|
This is the weblog of
Raymond Powers.
Here I will be sharing what I find of import, humor, concern, inspiration and on the transformational edge
|
A Quote:
If you think you're free, there's no escape possible. --Ram Dass
|
Raymond lives in Ojai, where the time now is:
02:41PM
Unique Readers:
Primarily
Public Domain
Everything I've written here, except my copyrighted
essays, poetry, lyrics, and music is hereby placed in the public
domain. The quotes from other people's writings, and the pictures
used might or might not be copyrighted, but are considered fair
use. Thus the license here would best be described as:
Primarily Public
Domain.
Please ask permission if there is any question in
regards to public domain usage.
|
Syndication:
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.worldtrans.org/pic/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
WebLog Resources:
NCN NewsLogs
Weblogs.com
blo.gs
Technorati
Organica
DayPop
Blogdex
PopDex
Blogging Ecosystem
BlogTree
BlogStreet
BlogWise
BlogChalking
Wander-Lust
|
| Friday, June 24, 2005 |  |
|
|
|
24 Jun 2005 @ 02:36
USDA Asked to Bring Organic Food Regulations Into Compliance with 1990 Law
Posted 6/23/05
USDA Organic Regs Violate 1990 Law USDA asked to bring organic food regulations into compliance with 1990 law Court Ruling Finds Some Current Regulations Violate "Organic Foods Production Act"
WASHINGTON < (NATURALWIRE) < Six agriculture, retail and food safety groups have petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to update organic food labeling rules following a judge¹s ruling in the case of Harvey v. Johanns, which found that existing regulations concerning the use of synthetic substances in food products labeled "organic" and the feeding of new dairy cows violated the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990. The petitioners are asking for a number of regulatory changes designed to ensure the long-term integrity of the "organic" label, to create an equitable and consistent standard that aids dairy farmer transition to organic, and to bring the current National Organic Program (NOP) regulations into compliance with the federal court's January 2005 ruling.
"The Organic Foods Production Act is strong as it stands and needs to be defended against weakening through interpretation or unwarranted tinkering," said Joseph Mendelson, legal director for Center for Food Safety. "Our petition to USDA is intended to resolve inconsistencies between the law and the organic program regulations without opening up the law to wholesale changes. Regulatory changes to the National Organic Program should be pursued and exhausted before any attempt is made to amend the law."
In October 2002, just days after the rules governing organic under NOP were implemented, Maine blueberry farmer Arthur Harvey filed suit against USDA claiming that the USDA regulations governing foods labeled "organic" contravened several principles of the OFPA. Having initially lost on all counts, Harvey prevailed in January 2005 when the Court of Appeals ruled in his favor on the three counts finding:
1. Synthetic substances are not permitted in processing of items labeled as "organic," and only allowed in the "made with organic" labeling category.
2. Provisions allowing up to 20-percent non-organic feed in the first nine months of a dairy herd's one-year conversion to organic production are not permitted.
3. All exemptions for the use of non-organic products "not commercially available in organic form² must be reviewed by National Organic Standards Board, and certifiers must review the operator¹s attempt to source organic. "We are calling on USDA to ensure the integrity of food products labeled organic," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Washington-based Beyond Pesticides. "As greater numbers of people flock to food produced without synthetic chemicals, it becomes ever more essential to guard our organic standards against constant and corrosive reinterpretation."
The petition filed today by the Center for Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides, National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, National Cooperative Grocers Association, National Organic Coalition and Rural Advancement Foundation International USA, provides the USDA with specific corrections that will correct the illegalities currently found in the USDA regulations.
"Both consumers and retailers whom we represent view the outcome of the Harvey lawsuit as an opportunity to strengthen the regulations within the USDA's National Organic Program and to further differentiate organic products in the marketplace," noted Robynn Shrader of the National Cooperative Grocers Association.
Michael Sligh, from Rural Advancement Foundation International, and founding chair of the USDA¹s National Organic Standards Board concluded: ³We believe that consumer and farmer rights and expectations under OFPA should be preserved and defended, and that the organic industry must be willing to adopt practices that maintain the integrity, high standards, and market viability of the organic label in the long term.² Petitioners are asking USDA to make the proposed regulatory changes complete within 12 months of June 9, 2005
|
|
| Tuesday, June 21, 2005 | |
|
|
|
21 Jun 2005 @ 00:07
G8 Climate Action Plan Weakened to Suit United States
LONDON, UK, June 17, 2005 (ENS) - The G8 plan to combat climate change has been "watered down" to satisfy the United States, an environmental group said today after viewing a leaked draft prepared in advance of next month's G8 Summit at the Gleneagles Hotel in Scotland.
Friends of the Earth reacted "with anger" at the content of the draft communique on climate change entitled "Gleneagles Plan of Action," and dated June 14.
Compared to an earlier draft leaked on May 2, which itself had no specific targets or timetables for action, this version appears to be even weaker.
The latest draft "worryingly even calls into question scientists' warnings that global climate change is already under way," Friends of the Earth said. A dry riverbed in the U.S. state of Virginia may be the result of global warming. (Photo courtesy Virginia D0F) On June 7, the national science academies of all the G8 countries - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States - plus the three largest developing countries, Brazil, China and India, issued joint statement declaring "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring."
"It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities," the scientific academies said, adding, "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."
Friends of the Earth International's climate campaigner Catherine Pearce said, ³Every reference to the urgency of action or the need for real cuts in emissions has been deleted or challenged. Nothing in this text recognizes the scale or urgency of the crisis of climate change."
G8 Summit host, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has vowed to put action to limit climate change at the top of the G8 agenda, but with just 17 days to go before the leaders of the world's eight wealthiest nations meet at the Gleneagles Hotel, it appears that the draft action plan is being weakened so that little action will result.
Enclosed in square brackets, which mean that unanimous agreement has not been reached, are the statements, "[Our world is warming.]" and "[The statement issued by the science academies in June 2005 said that there is now 'strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring' and that 'this warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.]" Other bracketed statements include, "[The world's developed economies have a responsibility to show leadership.]" and the phrase "[and reduce greenhouse gas emissions]" "[Those of us who have ratified the Kyoto Protocol welcome its entry into force and will work to make it a success.]" was enclosed in brackets.
Also bracketed was a much longer statement about the Kyoto Protocol that would strengthen its greenhouse gas emissions trading system and flexible market mechanisms that facilitate investment in carbon neutral projects.
The environmentalists believe the changes were made at the insistence of the Bush administration, which has declined to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, although the United States signed the accord under the Clinton administration.
All of the other G8 nations have ratified the protocol that requires an average 5.2 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2012.
"Gleneagles Plan of Action," dated June 14 shows square brackets around statements that lack 100 percent agreement.
After listening to U.S. chief climate negotiator Harlan Watson speaking on the BBC's Today Programme on May 13, Pearce said, "The G8 meeting provides an unprecedented opportunity for the richest nations to address the biggest threat facing our planet, but this opportunity will be missed due to the disgraceful, outdated and downright dangerous behavior of the U.S."
In the "Gleneagles Plan of Action," square brackets were also inserted into a commitment to work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPPC) to provide an assessment of the climate impact of aviation.
The words [the IPCC] are bracketed, indicating less than unanimous agreement to work with the panel of more than 2,500 scientists established by the World Meteorological Organization and the UN Environment Programme to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information about climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
At a minimum Friends of the Earth says the G8 must state "agreement on the compelling scientific evidence showing that climate change is already happening and that urgent action is now required to substantially reduce emissions."
The group urges an agreement by G8 nations for "specific, substantial and timetabled cuts in their domestic emissions of greenhouse gases."
"If they can¹t do better than this," said Pearce, "the outcome of G8 summit will be worse that hot air - it will be a backward step in international climate change policy, simply adding to climate injustice.² Also bracketed is a a proposal to launch "[a Global Bioenergy Partnership to support wider cost effective biomass and biofuels deployment, particularly in developing countries where biomass use is prevalent...]" Seal on melting ice floes. (Photo courtesy David Suzuki Foundation) Friends of the Earth Scotland's Chief Executive Duncan McLaren, said, "Any suggestion that G8's visit to Scotland would produce anything meaningful on tackling climate change is rapidly evaporating."
"The first draft of this document was bad, this update is even worse," said McLaren.
All reference to funding for climate change research was deleted from the latest version of the communique.
"G8 countries represent just 13 per cent of the world's population, but account for 45 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions," McLaren said. "A climate plan of action, by the world's richest nations that does not include targets, timetables and extra funding is of no use to future climate victims."
Speaking to Channel 4 News former British Environment Minister Michael Meacher said it is "extraordinary" that doubt is being cast on the simple assertion that the world is getting warmer. "Presumably it was taken out because of the Americans," he said.
Other British officials said there are drafts and drafts in the days before any international summit, and the only draft that matters is the one signed at Gleneagles.
|
|
| Monday, June 20, 2005 | |
|
|
|
20 Jun 2005 @ 05:58
Wal-Mart's Scott Offers Organics, Premium Wines at Annual Meeting
JUNE 06, 2005 -- FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. -- Food is an important ingredient in Wal-Mart's recipe for success moving forward, according to president and c.e.o. F. Lee Scott--but that future might be tasting decidedly more upscale.
Scott joked during the company's annual meeting here last Friday that his career "was going nowhere until Frosted Flakes" became a Wal-Mart staple. The c.e.o.'s mention of the popular Kellogg's breakfast cereal is indicative of the company's success with core food products, something that is unlikely to change. However, with its archrival, Target, continuing to find success with a more stylish outlook on discounting, Wal-Mart now sees opportunities for companywide growth via foodstuffs such as organics and premium wines.
