[compost_tea] NOP whose side are they on?

From: Tom Jaszewski <tomj_at_livesoil.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:37:07 -0700

This is a cut and paste from this months Consumer Reports any one else
angry?






August 2003
view
point THE CONSUMER UNION PERSPECTIVE



Assault on organic standards
It took 12 years of hearings, hundreds of thousands of comments from the
public, and the drafting of 600 pages of proposed standards to create the
"USDA Organic" label.
Issued last October, it was a major achievement. Even its toughest critics
agree that any food bearing the organic label must be produced far more
naturally, with far less impact on the environment, than conventional food.
Among the requirements: No synthetic fertilizers, few chemical pesticides,
no antibiotics or hormones, no irradiation or genetic engineering, no animal
byproducts in animal feed, and access to the outdoors for all livestock.
No sooner did those tough standards go into effect, however, than various
enterprises began to look for ways to cash in on the USDA Organic label
without having to adhere to all the demanding rules. In October, The Country
Hen, a Massachusetts egg producer, applied to its local organic certifier
for permission to use the organic label. But to meet the rule that its
chickens would be able to go outside, the producer indicated that it planned
to put a few porches on its henhouses, which held thousands of layers. Did
this promise fulfill the requirement for access to the outdoors? The local
certifier said no. But on appeal, the USDA overruled the certifier and said
The Country Hen could use the USDA's and the certifier's organic labels.
The certifier has since filed suit against the USDA, and Consumers Union has
urged the USDA to change its ruling. In the meantime, Country Hen eggs are
on the market with the organic labels.
In Georgia, some chicken producers wanted to use the organic label on their
broilers. But they discovered that organic feed, which is what an organic
chicken must eat, was relatively expensive. So the chicken producers
convinced Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) to push through Congress a rider to the
2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill saying that if organic feed cost more than
twice as much as regular feed, organic livestock could eat the regular kind.
As that drastic cheapening of the organic label became known, Consumers
Union and others objected. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) amassed enough support
to repeal the feed exemption. But there was a cost. Sen. Ted Stevens
(D-Alaska) insisted that the legislation instruct the USDA to authorize use
of the organic label on seafood caught in the wild. That includes not just
salmon from the relatively unpolluted waters off the Alaska coast but also
swordfish and shark, which the Food and Drug Administration says contain so
much mercury that children and pregnant women should not eat them.
Last October, with no hearings or public discussion, the USDA extended its
rules on organic labeling to cosmetics. There are now shampoos and body
lotions labeled "70 percent organic" based on the fact that their main
ingredient is an "organic hydrosol." What's that? It is water in which
something organic, such as an organic lavender leaf, has been soaked.
Consumers Union believes that Congress must stop entertaining requests from
special interests to cash in on the USDA Organic label and that the USDA
must become a strict steward of how the label is used. Consumers want and
need an organic label they can trust.
What you can do
To learn more or to express your views about these issues to the appropriate
government officials, visit the Consumers Union Guide to Environmental
Labels at www.eco-labels.org <javascript:Start('http://www.eco-labels.org')>
.








Tom Jaszewski
www.livesoil.com
702-595-7012








image001.gif
(image/gif attachment: image001.gif)

Received on Wed Jul 16 2003 - 02:09:28 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:29:22 EST