miles from him and when I was prez of our local CCOF chapter, he was Veep.
I inspected his acres a half dozen times, often for free. I like Sal,
everybody does. And Tuesday night Sal came to our annual dinner where we
heard the Executive Director and the President of the Board of Directors of
CCOF explain, apologize, agonize, and promise to fight the USDA on the 5%
rule. There never will be allowable GMO, Biosolids, or Irradiated
components in processed food and none at all in primary production sold as
certified organic. CCOF is ready to walk. Sal ranted and ranted some more,
not listening and then came to this board and ranted some more. I share his
concerns more so than he realizes since I have never chosen to become
certified and no longer call my produce organic and suffer some for this
stance. CCOF's staff and Board are in the process of reviewing it's role in
this whole mess. Just remember, the Fed. regs are not for you or me, they
are for the wholesalers, international traders, ADM types. ISO plus, so to
speak. The WTO can veto any regs they deem against trade policies. And
there are NAFTA and what's left of GATT. We need out.
So, the time for bi..hing is over. Go the Civil Disobedience route. But be
sure of your facts. It's like the alleged gmo corn pollution in Australia,
another kind of Urban Myth. Glickman is a semiprogressive politician and the
quote ascribed to him is either wrong of he's looking for a job at ADM or
Cargil in a few months. LOL
Face it, nearly every processed food in the US already has gmo stuff in it,
including organic. And it wasn't from pollen drift or incidental
co-mingling of product. All those byproducts of corn, soy, cotton, safflower
(canola), and potato (starch and modified products from it) which are added
to processed foods are transgenic in part. McDonald's frenchfries. A couple
of years ago, there probably wasn't a GMO-free fructose in any product,
conventional or organic.
So pick a war you can win. Minimum: total labeling (let the consumers run
the ba...rds off.) Second: Certification of wholely organic entities only.
Third: Certified grower operations must be mixed crop and livestock and
actually manage the operation wholistically. Fourth: The USDA to certify the
certifiers and that's it; no spot inspections, no onerous fees or fines.
Finally: (maybe) mandatory certification for operations grossing more than
$100,000 and adjusted for inflation. Small farmers, permaculturists, market
gardeners can continue to serve their local communities and be honored as
organic, small o.
When the fed. rules appear in the next few months, California expects 1400
more organic growers seeking certification. CCOF is and will be the
cheapest certifier so it expects 400 new small-farm applicants, each one
costing $1,000 to certify. Small growers (under $20,000) now pay $100 to
renew plus inspection costs. They and all other growers and processor will
be asked to pay and added $100/year. So who pays for the difference? A few
big certified farmers and processing companies who pay one half of one
percent on gross sales up to a cap value.
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
Subject: Re: PIERCE'S DISEASE LETTER TO CDFA SECRETARY LYONS
From: "sal" <sals@rain.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:13:59 -0800
X-Message-Number: 16
I agree we need help with chemical and GMO trespass on organic growers and
school yards and others that are being contaminated against their well. i
am sure glad to see this . I hope the state of Ca. hears and helps. CDFA
SECRETARY LYONS should help us after all they are heading the organic
movement in Ca. and signing folks up to be organic farmers taking their
money and now he has a chance to help them keep their organicness. I hope
the Fed. standards also will help protect the organic grower and not just
police them. At last someone helping the grower and fighting for the
farmer not against them. Thanks and keep up the great work.
----- Original Message -----
From: <EWerb@aol.com>
To: <scpg@arashi.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 1:07 AM
Subject: PIERCE'S DISEASE LETTER TO CDFA SECRETARY LYONS
> this is not another stupid email petition or a story about president
reject
> bush -
> this is a plea for reduced toxicity in the war on the environment - plus
we
> can argue that it is a kyoto credit...
>
> Californians for Pesticide Reform
>
> Action Alert
>
> SIGN ON TO PIERCE'S DISEASE LETTER TO CDFA SECRETARY LYONS (REVISED
> POLICY STATEMENT)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Action: Please read and endorse the following letter to CDFA Secretary
Bill
> Lyons by 5:00 pm on Friday, December 8. The letter
> will be used to call on the California Department of Food and Agriculture
> to prioritize public health and environmental protection, ensure adequate
> public notification and participation in decision making and promote
organic
> and sustainable approaches to controlling Pierce's disease. The
> letter is a revision of the
> policy statement you may have signed on to earlier. Changes reflect
> comments we
> received following the release of the original version.
