The Ruminant: Audio Candy for Farmers, Gardeners and Food Lovers - e.67: Things you may not know about organic certification

Episode Date: January 8, 2016

I recently had a chance to speak with Rochelle Eisen, who is an expert on all things organic in Canada. Rochelle has been an organic inspector, AKA organic verification officer, for years, and she's been involved in various levels of the oraganic farming certification bureaucracy throughout that time. Rochelle joined me to explain how the organic bureacratic machine works. Sounds boring, I know, but I think you'll really enjoy this if you've ever wondered how organic standards are formed or changed, or how you can influence them. If you're currently an organic farmer, or think you might be in future, or like to spout off about how the system is corrupt, or how the system is too expensive or too onerous, you should give this a listen. The topic may be a little bland, but Rochelle is the hotsauce that makes it enjoyable. A note to my american listeners that Rochelle and I focus on the Canadian organic system which she tells me is quite different than yours. I still think you'll find value here though. It may just make you want to go and learn more about the American system.

This is the Ruminant Podcast. I'm Jordan Marr. The Ruminant Podcast and blog wonders what good farming looks like and aims to help farmers and gardeners share insights with each other. At theruminant.ca, you'll find show notes for each episode of the podcast as well as the odd essay, book review, and photo-based blog post. You can email me, editor at theruminant.ca, I'm at ruminantblog on Twitter, or search The Ruminant on Facebook.

Okay, on with the show. Hi everyone, happy new year. I'm on the road right now, on vacation actually, so the intro to this episode will be both short and kind of crappy, sound-wise. The acoustics in my hotel room are wanting. Okay, so for this episode, it's going to get a bit nerdy. I recently had a chance to speak with Rochelle Eisen, who is an expert on all things organic in Canada. Rochelle has been an organic inspector, a.k.a. organic verification officer, for years,

and she's been involved in various levels of the organic farming certification bureaucracy throughout that time. You might remember Rochelle from an episode way back about an effort to create a professional organic farmer designation in British Columbia for urban farmers and others who don't own their own land, which by the way hasn't come to fruition yet. This time, Rochelle joined me to explain how the organic bureaucratic machine works. Sounds boring, I know, but I think you'll really enjoy this if you've ever wondered how organic standards are formed or changed, or how you can influence them. If you're currently an organic farmer, or you think you might be in future,

or you like to spout off about how the system is corrupt, or how the system is too expensive or too onerous, you should give this a listen. The topic may be a little bland, but Rochelle is the hot sauce that makes it enjoyable, I promise. A note to my American listeners that Rochelle and I focus on the Canadian organic system, which she tells me is quite different than yours. I still think you'll find value here though. It may just make you want to go out and learn more about the American system. That's it.

Vanessa and I are driving through California right now, and tomorrow we leave soggy San Diego for Joshua Tree, and then Mojave, and then Death Valley. Very excited. Here's my conversation with Rochelle Eisen. I'll talk to you briefly at the end. So, Rochelle, before we talk about what you're going to be talking about, maybe we could just, for the 1% of listeners who don't know,

remind people who you are and what your background is. So they know your name now, but why are you qualified to talk about this stuff? Let's start with your history as a verification officer. I've been an organic verification officer for an extended time now, and I've been involved with maintaining standards both in the province and at the federal level. And I'm actually the convener, the coordinator, facilitator for the preparation working group for the last technical review that was completed under the auspices of the Canadian General Standards Board. And with my role that I've had in the province as a verification officer, and I was also the extension officer for a three-year stint,

it just puts me in a position where I'm comfortable with sharing all this information. I think that's what it is. Well, we're grateful that there's people like you because most of us farmers don't pay enough attention and therefore don't know most of the time what the heck's going on with standards and all that sort of thing. So you're going to admit that on the radio?

