0rganic's topics - tribe.net

Using Your Computer To Help Solve Cancer

D.B. Cooper — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:58:26 GMT

I think y'all might find this of interest. We can let our computers -number munch- for science labs. I've been doing cancer research, and research into solar cells, for over a year, and I barely passed algebra!

The basic program comes from that big famous university at Berkeley. You download "BOINC", which is simple and quick. Then you "Attach" to a project or two. I recommend "World Community Grid" as they have lots of cancer research going. Also, Harvard University has "The Clean Energy Project" which looks at using organic molecules in solar panels. Both are in WCCG's list of projects you can choose.

Super computers are expensive. We the people can chip in and do it better! (You can specify how much of your CPU to devote, etc. I like to give about 50% of CPU and let her run constantly, no tkjust when idle.)

Hope you find this as interesting as I do.

http://boinc.berkeley.edu/

DB COOPER

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Organic sunscreen

Liz — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:03:37 GMT

Hello,
can anyone recommend an organice sunscreen? I've used alba in the past.

thanks,
-Liz

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

who's buying organic?

skooter — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 06:15:25 GMT

This is a real eye opener I highly recommend that you give a once over.

It's a good run down of the creation, incorporation, merger and acquisitions, and distribution of organic products and their companies. It's quite an eye opener. I'm told it came from the Arianna Huffington blog.

http://www.msu.edu/~howardp/organicindustry.html

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Organic Amway??

MannaRama — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:19:15 GMT

A co-worker and I were recently talking about organic products and she said the only products she uses for cleaning are Amway because they are all organic and have been since the 60's. She even claims their packaging materials are corn based and dissipate completely in water. I knew they made a product call Liquid Organic Cleaner but I figured they were taking advantage of the fact that the term "Organic" is fairly fluid.

I tried to do some searching online but it seems most of the websites I can find are all Amway bases sources. What do you fine folks know about how Amway does business? Are they good stewards of the earth where their products come from? What about their manufacturing and production facilities? I'd love to hear what you know.

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

New!!! Somatic Bodywork Practice in Oakland!

Sat, 07 Feb 2009 07:56:09 GMT

Greetings!

I am posting to introduce my recently opened Integrative Bodywork practice in Oakland. Please, feel free to check out my profile to learn more about my work. Or you can go directly to my website: www.peaceandhealing.vpweb.com

Blessings,

* ilahi *
Founder of Peace & Healing Wellness Practice

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

CERTIFIED ORGANIC HONEY CRYSTALS OFFERS NEW FORMULATION FOR AN OLDIE BUT GOODIE INGREDIENT

mamahealthy — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 07:41:07 GMT

What’s hot in food and beverage flavors now? Organic Honey Crystals is the NEW Honey!

Organic everything is hot! What’s old is new again and it’s organic. Honey has always been a mainstay flavor for many, and a growing number of consumers, who seek alternatives to sugar and artificial sweeteners, are falling in love with honey, not only for their beverages, but in their foods as well. As you may know, many of the top retailers in the country offer organic products in their stores, followed closely by food service establishments. These establishments have jumped on the bandwagon to meet the demands of their clientele by offering organic foods and ingredients more often on their menus.

I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the tribe to organic Honey Crystals. Certified organic Honey Crystals can be used anywhere you want to add honey flavor as a healthy alternative to sugar or artificial sweeteners. Honey Crystals are made of certified organic honey, no artificial colors, flavors or preservatives. Add a taste of honey to your favorite cookies, breakfast cereal, cakes, pies, rolls, coatings, dressings, and even to sweeten your coffee or tea! Just replace sugar 1:1 with Mama Healthy® Honey Crystals for a delicious sweet honey flavor! without the sticky mess. Certified organic Honey Crystals can be used anywhere you want to add honey flavor as a healthy alternative to sugar or artificial sweeteners.

Honey Crystals is available by contacting Mama Healthy at http://www.mamahealthy.com. Honey Crystals can also be found on the shelves of some specialty and select Whole Foods stores in southern California. You can visit the website to view some yummy recipes: Honey Crystal Cookies, Honey Pecan Brownies, and Honey Corn Muffins (reminds me of Southern cooking).

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Interested in Herbal Remedies and Natural Living

Mike — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 03:55:58 GMT

Does anyone know any good books or magazines on the subjects?

I would love to learn more about what's good for us, be it kefir, kombucha tea, or anything. In addition, i'm aslo thinking about planting herbs around the house and get more into growing and using herbs for their medicinal properties.

Does anyone have a good magazine that they like? or know a good book, site by any chance?

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

(S.F. Bay Area) Local, Raw, Natural Honey

Gary — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:02:53 GMT

I have fresh honey harvested 9/1/08. The bees live on an organic farm near Davis California. We cold processed the honey, filtered it once so the honey is loaded with pollen. Our bees were raised chemical and antibiotic free. We feed our bees honey during the winter; we do not feed them corn syrup.

It's dark and delicious!

$8.00 per 12oz. bottle or $12.00 for a two pound bottle.

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

New Website for Black Vegetarian Singles - Free to Join!

Mya — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:39:02 GMT

NAPTURALLUV: NEW WEBSITE FOR BLACK VEGETARIANS LOOKING FOR LOVE

NEW BLACK VEGETARIAN DATING WEBSITE - FREE TO JOIN!

Are you a vegetarian, single, and looking for love?

Check out napturalluv.ning.com, the newest website exclusively for black vegetarian singles! It's basically like a MySpace and an e-harmony put together, but it is for black non-meat eaters looking for love and it does shove religion down your throat. The site was launched less than a month ago and there is a hundred members so far from all over the U.S.

Napturalluv was started by, Mya B., 20-year vegetarian and sexy star of reality show, 'Can't Get a Date', that aired on VH1. "Nap-tural love is built on the fact that many vegetarians and holistic health folks want to date people who eat and think like them. We all want to eventually find our 'soul mate' right?", says Mya B. Mya B, independent filmmaker, also known for her award winning film, "Silence: In Search of Black Female Sexuality in America," is hoping to connect people looking for love in the right places...

Check out Nap-tural Love:
http://napturalluv.ning.com

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Seattle Area- Free Kombucha Culture

greatdane — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 05:50:06 GMT

I have a culture that i would like to pass on to another
person who would like to start making their
own kombucha...

posted in 0rganic - 4 replies

No more raw almonds?!?

hexkitten — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:52:38 GMT

NOOOOOO!

http://whfoods.org/genpage.php?tname=george&dbid=225

Isn't it bad enough that the price of almonds skyrocketed in the last year or so? Now the government is requiring that all almond manufacterers must pasteurize their almonds. For the few exceptions to the rule (small farmers, organic farmers, etc), now the price will have to go even higher, and the demand will exceed the supply once again.

Is anybody else frightened by this precedent? Or will this just help the organic/local food movements in the long run?

posted in 0rganic - 3 replies

competition for Carols Daughter! - New product line that is really all natural

Mya — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:45:16 GMT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

United States of America (Press Release) July 12, 2008 -- Products of the Earth
Phone: 347-529-1399
Email: info@productsoftheearth.com
Website: www.productsoftheearth.com

WATCH OUT CAROL'S DAUGHTER! NEW NATURAL PRODUCT LINE OUT OF CHICAGO IS TAKING NEW YORK BY STORM.

New York, NY - Products of the Earth www.productsoftheearth.com
has a full line of natural products for the face, body, and hair for both men, women, and children to indulge in. High quality natural shea butter is used as a main ingredient in several of the products along with jojoba oil, palm oil, organic coconut oil, etc. Some of the essential oils used to help nurture your skin are: lavender, tea tree oil, rosemary, eucalyptus, tangerine, ylang ylang, along with several others.

For many of his body and hair care products, they use cold-pressed herbal infusions. Each infusion is specially produced to target specific skin, hair, face, foot or hygiene issues. As a result you have products that not only target dry skin, but also other conditions such as eczema, blemishes, stretch marks, and rough patches. These infusions also help to tone and restore the skin from the inside out. The hair revitalizing cream, good for any hair type, infuses over 20 organic herbs to help target many hair and scalp conditions from dryness and brittleness to psoriasis and alopecia.

Products of the Earth takes pride in producing high quality products for their consumers. His body line has tantalizing salt and sugar scrubs, body washes, hand-whipped shea butters, and oil-based body sprays from exotic scents such as, Frank and Kush, Egyptian Amber, Mango Butter, Rocking Rio, Cranberry Rose, Green Tea, etc. Hand-whipped scented Shea Butters to soften and Citrus/Oats Earth Facial Scrub to softly exfoliate with walnut shell powder as it's base are just two of the fast selling products. "His products are the best products I have ever tried!", says one of Oprah Winfrey's sidekicks, Iyanla Vanzant, internationally recognized inspirational speaker and best-selling author.

Founded by a brotha named, Baheru from Chicago, whose products "began with the vision of providing an alternative to the chemicals in other products that we saturate our bodies with everyday." Baheru believes in using high quality, raw, organic herbs, carrier oils and essential oils to the actual production of his finished products.

Treat yourself to a day spa without leaving your home... All of Products of the Earth's products are available for purchase online at www.productsoftheearth.com.
To request a product sample for a potential article, please contact Baheru at baheru37@gmail.com.

Contact Information:
Products of the Earth
Baheru, Owner
www.productsoftheearth.com
Phone: 347-529-1399

###

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

need planter box liner that won't leach chemicals

wmlaven — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:38:47 GMT

I have built some large planter boxes out of redwood in which I'll plant organic vegetables and flowers. I want to line the inside of the boxes so they last longer (ie less soil to wood contact), but need to use a liner material that won't break down and leach chemicals. This is on an organic farm that will soon undergo certification so I need a materiel that won't hurt our veges nor compromise our organic certification process.

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Best Organic skin care products?

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:15:05 GMT

Looking for info and opinions on this. I know most people have differing views, but i would like to hear what people think.

posted in 0rganic - 29 replies

scary world

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:58:37 GMT

how does one live organically in a conventional world?

posted in 0rganic - 9 replies

festival treats and tinctures

Tana — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 23:49:24 GMT

good day love,

I am currently working the menu for an amazing raw foods and herbal elixar vendor. Cafe La Vie is located in Santa Cruz and we are going to be expanding to music festivals, hopefully harmony, LIB, earthdance, solfest... etc. I want to know what YOU want to see at these places. I am thinking lotz of super food bars/chocolate/cookies, cacao tacos, granola and also teas and tinctures. I am open to all possibilities and ideas, so please, let me know what you would like to feed your beautiful body!!

Blessings

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Baby Healing Project Needs Your Votes for Funding!

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:54:13 GMT

Your Vote is Needed to Fund a Free Aquatic Baby Bodywork Clinic!

I am a Finalist in the www.IdeaBlob.com Contest to win $10,000 to fund a small business or project. Your support will allow me to create a free monthly clinic for pregnant women, babies, and children to receive Aquatic CranioSacral Therapy in the therapeutic, warm, salt-water pool at the Tamarack Center in Eugene, OR.

Please vote for the WaterBaby CranioSacral Therapy Project!!! Every vote counts!
http://ideablob.com/ideas/1225-WaterBaby-CranioSacral-Therapy-

Thank you!!!!!!

Here's what Mothering Magazine, www.mothering.com, has to say about my project:

Healer's Project Needs Your Votes for Funding

When it comes to bringing aid and comfort to mothers and babies, Kara Maia Spencer, www.maiahealingarts.com, has credentials galore—she is a Licensed Massage Therapist, Certified Birth and Postpartum Doula, CranioSacral Therapist, Holistic Childbirth Educator & Consultant, Homebirth Midwifery Assistant, Reiki Master & Energy Healer, and is Certified in Bodywork for the Childbearing Year.

Dedicated to providing gentle, non-invasive, effective healing—as well as creating community among new parents—Kara intends to facilitate a free monthly CranioSacral Therapy clinic for pregnant women, mothers and babies, at a community therapeutic pool near her home in Eugene, Oregon. She has entered a funding contest with the hopes of winning $10,000 with which to rent the Tamarack Wellness Center's, www.tamarackwellness.com, warm, salt-water, solar powered therapeutic pool (the most eco-pool in Oregon) each month to host the free community clinic.

Please vote here to support Kara's goal—each vote counts, and registration is very quick and free.
http://ideablob.com/ideas/1225-WaterBaby-CranioSacral-Therapy-

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

BUYING Healthiest Grains, Flours, Rice, etc

Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:34:27 GMT

Going to be buying a few 25 pound bags of organic grains, flours, rice, etc.

Not sure what to get. Figured Organic wheat flour for bread making.

Some organic brown rice, though not sure which is healthier: short grian, long grain, basmati?

Which is healthiest.

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

TRUTH IS FREE; so is my RETREAT --Vermont

Bald Mountain Retreat, — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:49:38 GMT

I'm looking to network with folks, to extend an invitation to visit Bald Mountain Retreat (www.baldmountainretreat.com) as my guest. Like-minded people who appreciate rustic accommodations are welcome to come up at no charge. (Those who require a private room can inquire about those accommodations as well.)
Basically, I'm offering people the opportunity to come stay with a retired naturopathic doctor in a truly amazing natural setting, secluded, idyllic, peaceful...
Also, if you might like to lead a retreat, please contact me.
Thank you and you are welcome,
Dr David

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Going Raw for 30 Days

Josh — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:14:48 GMT

Has anyone seen the trailer for "Raw For 30 Days"? It's a documentary about six people, who normally eat fast food, who decide to go 100% raw for a month. It features interviews with doctors, experts, and raw foodists including Gabriel Cousens, David Wolfe, and Woody Harrelson.

I am new to raw foods and very interested in hearing from others who are raw foodists and people who are trying to change their lives for the better. Many people in my family have diabetes and I have changed my diet and gone raw to prevent myself from also getting diabetes.

The trailer on Youtube at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSuqCMld00w

There is also a new two-disc DVD set that is available for order called RAW FOR LIFE, which is a encyclopedia of Raw Food, perfect for beginners like me and Raw Food enthusiasts. I have found it to be very helpful, as I have been transitioning to raw foods. It’s about how to live raw, the Raw Food philosophy, why to eat a raw food diet, important medical facts and nutritional information. It’s a very practical guide to becoming raw and staying raw.

