Archive for November, 2008

Support Jim Riddle as USDA Marketing Chief

Tuesday, November 25th, 2008

Jim Riddle is a well known and well respected authority on organic and sustainable agriculture who has indicated to me a strong desire to serve the Barack Obama Administration in some capacity at the USDA. He has indicated that his experience and background well suit him for consideration as Administrator of the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service or the Organic Program Coordinator position that possibly is being created in the USDA Secretary’s office.

My friend and colleague, Goldie Caughlin, the Nutrition Education Coordinator at Puget Consumer Co-op in Seattle says “Jim and I served on the National Organic Standards Board together for five years. He is exceptionally knowledgeable and qualified, as I’m sure all who’ve had any amount of contact with him and his work are aware. He has a deeply evident sense of fairness and justice, and is the most diplomatic and patient educator and negotiator I believe I’ve ever known, remaining positive, diplomatic and cordial in even the most trying of circumstances — and there were many during the especially contentious times on the NOSB.” These qualities, and the experience represented in the following biographical sketch, in my mind help make Jim Riddle a person worthy of widespread support and I urge anyone reading this to contact your Congressional Delegation TODAY (especially if you have a Democratic Senator or two in your state) and voice your support for his consideration for a job at the new USDA. You should also send messages of support directly to the Obama Transition Team at
http://www.change.gov/page/s/contact.

Chrys Ostrander, Davenport, WA

Jim offers this statement as part of his expression of desire to serve in the new administration: “Given the challenges of climate change, ocean dead zones, groundwater contamination, soil erosion, energy, obesity, diabetes, food safety, farm subsidies, nutrition, and food security, the Obama Administration has the opportunity to make a significant shift in US agriculture policy by investing in cost-effective sustainable food and farming systems.

“The USDA must lead the transition to a green economy by implementing policies that support ecologically-sound food and fiber systems; conservation and environmental stewardship; renewable and efficient energy; and consumer-driven markets, providing stable and sustainable incomes for family farmers and ranchers; supporting vibrant, web-accessed rural communities; and encouraging a new generation of farmers, ranchers, and gardeners. There is work to do!” (more…)

Obama Food and Agriculture Summits

Sunday, November 23rd, 2008
Folks,

I’m sure many of you heard these two stories on NPR this weekend. For those of you who missed them, I’ve Fair Used them below.

I took note of the following: “[Obama] pledged to hold a “rural summit” and deliver a package of rural initiatives to Congress in his first 100 days as president.” Does anyone know more about this apparently planned rural summit? If it’s going to happen in time for Obama to have a legislative package ready in the first 100 days, then it’s gotta be in full planning swing already.

Here’s what I think: Rural affairs are about a lot more than agriculture and agriculture (and the food it produces) are about a lot more than rural affairs. So I propose we try and urge the Obama administration to hold two, parallel and simultaneous summits, in Washington DC– one for rural issues and the other for food and agriculture issues.

Why? Because while agriculture is intimately involved with rural America, it doesn’t define rural America in the 21st century and, increasingly, agriculture is becoming an urban issue as well (urban agriculture, development encroachment on farmland, food security, etc.) and food affects us all.

What do y’all think? Do others feel like you have energy to make a push for twin summits?

Chrys Ostrander

==========================

Rural America To Obama: Remember Us

by Howard Berkes

Weekend Edition Saturday, November 22, 2008 · Fifty million Americans live in the nation’s smallest and most remote places. Most of those who voted on Election Day chose Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who won rural counties by near-landslide proportions.

That has some wondering whether President-elect Barack Obama will pay much attention to rural issues.

“I think most rural Americans would be fearful of the possibility [Obama's] not really interested in them. He comes out of Chicago and is a big-city politician,” says James Gimpel, a professor of government at the University of Maryland and a native of rural South Dakota and Nebraska. “Rural Americans probably aren’t looking for a lot out of this administration. … They can see for themselves who won. And it didn’t seem to be rural America in this last election.”

Promises From The Candidate

But candidate Obama promised to focus attention on rural issues while campaigning in Iowa in October 2007. He pledged to hold a “rural summit” and deliver a package of rural initiatives to Congress in his first 100 days as president.

“What’s good for rural America will be good for America. The values that are represented … are values that built America, and we’ve got to preserve them,” Obama told a crowd in Amana, Iowa.

“He really propelled himself onto the national stage, in part, by campaigning for fundamental change in farm and rural policy in the state of Iowa,” notes Chuck Hassebrook, executive director of the Center for Rural Affairs, a Nebraska-based advocacy group for small towns and small and family farms.

Iowa Democrats gave Obama his first presidential campaign victory. That win in the Iowa caucuses gave him legitimacy as a candidate.

The Truth About Rural Life

In public opinion surveys, most rural voters say they want the same things everyone else wants: prosperity, security and peace. But rural advocates are much more specific. And they want Obama to understand one key point about rural life.

“Reality … for most rural people is that farming is not how we make our living,” says Dee Davis of the Center for Rural Strategies, a Kentucky-based group that tries to attract attention to rural issues. “You’ve only got about 1 percent of rural America making their primary living on the farm. So what’s important is to think about those other 99 percent and what’s possible for them.”

Many rural Americans are challenged by a rural economy that tanked sooner and deeper than the nation’s economy. Thousands of rural manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. High energy prices have made food and long commutes more expensive. And most rural places are losing population.

So when the president-elect tackles rural recovery, he should first bridge the digital divide, says Debby Kozikowski of RuralVotes, a partisan group that campaigned for Obama.

“Internet access is not just for watching YouTube. It’s an instrument of commerce and education,” Kozikowski says.

In fact, rural areas lag behind cities and suburbs in access to broadband, making economic growth more difficult. Kozikowski also wants attention given to the basic infrastructure of asphalt and concrete. “Bringing us into the age of technology for new commerce and educational opportunity doesn’t mean anything if you can’t bring your product across a safe road or bridge.”

Both moves would help “overcome the friction of distance. Or overcome the costs that are associated with distance to these locations,” as Gimpel puts it. He wants the new administration to recognize something else fundamental about rural life: “Key to the rural economy really is the notion of self-employment. Self-employment is much higher in rural America than it is anywhere else,” he says.

Making Rural America Stronger

Gimpel has a relatively simple suggestion that could have a big impact on main streets losing small businesses: Cut the capital-gains tax for small-business owners. He cites his own parents and their Western-wear shop in Nebraska as an example. They were forced to inflate the selling price, he says, so they could pay the capital-gains tax and still have enough money for retirement.

“They sold it at a price that made it difficult for the purchaser to then operate the business at a profit while still servicing the debt,” Gimpel recalls. “Within a couple of years, that business on Main Street closed after 30 years. And this happened to a number of other businesses on the same block in the same town.”

Davis has something more sweeping in mind for rural policy.

He’s not expecting the same kind of help that Wall Street is receiving. “There’s not going to be a bailout for rural America,” Davis says. “That ship has long ago sailed.”

Instead, he believes rural places should become part of the national economic recovery plan. Davis foresees rural areas focused on the renewable energy and alternative fuels the nation seeks. He envisions new markets tying local farmers to towns and cities close by. He also proposes a system for rewarding rural areas financially if the market in “pollution credits” results in the construction of power plants that pollute rural skies.

“We don’t have to think of rural as a deficit. We can think of it as a strength,” Davis says. “We can think of it as the way to begin to reimagine our economy.”

President-elect Obama has yet to schedule a rural summit. His rural platform incorporated some of what rural advocates seek, including broadband and infrastructure upgrades, small-business support and a major role in the development of renewable fuels.