Yeah. Well, Rochelle, you know what? Since I've got you on the phone but I think it would be helpful to quickly have you summarize how changes to Canadian organic standards happen because I think I still think there are lots of people who don't really understand I only have a slim kind of grasp of it myself so we try to keep you in the dark because it's so freaking confusing okay that's what it is. So why don't we... Want to start there?

Well, no, I was thinking this. Well, okay, we just had an update to the standards take effect. So take us back the amount of time to when this round of changes was initiated. So when was that? Well, we'll have to back up further. So the first version of the standard was published in 2016, I mean 2006, and it was slightly amended in 2011. Hey folks, Jordan jumping in here in post-production with an editor's note. When Rochelle talks about the first version of the standards being established in 2006, she means the Canadian national standards. Of course, organics in Canada go way further back than 2006. They go back another

20 or 25 years before that. But it was in 2006 that the new national standard was established that all Canadian growers who were becoming certified organic would have to follow or adhere to. Okay, back to the conversation. We should have had a full review starting in 2011, five years from the first publication date. That's the protocol that the CGSB holds on to, that you can do minor adjustments to a certain level, key elements in between the five years if there are dire problems, but you can only do a full review every five years,

which means where you can make actual adjustments to the whole standard. The review that we just completed did not start in 2011. It didn't start until 2013, and it was basically because of money. We didn't have the financial means to actually complete the review. The review was delayed to 2013. It just got finished in 2015, and then that's why the publication date just happened on November 25, not have another full review until 2020. Now, saying that, there is change afoot in terms of the permanent substances list, which is 32.3.11, the second volume of the standard that you have to read in conjunction with 32.310, the principles. It turns out under CGSB protocols, you can have an ongoing review process for things that are really addendums, like additions.

And because the principles are embedded in 310, and the permanent PSL is just about substances, permanent PSL is just about substances, it turns out that this management of 32311 could actually go to a more regular review process, an ongoing review process, which would be fully reviewed in 2020. So we have struck a permanent PSL committee, which should be getting to work because there's always ongoing work in terms of substances and understanding that. Our problem, again, is finances. So it really can't get underway until we have the money to do it. But we have the approval and the consensus at the technical committee level that, yes, let's try this new review process because we feel it'll be ongoing. It will be helpful to the community. It will keep everybody educated and engaged,

and it'll stop the volume of dearth of stuff we had to deal with in a very short period of time because it's so technical. Right. So I'm going to stop you there because I need to go over a couple things you mentioned. There are two main documents involved with the standards. There's a document that governs practices. I'm simplifying, but it governs practices, what you can and can't do if you're certified organic. The other document is a permitted substances list. So in my context of vegetable agriculture, list. So in my context of vegetable agriculture, if I want to add a certain nitrogen-based organic fertilizer, I need to pay attention to this list of permitted substances to make sure that I'm

allowed to use it. It's just a list that dictates what can be used and the different substances that can be used, you know, as soil amendments, et cetera, in organic agriculture. You were pointing out that what, what, what seems to be happening is they're going to, with the permitted substances list, they're going to keep that in an ongoing review. Uh, whereas the, the 310, the, the, the actual practices document will be reviewed every five years, which is what you just completed doing for both lists starting in 2013. Right. Great.

And so the other key element, you asked how this actually happens. So people who do not like or have a problem or where there's a gap in the standard have to submit petitions, fulsome petitions, that show where a problem is, what they need changed, and the scientific reason behind it. And that gets logged into the work list by the CGSB and the industry partner, which is the Organic Federation of Canada. And those work list items sit there waiting for the working groups from the technical committee to get re-engaged and look these things over and do the assessments.

So, petitions can start going in right away as soon as people start reading this new version. But remember that for the practices, there will not be any changes until 2020. Okay, so take us back to 2013 then and okay let me let's try you know what let's try let's try this rochelle it's it's late 2012 and farmer organic certified organic farmer jordan marr decides that he thinks it's really stupid that he can't use uh fence posts treated with arsenic right next to his crops. Okay? So that's what he thinks.