Scott proclaimed he is "excited about organic food, the fastest growing category in all of food, and at Wal-Mart." He said people in all income brackets want organic food products for their family, and lower-income families should not be denied such goods due to high prices.
Scott and Sam's Club president and c.e.o. Kevin Turner each noted the opportunities their chains have in food as a vehicle of growth. Both executives mentioned Sam's Club Key Lime Pie, a new item that signifies the widening breadth of Wal-Mart's product offerings as the mega-retailer attempts to appeal to a broader consumer base.
Another growth area for Sam's is wine. Turner noted that the club division is "focused hard on wines," including luxury brands within the category. He noted, specifically, that Sam's sells all of the Dom Perignon and Opus it can buy. At the same time, wines such as Yellow Tail and Beringer offer "great value" in the clubs, and Turner stressed that the division is staying "focused on it."
Sam's Club currently has more than 27.5 million members (47 million cardholders), more than any other wholesale club. The company will build 35-40 Sam's Clubs in the coming year.
Wal-Mart's main growth vehicle, meanwhile, remains the supercenter. Currently, Wal-Mart operates 1,700 supercenters and sees "tremendous growth" in this format, said Tom Schoewe, e.v.p. and cfo. Schoewe estimated that the U.S. market could accommodate 4,000 Wal-Mart supercenters. Right now, 950 such facilities have gone through the company's internal review process, indicating coming growth. By way of comparison, Wal-Mart operated 147 supercenters 10 years ago.
Separately, 11 proposals were put to a vote during the annual meeting, three of which were sponsored by Wal-Mart, including the election of new directors, were passed overwhelmingly by stockholders. All eight shareholder proposals, on the other hand, were roundly defeated. The proposed shareholder amendments included caps on executive salary and bonuses, political donation disclosure, equal employment opportunity, and an amendment requiring two thirds of the company's board members be non-affiliated with Wal-Mart either by employment (past or present) or family ties. Organizations sponsoring these amendments included the Teamsters General Fund, Sisters of Charity, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters Pension Fund, among others
|
|
|
|
20 Jun 2005 @ 05:56
Coca-Cola & Junk Food Lobby Stop States from Banning Junk Food in Schools
Published on Thursday, June 16, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Another State Falls Prey to the Junk Food Lobby
by Michele Simon
On Tuesday, Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell vetoed what would have been the nation's strongest school-based nutrition law. With one stroke of the pen, she put to rest an extremely contentious three-year battle to rid Connecticut schools of soda and junk food.
Similar scenarios are being played out in state capitals all over the nation, where high-paid lobbyists of multi-national corporations such as Coca-Cola are swooping in to foil the efforts of local nutrition advocates, educators. With rising rates of childhood obesity and diabetes, state legislatures have become a major battleground over the sale of junk food in public schools.
Ironically, the most common argument made against such bills is that schools should maintain "local control" over nutrition policy. But Governor Rell's reasoning is hard to swallow. She invoked the word "local" no fewer than 16 times in her 3-page veto message. However, many school policies are made at the state and even national level. Perhaps the governor has heard of President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" policy?
But Rell is not alone. All over the country, politicians deep in the pockets of the junk food lobby are using the excuse of "local control" to defend their indefensible positions on school nutrition. Trouble is that local school districts are lured by the much-needed cash generated by soda and junk food sales. Yet, as many parents are realizing, no amount of money can justify sacrificing children's health.
Same Story Elsewhere
Recent examples of similar corporate influence include how in March, the Kentucky state legislature passed a compromise bill that bans soda only in elementary schools. Kentucky nutrition advocates were worn down after battling Coca-Cola lobbyists for four years. Allowing companies to continue to sell soda in middle and high schools was the only way the bill could possibly pass.
Also, Arizona passed a law in April that bans the sale of soft drinks and candy during the school day, but only in kindergarten through eighth grade. The provision that would have extended the ban to high schools was added and removed from the bill several times, but ultimately, the junk food lobby got its way.
And in May, a strong piece of legislation was completely gutted in Oregon thanks to corporate lobbying. The bill would have banned carbonated soft drinks, candy, and fried pastry products in schools. But the law that passed calls only for schools to have "wellness policies." The Oregon Soft Drink Association donated $91,000 in campaign contributions to state politicians last fall. Three key lawmakers-members of the education committee-received $2,000 each.
High-powered Lobbying Tactics
The showdown in Connecticut involved an eight-hour House debate in which lawmakers engaged in such stall tactics as relating memories of being deprived of candy as a child. (Who cares and why is this is a basis for
policymaking?) The original bill would have allowed only water, juice, and milk to be sold during the school day, but a compromise reached at the end of the marathon session allowed diet soda and sports drinks to be sold in high schools. Then the bill had to go back to the Senate, where it had already passed. But this time, lawmakers there attempted to delay the process by adding no fewer than 10 unrelated amendments, such as requiring smoke detectors in school bathrooms.
And in a particularly underhanded move, while the bill awaited the governor's signature, a sign mysteriously appeared on the inside of a high school vending machine that read "Let the state know how you feel about the state getting into your lunch program", followed by Governor Rell's e-mail and phone number. The sign was not approved by the school, as is required for all public postings.
To do its bidding, Coca-Cola hired Patrick Sullivan, of Sullivan & LeShane, which the Hartford Courant has called "the most influential lobbying firm in the state." For his services, Sullivan is paid $80,000 annually by Coca-Cola 's New York division, plus an additional $7,350 a month by its New England subsidiary.
What Connecticut Governor Rell failed to mention in her veto message was her own possible conflict of interest: The other co-founder of this lobbying firm, Patricia LeShane, has served as the governor's campaign advisor.
Proposals to rid schools of unhealthy food and beverages are currently pending in several other states where similar battles are being fought. For example, in California, nutrition advocates are back asking lawmakers to get soda out of high schools, which were exempted from a measure passed two years ago thanks to soda industry lobbying. How many years must go by and how many precious resources must be spent on accomplishing what should be common sense policy? And when will politicians begin to show real leadership by placing the health of our children above corporate profit?
Michele Simon, a public-health attorney who teaches health policy at UC Hastings College of the Law, directs the Center for Informed Food Choices and is currently writing a book about food industry lobbying. More >
|
|
|
|
20 Jun 2005 @ 05:54
Sales of Organic & Green Products Increasing Rapidly in the USA
Scripps Howard News Service
June 15, 2005
- - Nearly 90 percent of consumers have taken environmental impact into consideration at some point in the purchase of a product, according to Consumers Union.
- U.S. sales of organic food and beverages are projected by the Organic Trade Association to reach $15 billion this year, up from about $1 billion 1990.
- There are now nearly 560,000 organic farms in 108 countries, according to the Foundation Ecology & Agriculture in Germany. The global market for organic products is more than $25 billion.
- Between 1999 and 2003, the number of American households buying organic fertilizer nearly tripled, to 11.7 million, according to the National Gardening Association.
- Twenty-two percent of consumers say they have energy-efficient windows and 31 percent say they have a low-flow showerhead or faucet, according to an annual survey of 2,000 American adults by the Natural Marketing Institute.
- More than 30 percent of consumers had purchased compact fluorescent lightbulbs within the past 12 months, 28 percent had purchased some kind of natural household cleaning product and 20 percent had purchased some kind of environmentally friendly lawn or garden product, according the marketing institute's survey.
- Consumer Reports says its green-products Web site, receives 5,000 visits a week.
|
|
|
|
20 Jun 2005 @ 05:52
Toward a New Way to Farm on the Great Plains
Turning Off the Ogallala Spigot
By JULENE BAIR
It is no mystery why Great Plains farmers irrigate. My farming father and grandfathers struggled against the weather odds in our dry western end of Kansas their whole lives. It seldom rained enough, and each year they took a gut-wrenching gamble planting their wheat.
In the late 1960s, technology came to the rescue. My father put in his first irrigation well. With well water, he could engineer his own rainfall and also grow more lucrative crops such as corn and soybeans. When his old heart finally failed him 30 years after he began irrigating, he owned five wells.
Our farm's original well happens to be among those monitored by the Kansas Geological Survey. I visited the agency's Web site recently and was as dismayed by a graph there as I had been watching my father's failing vital signs on the hospital monitor. Both tracked the approach of death -- with one significant difference. My father died naturally at the end of a normal human lifespan. We are killing much of the Ogallala Aquifer, draining water that took thousands of years to accumulate. Without this waste, the water would sustain life for many generations to come.
During his evolution from dryland to irrigated farming, my father became part of a system that can't be sustained, because it depends on burning nonrenewable energy to pump nonrenewable water from this ancient aquifer, which stretches from South Dakota to Texas. Most of this energy and water goes into producing corn that is then fed to cattle.
To grow corn, farmers plowed up more of their grass.
"How else could we feed the world?" my father would say when I lamented the loss.
But he could have fed the world more healthfully and less wastefully if he had skipped the corn and shipped beef directly from his grass to the table. Compared with grain-fattened feedlot beef, grass-fed beef is much lower in artery-clogging saturated fat and contains more omega-3 fatty acids, which are thought to aid cardiovascular health. When we eat meat from grass-fed animals, we profit from their ability to convert protein from a self-renewing resource, the grasses that grew here in the first place.
I used to accuse my father of being environmentally insensitive. He knew that the aquifer was finite and allowed that "they will have to stop us eventually" -- they being the government.
"Until they do, though," he said, "I got mine!"
He loved to infuriate me with that response. I especially hated that the federal farm program underwrote the waste by offering price supports for corn.
But as one of my father's profiteering heirs, now I too am part of the entrenched and inefficient system. Turning off the spigots would reduce the flow of cash land rent into my pocket by two-thirds.