Now is the time to hold the president-elect to his promises, Hassebrook says. “It’s absolutely essential that he follow through with that as president.”
===================
How Will An Urban President Handle Farm Policy?

by Howard Berkes

Weekend Edition Sunday, November 23, 2008 · President-elect Barack Obama’s past as an urban community organizer in Chicago makes some wonder how he could relate to farmers, ranchers and other rural people.

“I think the concern would be that he doesn’t understand or would have much sympathy for their interests at all,” suggests James Gimpel, a professor of government at the University of Maryland. “And that rural Americans would not be a very high priority in an Obama administration.”

But as a senator, Obama represented Illinois, which has farm and rural regions, and his journey to the presidency began with a win in the Iowa Democratic caucus. And it was during a campaign stop in Iowa that Obama released a farm and rural platform in October 2007.

“If we are really serious, we can make sure that family farmers are supported, not just big agribusiness,” a casually-dressed Obama told a crowd in Amana, Iowa. “I think that we can make sure that subsidies are going to people who need it, not Fortune 500 companies.”

This is the kind of campaign rhetoric that some hope will evolve into policy.

Big Farms Vs. Small

“The most important thing the president could do is simply to stop subsidizing mega-farms that drive smaller operations out of business,” says Chuck Hassebrook, executive director of the Center for Rural Affairs, a Nebraska-based advocacy group focused on small and family farmers.

Hassebrook wants a cap on the government payments made to farmers as part of the multibillion-dollar subsidy program. In his farm policy platform, candidate Obama included payment limits aimed at directing subsidies toward “family farmers.”

But dividing farms among big and small, or family and corporate, isn’t as simple as it seems, says Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau.

“Less than 2 percent of America’s farms are corporate, and many of those are family corporations,” Stallman notes. He calls the label “family farmer” an emotional statement. “I know family farms that farm 30,000 acres. The father and four sons have cattle interests, [a grain] elevator and it’s all one family operation.”

Stallman also says it’s important to remember who produces the bulk of the nation’s farm products.

“The larger farmers in this country produce 80 to 85 percent of all the food, fiber and fuel,” Stallman adds. “If you target policies only to small farmers, then you’re excluding the vast majority of agricultural production in this country and we don’t think that’s a good idea.”

Farm subsidies are supposed to keep food prices down and farmers and farm towns thriving. As costs have risen, farming has consolidated. Fewer farmers are working bigger farms. So subsidies are not achieving one goal of farm policy, says Dee Davis of the Center for Rural Strategies, a group that seeks attention to rural issues.

“The greatest out-migration in rural areas is [in] the places [which] get the highest agricultural subsidies,” Davis says. “The system is not working.”

It’s Not Just Farmers In Rural America

Davis also wants to trim subsidies for the biggest farmers and direct the money saved to rural economic development. That’s because agriculture is a relatively small part of the rural economy.

“Agriculture is a minority percentage of employment in rural America, and it has been [for] quite a long time,” says Gimpel of the University of Maryland. “There has been a lot of attention paid to agriculture because [farmers and agribusiness] have well-organized interest groups defending their interests.”

This clash between rural and farm interests is reinforced by the fact that the Department of Agriculture is responsible both for farm policy and rural economic development. And the Farm Bill funds both rural and farm programs.

“We’ve asked, in many respects, for the Farm Bill to be all things to rural America … when in fact the world has changed quite dramatically,” says Mark Drabenstott, an economist at the Rural Policy Research Institute and the University of Missouri. “We have to recognize that more and more of the things that we ask the U.S. Department of Agriculture to do are going to lie much farther beyond the farm gate.”

At the American Farm Bureau, Stallman acknowledges a diminished role for agriculture in rural life, but he wants to make sure President-elect Obama isn’t led astray.

“Some of those other groups are not taking into account production of food, fiber and fuel. And what that means for not only this country but other countries of the world,” Stallman maintains. “That’s where agricultural policy becomes really important so … you can’t just exclude agriculture out of that discussion.”

Stallman wants Obama to focus on limiting international barriers, such as tariffs, in agricultural trade. He wants a guest-worker program so that agribusiness can continue to employ migrant labor. And he wants a secretary of agriculture skilled in balancing competing interests.

Rural activists want an agriculture secretary willing to look beyond agribusiness. Debby Kozikowski is a Democratic activist in Massachusetts whose group, RuralVotes, campaigned for Obama in rural areas across the country.

Kozikowski hopes “he remembers that he said we need to have a Department of Agriculture not the Department of Agribusiness. … I’d like to see somebody who’s not married to one facet of rural life, but understands the full complement that we find in rural America today.”

Obama’s campaign platform included both rural and farm initiatives. The agricultural planks focused on family farms, “organic and local agriculture” and “independent farmers.” As a senator, Obama supported the 2008 Farm Bill, which won’t expire for another four years. But as president, Obama and his secretary of agriculture will be forced to contend with these competing farm and rural interests right away, as Congress and the administration try to figure out how to fund and administer the Farm Bill’s provisions.

This message originated from or was forwarded by:
Chrys Ostrander
Chrysalis Farm @ Tolstoy
Organic Micro-permaculture
33495 Mill Canyon Rd.
Davenport, WA 99122
509-725-0610
chrys@thefutureisorganic.net
http://www.thefutureisorganic.net

“From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”
Louis Jean Joseph Charles Blanc - “The organization of work” 1839
Karl Marx - “Critique of the Gotha Program” 1875

“The purpose of agriculture is not the production of food, but the perfection of human beings”
Masanobu Fukuoka (February 2, 1913 - August 16, 2008)  - “One Straw Revolution” 1978

“We will never have an organic future and a stable climate until we pull all the troops out of Iraq
and redirect our annual $650 billion military budget to greening the economy and guaranteeing
a sustainable environment and economic justice for everyone.”
Ronnie Cummins, National Director, Organic Consumers Association
at the “Farms Not Arms” public forum and protest in Manhattan, September, 2007

Please consider making a contribution towards my sustainable agriculture organizing work.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=424800

Thank you.

Re: [COMFOOD:] A Different View of Vilsack

Wednesday, November 19th, 2008

Sometimes the underdog has more power in politics when enough of us rise
up to say "NO!" to a pending decision than we do when we try to
put forth a position pro-actively. This could be the case with the
pending Secretary of Agriculture appointment.  Below is what I’m
sending to

http://change.gov/page/s/ofthepeople
and my congressional delegation (along with the long quote). I
encourage you to do so as well.

Chrys

A candidate for Agriculture Secretary’s position on biotechnology is a
litmus test for me. Tom Vilsack fails that test. This is NOT the time to
appoint someone so close to the biotech industry to head the USDA. To do
so would be to commit a grave error of "business as usual" at a
time when CHANGE is what is desperately needed.

A person who identified himself as frankpatton left a comment on the

Huffington


Post
blog on a post about Vilsack being considered for Ag. Sec. He
says all I need to hear to conclude that Tom Vilsack is NOT the right
choice for Sec. of Agriculture:

"Vilsack for US Sec of Ag? Are you kidding!

* Vilsack’s support of pharmaceutical crops, especially
pharmaceutical corn:


http://www.gene.ch/genet/2002/Oct/msg00057.html


http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/drugsincorn102302.cfm

* The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology
Industry

Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the
founder

and former chair of the Governor’s Biotechnology Partnership.


http://www.bio.org/news/pressreleases/newsitem.asp?id=2001_0920_01

* When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child
of

economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of
cloning

dairy cows.

* Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which
many

people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government’s
possibility of

ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having
GE-free

buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy
Greiner, the Republican sponsor

of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it

right after his state of the state address.

* Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness

biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocated across the
country

were spreading the word of Vilsack’s history as he was attempting to

appeal to voters in his presidential bid. An activist from the west
coast even made this youtube

animation about Vilsack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmoc4Qgcm4s

The airplane in this animation is a referral to the controversy that

Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto’s jet."

