Eric Kindberg
Organic Farmers Marketing Association
December 23, 1997

Hello Mark,

There is no reason to vilify but there is good reason to never let this happen again in our lifetimes. And to be able to do that, one has to acknowledge the process that brought us to this absurdity. We all have worked very hard and sacrificed much to deliver a wonderful, practical and healthy food and fiber supply at the feet of individuals who have no respect.

So, if you all will pardon the rehash, perhaps, we should look at three principal components that through their interactions are about to give rise to utter chaos in the organic community, domestically and internationally. There is a way out though--but it demands even more grass roots organizing than we have forthwith done and with a single common goal--implementing OFPA as it is written at all costs.

First, and above every other consideration is us acknowledging the fact that factions within the organic community, up to the last day before the Proposed Rule was put out, have been committed to modifying OFPA throught the rule writing process. Dwelling on that, it means we compromised and worked together with consumers to pass a quality organic law of the land, that truly meets the expectations and perceptions of organic customers, and yet certain interests within society and the government have been constantly working to prevent it from being implemented.

OFPA is the answer to chaos. It is the law, not your opinion or mine. Everyone that suggest someone has their own interpretation should defend their position by presenting their case, not destroy the others credibility by merely deriding the person and refusing to back up their viewpoint by finding the supporting language in OFPA.

The organic community, being such a grass roots and diverse grass roots organizing effort, stretching through diverse geographic regions of the US, with a wide private sector diversity in self regulatory approach, with covering the full diversity of markets sectors and demands, with a very large diversity of production interest within the organics--a single Act for input suppliers, farmers, processors, brokers, certifiers--there has to be a single binding, tightly binding, commitment among its participants for the Act to be successful. Binding us, farmers, handlers and consumers, to a common commitment on principle has always been and remains the fundamental need to creating a trustworthy market.

Our commitment began with dedicating ourselves to health, universal health--health of humans, animals, health of whom we feed and cloth, environmental health. We took our years of experience and embodied that knowledge and commitment into the Organic Foods Production Act. On balance, as crystallized in OFPA, we have done the best of any organic group or national organic program in the world in creating such a program. OFPA is superlative and exceedingly practical, especially where it really counts, in fulfilling what the consumer wants from their purchase--no toxics, healthy food, quality treatment of all concerned and the environment.

Second: It is worth acknowledging that the people who wrote the vast majority of the Proposed Rule are the three organic staff leaders. All evidently have not read and understood the Act. The Act is somewhat difficult to read, but after $3 million and 4 years or more, there can be no excuses. It is much easier, as we all know, to listen to whom we find most comfortable to be with and follow the viewpoint we want to as we offer our opinions are are. So, in essence, the individuals writing the Proposed Rule did the same thing the NOSB did. They brought their own viewpoints, opinions and societal relationships to the table, without committing themselves to OFPA, its language and intent.

Thirdly: And this now appears to have been inevitable--the outcome of disunity--if the organic community and the NOSB and the USDA staff are not going abide and speak out for following OFPA as it is written, what can we imagine that FDA, EPA and OMB, plus a few select USDA internal bureaucracies are going to do.

No one is going to follow the law as it was written. And that is exactly what we now have--an illegal Proposed Rule that conflicts with the basic values of organic farming and our history. Many individuals, organic farmers and consumers, have spent the better part of 6 years trying to educate the NOSB and the USDA, plus other agencies of our Federal and State governments about the basic principles of organic farming and handling. It is amusing that the USDA/NOP staff and their administrators would rather promulgate an illegal and enormously destructive National Organic Program than protest against the illegality of the Proposed Rule. Sounds reasonable, who wants to look for work this time of year.

Now, an illegal and poorly written National Organic Program Rule would not be so bad if we had time (I remember the comment said at the Rodale NOSB meeting. "It is better we take a long time and get a good National Program."), except, we are not going back to discuss every issue as we did at conferences or in a certification chapter, or between organic farmers, or before the NOSB over 5, 10 or 15 years.

Organic is "licking salt with the big cows now." There is only one direction to achieve our objective, go forward with fury and energy--follow the Organic Foods Production Act to the letter--improve on it where we know an improvement is needed.

Organic as a market label will be destroyed, both domestically and internationally, if the consumer justifiably reaches the conclusion that an organic product is no healthier than any other labeled product. We know organic does not stand for synthetics stacked on synthetics.

It is absurd to expect consumer trust if we organic farmers are going to depend on synthetic substances. It is absurd to expect customers to accept that certified organic farmers would do all the work of being certified and raising a product, so handlers can operate without certification as proposed in the Rule and with disregard for whether they add synthetics to a certified organic farm product as proposed in the Rule. Although farmers are only part of the chain of getting food to customers, being raw agricultural product producers, we know the word organic means a whole. If any part of the organic chain or principles is compromised, it will undermine and ultimately destroy the entire consumer interest.

To suggest selling an livestock product as organic after it has been treated with synthetic medicines is absurd to consumers, and is just as absurd as feeding less then fully organically produced feed to livestock, from which we market organic labeled products. The solution to using synthetic medicines on organic farms has been used for years--if you have to treat with synthetic medicines, divert to conventional sales after the regulated withdrawal time.

After all the reading is done, there are really only four issues of substance that all of us in organic farming, handling and certification needs to understand very well. They are all clearly stated in OFPA. To make OFPA work for all of us, we must follow them closely:

The National List Process

The organic certification of every (and only) farm and handling operation that wants to label a product organically produced.

The authority and role granted by Congress to the National Organic Standards Board regarding the National List process.

And, livestock producing organically produced livestock products being fed and maintained consistent with the principals of organic farming and OFPA.

As an addendum, to insure, that vast amounts of work are not done at the tax payers expense in the future, we need to innovate a new form of public/private control over the National Organic Program regulatory agency. It may or may not take an Act of Congress. Depends how resistant USDA wants to be. It is apparent now there is one component not incorporated in OFPA that needs to be institutionalized. That is, the implementation of a balance of control by representatives of the organic community stakeholders in directing and evaluating how the National Organic Program operates--what it charges, how it operates to meet the needs of OFPA, efficiently.

The Proposed Rule could become a very good Final Rule, if the 4 references to the language and intent of OFPA stated above were perfected. Without doing so, well, my life is really very short and I can do something better than fight with special interest and bureaucrats. Let them feel sick from poor food. I suggest we all move on to local sales and meaningful aspirations. The US might just not be ready for an organic way of life. Is it worth giving it one more try to get the National Organic Program right? Is it worth making sure that small to moderate size farmers and new innovative businesses have dependable, well-remunerated markets? Is it worth seeing folks eat food raised with out toxic and synthetic substances? Is it worth planning and making it better for what and who comes after us?

Best Regards,

Eric Kindberg

1/1/98