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

Re: replace the synthetic...everything, ORGANIC AGRICULTURE IS , ENDANGERED! (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 17:17:27 -0500
From: Allen Spalt <aspalt@mindspring.com>
Reply-To: organic-certification@listserv.oit.unc.edu

>Sender: Hormone Mimics Discussion
>From: Susan Snow <sksnow@1stnet.com>
>Organization: Pollution Solution
>Subject:      Re: replace the synthetic...everything,
>Eating healthier food for you and your baby is among Dr. Theo Colborn's
>recommendation for avoiding hormone disruptors.  In order to eat
>healthier food, one must go to organically grown foods that currently
>are NOT grown with:
>*  sewage sludge from municipal wastewater treatment plants
>        http://www.envirolink.org/issues/sludge/index.html
>*  fertilizers that are recycled from hazardous wastes
>*  genetically modified organisms
>*  ''inert'' ingredients in pesticides such as nonylphenol ethoxolates
>and bisphenol-A which are on List 3 [proposed to be used on organic
>farming by the USDA].
>*  irradiated with nuclear waste
>Since what women eat can pass the placenta to the developing embryo and
>fetus, and later go into breast milk to the nursing infant, our
>primary concern should be eating organically grown foods.
>However, organic agriculture is endangered and desperately needs all of
>our help immediately, lest we have no choice but to eat toxic food and
>reap more pollution in the U.S.
>If the proposed rule goes through, we will not be able to determine
>which foods are:
>"produced without synthetic pesticides", "produced without synthetic
>fertilizers", "raised without synthetic chemicals" "pesticide-free
>farm", "no drugs or growth hormones used", "raised without antibiotics",
>"raised without hormones", "no growth stimulants administered",
>"ecologically produced", "sustainably harvested", and "humanely raised".
>This is because, In the labeling section of the Program Overview the
>proposed rule suggests regulations regarding the "Use of Terms of
>Statements That Directly or Indirectly Imply That a Product is
>Organically Produced and Handled (Section 205.103). In this section of
>the rule USDA proposes to regulate "the labeling or market information
>that directly or indirectly imply organic production and handling
>practices" and then goes on to propose that "any terms or phrases that
>directly or indirectly imply that a product has been organically
>produced or handled would be prohibited from being used on the label,
>labeling or market information of products that are not produced in
>accordance with the Act and the regulations".
>What can you do?
>Here is a sample letter:
>Instead of writing a general letter, write to each of the National List
>Section numbers and find the proposed rule unacceptable.
>Choice is the key here.  If this rule goes through, the only ones
>regulated will be consumers as they won't be able to buy healthy,
>unadulterated food in the U.S.
>You can print out this form and mail it directly to the USDA prior to
>April 30.  Also, contact your congressman and U.S. Senators.
>Mail them a copy of this letter.
>When you send this letter to the USDA, be sure it is doubled sided, as
>they will not allow stapled or paper clipped pages.
>Time is of the essence.
>For your unborn baby, for your growing family, for yourself: take a
>minute and learn what you can do to help save organic agriculture in the
>Susan Snow
>To get off the CONS-EQST-HORMONE-MIMICS list, send an email message to:
>with the message text (not subject): SIGNOFF CONS-EQST-HORMONE-MIMICS