This just in from the OCA. The expiration date for comments is TODAY, so please read and act on this ASAP!!

The USDA is accepting public comments until December 3 on a new proposed rule that would force small farms growing green leafy vegetables, such as spinach and lettuce, to put into place industrial-style sterilization measures that reduce biodiversity and soil fertility. The proposal follows in the wake of the USDA's recent controversial crackdown on raw almonds, continued interference with raw milk production, and bans on the sale of locally produced organic meat directly to consumers. The proposed rules basically cover up the fact that e-coli 0157H contamination in lettuce and spinach crops comes from feedlot or industrial livestock-contaminated irrigation waters or contamination in large processing plants. The rule limits hedgerows, and other non-crop vegetation commonly found on and around small organic and sustainable farms. In addition, although every organic farmer knows that healthy soil is literally alive with multiple types of healthy bacteria, the rules also discourage the development of beneficial microbial life in the soil. Send a message to the USDA today:
Learn more and take action: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_8679.cfm

quote:

..on a new proposed rule that would force small farms growing green leafy vegetables, such as spinach and lettuce, to put into place industrial-style sterilization measures that reduce biodiversity and soil fertility ........ The rule limits hedgerows, and other non-crop vegetation commonly found on and around small organic and sustainable farms. In addition, although every organic farmer knows that healthy soil is literally alive with multiple types of healthy bacteria, the rules also discourage the development of beneficial microbial life in the soil. Send a message to the USDA today

Did I miss something? I read the piece in the Federal Register and can't seem to find any mention of the effects that OCA claims. I know that you seem to put a lot of faith in what this group says Bill, but I'd prefer to take action on based on facts, not faith. Can you point us to the wording in the actual rule that we should be concerned about? Nothing I read in the Register is causing much alarm in me and my tolerance for imagined ills is pretty low these days.

Wayne

Since the date for comments ended on the 3rd and you posted on the 6th, I would guess that the wording of concern never made it into the final rule. Since I do not subscribe to the Federal Register (nor do I know of anyone that does except you, Wayne, and some of the politicians around), I cannot vouch for the final wording.

I did rcently receive and email from my senator that mentioned the defeat of the NAIS portion of the Senate Farm Bill though.

Bill, I just followed the link that you posted and then the link that OCA posted which was to the Federal Register report of the proposed rules. That's all the info that OCA seemed to offer and it didn't seem to to reflect in any way their claims.

Either I'm a complete failure at navigating their site or they are either deliberately or unintentionally making it difficult to find any information to show their claims are true or fantasy.

You may know something about this organization, Bill, but what I've seen so far does not give me an impression of credibility. They strike me as long on opinion and short on substance. Maybe I'm wrong.

Wayne

To start with our farm is licensed by the USDA under the APHIS law. When they decide to change or add a new regulation, it does not go through the regular law making stages as a new federal or state law does. They usually have a time of public comment on it and then decide if it should be a new rule or not, depending on the response from the public... suppose to be that way anyways.

To find the proposed new regulations you would have to go to the USDA website.. for organic farming it would be here;

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/indexIE.htm

Then click on Public Comments;

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/PublicComments/PublicComments.html

For animal welfare it would be here;

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/index.shtml

Now if your lucky your USDA inspector tells you about proposed new regulations during a regular inspection or sends you an update by mail... some do and some don't, ours does. Otherwise you are suppose to keep up to date by getting the info from their website... don't know what your suppose to do if you are not on the internet.

BTW Bill, great news about NAIS, but betting it will keep coming up.

quote:

Originally posted by adirondackgardener:
Did I miss something? I read the piece in the Federal Register and can't seem to find any mention of the effects that OCA claims. I know that you seem to put a lot of faith in what this group says Bill, but I'd prefer to take action on based on facts, not faith. Can you point us to the wording in the actual rule that we should be concerned about? Nothing I read in the Register is causing much alarm in me and my tolerance for imagined ills is pretty low these days.

Wayne

Wayne, I refer you to the section that starts thusly:

Would the handling of leafy greens be better addressed though
regulations under a voluntary marketing agreement signed by handlers,
or under a mandatory marketing order regulating handlers and approved
by a producer referendum?

Several producers have been virtually screaming for "mass sterilization" of food. Primarily those who are making the sterilizing equipment since it would bolster their sales.

And then there is the next question:

Would such a program be better implemented on a national or a regional basis?

The chem companies have been screaming for this already. taking away the ability for local and state governments to regulate local ag matters prevents them from stopping Monsanto (et al) from forcing GMOs down our throats.

Perhaps you need to read the article in the FR again?

Here's my problem Bill:

You post parts of the text of the proposal and interject opinion. Nowhere in the posting of proposed rules did I read anything about anyone "screaming" so I asume these are yours or someone else's words.

I read the word "voluntary" in the proposed rules and I get the impression from you and the OCA that there are proposed mandatory rules that somehow "undermine" organic farmers.

The subject of these rules is a marketing program, perhaps beneficial, perhaps not, and one of the questions is whether it would be best served nationally or regionally. I need to see the text that you feel removes the right of state governments to regulate local ag matters. I don't see it in the Federal Register's posting.

Sorry again Bill. Not trying to be contentious. I simply won't fall into believing every "sky is falling, take action now" report that comes across the web. I gave that up after the ding-dong X-File wackos tried to convince me that NAIS is a dry-run for micro-chipping every human in the US.

There are real threats in this world and there are perceived ones. I need to clearly see which is which. That's why I ask to see the documentation.

Wayne

I am a little curious AG, which part were you reading when you saw the word voluntary? because I saw both voluntary and mandatory in this PR. they were in different section and describing different things. And the section where they describe the ability to charge civil penalties and issue criminal semtances was in there as well. Neither of these last 2 can be done with only "voluntary" compliance.

We certainly can be prosecuted for failing to comply with the regulations of a voluntary program.

As I recall from my reading of the proposal, a business may voluntarily sign up for this marketing program and agree to comply with a set of regulations which entitles them to diplay a seal indicating that they do comply with the regulations. The proposed regulations rightfully note that using the seal while not complying with the regulations should be subject to legal or criminal action as should any other fraud or false advertising.

We often voluntarily agree to abide with a set of conditions in which failure to comply may find us in court as a defendant. We can not join the Better Business Bureau and post their seal without following their regulations. We can not describe our produce as certified organic without meeting all conditions that the law requires under the voluntary organic certification program.

There are probably countless other similar voluntary programs with legal implications.

Wayne

And you are again skipping the sections of the PR that talk about being mandatory.

Yes they do use the word "mandatory" in the section where they discuss how the marketing agreement they are proposing, which is voluntary, differs from a tool they already have, a marketing order which is mandatory. They are proposing a voluntary agreement which "may be entered into by growers, handlers, processors, or others engaged in the handling of any agricultural commodity or its product. Signatories voluntarily agree to participate in the programs and comply with the regulations established by the agreements, which may include -but are not limited to -the types
authorized for orders." They then discuss penalties for failing to comply after agreeing to do so.

Here's a link to find the announcement of proposed rules:

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?obj...ment&contentType=pdf (Scroll down a half-page to the Department Of Agriculture heading.)

Maybe someone can carefully read this and tell me which part actually says it will require organic farmers to sterilize their soil or take any other action that "undermine organics and small farms." Maybe then I can get excited about it.

Wayne

Seems to me like you are already excited about it Wayne. Or maybe you just like arguing with me.