Guest guest Posted May 31, 2000 Report Share Posted May 31, 2000 Dear Herbalists, If you would like to retain the Organic Standards that we have please read to the end of this post and make your voice known. We only have about ten days to do this. Your letter is very important... If you are not concerned about Organic Standards - then just delete this post.............Best Wishes Penny Standards!! Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 19:23:54 -0500 Debbie Ortman <debbie (by way of Debbie Ortman <debbie) To: (Recipient list suppressed) 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 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 http://192.239.92.75/waiscomment.html 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 or this is another one put out by California SAWG SEND YOUR COMMENTS ON ORGANIC STANDARDS The USDA has released their latest draft National Organic Standards -- which essentially defines what the term " organic " will mean. The rule is greatly improved over the previous proposal when over 280,000 people protested GMOs, irradiation, and sewage sludge in organics, among other issues. It is crucial that those who care about organic products combat pressure to weaken this rule by backing up the USDA in areas in which they got it right, and also to let them know where improvements still need to be made. Be sure to include section numbers in your comments. It's vital that you send your comments in by June 12, 2000 to: Keith Jones, Program Manager, National Organic Program, USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP, Room 2945-So, Ag Stop 0275, P.O. Box 96456, Washington DC 20090-6456; or Fax comments to 703-365-0760; or comment directly on the Internet at: www.ams.usda.gov/nop. Refer to Docket Number TMD-00-02-DR in all comments. You can review the rule in the 3/13/00 edition of the Federal Register (available at most libraries) or at www.ams.usda.gov/nop. ¸ FIX THE BIG 3! The new draft is much closer to prohibiting GMOs, Irradiation, and Sewage Sludge, but USDA needs to close some loopholes. Keep Organics GMO free -- Genetically Modified Organisms are not completely excluded from all of organic -- there are loopholes that could allow new GMO technologies, without any public review.[205.2, 205.271, 205.290]; Define Irradiation -- without a clear definition of ionizing radiation, a prohibition is ambiguous. [205.2]; Don't allow toxic sewage sludge ash -- prohibit burned sewage sludge that can contain heavy metals and other toxics not appropriate for organic soil. [205.2] ¸ Keep Animal Factories out of organic! Eliminate exemptions and loopholes and require pasture-based systems for ruminants and true outdoor access for all farm animals. Define " pasture. " Physical alterations of animals should not be allowed without formal National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) review. [205.238, 205.239] ¸ Don't harm small farmers! Lower the fees and provide a cost-share for farmers; current fee structures are excessively high for small farmers. Meeting organic standards should be affordable for small farmers. Keep the NOSB strong and farmer friendly. [205.640, 205.642] ¸ Don't backslide on high standards - Support USDA in the places they got it right! Make sure that pressures from elsewhere don't weaken high standards in the Final Rule: Labels will show percentage of organic in product, including 100% organic; Certifiers' ability to de-certify is recognized; " Eco-labels " other than the USDA organic label are allowed; Provisions for 100% organic feed for animals with no antibiotics or animal parts; Commitment to reduce costs for farmers on the first round; No antibiotics allowed either in animal feed or in fruit production. To email comments, send this to info and we will deliver it to the USDA! Name______________________ Address_____________________ Phone_ Email_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.