At 03:55 PM 11/19/2008, you wrote:

With all the chatter about Tom
Vilsack, USDA and who Obama might appoint to the Sec of Ag position, I
thought some of you might be interested in the latest post at the Blog
for Rural America by my colleague John Crabtree. Weigh in with your own
thoughts in our comment section, if you are so moved. Regards, Brian

Center for Rural Affairs | Blog
for Rural America

A Different View of Vilsack

by John Crabtree on
Wed, 11/19/2008 - 14:41.

The President’s Choice
President-elect Obama has not indicated his choice for Secretary of
Agriculture. Therefore, predictions on the outcome of this process are,
at best, speculative. We have no special insight into the
President-elect’s selection process. However, multiple media reports have
established an unofficial "short list," and my colleague Steph
Larsen wrote an
excellent
post
reviewing the potential field of candidates (also posted at
Ethicurean
).

The Washington Post and other media outlets have reported that Governor
Tom Vilsack

is the "near shoo-in" in this process.

I have known Governor Vilsack for over a decade. Considering all the
ongoing speculation and critique of the former Governor, I thought I
should weigh in. There are a lot of questions that one might ask a
potential Secretary of Agriculture. I picked three.

Reforming Farm Programs

Historically, Governor Vilsack has shown consistent support for reforming
farm programs; especially making farm program payment limits more
effective, reducing subsidies to the nation’s largest farms and investing
the savings in conservation, rural development, nutrition, etc.

A 2006 Washington Post article

wrote of the Governor:

There may be no better sign of the changing debate over the nation’s
farm subsidies: A Midwestern governor running for president calls for
cuts in a system that has steered hundreds of millions of dollars a year
to his state…

Politicians such as Vilsack have joined a host of interest groups
from across the political spectrum that are pressing for changes in
government assistance to agriculture. They want the money moved from
large farmers to conservation, nutrition, rural development and energy
research. Vilsack, for example, favors programs that improve
environmental practices on farms…

Governor Vilsack has reiterated these positions since that time,
both publicly and, quite recently, to me. Last week I had a conversation
with Governor Vilsack about these issues. I asked him what areas need
investment the most, to which he responded that such a question is like
asking which of his two sons he loves the best. "There will be an
opportunity next year with the re-authorization of child nutrition
programs to address that need first. The Conservation Stewardship Program
must be more adequately funded than in the past to preserve our most
precious resources - our soil and water. And rural entrepreneurial
development, next generation biofuels, expanded wind/solar/geo-thermal
uses for land, specialty crops, local foods efforts and rural, high-speed
broadband internet access need investment," Vilsack added.

Biotechnology

Governor Vilsack’s most ardent detractors have focused on his promotion
of biotechnology as an economic opportunity for Iowa and Iowa farmers.
Organic farmers and organic consumer advocates have great trepidation
regarding Vilsack’s full-throated support for biotechnology, fearing the
destruction of the integrity of identity-preserved and organic
production, processing, transportation and marketing systems from
contamination by genetically modified materials. They have legitimate
concerns.

Because those concern are, arguably, the most significant criticism of
Governor Vilsack as a potential Secretary of Agriculture and because the
conflict between biotechnology and organic farming is so fundamental and
structural in nature, I felt there was no other way of finding out more
than to ask him. So, last week, I did.

He offered his priorities for protecting organic farmers and organic
production systems: labeling to provide consumers a stronger voice in the
marketplace and create opportunities for farmers to develop high-valued
markets for their products, coupled with separation distances and other
similar production, transportation and processing requirements that would
protect organic crops from contamination, and establishment of clear
liability from the biotechnology company, processor or handler
responsible for the contamination when it occurs.

Additionally, Governor Vilsack talked about the importance of preserving
and strengthening the integrity of the approval process for new
biotechnologies; that, from USDA’s perspective, new technologies should
have the burden of proof that they will not harm markets for
conventional, identity-preserved and organic products; and they should be
of benefit to farmers, not just biotechnology companies.

Precautionary approval of new biotechnologies is crucial. The
introduction of pharmaceutical corn in Iowa, for example, could threaten
conventional markets for export and domestic human consumption as well as
organic farmers. I have disagreed with Governor Vilsack over
biotechnology issues several times. But I am encouraged by the responses
above and by his open-minded approach and willingness to learn from past
experience and mistakes alike.

Livestock Market Reforms

I still have the pen that Governor Vilsack gave me that he used to sign
the livestock market reform and price reporting legislation that I worked
on in the Iowa Legislature in 1999. I know from the experience of working
on that legislation and during subsequent debates over livestock market
reforms that Governor Vilsack has consistently supported crucial
livestock market reforms.

I asked Governor Vilsack how USDA should address the challenge of more
effective enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, considering the
abysmal record of the Packers and Stockyards Administration

over the last decade.
He pointed out that the 2008 farm bill
contains, for the first time ever, a livestock competition title and that
the first priority for USDA’s enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards
Act will be proper implementation and aggressive enforcement of the
provisions in that title. And, he added, that prioritization includes
writing effective rules for enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards
prohibition of "unreasonable preferences" in order to prevent
price discrimination by packers against family farm livestock
producers.

He also told me, "I agree with President-elect Obama’s support for
the provision in the farm bill that would have prohibited packers from
owning livestock - support that he expressed both during the farm bill
debate and his campaign. And I agree with Senator Harkin and Senator
Grassley who, along with a number of other Senators from farm and ranch
states, have been ardent supporters of ending this kind of direct
vertical integration by prohibiting packer ownership of
livestock."

Reforming livestock markets is another one of those crucial, fundamental,
structural issues that is, in my opinion, a litmus test for the next
Secretary of Agriculture. Governor Vilsack’s track record in this area is
good, if somewhat limited. His public statements as Governor and as a
candidate for President have been supportive of livestock market reforms,
but have never figured prominently in either his campaigns or his
gubernatorial priorities. Although, to be honest, that does not separate
him from most other elected officials or public figures at this
level.

Vertical integration decreases market access for family farmers,
decreases prices paid to independent producers, and fuels the
construction of more and more CAFOs and the demise of more and more
family farms. The Senate has twice passed the legislation banning packer
ownership of livestock - in two farm bills - but both times it was
removed in conference.

During the last 12 years, three Secretaries of Agriculture have said
virtually nothing and never lifted a finger to do anything about this
issue (despite considerable authority under existing laws and myriad
opportunities in both farm bill debates). Support from the Secretary of
Agriculture and the White House could make all the difference in finally
securing this necessary reform.

At the end of the day…

It is difficult, if not impossible, to predict when, where and from whom
leadership will emerge. The book on Tom Vilsack is not complete, and
perhaps that is a good thing. He does not get a perfect score on my
litmus tests. But, when I disagree with him in the future I will continue
to engage him, just as I always have, whether he is a private citizen or
the Secretary of Agriculture. And he will engage me, just as he always
has.

