Hi Soula,

I didn't intend to label the USDA as pro-organic, but rather describe the energy in the room (which was inclusive of the three members of the USDA NOP staff). The entire staff of the USDA's National Organic Program is a total of 9 people. My feeling is that Eileen Stommes, Tom O'Brien, and Bard Marman (the three USDA people at the hearing) were surprisingly open to listening and aware of the beliefs and desires held by the participants and the Organic industry as a whole. That doesn't mean they have the power to change what's happening.

We have a tough road to travel because this is not about the USDA NOP staff, but rather more of a political agenda of the current administration. In my opinion, what happened was: (1) the NOSB prepared rules from the industry prospective, (2) the USDA codified them into required legal form, and they were still quite recognizable, we would have only minor battles to fight about, (3) the USDA sent the rules to all the other governmental bodies for review, FDA, EPA, and most importantly, OMB (office of management and budget), and lots of other governmental agencies (4) finally after a long time, the rules returned, 300 pages longer, and missing all of the spirit of organic.

So, somewhere, someone with power and influence (and influenced by agribusiness interests) got to change the rules. Remember, the Clinton administration loves biotechnology, irradiation, and biosolids (and lots of other bad stuff).

So, what happened originally in 1990 was the OFPA from Congress, which is a law and requires our government to administer a National Organic Program, for the benefit of consumers. The general beliefs of all Americans is that Organic is something natural, healthy, probably too expensive, unnecessary, but good for you kinda stuff; used to be hippy stuff, but regardless, its good and healthy.

So, if the administration lets the Organic industry define the stuff that is generally thought of as good, and the industry defines it in ways that excludes practices of farming that they are promoting as good for the future of all mankind, where does that leave them? If these things are prohibited by the Organic Industry's definition of organic (or other future divergences with administration practices), then they have a political problem. So, although the USDA people may be nice and thoughtful, they can't overcome these problems.

The path that will lead us to success is to remind Congress that the USDA is supposed to be implementing the law, which very clearly gives the power to the NOSB to define organic. It needs to stay away from the political difficulties this puts the administration in. So, we need a million voices to empower the people in Washington who want to do the right thing to get to work (right now they are just missing the million voices).

This email is long, but another key current point is we have to get the USDA to commit to a second pass at the rules. We want them to receive all the comments through April 30th, go and prepare a *new* proposed rule, and have another public comment period, digest those comments, and then we can move to a final rule. Dan Glickman has suggested they will do this 2nd interim proposed rule, but we need to know that for sure, in writing. We need to focus on that right now, this will give us more time to make this issue truly visible. So, that's it.

We can win, we just have to get a million people to speak in a useful way. That's what I hope our web page will facilitate. Cheers.

-Mark.

-----Original Message----- From: Soula Culver Sent: Monday, March 02, 1998 3:57 PM To: Mark Epstein

Mark, Thanks for your impressions of the Seattle hearing.

I wonder about the concept of the USDA seeming to be pro-organic. No doubt some individuals the USDA has hired may actually be pro-organic, but are they the ones who will really influence the final decisions? (I am not trying to be purely cynical here, believe it or not. However, when I remember that high-level employees of Monsanto also have "revolving door" jobs working as high employees with the USDA, I can't help myself. What do you think?)

The letter I sent to Dr. Weil's web page received an automated response that he might see it after 4 weeks or so, so that is not too great. Wish I could find an alternate e-mail address.

I appreciate the postings.

At 10:29 AM 3/2/98 -0600, you wrote:

>Hi Soula,

> >Great letter to Dr Weil. Please let me know if he responds. I was in

>Seattle on Thursday for the USDA hearing on Organic, and it was great!

>We've got a *very* long way to go, but it was very encouraging to be in

>a room where everyone was so universally pro-organic (in my opinion, to

>a large degree, even the USDA). Will keep you posted on progress.

>Cheers.

> >-Mark.

-----------------------------------

NOTE:

Public comments and comments from the NOSB/USDA from the Austin, Ames, and Seattle hearings are now available on the web. Highly recommended if you have spare time to read it all.