|
22 Mar 03 - 11:54 AM (#916018) Subject: BS: Organic Foods Regs??? From: GUEST, WYSIWYG In today's email... You can view the original article, "New law angers organic farmers" at this link: http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/story/6290231p-7243930c.html Organic Food Standards Gutted With One Stroke Of The President's Pen In a week when news of the war eclipses all other news, a small, inconspicuous article, buried in the business section of a regional newspaper, The Sacramento Bee, reported a HUGE change in organic food laws. Apparently unnoticed by other sources, the article reports that last month (February, 2003), Congress voted to gut the nation's organic food standards, NO LONGER REQUIRING that organic livestock be given feed that is 100 percent organic.... The rest of the story goes on to tell how this happened and who was involved.... scary, and infuriating. ~Susan |
|
22 Mar 03 - 01:50 PM (#916069) Subject: RE: BS: Organic Foods Regs??? From: GUEST,Q The story is one of skullduggery by two sneaks. On October 21, new standards for organic food became law. In February, a new provision buried in the 3000 page, $400 billion federal spending bill relaxed the standard for organic animal feed with a loophole: in situations where organic feed costs twice as much as conventional feed, meat and poultry could still be labeled organic even if the animals hadn't been fed organic feed. The provision was inserted without public hearing by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-ILL) at the urging of Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) for Fieldale Farms, a corporation of poultry farmers in Deal's North Georgia District. Now Deal denies having anything to do with it and Hastert won't comment. Although Senator Leahy (D-VT) alerted senators to the situation, the spending bill was "locked down" and the provision couldn't be removed. An appeal to repeal the rider has been launched, but it will take time [much time---]. Quoted from a long article by Judith Weinraub, Washington Post Staff Writer, Wed., Mar. 19, 2003, Page F01. www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45547-2003Mar18?language=printer. I won't try to make the link I think you can find it by going to www.washingtonpost.com and entering Chicken Feed Politics in the Search function. |
|
22 Mar 03 - 10:41 PM (#916316) Subject: RE: BS: Organic Foods Regs??? From: Stilly River Sage This takes you to the story itself, and from there you can go to the printer version. Thanks for posting that. SRS |
|
22 Mar 03 - 11:17 PM (#916331) Subject: RE: BS: Organic Foods Regs??? From: Bobert Yep, purdy soon any chicken plucker will be able to hang up an "organic chicken" sign. And then they'll be selling cigarettes in the health food stores. "Ahhhh, smoke a few packs of these a day and you'll feel great!" Beam me up... Bobert |
|
23 Mar 03 - 05:08 PM (#916638) Subject: RE: BS: Organic Foods Regs??? From: GUEST I was rather confused by this as Her Majesties Govnernment have made no changes to organic food regulations. Perhaps the title should refer to the nation state that they apply to? |
|
24 Mar 03 - 11:07 AM (#917089) Subject: RE: BS: Organic Foods Regs??? From: wysiwyg Guest, you're aboslutely right. This was one of a zillion threads people from various countries have started that have failed to identify the frame of reference of the person who started the thread.... and failed to have mindread how people of other frames of reference would interpret it. :~) Why, just last week I was chiding myself for inadvertently failing to provide Skarpi Iceland the mileage to our next Mudcat gathering. But then I also frequently make the mistake of thinking people will be thinking for themselves instead of telling me what I should have been thinking about. Guest, I will answer your post in kind: Perhaps instead of offering uninformative criticism you might tell us about the organic foods regulatory situation in your area? ~Susan |
|
24 Mar 03 - 02:16 PM (#917267) Subject: RE: BS: Organic Foods Regs??? From: GUEST,Q I wondered which "Her Majesties (y's) Gov't guest was talking about. Jordan? Netherlands? Those found by Alice? In Canada, they are still talking about it. The "proposed" regulations, "Standards on Organic Agriculture," may be purchased for $50 Can. plus $6 S/H. from the Government. Hundredss of pages of bunff? Just got an email from ONGC Ventes that a free summary is available from Pascale Bourassa, 'phone 819-956-5379. Doesn't say if it is in French or English. |
|
23 Apr 03 - 12:14 PM (#938571) Subject: RE: BS: Organic Foods Regs??? From: wysiwyg UPDATE April 18, 2003 Organic food industry wins fight! Good news for organic food lovers! According to The Sacramento Bee, the sneaky language slipped into a bill on spending that gutted organic food laws has been repealed! Plus, a Congressional Organic Caucus has been formed to address new organic standards. Thanks to all that wrote to their congressmen. It made a difference. Highlights from today's Sacramento Bee report: Organic food industry wins fight on U.S. standards "The outcry by farmers, consumers and industry groups persuaded Congress to quickly close a loophole in organic rules that would have allowed livestock producers to get around 100-percent organic feed requirements." The organic food industries rapid growth in the last few years and the backing of vocal consumer groups "came in handy when an eleventh-hour rider was tacked onto the 2003 spending bill in February. Written for the benefit of a Georgia poultry farm, it would have allowed farmers to label meat and dairy products as organic without using 100 percent organic feed if the price of organic feed was more than twice that of conventional feed." "Simon Harris, spokesman for Organic Consumers Association in San Francisco, called the bill rider the first real attempt by outside interests to weaken the national organic standards implemented in October 2002...He estimates at least 20,000 of them voiced concerns to Congress -- as did an untold number of shoppers who saw notices at cash registers in natural foods stores across the country." "Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, were among the leaders of bipartisan efforts to repeal Section 771 by amending a supplemental spending bill that President Bush signed Wednesday. "Consumers need to know that the 'USDA Organic' label means what it says," Leahy said." "Farr took another step to boost the industry's profile on April 10 with the creation of the Congressional Organic Caucus to address new organic standards and other industry issues." "Trend lines suggest the caucus will have a growing constituency in coming years as the organics industry continues moving into mainstream culture and maintains faster growth than the conventional food sector." Read the full article here: http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/agriculture/story/6475798p-7427064c.html ~Susan |
|
23 Apr 03 - 12:20 PM (#938581) Subject: RE: BS: Organic Foods Regs??? From: Peg hooray! thanks for that update. |
|
23 Apr 03 - 12:27 PM (#938586) Subject: RE: BS: Organic Foods Regs??? From: jeffp All right! The good guys do win one once in a while. Continued vigilance will probably be necessary to prevent similar evisceration of standards in the future. They nearly got away with it once. |
|
23 Apr 03 - 01:05 PM (#938612) Subject: RE: BS: Organic Foods Regs??? From: wysiwyg Yeah, so often it's a shell game of "look here" then "look over here" then "uh oh don't look over HERE" whenever legislation's being prepared/processed/promoted/pooped on! ~Susan |
|
23 Apr 03 - 04:25 PM (#938746) Subject: RE: BS: Organic Foods Regs??? From: Micca " If you love the law or sausages, do not go and watch them being made" |
|
24 Apr 03 - 12:16 PM (#939261) Subject: RE: BS: Organic Foods Regs??? From: CarolC I wondered which "Her Majesties (y's) Gov't guest was talking about. Jordan? Netherlands? Those found by Alice? I think the GUEST was referring to the "local" Her Majesty's Government. Everyone knows that "local" means somewhere near Hull. |
|
24 Apr 03 - 12:24 PM (#939264) Subject: RE: BS: Organic Foods Regs??? From: MMario considering that the original post refferred to "president" and the qoute from the SACRAMENTO Bee - I don't think the guest has a leg to stand on when complaining that the country in which the regulations were affected wasn't stated. |