Visit the Raw For 30 Days site at:

www.rawfor30days.com

Another great resource I have found is the Raw Summit site, which is at:

www.rawsummit2.com

I joined for the first Raw Summit and found it very helpful and interesting and it’s FREE!

Who here is raw?

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Japanese Beetles!

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:17:36 GMT

The little monsters are eating my passion fruit to nothing and the smelly traps are not working!
I have been shaking the vines and squishing bugs - any better ideas??

posted in 0rganic - 4 replies

"An Apple A Day..." - Cider Vinegar Health Benefits

Craig — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:06:01 GMT

Many people are now convinced—Apple Cider Vinegar (ACV), that wonderful “old-timers” home remedy, cures more ailments than any other folk remedy and has been highly regarded throughout history. In 400 B.C. the great Hippocrates, Father of Medicine, used it for its amazing health qualities.

The reported cures from drinking Apple Cider Vinegar are numerous and include: allergies (including pet, food and environmental), sinus infections, acne, high cholesterol, flu, chronic fatigue, Candida, acid reflux, sore throats, contact dermatitis, arthritis, gout, and even heart pain. Apple Cider Vinegar breaks down fat and is widely used to lose weight. It has also been reported that a daily dose of apple cider vinegar in water has soaring blood pressure under control in two weeks!

For centuries, the benefits from cider vinegar to fight infection, promote digestion, fighting osteoporosis, have been well known. One of the first goals on the way to great health is to restore the body's pH to the alkaline range. As nearly all chronic illnesses take place in a body that has become acidic due to the gradual depletion of its mineral reserves, it is logical to check on the body's acid/alkaline balance and to work towards maintaining it in the alkaline range. The state of the body's acid/alkaline balance can be easily measured by testing the urine using pH strips.

INTERNAL BENEFITS:
. Rich in enzymes & potassium
. Naturally supports a healthy immune system
. Helps control weight
. Helps soothe dry throat
. Promotes healthy digestion & pH balance
. Helps remove body sludge & toxins

ACV is also a natural antibiotic germ fighter, fights E. coli and other bacteria. It is an excellent remedy for food poisoning and helpful in digestive upsets. ACV helps control and normalize weight and improve digestion. ACV helps relieve arthritis stiffness and rheumatism.

Use two teaspoons (2 t.) in a pint of water daily for yourself—or one teaspoon in the dog or cat’s drinking water—as a healthy tonic. Drink a daily tonic of apple cider vinegar to help you keep the right pH balance in the urinary tract, since the proper acidity creates an inhospitable environment for bacteria and yeasts that cause these infections.

EXTERNAL BENEFITS:
. Helps maintain healthy skin
. Helps promote a youthful, healthy body
. Soothes irritated skin
. Relieves muscle pain from exercise

ACV helps to maintain healthy skin, promote youthful, healthy bodies. Soothes pain of sunburn, the itch from bug bites, and the sting from plants. ACV helps prevent dandruff, itching scalp, baldness, and dry skin. ACV soothes tight aching joints, sore muscles. Apple cider vinegar also removes sebum and environmental and product buildup on the hair shaft.

COMBINE WITH NATURAL BEE HONEY TO:
. Relax the nervous system
. Promote deep sleep
. Relieve rheumatism
. Relieve arthritis
. Relieve bone and muscle pain and soreness
. Relieve heart ailments
. Relieve stress
. Relieve insomnia

Mix organic apple cider with pure raw honey and drink at night before going to bed. Great for calming nerves, promoting relaxation and relief of bone related ailments. Adjust the amount of vinegar and honey for comfort and taste. See my recommended recipe here:

RECIPE:
250 mL (8 oz) Purified Water (warm enough to melt honey)
1 to 2 teaspoons Raw Apple Cider Vinegar (Organic recommended)
1 to 2 teaspoons Honey (Local, raw, non-GMO recommended)

(Honey comes from flowers and has a very light energy. I recommend honey from flowers that are known to provide support for heart and lungs. Use local honey to help provide relief from allergies and build immunity.)

Apple Cider Vinegar is proving very beneficial to people and animals with arthritis because it breaks down calcium deposits in the joints while re-mineralizing the bones. It has shown to be equally beneficial to dogs with hip dysplasia. ACV is also effective for urinary tract infections, and it lowers high blood pressure. In animals, it is helpful in skin and coat problems and in replacing potassium depletion. (Cranberry juice is also a well-known home remedy for urinary tract infections. It prevents bacteria from attaching to the walls of the urinary tract.)

A new University of California-Davis Medical Center study shows that daily consumption of 12 ounces of apple cider or apple juice can reduce the risk of heart disease. And the benefits don’t stop there. A recent Cornell University study found that the antioxidants in apples also inhibit the growth of certain types of cancer cells.

ACV has been found to protect arteries from harmful buildup of plaque. Many heart attacks are caused by high amounts of fats and cholesterol in your blood. The fiber in ACV helps to absorb fats and cholesterol by expelling them from the body as waste materials.

ACV is used to promote the health of veins and capillaries; it is also useful in assisting in the health of the heart. The potassium found in apple cider vinegar is also beneficial to the heart.

The dietary fiber in ACV is beneficial in controlling glucose levels in the blood. Minerals like manganese, calcium, magnesium, silicon and iron develop bone mass and make them stronger. It is also a rich source of amino acids, vitamins and minerals.

ACV boosts the immune system and acts as a natural antiseptic and anti-biotic. Apples contain Vitamin C and flavonoids, which helps with wound healing and in reducing the severity of colds and flu symptoms. Apple cider also has acetic acid, plus ion-futynic lactic and propionic acids. It is the richest source of amino acids known.

Apple cider cannot cure cancer, but it is valuable to have around to help fight free radicals in the body. Beta-carotene, found in apple cider vinegar, is a powerful antioxidant, which helps to neutralize the free radicals formed in the body through oxidation. To prevent these free radicals, and to keep them in check, we need antioxidants to rid our body of these potentially dangerous compounds. Left alone, free radicals have the run of our bodies; they damage cells, which leads to cellular degeneration. The pectin in apple cider vinegar adds fiber to the diet, which helps prevent cancer, especially colon cancer. Fiber binds with certain cancer-causing compounds in the colon, and speeds up their elimination from the system.

VITAMINS IN APPLE CIDER VINEGAR:
. Vitamin C
. Vitamin E
. Vitamin A
. Vitamin B1
. Vitamin B2
. Vitamin B6
. Pro-vitamin beta-carotene
. Vitamin P

MINERALS & TRACE ELEMENTS IN APPLE CIDER VINEGAR:
. Potassium
. Calcium
. Magnesium
. Phosphorous
. Chlorine
. Sodium
. Sulfur (the mineral - not the sulfa, which some people are allergic to)
. Copper
. Iron
. Silicon
. Fluorine

BENEFITS FOR YOUR DOGS (AND OTHER PETS):
Every home with dogs should have Apple Cider Vinegar. It has multiple uses for dogs, including: alleviating allergies and arthritis, and establishing correct pH balance of the system.

Added to your pet's drinking water, ACV has shown to maintain the acid/alkaline balance of the digestive tract. To find your dog's pH level, get some pH strips at your local drugstore. First thing in the morning test your dog's urine. If the strip reads from 6.5 - 7.0, then your dog's system is what it should be. If the pH is higher, then the system is too alkaline, and ACV can help to establish a correct pH balance.

Use a few drops in your dog's ears after cleaning to avoid ear infections. ACV can be used in the prevention of muscle weakness, arthritis, calluses on elbows, hocks and joints, pimples, and sore joints. It has also been shown to be useful in the prevention of bladder and kidney stones, and bladder and kidney infections.

A dog with a correct pH balance is less likely to be bothered by fleas, black flies, ticks, and other external parasites. Its regular use results in less chance of ringworm, staph infections, streptococcus, and mange. If you are already experiencing these problems, dilute ACV with equal amounts of warm water and sponge onto your dog's coat.

You can also mix a 50/50 vinegar-water solution and add to a spray bottle to spray the coat. The ACV balances the pH of the skin and makes it less desirable to bacteria, bugs and infection. Not only that, but their coat is very soft and shiny. Applying undiluted apple cider vinegar to the affected area can soothe bee and wasp stings, as well as itchy mosquito bites.

MY PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION:
I have personally used and highly recommend Bragg® Certified Organic Raw Apple Cider Vinegar. It is unfiltered, unheated, unpasteurized, has 5% acidity, and contains the amazing Mother of Vinegar, which occurs naturally as strand-like enzymes of connected protein molecules.

Bragg® Organic Raw Apple Cider Vinegar is made from delicious, healthy, organically grown apples. Processed and bottled in accordance with USDA guidelines, it is Certified Organic by Organic Certifiers and Oregon Tilth; and is Kosher Certified.

Bragg® Organic Raw Apple Cider Vinegar is full of zesty natural goodness. It is a wholesome way to add delicious flavor to salads, veggies, most foods, and even to sprinkle over popcorn.

Bragg® Organic Raw Apple Cider Vinegar has a pH of 4.075, Concentration/ Strength = 63 grain, Acetic Acid = 5.14 %, Potassium = 24mg/T. <2% DRV / RDI.

Many blessings,

Craig Combs
6-Cimi (Death/Transformer)
www.Galaxy2Go.com
www.OrbsOfLight.com

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

Coffee

Sun, 10 Jun 2007 05:03:49 GMT

Can anyone clarify for me whether coffee is good for you or bad for you? I am getting mixed messages about it...Is there organic coffee and is it ok?

Thanks!

posted in 0rganic - 7 replies

Spiritual Sexual Predator

kamikazekelly — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:47:59 GMT

An open response to Tantric M (people.tribe.net/894389d7-...dfb363dc1)

Let me tell you a story about me and LilShadow, the woman you called a liar on the Burningman Tribe (bm.tribe.net/thread/a6c9...6a77591132b)

It's in our Testimonials to each other.
I asked her to be a friend.. She said no. I accepted that. I didn't ask again and again. I respect women. Hell...I respect people!
We met on the Playa, held hands, and drank blood together.
We have been fast friends ever since. Walking each other through some seriously tough times, laughing and sharing the good. Talking on the phone at least once a month ever since.
She is an Angel!
One thing she has never done is lie. To me, or to anyone I know.

You questioned the integrity of a good woman. That was your first mistake.
Your second was picking on someone that you thought was weak.

Since then, I have been contacted by other women that you have preyed on.
One has only to look at some of the degrading photo's of women, of seriously sick Porn mixed in with 'Prayer Wheels' to see your character.
Personally...I think you are a new phenomenon.
The 'Spiritual Sexual Predator'.
I just evicted one from the Ranch I'm on. (See my Blog)((people.tribe.net/kamikazek...comments)) He, like you, was pathetic. Spouting New Age buzz words as a self described 'Enlightened Master' while eating our food, not working, and hitting on jail bait.
Every woman felt creeped out (like the women on Tribe I've talked to) 'hit on' by a dirty old Hippy.
Sound familiar??
Many women have come to me with tales of you.
Your actions speak much louder than your words.
Your past is verified by several independent sources.
Abuse has been notified.
If any other women than the 8 tonite who have contacted me want to speak to this issue, an issue (in my opinion) of a 'Spiritual Sexual Predator', please band together, speak out, and notify abuse at
www.abuse@tribe.net
KK
ps
I intend to cross post this on every Tribe that Tantric M subscribes to. If it gets me kicked off Tribe...so be it.
My intentions are as if I were a Father watching out for my Daughter.

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Please Take ACTION!!!!

UranusinPisces — Fri, 18 May 2007 05:18:14 GMT

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/oca/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11401

posted in 0rganic - 3 replies

favorite organic snack

jeremiah — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:18:39 GMT

mine right now is kashi granola bars and organic milk. mmmm cereal without the mess.

posted in 0rganic - 25 replies

The Eat Local Challenge

ShadowWeaver — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:36:23 GMT

Hi all,

I was curious if anybody has participated in the Eat Local Challenge in the past..

http://www.eatlocalchallenge.com/

My boyfriend and I are trying to prepare for the sept challenge so i'm gathering as much info as possible

Thanks
Paul

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

SF Area: Organic happy hour Tues 1/23!

Melanie — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:36:34 GMT

Om Organics (www.omorganics.org) is throwing a casual happy hour tomorrow, Tues, in San Francisco. It would be great if you could stop by! It's at a new restaurant focusing on organic foods... Please rsvp to info@omorganics.org. See you there!

B Restaurant & Bar
720 Howard / 3rd St. (go up the stairs on Howard b/w 3rd and 4th)
http://www.yelp.com/biz/jfeOjuMf-kaQm5aaJEGWKA

Tues, 1/23
5pm-8pm
Free to attend; $3 organic wine, $3-5 small plates, $5 organic cocktails

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

Cachaça Gabriela - Organic

Cachaca Gabriela - Typical from Brazil — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:40:25 GMT

Cachaça Gabriela - Organic

Cachaça Gabriela is my name. Explaining: cachaça is the same of spirit, schnaps, eau de vie. That's a brazilian name for the spirit made from the sugar cane juice. Typical from Brazil.

But, I'm better than the cachaças I know you already know: I'm organic and artisan made.
That means that we follow the principles to being totally integrated with the environment. Plants are grown without any kind of chemical products giving the sugar cane full organic status. And the way I am produced is really similar to an art: we have to have patience and wait for my right time to drink: at least one year I rest at brazilian's wood barrels: jequitibá-rosa, amburana, bálsamo, amendoim.

http://people.tribe.net/552a7710-72b0-461f-abf3-f5615d39f0c1

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

New tribe: FEEDING THE TEMPLE DIET MAKEOVER 2007

Leah — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:14:34 GMT

A new tribe for everyone who wants to make a permanent, super healthy diet change for the new year.

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Free E-Book called Chemical Cocktails

Alanna — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:14:52 GMT

HI There,

MiEssence Products are certified organic, chemical free and carry the IFOAM, BFA, ACO and USDA logos on them ensuring there are no chemicals in any of their products.

I am a rep for One Group and use all their products everyday and they are fantastic.

Please visit our website to download an E-Book called chemical cocktails which has a list of the many chemicals in our bathroom products

To find out more information about any MiEssence products or One Group
please email me or vist our website

To your health and well being
_________________
Cheers

Geoff and Alanna Chandler

Aussie Organics R Us
Phone: 61 8 08 84114859
Email: geoffandalanna@aussieorganicsrus.com
Website: www.aussieorganicsrus.com

Download a Free E-Book - Chemical Cocktails -www.aussieorganicsrus.com

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

The Product of Misinformation

Goofball Jess — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:35:14 GMT

Great book, it's about cosmetics, from chemical to organic, what's in them, how they affect us and how to read labels . . .

