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. ~~FionaNyx@aol.com
-- BEGIN included message
- To: "Sherry" <Kallyr@aol.com>, "Theresa" <Tessra2@aol.com>, "Becca" <yahmberg@plainfield.bypass.com>
- Subject: YAAAAY!!! --organic standards news
- From: "Melissa Running" <mrunning@forum.swarthmore.edu>
- Date: 8 May 98 18:56:59 -0400
-- BEGIN included message
- To: "Sherry" <Kallyr@aol.com>, "Theresa" <Tessra2@aol.com>, "Becca" <yahmberg@plainfield.bypass.com>
- Subject: YAAAAY!!! --organic standards news
- From: "Melissa Running" <mrunning@forum.swarthmore.edu>
- 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-- END included message
-- END included message