I hope that, at the end of the day, our next Secretary of Agriculture is
the kind of leader that can help create a future for rural America with
thriving family farms and ranches and vibrant rural communities. I
believe Governor Vilsack can provide that leadership. Perhaps he just
might get the chance.


http://www.cfra.org/blog/2008/11/19/different-view-vilsack


Brian Depew, Program Director
Rural Organizing & Outreach
Center for Rural Affairs

402.687.2103 ext 1015
briand@cfra.org

145 Main Street | P.O. Box 136
Lyons, NE 68038

http://www.cfra.org/blog

http://www.cfra.org/signup

SUBSCRIBING AND UNSUBSCRIBING TO COMFOOD:

You can subscribe to COMFOOD by going here:     

https://elist.tufts.edu/wws/subscribe/comfood

You can unsubscribe to COMFOOD by going here : 

https://elist.tufts.edu/wws/signoff/comfood

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.7/1798 - Release Date:
11/18/2008 8:59 PM

This message originated from or was forwarded by:
Chrys Ostrander
Chrysalis Farm @ Tolstoy
Organic Micro-permaculture
33495 Mill Canyon Rd.
Davenport, WA 99122
509-725-0610
chrys@thefutureisorganic.net

http://www.thefutureisorganic.net

"From each according to their ability, to each according to
their needs"
Louis Jean Joseph Charles Blanc - "The organization of work"
1839
Karl Marx - "Critique of the Gotha Program" 1875

"The purpose of agriculture is not the production of food, but the
perfection of human beings"
Masanobu Fukuoka (February 2, 1913 - August 16, 2008)  - "One
Straw Revolution" 1978

"We will never have an organic future and a stable climate until we
pull all the troops out of Iraq
and redirect our annual $650 billion military budget to greening the
economy and guaranteeing
a sustainable environment and economic justice for everyone."
Ronnie Cummins, National Director, Organic Consumers Association
at the "Farms Not Arms" public forum and protest in Manhattan,
September, 2007

Please consider making a contribution towards my sustainable agriculture
organizing work.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=424800

Thank you.

NODPA Update on Organic Livestock Rule Deliberations in DC

Wednesday, November 19th, 2008



An Update on the Proposed Organic Livestock Rule from Ed Maltby,
Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance Executive Director.

[Please note that Ed, always the diplomat, at times is somewhat selective

in what he communicates. I'm sure we might hear a different take on
the
proceedings related below from the Cornucopia Institute, so stay tuned.
Chrys]

[Oh, and for NODPA's initial detailed assessment of the rule, go to:

http://www.nodpa.com/pasture_rule_details_110708.shtml
]

As promised, I’ll try to sum up the hectic few days in DC spent talking
with
many folks and having some great positive discussions. What was very
encouraging was the willingness of all interested groups coming from
many
different sectors of the industry to sit down together and discuss ideas
and
brainstorm together for the best possible result for our industry
and
community. For many years there hasn’t been the level of trust that
folks
will respect each other opinion’s while not necessarily agreeing with
them
but be able to conduct a civil and constructive discourse for all of
our
benefit.

Hopefully this is something that we can carry forward to other issues
and
promote an organic community working together. As I describe what
happened
at the community meetings, I will not attribute any views to any one
person.
We all agreed, as is traditional for these meetings, that what is said
at
these meetings stays in the meeting, to give folks a safe place to
exchange
ideas and opinions. We also all agreed that we would not publish our
separate ideas for changes until we have shared one more round of
conversations.

I would also like to thank all members of the NOSB for their dedication
to
the organic community. Monday night they were still hearing public
comments
up to 8:00 pm I believe, 3 hours after they should have ended. The
meeting
adjourned at 5:00 pm tonight. The NOSB members all have their own day
jobs
and family lives and freely dedicate their time to this essential,
complicated and detailed work. If you see an NOSB member past or
present,
please stop them and say thank you.

Similarly, all those that have commented on the Access to Pasture
proposed
rule have recognized the extent of the work by NOP in writing the rule
and
shepherding it through the federal review process. Richard Mathews
and
Barbara Robinson are to be congratulated on their work and, indeed,
Barbara
was correct in saying the rule would be "everything we asked for and
more."
They have written a rule with the specificity producers and USDA
lawyers
asked for and we now have to put together our comments along with
supporting data to address some practical issues. NOC and most other
groups
do not support an extension of the comment period and we are confident
that
we can address all the necessary issue in the time period.

The first community meeting on Sunday was from noon to 5:00 pm and
was
hosted by National Organic Coalition, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
and
the Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture and attended by over 50 people.
The
first 2 hours was focused on issues as diverse as Aquaculture
standards,
"Grower Groups" TAP reviews, IFOAM and materials. If you go
to

http://nodpa.com/in_NOP_comments.shtml
you can take a look at some of
these
in more detail.

From 2:00 to 5:00 pm we discussed the proposed pasture rule with input
from
everyone at the table about their opinions, not just on the actual
proposed
rule but the future of the organic label and whether it is appropriate
to
use rulemaking. We used a draft document put forward from the work of
FOOD
Farmers to highlight areas of alignment and areas that were thought to
be
too prescriptive or impractical. We floated some new wording around
some
definitions; looked at how producers are measuring Dry Matter;
practicality
of livestock care under winter conditions; difficulties and challenges
for
western producers who have a different climate and soil conditions; plus
how
certifiers and NOP could enforce the new regulations to the satisfaction
of
the USDA lawyers. There was complete agreement that NOP needs to continue
to
enforce the existing Access to Pasture standards while the new rule is
being
worked on. Increasingly, we came back to the need for accurate and
detailed
organic system plans which are the basis for all organic
certification.
While there was airing of many different viewpoints there was consensus
that
it was too early in the process to start wordsmithing and we all agreed
to
take these new ideas back to our various groups to work on.

From 5:00 - 7:00 pm, the National Organic Coalition had a private
meeting to
look at how we can continue to move the process forward with an
invigorated
and positive community interaction and ways of bringing more
consumers
groups into the dialogue.

Monday morning was the start of the NOSB meeting which was held in a hot
and
crowded room, initially without a reliable sound system. While there
were
many issue raised and comments made (all of which will be posted on the
NOP
website), I will report mostly on what Barbara Robinson, head of the
NOP
gave in her report.:

. Since May, NOP has hired 6 additional staff for a total of 15

. The 3 branches, and 3 branch chiefs are:

o Richard Mathews, Chief Standards Development & Review Branch, plus
new
employee Shannon Nally

o Mark Bradley, Chief Accreditation, Auditing, & Training
Branch

o Ruihong Guo, Branch Chief Compliance & Enforcement Branch with five
new
enforcement employees

. Richard Mathews will be leaving the program in January and there
is no news as to who will take his place.

. Barbara has only one more year left with the program and her first
priority is publishing a final Pasture Rule followed by certifier
training.

. She gave a materials update and other information around sunset
reviews and publishing of ANPR’s.

. The NOP budget had a small increase for 2009 but with the present
economic climate she had no expectation for more dollars.

. Most of the 2007 certifier renewals have been finished and they
are working on the 2008 renewals.

. Cost-share got quite a big bump and cooperative agreements have
gone out to the states. They plan to improve how NOP works with the
state’s
on cost share and improve management of that program over the next couple
of
years.

. NOP will be spending a significant amount of funding to improve
certifier training and she would like to open up the NOP and make it
available to certifiers and eventually producers, processors etc so
they
know what is necessary to be in compliance. Barbara plans that NOP will
take
every section of regulation, break it down and put it together in a CD
Rom
format which is easily updatable. There will be training seminar and
hands
on training and the NOP needs to get feedback from all of its certifiers
who
need to talk with their inspectors.

Lunch was followed by some great meetings with different
individuals;
listening to the comments session at the NOSB (making a comment on behalf
of
NODPA and FOOD Farmers myself); and a large cup of coffee before we
came
back together for the OTA sponsored meeting from 5:30 to 8:00 pm. Again
the
room was full with all the diverse interest groups and the intent of
this
meeting was to take the conversation to the next level by looking at
areas
of alignment and then discuss our ideas around some issues that we
knew
would be troublesome. We decided that we would not be making any
position
statements but rather looking forward to the next stage of our work
together. We heard from consumer groups about their thoughts on the
future
of the organic label with beef and their initial assessment of how
this
proposed rule might affect the consumer confidence and growth of the
sector.
Other themes were around the paper work burden for small operations and
how
we can mitigate some of that without losing the specificity required by
USDA
counsel to enforce the standards. Conversations were open and frank with
a
high level of trust that everyone was meeting together in good faith.
The
OTA Task force pledged to continue their work and share conclusions
with
others in the community. Sometime after 8:00 we sought the solace of
a
reasonable restaurant to debrief.