That's good that he says stupid, but that's not a petition. Oh, no, no, I know. You're going to tell me what he does to move this up and to have this submitted for review. So he says, ah, this is stupid. I want to do something about it. So I'll switch to the first person. What do I do? what would i have done you would have completed a petition uh uh

stating your case produce it uh and and with evidence and also making a recommendation for change uh if you had a solution and you would be submitting that to the CGSB, the Canadian General Standards Board, and that petition would get numbered, it would be categorized, and it would be sitting in a work list waiting for the review process to be initiated. Things are kept chronologically, so the oldest items usually get dealt with first to clear the backlog, or if there's a higher priority because it's affecting more people, more of the production system, those would get the higher priority, and then things might get shifted around based on what percentage

of the organic community are impacted by a petition. And then it goes into this review process with working groups. Now, anybody can join a working group. They meet by conference calls across the country, and they work through every item. There are shared documents for people to engage with. And then if we don't have expertise within the working group, technical people might be brought in to help with getting the background information to make better decisions. And then the working group convener would actually present the proposed solutions or rejections of

each individual petition at the technical working group meetings as they occur through the review process. Right. So even as the petitioner, the one who submitted the proposed change, I could be part of the working group? Yes, absolutely. And anyone can. It's essentially composed of a bunch of, we could say, stakeholders, but people who, volunteers, who want to be, I mean, these working groups are numerous and they're divided into different kind of categories of agriculture and processing. But that's where the debate starts, I suppose. categories of agriculture and processing, but that's where the debate starts, I suppose. That's absolutely where, and that's where the real work happens, because the technical committee doesn't have necessarily the expertise for each area of discussion. So by the time a convener comes to the technical committee to present a petition, hopefully they've done sufficient

review with enough expertise at their table that nobody at the technical committee is going to challenge the work presented by the working group that doesn't always stand the course of time like like i i try very hard for as a preparation convener to make sure that most of my petitions fail through and the the few that don't, it just shocks me. And then I listen to what everybody at the technical committee says, and then usually you have to go back to your working group. You have to expand and look at it different ways, the pros and the cons, and see if you can find a solution.

And a lot of times it's a language problem where there's an inconsistency, a conflict with something else in the standard. And it is a healthy, healthy process in terms of whatever happens. Nothing happens at the technical committee level that the working group wouldn't be informed about. It's the responsibility of the convener to always bring back the results of the review by the technical committee and the working group always has an opportunity to rework rethink reprocess what they've done okay so try and try and be quick with this answer let's say my let's say my petition let's say it's get it just lands with a thud and like basically quite quickly the working group that's overseeing it says no way

okay is that is it how does what's the quickest way um a petition would be rejected like like if we've gone over it 50 million times already right so so to the point where i might be i as the one who submitted the petition i might be in that working group but i might be the only voice arguing for it and everyone we've gone over and over it but everyone else in the working group says no no one then it doesn't go forward it's presented as uh a non-persuasive petition right okay so what now let's talk about the the the the kind of the the converse of that like so so actually the working group considers my petition and over time comes to believe or and maybe reworks the wording or whatever but they come to believe

this is worthy of attempting to change in the standards they would you already touched on this they would send it up higher up to the technical committee yes these are these are these are these also volunteers from across canada or or how does how does the technical committee well it there's this democratic balancing act under the CGSB process. So agricultural associations can sit at the technical committee, but that has to be in balance with consumers and users of the list. Certification bodies actually can't sit at the technical committee. So there's all these rules and the guidance that we have to follow.

