As I was placidly visiting your website to see what words of wisdom you would be sharing with us, your devoted public, about what to do to stop this farce of a National Organics Proposal that the USDA and its buddies in the chemical companies are trying to push over on us, I received quite a shock. From what you said in your Feb. 9th "Why the Organic Panic" answer, you seem to be in favor of it!

You are a well-respected authority in the natural health/new age community, and it is very important that the information you pass on is complete. Your source of information appears to be the CNN report that you linked to, which was based on the press conference given by USDA's Dan Glickman.

In fact, several statements you made on your page are in error. You must look deeper into this.

I'd like to point out to you that the CCOF and the Organic Trade Association have found the proposed standard so unworkable that they are calling for its withdrawal (not revision). It is important to note that it is not just the "Big Three" items (toxic sludge, irradiation, genetic engineering) that make this a devastating blow to organic food. There are many more (obvious or insidious) items that will so blur the lines between non-organic and organic that the term will be meaningless.

Let me list some of them for you: Drift of chemicals from neighboring farms will be allowed. Many more synthetics and drugs will be allowed. Eco-labelling will be prohibited. High fees for certification mean that only large agribusiness concerns will be able to afford it. The language used in the proposal is often not direct enough--could be easily turned into loopholes that will work against the spirit of organics.

Questions to ask: Why did the USDA ignore the recommendations of the National Organic Standards Board? Who is going to benefit from the elimination of key concepts such as the health of the agro-ecosystem and biodiversity on the farm, from the allowing of factory-farm conditions for livestock, from the weakening of certification enforcement, from no longer requiring that the complete history of land be taken into account before it is allowed to be certified (Superfund sites could qualify)?

You can find further useful information on this topic at the following sites: http://www.ota.com/news.htm , http://www.ccof.org/proposed_rules/CCOFPOSI.htm , http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r583.html , http://web.iquest.net/ofma , http://www.saveorganic.org

and also at my own webpage at http://www.SineWave.com/ksvp/organic.htm

In short, there is every reason for an Organic Panic! Please! Issue another statement about this!

PS: I was particularly offended to note CNN's use of the term "traditional agricultural methods" when referring to modern toxic agriculture. The word "traditional" is better reserved to refer to the methods of organic agriculture in use for thousands of years before the invention of synthetic chemical agriculture. If they had used the word "conventional" it would've had a less sleazy feel, don't you think?