National Organic Program and Dairy Producers

Not having any other place to comment on this particular issue, I have been made aware of a particular issue pertaining to Organic Dairy and the National Organic Program. The issue was brought to my attention from Go-NOFA-NY a yahoo group that I am a member of. I then checked out the site referred (The Cornucopia Institute)and there found the link to the story and the letter that is in question. I am putting a link to the story here (Milk Processors Clout Versus the Voice of Dairy Farmers)which includes a link tho the letter. I read the story and the letter and although I can agree with much of what the story says about the letter, referring to the interpretation and power of lobbyist et al, I have one particular problem with the story.

This may appear to be just picking at the story, and I might agree, but as the story indicates we should be careful of interpretation. In the story the authors "Mark Kastel" and "Will Fantle" make a very harsh statement (Late last year we learned that the nation’s largest organic dairy processors... collaborated on drafting a secret letter to the USDA Secretary proposing their own “fix”...) that includes the above highlighted statement. I take issue with the part that is highlighted in bold, "secret letter". The reason I take issue with this is because of how they interpret this. They say the dairy producers wrote a secret letter, which implies that it was done so to avoid public knowledge. It also implies that it is harmful, as that word secret always implies the hidden or esoteric. However the letter may have been delivered in "private" to the secretary, which implies a completely different meaning. When someone delivers something to you in private, it means they wish to have the opportunity to demonstrate discretion on all parties, and that the issue may be one of less insidious condition. The idea that large dairy producers are looking out for their own interest is not surprising to anyone who works with them, however that they are working to develop a secret pact with the secretary of agriculture, to seems highly unlikely.

First what is there for them to gain from this? They gain nothing from weakening the standards. If they did this they put themselves in direct competition with the larger dairy producers who already can out spend them in Washington. Their edge is maintained by making the standards stronger.

Second, they (the large organic producers) have every reason to maintain a level of privacy until such time as when they are certain they have influence with the secretary before asking their producers (milk providers) to adopt the standards. Early issue of such considerations will stir up controversy and unnecessary fear with the dairy industry. If they can ensure that they have influence with the secretary they would then have the ability to work with him to work with the dairy farmers to make the standards stronger.

Lastly, although it is true that whenever large organizations use private channels and vague language in communication with any government agency there should be diligence on the part of the press, they too should be careful of semantic use of vague or pointed usage of language themselves. Perhaps I am being very pointed myself in this bit, but I believe that although there is much that is good about this particular article and that brining the letter to the publics attention is noble in intention, when the press uses such allegations as secret letter, it implies perhaps something more to the public they are addressing than is really there, and that perhaps the press themselves are guilty of sensationalism for the sake of obtaining greater good, but with out discretion that should be considered paramount. Dirt is great, but there was a reason your mother told you not to throw dirt in other peoples faces, it begins a dialog of defense, rather than a debate.

This is a ruff draft, keeping this in mind, I may revise this post at any time in the future for content or impact.

Thank you
-James-