Just thought I would throw that out there!

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Building A Vegan Community by Robert Cheeke (OrganicAthlete)

Robert — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:24:29 GMT

Composed for OrgnanicAthlete www.organicathlete.org

Building A Vegan Community
by Robert Cheeke

For many of us, adopting a vegan diet is the best decision we've ever made. We all seem to share the same postive results from an important dietary and lifestyle change to veganism. We tend to feel more at peace with ourselves and our environment, experience an increase in energy and vitality, and we thrive with rejuvenated health.

As a vegan for more than ten years, I have focused on consuming plant-based foods, avoiding all animal products in all forms, and have been promoting this lifestyle in many forms of media. I thought I was doing everything right for most of the past ten years, but recently realized that eating organic foods was really the key to optimal health and optimal environmental sustainability. Being vegan is great, but supporting non-organic food companies and non-organic mega corporations are not the most environmentally-friendly lifestyle choices. There are numerous reasons to eat organic foods, and supporting local organic farms is ideal in my opinion.

One of my goals is to build my own vegan community of friends and aquaintences. I go out of my way to promote veganism within my community and network with others who share the same lifestyle. I started my own vegan company (Vegan Bodybuilding & Fitness) in 2002 and have developed a large online community based on our www.veganbodybuilding.com website. Today, many of us within a geographical region meet-up in person on a regular basis at vegan potlucks, animal rights protests, and just to enjoy each other's company watching a movie, going for a walk, or during a weight training session.

I have met a lot of vegans over the past decade and unfortunately some of the people have given up their vegan lifestyle because they did not know any other vegans and did not have the support of like-minded people. Building a vegan community can play an important role in the lives of young vegans and people new to the vegan lifestyle. Any dramatic lifestyle change can be eased with the support of others who have "been there and done that."

Eating a vegan diet comes quite naturally since fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains and seeds are all foods we evolved on. The possible difficulties being vegan in today's society is the fact we've moved so far from our natural diet, it is no longer the norm. Having friends and aquaintences who share the same moral and ethical values and eating habits, provides a supportive cast for your dietary choices and gives you someone to eat meals with who won't question or criticize your lifestyle.

As a vegan, I not only like to expand my own vegan communtity but I like to have an impact and positive influence on the non-vegan community. What are we doing if we aren't including the people we're trying to have an impact on? That is how we save human and animal lives and improve all life on Earth; by reaching non-vegans and informing them about the benefits to individual health and planet sustainability of a plant-based, organic diet.

I don't view veganism as a cult group out to recruit as many members as possible. I don't see it as a set of rules we must obey. I view veganism as a compassionate lifestyle with the goal of reducing and eliminating animal cruelty while providing our bodies with proper nourishment for ideal or optimal health.

There are a number of things you can do to impact the people around you and expand your own vegan community. I focus on participating in local vegan education groups, vegan potlucks, supporting local organic farms, and patronizing local vegan businesses. In all of these activities there is an opportunity to network with plenty of other vegans. The larger the vegan group, the greater impact you can have on your non-vegan community.

Search out events going on in your community, and better yet, start your own events. You can start small by making flyers promoting a vegan potluck or picnic. Invite your friends and family to ensure you'll have a decent turnout. Usually the larger the group, the more likely others are to join in and participate a second time. Be inclusive to non-vegans as well. Afterall, we can make a far greater impact on the planet by working with non-vegans than by soley hanging out with a group people who already see the big picture. An all vegan world, or at least an all vegan community, can be an ideal goal, but be open to the involvement of others too. You'll be surprised how many people you can influence by being a positive role model for a healthy vegan lifestyle. Most of the people I've introduced veganism to, and who are now vegans because of that introduction and interaction, were positively influenced by my role model approach rather than my judgements or criticisms of their lifestyle at the time. A favorite quote of mine is from an annoymous source and says, "When your actions speak for themselves, don't interrupt."

One of the exciting upcoming events I'm involved in is the 2006 Vegan Vacation that Vegan Bodybuilding & Fitness is sponsoring and hosting in Portland, Oregon from August 3-9. This will be a week-long vegan fest full of activities including vegan dinners, potlucks and picnics, hikes, cycling, and running events, weight-training sessions, a trip to the Oregon Coast, and of course, lots of hanging out with fellow vegans. We will also have an impact on the Northwest community by outreach and activism we will be doing with our collective group.

The Vegan Vacation participants will be primarily members of our Vegan Bodybuilding & Fitness online forum (over 2,000 members in total and dozens expected to make the trip out west) who will be traveling here from all over the country and from various other countries for our event, but we'll also have great involvement from the Portland community including participation from groups like Northwest Veg. For more information about the Vegan Vacation visit www.veganbodybuilding.com or e-mail robert@veganbodybuilding.com.

The more vegan community events worldwide, the more animal lives we can save, the more human lives we can save, and the greater our chances are of improving the quality of our planet. There are veg fests all over the world and I encourage you to attend one in your area to to get involved in your community. Another great upcoming event is the OrganicAthlete Conference on September 30 in San Francisco, California. Successful vegan athletes who talk the talk and walk the walk will be on hand to present their strategies for success and explain how they thrive on a plant-based diet.

Remember that healthy food defines you, and you are in a position to make a tremendous impact on your community and your planet. Embrace the opportunities before you and share your organic vegan lifestyle with the world, encouraging and motivating others along your journey.

Robert Cheeke is a member of OrganicAthlete's Pro-Activist Team and President of Vegan Bodybuilding & Fitness.
www.veganbodybuilding.com

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Organic Sun-Screen??

Goofball Jess — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 00:22:16 GMT

Hey, does anybody have any tips for a totally organic sun-screen??

posted in 0rganic - 5 replies

Spiced Chocolate Heather Fruit Mead: Ambrosia Of The Gods!!

PuckerButt — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:34:56 GMT

I just mixed up 5 Gallons of the following potion 4 days ago:

1 1/2 Gal. Raw Organic Fireweed/Wildflower Honey
1 1/2 Gal. Raw Organic Orange Blossom Honey
1 Gal. Canned Black Cherries and Juice
1 Gal Frozen Strawberries
1/2 Gal. Blueberries
1 Quart Blackberries
5 Lb. Mixed Pineapple, Banana, Papaya and Mango
1 Qt. Mangosteen Juice
1 Qt. Pomegranate Juice
1/4 Cup Ginger
1/4 Cup Cinnamon
1/4 Cup Nutmeg
1/4 Cup Allspice
1/4 Cup Cloves
2 Oz. Dried Heather Flowers and Tips
4 Vanilla Beans
1 Cup Dark Raw Chocolate Powder
2 Cups Scottish Yeast and the 2 Cups of Beer it was stored in
2 Oz.Yeast Nutrients

It is chock-full of vitamins, minerals and anti-oxidants and is very healing. Gauranteed to raise your spirits, too!!

It has just begun to ferment at the rate of one bubble every 30 seconds. Our batch of Dark Heineken got fermenting faster than 1 bubble per second! I hope it is ready for Thanksgiving or Christmas.

I tried real hard to get Heather Honey, but had no luck. Can anybody help? I'm willing to pay quite a bit of money for it to be shipped from Scotland. I've read in Buhner's Sacred And Healing Herbal Beers that Pure Heather Blossom Honey is the consistency of Jello, which may account for the confusion over whether the Ambrosia of the Gods was a solid or a liquid.

INSTRUCTIONS:

Liquify all ingredients in blender.
Mix together all ingredients in a large glass water jug (carboy).
Wait 6 months to 5 Years, freely sampling as it progresses!!
Repeat making recipe and sampling as necessary. CAUTION!! There will be pieces of Cherry Pit in your Mead!!

When the Ancients made Mead, they used the enire hive, including the honey, wax, propolis, pollen, Royal Jelly and hundreds of angry bees. Bee Venom was considered an important contribution to the mix. The bodies of the bees and their larvae added protein to that already present in the yeast , making Mead a highly nourishing food. YUMMY!!

Although the fruit was "liquified", there is still plenty of pulp left. Gather this when you strain and bottle the Mead. You can use this pulp in cooking Immediately. It makes a great sauce for beef, lamb, poultry, and pork. Add some Cayenne Pepper and Horseradish for a great seafood dip. After 6 Months you can begin using Alcoholic Mead for partying. Luckily for us, Mead is also a potent aphrodisiac!

This is a very flexible recipe. Add any fruits and spices that get your taste buds quivering. The only ESSENTIAL ingredients for it to be Mead are Honey and Heather. Well, technically, only Honey. Preferably Heather Honey.

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

50 reasons not to mow..

veganesh — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:21:18 GMT

http://dontmow.blogspot.com

http://fruitarians.blogspot.com

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

Certified Vegan Over 70% organically grown ingredients!

Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:00:23 GMT

inky Loves Nature
http://inkylovesnature.com

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Kombucha

Red Wing — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 21:33:26 GMT

The Kombucha Culture, sometimes mistakenly referred to as a mushroom, is a symbiotic colony of yeast and bacteria . Kombucha Tea is made by combining the culture, with a mixture of black tea, and sugar. The ingredients are allowed to "ferment", usually from 7-10 days. The resulting beverage contains dozens of elements, many of which are known to promote healing for a variety of conditions. Kombucha works with your body to boost its natural, inbuilt ability to fight sickness and disease as well as bring a healthy balance back to your metabolism and organs. Its very good for the skin, helps Psoriasis, aids Digestion, and detoxifies. It is known as a "cure all" in many countries. One Tradition in China and Japan is to give the bride a Kombucha as a wedding gift. The best thing is its always renewing itself, if you take good care, it will never die.
If your interested in getting a Kambucha pet of your own or trying kombucha tea. email me @ nadinesweetie@hotmail.com

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Organic Means Organic --a new grass-roots voice for the Organic community

OMO — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 17:41:30 GMT

OMO is a coalition of famers/producers, distributors, retailers and consumers who pledge the utmost allegiance to the integrity and the ethic of organics, not necessarily to the label. We insist that there can be NO LEGITIMATE COMPROMISE to this integrity, and we will demand nothing less of ourselves in our economic choices. And we will not abandon those who have beenfaithful to the ethic --we will give them the voice they have earned!I think we could be at the cusp of something truly beautiful, and I hope you will choose to get involved. Any degree of participation is most welcome and extremely appreciated!!!

NAMASTE, J.Pierre Reville
www.foow.org/omeanso.html
email: omeanso@foow.org

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Organic food in jeapordy!!! Act NOW! STOP NAIS!

Amy Oliver — Tue, 23 May 2006 15:42:35 GMT

Hello Everyone,

This is information on the NAIS, that I emailed you all about last week. Please take the time

to read this. It will effect all of us. Do you like buying your food locally? Do you like knowing who and how your food is being raised? Please read and call your representatives. This has got to be stopped now, before it is fully implemented. Thank you all.

Blessings on you,

Barb Gallegly

National Animal Identification System (NAIS)
Q&A-The Hard Questions

1. What is the NAIS? A scheme hatched by the federal government and corporate agribusiness to tag every animal in the US with an identity number and to track every animal through processing. The excuse for it is the discovery of two cases of mad cow disease (BSE or bovine spongiform encephalopathy).

2. What does it require? It requires every farm in the country to register as a “premises.” Each registered premises will then have to register & tag every alpaca, bison, cow, emu, goat, horse, llama, sheep, swine, and all poultry. (As far as we know right now, catfish and goldfish are exempted.) It provides no exemptions. If you have as much as one chicken, you must register.

3. What does it mean? This is not about controlling disease, it’s about controlling farmers. When social security was first introduced, the government promised the people that the number would never be used for “identification purposes.” But today you can’t get health care, insurance, a bank account, an apartment, a job, or your tooth pulled without giving a social security number.

4. Isn’t it voluntary? Only for now. The present USDA “Draft Strategic Plan” calls for making it mandatory by January 2008. “Mandatory” means that they will fine, arrest, or jail you if you refuse to comply. For the system to work, the government obviously must force every farm and every farmer to register every animal, and no one will be able to seek veterinary care, transport, sell, or process animals without registry. In other words, the freedom to farm that has belonged to mankind since Creation will be abolished.

5. Who and what is behind the NAIS? According to the USDA National Animal Identification System (NAIS) Draft Strategic Plan 2005 to 2009, page 3, paragraph 1, at http://animalagriculture.org/aboutNIAA/members/memberdirectory.asp, “In 2002, the National Institute of Animal Agriculture (NIAA) initiated meetings that led to the development of the U.S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP).” “Driving force – The strongest driving force for developing the NAIS is the risk of an outbreak of a foreign animal disease (FAD). There is broad support for NAIS among government, industry, and public stakeholders.” (“Stakeholders are defined as those individuals and groups in the public and private sectors who are interested in and/or affected by the Department's activities and decisions.” http://www.ci.doe.gov/cigapol.htm.)

6. Who is the National Institute of Animal Agriculture? NIAA website states, “The mission of the National Institute for Animal Agriculture is to provide a forum for building consensus and advancing solutions for animal agriculture and to provide continuing education and communication linkages to animal agriculture professionals.” http://animalagriculture.org/aboutNIAA/facts/factsheet.asp. In fact, the NIAA is a national agribusiness organization whose purpose appears to be lobbying government for laws and policies that favour agribusiness. A brief glance at the board of directors seems to confirm that, since all are drawn from agribusiness companies, industry groups, or schools of agriculture (which notoriously favour corporate agribusiness over small farmers and sustainable agriculture). http://animalagriculture.org/aboutNIAA/leadersstaff/BOD.asp. A list of members leads to the same conclusion. http://animalagriculture.org/aboutNIAA/members/memberdirectory.asp.

7. Who will bear the burden of NAIS? Small farmers, and especially those engaged in the New Agriculture (“permaculture” or “sustainable agriculture”). First, they will be forced to pay for NAIS, at least in part. Second, they will be forced to work for NAIS. In the words of the NAIS Draft Strategic Plan, page 14, paragraph 3, “All groups will need to provide labour.” NAIS will add yet another cost disadvantage to small farmers and the New Agriculture, and will make local agriculture less competitive with agribusiness. http://animalagriculture.org/aboutNIAA/members/memberdirectory.asp.