That prospect troubles me. But not as much as other numbers. There are more than 880 irrigation wells in our county. Out of our five alone we have pumped more than 6 billion gallons of water. That's enough to keep the 5,000 people of Goodland, the town nearest our farm, in water for more than 10 years. An aquarium covering a football field would need walls over 2.5 miles high to hold that much water.
Our farm recently signed up for a government conservation program that is helping us cut our water use by 50 percent. But even at this rate we are wasting water.
The time has come for "them" to stop us -- all of us. Instead of price supports for corn, Plains farmers need help switching back to dryland crops or grass-fed livestock. Among the dryland crops may be seed sources of oil that could be turned into biodiesel, reducing our nation's dependence on fossil fuels.
I would vote for any legislator who pushes to end irrigation out of the Ogallala. I believe that I am not the only farmer or farm heir who would. We grew up on this land drinking this water, and know its real value can't be measured monetarily. We will rally behind genuine leaders who will argue their own consciences and awaken ours.
Julene Bair is author of "One Degree West: Reflections of a Plainsdaughter ." She wrote this essay for the Land Institute's Prairie Writers Circle, Salina, Kan More >
|
|
| Saturday, June 18, 2005 | |
|
|
|
18 Jun 2005 @ 06:30
Australian Farmers Call for Strict Liability for GMO Pollution
GM WATCH daily
June 15, 2005
------
Enough of the GM bulldust!
The Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF) today released a comprehensive presentation titled "Beyond the Bulldust of Genetically Modified Crops - the Case for Strict Liability" in both DVD and video format. The presentation details the specific GM benefit, alternatives, risks and the risk management needed to manage this controversial crop.
"We have given specific referenced detail why agronomically and economically GM canola will fail to benefit Australian farmers," said Mrs Newman, the author of the presentation and national spokesperson for the NCF. "We have also explained how and why GM crops are being rammed down the throats of farmers and reluctant consumers."
The Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF), an alliance of conventional and organic farmers throughout Australia are pushing for fair risk management as they wish to maintain the right to market an uncontaminated consumer preferred non-GM product. These farmers are insisting on a strict liabilityregime to ensure farmers are compensated by the GM companies for any economic loss associated with GM crops.
Despite the West Australian moratorium banning the commercial release of genetically modified crops, there has recently been Federal GM wheat trials planted in Corrigin, WA. Farmers themselves are the main investors in this technology through a company called Council of Grain Growers Organisation
(COGGO) who have funded the development of a GM salt tolerant wheat.
"Our wheat customers do not want GM wheat or any trace of it and yet it is possible that pollen could remain viable for up to half an hour on the wind. These trails need wind buffers in order to prevent pollen travelling duringflowering time."
"If the GM companies were liable for economic loss, they would be far more careful."
"Greed, ignorance and arrogance is no excuse to deny fair risk management. There are good reasons why consumers are rejecting GM products but if farmers do not have a choice, consumers will not either," explained Mrs Newman.
The launch was held at Parliament House in Perth and farmers have commenced distributing the presentation to key politicians and others involved in the GM debate with an aim to influence both State and Federal legislation to adopt a strict liability regime.
Contact:
Julie Newman - West Australia 08 98711562 or 08 98711644 More >
|
|
|
|
18 Jun 2005 @ 06:26
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW IMPORTANT AN ISSUE THIS IS? ECONOMICALLY, BIOLOGICALLY, AND METAPHISICALLY.
Canada Agriculture Ministry Paves Way for Seed Monopolies & Terminator Technology
Science for Peace Bulletin May 2005 Volume 25, Issue 2 Terminators Galore!
Joe Cummins
The author is Professor Emeritus at the University of Western Ontario.
In Canada, the Seed Sector Review advisory committee issued a report calling for changes to legislation to (A) collect royalties on farm-saved seeds, (B) compel farmers to buy officially certified seed, and (C) terminate the right of farmers to sell common seed. The report was financed by the Agriculture Ministry at a cost of nearly a million dollars to the Canadian taxpayers but essentially rubber-stamped the demands of multinational agricultural corporations (1). The onerous licensing requirements of the biotechnology industry are to be extended to all seeds, imposing a form of serfdom on any remaining independent farmers. In the future it is likely that even home gardeners will face the loony corporate payments for those willing to spy on neighbors and report covert seed activity. We may be entering a time when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are required to raid grow operations such as a row of radishes in a backyard garden.
The development of "terminator" technology goes hand in hand with the corporate move to control production and use of seeds. Terminator technology is the use of genetic engineering to produce seeds that can be used only once. The progeny of such seeds would either produce no flowers or produce seeds that provide grain or oil but cannot germinate to produce as new plants. In other words, terminator blocks viable seed production, production of pollen or ovule or the production of flowers.
The first terminators were developed by the United Sates Department of Agriculture (USDA) and corporate interests, and that technology was patented jointly by the corporation and USDA. As in Canada, the regulator of genetically modified (GM) crops also acts as an advocate and commercial developer of such crops (a clear conflict of interest).
The first terminator patent was granted to USDA and The Delta and Pineland Corporation (later joined to Monsanto Corporation) in 1999.
That patent provoked a flurry of opposition both on the basis of the fundamental right of farmers to save seed and on the scientific ground that the genetic changes might harm those consuming the crops. In response to those concerns Monsanto Corporation backed off from immediate production of terminator seeds. But in spite of that action a great deal of government sponsored research in the U.S. has focused on development of terminator technology to provide financial benefits for
corporations.
Beginning in 1999, the Institute of Science in Society in London, England has distributed a number of reports by Dr. MaeWan Ho and myself.
In those reports we described the genetic technology of the original and later biotechnology inventions (2,3,4,5,6,7). The basic design of the constructions has been to prevent reproductive tissue from developing in a way that allows the seed producer to maintain fertile lines that can be maintained but also trigger the production of commercial seed lines that cannot produce pollen or eggs, or produce lines that lack flowers.
The genes used to produce such lines usually involve reproductive cello ablation (cell suicide genes) using toxins such as barnase ribonuclease that digests cellular RNA, diptheria toxin or excess phytohormone production in the reproductive tissue. In some cases anti-sense genes have been used to block reproductive cells from maturing. Anti-sense genes are complementary copies of the RNA gene messages governing reproductive cell maturation forming double stranded RNA that is recognized as an invading virus by the plant cell and destroyed.
During the 1990s a startling new discovery in plant molecular genetics led to the identification of homeotic genes that govern the pathways leading to cell differentiation. These specify proteins produced by short stretches of DNA called MADS-boxes. These are the regions controlling transcription of the genes involved in formation of reproductive tissue, leaves, roots and branches that govern plant development (8). That discovery has led to a flood of inventions employing the MADS-boxes transcription factors to control flowering and gamete production as terminators in trees and in crops. Steven Strauss of the US Forest Service in Oregon has been field testing poplar trees modified with cell suicide genes to eliminate flowering and plans to extend that system to shade trees. Finnish researchers at Sopanen University are developing this for sterile silver birch (9). Along with concerns about the cell suicide toxins and their impact on animal life, the sterile trees must be propagated asexually and thus lack genetic diversity. This renders them sensitive to attack by emerging pathogens and without a reservoir of diversity to mitigate the attack of the novel pathogen. A flood of patent applications has begun to appear for control of flowering or sexual development in both evergreen trees and crop plants (10).
A flood of terminator trees and crops has been developed using government funding and in some cases by government researchers. The main scientific objection to such terminators has been the introduction of untested and hazardous toxins such as cell suicide toxins. As well the technology would result in genetic uniformity in forest expanses and in crop lands rendering the trees and crops likely susceptible to plagues resulting from the spread of emerging pathogens because the forests and crops lack the reservoir of genetic diversity needed to counter novel pathogens. The inventions will drive farmers and foresters into serfdom at the behest of corporations and their lackeys in the government bureaucracy.
Is it too late to terminate the terminators? It is not too late, but once they begin to crowd out natural trees and crops it will be too
late. What can be done? We will soon have to have an international convention to limit use of terminators. In the meantime it is wise to alert the public to the extensive public funding of technologies that threaten the farm community and public alike and benefit corporations and their stockholders exclusively.
|
|
|
|
18 Jun 2005 @ 06:21
IF YOUR GOING TO EAT BEEF,GO ORGANIC. FREE RANGE, GRASS FED, NO HORMONES OR ANTIBIOTICS. COWS ARE MEANT TO EAT GREENS NOT EACH OTHER!
www.iht.com http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/14/news/cow.php
Possible mad cow threatens return of U.S. beef to Asia
By Alexei Barrionuevo and Donald G. McNeil Jr.
The New York Times
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2005 CHICAGO: A second potential case of mad cow disease in the United States cast doubt on whether the Bush administration could regain crucial Asian markets that have shunned U.S. beef.
The U.S. Agriculture Department said late Friday that it had found bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, in an animal that had tested negative in November. This would be the second case of the fatal, brain-wasting disease found in a cow in the United States, and the fifth in North America since 2003.
Taiwan, which had recently resumed imports of U.S. beef, and South Korea, which had been negotiating to restart them, expressed concern about the latest news.
The reaction underscored how difficult it would be for the Agriculture Department to win back export markets and to reopen the border to live cattle from Canada, if the cow was not cleared of the disease. Critics of the Agriculture Department's testing program said the case highlighted the need to strengthen its testing and to tighten its animal feed regulations - or face lingering doubts from foreign buyers.
Agriculture Department officials said over the weekend that additional tests would be conducted on brain tissue from the animal at a laboratory in Ames, Iowa, and at the world's premier mad-cow testing laboratory in Weybridge, England.