And there also has to be this balance between users and producers. And I can't remember all the categories that they have. And CJSB takes care of that. And every time we sit down to a meeting, they do all this waiting to make sure we have proper democratic balance before we can actually vote on anything. Yeah, so we're all sitting in these rooms. sure we have proper uh democratic balance before we can actually vote on anything yeah so uh what so we're all sitting in these rooms and uh people from the floor can ask for clarification they can uh protest against it they can say they're you know they can say hey uh give a friendly

amendment and stuff like that and they get to vote on yes no let, let's modify, take it back, bring it back, or whatever. So that's how the process goes. And that's recorded, and we just keep moving on. Okay, so is there a higher level than the technical committee? If my original petition survives in some form at that level, what's the next step? um if if if it was voted yes and the it's it's grammatically correct and whatever it's it's done okay and then it's going to make it into the the new uh the updated standards ah okay you know what that is not done okay so now we have to go through all the technical review meetings, then the final revised version, as voted on in pieces, is recirculated to all the voting members of the technical committee,

and then there is an actual final vote on the entire document. Do you agree with what we've done? Are you saying yes to both volumes as is? Are you saying yes with comments or are you saying no with comments? And that's when the voting really takes place because initially at the round table, while we're sitting there, we're voting on the individual petitions. And then at the end, we have to have a final vote on the entire documentation. Right.

But this is so so but now this is still it's it's it's hard this is a confusing and very technical process but one thing that seems clear is that these i'm calling them petitions i hope that's somewhat right but these these these proposals to change the standards can go up and down the chain right they can go up to the technical committee, the technical committee can say, well, it needs more work back down to the working group and then just up and down and up and down. Um, so, okay. That, that gives us a rough sense. Rochelle, what I find so, well, I have a, I have a question for you or a statement. I don't know. As someone who, who, who has spent a lot of time, um, in this process, I have a feeling it must be very frustrating for you when you hear

the common complaint from the, let's call them the everyday organic farmer, that, you know, the whole process is top down and, you know, like totalitarian and the standards are just becoming a joke, and statements like that, because it seems to me like the process is open to everyone, but very few people participate. I think, Jordan, I don't think if people are criticizing what we're doing in Canada, it's they really are unaware. They need to come and they need to look. The technical committee meetings are open. People can come and join. We actually moved it across the country in 2014, had it in Vancouver just so people in

Western Canada could attend, and we had one person show up. I guess that's what I'm getting at, though, is the lack of awareness. It just seems like you're going to go to the conference and you're going to announce these updates and there's going to be people who are like, what? Like they just, they don't understand that some people don't understand that there's been what is a very democratic process that went into these changes. They just see the end result. And because they aren't aware of how it works, assume that it was just, you know, change from on high or something like that. Yeah. See, government is at the table, but they don't.

The only extension people like in the individual provinces relevant to organics, if they're at the table, have a vote. Okay. but no federal government people don't vote they don't influence it they're there as resources to guide us to make sure we're not making something that's contrary to other legislation and stuff like that so it is not top down we are a grassroots everybody who's at this table is a grassroots person like myself or a farm there's lots of farmers we need we have tons of farmers at the technical level because we need their expertise because i i can't

always write stuff that's appropriate for a farmer like how can we do that so yeah i i'm concerned i hear your concern and i know we get this flashback kickback all the time from people and then i then i have to say we try to reach you. If you're not engaged, if people aren't engaged out of self-choice, we can't get to them. We can't get that information to them. And I guess it seems pretty crucial, Rochelle, because it is an open process,

and anyone can join this process, at least at some levels. And I would assume you can bet all of the different industry associations are going to want they're going to be at the table they're going to be mobilized and to the extent that the standards are at risk of being diluted over time i would think it's because the people with the best the most interest in diluting them are going to be there while while the people who are most likely to complain about those dilutions later on tend to be the on-the-ground farmers who either through lack of awareness or through apathy aren't getting to those sessions to voice their concerns.

Very accurate. So it's very critical and we have to start thinking about succession because there's been a lot of the pioneers, already the key people at the technical committee, and I won't name names, and they're not probably going to be engaged by 2020. And so we're very aware that we really need young farmers and processors with deep commitment to the sector to become the new weather bells,

you know, at these sessions to make sure that we always meet the principles of organics and we maintain the integrity of the organic standards as our sector wants. And when we do get pressure from large sectors who want things watered down, we can stand firm to our principles. Well put, Rochelle. Hey, folks. Jordan jumping in with another editor's note. So at this point, I'm going to jump to another part of my conversation with Rochelle, in which I asked her for an example of a recent change that has been implemented with the organic standards.