8. Won’t NAIS help prevent and control disease? No, NAIS isn’t about preventing or controlling disease, it’s about marketing. When a case of mad cow disease (or any other disease) surfaces, NAIS aims to protect meat producers’ markets by tracking animals through processing to “prove” that only a few animals are affected and so prevent a public revulsion against their meat. The most effective way to control disease is to produce meat and milk for local instead of national markets and “closed herd” techniques.

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

www.baldmountainretreat.com Vermont

Bald Mountain Retreat, — Tue, 09 May 2006 19:52:17 GMT

naturopathy +++

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

rise and fight the green scare

chilambalam2013 — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:14:06 GMT

dear friends ,kin and all the tribers in the USA
tho' I'm not in your continent
I just can't believe how far some criminals in high places dare to go
please read this and resist it as it would be horror
if this would happen ..

Gov. Rendell Meets With Anarchist Black Cross about HB213
***PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY***

Gov. Rendell Meets With Anarchist Black Cross

On Friday April 7th, about 25 people joined with organizers of the
Philadelphia Anarchist Black Cross in front of Governor Ed Rendell's
office to voice their opposition to HB213. This bill will label anyone a
"terrorist" who engages in civil disobedience against institutions that harm the earth or animals, and carry with it a 40 year jail sentence and/or $100,000 fine. It is designed to crush the environmental and animal rights movements, as similar tactics would not receive the same charge if waged against an abortion clinic.

After an hour of handbilling the Broad Street rush-hour traffic, two
spokespeople were invited to Governor Rendell's office to speak with him personally about the law. At the meeting, the Governor said that he had not heard of or read the bill he is scheduled to sign. When our people read it to him, he said he had strong reservations about it. He also said that if the Anarchist Black Cross drafted an analysis of HB213, he would consider it while making his decision on whether or not to sign the bill.

We are in the process of writing this analysis with lawyers, and will fax it to the Governor promptly.

We feel that this meeting is a very positive step in bringing down HB213, but we cannot ease up until the law has been totally defeated.

We are calling on all concerned citizens to CALL GOVERNOR RENDELL several times per day within the next week. Remind him that he hates this criminal move by the PA House and Senate as much as we do!

Here are the phone numbers for all of his offices:

Philadelphia: 215-560-2640
Scranton: 570-614-2090
Erie: 814-878-5719
Pittsburgh: 412-565-5700

The text of the bill is available online at:
www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI...3115.HTM

This law is part of a campaign being waged by all levels of government against the environmental and animal rights movements. The FBI has named this campaign Operation Backfire; those of us who know better are calling it the Green Scare, like the Red Scare which once targeted communists. To read more about the Green Scare, visit en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Scare

If you would like to receive updates on or help organize resistance to the Green Scare, please send an email to philly_abc@riseup.net. Be in Philly on June 9-11 for a whole Weekend of Resistance Against the Green Scare.

NO MORE POLITICAL PRISONERS!! FREE EM ALL!!

Philadelphia Anarchist Black Cross

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Certified Organic skin, body, hair, cosmetic and health care products

Erin — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 05:58:31 GMT

I have been living an organic lifestyle for about 10 years. I recently discovered a company with certified organic personal care products. They are certified organic to food grade standard. The only way to know if a product is truthful is by reading the ingredients lists on the label. If anyone is interested you can purchase the products online at: www.certified-organic-bodycare.com

Worth checking out if you are looking for legitimate organic personal care and health care products. The health care product is a probiotic, the world's only certified organic probiotic.

Regards,
Erin

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

We are the awarness of this Planet

chilambalam2013 — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:06:24 GMT

This Map of the Planetary Chakras is by Robert Coon
Taken form His Book "The Rainbow Serpent and the Holy Grail"

The one energy centre that stands out for Robert Coon is Glastonbury. The Tor is the earthly representation of the planetary heart charka, which spreads out through the landscape zodiac. The Michael and Mary lines pass through Burrow Mump (third eye of the landscape Unicorn), Glastonbury Abbey, Chalice Well (and White Spring) and the Tor, before moving on to the Avebury Complex.

Crown Chakra - Mount Kailas, Tibet
Third Eye Chakra - Currently at Glastonbury & Shaftesbury, England
Throat Chakra - Great Pyramid, Sphinx & Mount of Olives, Egypt
Heart Chakra - Glastonbury & Shaftesbury, England
Solar Plexus Chakra - Uluru. Australia
Sacral Chakra - Lake Titticaca, South America
Base Chakra - Mt Shasta, North America

Gaia’s energy system is remarkably similar to our own. Our connection to the earth is also far greater than we realise, especially when the 6th planetary chakra or 3rd Eye, is held not in the landscape but in the consciousness of people. It moves with the precession of the equinoxes to a new location, which is currently in Avalon for the Age of Aquarius (Piscean Age - Jerusalem). We are the awareness of the planet. Her birthing pains are ours, and the plundering of her resources we also feel as our own struggles.

for this and many more reason
we at family gathering are hosting an event
not just to celebrate ,also to bring consciouness
and reconnect with the sacred geometry of the land [see Glastonbury Zodiac]
and reconnect to the mystical powers
if you like info about our gathering go to :

www.sunrisecelebration.com

if you wish to know more about the Earth vortexes go:
www.rainbowserpentproject.co.uk

Peace
In Lack'ech
Namaste
Mitakuye Oyasin
Aloha

Samaya

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

anyone own a Green Star Juicer?

Fri, 31 Mar 2006 06:02:14 GMT

Hi Fellow Tribesters,

I'm looking for feedback on the Green Star Juicer made by Tribest. Anyone currently own one? Ideally, I'm looking for someone in LA so that i can actually test it out before I plunk down the cash for it.

Thanks for your response
TBF

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Seattle Organic-ites, New Tribe

greatdane — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:34:11 GMT

New organic restaurant tribe for Chaco Canyon Organic Cafe in Seattle's University District...

http://tribes.tribe.net/chacocanyonorganiccafe

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

New Tribe for Raw Chefs

dhoa — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:37:52 GMT

To connect Raw Chefs for recipes, ideas, advice and tips!
http://tribes.tribe.net/rawchefs

Hope to see you there!

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Happy New Year

Naveen108 — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 01:02:24 GMT

NAMASTE

May the new year bring each of you many blessing and love into your lives.

In Love and Light

Pritam

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Organic Food

Fri, 30 Dec 2005 05:28:22 GMT

Any idea of any Organic Food Restaurants in India?

I have come across one called "Blue Tao" in Anjuna Beach, Goa. Its food was fantastic.

Regards,
Dancing Mind

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Fruits Are Filtered By The Stem, Roots, Twigs

veganesh — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:00:44 GMT

Fruit has the least toxic content of any food
because the plant.. its roots, trunk, and twigs..
filter out toxins

http://fruitarians.blogspot.com

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Congress Feels Heat from Consumers Over "Sneak Attack" on Organic Standards by Food Processors & Grocery Chains

karina — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:38:03 GMT

Congress Feels Heat from Consumers Over "Sneak Attack" on Organic Standards by Food Processors & Grocery Chains

October 12, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:

Ronnie Cummins (218) 226-4164
Ryan Zinn (907) 952-5486

Congress Feels Heat from Consumers Over "Sneak Attack" on Organic Standards by Food Processors & Grocery Chains

More Than 250,000 Write Congress to Stop Industry "Rider"

Agricultural Appropriations Bill Could Allow Hundreds of Synthetic Substances & Non-Organic Ingredients in Organic Production without Public Comment and Strict Review

Washington, D.C - As Congress finalizes the 2006 Agricultural Appropriations bill in the House/Senate Conference Committee, more than a quarter million consumers have mobilized in the last three weeks from a broad cross section of the U.S. to stop an industry-sponsored "Sneak Attack" on Organic Standards contained in a "rider" to the bill. Members of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) have bombarded Congress with over 150,000 letters and 30,000 phone calls, heading off passage of the "Sneak Attack" rider in the U.S. Senate. Members of other groups including Citizens for Health, Health Freedom, Consumers Union, Public Citizen, the National Cooperative Grocer Association, and the Center for Food Safety have cumulatively generated more than 110,000 additional letters to congress against the industry rider.

The Sneak Attack rider would lower organic standards by allowing Bush administration appointees in the USDA National Organic Program to approve hundreds of synthetic substances and processing aids in organic products. Even worse, these proposed regulatory changes would reduce future public discussion and input and undermine the National Organic Standards Board's (NOSB) traditional lead jurisdiction in monitoring standards and controlling what substances are allowed on the "National List" of approved ingredients. What this means, in blunt terms is that USDA bureaucrats and industry lobbyists, not consumers, would have near total control over what can go into processed organic foods and products.

The backlash is also growing among many retailers, co-ops and some makers of organic foods. Eden Foods, a longtime organic industry brand leader and processor issued a statement on October 3 condemning the "Sneak Attack." Since then 200 businesses have joined OCA's campaign to Save Organic Standards. "Eden Foods strongly objects," said Eden Chairman and President Michael Potter. "As the oldest and a founding member of the organic foods industry that has never employed shortcuts, we believe that the fast, cheap, and easy route is counter productive in organic food production." A copy of the Eden Foods statement along with OCA's petition for businesses may be found online at http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/edenfoods100305.cfm .

Newly emerging organic industry giants such as Kraft, Dole, Dean Foods/Horizon, Whole Foods Market, Wild Oats, Aurora, Smucker, and General Mills seek a streamlined "expedited" approach to modifying organic standards and inclusion of synthetic substances in processed organic foods in order to meet the booming public demand for organics, now a $15 billion industry. "The Organic Trade Association's credibility on organic standards has been severely tarnished by their 'Sneak Attack rider' and new cozy relationship with Kraft and other food giants who apparently care more about their bottom line than they do about strict public review and maintaining strict organic standards. These American food giants, with freshly painted organic facades, appear to be looking for an easy way to brand their products as 'organic' when in fact the rider they support would seriously undermine current organic standards," stated Ronnie Cummins, co-founder and National Director of the OCA. "After 35 years of hard work, the U.S. organic community has built up a multi-billion dollar alternative to industrial agriculture, based upon strict organic standards and organic community control over modification to these standards. For the sake of the earth and the health of all Americans, we must stop this sneak attack by industry and preserve strict organic standards,"

More information may be found at http://www.organicconsumers.org/sos.cfm
###

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

OCA & Activists Move to Protect Organic Standards from USDA & Trade Group

karina — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:39:42 GMT

From: <http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2441
The NewStandard - Syracuse,NY,USA

Activists Move to Protect Organic Standards from USDA, Trade Group by F. Timothy Martin

As an industry association pushes Congress to make an end-run around recently revived organic standards, consumer advocates are scrambling to keep standards strict.

Oct 5 - A battle over the rules for including synthetic ingredients in organic foods has prompted consumer advocates to step up their campaign against a move they say threatens to degrade organic food standards.

At issue is a rider sponsored by the Organic Trade Association (OTA) and attached to the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Bill that would continue to legalize the inclusion of dozens of synthetic ingredients in foods bearing the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) "organic" label. The OTA represents a variety of organic producers, but is increasingly accused of promoting the interests of larger corporations such as Kraft, Dean Foods and Dole, which have all acquired market share in the fast-growing organic-foods sector.

The Appropriations Bill unanimously passed the Senate on September 22, but as a compromise, lawmakers agreed to postpone their decision on the OTA rider.

"What this does is it takes away the traditional control of the organic community over organic standards and centralizes control in the hands of the politically-appointed Secretary of Agriculture," explained Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the Organic Consumers Association, a Minnesota-based industry watchdog. "This rider shows they don’t have any more respect to consult with the traditional organic community."

The final rule governing allowable synthetic ingredients was established in 2000 after years of debate, which at one point included an attempt by the USDA to allow irradiation, genetically modified organisms and sewage sludge in organic production. Adopted in 2002, the rule has permitted foods labeled "organic" -- meaning 95 percent of the final product must be organic -- to include up to 38 synthetic ingredients without mention on the product’s label. These include substances such as ethylene, used to ripen bananas, and the synthetic lye that gives pretzels made by Neuman’s Own Organics their golden sheen. But this summer a 73-year-old organic blueberry farmer from Maine named Arthur Harvey won a court appeal against the USDA’s standards, arguing that federal regulations guiding organic food standards were less stringent than the original legislation had intended. The decision, among other things, places greater limits on the number of synthetic ingredients allowed in foods with the USDA "organic" label.

Small organic producers applauded the outcome. They argued that big corporations were behind efforts to water down industry standards. By adhering to the original guidelines, they said, organic producers would be forced to be more diligent in upholding standards, thus retaining consumer confidence in organic foods.

But the current rider, say opponents, would scale back the Harvey ruling, effectively re-imposing the state of affairs that previously existed. They say it would also make it easier for the USDA to permit up to 500 additional synthetic ingredients without rigorous review from the National Organics Standards Board, which regulates organic food production.

By caving in to corporate pressure to approve hundreds of new synthetics, critics worry there won’t be adequate safeguards put in place.

Moreover, language in the rider would loosen restrictions on the use of non-organic ingredients in cases where organic ingredients are deemed too costly and allow farmers to feed dairy cows with more non-organic feed and still apply the organic label to their milk and cheese products, according to the Organic Consumers Association.

The Organic Trade Association disputes their critics’ interpretation of the congressional rider and says that for decades a variety of synthetics have been safely used in small quantities during food production. The OTA points out that many permitted synthetic ingredients are just food-handling substances used, for example, to clean equipment, and are never directly added to the final product. Without the inclusion of benign synthetics, they say, rising production costs would make organic products less affordable.

"Organics are a market-driven success story," said Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of OTA, in an interview with The NewStandard. "The government doesn’t subsidize organics so that they’re competitive in price. In order to remain a success there needs to be products to buy – and they need to be affordable to a certain degree."

DiMatteo believes that limiting allowable synthetics would force many products into the less desirable "made with" label designating foods composed of at least 70 percent organic ingredients.

DiMatteo said critics of the rider are "shooting themselves in the foot," suggesting their high standards will shut them out of their own market.

"Once [these synthetic ingredients] are not allowed for use in the organic category, it’s going to take a lot of research and development money to find substitutes. Only the big companies will be able to invest. If part of this drive is to fight against big companies," she concluded, "it may backfire."

