Page Title

[Here is an example of a one-on-one educational campaign in a state other than
Maine. I think it's important that it began with a personal talk between a voter and a
legislator. Then, followed up with a letter and also additional printed materials. At a
later time, it should be re-visited to see if the legislator has any questions or problems
to discuss.   In this way, especially if several voters contact this legislator, he will take
a firm position on repeal that cannot be swayed by party politics or lobbyists.   ---A.H.]

(Hi, Arthur.    I spoke with ____________ briefly at a town hall meeting a couple
weeks ago. He was not familiar with the rider but said he was with me on fighting
efforts to weaken the organic standards. Here is my letter (sent by the
congressional e-mail service):

I enjoyed meeting you at the town meeting at ____________ Middle School
November 21, and briefly discussing the rider amending the Organic Foods Production
Act (OFPA) which was attached to this year's Agricultural Appropriations bill. I will
send you some materials on this issue, by regular mail.

Briefly, in January, 2005 the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case of Harvey
v. Veneman that certain of the organic food regulations were contrary to OFPA and
did not meet the stringent organic standards intended by the legislation.

The rider was ostensibly aimed at reversing the court decision, and was put forward
by the Organic Trade Association, although without input or agreement from many of
its members. Large corporate interests which have bought up smaller organic
companies, such as Kraft and General Mills, were the main supporters of the rider.
These corporations want to be able to receive the premium price attached to the
organic label while producing food in the more industrial manner to which they are
accustomed. One of the lobbyists for the rider was Congressman Blunt's wife, a
lobbyist for Altria Group, which includes Kraft.

The rider was not in either the House or Senate version of the bill, and apparently
was inserted by the Republican conferees after the conference was officially
adjourned. An earlier attempt to put this language in the Senate bill had been
rebuffed, and Senator Leahy instead inserted a 90 day study provision, and asked
the organic community to use the time to reach consensus on a legislative response
to the court ruling, if any. The Organic Trade Association, however, dropped out of
these negotiations early on, and succeeded in inserting its rider in the conference
committee. This occurred despite over 300,000 calls and e-mails to Congress
opposing the rider.

The rider does not actually return the organic standards to the status quo prior to the
court decision as claimed by its advocates. In some respects it leaves the decision
intact, while in others it further weakens the standards beyond the pre-Harvey
status quo. Most importantly, it does reverse the court ruling that prohibited
synthetic ingredients in "organic" foods (those with at least 95% organic content and
eligible to bear the USDA organic seal). Consumers Union did a survey last year
which found that 85% of consumers do not expect synthetic substances in organic
food.

Several members of Congress, many media stories (including a New York Times
editorial) and many organic groups and businesses have spoken out against both the
content of the rider and the process of its enactment. If there is to be a change in
the organic law, it should be done through consensus building in the organic
community and through normal legislative channels with open debate.
The integrity of the organic standards is not only important to assure consumers that
they are getting what they expect and what they pay for in organically-labeled
products -- but also because organic agriculture is the best alternative to the
prevailing chemical agriculture with its enormous negative environmental impacts.

In sum, I would ask your support for efforts to repeal this rider in next year's
Congress and related efforts to insure the integrity of the organic standards.
Thank you.

    *     *     *    *     *     *     *      *       *       *      *     *       *        *

(Here is the reply :)

                                                         " December 16, 2005
Dear__________:

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about attempts to weaken
organic food standards. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.

As you know, over the last decade, the organic foods market has grown 20% each
year. In 2002, te U.S. Department of Agriculture established a national organic food
standard. These standards, with which most organic food producers have worked
hard to comply, give these producers concrete and workable guidelines for what can
be sold with the organic label. More importantly, consumers of organic products can
be sure that what they are buying is actually organic.

However, special interests have triumphed over the best interests of the consumer.
The rider to the FY 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill that was approved by
Congress reverses the First Circuit Court of Appeals decision and has created an
enormous loophole in the Organic Foods Production Act by allowing synthetic
substances in organic foods.

Consumers should be treated honestly. Our organic standards should not be
dismantled by back door deals. I will work with my colleagues to close the loophole
that has been created.

Again, thank you for contacting me on this matter. Please let me know whenever I
may be of service.

                                                   Sincerely,

                                                _______________________
                                                Member of Congress"