Tell the National Organic Standards Board to Keep Hazardous Synthetics Out of Organic!

My letter:

The following message should not be necessary. I should be able to trust those entrusted with the power to decide, that they would never authorize anything to go into organically labeled food and regardless of the container or shipping method that is not as pure as it can reasonably be: clean water, air, soil and with nothing synthetic (obviously).

I cannot for the life of me understand why it should be necessary that people such as myself have to inform the Board of this and why I should have to explain that corporations, such as Monsanto and Dow and thousands of others, are for selfish reasons, literally ruining the environment and the gene pool, in fact, of countless species including our own.

Nevertheless, I support the following message that I hope thousands of unselfish souls will be sending your way in the hope that you will be move by working consciences concerning these hugely important matters.

So far over the last 30 or so years, I have been greatly saddened by the utter stupidity, shortsightedness, and sheer greed of those who have lobbied the government to allow the pollution of the organic label, etc.

It is, however, possible for all of you to stand together and against those who seek to destroy the environment for their utterly self-centered enrichment at the direct and negative expense of the rest of humanity and the entire planet.

Sure, you'd probably have the revolving door to those corporations slammed in your faces, but you'd have other doors opened that are now actually closed to you and will remain so, so long as you continue supporting the evil (yes, evil) out for the quick buck and the rest be damned.

The joint message is as follows:

Please keep hazardous synthetics out of organic!

You must reject synthetics that do not meet the core principles and values of organic because they are:

(i) hazardous to the environment or people,
(ii) incompatible with organic principles and systems, or
(iii) not essential and therefore not needed to produce organic food.

By this standard, the following new proposed synthetic substances must be kept out of organics:

(i) In crop production - oxidized lignite from coal, sulfuric acid in poultry manure as a fertilizer, and PGML as a broad spectrum miticide;
(ii) In livestock production - synthetic amino acids available from natural sources; and
(iii) In handling - synthetic ingredients in infant formula.

All ingredients, including so-called "inert" ingredients, must be fully evaluated.

Please improve public involvement and transparency in the decision making process!

I support the public communications recommendation. In addition, we need full public disclosure by NOSB members of conflicts of interest.

Thank you for considering my comments.
Tom Usher

Send you own:

Tell the National Organic Standards Board to Keep Hazardous Synthetics Out of Organic!.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.