But a number of smaller organic companies see it differently.

"It’s not the small companies that are pushing for this [rider], rather it’s the large, publicly traded companies that have become subsidiaries of Kraft, Smuckers and other big corporations," said Tonya Martin, a spokesperson for Eden Foods, an independent organic food company that makes EdenSoy milk and other products. "Farmers have worked so hard to grow an authentically organic product. For them to turn their crops over to a company that’s going to adulterate their food is a violation of trust."

So what’s wrong with a dab of synthetic lye coated on the outside of an otherwise entirely organic pretzel? Most of the synthetic ingredients that would be allowed are considered benign – at least for now. But by caving in to corporate pressure to approve hundreds of new synthetics, critics worry there won’t be adequate safeguards put in place.

"None of these approved substances are scary," Cummins told TNS, "but if you change the process of rigorous review to a decision made by an appointed USDA bureaucrat, you open the door wide for massive erosion of standards."

The Organic Consumers Association fears that although the Senate reached a compromise to gather more information and wait on a vote for the proposed rule changes, lawmakers may nevertheless slip language into the bill as it is being discussed in the joint House-Senate Conference Committee. Consumer groups say opponents have sent over 70,000 letters to members of Congress and have encouraged countless other phone calls. Cummins says they face an uphill battle, but that he remains hopeful.

"The only thing that’s going to stop this is a massive outpouring by the grassroots, and based on what we’ve seen this week, it’s already started happening." © 2005 The NewStandard.

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

Toronto's Now Magazine Takes on the Corporate Takeover of Organics

karina — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:38:48 GMT

Toronto's Now Magazine Takes on the Corporate Takeover of Organics

http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2005-10-13/cover_story8.php

BIG BIZ'S ORGANIC GRAB CORPORATIONS HAVE INFILTRATED HEALTH STORES WITHOUT YOU KNOWING IT By ADRIA VASIL

Organic Toronto | The truth behind the labels | Big biz's organic grab |

Putting soul back in soil | Moral fibre | Beauty bests Ever wonder why your favourite mom 'n' pop crunchy granola organic cereal is suddenly appearing next to Tony the Tiger and Snap, Crackle and Pop in mainstream supermarket aisles? Well, it ain't because Pa scored a killer deal with the mega-grocers of Canada. Rather, crunchy granola has been taken in by another, better-connected family - Big Food - but it's all very hush-hush. If you walk into your local health food store, for instance, you'd assume nothing much had changed. Okay, so you're cereal of choice might have slightly jazzier packaging and five new spinoff varieties (like super crunchy granola with berries). But nowhere on the box is there any indication of corporate infiltration no little Kellogg's logo or Kraft insignia even though as much as 40 per cent of packaged organic foods on health store shelves like the Big Carrot's have been bought out by large American corporations.

"It's very inconspicuous. For the most part they try to hide it as much as possible," says Asa Copithorne, chair of the standards committee and floor manager at the Big Carrot, who notes the number of takeovers has grown rapidly over the last five years.

If nothing else, Big Food knows its new clientele enough to recognize the potentially devastating impact that throwing a corporate logo on something like Earth's Best baby food might have on a brand. "The heavy organic buyer would not only not be impressed, but the brand would have zero credibility, so it won't help sales," says York marketing prof Alan Middleton.

Not that sales are suffering. The organic food biz is now the fastest growing food sector, worth about $15 billion in the U.S. and $3.1 billion in Canada. Some would say all that corporate backing just means organic brands are available in more and more stores, to a wider and wider audience. Maybe we should be commending companies for taking an interest in healthy living? Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Minnesota-based Organic Consumers Association (OCA), doesn't think so. Not when dollar signs drive industry to water down organic standards. And Cummins says the Organic Trade Association (whose list of newer members includes Dole, Kraft and the Grocery Manufacturers of America) has been doing just that, quietly lobbying the U.S. Senate to legalize the use of certain synthetic processing and handling aids (ingredients deemed illegal in a recent court ruling) and make it easier to approve others without public input. OCA (a network of about 600,000 consumers) launched a massive counter-campaign and managed to derail the effort at least temporarily. But Cummins blames the whole mess on corporate interference.

"It appears the Organic Trade Association has been taken over by large corporate food processors. This is not the way the organic community ever acted before. This is the way Monsanto acts." (For more on the situation see article on page 24.) Why should we care about American dust-ups? When 90 per cent of our organics come from the U.S., their problems become ours. And with Canada's national organic standards finally coming into being (a draft is being voted on now that's expected to be made into regulations by March 2006), many worry that trade pressures will mean Canada's standards will look a little too much like our largest trading partner's. Joe Southall, head of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's organic task force (the CFIA will be enforcing our standard), says that's not the case.

For instance, the U.S. system fails to specify the amount of square footage a chicken or cow should be given, but the Canadian standard does. However, like our neighbours, we don't provide much detail about how long those animals should be outside. In the U.S. that lack of clarity has been abused to the point where about a third of all organic milk comes from confined factory-style stalls without access to the outdoors. While some corporations like Whole Foods are pressuring the government to see American standards strengthened, most mainstream milk producers and retailers argue it's the only way to keep up with demand.

Is Canada leaving itself open to that kind of abuse here? Hard to say until the final regs are set in stone, but Toronto's most widely marketed certified organic milk, Organic Meadow, is co-op owned and guarantees its cows get to go outside whenever they like, except in frigid weather. But what is clear is that mega-retailers like Wal-Mart (which declared organics to be the chain's fastest growing food category) and Loblaws (Canada's single largest retailer and distributor of organics) are pressuring farmers to keep supply high and prices low. It's the kind of business mandate that terrifies organic farmers, says Laura Telford, executive director of Canadian Organic Growers. "Consumers say it's great that prices are coming down. But we cringe when we hear that because we want to create a sustainable food system, and I don't think we can at current prices." Few local farmers are reaping the benefits of all this supermarket exposure.

Thanks to centralized buying, Telford says, "big grocery stores all buy from the same farmer in California. Because they can get year-round contracts at low prices from [California], they won't go to Canadian farmers. They won't pay for local." Adds Telford, "It's a really, really dangerous phenomenon." Loblaws did not return NOW's calls for comment by press time.

Still, Katherine DiMatteo, head of the Organic Trade Association, says the advantages of having corporations on side are often overlooked. They can pay for more organic R&D, more supply, more conversion of lands to organic.

"Otherwise," says DiMatteo, "we, the organic movement, will remain a small niche market that doesn't deliver the changes we hoped would come from organic production the enhancement of the environment and of public health."

Maybe so, but Cummins worries the opposite is also true. "The fear in the organic community is, of course, if things go too far, we're going to have to have another label, something other than the the word 'organic. '"

Who owns what

Guess which corporations are hiding behind your favourite organic/natural brands.

GENERAL MILLS Sunrise Organic (Pete's tofu, Sunrise tofu and cereal) Muir Glen (pasta sauces, ketchup)

KELLOGG'S Kashi (cereal)

KRAFT Back to Nature (crackers, cookies) Boca Foods (soy "meat" products)

CADBURY SCHWEPPES Nantucket Organic Nectars

TYSON Nature's Farm, which owns Avalon Organics, Desert Essence (personal care products) and NOW supplements DANONE Stonyfield Farm (yogurt)

HEINZ Owns 16 per cent of Hain Celestial, which in turn owns Arrowhead Mills (cereal, flour) Health Valley (cookies, soup) Casbah (mediterranean food) Imagine (rice/soy milk) Yves (veggie meats) Westbrae (Westsoy) (soy milk) Earth's Best (baby food)

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Grist Magazine Readers Speak Out on Organic Trade Association Sneak Attack on Organic Standards

karina — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:37:23 GMT

Grist Magazine Readers Speak Out on Organic Trade Association Sneak Attack on Organic Standards

From: Grist Magazine <www.grist.org

http://www.grist.org/etc/letters/2005/10/14/index.html?source=daily
Oct. 14, 2005

Re: O Brother, Where Artificial Thou?, Muckraker, by Amanda Griscom Little Dear Editor:

The Organic Trade Association is trying to convince organic growers and consumers that my lawsuit will result in fewer organic ingredients used in manufacturing. Well, here are two cases where I detect a different outcome.

Stonyfield Farm has been saying that if their yogurt has to be labeled "made with organic ingredients" because of the synthetics it contains, then they will stop using organic fruit because it is more expensive. Well, if Stonyfield's label says "made with organic milk" while Horizon's says "made with organic milk and organic blueberries," which one will consumers prefer? Is Stonyfield going to give up market share in order to save on the cost of ingredients? I doubt it.

One of my processed products is organic blueberry jam, which we formerly thickened with a type of pectin that is classed as synthetic by the National Organic Standards Board. So we will have to change our label to "made with," or find a natural thickener. Guess what? Trials with organic apple pomace (which contains nearly all the natural pectin) are showing excellent results. So now organic cider makers have a new market for what they formerly discarded.

The moral of the story is that American ingenuity is not so dead as the OTA assumes. Whether the search for natural ingredients is done by large companies or small entrepreneurs, it will happen.

Arthur Harvey Hartford, Maine

Re: O Brother, Where Artificial Thou?, Muckraker, by Amanda Griscom Little Dear Editor:

How can the Organic Trade Association call itself organic in the first place?

Jim
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Critics Fear USDA Will be Cowed by Large Dairies

karina — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:36:12 GMT

Critics Fear USDA Will be Cowed by Large Dairies

From: Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/health/chi-0510190209oct19,1,1285323.
story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Critics fear USDA will be cowed by large dairies
Loophole remains in `organic' definition

By Andrew Martin
Washington Bureau
Published October 19, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Seven months after a federal advisory board sought to close loopholes to ensure that organic dairy cows are raised in pastures, rather than in confined pens, the Department of Agriculture has yet to embrace the board's recommendations.

While department officials said they are seeking to clarify fuzzy regulatory language, some organic dairy farmers have accused the USDA of dragging its feet. They worry that the agency, under pressure from large dairy companies, may ignore the board's advice.

The debate may seem to be about an arcane regulation, but some organic farmers contend that unless agency officials close the loophole, the organic dairy industry would follow the same path as the conventional dairy trade, where industrial-size farms are quickly replacing small- and mid-size dairy farms.

Proponents of large-scale dairy farming, meanwhile, argue that such regulations constrict the growth of the organic industry.

The dispute boils down to how the USDA defines an organic cow. Among its requirements, existing rules call for dairy cows to have "access to pasture."

A handful of large-scale dairy farms have used an exemption in the regulation to raise their cows almost entirely in outdoor pens, where they eat organic feed. The exemption allows cows to be raised in confined pens during a "stage of production," such as birthing or the first six months of life; the large-scale dairies argue that lactation fits into the "stage of production" exemption too.

After listening to dozens of farmers argue that "access to pasture" meant that cows should spend most of their days munching on grass in open fields, the National Organic Standards Board in March voted to close the loophole so that milking cows would not be exempt from the pasture requirement.

At an August meeting of the advisory board, Agriculture Department officials argued that the new language for the regulation lacked precision and asked the board to revise it. The USDA has scheduled two hours for additional comments at the board's November meeting and hopes to hone the language for the pasture rule by next spring.

Barbara Robinson, deputy administrator for USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service, which oversees the organic program, said more precise language is needed so the department can enforce the regulation and so that farmers don't find new loopholes.

"We weren't turning down their recommendation," she said. "What we're saying is, `Let's keep working on that.' . . . We need something that is legally defensible."

The USDA's decision promises to reverberate through the booming organic dairy business, which is growing at such a rapid rate that demand for organic milk outstrips supply by about 10 percent, said Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association. As a result, some stores are struggling to keep their shelves filled with organic milk, she said.

The organic milk business continues to be dominated by small- and mid-size dairy farms, and it has been championed as a way for small dairy farmers to survive--and even thrive--at a time when thousands of small conventional dairy farms are being replaced by large-scale operations.

The quest for lower costs

But the dynamic growth of organic milk has attracted investors who want to bring some of the scale and efficiencies of conventional dairy farms to the organic milk industry. Proponents of large dairy farms argue that their scale can make organic milk more affordable for consumers.

Clark Driftmier, senior vice president of marketing at Colorado-based Aurora Organic Dairy, which operates two large-scale dairies and is planning a third, said his company plans to comply with the new regulation on pasture. Nevertheless, he complained that some of Aurora's critics simply want to keep organic an exclusive club of smaller farms based in the Midwest and Northeast, where there are abundant green pastures.

Driftmier said that since the first large-scale organic dairy farm opened 12 years ago, smaller organic farmers have been contending that their demise is imminent.

Since that time, he said, demand for organic milk has steadily increased, as has the price of organic milk and the number of organic farms.

"The price is higher than it's ever been," he said. "All indications are that it's going to go up and not down in the future."

A guise for `factory farms'?

Mark Kastel, a co-founder of the Cornucopia Institute, a farm policy think tank, said large-scale dairy farms are simply "factory farms" that feed cows organic feed.

He argued that the USDA should have closed the loopholes years ago.

"They've allowed these farms to proliferate," he said.

Some of the larger farms have as many as 5,000 cows apiece, while an average organic farm in the Northeast or Midwest has about 50 cows, he said.

Kathie Arnold, an organic dairy farmer in New York, said she didn't know why the USDA was taking so long to revise the regulations.

But she said that most organic consumers expect their milk comes from cows grazing on pastures, a notion that is reinforced by advertisements.

"They never show cows eating on dry lots; they don't promote that fact," she said. "They promote green pastures, the idyllic view of cows on green pastures."

----------

ajmartin@tribune.com

Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

New York Times Article on Organic Bodycare

karina — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:35:25 GMT

New York Times Article on Organic Bodycare

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/20/fashion/thursdaystyles/20skin.html

The New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 20, 2005

Skin Deep

Is It Organic? Well, Maybe

By JESSICA MERRILL

HUNDREDS of soaps, shampoos and skin creams call themselves organic, but their labels have long been confusing, even misleading. A moisturizing cream might be made with organic kiwi, strawberries, jojoba oil and aloe vera, but then mixed with synthetic preservatives. No government agency checked whether the ingredients were truly organic.

But now the Agriculture Department is applying its strict organic food standards to personal care products too. Two months ago, after years of wavering, the agency's National Organic Program declared that cosmetics can also be labeled with the familiar round, two-tone "U.S.D.A. Organic" seal.

