 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Where do we go from here?
This is intended to be a state-based project with the object of
reclaiming organic integrity. There will be no staff, no national
organization, and no fund-raising. We will have a discussion
forum at Yahoo!. We will also make available many documents
and articles. Occasionally I will post a news bulletin. As things
develop I will suggest guidelines for state-based groups, but each
group will be responsible to itself and not to me. The ownership
of the website, however, will be mine, and I will welcome
diversity, but not distraction.
reclaiming organic integrity. There will be no staff, no national
organization, and no fund-raising. We will have a discussion
forum at Yahoo!. We will also make available many documents
and articles. Occasionally I will post a news bulletin. As things
develop I will suggest guidelines for state-based groups, but each
group will be responsible to itself and not to me. The ownership
of the website, however, will be mine, and I will welcome
diversity, but not distraction.
There are several national organizations that may be helpful in this
project, but none will control it. I will focus my own efforts here in
Maine, where I believe at least half a dozen committed organic
people can be found to raise this issue with our congressional
delegation to get a satisfactory response. This strategy is not
dependant on large numbers, but rather on the standing and
respect of the individuals committed to it. Of course there is
nothing wrong with large numbers if they are fully committed to
the project. I can imagine in some states the project will take
more of a mass-action form.
project, but none will control it. I will focus my own efforts here in
Maine, where I believe at least half a dozen committed organic
people can be found to raise this issue with our congressional
delegation to get a satisfactory response. This strategy is not
dependant on large numbers, but rather on the standing and
respect of the individuals committed to it. Of course there is
nothing wrong with large numbers if they are fully committed to
the project. I can imagine in some states the project will take
more of a mass-action form.
Each state-based group will attempt to get a commitment from every
member of its Congressional delegation on two objectives: 1) repeal
the OTA rider; and 2) not to allow any future amendments of the
organic law outside of the normal legislative process. I do not
envision a discussion as to how the organic law might be changed, or
"strengthened", until the rider is repealed. Here is an example of
one person's contact with their member of Congress: ...MORE...
member of its Congressional delegation on two objectives: 1) repeal
the OTA rider; and 2) not to allow any future amendments of the
organic law outside of the normal legislative process. I do not
envision a discussion as to how the organic law might be changed, or
"strengthened", until the rider is repealed. Here is an example of
one person's contact with their member of Congress: ...MORE...
Following the Acres USA meeting in Indianapolis, Jim Riddle has outlined a policy
shift to USDA that would, in part, bypass the issue of synthetics in
manufacturing. The text of his proposal is printed here. I see it as a parallel
project to repealing the rider, although if it actually were implemented fully, I
suppose we would re-evaluate before proceeding.
shift to USDA that would, in part, bypass the issue of synthetics in
manufacturing. The text of his proposal is printed here. I see it as a parallel
project to repealing the rider, although if it actually were implemented fully, I
suppose we would re-evaluate before proceeding.
Some people have asked me to write a standard letter which they could then sign and send to their
Congresspeople. I have refused to do that, because I think some methods have outlived their
usefulness: 1) massive emails, not from constituents; 2) form letters, all of which are the same.
However, there is nothing wrong with getting inspiration from letters written by others. In that
spirit, here is a letter which, with minor alterations, has gone to each Senator and Representative
in Maine:
Dear__________
We are organic producers in western Maine, alarmed about a recent amendment-rider to the
federal law governing organic food. It was inserted into the agricultural spending bill, without
being discussed in conference (or in any public place) through the efforts of the acting majority
leader----or rather his wife Abigail Blunt who is a lobbyist for Kraft Foods. (This we learned from
a business reporter for the New York Times, and confirmed by NGO's in DC.)
The rider legalizes synthetic ingredients added to organic foods labeled organic. Such ingredients
were scheduled to be eliminated in June 2007 under a final judgement and order signed by Judge
D Brock Hornby on June 9, 2005.
This rider distorts the meaning of organic products, as defined in a long and inclusive
process that led to the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Under that law, manufactured foods
with allowed synthetics can be labeled "made with organic ingredients", while the "organic" label
is reserved for products with 95% organic AND 100% natural ingredients. This is what nearly all
organic consumers expect.
As producers of fresh and processed organic blueberry foods, we know that the strict court ruling
would increase our costs for some recipes and require some of our products to be re-labeled
"made with organic". It would also affect other organic handlers in Maine. Perhaps the largest of
these is Paul Chartrand, who is quoted in the enclosed article from MaineBIZ. We agree with Paul
that consumers are better served by more informative labels.
In summary, we ask you support for 2 commitments:
1) Co-sponor the repeal of the rider (section 797 of the ag approp bill for 2006).
2) No further amendments to the organic law, outside the normal legislative process including
public hearings. Organic standards affect millions of citizens, not just some corporations. This is
crucial because most of the arguments used privately to justify the rider, would not have been
made publicly, either because they were false, or because the companies who financed the rider do
not want to be known publicly to favor looser organic standards.
Sincerely, Elizabeth Gravalos & Arthur Harvey
PS. The above is only a summary of a complex subject. For full details, see RestoreOrganicLaw.org
Congresspeople. I have refused to do that, because I think some methods have outlived their
usefulness: 1) massive emails, not from constituents; 2) form letters, all of which are the same.
However, there is nothing wrong with getting inspiration from letters written by others. In that
spirit, here is a letter which, with minor alterations, has gone to each Senator and Representative
in Maine:
Dear__________
We are organic producers in western Maine, alarmed about a recent amendment-rider to the
federal law governing organic food. It was inserted into the agricultural spending bill, without
being discussed in conference (or in any public place) through the efforts of the acting majority
leader----or rather his wife Abigail Blunt who is a lobbyist for Kraft Foods. (This we learned from
a business reporter for the New York Times, and confirmed by NGO's in DC.)
The rider legalizes synthetic ingredients added to organic foods labeled organic. Such ingredients
were scheduled to be eliminated in June 2007 under a final judgement and order signed by Judge
D Brock Hornby on June 9, 2005.
This rider distorts the meaning of organic products, as defined in a long and inclusive
process that led to the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Under that law, manufactured foods
with allowed synthetics can be labeled "made with organic ingredients", while the "organic" label
is reserved for products with 95% organic AND 100% natural ingredients. This is what nearly all
organic consumers expect.
As producers of fresh and processed organic blueberry foods, we know that the strict court ruling
would increase our costs for some recipes and require some of our products to be re-labeled
"made with organic". It would also affect other organic handlers in Maine. Perhaps the largest of
these is Paul Chartrand, who is quoted in the enclosed article from MaineBIZ. We agree with Paul
that consumers are better served by more informative labels.
In summary, we ask you support for 2 commitments:
1) Co-sponor the repeal of the rider (section 797 of the ag approp bill for 2006).
2) No further amendments to the organic law, outside the normal legislative process including
public hearings. Organic standards affect millions of citizens, not just some corporations. This is
crucial because most of the arguments used privately to justify the rider, would not have been
made publicly, either because they were false, or because the companies who financed the rider do
not want to be known publicly to favor looser organic standards.
Sincerely, Elizabeth Gravalos & Arthur Harvey
PS. The above is only a summary of a complex subject. For full details, see RestoreOrganicLaw.org
Strategy