PLEASE HELP FIX ORGANIC CERTIFICATION

Editor:

Re: Some organic farmers object to proposed testing, say current system OK, Osoyoos Times, Jan. 9, 2008

Maureen Parriott aptly describes the crossroads we've come to in the organic industry (Some organic farmers object to proposed testing, Osoyoos Times, Jan 9, 2008).

After 25 years of honour-based bureaucracy, testing organic crops in the field promises to finally provide organic consumers with what they expect. Some farmers object, but most are embracing the change.

Farmers detest the mountain of paperwork the current system requires, and they know it's completely ineffective against fraud and negligence. Everyone my company tested last summer agreed it was long overdue.

And still, a few farmers opposed to testing make the flawed claim that it's pretty hard for a person to cheat under the current system of self-policing. Why is that? Is anyone cheating dumb enough to write it down?

Let's face it, all the paper-trailing required by the organic certification groups won't deter a cheater. And imagine if the cheater is in Mexico or China! Then what good is the paperwork?

People like Linda Edwards, President of the largest paper-based organic certifier in B.C., say they declined to have their organic farms tested because they don't trust the testing methods being offered.

What don't they trust? The federally-certified labs I use? The federally-accredited training I have? Or is the problem just the money?

Incidentally, I charge only $300 for basic testing (not $500 as Edwards claims), and I have yet to make a profit. It's fine if some farmers don't want to be tested, but why argue against science by pretending there's something wrong with my system?

Edwards also complains that I wouldn't tell her what I was testing for. Well of course I wouldn't tell her. They don't tell Olympic athletes what they'll be testing for at the next Olympics, do they?

If Edwards had participated she would've found out precisely what I tested for this year: 17 commonly used phenoxy herbicides (2, 4-D), but only AFTER testing was done.

She also says I didn't approach her group for consideration when that's precisely why I called her; she's the president, after all.

I called every certifying group in B.C., along with other groups across North America in the spirit of openness. Edwards is distorting the truth, and that's unfair to every farmer who supports my approach.

Don't fix it if it ain't broke! So said the American automobile manufacturers when a guy named Ralph Nader lobbied to get seatbelts in cars. The way cars were made in the 1960s was indeed broken, but the powers-that-be at GM, Ford and Chrysler didn't want to spend the money to fix their systems. So consumers forced them to do it.

My clients grew tired of waiting for the powers-that-be. They paid out of their own pockets to improve organic certification and provide their customers with added assurance that their produce is chemical free.

Some say I have something in common with Ralph Nader. But the truth is the organic industry doesn't need a Ralph Nader; it's got something far better: independent farmers, thousands of them, and they want change.

Now we'll just wait and see what consumers think. My bet is they'll side with the farmers, not the bureaucrats.

Mischa Popoff,rnOsoyoos B.C.

OSOYOOS TIMES-January 16, 2008