[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[compost_tea] NOP whose side are they on?



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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tom Jaszewski

www.livesoil.com

702-595-7012

 

 



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
compost_tea-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.