Tuesday was spent in meetings "on the hill" which were all
productive and
gave us an opportunity to explain our positions directly to legislators
and
their staff. We also wanted to make sure that the Democratic transition
team
knew the importance of the pasture rule to producers, processors and
consumers and that they should give it the "green light" to
move forward. I
found that the cheapest place to eat in DC is the House cafeteria where
I
met my congress person eating his breakfast, I don’t think I gave
him
indigestion when I asked him to help move the rule forward in whatever
way
he could. He, of course, pledged his ongoing support.

I hope that this gives an insight into what happens at these meeting and
I
want to thank Kathie Arnold for making the long drive down to DC to lead
and
take part in the discussions. Her knowledge and dedication to bring
the
community together around this issue is a shining example for
everyone.

Ed

Ed Maltby
Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance
Executive Director
30 Keets Rd
Deerfield, MA 01342
Tel: 413-772-0444
Cell: 413-427-7323
Fax: 866-554-9483
Website:
www.nodpa.com or

www.organicmilk.org

Sustainable base pay-price; level playing field; organic
integrity

Thinking of transitioning to organic dairy?

Got questions on Organic Dairy?

Contact NODPA first and get the independent, unbiased facts.

The purpose of the NODPA is to enable organic dairy family farms,
situated
across an extensive area, to maintain the sustainability of organic
dairy
farming.

Do you really need to print this e-mail?


This message originated from or was forwarded by:
Chrys Ostrander
Chrysalis Farm @ Tolstoy
Organic Micro-permaculture
33495 Mill Canyon Rd.
Davenport, WA 99122
509-725-0610
chrys@thefutureisorganic.net

http://www.thefutureisorganic.net

"From each according to their ability, to each according to
their needs"
Louis Jean Joseph Charles Blanc - "The organization of work"
1839
Karl Marx - "Critique of the Gotha Program" 1875

"The purpose of agriculture is not the production of food, but the
perfection of human beings"
Masanobu Fukuoka (February 2, 1913 - August 16, 2008)  - "One
Straw Revolution" 1978

"We will never have an organic future and a stable climate until we
pull all the troops out of Iraq
and redirect our annual $650 billion military budget to greening the
economy and guaranteeing
a sustainable environment and economic justice for everyone."
Ronnie Cummins, National Director, Organic Consumers Association
at the "Farms Not Arms" public forum and protest in Manhattan,
September, 2007

Please consider making a contribution towards my sustainable agriculture
organizing work.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=424800

Thank you.

11/18 Report from Cornucopia on Organic Livestock Proposed Rule

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

Dear [Odairy@yahoogroups.com] list -

I thought dairy farmers might be interested in a short report from the
National Organic Standards Board meeting currently going on in Washington,
D.C.

First, the National Organic Standards Board will not be considering the
newly released rule pertaining to pasture and livestock. Even though this
is arguably the most extensive rewrite of the organic standards since they
were adopted, this will not be weighed, debated or even discussed by our
expert citizen advisors to the USDA on the NOSB.

Second, there have two meetings outside of the NOSB where the proposed rule
has been the subject of intense discussion. As was mentioned earlier on
this list, both the National Organic Coalition/National Campaign for
Sustainable Agriculture (on Sunday) and the Organic Trade Association (on
Monday night) held gatherings to review the rule.

A number of concerns about the proposal were raised at both meetings and it
is clear that many farmers and citizen groups are still trying to figure out
the breadth and impact of the proposal. The proposal contains many clearly
identified objectionable and/or impractical pieces that have to be changed
– a number of these needed changes are seemingly agreed on by many of the
parties involved in these discussions. But there are other critical areas
of continuing dispute. The listing of these would be considerable and I
will leave that for future communications but it is clear that farmers truly
need to examine this rule and assess its impact on there operations.

This rule may dramatically impact you and your farming operation!!!

I must also comment on who was sitting at the table during these
discussions. At both the NOC/NCSA meeting and the Organic Trade Association
meeting, the fox was sitting in the room with all of us hens.
Representatives from the largest factory farm dairies were present. Some
may think that is OK, we don’t.

Now I am really not concerned that they were at the OTA meeting, that is,
after all, more their venue and they are some of the largest dues paying
members. In fact, the OTA meeting was mostly chaired by a representative of
the largest dairy processor in the United States, a company that owns a
giant industrial dairy and is buying a significant part of its milk from
factory farm dairies.

I can tell you that at both meetings, all of the citizen groups, small
farmers, certifiers and retail interests were pumped for and encouraged to
express their particular concerns about the rule. But the representatives
of the factory farm interests expressed almost no views on the rule as to
how it would affect their particular dairy operations. I directly asked for
their views at the OTA meeting and my question was met with instant
hostility and left unanswered.

Folks, we wouldn’t be sitting here today debating the issue of and perceived
need for a new rule if it weren’t for the abuses of the existing rule by the
now 14-17 operating factory farms with 2000+ cow herds. The vast majority
of family farm dairies are following the spirit and intent of the organic
law. Furthermore, we wouldn’t be watching the continued compression of pay
price and income if it weren’t for the millions of gallons of fluid milk
being dumped on the organic market by the factory dairies— we estimate
this makes up 30-40% of the current organic milk market!

Will this rule proposal change this? How will it impact your dairy?

The last thing I will note is that it is even more unclear that the primary
author of the draft rule, Richard Matthews, will be around to see this to
conclusion. He is retiring at year’s end. Earlier, some of us thought that
he would be kept on as a contractor/consultant to oversee whatever comes out
of this process. Last night he told others that he would not be staying on
next year.

All in all, this is a murky mess and no matter what else we communicate to
the USDA about the draft rule we should all, in unison, be demanding strict
enforcement of the CURRENT regulations.

- Will Fantle

The Cornucopia Institute
608-625-2042 Voice
866-861-2214 Fax
P.O. Box 126
Cornucopia, Wisconsin 54827
www.cornucopia.org

This message originated from or was forwarded by:
Chrys Ostrander
Chrysalis Farm @ Tolstoy
Organic Micro-permaculture
33495 Mill Canyon Rd.
Davenport, WA 99122
509-725-0610
chrys@thefutureisorganic.net
http://www.thefutureisorganic.net

“From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”
Louis Jean Joseph Charles Blanc - “The organization of work” 1839
Karl Marx - “Critique of the Gotha Program” 1875

“The purpose of agriculture is not the production of food, but the
perfection of human beings”
Masanobu Fukuoka (February 2, 1913 - August 16, 2008) - “One Straw
Revolution” 1978

“We will never have an organic future and a stable climate until we
pull all the troops out of Iraq
and redirect our annual $650 billion military budget to greening the
economy and guaranteeing
a sustainable environment and economic justice for everyone.”
Ronnie Cummins, National Director, Organic Consumers Association
at the “Farms Not Arms” public forum and protest in Manhattan, September, 2007

Please consider making a contribution towards my sustainable
agriculture organizing work.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=424800

Thank you.