Theoretically this is good news to the large and growing population of consumers who spent $4 billion last year for beauty products labeled natural or organic, often paying more for the satisfaction of buying products they consider pure or healthy. Megan Slate, 56, of Manhattan said that for her organic soaps and lotions were the third step in a progression away from synthetic substances that began with alternative medicines and organic foods.

"I also realize that it can be more labor-intensive, that you have to be careful about the source, that the shelf life might be a little shorter," Ms. Slate said. "I understand both sides, and I choose organic."

But much confusion is likely to remain over the Agriculture Department seal because so few organic beauty products are expected to qualify for it. Government licensed certifiers must examine the formulas of the products and determine that at least 95 percent of the ingredients are organic. Many more products will end up labeled "made with organic" ingredients, a murkier designation. Some products that do not meet even the lower standard could possibly still use "organic" in their trademark names. And the new regulations can do nothing to clear up whether an organic beauty product is always a good thing.

The government's extension of the organic seal was forced by a lawsuit brought by one of the oldest, most colorful makers of natural soaps, Dr. Bronner's, whose labels crammed with free adaptations of the wisdom of Longfellow, Chaucer and Confucius have amused bathers for years. "Enjoy sink body rub to stimulate body-mind-soul-spirit" is a typical label direction.

In June, Dr. Bronner's, based in Escondido, Calif., joined with the Organic Consumers Association, an advocacy group, in a suit against the Agriculture Department to include personal care products in the organic certification program, which was limited to food. Since 2002 foods both fresh and packaged - tree-ripened pears or bottled herbal salad dressings - can be labeled organic only if they are made of farm products grown without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, genetically engineered seeds or irradiation.

Dr. Bronner's argued that organic olive oil does not become nonagricultural just because it is used in massage oil rather than in salad dressing. On Aug. 23, the eve of a deadline for the agency to respond to the lawsuit, its National Organic Program issued a memo to organic certifiers that it would now include beauty products.

"The U.S.D.A. decided that the content is what matters in a product, not end use," said Joan Shaffer, speaking for the National Organic Program. "Any agricultural product, regardless of its end use, that meets the N.O.P. standards and is certified may be labeled according to its organic content."

David Bronner, the president of Dr. Bronner's, said that without the government's action the word "organic" on cosmetics would not be meaningful. "The cosmetic industry is so full of hype in a bottle," Mr. Bronner said. "It's such a marketing-driven industry, and it's just kind of a corrosive influence on the organic program."

Dr. Bronner's has already put the organic seal on its Sun Dog's lotions and balms. Two other brands already using the seal are the Nourish line of body and face washes, moisturizers and deodorant (made by Sensibility Soaps in Beaver Falls, Pa.) and Aubrey Organics, which makes organic "body polish," massage oils and lotions. Terressentials in Middletown, Md., which sells organic cleansers, shampoos and skin lotions, is having its skin and hair products certified.

Yet many organic products are less than 95 percent organic and will not get the seal. Dr. Bronner's soaps, for example, are labeled "made with organic oils," because their main ingredient is made, as soap has been for centuries, by mixing an alkali (sodium hydroxide) with oil and water. No alkali remains in the finished soaps, Mr. Bronner said, but because it is used in the production it must be counted as an ingredient.

Some products mix synthetic and organic ingredients because the synthetics do things that organics cannot. "It's really very hard to make a shampoo or a skin-care product that is 95 percent organic," said Morris Shriftman, the senior vice president of Avalon Organics. "There are ingredients in those products that are not organic, and those are the things that clean your skin or get under the grime that is in your hair."

In shampoos and soaps, rich lather, clean scent and long shelf life often come courtesy of synthetic surface-active substances, perfumes and preservatives. Moisturizers, for their part, often contain petrolatum, a gelatinous substance derived from petroleum, and emollients like dimethicone.

Synthetic ingredients used in cosmetics are generally considered safe. The Food and Drug Administration requires that cosmetics makers make sure that their products are safe. And because each synthetic ingredient is typically used in a small amount, product users experience very low levels of exposure. Some synthetic ingredients, however, can be irritating to extrasensitive skin. And some have been linked in preliminary studies on rodents and humans to possible health problems when used in large amounts.

Certain studies have suggested, for example, that phthalates, which are used in making fragrances, lotions, shampoos and nail polish, may be associated with changes in male reproductive development. Others have indicated that parabens, which are preservatives, mimic the activity of estrogen in cells, and that has led to the hypothesis that they may be associated with breast cancer. The research remains inconclusive and controversial.

Andrew Jacobson, the president of the personal care division of Hain Celestial, the maker of Jason Natural Personal Care products, said it is more important for products to be safe and effective than for them to be 95 to 100 percent organic. His company and Avalon are among some 200 that have joined the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which advocates the removal from beauty products of any ingredients suspected to be carcinogens, reproductive toxins or mutagens.

Whenever a product carries the label "made with organic" ingredients, said Ronnie Cummins, the national director of the Organic Consumers Association, "consumers have to dig a little deeper for information and look at the back of the bottle." The word "hydrosols" high on the list should raise suspicion about the amount of organic ingredients in a product, Mr. Cummins said, because it may in some cases be just a fancy word for water.

Water is not considered an organic ingredient, according to government standards, but hydrosols, the water collected when herbs or flowers are steam-distilled, are. A manufacturer could therefore bulk up on hydrosols made with certified organic ingredients to justify a 70 percent organic claim.

Aloe vera is likewise used in large amounts in some products to boost the organic content to 70 percent, Mr. Cummins said.

Brands that have the word "organic" as part of their name may also be confusing to consumers, especially if their products are not even 70 percent organic. The National Organic Program does not categorically forbid this practice. The preamble to its regulations states that the word "organic" in a brand name "does not inherently imply an organic production or handling claim and, thus, does not inherently constitute a false or misleading statement."

That bothers Mr. Cummins as well as purists in the natural products industry. Mr. Bronner said he hoped the organic industry itself would limit use of the word in the names of beauty products. If it does not, he said, he will consider challenging the practice in court.

Many consumers are confused about the virtues of organic products, dermatologists say, because they assume "organic" always means gentle, safe and healthy. But some organic substances can actually bother the skin. Bergamot oil, for example, can increase the skin's sensitivity to sunlight, said Dr. Leslie Baumann, the director of the University of Miami Cosmetic Center. Coconut oil can clog pores, and peppermint can irritate the skin.

"Just because something is organic doesn't mean it is better than something synthetic," said Dr. Bruce Katz, the director of the Cosmetic Surgery and Laser Clinic at Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan. "Poison ivy is natural, but that doesn't mean you want to rub it on your skin."

* Copyright 2005 <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html The New York Times Company <http://www.nytco.com/ * Home <http://www.nytimes.com/ * Privacy Policy
<http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/privacy.html
* Search <http://query.nytimes.com/search/advanced/ * Corrections <http://www.nytimes.com/corrections.html * XML <http://www.nytimes.com/rss * Help <http://www.nytimes.com/membercenter/sitehelp.html * Contact Us <http://www.nytimes.com/membercenter/formh.html * Work for Us <http://www.nytdigital.com/careers * Site Map <http://spiderbites.nytimes.com * Back to Top
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/20/fashion/thursdaystyles/20skin.html?pagewanted=print#top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

SOS Update October 21, 2005

karina — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:34:41 GMT

SOS Update October 21, 2005

Over the past few weeks, Organic Consumers Association network members have deluged the U.S. congress with over 190,000 emails and over 20,000 telephone calls. Thank you for your support. (See a list of more than 200 organic businesses who have signed on to support this alert here). This nearly unprecedented grassroots upsurge has temporarily rattled Congress and the industry, delaying the initial Sneak Attack in the Senate on organic standards, resulting in a compromise amendment (H.R. 2744) September 21 calling for “further study of the issue.”

Unfortunately we expect another, possibly even more serious, Sneak Attack in the House/Senate Conference Committee over the next week as Congress members put the final wording together for the 2006 Congressional Agriculture Appropriations Bill (for a list of committee members and contact info, click here). Therefore OCA is now calling on consumers and the organic community to apply pressure to their House of Representatives members as well as their Senators to stop the Conference Committee from degrading the standards. In addition we urge everyone to start applying pressure to the Organic Trade Association, who are unfortunately spearheading this Sneak Attack. We ask everyone who has read our SOS Action Alert and signed our petition to Congress to call your House of Representative member 202-224-3121, as well as the OTA: 413-774-7511.

Source: http://www.organicconsumers.org/sos.cfm

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

URGENT!!!!! SNEAK ATTACK ON ORGANIC STANDARDS CONGRESS VOTES NEXT WEEK PLEASE READ!!!!!

Fri, 23 Sep 2005 04:14:44 GMT

THIS IS URGENT!!! SEND A LETTER TO YOUR CONGRESSPERSON VIA http://www.organicconsumers.org/sos.cfm !!!!! PASS THE WORD ON TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!!

Background of the Sneak Attack

After 35 years of hard work, the U.S. organic community has built up a multi-billion dollar alternative to industrial agriculture, based upon strict organic standards and organic community control over modification to these standards.

Now, large corporations, such as Kraft, Wal-Mart, & Dean Foods--aided and abetted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and members of the Organic Trade Association, are moving to lower organic standards by allowing Bush appointees in the USDA National Organic Program to approve a broad list of synthetic ingredients and processing aids that would be allowed in organic production. Even worse these proposed regulatory changes will reduce future public discussion and input and take away the National Organic Standards Board’s (NOSB) traditional lead jurisdiction in setting standards. What this means, in blunt terms. is that USDA bureaucrats and industry lobbyists, not consumers, will have near total control over what can go into organic foods and products. (Send a quick letter to your Congresspersons online here)

During the next week, acting in haste and near-total secrecy, the U.S. Congress plans to vote on a rider in the House/Senate Conference Committee to the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Bill that could take away control over organic standards from the National Standards Board and put this control in the hands of federal bureaucrats in the USDA (remember the USDA proposal in 1997-98 that said that genetic engineering, toxic sludge, and food irradiation would be OK on organic farms, or USDA suggestions in 2004 that heretofore banned pesticides, hormones, tainted feeds, and animal drugs would be OK?).

For the past week in Washington, OCA has been urging members of Congress not to reopen and subvert the federal statute that governs U.S. Organic standards (the Organic Food Production Act: OFPA), but rather to let the organic community and the National Organic Standards Board resolve our differences over issues like synthetics and animal feed internally, and then proceed to a open public comment period. Unfortunately most Senators seem to be listening to industry lobbyists more closely than to us. We need to raise our voices. (Send a quick letter to your Congresspersons online here)

In the past, grassroots mobilization and mass pressure by organic consumers have been able to stop the USDA and Congress from degrading organic standards. This time Washington insiders tell us that the "fix is already in." So we must take decisive action now. We need you to call your U.S. Senators today. We need you to sign the following petition and send it to everyone you know. We also desperately need funds to head off this attack in the weeks and months to come. Thank you for your support. Together we will take back citizen control over organic standards and preserve organic integrity.

Call the Capital Switchboard here: 877-762-8762, and tell your Congresspersons not to support any ammendments to the ag appropriations bill that would lower organic standards. You can send a quick letter to your Congresspersons online here: www.organicconsumers.org/rd-ofpa.htm

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

Certification

Tedster — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:45:30 GMT

I am wondering how the certification works.

Is it done by different parties and if so, who is the most reliable.

posted in 0rganic - 4 replies

Just stopping in to say hello

Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:52:29 GMT

I am am new here, I was very exited to find other organic nuts like myself! :)

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

Reps wanted for World's First Certified organic range

Rosie — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 09:40:35 GMT

Hi everyone, I am new to the tribe but I am loving it already.
I am on the otherside of the world on a beautiful island called Waiheke...in New Zealand...and I am looking to find anyone who is interested in setting up their own, home based business...anywhere in the world.
Onegroup is a multi channel enterprise with product of unrivalled purity. Onegroup is leading the world in the development of certified organic skin, body, hair, oral, cosmetic and health products.
The opportunity is real and the time is right for you to embark on a Multi Channel Enterprise. Being involved in one of the fastest growing industries in the world, starting an enterprise with enourmous potential backed by an ethical company with enourmous experience and the most pristine products on earth is a reality.
I am an independent rep and love all the range this company has to offer...they also have the world's first certified organic mascara!
Anyways, if you would like to know more...please let me know or visit the website www.onegrp.com/?rootsherbal
Namaste!

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

New Member

DreadyDeadHead — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:05:15 GMT

It was nice to find some tribes such as these, thanks for letting me join

= ) = ) = )

posted in 0rganic - 14 replies

Organic Information Resources

karina — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:22:24 GMT

Organic Certifiers in the US / CA:

Quality Assurance International Organic Certification
A private, professional service corporation developed for the purpose of verifying the authenticity of food, fiber and other products which are organically certified...
www.qai-inc.com/

CCOF: Organic Certification, Trade Association, Organic Education ...
CCOF is a non-profit membership based organic certification and trade association, dedicated to promoting and supporting organic food and agriculture.
www.ccof.org/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

"...

Notes & References
1) OTA (the Organic Trade Association) is a membership-based business association representing the organic industry in Canada, the U. S., and Mexico. It works to promote organic products in the marketplace and to protect the integrity of organic standards.

http://www.ota.com/

2) OMRI (the Organic Materials Review Institute) evaluates materials for use in most aspects of organic production, handling, and processing. Their published guides of approved inputs are invaluable for informing clients as to what they may and may not use in their operations.

http://www.omri.org/

3) Like Organic, Free Farmed is another example of eco-labeling. For more information on the Free Farmed label, visit the Farm Animal Services Website.

http://www.freefarmed.org/

4) IFOAM is the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. Their accreditation program for organic certification agencies is operated by the International Organic Accreditation Service (IOAS).

http://www.ifoam.org/

5) For more information on the organic farm plan requirement, please request a copy of the ATTRA publication Creating An Organic Production and Handling System Plan. This publication includes template forms in common use by certification agencies.

http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/handlingsys.html

6) The kinds of additional information a certification agent might seek are various. In some instances the agent may require that additional testing of soils, water, compost, crops, feeds, or other items be done. This is typically required if there is reason to expect excessive contamination with prohibited substances. Requests for additional testing might be made at any point in the application process or later.