> Thank you to those of you who provided input. We will deliver the letter
to
> CDFA Secretary Bill Lyons on December 12.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> SIGN-ON FORM
>
> Please email back this sign-on form to pests@igc.org.
>
> __ Yes, Add my organization to the list of groups endorsing the
> following letter.
> Name:
> Title:
> Organization:
> Address:
> Phone:
> Fax:
> Email:
>
> For more information, contact Jessica Hamburger at Pesticide Action
> Network, jah@panna.org, 415-981-1771.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> William J. Lyons, Jr.
> Secretary, California Department of Food and Agriculture
> 1220 N Street, Suite 409
> Sacramento, CA 95814
>
> Dear Secretary Lyons:
>
> We, the undersigned public interest groups, call on the California
> Department of Food and Agriculture to enact the following proposals.
> Implementation of our recommendations will prioritize public health
> and environmental protection, ensure adequate public notification and
> participation in decisionmaking and promote organic and sustainable
> approaches to controlling Pierce's disease.
>
> I. Background
>
> Pierce's disease, caused by the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa, has
> affected grapes in California for over 100 years. Insect vectors
> spread the disease from one plant to another. A more effective vector
> for the disease, the glassy-winged sharpshooter (GWSS), has become
> well established in Southern California and is spreading throughout
> the state. There is no widely recognized cure for Pierce's disease.
> Scientists familiar with the GWSS have testified before the state
> legislature that the spread of the insect to new areas of the state
> could cause major economic losses to the grape and wine industries.
> The federal and state governments have declared a state of emergency,
> and have allocated over $35 million to the California Department of
> Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to create the Pierce's Disease Control
> Program.
>
> CDFA's current program to control the GWSS needlessly endangers the
> public, does not involve those most impacted in the decisionmaking
> process, and is likely to fail to prevent or cure Pierce's disease.
> The primary problems with the program are:
> x Local agencies are endangering public health by spraying pesticides
> around homes and by aerial spraying agricultural land, a practice
> that can result in pesticides drifting into neighboring communities.
> x Current efforts rely heavily on the use of highly hazardous
> pesticides, including the nerve poisons Lorsban and Sevin.
> x The decisionmaking process does not include adequate public
participation.
> x Use of broad-spectrum insecticides is killing off beneficial
> insects that keep other pests in check.
> x There is no long-term plan for the prevention or cure of Pierce's
disease.
> The program's current focus on spraying pesticides is unacceptable.
> We call on CDFA to end the state of emergency and conduct a full
> environment impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental
> Quality Act (CEQA). The program must shift its emphasis to developing
> organic and sustainable disease prevention measures and non-chemical
> and least-toxic methods of pest control. These investments will
> benefit agriculture by minimizing crop losses due to Pierce's disease
> and will protect public health and the environment by reducing
> reliance on hazardous pesticides. Investing in organic and
> sustainable agriculture is good for the economy and good for the
> environment.
>
> II. Recommendations
>
> 1. Protect Public Health, the Environment and Organic Farms
> x Protection of public health and the environment should be a primary
> factor in selecting options for controlling and preventing Pierce's
> disease.
> x All CDFA program components must comply with applicable public
> health and environmental laws, including the California Environmental
> Quality Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water
> Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Federal
> Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and any other applicable
> laws.
> x Completion of a full EIR under CEQA shall be a precondition for the
> disbursement of funds. An EIR is essential because it will ensure
> public disclosure of the public health and environmental effects of
> the program and evaluation of alternative approaches that have fewer
> health and environmental impacts.
> x No Pierce's Disease Control Program funds should finance the use of
> synthetic pesticides, including EPA Category I and II acute poisons,
> nerve toxins (including Lorsban and Sevin), known or probable
> carcinogens, reproductive or developmental toxicants, or are known to
> have contaminated California groundwater.
> x Broadcast (including aerial) applications of pesticides to combat
> Pierce's disease must never be used.
> x Organic farms, urban mini-farms, gardens and landscapes must not be
> contaminated by forced pesticide spraying. Maintaining these organic
> islands will ensure the availability of release sites for natural
> enemies of the GWSS, and will prevent financial losses to growers and
> damage to backyard conservation efforts.