Cattle future prices in trading in Chicago fell 2 percent on Monday, their lowest point since April 2004, on concerns about beef exports. In December 2003, after the first case was found, prices fell 19 percent in five sessions.
Taiwan was one of 53 countries to ban beef after the disease was found in December 2003 in a dairy cow in Washington State. Less than two months ago, Taiwan lifted its ban on beef from cattle fewer than 30 months old.
Taiwan imported $76 million of beef in 2003, or 1.5 percent of U.S. beef exports. Through intense lobbying, the Bush administration has restored about a third of the beef exports, but Japan and South Korea, which together accounted for 57 percent of exports in 2003, have continued to shun U.S. beef.
The South Korean Agricultural Ministry said the latest case could affect its decision on whether to restart imports, according to South Korean news reports.
U.S. officials have asserted that there was no risk to humans from the animal because it did not get into the food supply for humans or animals. In the case in Washington, by contrast, the beef had already been ground into hamburger, mixed into a five-ton shipment and sold.
So far, officials have released little else about the latest potential case, other than that the cow was about 10 and was probably not imported, meaning it was most likely infected in the United States.
The cow's origin could prove critical to efforts to restore the U.S. beef trade. In trying to bless the U.S. herd as free of the disease, officials have stressed that the Washington cow had been born in Canada before a 1997 ban on feed made with cattle or sheep protein. The United States banned live cattle from Canada in May 2003.
In the latest case, the cow tested positive after the Office of Inspector General, an independent watchdog group within the Agriculture Department, required the use of a second type of test on three suspect animals.
Some critics asked why the Agriculture Department had refused for more than six months to perform the more sensitive Western blot tests. John Stauber, author of "Mad Cow USA," called the current testing regimen "a farce." Michael Hansen of Consumers Union, an advocacy group, produced copies of letters he had written in January to the Agriculture Department asking for the use of the Western blot test on the cow's brain. The test is used in Europe and Japan.
In a letter dated March 18, an agriculture official replied that the department did not think a Western blot test "would have enhanced the result of our November 2004 testing," and did not think that confirmation testing in England was necessary.
|
|
|
|
18 Jun 2005 @ 06:17
U.S. Still Massively Subsidizing Crop Exports & Impoverishing the Developing World
Wednesday, June 15, 2005 by Inter Press Service
Oxfam Accuses Wealthy Nations of Cheating
by Gustavo Capdevila
GENEVA - The industrialized world is acting with "duplicity" in the WTO Doha Round trade negotiations, which threatens to turn the whole round of development talks into a farce, according to the international humanitarian organization Oxfam.
The non-governmental group warns that with the way the negotiations are currently proceeding, the Doha Round will end up allowing the wealthy nations to continue the practice of dumping, or exporting goods at prices below the cost of production.
"Rich countries are dodging the commitments they have made to reduce subsidies that hurt poor farmers overseas," said Celine Charveriat, spokeswoman for Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign.
The Doha Round of negotiations was launched at the 4th Ministerial Conference of the WTO (World Trade Organization) held in the Qatari capital in December 2001, with the aim of promoting further opening of international markets.
Since then, the talks have come up against countless obstacles and even moments of complete stalemate, as was the case at the 5th WTO conference in September 2003 in the Mexican resort city of Cancún.
The Doha negotiating agenda encompasses various components of trade, such as industrial tariffs, services, trade facilitation and fundamentally agriculture, the subject of a new study released by Oxfam on Wednesday.
The document focuses particular emphasis on Europe and the United States, which "claim to have cut their subsidies over the years but to date, there has been no substantial reduction, merely a re-labeling of existing support," noted Charveriat, the head of Oxfam International in Geneva.
The research conducted by the humanitarian agency established that since 1986, the beginning of the previous series of trade negotiations known as the Uruguay Round, the assistance provided to farmers in the industrialized nations has consistently remained at levels of over 250 billion dollars annually.
In particular, Oxfam has calculated that the EU and the United States are massively understating the real levels of export subsidization.
The United States provides hidden aid that is 200 times greater than the amount it declares, to the tune of 6.6 billion dollars annually, says Oxfam. For its part, the EU pays out 5.2 billion dollars in secret assistance - four times more than the sum it acknowledges in the WTO.
Export subsidies are only one of the many forms of support given to farmers in the industrialized countries, which have been classified into different "boxes", the Oxfam representative explained.
Only payments that fell into the amber box, that is, the category for subsidies that were unequivocally trade-distorting, were liable to be cut during the Uruguay Round.
Green box exemptions are support measures that were considered non trade-distorting, while blue box exemptions were the category used for payments that were trade-distorting, but included an element of production
limitation.
But the Oxfam report reveals that instead of making substantial cuts to its domestic support measures, the EU and the United States have merely re-classified the subsidies they provide in a practice known as "box shifting".
Subsidies that previously fell into the amber box and were thus subject to elimination have been moved into the blue or green boxes, for measures that are minimally or non-trade-distorting.
Argentine WTO representative Alberto Dumont remarked that "one of the problems we are coming up against in the negotiations is what is known as box shifting, or the moving of subsidies into different boxes."
This operation consists of changing measures from amber to blue, and moving programs that are now in the blue box into the green box. "In fact, we are adapting trade realities to the situation in the United States, since we are creating another box specifically for that country," said Dumont.
In other words, there is going to be a modified blue box, he explained.
Given this situation, Charveriat warned that "the rich countries could even increase their massive agricultural subsidies if world trade negotiations do not change track."
The Doha Round will face a decisive test in December, when the 6th WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong assesses the current state of negotiations.
Dumont said the alliance of countries pushing for a greater freeing up of agricultural trade, known as the Group of 20 (G-20), have issued firm proposals to prevent box shifting and press for an actual reduction of domestic support.
The G-20, formed in the days prior to the Cancún conference, deals solely with agricultural trade issues and is coordinated by Brazil and India.
The Argentine WTO negotiator noted that the G-20 is also demanding changes in the criteria for green box measures, so that they solely include income supports for farmers that are not related to (or are "decoupled" from) production levels or prices.
The Oxfam report released Wednesday calls on the 148 WTO member states to set an end date of 2010 for export subsidies. The organization is also demanding recognition of the right of poor countries to protect vulnerable sectors as long as dumping continues.
Charveriat stressed that alongside development aid and debt relief, trade reform is crucial to help end poverty in the developing world.
|
|
| Thursday, June 16, 2005 | |
|
|
|
16 Jun 2005 @ 19:21
FSC CHARGES THAT CURBING
LOSS OF BLACK-OWNED FARM
LAND IS BEING SIDE-STEPPED
BY THE NATION'S LEADERS
JERRY PENNICK, FEDERATION OF SOUTHER COOPERATIVES:
Curbing the Loss of Black
Owned Land is being Side Stepped by the Nation's Leaders
The real work needed is not prioritized and other agendas get in the way
In June 2000, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund
included the editorial statement below in it's Rural Agenda newsletter.
We thought it important to release the statement again as it is relevant to
today's activities around the Pigford v Johanns class action law suit
against the USDA by Black farmers. There are concerns now about the
acceleration of foreclosures against Black farmers in the Pigford case ---
the Federation and other groups have called for a moratorium --- and that
countless groups and individuals are coming to the fore without knowledge or
history of the Black farm struggle and development needs of the community.
There is also legislation that has been submitted to the Congress by the
Federation and other groups to address some of the on-going problems with
Pigford case and some of the issues relative to agricultural needs. As
stated below, the "real work" of development is not being prioritized that
is needed to save Black farmers and this needs to be changed immediately.
The class action lawsuit filed by Black farmers against the USDA continues
to get press coverage and spawn *organizations* and *leaders* who until the
lawsuit did not know black farmers existed, or that black land loss was a
critical drain on the economic well being of African-Americans.
Many are taking advantage of the current situation to further their own
agendas with no respect or consideration for those farmers who have and
continue to suffer from discrimination and other problems that threaten
their livelihood. Over a billion dollars could be awarded to current and
past farmers under settlement terms of the lawsuit, yet this will probably
have no discernible positive impact on the loss of black-owned land and
farmers. In fact, the lawsuit could unintentionally speed up the current
loss rate.
As of June 2000,16,212 claims have been completed, of those, 38.4% (6,395)
have been rejected and 60.6% (9,817) approved. Out of the 9,817 approved,
probably less than 6,000 are still farming, 4,000 of which probably owe the
USDA and other lending sources more than $50,000 which is the amount awarded
under Track A of the settlement; of the 6,395 turned down, it is estimated
that 50% will be reversed and of that number approximately 2,000 are still
farming.
When you total the number that will not be approved (2,000) and the number
that will not be able to eliminate their debt under the agreement (4,000) it
is a sad fact that of the 16,000 farmers mentioned above, 6,000 will
probably face foreclosure or other
financial problems. This is in addition to thousands more who did not file
claims and those who have yet to receive a verdict on their claim.
The point is, nearly half of the remaining 18,000 black farmers face an
immediate crisis. Very few organizations and individuals are developing
plans to deal with what could be the greatest acceleration of black farm
and land loss in over fifty years. The USDA itself is so caught up in the
lawsuit that it is spending little time and effort to implement its own
recommendations to help remedy the unique problems experienced by
African-American farmers.
Politicians and the media have focused on the lawsuit with little
understanding or concern about the history of the struggle and what is
needed to avert the impending crisis. They like the new *leaders* and
*organizations* seem to think the lawsuit is a cure all when, in fact, it
does not begin to deal with the situation. The fact is, a
lot of work still has to be done --- one-on-one technical assistance,
community organizing and education, leadership development, etcä.this work
will have to be done away from the TV cameras, newspaper reporters, and
political rallies.