The context is that Rochelle has already been giving talks to farmers about what they can expect from the changes. I'm just wondering if you have one or two examples of what's been surprising farmers in terms of changes. Oh, I think we can always talk about biodegradable mulch, don't you think, Jordan? I would love to. Great, let's talk about it. I don't want to! Okay, so biodegradable mulch has become this pair of evilness for all of us

because it turns out that everything that's been labeled as a biodegradable mulch actually had components in them that were prohibited by the standard. So sorry, just to clarify, you're talking about what farmers for a long time have used black plastic mulches for their crops. Going back further, people, they were waste products. They were thrown out at the end, but then there was the advent of these biodegradable black plastic mulches, often with corn and other organic products comprising their material. Okay, so that's what we're talking about. Now, yes, most of them were corn-based, but it turns out the corn was only like 60% of the profile.

And they ended up having petroleum polymers in them. They also had carbon black, which is also another petroleum process-made thing to give the color and also give it some stability. And the requirement under the organic standard is if it biodegraded it wouldn't do any it would all be organic based it'd be organic material it'd all be corn well we didn't know they weren't 100 organic based materials and so that only came to everybody's attention like in late 2013, 2014.

And so we had to do a lot of work because all of a sudden something that we thought in terms of a material or a substance, if you want to call it that, that we thought was acceptable, it turns out all the brand name products that were available in the marketplace were not compliant with the requirements of the standard. And therefore there was a huge hoopla because everybody had to be told in the marketplace were not compliant with the requirements of the standard. And therefore, there was a huge hoopla because everybody had to be told that they couldn't use these biodegradable mulches. So is that the case now? Is that the new standard, that they're not allowed? Okay, so let's back up a little.

So at the same time that we learned about this issue in Canada, the U.S. learned about it, and they too came out with a prohibition, you cannot use these. What happened next, though, was a hue and cry from many Canadian farmers that came and said, you know what, we have a ton of inventory, and we can't make this adjustment fast enough. And with a lot of discussion, a lot of working group hours, just spending their time on this one issue, the decision was, you know what?

We understand the problem. Nobody did this out of malicious, wrongful doing. This was misinformation that was supplied to the sector. was misinformation that was supplied to the sector. And so the standard now has an exemption that says for existing inventory that you have, you may use that inventory on your farm and don't have to lift it off your field. You can leave it on your field, and that exemption is in place until January 2017. Okay, okay. Okay?

Yeah. In the meantime, the standard actually says biodegradable mulches containing prohibited components that don't comply with the standard are prohibited. If you use them, you must list them. You cannot leave them on the ground at the end of the crop season to break down. But then there's the exemption that allows this temporary use for existing inventory until January 2017.

I just want to ask you, like, I have to imagine that when you have talked on this topic in the past, you must inevitably spend time on just dispelling myths about what it means to be certified. Bingo. You hit it right on, Jordanordan i'm amazed at how many times we can all have conversations where people say oh i i can't qualify um you know i'm in this urban context that that doesn't allow for certification and i'm just going i don't even know what they're talking about and so like i have to go what's your what's what's your barrier what can't you get over what's holding you up from being certified and And I almost feel like a salesperson.

I feel like, what can I do to put you in this car? That's almost like, what is holding you up? And usually I'm finding it's paperwork. People really cannot imagine keeping records to track their farm production systems. records to track their farm production systems. And, like, it's fascinating, Jordan, because I should probably ask you to turn it around. Jordan, how are your records in terms of your farm management and stuff like that? Are you keeping pretty good records?