>
> 2. Ensure Adequate Public Notification and Input
> x CDFA must inform residents of their right to refuse to allow
> spraying of pesticides and their right to use alternative methods on
> property that they own or rent. Pierce's Disease Control Program
> funds should be made available to hire experts to provide
> non-chemical control of GWSS around homes, schools, hospitals,
> nursing homes and other sensitive areas.
> x If pesticides are used, the public must be notified in advance of
> any applications. Neighbors within a one-mile radius of the proposed
> spraying must receive notice at least two weeks in advance, with a
> second 24-hour notice of the details of the plan. Residents must be
> provided with information about the health and ecological impacts of
> the chemicals to be used.
> x All decisions about Pierce's disease control should be transparent
> and include adequate public input. This includes decisions at the
> federal, state, county and local levels. Specifically, the process
> should include the following provisions:
> a) State regulations and plans and county workplans must be subject
> to health and environmental review with public involvement through
> the preparation of a full EIR under CEQA.
> b) Any county that is developing a Pierce's disease control workplan
> and/or designating a "local public entity" to implement the workplan
> must hold a public hearing, making the draft workplan publicly
> available at least ten days in advance. The purpose of these hearings
> should be to involve the public in real decisionmaking, not to simply
> inform them about what action is going to be taken.
> c) The local public entity should be a task force chaired by the
> county board of supervisors.
> d) County GWSS/Pierce's disease task forces and CDFA's Pierce's
> Disease Advisory Task Force and Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter Science
> Advisory Panel must include diverse representation. All three groups
> should have at least one representative from each of the following
> stakeholder constituencies: public health organization; environmental
> organization; organic farmer; and a community representative from an
> area that is impacted by Pierce's disease policy. Meetings should be
> sufficiently posted in advance and should be open to the public.
>
> 3. Promote Organic and Sustainable Approaches
> x Growers must take preventive measures to control Pierce's disease.
> Preventive steps should include the following:
> a) Avoid planting grapes in areas that are known to be Pierce's
> disease hotspots;
> b) Avoid planting grapes next to crops known to harbor large
> populations of GWSS, such as citrus;
> c) Avoid planting grape varieties known to be susceptible to Pierce's
> disease; and
> d) Immediately remove plants exhibiting symptoms of Pierce's disease.
> x Pierce's disease control program funds should be used to assist
> growers in adopting organic and sustainable practices through on-farm
> research, technical support and cost sharing. The program should
> emphasize improving soil fertility and plant health, planting
> resistant varieties and reducing soil erosion. Growers should be
> assisted in using buffer zones, mechanical controls and non-toxic
> confusion and diversion strategies to keep GWSS from feeding in
> vineyards and orchards. The program should support agricultural
> practices that reduce pest problems by providing for a diversity of
> predatory insects, diverse cropping patterns and habitat diversity.
> x Genetically modified organisms (e.g., bacteria, insects and plants)
> should not be used to combat Pierce's disease and no public funding
> should be allocated to such approaches.
> x The introduction of non-native beneficial insects to control the
> GWSS should be avoided unless research shows that native beneficials
> cannot provide adequate control. Non-native species may be introduced
> only if research shows that they would not cause collateral damage to
> local ecosystems.
> x If analysis of the threat posed by GWSS justifies it, CDFA should
> implement quarantine on the shipment on all nursery stock, vines, and
> grapes from counties where GWSS infestations have been discovered.
> Using pesticides on nursery stock and grape shipments that are
> suspected of containing GWSS adults, nymphs or egg masses will be
> ineffective and will cause unnecessary health and ecological impacts.
> x CDFA must ensure that grape plants offered for sale are free of
> Xylella fastidiosa, the bacterium that causes Pierce's disease. The
> effectiveness of CDFA's current nursery certification program
> designed for this purpose should be evaluated and improved as
> necessary.
> x Selection of control measures must take into account impacts on
> beneficial insects that pollinate plants and keep other pests in
> check.
>
> The undersigned organizations call on the California Department of
> Food and Agriculture to enact our recommendations.