It will have to be done by those who are committed to the cause rather than
to themselves and their personal agendas. This in itself will weed out the
pretenders and the real workers can get on about the business of ensuring
that African-Americans continue to make positive contributions to
agriculture and exert some control over their food system. [ June 13, 2005 ]
The Federation/LAF, now in its 38th year, assists Black family farmers
across the South with farm management, debt restructuring, alternative crop
suggestions, marketing expertise and a whole range of services to ensure
family farm survivability.
|
|
|
|
16 Jun 2005 @ 19:14
American Black Farmers: An Endangered Species
AS NUMBER OF BLACK FARMERS IN ILLINOIS DWINDLE DEMOGRAPHER
NOTES FARMING IN STATE "HAS TO BE AMONG THE WHITEST OF OCCUPATIONS"
GREG BURNS, CHICAGO TRIBUNE: As a child growing up on the family farm in
west central Illinois, Lloyd Johnson remembers cropland extending for miles
around, all of it owned by African-Americans like himself.
"For a stretch of four miles, it was black-owned land," the 66-year-old
farmer recalls. "Now there's mighty few."
Today, Johnson's farm in Alton, Illinois, is one of just 59 run by
African-Americans across the state, down from 123 in 1997, according to
newly revised figures from a 2002 census.
As farming has become a big business, it has become one of the least diverse
businesses around. Whites operate more than 72,000 Illinois farms, Hispanics
488 and those of other ethnicity 219 combined. As senior government
demographer Calvin Beale noted: "It has to be among the whitest of
occupations."
It wasn't always. In 1920, Illinois had 892 black farmers, and
African-Americans owned 14 percent of the nation's farmland. Now they hold
less than one percent.
The same pressure to consolidate that has reduced the ranks of farmers for
the past century is making any turnaround unlikely, demographers say. The
number of black farmers in Illinois, currently less than one in 1,000,
appears destined to eventually hit zero.
"This is the oldest occupation in history for black people, and it's going
to be the first to go extinct," said John Boyd, president of the National
Black Farmers Association. "We are an endangered species."
The numbers are dwindling across much of the Midwest, according to the
Agriculture Department census, which was updated in April. Iowa has 31 black
farmers, down from 40 in 1997. Indiana has 55, down from 61. Several states,
such as North Dakota, list no black farmers at all. A few states reported
small gains, but the numbers are tiny across the region.
Illinois farmer Johnson chalks it up to the lure of better jobs off the
farm. While he took over the family homestead, his four brothers moved to
town and did "quite well," he said with a rueful smile. "Farming's tough. It
is uncertain. They found a better way to make a living. Who's the dummy?"
The scarcity of African-American farmers stems from a troubled history as
well. Racial discrimination played a big role in driving blacks off their
land in southern states. During the Great Migration that began with World
War I, blacks moved north for jobs in industrial cities, not the
hinterlands. "When blacks left the south, they got the hell out of farming,"
said demographer Beale.
For sharecroppers, farming was associated with the poverty and backbreaking
labor of slavery. For those who owned land, unequal treatment made it
difficult to retain the property and earn a living.
In a landmark legal settlement six years ago, the Agriculture Department
acknowledged that it had abused black farmers for generations. USDA agents
approved only a fraction of financing requests, delayed loans until after
the planting season and withheld other key payments.
White farmers who got their government money on time eventually took over
most of the land. Federal subsidies remain crucial to success in the field.
They amounted to more than $10,000 per Illinois farm in 2003, most of it
going to large-scale corn and soybean farmers who are overwhelmingly white.
Less systematic discrimination worked against black farmers, too. As
recently as the mid-1990s, according to Boyd of the Black Farmers trade
group, white neighbors who agreed to sell his crops for him would routinely
get better prices at market than he could obtain.
Johnson recalls a banker who was eager to sell him prime farmland in the
1980s until they met face-to-face. "As soon as he saw me, the story changed.
`We're only making [agriculture] loans to some of our preferred customers,'
he told me. That went by the way."
Most Southern black farmers migrating to factory jobs in Chicago didn't even
consider buying land in Illinois, at least in part because they often had no
capital. "It's impossible to know how many would have gone into agriculture
if they had the wherewithal to do it," said Johnson.
As it stands, Illinois' few remaining black farmers cluster in three spots:
Kankakee County, the far southern tip of the state and Madison County
outside St. Louis --- where Johnson's great-grandfather first bought
property in 1850.
Efforts to revive those communities have made no apparent headway.
All along, most of the state's African-American farmers have tended to stay
away from the networks of mainstream farmers. "You just don't see them in
our circles," said Illinois Farm Bureau President Philip Nelson.
The county offices of the Agriculture Department were long viewed as hostile
turf. "I saw few if any of them in the county office," recalled Merrill
Marxman, former head of the agency's Kankakee branch and now a private
consultant. "There was a real trust issue. They didn't want the federal
government to know their name and address."
Perhaps not surprisingly, recent co-operative ventures aimed at promoting
black farmers around Kankakee and far southern Illinois have gone nowhere.
Johnson attributes his staying power to a certain stubborn determination. "I
never gave up," he said. He also credits good neighbors who trusted him to
farm their land, helping him achieve economies of scale by renting him
several hundred additional acres. And it helped to be a fixture in the area,
he acknowledged. "We have a longstanding good name in the community."
Despite his success, Johnson doubts he'll ever see young African-Americans
entering farming under any circumstances.
"It's the lack of exposure," said Blannie Bowen, vice provost at
Pennsylvania State University and an agriculture scholar. "We're so far
removed now, most African-Americans don't have the knowledge base to even
tell you if they would like it."
Moving from the city to a farm community would be difficult, added Eddie A.
Moore, an agricultural educator at Michigan State University. "It's about
access and feeling comfortable," he said. "For a black to move to the rural
parts of Illinois, they'd probably be the only African-American there."
Indeed, Illinois has barely one black farmer for every two of its 102
counties.
In Chicago, the public High School for Agricultural Sciences might sound
like a school for farmers, but its mission is training future agribusiness
executives for Archer Daniels Midland and the like, explained principal
David Gilligan. "I don't think anybody has come to school with the desire to
be a farmer," he said.
Only in a few Southern states have the ranks of black farmers made a notable
comeback.
In recent years, retirees have been returning to buy small holdings in the
communities they had left to make their fortunes up north, according to
Moore. States such as Mississippi and Texas have seen significant gains, the
Census shows.
"The money goes further in the South," Moore said. "They might buy ten or 15
acres. Before you know it, they're growing. It gives people a chance to go
home, go back to the roots." [ June 12, 2005 ]
|
|
| Wednesday, June 15, 2005 | |
|
|
|
 15 Jun 2005 @ 19:03
Government sued for yanking `USDA Organic' label off cosmetics
By LIBBY QUAID
Associated Press Writer
06-13-2005 18:23
WASHINGTON (AP) _ An organic soap company and a consumer group sued the Agriculture Department Monday for ordering the removal of its round, green "USDA Organic" seal from personal care products and cosmetics.
The department created the label in 2002 to attest to organic claims on food labels. At the time, it welcomed makers of other products _ cosmetics and personal care items, pet food, dietary supplements, textiles and fish _ to get certified to use the seal.
But in April, department officials reversed their policy and notified companies that their cosmetics and other personal care products cannot be government-certified as organic.
David Bronner, president of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, said his company made a hefty investment in getting his soaps, lotions and lip balms certified to use the seal. Organic peppermint and coconut oil, for example, costs twice as much as non-organic versions, he said.
"Now this distinction is going to be lost," said Bronner, whose company filed the lawsuit along with the Organic Consumers Association. "We lose the consumer trust in the national organic certification. That distinguishes us. Now the rug's just being pulled out from under us."
Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the lawsuit seeks to cancel the Agriculture Department's decision to bar the seal on personal care products.
A department spokesman said the agency has carefully reviewed the organic labeling program to make sure it includes a wide range of agricultural products.
"USDA doesn't have the authority to regulate cosmetics," said the spokesman, Ed Loyd. Cosmetics are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, he noted.
BACKGROUND ON THE ORGANIC LABEL ISSUE
In a foundational May 2002 "Policy Statement" on the scope of the NOP, USDA made clear that producers of non-food products such as personal care containing agricultural ingredients "are eligible to seek certification under the NOP." Based on this "Policy Statement," Dr. Bronner's and a number of
other producers of body care including Sensibility Soaps and Nude Lubricant as well as manufacturers of other classes of non-food products like pet foods invested in sourcing and formulating with NOP-certified organic ingredients, and sought and obtained certification under the NOP, thereby allowing them to label and market their products as certified "organic" or "made with organic" under the NOP. Certifying agencies understood the Policy Statement to authorize such certification.
In April 2004, USDA issued a "Guidance Statement" reversing this position and indicating that producers of personal care products would not be eligible to seek certification. A month later, however, due to widespread consumer and industry outcry, that "Guidance Statement" was ordered rescinded by then-Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman. Then, about a month ago, USDA issued an informal "response" to a statement of the National Organic Standards Board and, in that response, indicated again that personal care products are not eligible to be labeled in accordance with NOP.
The newest USDA pronouncement mirrors the rescinded "Guidance Statement", and completely contradicts the foundational 2002 USDA NOP policy that formally invited body care companies to invest in certifying NOP qualified products. "Having issued a policy statement intended to have a binding effect, on which Dr. Bronner's and other companies justifiably relied, NOP cannot suddenly, without notice or opportunity for comment, adopt a new policy and purport to make it enforceable against producers of personal care products," Mr. Bronner said. "We have been advised that, under well established principles under the Administrative Procedure Act, to adopt such a change in its previously established policy, USDA is required to proceed by notice and comment rulemaking."