7) Organic inspectors may be employees of the certifier, but many are independent contractors. Many inspectors are members of, and receive training from, the Independent Organic Inspectors Association (IOIA).

http://www.ioia.net/

8) According to John Foster (Quality Assurance International), farmers with minor noncompliances might be granted certification with the understanding that these violations be corrected within a specified time period. Where major noncompliances occur, certification is likely to be withheld until the applicant has made and documented the required changes. (Information provided via personal communication, March 2002.)

Further Resources
The National Organic Program Website has been cited several times throughout this publication. It is important to note the wealth of additional information that can be found there, including background information on the legislation, an FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) page, and guidance from the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)-an advisory body to the NOP that assists in interpreting the Regulations and makes recommendations on materials and practices that can and cannot be used in organic production.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/

The Organic Trade Association Web site features a summary legislation page, which gives an excellent overview of the history of federal regulation plus many details contained in the Regulations.

http://www.ota.com/pp/legislation/index.html

The National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture closely monitors federal legislation regarding organic farming.

http://www.sustainableagriculture.net/

..."

Source:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:XvE8xdffu_EJ:attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/organcert.html+why+Organic+Certification&hl=en&start=13

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Tue 7/26 - Farm Dinner & Om Organics Benefit at Millennium

Melanie — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:42:25 GMT

This is always a delicious and fun event every year at Millennium Restaurant on Geary/Jones downtown....
------
Veggies Anyone? Each year, Millennium recognizes the efforts of all their contributing local farmers. Come celebrate and recognize their immeasurable contributions to the organic movement at the 6th Annual Farmer's Market Dinner! Chef Eric Tucker will present a menu featuring five courses, highlighting ingredients from each of our local farms. Om Organics and the farmers themselves will be present throughout the evening to answer any questions and woo the guests with their agricultural wit and charm. Please don't miss out on this very special evening. Call the friendly host to reserve your table at 415.345.3900.

Millennium Restaurant, 580 Geary St.; email info@omorganics.org for a 50%-off coupon for infused-cocktails and 10% off your dinner meal!; 5-course prix fixe $60/person $20/wine pairing, *$10 per seated guest will be donated to Om Organics.org, a local non-profit connecting local farms with SF restaurants, and providing educational and directory info for Bay Area consumers.

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

ORGANIC BYTES #61 Newsletter

karina — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:42:27 GMT

From: http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/071205.cfm

Food, Consumer and Environment News Tidbits with an Edge!

ORGANIC BYTES #61
7/12/2005

In this issue:

*
CONSUMERS BEWARE: TEFLON CAN GIVE YOU CANCER
* OCA SUPPORTERS TALK & CONGRESS LISTENS
* MAD COW USA: SHOOTING THE MESSENGER
* THE GREAT DEBATE OVER CORN-BASED ETHANOL FUEL
* THE CANDY DRUG
* BANNING LOCAL DEMOCRACY
* QUICK TIDBITS

____________________________________

CONSUMERS BEWARE: TEFLON CAN GIVE YOU CANCER
After ignoring numerous warnings from independent scientists for years, the "nonstick" chemical used in Teflon has now officially been categorized as a "likely carcinogen" by the U.S. government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA scientists found four different types of tumors in lab animals exposed to the chemical. The agency announced it plans to collect millions of dollars in fines from DuPont, the maker of Teflon, for concealing studies indicating related health and environmental risks for over two decades.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/foodsafety/dupont070105.cfm

____________________________________

OCA SUPPORTERS TALK & CONGRESS LISTENS
In the last issue of Organic Bytes (#60), the OCA reported that the EPA was allowing pesticide companies to conduct toxic chemical testing on low-income Americans. We provided you, our 250,000 subscribers, with an action alert to contact your Congressional representatives. Thanks, in part, to a landslide of thousands of emails and letters generated by the OCA online community and our allies, Congress voted last week to place a moratorium on these practices. Congratulations to everyone who took part in this action! http://www.organicconsumers.org/Politics/humans070105.cfm

____________________________________

MAD COW USA: SHOOTING THE MESSENGER
In the wake of recent news reports that the government had attempted to cover-up another case of Mad Cow disease, an internal feud has erupted inside the USDA. The most recent case of Mad Cow Disease was detected in a Texas cow that was slaughtered in November of 2004. At that time, the USDA claimed tests for the disease on the suspect cow were negative and that the cow was healthy. But several weeks ago, after a public outcry by the OCA and other public interest groups and internal USDA accusations of improper testing, USDA Inspector General Phyllis K. Fong reopened the case and ordered new tests on the remains of that cow, the results of which turned out to be positive. The USDA has since admitted that its testing procedures are not stringent enough, but instead of creating policy that would upgrade testing for Mad Cow, the agency has begun to focus its energies on attacking Fong. This week, USDA Secretary Mike Johanns, who was appointed to his position by President Bush earlier this year, said Fong had no right to reopen this case and should not have implemented further tests for Mad Cow disease. According to Johanns, Fong's discovery of the second case of mad Cow disease in the U.S. is behavior that will not be tolerated within the agency. http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/coverup070605.cfm

____________________________________

THE GREAT DEBATE OVER CORN-BASED ETHANOL FUEL
Scientist have found that the amount of energy that corn-based ethanol provides is actually less than the amount of energy it takes to grow the corn and manufacture the ethanol in the first place. In contrast, sugar beets produce two times as much energy, and sugar cane yields eight times as much energy as is needed to produce the ethanol. Legislation has passed in the U.S. that subsidizes corn-based ethanol production. Should this legislation be revoked in favor of other types of biofuels, or should it stay in place to support U.S. corn farmers? Talk about it in OCA's web forum. http://www.organicconsumers.org/chat/index.php

____________________________________

THE CANDY DRUG
The candy industry is setting its sights on fitness buffs and kids. At this summer's largest candy trade show, several new lines of "energy enhancing" candies were released in an effort to capture a piece of the $3 billion/year consumers spend on performance boosters. New product lines included jelly beans packed with 120 milligrams of electrolytes and taffy pieces containing the equivalent of one coffee cup worth of caffeine in each bite. "I don't think that the new products belong in the candy aisle," said Cynthia Sass, a registered dietitian and spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. "The use of stimulants is an even greater concern because they can cause dangerous increases in a person's heart rate and blood pressure." Larry Graham, president of the National Confectioners Association, disagrees, saying the candy industry has every right to "build healthful benefits into their candy." http://www.organicconsumers.org/toxic/candy.cfm

____________________________________

BANNING LOCAL DEMOCRACY
Consumers and farmers in California and New England have been taking action over the past year to protect their local communities from genetic pollution by passing local, city, and county ordinances banning genetically engineered (GE) crops. Cities, counties and townships that have passed such laws say this regulatory need stems from the fact that organic farmers and non-GMO (genetically modified organisms) farmers have been increasingly losing money every year as GMO pollen from neighboring fields contaminates their crops. In response to these ordinances, the biotech industry and corporate agribusiness are striking back with a vengeance. At least 12 states have recently passed "Monsanto laws" taking away the rights of cities and counties to ban GE crops. Now legislators in California, the nation's most important agricultural producer, are responding to the lobbying power of the biotech industry and are threatening to pass a controversial law that would take away local rights to regulate GMOs. The OCA is actively involved in trying to stop these "Monsanto Laws" from being passed . Get involved: http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge-free.htm

____________________________________

QUICK TIDBITS
U.S. researchers at the University of Texas Cancer Center say turmeric, the spice that makes curry yellow, could help fight skin cancer. Scientists discovered the ingredient interferes with a process in melanoma cells that leads to cancer. Researchers noted that related studies show that people with a diet high in turmeric have lower rates of some cancers. http://www.organicconsumers.org/toxic/curry.cfm

Despite protests from conservationists, a Japanese fast food chain has begun to offer whale burgers. The sandwich is made from deep fried minke whale meat, a globally threatened sea mammal. Although most nations have banned whale hunting, Japan claims it must kill the animals in order to study them. http://www.organicconsumers.org/toxic/whale.cfm

More than 70% of the world's fish stocks are overfished. Confused about what fish are okay to eat? According to the California Academy of Sciences, the best fish to eat are "fast-growing, abundant, sensibly managed, with minimal bycatch and ecological impacts, or with minimally polluting farming methods." Download your pocket seafood guide here: http://www.organicconsumers.org/toxic/seafood-guide.pdf

Consumer demand for organic milk has exceeded what organic farmers are able to supply. In response the Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service has launched a "Help Wanted: Organic Farmers" campaign to help increase the number of organic dairy farmers. http://www.mosesorganic.org/

____________________________________

OCA's web forum and chat room

__________________________________

Please forward this publication to family and friends, place it on websites, print it, duplicate it and post it freely. Knowledge is power!

Help others learn about food safety, organics, and related topics. Place a link on YOUR website to http://OrganicConsumers.org Banners for your use - http://OrganicConsumers.org/logos.htm
__________________________________

NOTE TO CO-OP AND NATURAL FOOD STORE SUBSCRIBERS:
Organic Bytes is a great tool for keeping your staff and customers up to date on the latest issues. Feel free to forward this email to your staff and print for posting on bulletin boards and staff break tables. You are also welcome to use this material for your newsletters. Within 24 hours of the release of each email version of Organic Bytes, an attractive print-friendly PDF version is posted and available for free download at http://www.organicconsumers.org/organicbytes.htm
_________________________________

ORGANIC BYTES is a publication of:
ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION
6771 South Silver Hill Drive
Finland, MN 55603
Phone: (218)-353-7454 Fax: (218) 353-7652

DONATE TO THE OCA
Donate Now!
http://www.organicconsumers.org/donations.htm

__________________________________

Subscribe: http://www.organicconsumers.org/organicbytes.htm

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

ORGANIC BYTES #60 Newsletter

karina — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:41:02 GMT

From: http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/062805.htm

Food, Consumer and Environment News Tidbits with an Edge!

ORGANIC BYTES #60
6/28/2005

USDA ATTEMPT TO BURY MAD COW FAILS
Another case of Mad Cow disease (BSE) in the United States has been confirmed. The cow, apparently from Texas, was originally slaughtered and pronounced free of BSE by the USDA in November 2004, under rather suspicious circumstances. Facing mounting criticism by public interest groups, including the OCA, Consumers Union, and the Center for Media and Democracy, the USDA finally allowed a UK lab to retest the brain, revealing that the animal did, indeed, have the fatal brain wasting disease. Despite warnings by scientists and bans on U.S. beef exports, the USDA still refuses to test more than a tiny fraction of U.S. cattle, and continues to allow the routine feeding of blood, manure, and slaughterhouse waste to farm animals. Consumers, responding to the fact that these risky practices are prohibited on organic farms, are turning in droves to organic and grass-fed beef. In 2004 organic beef sales increased by over 120% in the U.S.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/coverup062705.cfm

__________________________________

TOBACCO INDUSTRY LET OFF HOOK
The tobacco industry was given a major break last week by the U.S. Justice Department. During the closing statements of a six-year-old lawsuit that was on the verge of fining the tobacco industry $130 billion, Justice Department lawyer Stephen D. Brody unexpectedly announced the U.S. Government wanted to reduce the fines by 90%. Sources close to the case, including government officials, say trial lawyers reduced their demands due to pressure from the Bush Administration's Attorney General's office, which has recently held several closed door meetings with the tobacco industry. http://www.organicconsumers.org/Politics/tobacco060905.cfm

__________________________________

HELP WANTED: HUMAN LAB ANIMALS
The EPA is now allowing chemical companies to conduct toxic chemical studies on low-income Americans. An analysis of 24 such studies found that 22 involved ethically questionable practices. A new related congressional report states that "nearly one-third of the studies reviewed were specifically designed to cause harm to the human test subjects or to put them at risk of harm." The report said scientists conducting the experiments "failed to obtain informed consent (and) dismissed adverse outcomes," adding that the tests "lacked scientific validity." One study involved paying college students $15 an hour to sit in enclosed chambers while having insecticide vapors sprayed at them. The Bush Administration recently announced the EPA's new policy, which allows these types of human studies for the first time in decades. Chemical companies have welcomed this announcement with the goal of generating studies that would allow their products to be considered "safer" than originally thought. Congress is currently discussing whether or not this process should be alowed to continue. Take Action: http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa5.htm

__________________________________

ORGANIC FARMING IS THE SOLUTION TO AFRICA'S FAMINE
Despite intense pressure from the biotech industry, African nations are increasingly turning to organic farming practices rather than genetically engineered crops. Tewolde Berhan, head of the Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia, believes that organic farming is the solution to Africa's famine. "Organic farming disturbs nature as little as possible and reduces risks. Intensive farming has led to the exacerbation of pests and diseases," says Berhan. While the biotech industry pushes expensive synthetic fertilizers on impoverished Third World farmers with claims of high yields, those farmers implementing simple organic soil amending techniques are witnessing higher yields without the chemicals or the cost. According to Berhan, "When well managed, and as fertility builds over years, organic agriculture isn't inferior in yield. Now, farmers don't want chemical fertilisers. They say, 'Why should we pay for something we can get for free?'"
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/famine062705.cfm

__________________________________

WHILE MILLIONS STARVE, U.S. WASTES BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FOOD
New statistics show that $100 billion of food in the U.S. is wasted annually. As a result, the USDA is being asked to consider a proposal from the University of Arizona to create a "Food Loss Center" that would analyze methods of reducing food waste in the shipping, retail and home sectors. At present, the USDA is claiming it does not have the budget to create such a program. According to Dr. Timothy Jones, an anthropologist at the University of Arizona's Bureau for Applied Research in Anthropology, "Huge amounts of food are being wasted throughout the industry. A proportion of this waste is inevitable, but a large part of it can be eliminated and lead to increased profit, not only through cutting losses but also through increasing efficiency."
http://www.organicconsumers.org/OFGU/waste062105.cfm

__________________________________

QUICK NEWS TIDBITS
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) investigators have obtained video footage of inhumane treatment of chickens in a Tyson Foods plant in Alabama, which supplies KFC. The footage shows chickens' heads being routinely ripped off by hand, and large numbers of birds being scalded alive. Tyson has responded by accusing the undercover PETA investigator of violating the company's privacy policies.http://www.organicconsumers.org/OFGU/tyson060605.cfm

New studies in Richland, Washington have revealed that the local Hanford Nuclear site has contaminated the area far more than previously thought. For the first time, plutonium has been found in clams and fish in the Columbia River. In addition, radiation levels of area mulberries are so high, eating less than a teaspoon full of the berries would cause a person to exceed EPA maximum allowable risk levels for an entire year.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Politics/nuclear061605.cfm

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has announced that farmed salmon contains roughly 6-7 times as many PCBs as wild salmon. A total of 29 tests were conducted on salmon in the British Columbia area, and the results support previous studies revealing higher levels of toxins in farmed salmon, due to the compact manner in which they are raised. http://www.organicconsumers.org/foodsafety/pcbs060805.cfm

Wal-mart recently held its annual meeting, during which CEO F. Lee Scott announced that the mega-retail chain will take a leading role in the exploding organic market by sharply increasing the selection of organic foods at its supercenters. At present, Wal-mart operates 1,700 supercenters across the U.S. with short term plans to more than double that number.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/walmart.cfm

____________________________________

SNEAK ATTACK: CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE MAY PASS "MONSANTO LAW"
Just as we are going to press, OCA has been informed that California state legislators may try to pass a law shortly that would take away counties' rights to ban genetically engineered crops. So far three of California's 59 counties have passed GE crop bans, with Sonoma County slated to vote on a ban in November. Across the U.S. 11 states have already passed these "Monsanto Laws." Stay tuned to OCA's website and the next issue of Organic Bytes, for further information. The apparent ringleader of this nefarious scheme to suppress Biodemocracy and spread Frankencrops across California is State Assemblyman Simon Salinas of District 29 (representing Santa Clara, Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz Counties). You may want to call or fax Salinas' office and tell him to back off. Simon Salinas' office can be reached at Phone: (916) 319-2028 or Fax: (916) 319-2128.