>
> Pesticide Action Network
> Californians for Pesticide Reform
> California Public Interest Research Group
> Organic Farming Research Foundation
> Sierra Club
> (your group)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> --------------------
> --
> Californians for Pesticide Reform
> 49 Powell Street, Suite 530
> San Francisco, CA 94102
> Phone 415-981-3939 ext. 6
> Fax 415-981-2727
> pests@igc.apc.org
> www.igc.org/cpr
>
>
> </XMP>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Hinds" <cedecor@gmx.net>
To: "sal" <sals@RAIN.ORG>
Cc: <SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 8:34 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [SANET-MG] INTERVIEW-USDA aims to finish organic, meat, ...
>
> Hello sal & others involved in this thread,
>
> Thursday, November 30, 2000, 7:45:14 AM, sal wrote:
>
> s> the OTA may have told the USDA not to hurt the small growers but
> s> so what. it did not work. i talked to Brian Leathy head executive
> s> director of CCOF a big organic certifier. they have to double the
> s> price of the smallest growers in order to meet the USDA burden of
> s> cost.
>
> If anyone knows what the results of implementing the OFPA with it's
> "mandatory USDA certification in order to call it organic" are or
> will be in California (biggest ag and organic ag state in the US),
> it's sal.
>
> Bargyla also said:
>
> >> I have a feeling that there is going to be a real earthquake
> >> dimension upheaval, ending in really organic growers using some
> >> other term and completely bypassing "organic" label completely.
>
> That and there are unconstitutional aspects to the OFPA that will
> have to be addressed in the courts, if implemented with "mandatory
> USDA certification in order to call it organic" (i.e. as it now
> reads). Many of those who pioneered the use (and therefore developed
> the meaning) of the term (whose market value is now unquestionably
> strong) are being robbed here, as is their right to earn a
> livelihood through honest (and nutritious) work that shouldn't
> rightfully be considered illegal .
>
> The distance between consumers and organic growers is being widened
> by OFPA, giving a greater market advantage to those growing
> conventional rather than organic food. The very (supposed) intent
> (as professed) of the Act is being subverted and lamentably, few
> seem to realize this.
>
> Sal and Bargyla are not among those unconscious to the significance of
> this contradictory (yet sadly consistent) government policy, which
> hurts those it was designed to benefit, and puts that which it
> professes to promote at a still greater disadvantage.
>
> Let no one be confused. We are not discussing the establishment of
> consistent minimal industry standards on the national level - we are
> discussing "mandatory USDA certification in order to call it
> organic".
>
> Let USDA organic certification stand on it's own hook. If it's
> there's value added by it, there will be a demand for it. Otherwise,
> an adequate enforcement of Truth in Advertising laws would be
> sufficient, if a consumer or competitor initiated organic quality
> review procedure were added to OFPA, with costs to be born buy the
> losing party and appropriate sanctions applied to those committing
> infractions.
>
>
> The solution:
>
> Keep the consistent minimal industry standards on the national level
> in OFPA;
>
> Add a measure for any interested party's initiating a judicial
> review process of organic quality of a given product on the market
> w/ sanctions where appropriate; and
>
> Separate the above from "mandatory USDA certification in order to
> call it organic" by removing the latter from OFPA.
>
> Very few changes would be required to accomplish this (check old
> sanet archives for which - or ask & I'll dig them out again). It's
> just a question of the matter being presented to Congress. (Bart H.
> had developed what could form part of a very good legal foundation
> for this, if I recall). A focus group should formed by those
> interested. (If those that agree contact me, we can get a list
> server set up for it. Or if someone else does this, I'll subscribe).
>
> Otherwise, expect a rash of new labels while the issue of and the
> constitutional rights of those who continue to use the term organic
> in accordance with established organic principles and practices (but
> decided not to use USDA Organic Certification), reaches the Supreme
> Court (eventually).