And I'm not trying to judge you. I'm keeping pretty good records, both because I'm required to for organic certification, but, and this is what I would argue to the uninitiated. More importantly, because it's an excellent thing to do for the health of my business, my farm business. Bingo. And that is the gist. There's the gist of it. If you aren't doing this, then you know what? Something's wrong. Because it is your business. This is your passion. This is your farm. You cannot run it off the seat of your pants. You've got to look at a farm as a business. And so when people give me that excuse, I'm just like, well, I don't think you're going to make it anyways in this sucker.

I can't believe I said that, but that's where it comes from. And the other barrier is, oh, I can't afford certification. When I talk about the regional certifiers in British Columbia that can put you into full certification with no subsidization because we don't have any subsidization for certification fees, but certifiers in this province can certify you for $400. And if you tell me you can't afford that from a business point, then I have to wonder about your business.

Like, what's going on? Like, if you're, you know, it's just not i i can't hear it that's what i that's what i look i spread the gospel of organic and i i i often i i think there are two uh very unfortunate myths one is that the paperwork is is just ridiculous which isn't even true so first of all we've talked about it's really helpful for the business anyway but it's also not as bad as, as people make it out, make it out to be. And the same with the costs. Uh, they're, they're, they're, they're just another cost that, that, I mean, all of us who are certified are constantly, uh, concerned about costs because they tend to be rising every year. But the reality is for most farmers,

not for all farmers, but for most farmers, as a percentage of your overall business, it's fairly reasonable. And I remember talking to one non-organic farmer whose impression was that it would probably cost him $5,000 to be certified. You know, like there's just a lot of misconceptions out there. Yeah. Another one is always the buffers. Like, you know, oh, I'm surrounded by conventional farms and I can't, you know, blah, blah, blah. Well, you know, the standard used to only give the option of the 25 feet between you and your non-organic neighbor. Well, now there's hedges, there's fences, you know, lay of land type of things that come into consideration. And so that's why I find when I have those conversations with people and say, oh, I can't do it, I just don't get it. I just don't see it.

Like, don't you want to be part of this fastest growing group of people in agriculture throughout the world? I mean, this is where it is. So putting up your own barriers, I don't get it. Like, thank God you're talking to us. Thank God we can spread the gospel. But, you know, we're doing it one farmer at a time and it's slow. Excellent. Okay, well, now you're going to get tested. So I hope you're ready. Is there a clock? It's no clock, but your challenge is to uh define these acronyms but also concisely

explain what they do what these different organizations do all right and i've got a few i don't it's not an exhaustive list but i wrote out a few that i could think of okay um and when i say the first one don't worry we're not going to go through every one of these but i want to illustrate what what what what this organization does at this level. SUPA. Oh, Smilkameen Okanagan Organic Producers Association, a certification body based in the Smilkameen that does regional certification under accreditation from the Certified Organic Association of British Columbia. Great. So a certification body is the kind of farmer, the organic farmer's main point of contact in being certified. It's the body that oversees their certification each year. And we tend to call them CBs because we're acronym crazy.

Certification bodies, right? Yes. Okay, you already mentioned the next one. COABC, you mentioned it, Certified Organic Association of BC. They're the oversight body for organics in British Columbia. And so that they, they accredit the certification bodies. They make sure the certification bodies, um, are, are operating properly in their, in, in their certification of farmers? Yes. Right. Okay. So can you name one other provincial equivalent of the COABC,

since that COABC only governs British Columbia? Tell me one for another province. Oh, well, there's none in any other province equivalent. Oh, no, there's Quebec. That's CART TV. But federally, there's the Standards Council of Canada, which does accreditation similarly to CWABC for the ISO certification bodies, the International Standard Organization certification bodies. So if you're an organic farm in Alberta, is that the accreditation body that's overseeing your CBE there, your certification body there?

