[MPWG] QUESTION OF THE MONTH: Certification Schemes

[Center for Sustainable Resources]

I believe you could only say that with reference to your experience wherever 
you were.
My experience has been different. What is it today? Almost unused. Even if a 
certain amount of the population wants organically grown vegatables it sets 
up an unfair market place because most farmers are rural and do not have 
access to those markets. The standards have little to do with land 
stewardship when you consider what is allowable under those standards. How 
could it be safer when we don't even know what might be in public waste. 
Public waste is monitored for industrial materials although people put 
everything down their drains. Just because you cook it one way or another 
does not change toxicity in cancer causing chemicals. Organically produced 
food may in fact be less safe then what is otherwise available.
Standards should be dictated by ones own goal not a foreign committee.
However, if it makes you feel better, I don't have a problem with it. Just 
don't try and impose it on everyone else.
I don't use pesticides or chemicals of any kind to produce food and I know 
what is in it because it is limited to what is in the soil naturally and 
what my animals can add . They don't get chemicals either.
Could I make a profit doing this on a larger scale? Probably not. People 
want what looks good and what cost less. That is the market and the demand. 
My chicken and beef could be certified organic. The chickens have to be 
cooked in an autoclave and the beef is more like venison. It is ok with me 
but not what the public seeks. The public seeks good taste and fat, count on 
it. Fred Hays

>From: Steve Diver <steved at ncat.org>
>To: mpwg at lists.plantconservation.org
>Subject: Re: [MPWG] QUESTION OF THE MONTH: Certification Schemes
>Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:12:02 -0600
>
>Allow me to say that this viewpoint from Fred Hays on organic
>certification and the history of organic certification is a rather
>skewed and jaded opinion.
>
>I was involved with organic certification with the grassroots
>organizations going back to the early 1980s.  The system in
>place for many years was admirable and professional, based
>largely on international IFOAM standards.
>
>The National Organic Standards resulted from intense
>lobbying efforts to standardize certification and reduce
>minor variances between programs.  International
>trade and standardization is a major factor in modern
>organic markets.
>
>The USDA program is currently working very well.  The
>standards are there, organic inspection is there, certification
>and record keeping is there.
>
>Human beings from many walks of life are very concerned
>about food safety and food quality.    The organic program
>is an eco-label that provides assurance to the consumer
>that foods labeled organic have met standards of production.
>
>ATTRA, where I work, has supported organic farmers
>for over 15 years.  Please feel free to examine the organic
>documentation forms on the ATTRA web page.
>
>There are certain aspects of the NOP that farmers would
>like to see improved.  In my experience it needs to be
>more dynamic and flexible when needed adjustments
>are brought to attention. But on the whole there is
>no mystery about the NOP program, there is no
>question that it is very legitimate and professional.
>
>Frankly, if anybody wants to explore organic certification
>it is widely available.
>
>Of prime importance as it relates to medicinal plants,
>and organic foods and produce of all kinds, is quality.
>
>The nutritional quality of organic food products and
>medicinal herbs has many interesting topics, from
>innovative quality tests to agronomic methods to
>enhance nutritional components.
>
>Steve Diver
>ATTRA - National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service
>http://www.attra.ncat.org
>
>
>Center for Sustainable Resources wrote:
> >Patricia mentions the organic standards we now have. I can' think of a 
>better example of what not to >do. Those standards have become meaningless 
>since the USDA intervention. The intervention >resulted because many little 
>organic factions accrross the country were trying to impose their own 
> >standards and charge fees for it etc. The term organic is simply a feel 
>good thing for certain groups >especially what we call the yuppies. It has 
>nothing to do with quality or even the way something >was produced.
>
>stuff deleted
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>MPWG mailing list
>MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to MPWG-request at lists.plantconservation.org 
>with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>                                                       Disclaimer           
>                                                      Any advice given on 
>this list regarding diagnosis or treatments etc. reflects ONLY the opinion 
>of the individual who posts the message. The information contained in posts 
>is not intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional medical 
>advice relative to your specific medical condition or question. All medical 
>and other healthcare information that is discussed on this list should be 
>carefully reviewed by the individual reader and their qualified healthcare 
>professional. Posts do not reflect any official opinions or positions of 
>the Plant Conservation Alliance.