>
> Douglas Hinds
>
>
the OTA may have told the USDA not to hurt the small growers but so what.
it did not work. i talked to Brian Leathy head executive director of CCOF a
big organic certifier. they have to double the price of the smallest
growers in order to meet the USDA burden of cost. so read the writing on
the wall this is just he start. small certifiers will be forced out of
business because they will not be able to meet the bond even let alone meet
the other burdens the USDA WILL AND IS putting on the small growers.
they doubled the price to register the small grower and every year the small
grower the one that can afford it the lest will be bleed to support the USDA
standard., this story OTA is giving u that it will ensure reciprocity
among certifiers is also a lie each certifier still will have their own
standards and they will still be different. no one is there for the small
grower. I tell you CCOF doubled the cost to their smallest grower and OTA
want you all to put your head in the sand and they say it is not so. they
say that certifiers will be fighting to give you a good deal but just the
other thing happens. the small certifiers will be forced out and only the
big players will be left and the poor small grower will be forced to join
one of these big organizations like CCOF and have to pay double or triple
what they use to pay. the got the small grower by the ears and the USDA is
forcing them to join some organization . most all the organizations that
are going to be left will be the big shots that mostly want two thing more
power (that's why we are in bed with the state and the feds. these groups
want more power. more teeth) and more money. that is all they talk about
power and money and the small farm will have to join and pay these folks.
there will be less choices because they are running the small certifiers out
of business just like the New USDA standards will run the little growers out
of business. im tell you they are raising prices already. double in one
year on the smallest growers. these same powertripers also are going to
make it so that if you try and make a nother word for organic you will be
caught and have to pay a fine. it is get big or get out . so when these
folks tell you it will not effect the small grower they are lying it already
is taxes the small growers heavy. CCOF doubled the cost to their smallest
growers all ready so wake up and get your head out the sand. it is already
happening. The USDA says this new standard will not cost the farmer
anything. they lie any one that tell you this standard will not hurt the
small grower they lie. a whole lot of small growers hundreds of small
grower will be forced to join one of these big players and have to pay what
ever they say. you wait after this law comes in a lot of small growers will
wake up and see they can not afford to use the word organic. dam
powertripers organic Gestapo spot inspections more than one inspection a
year small growers will be forced to pay big bucks for inspections.I don't
care how small you are you will have to pay the inspectors gas so much a
mile also they get like over 20 a hour while driving or what ever they ask
some get more and they can send them many miles to your place and you may
even have to pay for their motel room and food etc. some small growers in
some places will not have a inspector within a hundreds of miles and these
small growers will be forced to join and pay these inspectors big bucks even
it they are small a little over 5000 a year. you make 6000 you have to pay
pay pay . how can they say this will not hurt the small grower it already
is. CCOF just doubled the cost to their smallest grower and Brian Leahy
said it is because of this new standard that is coming. so don't believe
these lies that say we love the small grower and want to help them or we
love the small farmer we want to help them. they just doubled you fees .
wake up. if a small grower like you wanted to use the word organic and u
sell over 5000 you will be hurt there is no two was about it. it is
happening right now. small certifier will be forced out by the bond alone
and small growers will not even be able to tell folks they are organic .
CCOF just doubled the cost to their smallest growers. that is a fact and it
is going to get worse not better. there are a lot of folks out there just
waiting for this rule so they can bleed the turnips. they have taking a
grassroots dream and turned it into a bureaucratic nightmare. how many
pencil pushing bureaucratic bottom feeders that don't have to bring in a
harvest don't have to help u hoe or mow don't have to sell product only
suck our blood do we need to prove we are organic. CCOF just had to double
the cost to their smallest grower the one that can afford it the lest while
they are kissing up to the big growers that give them the most money. the
big growers have already taking over the certifiers and the little grower
will be killed off. thats the plan and that is what is happening. and it
is starting now. CCOF just had to double the cost of their smallest
growers. only certification for profit certifiers will be left and they
will make their profit of the blood of the small growers. it is a rip off
and it is oppression on the poor.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bargyla Rateaver" <brateaver@EARTHLINK.NET>
To: <SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: INTERVIEW-USDA aims to finish organic, meat, ...
> I have a feeling that there is going to be a real earthquake dimension
> upheaval, ending in really organic growers using some other term and
completely
> bypassing "organic" label completely.
>
> Tom Hutcheson wrote:
>
> > Dear Sanet,
> >
> > Two items:
> >
> > Jeff--
> >
> > >Thanks for the correction. But what about the issues of increased
> > certification
> > >costs for smaller growers and random unannounced inspections? Does
Federal
> > >government involvement with organics mean more bureaucracy, costs and
slow
> > >elimination of the small local (certified) organic grower?