Lynn Betz, Co-Founder and President of Sensibility Soaps, Inc. said, "As a certified processor under the USDA NOP since July, 2003, our company developed 21 personal care products, which were certified "organic" by PA Certified Organic using the current NOP food standards. Since the scope of the NOP included personal care products, and products carrying the seal were legitimately certified, why should these products now be excluded? Sensibility Soaps, Inc. supports the NOP and definition of "organic" and the current stringent standards for companies in the food and personal care industries making product label claims about "organic". Consumers understand the consistency of a definition, whether it applies to food or personal care. Our company does not support separate organic standards for personal care products when obviously organic personal care products can be made using the current standards."
"Organic olive oil does not become magically non-organic when used in a lotion instead of a salad dressing," said Mr. Bronner. "Consumers and retailers want personal care that is nothing less than organic food for the skin. High quality certified organic body care products like ours should be distinguishable from low-quality so-called "organic" personal care that is based on standard conventional synthetic ingredients. Retailers and consumers who want organic food-grade personal care should look for the USDA organic seal."
|
|
| Saturday, June 11, 2005 | |
|
|
|
11 Jun 2005 @ 04:22
Also, here is a chart I posted awhile back of which conventional corporate food companies have bought out smaller organic manufacturers
Can Organic Integrity Be Preserved with Big Corporations Movinginto the Market?
From San Francisco Chronicle
Organic, Inc.
Jason Mark
June 9, 2005
At last you can enjoy your movies at home without worrying whether the popcorn you made is genetically modified, pesticide laden or grown using sewage sludge. Early last month, Orville Redenbacher announced that it will begin selling organic microwave popcorn -- more evidence that the organic movement is going mainstream.
The Redenbacher news was coupled with an announcement by Hunt's that later this year it will sell six kinds of canned organic tomatoes. Both brands are owned by ConAgra, one off the largest food-processing corporations in the world. The fact that ConAgra -- a company more often associated with the predations of agribusiness than the promise of organics -- is embracing organic foods raises questions about whether the values of organic agriculture and the motives of big business can co-exist.
Does the mainstreaming of organics represent a victory for farmers and the environmentally minded, or is it a case of corporate co-optation? Can success be reconciled with the organic movement's original intent to bring people closer to their food, or will the very term "organic" be rendered meaningless? How can the organic food industry be at once popular and principled?
"Organic has gone conventional," Jim Leap, manager of a 25-acre organic farm at the Center for Agro-Ecology and Sustainable Food Systems at the UC Santa Cruz, told me recently. "The big companies see a market niche, they see an opportunity, they say, 'Let's Go.' It's become very ruthless with folks grabbing market share."
Leap is right. According to figures supplied by the Organic Consumers Association, a significant and growing percentage of the organic food market is owned by conventional food processors. General Mills owns the organic brands Cascadian Farms and Muir Glenn. Heinz holds a 20 percent equity share in food distributor Hain, which owns Rice Dream soy milk, Garden of Eatin', Earth's Best and Health Valley, along with 15 other brands. Kellogg owns Sunrise Organic, while Philip Morris' Kraft makes the popular vegetarian Boca Burgers. The largest organic seed company, Seeds of Change, is controlled by M&M/Mars, and just five farms are consolidated to market half of the organic produce sold in California. Your morning Odwalla juice is brought to you by Coca-Cola. Some of these brands are 100 percent organic; others are made with organic ingredients. All try to cash in on the cachet of organics.
The large conventional food processors are entering the organic market because it's smart business. Although organics represent a sliver of the U.S. food market -- about 2 percent -- organics are the only sector of the industry experiencing sustained growth. Since 1997, total U.S. food sales have grown between 2 and 4 percent, according to the Organic Trade Association. During that same time, sales of organic foods grew about 20 percent. Total organic sales are now at $13 billion, and projected to reach $30 billion by 2007. General Mills and Heinz are simply doing what any savvy business does: They are following the green.
The entrance of big business into organics has real benefits. The availability of organic products has improved greatly, with some major grocery chains such as Safeway and Kroger's dedicating entire aisles to organics. More organic foods are accessible to more people than at any time since the start of the industrial food era, and for anyone concerned about the environment or public health, this is progress.
At the same time, some farmers and consumer advocates warn, there is a risk that large corporations are seeking to weaken the definition of organic in order to make business easier for themselves. For example, in April 2004 the USDA, at the prompting of large processors, suggested allowing farms to retain the organic seal even if they used animal-growth hormones, fed cattle nonorganic fishmeal, or sprayed some kinds of pesticides. The USDA only backed down after intense consumer complaints.
Critics also question whether the agribusiness model can harmonize with the organic ethic: A 100-acre monocrop planted with a single variety of vegetable and picked by migrant workers hardly fits with the organic vision of ecologically sustainable and socially responsible farming. The challenge is how to reconcile organic agriculture's emphasis on biodiversity and small- scale production with corporations' emphasis on uniformity and mass-marketing.
So what's a consumer to do? If you value foods free of pesticides and genetically modified organisms, by all means look for the USDA organic label and let your dollar be an expression of your values. At the same time, remain vigilant about efforts to water down the organic standards and work to ensure the integrity of the organic name.
But the best guarantee that your food will be produced according to environmental and social principles is to meet the people who grow it. Support your local farmers' market and become friendly with the vendors there. Or get a subscription with a Community Support Agriculture program, in which you get weekly food deliveries from a specific farm. Those outlets represent the original ethic of the organic food movement: That by knowing your farmers, you will truly get to know your food.
Jason Mark is the co-author, with Kevin Danaher, of "Insurrection: Citizen Challenges to Corporate Power" (Routledge, 2003). He is researching a book about the future of food.
|
|
| Thursday, June 9, 2005 | |
|
|
|
9 Jun 2005 @ 17:59
The Coming Oil Crisis Will Severely Disrupt the U.S. & Global Food System
SPEAKING FREELY
Oil and food: A new security challenge
By Danielle Murray
Danielle Murray is a staff researcher with Earth Policy Institute
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say.
From farm to plate, the modern food system relies heavily on cheap oil. Threats to our oil supply are also threats to our food supply. As food undergoes more processing and travels farther, the food system consumes ever more energy each year.
The US food system uses over 10 quadrillion Btu (10,551 quadrillion Joules) of energy each year, as much as France's total annual energy consumption. Growing food accounts for only one-fifth of this. The other four-fifths is used to move, process, package, sell, and store food after it leaves the farm. Some 28% of energy used in agriculture goes to fertilizer manufacturing, 7% goes to irrigation, and 34% is consumed as diesel and gasoline by farm vehicles used to plant, till, and harvest crops. The rest goes to pesticide production, grain drying, and facility operations.
The past half-century has witnessed a tripling in world grain production - from 631 million tons in 1950 to 2,029 million tons in 2004. While 80% of the increase is due to population growth raising demand, the remainder can be attributed to more people eating higher up the food chain, increasing per capita grain consumption by 24%. New grain demand has been met primarily by raising land productivity through higher yielding crop varieties in conjunction with more oil-intensive mechanization, irrigation, and fertilizer use, rather than by expanding cropland.
Crop production now relies on fertilizers to replace soil nutrients, and therefore on the oil needed to mine, manufacture, and transport these fertilizers around the world. Rock deposits in the United States, Morocco, China, and Russia meet two-thirds of world phosphate demand, while Canada, Russia, and Belarus account for half of potash mine production. Nitrogen fertilizer production, which relies heavily on natural gas to fuel the conversion of atmospheric nitrogen into reduced forms of nitrogen such as ammonia, is much more widely dispersed.
World fertilizer use has increased dramatically since the 1950s. China is now the top consumer with use rising beyond 40 million tons in 2004. Fertilizer use has leveled off in the United States, staying near 19 million tons per year since 1984. India's use also has stabilized at around 16 million tons per year since 1998. More energy-efficient fertilizer production technology and precision monitoring of soil nutrient needs have cut the amount of energy needed to fertilize crops, but there is still more room for improvement. As oil prices increase and the price of fertilizer rises, there will be a premium on closing the nutrient cycle and replacing synthetic fertilizer with organic waste.
The use of mechanical pumps to irrigate crops has allowed farms to prosper in the middle of the desert. It also has increased farm energy use, allowed larger water withdrawals, and contributed to aquifer depletion worldwide.
As water tables drop, ever more powerful pumps must be used, perpetuating and increasing the oil requirements for irrigation. More efficient irrigation systems, such as low-pressure and drip irrigation, and precision soil moisture testing could reduce agricultural water and energy needs. But in many countries, government subsidies keep water artificially cheap and readily available.
Countering the historical trend toward more energy-intensive farm mechanization has been the adoption of conservation tillage methods - leaving crop residues on the ground to minimize wind and water erosion and soil moisture loss. Soil quality is improved through this technique, while farm fuel use and irrigation needs are lowered. Zero-till farming is practiced on 90 million hectares worldwide, over half of which are in the United States and Brazil. Reduced tillage is now used on 41% of US
cropland.
Although agriculture is finding ways to use less energy, the amount consumed between the farm gate and the kitchen table continues to rise. While 21% of overall food system energy is used in agricultural production, another 14% goes to food transport, 16% to processing, 7% to packaging, 4% to food retailing, 7% to restaurants and caterers, and 32% to home refrigeration and preparation.
Food today travels farther than ever, with fruits and vegetables in Western industrial countries often logging 2,500-4,000 kilometers from farm to store. Increasingly, open world markets combined with low fuel prices allow the import of fresh produce year round, regardless of season or location. But as food travels farther, energy use soars. Trucking accounts for the majority of food transport, though it is nearly 10 times more energy-intensive than moving goods by rail or barge. Refrigerated jumbo jets - 60 times more energy-intensive than sea transport - constitute a small but growing sector of food transport, helping supply northern hemisphere markets with fresh produce from places like Chile, South Africa, and New Zealand.