Re: [COMFOOD:] Re: AP: Turf wars: New rules for organic

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

Hi Jill, Folks,

In response to Jill’s call for us to send in “comments in favor of
these proposed [organic livestock] rules”, I want to really caution
anyone about sending in comments “in favor” of the new proposed
rules. This is a massively complex proposed rule that has many organic
producers and advocates deeply concerned. There are some provisions that
are very good and long overdue. There are others, however, that appear to
be deeply flawed. Rather than anyone sending in blanket support for this
rule, we really should follow the lead of folks who are “in the
know” about what this rule really says, and what the impact of some
of the provisions would be, and tailor our comments accordingly.
Organizations like the Organic Farming Research Foundation, the National
Organic Coalition, the CROPP Co-op (Organic Valley) are still studying
the proposals and receiving input from producers and consumers before
they formulate specific comments on the rule. Initial press releases from
organic advocacy groups that came out at the time the proposed rule was
released in October, were supportive, however, as folks have had time to
carefully read the proposals, concerns are arising. Probably the best
thing to advocate for at this point, even though we’ve already waited too
long for this process to proceed, is an extension of the comment period
to allow the organic community to more carefully review the proposals and
draft revisions. When these organic advocates and our producer allies
have specific revisions available for us to review, that’s when we should
submit our comments and reiterate the revisions being sought by our more
knowledgeable allies.

Chrys

At 10:59 AM 11/18/2008, Jill Richardson wrote:

To comment, go here:

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=0900006480776e33

If the link doesn’t work, go to Regulations.gov and it’s docket
AMS-TM-06-0198 (docket type:
rulemaking, document ID: AMS-TM-06-0198-0001)

Please, please send in comments in favor of these proposed rules and if
you work with an organization that has an email list, get the word out
for others to send in comments as well.

Thanks,
Jill

SUBSCRIBING AND UNSUBSCRIBING TO
COMFOOD:

You can subscribe to COMFOOD by going here:

https://elist.tufts.edu/wws/subscribe/comfood

You can unsubscribe to COMFOOD by going here :

https://elist.tufts.edu/wws/signoff/comfood

This message originated from or was forwarded by:
Chrys Ostrander
Chrysalis Farm @ Tolstoy
Organic Micro-permaculture
33495 Mill Canyon Rd.
Davenport, WA 99122
509-725-0610
chrys@thefutureisorganic.net

http://www.thefutureisorganic.net

“From each according to their ability, to each according to
their needs”
Louis Jean Joseph Charles Blanc - “The organization of work”
1839
Karl Marx - “Critique of the Gotha Program” 1875

“The purpose of agriculture is not the production of food, but the
perfection of human beings”
Masanobu Fukuoka (February 2, 1913 - August 16, 2008)  - “One
Straw Revolution” 1978

“We will never have an organic future and a stable climate until we
pull all the troops out of Iraq
and redirect our annual $650 billion military budget to greening the
economy and guaranteeing
a sustainable environment and economic justice for everyone.”
Ronnie Cummins, National Director, Organic Consumers Association
at the “Farms Not Arms” public forum and protest in Manhattan,
September, 2007

Please consider making a contribution towards my sustainable agriculture
organizing work.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=424800

Thank you.

Fwd: [COMFOOD:] NYT Editorial: Our Home-Grown Melamine Problem

Monday, November 17th, 2008


Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:11:04
-0800
From: "Naomi Starkman" <nstarkman@gmail.com>
To: comfood@elist.tufts.edu
Subject: [COMFOOD:] NYT Editorial: Our Home-Grown Melamine
Problem


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/opinion/17mcwilliams.html

 
November 17, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

Our Home-Grown Melamine Problem

By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS

Austin, Tex.

CHINA’S food supply appears to be awash in the industrial chemical
melamine. Dangerous levels have been detected not only in milk and eggs,
but also in chicken feed and wheat gluten, meaning that melamine is
almost impossible to avoid in processed foods. Melamine in baby formula
has killed at least four infants in China and sickened tens of thousands
more.

In response, the United States has blasted lax Chinese regulations, while
the Food and Drug Administration, in a rare move, announced last week
that Chinese food products containing milk would be detained at the
border until they were proved safe.

For all the outrage about Chinese melamine, what American consumers and
government agencies have studiously failed to scrutinize is how much
melamine has pervaded our own food system. In casting stones, we’ve
forgotten that our own house has more than its share of exposed glass.

To be sure, in China some food manufacturers deliberately added melamine
to products to increase profits. Makers of baby formula, for example,
watered down their product, lowering the amount of protein and nutrients,
then added melamine, which is cheap and fools tests measuring protein
levels.

But melamine is also integral to the material life of any industrialized
society. It’s a common ingredient in cleaning products, waterproof
plywood, plastic compounds, cement, ink and fire-retardant paint.
Chemical plants throughout the United States produce millions of pounds
of melamine a year.

Given the pervasiveness of melamine, it’s always possible that trace
elements will end up in food. The F.D.A. thus sets the legal limit for
melamine in food at 2.5 parts per million. This amount is indeed
minuscule, a couple of sand grains in an expanse of desert that pose no
real threat to public health. Moreover, the 2.5 p.p.m. figure is
calculated for a person weighing 132 pounds - a cautious benchmark given
that the average adult weighs 150 to 180 pounds.

But these figures obscure more than they reveal. First, while adults eat
about one-fortieth of their weight every day, toddlers consume closer to
one-tenth. Although scientists haven’t measured the differential impact
of melamine on infants versus adults, it’s likely that this intensified
ratio would at least double (if not quadruple) the impact of legal levels
of melamine on toddlers.

This doubled exposure might not land a child in the hospital, but it
could certainly contribute to the long-term kidney and liver problems
that we know are caused by chronic exposure to melamine.

On a more concrete note, melamine not only has widespread industrial
applications, but is also used to buttress the foundation of American
agriculture.

Fertilizer companies commonly add melamine to their products because it
helps control the rate at which nitrogen seeps into soil, thereby
allowing the farmer to get more nutrient bang for the fertilizer buck.
But the government doesn’t regulate how much melamine is applied to the
soil. This melamine accumulates as salt crystals in the ground, tainting
the soil through which American food sucks up American nutrients.

A related area of agricultural concern is animal feed. Chinese eggs
seized last month in Hong Kong, for instance, contained elevated levels
of melamine because of the melamine-laden wheat gluten used in the feed
for the chickens that produced the eggs.

To think American consumers are immune to this unscrupulous behavior is
to ignore the Byzantine reality of the global gluten trade. Tracking the
flow of wheat gluten around the world, much less evaluating its quality,
is like trying to contain a drop of dye in a churning whirlpool.

More ominous, the United States imports most of its wheat gluten. Last
year, for instance, the F.D.A. reported that millions of Americans had
eaten chicken fattened on feed with melamine-tainted gluten imported from
China. Around the same time, Tyson Foods slaughtered and processed hogs
that had eaten melamine-contaminated feed. The government decided not to
recall the meat.

Only a week earlier, however, the F.D.A. had announced that thousands of
cats and dogs had died from melamine-laden pet food. This high-profile
pet scandal did not prove to be a spur to reform so much as a red
herring. Our attention was diverted to Fido and away from the animals we
happen to kill and eat rather than spoil.

Frightening as this all sounds, the concerned consumer is not completely
helpless. We can seek out organic foods, which are grown with fertilizer
without melamine - unless that fertilizer was composted with manure from
animals fed melamine-laden feed (always possible, as the Tyson example
suggests).

We could further protect ourselves by choosing meat from grass-fed or
truly free-range animals, assuming the grass was not fertilized with a
conventional product (something that’s also very hard to know).

But as all the caveats above indicate, these precautions will only go so
far. Melamine, after all, points to the much larger relationship between
industrial waste and American food production. Regulations might be lax
when it comes to animal feed and fertilizer in China, but take a closer
look at similar regulations in the United States and it becomes clear
that they’re vague enough to allow industries to "recycle" much
of their waste into fertilizer and other products that form the basis of
our domestic food supply.