> >
> > We'll see. Of course, I hope not. Personally, I would like to see full
> > federal funding of the program--but that sort of support hasn't been
seen
> > in the federal government for some time, and never, of course, for
organic
> > production. I'll also note that OTA took care in its comments on the
> > proposed rule (check it out at www.ota.com) to point out where small
> > farmers and certifiers could be put at a disadvantage, and argued
against
> > those provisions. Two-thirds of OTA's membership comes from its lowest
> > three membership levels (based on revenues from organic products or
> > services), so we take this issue quite seriously. The two most
important
> > things it will do, in my mind, are 1) ensure reciprocity among
certifiers,
> > and 2) make it harder to market conventional product as organic, which
> > happens, and does no one any good.
> >
> > Klaus--
> >
A young Australian woman just passed through here and said that because =
of transgenics (GMO=B4s), there are no more local varieties of corn in =
Australia, all have been substituted or contaminated by GMO=B4s...=20
Is that true? In Brazil we are still keeping GMO=B4s out, but it=B4s =
almost like trying to keep back the sea... I would be most grateful for =
feedback on the subject.. It would give us more ammunition, if you know =
what I mean...
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear Australian friends--</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>A young Australian woman just passed =
through here=20
and said that because of transgenics (GMO=B4s), there are no more =
local=20
varieties of corn in Australia, all have been substituted or =
contaminated by=20
GMO=B4s... </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Is that true? In Brazil we are =
still keeping=20
GMO=B4s out, but it=B4s almost like trying to keep back the sea... I =
would be most=20
grateful for feedback on the subject.. It would give us more ammunition, =
if you=20
know what I mean...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Marsha</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
transgenics or any gmo for that matter aren't the done thing here in =
aus' yet, don't know when the tide will get us but? i would suggest the =
corn story not to be true unless the government has completely pulled =
the wool over our eyes. latest story here is that monsanto (pharmacia) =
have over planted their gmo cotton (trialing i think) so they look like =
maybe getting fined and the crops will have to be ploughed in.
"in the end ya' gotta do what ya' gotta do!!"
but consider others and the environment.
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Marsha Hanzi=20
To: permaculture=20
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 8:15 AM
Subject: Corn in Australia-GMO=B4s
Dear Australian friends--
A young Australian woman just passed through here and said that =
because of transgenics (GMO=B4s), there are no more local varieties of =
corn in Australia, all have been substituted or contaminated by =
GMO=B4s...=20
Is that true? In Brazil we are still keeping GMO=B4s out, but it=B4s =
almost like trying to keep back the sea... I would be most grateful for =
feedback on the subject.. It would give us more ammunition, if you know =
what I mean...
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>g'day marsha,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>transgenics or any gmo for that matter aren't the done thing here =
in aus'=20
yet, don't know when the tide will get us but? i would suggest the corn =
story=20
not to be true unless the government has completely pulled the wool over =
our=20
eyes. latest story here is that monsanto (pharmacia) have over planted =
their gmo=20
cotton (trialing i think) so they look like maybe getting fined and the =
crops=20
will have to be ploughed in.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>len</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>--<BR>it works for me it could work for you</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A=20
href=3D"http://members.optushome.com.au/gardenlen/index1.htm">http://memb=
ers.optushome.com.au/gardenlen/index1.htm</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"in the end ya' gotta do what ya' gotta do!!"<BR>but consider =
others and=20
the environment.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A href=3D"mailto:hanzibra@svn.com.br" =
title=3Dhanzibra@svn.com.br>Marsha=20
Hanzi</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu"=20
title=3Dpermaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>permaculture</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, November 28, =
2000 8:15=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Corn in =
Australia-GMO=B4s</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear Australian =
friends--</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>A young Australian woman just passed =
through here=20
and said that because of transgenics (GMO=B4s), there are no =
more local=20
varieties of corn in Australia, all have been substituted or =
contaminated by=20
GMO=B4s... </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Is that true? In Brazil we are =
still=20
keeping GMO=B4s out, but it=B4s almost like trying to keep back the =
sea... I would=20
be most grateful for feedback on the subject.. It would give us more=20
ammunition, if you know what I mean...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Marsha</FONT></DIV>---<BR>You are =
currently=20
subscribed to permaculture as: gardenlen@optushome.com.au<BR>To =
unsubscribe=20
send a blank email to leave-permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu<BR>Get =
the list=20
FAQ at: http://www.ibiblio.org/ecolandtech/documents/permaculture.faq=20
</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>