Processed foods now make up three-fourths of total world food sales. One pound (0.45 kilograms) of frozen fruits or vegetables requires 825 kilocalories of energy for processing and 559 kilocalories for packaging, plus energy for refrigeration during transport, at the store, and in homes. Processing a one-pound can of fruits or vegetables takes an average 261 kilocalories, and packaging adds 1,006 kilocalories, thanks to the high energy-intensity of mining and manufacturing steel. Processing breakfast cereals requires 7,125 kilocalories per pound - easily five times as much energy as is contained in the cereal itself.
Most fresh produce and minimally processed grains, legumes, and sugars require very little packaging, particularly if bought in bulk. Processed foods, on the other hand, are often individually wrapped, bagged and boxed, or similarly overpackaged. This flashy packaging requires large amounts of energy and raw materials to produce, yet almost all of it ends up in our
landfills.
Food retail operations, such as supermarkets and restaurants, require massive amounts of energy for refrigeration and food preparation. The replacement of neighborhood shops by "super" stores means consumers must drive farther to buy their food and rely more heavily on refrigeration to store food between shopping trips. Due to their preference for large contracts and homogenous supply, most grocery chains are reluctant to buy from local or small farms. Instead, food is shipped from distant large-scale farms and distributors - adding again to transport, packaging, and refrigeration energy needs.
Rather than propping up fossil-fuel-intensive, long-distance food systems through oil, irrigation, and transport subsidies, governments could promote sustainable agriculture, locally grown foods, and energy-efficient transportation. Incentives to use environmentally friendly farming methods such as conservation tillage, organic fertilizer application, and integrated pest management could reduce farm energy use significantly. Rebate programs for energy-efficient appliances and machinery for homes, retail establishments, processors, and farms would cut energy use throughout the food system. Legislation to minimize unnecessary packaging and promote recycling would decrease energy use and waste going to
landfills.
Direct farmer-to-consumer marketing, such as farmers' markets, bypasses centralized distribution systems, cutting out unnecessary food travel and reducing packaging needs while improving local food security. Farmers' markets are expanding across the US, growing from 1,755 markets in 1993 to 3,100 in 2002, but still represent only 0.3% of food sales.
The biggest political action individuals take each day is deciding what to buy and eat. Preferentially buying local foods that are in season can cut transport and farm energy use and can improve food safety and security. Buying fewer processed, heavily packaged, and frozen foods can cut energy use and marketing costs, and using smaller refrigerators can slash household electricity bills. Eating lower on the food chain can reduce pressure on land, water, and energy supplies.
Fossil fuel reliance may prove to be the Achilles' heel of the modern food system. Oil supply fluctuations and disruptions could send food prices soaring overnight. Competition and conflict could quickly escalate. Decoupling the food system from the oil industry is key to improving food security. More >
|
|
|
|
9 Jun 2005 @ 17:57
Mmmm...I may need to switch brands. I have been using Horizon products for years.
Factory Farmed "Organic" Dairy
Organic milk label getting watered down Loopholes in the new federal organic law readily apparent on an Idaho dairy farm
by REBECCA CLARREN |
posted 06.08.05
_______
The happy cow on the label of Horizon organic milk is like a stop sign for consumers: Your quest for healthy milk ends here. The back of the carton assures us that Horizon milk is from certified organic farms, where clean-living cows "make milk the natural way, with access to plenty of fresh air, clean water and exercise."
At a Horizon dairy farm in central Idaho, the cows don't look that happy. Four thousand cows live in a stark landscape of sagebrush fields, long silver barns and open-air sheds. Jammed in crowded pens atop the hardpan of the Idaho desert, the cows are fed a diet of alfalfa, hay, grains and soy, all certified organic. Only occasionally do they eat fresh grass.
This isn't the pastoral image of cows grazing on a hillside that most consumers link with an organic label, but it's not against the law. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's vague organic standards state only that dairy cows called organic must have "access to pasture." These cows in Idaho eat grass for a few hours a day during the summer, and that makes them, legally organic cows.
To the innovative farmers who first pushed organic farming over 20 years ago, the label was supposed to mean more than just pesticide and hormone-free milk. "Organic" was meant to promise the healthiest possible milk for the consumer and the environment.
"People are paying more for organic products because they think the farmers are doing it right, that they're treating animals humanely and that the quality of the product is different," says Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association, a network of 600,000 buyers of organic food. "Intensive confinement of animals is a no-no," she adds. "This is Grade B organics."
There is nothing in Horizon milk that would hurt anyone. Even so, recent studies suggest that grass-fed cows produce milk that is higher in Vitamin A and vitamin E, and has five times more cancer-fighting properties. Furthermore, these large "confinement" dairies (another is Aurora Organic Dairy just outside Denver) are a far cry from sustainable agriculture. On smaller farms, the grass filters cow manure. On large-scale operations, the thousands of pounds of manure are placed in concrete lagoons, where the methane gas emitted diminishes air quality.
And what happens when cows get fed grain? Critics say when the majority of a cow's diet comes from grain and other readily fermentable carbohydrates, the rumen, (first of a cow's four stomachs,) becomes acidic, and the animals can become sick and die prematurely. There is no evidence of this happening at dairies like Horizon. Even so, though many dairy cows can live to be 13, Horizon sells its cows to the butcher after six years, according to company spokespeople.
Yet responsibility for defining what makes a cow organic rests with the USDA, an agency not eager to exert control. The USDA doesn't go out to every farm and give it a stamp of approval. Rather, such grunt work is done by a hodgepodge of 97 state agricultural agencies, nonprofit groups and for-profit companies.
While there are hefty federal penalties for illegally stamping a dairy organic, the system is fraught with potential conflict of interest. The pell-mell certification process lacks rigorous and transparent oversight, and it's too easy for certifiers to bend the rules, allowing dairies to stay in business and keep the certifiers in the black as well.
The National Organic Standards Board, a federally created advisory board, has been working to strengthen both the regulations and oversight of the certification process. But since a final organic rule was released in December 2000, the USDA hasn't implemented any of the organic standards board's more than 50 policy recommendations. It's required by law, yet the agency has yet to create a peer-review panel to oversee the accreditation process. USDA has also failed to create a program manual for certifiers that specifies its rules and regulations.
If the USDA isn't going to guard the gate, then consumers who care about the meaning of the organic label need to start paying attention; they need to learn the story behind the fancy packaging.
Here's some tips: Buy local when you can, talk to your farmer, or join Cummins and other groups like the Cornucopia Institute that are fighting to keep the meaning of organic intact. There's nothing really wrong with big business getting into the business of organic food, but it's important for us to know that when a food like milk is stamped "organic," the word means what it says. Rebecca Clarren is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org). She writes about agricultural issues in Portland, Oregon. More >
|
|
|
|
9 Jun 2005 @ 17:47
Global Agreement on Mandatory Labeling of GMOs Blocked by Brazil & New Zealand
June 8, 2005
Sadly, the second meeting of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (COP/MOP2) held in Montreal, Canada last week, did not achieve what many had hoped for. On the key issue of labelling, on which agreement was needed, consensus was repeatedly blocked by two countries: Brazil and New Zealand.
The majority of countries (over 100) wanted strong controls which involved the documentation and identification of GM crops being exported, and only to countries that have specifically approved those varieties for import. However, Brazil and New Zealand repeatedly refused to agree to these proposals. Participants offered to make many compromises, and sat late into the night redrafting proposals so that at least something might be drawn from this meeting. But to no avail, as Brazil and New Zealand rejected everything that was offered, and wanted only an unspecific ³may contain GMOs² labelling practice.
As Dr Tewolde of Ethiopia (who finally arrived late at the negotiations, after world-wide outrage at Canada's denial of his visa) pointed out that this would allow "global genetic pollution to escape unnoticed and unscathed². Dr Tewolde urged developing countries to develop strict requirements for documentation in their national legislations.
Brazil was once a GM-Free country, with its interests in common with other developing countries. Now however, extensive contamination and industry pressure has led to the approval of GM soya, which means that compulsory and specific labelling of GM could affect its export market.
But few people could understand New Zealand's position, since they do not grow or export GM crops. Of course, the inevitable whispers were that New Zealand was acting as unofficial representative for industry and US
interests.
Best wishes, Teresa P.s. On the issue of Canada¹s denial of visas to several participants from developing countries, the Canadians appear to have given their promise that this will not happen again.
|
|
| Tuesday, June 7, 2005 | |
|
|
|
7 Jun 2005 @ 17:43
Organic Farming Takes Root in Puerto Rico
Carmelo Ruiz
SAN JUAN, Jun 3 (IPS) - Farmers are switching to organic production on this highly urbanised Caribbean island, shunning chemical pesticides, animal antibiotics, and polluting technologies to appeal to a burgeoning and increasingly health- and environmentally-conscious consumer market.
Puerto Rico imports around 90 percent of the food its residents eat. What little is produced locally -- mostly coffee, bananas, dairy products and poultry -- mostly is grown by conventional, highly polluting methods.
Although they get virtually no acknowledgement from the Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture, nor from the Farm Bureau, the organic or 'ecological' farmers' numbers are rising and they are setting up farmers' markets all over the island to sell their produce directly to consumers.
The International Federation of Organic Agriculture
Movements (IFOAM), an umbrella group claiming a membership of 750 organisations in 108 countries, defines organic as ''a holistic system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity.'' ''Certified organic products are those which have been produced, stored, processed, handled and marketed in accordance with precise technical specifications and certified as organic by a certification body,'' it adds.