As a result, toxic chemicals routinely enter our agricultural system
through the back channels of this under-explored but insidious
relationship.

So, sure, let’s keep the heat on China. And, yes, let’s take with a big
dose of skepticism the Chinese government’s assurances that they’re
improving the food supply.

At the same time, though, instead of delivering righteous condemnation,
the United States should seize upon the melamine scandal as an
opportunity to pass federal fertilizer standards backed by consistent
testing for this compound, which could very well be hidden in plain
sight.

James E. McWilliams, a history professor at Texas State University at San
Marcos, is the author of "American Pests: The Losing War on Insects
From Colonial Times to DDT."

SUBSCRIBING AND UNSUBSCRIBING TO COMFOOD:

You can subscribe to COMFOOD by going here:     

https://elist.tufts.edu/wws/subscribe/comfood

You can unsubscribe to COMFOOD by going here : 

https://elist.tufts.edu/wws/signoff/comfood


This message originated from or was forwarded by:
Chrys Ostrander
Chrysalis Farm @ Tolstoy
Organic Micro-permaculture
33495 Mill Canyon Rd.
Davenport, WA 99122
509-725-0610
chrys@thefutureisorganic.net

http://www.thefutureisorganic.net

"From each according to their ability, to each according to
their needs"
Louis Jean Joseph Charles Blanc - "The organization of work"
1839
Karl Marx - "Critique of the Gotha Program" 1875

"The purpose of agriculture is not the production of food, but the
perfection of human beings"
Masanobu Fukuoka (February 2, 1913 - August 16, 2008)  - "One
Straw Revolution" 1978

"We will never have an organic future and a stable climate until we
pull all the troops out of Iraq
and redirect our annual $650 billion military budget to greening the
economy and guaranteeing
a sustainable environment and economic justice for everyone."
Ronnie Cummins, National Director, Organic Consumers Association
at the "Farms Not Arms" public forum and protest in Manhattan,
September, 2007

Please consider making a contribution towards my sustainable agriculture
organizing work.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=424800

Thank you.

Message from Cornucopia Institute re: Organic Pasture Rule

Monday, November 17th, 2008



Hello all,

Today [Nov. 16], in Washington, about 40-50 representatives of farm
organizations,
consumer groups, certifiers, and a smattering of farmers, met to discuss
the
pending livestock rule.

You’ll note that I didn’t call it the "pasture rule" because
all parties
poignantly realize at this point that it’s impact on the organic
industry
will far eclipses pasture for dairy cattle. Participants at the
meeting
expressed concerns about the rule’s impact on hog production, poultry
and
beef-in addition to how to make this a workable rule for dairy
farmers.

The USDA has created a very challenging environment to reach our goal
of
shutting down the large factory farms that are producing
"organic" milk.
Cornucopia will continue to collaborate with the FOOD Farmers groups,
and
others, to craft a workable rule (the draft published by the USDA
would
probably put half the legitimate organic farmers in the country out
of
business).

Please find the handout we distributed to our colleagues at the meeting
in
Washington below.

Mark Kastel

Mark Kastel is co-founder of The Cornucopia Institute, a
progressive farm policy research group based in Wisconsin and acts as its
Senior Farm Policy Analyst.

USDA Organic Livestock Rulemaking Issues

November 16, 2008

Language: We would encourage referring to the draft as the
"livestock" rule,
not the "pasture rule." The implications far eclipse issues
concerning
pasture on dairy farms. This is the most far-reaching and complex
rewrite
of the organic standards since their inception.

Bad Rulemaking-Unintended Consequences: It is incumbent upon all of us
to
see that this rulemaking constrains the historic abuses in the
nation’s
14-17 "organic" CAFOs (which it currently does). But,
unfortunately, this
rule, if implemented without major adjustments, would probably put out
of
business half or more the organic dairy farmers in this country and
perhaps
most of the existing beef producers (its impact on poultry production is
not
fully understood).

Important Messaging: We would highly recommend, in addition to any
other
comment, that we all reinforce the message, "No matter how long
this
rulemaking process takes it is clear that the current regulations
are
enforceable and we expect them to be enforced."

Current Rule Enforcement: Many of the complaints filed by Cornucopia
have
caused enforcement action to take place (others are languishing without
ever
having been investigated). The 10,000-cow Vander Eyk dairy has been
decertified. Aurora was found to have "willfully" violated 14
tenets of the
organic regulations (the lack of substantive penalties is, unfortunately,
a
separate matter). In addition, more than once in the Federal
Register
notice, the USDA admits that some dairies are not following the
current
regulations and some certifiers are not correctly applying the
standards.
If they had been enforcing the current regulations we would not be here
in
this awkward position today.

Modifications to be Discussed/Considered

Grazing Season Requirement: We need to continue to press for
"Pasturing
cattle for the entire grazing season-but not less than 120 days."
Please
note that we are not saying 120 days. The whole reason we have engaged
in
this collaborative process, together, for eight years, is to rein-in
the
giant factory farms that are violating the spirit and letter of the
law.
Possibly some of these, primarily desert dairies, could do 120 days,
with
30% DMI-this is a bare minimum and should not be accepted as meeting
the
standard of organic production-if they have irrigation water available,
the
minimum is not good enough. They would still be in a position to
squeeze
operating margins for the legitimate family farmers that are producing

organic milk, presumably forcing many out of business. Many families
are
not cash-flowing today because of the tremendous volume of factory farm
milk
on the market. Consumers will become disenchanted if
industrial-scale
organic production becomes acceptable-we already estimate over 30% of
the
industry.

Grazing Season: This should be modified to include not just frost dates
but
ambient soil moisture. Many of our member-farms that we have visited in
the
Pacific Northwest and California need the ability to pull their cattle
off
of land when it is saturated with moisture (to protect the
environment,
health of the cattle, and future productivity of the pasture.

Furthermore, in those areas of the West that depend exclusively on
rainfall,
having no irrigation water available, cattle should be allowed to
graze
during dry summer months without that being factored into the 30%
average.
Otherwise, we will create the incentive to pull cattle off of pasture,
when
the 120-day minimum is achieved as to not lower the seasonal average
DMI
consumption.

Important Caveat: We must not create a loophole for siting organic
livestock
production, inappropriately, in the desert. That’s why it’s important
to
have the 120-day minimum maintained. In addition, if crops are
produced
under irrigation in the region, pasture must be required to be
irrigated!
Where irrigation water is available, there is no excuse to say there is
not
adequate moisture. Siting an organic dairy without water rights for
irrigation, in a region where irrigation is required, should not offer
an
excuse to reduce the grazing season down to the minimum
120-days.

Pasture Definition: The pasture definition should be changed to
include
windrowing or other similar techniques. In areas that receive all
their
moisture at once, some (California) producers will cut and windrow
forage
right in the pasture. This maximizes pasture production, as not doing
so
would create overmature plants that would go to waste. Language should
be
utilized to ensure that these crops are not removed from the pasture
(such
as green chopping or bailing) and fed to animals elsewhere. This
would
conflict with our goal to increase DMI intake from pastures.

Frequency of Milking/Stocking Levels: Either we should ban milking more
than
twice a day or we should require special, additional auditing for any
dairy
suggesting they can achieve adequate DMI intake, and hours on
pasture,
milking three times a day or more. Virtually every legitimate organic
dairy
in the United States milks twice a day. Likewise, stocking levels
exceeding
three cows per acre are highly unusual and should require mandated
further
scrutiny.

Water: Adequate water should be available when cows are in the
pasture.

