Subject: Fwd: YAAAAY!!! --organic standards news

From: FionaNyx <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 21:27:47 EDT

This is the key phrase in the following article: 

<< The Agriculture Department now plans to propose a revised set of
 standards later this year.  >>

We'll have another go at it...  I think time to focus on the linguistic theft
proposed by the rules.  [email-masked]

Subject: YAAAAY!!! --organic standards news
From: "Melissa Running" <[email-masked]>
To: "Sherry" <[email-masked]>, "Theresa" <[email-masked]>, "Becca" <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 May 98 18:56:59 -0400

Subject: YAAAAY!!! --organic standards news
From: "Melissa Running" <[email-masked]>
To: "Sherry" <[email-masked]>, "Theresa" <[email-masked]>, "Becca" <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 May 98 18:56:59 -0400

Glickman rules out 3 provisions in organic food standards

Copyright © 1998 Nando.net
Copyright © 1998 The Associated Press 

WASHINGTON (May 8, 1998 12:14 p.m. EDT http://www.nando.net) -- In a
major victory for organic foods proponents, Agriculture Secretary Dan
Glickman Friday announced that national organic standards will not
permit irradiation, genetic engineering or use of sewage sludge as
fertilizer.

The department received more than 200,000 comments from the public
since December about the proposed standards. The overwhelming majority
opposed the three controversial items.

"They neither fit current organic practices nor meet current consumer
expectations about organics, as the comments made clear," Glickman
said.

When the Agriculture Department proposed the first-ever national
standards for organic foods, it took no official position on the
so-called "Big Three" provisions. Instead, Glickman wanted to hear
from the public about them.

"If organic farmers and consumers reject our national standards, we
have failed," Glickman said.

Pro-organic forces marshaled a fax, letter and e-mail campaign to
ensure the measures were not included in the final rule. Indeed, only
a handful of the comments were in favor of irradiation, genetic
engineering and sewage sludge.

"This is not about compromise. This is about integrity," said Michael
Sligh, director of the Rural Advancement Foundation International.

The organic industry is growing 20 percent a year as many consumers
look for alternatives to conventional agriculture, with its pesticides
and factory livestock farms. Many organic farmers feared the initial
USDA rule would dilute their strict standards by permitting more
conventional practices to be labeled "organic."

Consumers increasingly want a clear choice and Glickman's decision is
a step in ensuring the lines aren't blurred, said Katharine DiMatteo,
executive director of the Organic Trade Association.

"It's absolutely our commitment to make it a choice and maintain that
distinction with organic," DiMatteo said.

The Agriculture Department now plans to propose a revised set of
standards later this year. Organic groups have objected to other
sections of the first rule, including treatment of livestock, control
of the list of organic definitions and whether states could impose
their own tougher standards.

Glickman said all of that would be reconsidered in the new rule.

"Our task is to stimulate growth of organic agriculture, ensure that
consumers have confidence in the products that bear the organic label,
and develop export markets for this growing industry," he said.

By CURT ANDERSON, AP Farm Writer