Raul Noriega, who has an eco-farm in the town of Aibonito, is a U.S.-educated professor, lifelong farmer, and fervent advocate of organic farming. He and his family grow medicinal plants like aloe, garden balsam (also known as carpenter's grass) and black nightshade; aromatics like rosemary, mint and garlic weed; and food crops like eggplant, squash, beans, and onions.
Noriega identified two reasons to go organic. ''The first one is rather selfish: I eat what I harvest. If I farm with pesticides and other toxic agrochemicals, then that's what I'm going to eat. I am the first consumer of my product and I want to eat well,'' he said.
''The second reason is that organic production is the healthiest for the land'', he added. ''The Creator made this world perfect and balanced. Each insect, each worm and each plant has a meaning and a reason, even when we do not see it. We must admit that as long as it has existed, the Earth has been feeding us, without needing synthetic chemicals.'' Organic agriculture's viability cannot be measured with conventional economic indicators, he said, because these are biased in favor of cost reduction and exclude social and ecological considerations.
Several miles to the west, in the town of Jayuya, is the Harmony Experimental Farm. Founded in 1991 by Rebecca Perez-Rossello and Juan Jose Sainz, this organic farm is nestled in the northern shoulder of the 4000-foot-high Cerro Punta, Puerto Rico's highest mountain. It is practically within walking distance of the mountain's summit, and borders with the tropical Toro Negro state forest.
Perez and Sainz grow organic beets, radishes, tomatoes, celery, peppers, broccoli, oranges, bok choi greens, edible flowers, mustard, beans, lettuce, mint, cucumbers, carrots, bananas, and much more.
They are part of a worldwide trend. According to a recent IFOAM report, such small-scale eco-farmers in 36 countries have brought more than 50,000 hectares under organic cultivation. In total, more than 26 million hectares of land are certified organic worldwide, generating over 25 billion dollars in revenue in 2003. IFOAM estimates that 558,449 farms in 108 countries have been certified as organic.
Research has shown that organic farms can be as productive as conventional ones but without using agrochemicals, according to University of California, USA, agro ecology professor Miguel Altieri. Organic farms consume less energy and save soil and water and evidence suggests they can produce enough food for all from one generation to the next without depleting natural resources or harming the environment.
In Puerto Rico, the subject of organic certification is causing concern among eco-farmers. Certification is of central importance to organic farming because of the need to establish criteria to filter out charlatans who try to sell conventional produce as organic.
What is organic? Who defines it and under what criteria? And who determines those criteria? Given Puerto Rico's current status as a territory of the United States, the U.S. government has the last word here. Since 2002, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has controlled the definition of organic and insisted that no farm or firm in the USA or Puerto Rico can sell any product as organic if it does not have the ''USDA Organic'' seal.
The USDA authorises certain institutions to carry out the work of inspecting and certifying organic production. These USDA-accredited institutions, which include state universities as well as for-profit laboratories, have the power to grant or deny
certification.
Farmers including Noriega fear that the process of inspection and certification could potentially impose enormous costs that will force them to raise the price of their produce.
Pablo Diaz-Cuadrado, an organic farmer from the town of Orocovis, said he is fundamentally opposed to USDA certification, arguing that the United States government has no business intervening in any aspect of what he sees as Puerto Rico's internal affairs.
According to Perez-Rossello, however, certification could serve a valid purpose. ''There are some farmers around here who believe they are organic but in reality do not know what organic means,'' she said.
And while a number of farmers said they feel uncomfortable about the idea of non-farmers walking onto their land, passing judgment on them, and telling them how to do their job, all farmers interviewed for this article agreed that consumer confidence in their products is essential if organic farming is to prosper here. Certification, they acknowledge, albeit mostly implicitly, could prove a valuable service. More >
|
|
| Monday, June 6, 2005 | |
|
|
|
6 Jun 2005 @ 18:40
Wild Oats Markets Will Sell Only Eggs From Cage-Free Chickens
WASHINGTON, DC, June 3, 2005 (ENS) - The Humane Society of the United
States (HSUS) and Wild Oats Markets, Inc. Tuesday announced an agreement to avoid the sale of eggs from caged birds in all 75 Wild Oats Natural Marketplaces, located in 23 states.
This announcement makes Wild Oats the nation's first major chain to formally implement a cage-free corporate policy for eggs. Wild Oats sold 1.6 million cartons of eggs in 2004.
"Demand for improving the welfare of farm animals has never been higher," said Perry Odak, President and CEO of Wild Oats Markets, Inc. "We are hopeful that our decision not to approve egg farmers who use caged birds for our national and regional product lists will encourage the egg industry to move in the direction of phasing out its use of battery cages, and shifting toward cage-free methods that take the animals' welfare into account."
"Wild Oats has made a savvy business decision by positioning itself as a corporation sensitive to animal welfare concerns," said Wayne Pacelle, HSUS president and CEO. "Socially aware consumers want to know that animal products sold at retail are produced in a humane and sustainable manner, and with egg production, it is well established that raising birds outside of cages is the most responsible production system."
Approximately 98 percent of eggs sold in the United States come from birds confined in barren "battery cages" so small they can't even spread their wings, let alone engage in other natural behaviors such as nesting, foraging, perching, and dust bathing - a practice that 86 percent of Americans surveyed by Zogby International find unacceptable. Despite this, battery cage egg production has increased over the last 50 years.
According to HSUS Factory Farming Campaign manager Paul Shapiro, "Birds in battery cages suffer immensely. Wild Oats has taken a bold step by avoiding the sale of eggs from caged birds, and we enthusiastically applaud their efforts to help reduce animal suffering."
Other U.S. companies, such as McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's have asked their egg suppliers to increase cage space. More >
|
|
| Saturday, June 4, 2005 | |
|
|
|
4 Jun 2005 @ 18:21
Organic Conumers Association website.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
Adam Eidinger: 202-744-2671
David Bronner: 760-807-6203
June 2, 2005
DR. BRONNER'S & SUN DOG'S MAGIC WILL CONTINUE TO DISPLAY THE USDA NOP ORGANIC SEAL ON THEIR CERTIFIED ORGANIC FOOD-GRADE LOTIONS & BALMS
NOP REVERSAL ON POLICY VIOLATES ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, IS NON-BINDING AND UNENFORCEABLE
ESCONDIDO, CA - Dr. Bronner's & Sun Dog's Magic , makers of certified organic food-grade lotions, lip balms and body balms, is today announcing its intention to continue to label its products "certified organic" in accordance with the US Department of Agriculture National Organic Program ("NOP") rules and to display the USDA seal. Although USDA has informally indicated that it now believes personal care products cannot be so labeled, that position "represents a clear reversal of USDA's prior policy and cannot be lawfully enforced," stated company president David Bronner. "We want to reassure consumers, retailers and distributors that Dr. Bronner's and Sun Dog's Magic certified organic products can and will continue to be sold and can and will continue to display the appropriate USDA labeling and seal."
In a foundational May 2002 "Policy Statement" on the scope of the NOP, USDA made clear that producers of non-food products such as personal care containing agricultural ingredients "are eligible to seek certification under the NOP." Based on this "Policy Statement," Dr. Bronner's and a number of other producers of body care, cosmetic and other classes of non-food products based on agricultural ingredients invested in sourcing and formulating with NOP-certified organic ingredients, and sought and obtained certification under the NOP, thereby allowing them to label and market their products as certified "organic" or "made with organic" under the NOP. Certifying agencies understood the Policy Statement to authorize such certification. Indeed, within the last week, the head of NOP was quoted in the press as saying that if a producer's "product was composed of agricultural ingredients, and you thought you could get certified, you were welcome to try."
In April 2004, USDA issued a "Guidance Statement" reversing this position and indicating that producers of personal care products would not be eligible to seek certification. A month later, however, that "Guidance Statement" was ordered rescinded by then-Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman. Then, a few weeks ago, USDA issued an informal "response" to a statement of the National Organic Standards Board and, in that response, indicated again that personal care products are not eligible to be labeled in accordance with NOP.
The newest USDA pronouncement mirrors the rescinded "Guidance Statement", and completely contradicts the foundational 2002 USDA NOP policy that formally invited body care companies to invest in certifying NOP qualified products. "Having issued a policy statement intended to have a binding effect, on which Dr. Bronner's and other companies justifiably relied, NOP cannot suddenly, without notice or opportunity for comment, adopt a new policy and purport to make it enforceable against producers of personal care products," Mr. Bronner said. "We have been advised that, under well established principles under the Administrative Procedure Act, to adopt such a change in its previously established policy, USDA is required to proceed by notice and comment rulemaking. They are not going to try and fine us for complying in full with the NOP. Furthermore, the NOP had in 2004 attempted to deny pet foods access to the NOP, but is now allowing pet foods to do so in order to divide and isolate personal care; but certified organic lip balms are consumed by people in a way that pet food of course is not, so the agency also flunks the arbitrary and capricious standard of administrative law."
"The USDA NOP has been contradicting itself in ways that prejudice the rights of producers and consumers and will not stand up in court," said Mr. Bronner. "The agency has made a point of saying that their guidance documents are "non-binding" and presumably unenforceable. USDA knows that any enforcement action will be legally unsustainable and so we do not anticipate any such action. Organic olive oil does not become magically non-organic when used in a lotion instead of a salad dressing. Consumers and retailers want personal care that is nothing less than organic food for the skin. High quality certified organic body care products like ours should be distinguishable from low-quality so-called "organic" personal care that is based on standard conventional synthetic ingredients. Retailers and consumers who want organic food-grade personal care should look for the USDA organic seal."
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Older entries >> |
|
Sounding Circle - Category: Permaculture