Origin of Livestock: As per the recommendation from the NOSB, all
animals
subsequently brought onto an organic farm should be managed organically
from
the last third of gestation. It is highly objectionable that the USDA
would
attempt, at this point in time, to institutionalize what many in our
industry view as their misinterpretation of the current regulations.
If
rulemaking is to take place now, and we highly encourage it, it should
be
based on the NOSB recommendation which was promulgated with abundant
input
from all stakeholders.

Housing: Language within the draft rule could be interpreted to ban
stall
barns, utilized by a vast percentage of the current organic dairy
producers.
This new recommendation, never vetted by the NOSB or organic community,
is
unacceptable at this point in time.

Sacrifice Pasture: This is acceptable only as a recommendation and
tool
where appropriate. In many regions this would be in stark conflict
with
good conservation practices.

Riparian Fencing: Although laudable, this requirement would be very
difficult and expensive to implement in many regions as written. The
cost
analysis appears inaccurate and understated. We would suggest this
being
designated as a recommendation and revisited at a later point.

Elimination of Confinement Finishing of Beef Cattle: Although present
abuses
in the organic beef industry need to be reined-in, this radical change
in
the rules would eliminate most of the organic beef production in
this
country. Since this has never been reviewed and vetted by the NOSB
and
organic community, it should be tabled and brought up separately for
further
consideration.

Public Comment Extension: Because we are still, as a community, involved
in
the analysis stage, the effective public comment period-in terms of
rank-and-file farmers who would like technical analysis before making
their
views known-will effectively be less than 30 days. We would estimate
as
many as 30% of organic dairy producers do not utilize e-mail. Because
of
this, the two-way time requirement for getting material out to our
constituents, via the Postal Service, and having them return material to
the
USDA, might very well exceed the amount of time left in this process.
We’ve
been at this, together, for eight years. It would be a shame to
disenfranchise some of the most important voices in this debate.

The draft rule contains many positive provisions, and Cornucopia has
collaborated with the FOOD Farmer groups, and others, on a draft of
the
rule now circulating. Many of the modifications that have been proposed
are
well thought out. We have just presented a few important areas for
emphasis.


This message originated from or was forwarded by:
Chrys Ostrander
Chrysalis Farm @ Tolstoy
Organic Micro-permaculture
33495 Mill Canyon Rd.
Davenport, WA 99122
509-725-0610
chrys@thefutureisorganic.net

http://www.thefutureisorganic.net

"From each according to their ability, to each according to
their needs"
Louis Jean Joseph Charles Blanc - "The organization of work"
1839
Karl Marx - "Critique of the Gotha Program" 1875

"The purpose of agriculture is not the production of food, but the
perfection of human beings"
Masanobu Fukuoka (February 2, 1913 - August 16, 2008)  - "One
Straw Revolution" 1978

"We will never have an organic future and a stable climate until we
pull all the troops out of Iraq
and redirect our annual $650 billion military budget to greening the
economy and guaranteeing
a sustainable environment and economic justice for everyone."
Ronnie Cummins, National Director, Organic Consumers Association
at the "Farms Not Arms" public forum and protest in Manhattan,
September, 2007

Please consider making a contribution towards my sustainable agriculture
organizing work.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=424800

Thank you.

How About a National Food and Agriculture Summit Early in Obama’s First Term?

Sunday, November 16th, 2008

There is surely a whirlwind of activity within the sustainable agriculture community as we gear up to meet head-on the opportunities suddenly afforded us in the changed political climate. And as usual, there are many organizations operating more or less independently of each other working up often duplicate policy campaigns without enough communication between them to maximally utilize the collective energies of their constituencies. I hope to see a bit more collaboration and unity in these efforts as we move forward(while recognizing that independence and diversity of thought also have their places).

Michael Pollan’s “Open Letter to the Next Farmer in Chief” seems to be a blueprint capable of unifying the sustainable ag/food security/environmental stewardship/nutritional health/green energy communities. In a blog post more recently, Pollan calls for a Food Policy Czar: “progress on the all-important issues of energy independence, climate change, and health care costs depends on reform of the food system–and, crucially, an ability to connect all those dots when making policy. The challenge is to align the goals of federal agricultural policy with the goals of public health, energy, and environmental policy (for the first time)…”

Pollan has committed to writing what I’ve felt for all of the 30 years I’ve been involved in the organic movement and sustainable ag - food and agriculture policy and practice are so central to just about all other human activity that the choices we make as a society in this arena profoundly influence the nature of that activity, and of our society. I continue to feel one of the best places to exert pressure to “change the world” is with food and ag policy. So a Food Policy Czar could be a great thing.

That being said, others have written that such a Food Policy Czar might just be a vestige of old-style thinking and that now is the time to explore revolutionary new approaches to solving the unprecedented problems facing humanity.

Perhaps what might be in order then would be to try and get the Obama administration to organize a domestic food and agriculture summit with the question on the table at the outset of whether a Food Policy Czar should be appointed and what might the charter for the position look like, or whether other approaches offer better prospects for the fundamental changes needed. To have a successful summit, it would be important to have some really good people in place within the USDA bureaucracy beforehand. To have a voice in this process, see this.

UPDATE (11/25/2008):

I’m sure many of you heard these two stories on NPR this weekend on Obama’s farm and rural policy agenda. For those of you who missed them, I’ve copied the links to them here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97309054
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=7

I took note of the following: “[Obama] pledged to hold a “rural summit” and deliver a package of rural initiatives to Congress in his first 100 days as president.” If it’s going to happen in time for Obama to have a legislative package ready in the first 100 days, then it must be in full planning swing already.

Here’s what I think: Rural affairs are about a lot more than agriculture and agriculture (and the food it produces) are about a lot more than rural affairs. So I propose we try and urge the Obama administration to hold two, parallel and simultaneous summits, in Washington DC– one for rural issues and the other for food and agriculture issues.

Why? Because while agriculture is intimately involved with rural America, it doesn’t define rural America in the 21st century and, increasingly, agriculture is becoming an urban issue as well (urban agriculture, development encroachment on farmland, food security, etc.) and food affects us all.

I also wonder if the best venue for the twin summits isn’t Washington DC– since they would be Presidential summits and having them in that city would be symbolic of the national, rather than regional, scope of the discussions. I think they might get more publicity in DC as well.

What do y’all think? Do you feel like you have energy to make a push for twin summits?

You could, individually or collectively contact your congressional delegation and urge them to try and influence the Obama Transition Team to organize twin summits. Also, you can send ideas about the summits to the transition team via:
http://change.gov/page/s/ofthepeople

You Can Influence Obama’s Agriculture Policies

Friday, November 14th, 2008

Read Obama’s Rural Policy Platform
(It’s a good read)

Help Get the Resumes of Great Sustainable Agriculture Advocates Under the
Noses of Obama’s Transition Team


Read Michael Pollan’s “Open Letter to the Next Farmer in Chief”

(another good read)

How About a National Food and
Agriculture Summit Early in Obama’s First Term?

Folks,

Please take action TODAY!

There is hope now, with the election of Barack Obama as President,
for much forward progress for sustainable agriculture nationally,
and by extension, locally in Washington State. But we cannot sit on
our hands. We in the sustainable agriculture community must now roll
up our sleeves and ready ourselves for four, and hopefully eight
years of sustained, vigorous policy-influencing hard work.

One place to begin this process is making a strong attempt to
influence Mr. Obama’s choices of people to fill positions within the
USDA. We need to let him, and your congressional delegation know
that he needs to appoint individuals who understand sustainable ag
and have the experience and gumption needed to shift away from many
of the current agricultural policies that contribute to the various
ills plaguing the farm sector and the planet’s ecology and
strengthen the progressive agricultural policies that have begun to
make fundamental positive change at the federal level.

(more…)