There are other options. There's also IOAS, which is the International Organic Accreditation System, I think. And so CWABC has a unique relationship. So the Certified Organic Association of British Columbia is unique in what it does in Canada. There's no other organization like it that has that provincial role plus accreditation role except for what's in Quebec. And so if you're based in Alberta, your certifier just goes window shopping for whatever accreditation they want internationally and chooses them randomly. Okay, so but going just to summarize, in Canada, an organic farmer is going to be applying for certification to a certification body, which then would be accredited or overseen by an accrediting organization

like the COABC, Certified Organic Association of British Columbia. Right. All right, getting away from the actual... It's easier in a graph. It's easier in a graph. Yeah. I think we need one of those. But let's just get away from necessarily

this certification hierarchy. Now I'm just going to throw some at you. Yeah, yeah. CODA. Canadian Organic Trade Association. What do they do? They deal with

international marketing of Canadian products. They actually are involved with collecting the stats in Canadian production. They also are very active in terms of our standards, in terms of equivalency agreements with other countries, and also just the Canadian standards maintenance and stuff like that. Are they industry- or government funded? They are industry and government funded by grants,

if they are successful in getting grants. I don't know if I have this next one right. Is it C-O-F? I think you make that one up. Okay. Sounds good. Is there an organic body in Canada with Federation in the name? Yes, it's OFC.

OFC, thank you. That's the Organic, sorry, I'm sorry, I should have realized which one. Yeah, Organic Federation of Canada. It is the democratic body that oversees the maintenance of the standards. And their other role is they are the administrator of the organic science cluster, which is the research funding that comes from the federal government that works with industry and research scientists across the country doing research relevant to organic production in Canada. It has to be industry- and demanded. So it's a complex relationship and OCC is all that. Okay. All right. We'll make this the last one.

COG, C-O-G. Did you do that on purpose? No, well, no, it's an important one. Let's talk about it. Okay. It's the Canadian Organic Growers. It is the oldest organization in Canada in terms of national organizations for organics. It is the only national charity. It's just celebrated its 40th year. I happen to be the current president of the organization, and Jordan happens to be a director on the federal national board. And it's an advocacy group and an educational group. So the role of CogPlays in Canada is to educate all aspects of the community on organics,

including supporting growers in terms of information they need relevant to organic production, consumers, gardeners in terms of what is organics and anything they want to know about organics. Yeah, and it's pretty cool because of how you just summarized it. It's advocating and educating farmers all the way through to eaters and consumers and that sort of thing. It's got this wicked set of educational resources, books, and a lending library. It publishes books.

It's got a lending library for farmers and gardeners, but also just doing advocacy for citizens. It's a great organization. Yeah, we're involved at the standards level, too, and educating anybody about anything that we can with regards to organics. So it does play an important role at that federal level, and it has chapters in certain areas of the country that are very active with their own particular projects relevant to organics in their areas, and it's just super cool what some of these chapters are doing in their regions. Well, Rochelle, as in at the start of this conversation,

I assured you it was going to be quick, which was a bold-faced lie. But that was really informative. Okay, Rochelle, thank you. Thank you for your time. You're welcome. Yeah. If I can, I'm going to do some editing.

Like that. That first part of the conversation. All right, folks, that's it. I hope you liked that. I will talk to you in about a week. I'll be back after with a new episode. And if it's a bit longer than a week, it just means that I'm out camping.

I don't know my schedule exactly yet, but I'll be shooting hard to get you something within the next seven days, 10 days at most. Talk to you then. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. duct tape and we'll run right outside of the city's reaches we'll live off chestnuts spring water and peaches we'll own nothing to this world of thieves and live life like it was meant to be Because why would we live in a place that don't want us A place that is trying to bleed us dry.

We could be happy with life in the country with salt on our skin and the dirt on our hands. I've been doing a lot of thinking, some real soul searching, and here's my final resolve. I don't need a big old house or some fancy car to keep my love going strong. So we'll run right out into the wilds and graces. We'll keep close quarters with gentle faces and live next door to the birds and the bees And live life like it was meant to be Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah.