Talk:Organic certification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Agropedia Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Agriculture, which collaborates on articles related to agriculture. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Removal of unclear statement: "production" vs "product" standards 2 Discussion: Examples of rules manipulation 3 Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma as a source 4 Fair use rationale for Image:CAAQ logo.jpg 5 Fair use rationale for Image:Fr OF 4c.gif 6 Fair use rationale for Image:Qai-logo.png 7 Fair use rationale for Image:Hellenic.jpg 8 EU organic logo

[edit] Removal of unclear statement: "production" vs "product" standards

I removed this for lack of clarity:

It is important to note that not the products are certified but the production process. Organic Certification Standards are Production Standards not Product Standards.

I couldn't figure out what the point was. The first paragraph already states that certification involves a production standard. When a product is labeled "certified organic", that means the product is...certified. Certification in this case has to do with verifying how the product was produced, not a dissection of the product itself, but that doesn't mean the product itself is not certified...it is... Tsavage 02:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion: Examples of rules manipulation

I removed this for lack of accuracy:

"A complaint filed with the USDA in February 2004 against a food ingredient producer and its certifying agent Quality Assurance International (QAI) - one of the world's largest organic certification agencies - charged that tap water had been certified organic, and sold to other organic producers for use in a variety of water-based body care and food products, in order to label them "organic" under US law. Steam-distilled plant extracts, consisting mainly of tap water from the distilling process, were certified organic, and sold as an organic base for products like beverages, soups, and shampoos. These items then claimed the minimum 70% organic content requirement for organic labeling. In addition, according to the complaint, the small quantity of plant extracts contained in the "organic base" were not primary ingredients of the range of products concerned.^[1]"

see the decision letter [1] . The case was "dismissed as moot" by the USDA. Further, allegations in the compliant were called "speculative and unripe for disposition" and the allegations against the certifier, were "unsubstantiated and dismissed."

With this clarity, it was sad to see this posting as part of the organic certification article for so long.

Thanks for pointing out the sloppy wording. I will adjust it, and include the decision. As a well-documented example of the type of manipulation of organic certification rules that is possible, it is still a good one. Bayliss Ranch was marketing the "tap water" product for personal care and food products, but they were not used in food products (which the paragraph you removed does not properly explain). The decision is based only on the fact that the USDA does not regulate personal care products. Anyhow, I'll fix it and put it back. --Tsavage 00:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited the bit, added the USDA's decision, and replaced it in the article. All of the evidence presented, including screensnaps of the company's web site promoting the claim, and details of the Rutgers University experiment to estimate the amount of outside water introduced into the extracts through distillation, are all there. This is a well-documented example of how the regulations can be manipulated, particularly so because all of the exhibits are available. The USDA didn't find the assertions in the complaint unsubstantiated, they simply said it had nothing to do with them (body care, not food). It's all relevant and verifiable. --Tsavage 02:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not quite true. The USDA does review personal care products certified to the NOP standards per the Dr. Bronners law suit. [2] Bayliss Ranch appears to still be certified to the NOP so it seems that the argument made above still has some discrepancies. [3] I dont want to go through a revision battle, so please revise the paragraph in question considering these facts.

Thanks for the note. Certification is an area of rapid development that is hard to keep up with (last Novembers's sudden additions to the NOP permitted substances, for example, should be covered here by now). That said, what I'm trying to do here is make sure the article, on its way to a comprehensive, stable state, represents a reasonably balanced view. One critical part of that is providing the information that certification is not necessarily the ultimate in "organic assurance", and I think examples of how rules can be observed in ways the public would likely find surprising and quite likely objectionable is important, and this is a notable, verifiable aspect of certification.

With QAI-Bayliss example, and your second note, I've for now added "at the time", since the NOP included personal care several months after the date of the Bayliss decision letter. Also, in that letter, the fraud claims were dismissed, but without the reasoning behind the decision, no clarity is provided. Was the water content of the extracts considered organic, or not? I don't think the original complaint by OCA is so much the point, it's the detailed explanation of the process being questioned, and the fact that it was formally challenged. I notice that Bayliss no longer advertises its Elixir product on its web site, which was specifically aimed at "beverages and sauces". And perhaps the cost of the hydrosols was prohibitive as a replacement for the the majority of the water content of, say, a sauce. But the point is demonstrating the trickiness of interpreting the regulations, and how products and approaches can be specifically created or modified to meet the regs and gain organic status and whatever market advantage.

If you have other examples of rules manipulation (and a write-up on the November additions to NOP would be good), please provide, in the article, or here and I'll try to develop them in the article. I'm not, um, wedded to this particular one. (I assume you don't think that the rules are perfect, are never bent, twisted, lobbied, and that a balanced article should properly conclude that "organic certification is great, critics are generally wrong". Certification is already under...attack, Wal-Mart announcing plans to dominate the organic market makes this whole area more important to get right.) --Tsavage 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link for organic goji juice. Wikipedia is not an advertising agency.67.9.168.146 06:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)paintlicker

This section I've pasted below concerns me, because the LA Times article sourced is misleading. The truth is that previously any ingredient could be used in nonorganic form if found to be "commericial unavailable." The USDA change to a list of 38 is a positive step, because it means the list of possible nonorganic ingredients went from everything agricultural anyone would use in a product to only 38. I will try to find sources (other than just working at a cert agency myself) online, but I think this is something that should be looked at and updated:
As of June, 2007, the USDA was "considering a proposal to allow 38 nonorganic ingredients to be used in organic foods." According to the Los Angeles Times: "Because of the broad uses of these ingredients — as spices, colorings, and flavorings for example — almost any type of manufactured organic food could be affected, including organic milk, cereal, sausages, bread and beer."[2]

In 2007, the USDA certified Anheuser-Busch's Wild Hop Lager organic "even though" it "uses hops grown with chemical fertilizers and sprayed with pesticides."[3]Saltdogs411 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma as a source

I'm current reading this book and it's part 2 write about the supermarket industrial organic. This may be useful for those interested in adding additional references, particularly in the issues with certification section.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CAAQ logo.jpg

Image:CAAQ logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fr OF 4c.gif

Image:Fr OF 4c.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Qai-logo.png

Image:Qai-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hellenic.jpg

Image:Hellenic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EU organic logo

The article should mention the logo of the european union as well. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/qual/organic/logo/index_en.htm --85.176.228.35 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)