hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

FW: Suggested Comment Letter on Proposed National OrganicStandards

Apologies for cross postings

> From: Debbie  Ortman <debbie@organicconsumers.org>
> Reply-To: wfan@iastate.edu
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 18:28:45 -0500
> To: wfan@iastate.edu
> Subject: Re: WFAN> Newsletter article from Debbie Ortman
> Organic Consumers Association: Suggested Comment Letter on Proposed
> National Organic Standards
> Must refer to the docket number (TMD-00-02-PR) that is listed in Federal
> Register notice.
> Note: If you wish to let the United States Department of Agriculture - USDA
> know by email what you think of their
> March, 2000 proposed National Organic Standards, please send your comments
> to the Organic Consumers Association at <info@organicconsumers.org> and we
> will forward these on to the USDA. The USDA has chosen to not provide an
> email address for submitting comments, so OCA will provide this service for
> those of you who do not have access to the internet.
> To submit comments via the web site: See www.ams.usda.gov/nop
> When faxing or mailing comments you must refer to: Docket number:
> TMD-00-02-PR2
> To send comments by fax to the USDA:  703-365-0760
> To send comments by regular mail: Keith Jones, National Organic Program,
> USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP, Room 2945-So., Ag Stop 0275, PO Box 96456, Washington,
> D.C. 20090-6456
> The 90 day comment  period ends on June 12, 2000. Below is our basic
> recommendation for what you should tell the USDA. Further information is
> available in BioDemocracy News #25 posted along with other information on
> our website <http://www.purefood.org>
> SAMPLE LETTER:  NOTE: You must give name and complete address.
> Dear USDA National Organic Program,
> Although the USDA's March, 2000 proposed National Organic Standards are a
> vast improvement over the first proposed rules issued in December, 1997, as
> an organic consumer I am very concerned that the USDA adhere to the
> following principles:
> (1) Do not weaken or dilute any of the proposed organic rules published in
> the USDA's March 2000 document in any manner whatsoever.
> (2) Private (i.e. non-governmental) and state organic certifiers must have
> the legal right to exercise their free speech and certify and label
> products to higher or stricter standards than the minimum "USDA Certified
> Organic" standards and be able to state on their label that this product
> "meets or exceeds" or "exceeds"  USDA organic standards.
> (3) So-called "natural foods" with less than 50% organic ingredients should
> not be allowed to use the word "organic" anywhere on their package or
> product labels--given that the the non-organic ingredients of these
> so-called "natural" products may be genetically engineered, irradiated,
> derived from sewage sludge, or produced with pesticides, growth hormones,
> or antibiotics.
> (4)  Although the proposed regulations on organic animal husbandry require
> "access to outdoors," no clear definition of what constitutes "pasture" are
> offered, nor does the USDA delineate exact space or spacing requirements
> for humane housing and outdoor access for poultry, pigs, cattle, and other
> animals.
> (5) Although the USDA claim they don't intend to impose economic hardships
> on organic certifiers and farmers, the added costs of USDA oversight will
> fall heavily on small certifiers and farmers. The USDA should provide
> accreditation services to organic certifiers free of change as well as
> subsidize 100% of the costs of any farmer who wishes to become certified as
> organic. Beyond this the USDA should allocate funds to pay farmers a
> premium price for their products during their "transition to organic" phase
> as an added incentive for the majority of farmers to begin making the
> transition to sustainable and organic farming practices.
> (6) Although genetic contamination of organic crops by "genetic drift" from
> farms growing genetically engineered crops is one of the most serious
> environmental threats to organic agriculture, no liability provisions nor
> residue limits for genetic contamination are delineated in the USDA's
> proposed federal regulations. The USDA must hold biotechnology patent
> holders and seed companies accountable and financially liable for the
> environmental and economic damage inflicted on organic farmers and
> producers caused by genetic drift.
> Sincerely,
> Your Name and Address
> Debbie Dunbar Ortman
> National Field Organizer
> Organic Consumers Association
> 3547 Haines Rd.
> Duluth, MN 55811
> (218) 726-1443
> (218) 726-1446 Fax
> debbie@organicconsumers.org
> http://www.purefood.org
> Join the Organic Consumers Association in your local area.
> If you want to become a member or a volunteer--or make a donation--call
> (218)726-1443
> Please subscribe to our free electronic newsletter, Organic View,
> via our website or send an email to: info@organicconsumers.org
> with the message: subscribe
> Organic View is devoted to organic food issues and
> the work of the OCA.
> OCA is affiliated with the BioDemocracy Campaign.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

community_garden maillist  -  community_garden@mallorn.com

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index