____________________________________

OCA's web forum and chat room

__________________________________

Please forward this publication to family and friends, place it on websites, print it, duplicate it and post it freely. Knowledge is power!

Help others learn about food safety, organics, and related topics. Place a link on YOUR website to http://OrganicConsumers.org Banners for your use - http://OrganicConsumers.org/logos.htm
__________________________________

NOTE TO CO-OP AND NATURAL FOOD STORE SUBSCRIBERS:
Organic Bytes is a great tool for keeping your staff and customers up to date on the latest issues. Feel free to forward this email to your staff and print for posting on bulletin boards and staff break tables. You are also welcome to use this material for your newsletters. Within 24 hours of the release of each email version of Organic Bytes, an attractive print-friendly PDF version is posted and available for free download at http://www.organicconsumers.org/organicbytes.htm
_________________________________

ORGANIC BYTES is a publication of:
ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION
6771 South Silver Hill Drive
Finland, MN 55603
Phone: (218)-353-7454 Fax: (218) 353-7652

DONATE TO THE OCA
Donate Now!
http://www.organicconsumers.org/donations.htm

__________________________________

Subscribe: http://www.organicconsumers.org/organicbytes.htm

Change your subscription settings to receive Organic Bytes as plain text here:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/campaign.cfm

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Breaking the Chains: Buy Local, Organic and Fair Made

karina — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:36:51 GMT

From: http://www.organicconsumers.org/btc.htm

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is proud to announce the launch of a new and ambitious global campaign called Breaking the Chains: Buy Local, Organic, and Fair Made. Beginning Earth Day Week (April 22- 29), OCA network volunteers began hosting hundreds of House Party potlucks across North America, where we gather with family and friends to share an organic meal, watch the new stimulating and entertaining 15 minute DVD called The True Cost of Food, and talk about how we can help “break the chains” of mindless and self-destructive consumerism.

The quality and range of America’s daily essentials is being dictated and degraded by a powerful network of Brand Name Bullies and Big Box chains. By “outsourcing” from sweatshops in the factories and fields, by cutting corners on public health and the environment, and by sucking up billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, business behemoths such as Wal-Mart, Monsanto, Starbucks and others have constructed a vast global shopping mall of cheap goods and conveniences, reinforced by a non-stop, 24/7 glut of multi-media distractions.

Fortunately, health-minded and ethically responsible consumers are rattling the chains of global corporate commerce. By patronizing local, independently owned stores, coops, restaurants, and coffee shops, and by shunning chain stores and socially irresponsible companies and brands, more and more consumers are rewarding producers and businesses that “do the right thing.” A good example of this international marketplace insurgency is the $30 billion global organic food market. At current rates of growth, most grocery store items in the industrialized world will be organic within 20 years, providing a solid livelihood for millions of small farmers around the world. Certified Fair Trade products are another important growth sector, with $500 million in annual sales.

__________________________________

WORKING TOGETHER TO BREAK THE CHAINS
The OCA believes that the next step in this greening and re-localization of the global economy is to take a more visible public stand. By working together, across communities and national borders, we can leverage the enormous collective economic clout of the world’s organic and ethically conscious consumers. To move us along this road, OCA invites you to participate!

__________________________________

HOST A HOUSE PARTY
Break the Chains by hosting an organic dinner. At hundreds of potlucks and dinners, OCA network members, friends, and family are dining on organic food and drink, watching a powerful and humorous 15 minute DVD called the "True Cost of Food" (suitable for viewing for both children and adults), and sharing ideas on how we can spread the movement to "Buy Local, Organic, and Fair Made." For a donation of $25 (to cover expenses), OCA will send you the "True Cost of Food" DVD, sample invitations to get people to attend your House party, and the OCA's Breaking the Chains Action Guide, with articles, ideas, and resources. [Click here for instructions on how to obtain your DVD and set-up your House Party]

In September, Organic Harvest Month, OCA will organize another round of House Parties and community events. Finally, starting November 25 (the day after Thanksgiving), OCA and our allies will organize a series of Global Days of Action to kick-off Buy Local Month, which will extend until New Year's Day 2006. During this period OCA will attempt to get over one million consumers to sign our petition and take the "Buy Local, Organic, and Fair Made" pledge, to boycott the chains, and to align our values with our consumer dollars.

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

OCA: How Organics Can Help Break the Chains of U.S. Dependence on Foreign Oil

karina — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:34:53 GMT

http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/foreignoil0705.cfm

OCA: How Organics Can Help Break the Chains of U.S. Dependence on Foreign Oil

EDITORIAL ADVISORY Ryan Zinn 415-271-6833
June 30, 2005 ryan at organicconsumers.org
Adam Eidinger 202-744-2671

From Farm to Fork: How Much Oil Did You Eat Today? Depending on Cheap, Imported Oil is Risky Business

NATIONWIDE - Every day millions of American consumers purchase food from grocery store chains without giving much thought to the oil and energy resources involved in chemical-intensive industrial agriculture and long distance food transportation. To promote health, sustainability, and Fair Trade, and to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and non-renewable energy sources, the Organic Consumer's Association has launched a new consumer education campaign called Breaking the Chains: Buy Local, Organic and Fair Made.

Agriculture directly accounts for 17% of all the energy used in the U.S. Petroleum-derived agricultural chemicals such as synthetic fertilizers (12 Billion pounds per year), pesticides and herbicides (a billion pounds per year), account for more than half of all on-farm energy use. According to the Earth Policy Institute, the U.S. food system, from actual food production (synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, etc.), energy for irrigation, transportation, to refrigeration packaging & preparation, uses enough energy equal to supply all of France's annual energy needs.

Food today travels farther than ever, with the average item of food traveling an average of 1600 miles from farm to fork. Processed foods, on average travel 3600 miles from farm to fork. As food travels farther, energy use soars. According to Brian Halweil of Worldwatch Institute, a typical meal bought from a conventional supermarket chain uses four to 17 times more petroleum for transport than the same meal using locally produced ingredients. As a result the food industry is dependent on cheap, imported petroleum products, which are getting more expensive by the day. Oil prices have recently moved above $60 a barrel mark, a record, as robust U.S. demand, apparently unimpeded by high fuel costs, strains global production and refining capacity.

But even with a major reduction in food transportation mileage, rising oil prices will inevitably inflate food prices, unless food is grown organically (without synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, etc.). When food is produced organically, the need for pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, which require oil to manufacture, is eliminated. High prices for natural gas in the United States have increased the cost of nitrogen fertilizer by more than 40 percent in the past two years. As a result of increased production costs for U.S. food, more and more wholesalers, manufacturers and retail chains are turning abroad for their food purchases. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. now imports more agricultural goods than it exports.

The choice facing Americans is clear. Buying local and organic foods over the long term will result in a more sustainable food distribution system we can afford, even as oil prices continue to rise. By encouraging consumers to buy local, organic, and Fair Made, we can improve public health, preserve the environment, and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

###

ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION · 6101 CLIFF ESTATE ROAD · LITTLE MARAIS, MN 55614 USA
Telephone: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652· email: adam at organicconsumers.org www.organicconsumers.org

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

store wars

acoustichrmny — Wed, 18 May 2005 00:04:56 GMT

http://www.storewars.org/flash/index.html

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

sustainable cuisine in SF -- june 1st-5th

Melanie — Sun, 29 May 2005 22:57:01 GMT

Howdy,

Just letting you know that lots of restaurants in SF will be serving special dishes made with all sustainably-grown/organic ingredients as part of the U.N. World Environment Day week from June 1st - 5th. The list of participating restaurants is pretty long! If you're eating out during the WED week, check out the list and support our city's most conscientious chefs!

Sustainable Cuisine Program/Restaurant List:
http://www.omorganics.org/page.php?pageid=73

World Environment Day:
http://www.wed2005.org

There're also two special events during the WED week:
- Thu 6/2: Cooking class and luncheon at Viking HomeChef with Eric Tucker of Millennium and local organic farmers. 4 courses - $25.

- Sun 6/5: Straight-From-The-Farm organic dinner at Globe Restaurant. 4 courses (choose from a list) - $30.

More info on reserving a spot for either can be found at the omorganics.org link above!

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

millions against monsanto

acoustichrmny — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:48:34 GMT

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/roundup040605.cfm
---
More Evidence that Monsanto's Herbicide Roundup is Toxic

April 5, 2005

This article just out in the journal Ecological Applications...

Roundup(r) Highly Lethal to Amphibians in Natural Setting, Finds University of Pittsburgh Researcher

Some species totally eliminated PITTSBURGH-The herbicide Roundup(r) is widely used to eradicate weeds.

But a study published today by a University of Pittsburgh researcher finds that the chemical may be eradicating much more than that.

Pitt assistant professor of biology Rick Relyea found that Roundup(r), the second most commonly applied herbicide in the United States, is "extremely lethal" to amphibians. This field experiment is one of the most extensive studies on the effects of pesticides on nontarget organisms in a natural setting, and the results may provide a key link to global amphibian declines.

In a paper titled "The Impact of Insecticides and Herbicides on the Biodiversity and Productivity of Aquatic Communities," published in the journal Ecological Applications, Relyea examined how a pond's entire community-25 species, including crustaceans, insects, snails, and tadpoles-responded to the addition of the manufacturers' recommended doses of two insecticides-Sevin(r) (carbaryl) and malathion-and two herbicides-Roundup(r) (glyphosate) and 2,4-D.

Relyea found that Roundup(r) caused a 70 percent decline in amphibian biodiversity and an 86 percent decline in the total mass of tadpoles.

Leopard frog tadpoles and gray tree frog tadpoles were completely eliminated and wood frog tadpoles and toad tadpoles were nearly eliminated. One species of frog, spring peepers, was unaffected.

"The most shocking insight coming out of this was that Roundup(r), something designed to kill plants, was extremely lethal to amphibians," said Relyea, who conducted the research at Pitt's Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology. "We added Roundup(r), and the next day we looked in the tanks and there were dead tadpoles all over the bottom."

Relyea initially conducted the experiment to see whether the Roundup(r) would have an indirect effect on the frogs by killing their food source, the algae. However, he found that Roundup(r), although an herbicide, actually increased the amount of algae in the pond because it killed most of the frogs.

"It's like killing all the cows in a field and seeing that the field has more grass in it-not because you made the grass grow better, but because you killed everything that eats grass," he said.

Previous research had found that the lethal ingredient in Roundup(r) was not the herbicide itself, glyphosate, but rather the surfactant, or detergent, that allows the herbicide to penetrate the waxy surfaces of plants. In Roundup(r), that surfactant is a chemical called polyehtoxylated tallowamine. Other herbicides have less dangerous surfactants: For example, Relyea's study found that 2,4-D had no effect on tadpoles.

"We've repeated the experiment, so we're confident that this is, in fact, a repeatable result that we see," said Relyea. "It's fair to say that nobody would have guessed Roundup(r) was going to be so lethal to amphibians."
----
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.html

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

check out new tribe

emilythelime — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 23:59:04 GMT

hello beautiful organic nuts

this tribe rocks. it's reassuring to know that other people care so much about human health and the health of the planet. and to see posts like the OCA update here- I get to so excited because that means I'm far from the only one keeping up with groups like this.

I'm inviting you all to check out organica.tribe.net
hope to see you there

peace

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

new here

djsonar — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:08:42 GMT

Hi every body pleased to meet you. I grew up in an organic houshold my fathers been in the industry before it was even called Organic! Ive been very impressed with the level of awareness in this tribe. Thnaks Karina and everyone:)

M

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Come Clean Campaign - USDA Continuing to Allow Bogus "Organic" Labels on Certain Body Care Products

karina — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:44:17 GMT

http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/index.htm

Press Release:

USDA Continuing to Allow Bogus "Organic" Labels on Certain Body Care Products

Target of 2005 Consumer Education Campaign

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 23, 2005

CONTACT: Craig Minowa 320-384-7764
Craig@OrganicConsumers.org
Adam Eidinger 202-744-2671 Adam@OrgranicConsumers.org

USDA Responds to OCA Hydrosol Complaint

OCA to Coordinate "Open Source" Project for Organic Personal Care Ingredients

WASHINGTON, DC - The USDA has formally responded to the Organic Consumer Association's (OCA) complaint regarding cosmetic companies counting ordinary tap water as an "organic" ingredient in body care products. The USDA claims that it does not have jurisdiction over these matters, since this misleading "organic" labeling technique is not being used in food products. In a March 9 letter, USDA stated: ³The U.S. Department of Agriculture (Department) has not asserted jurisdiction over the ultimate labeling of personal care products. Accordingly, the allegations regarding the ultimate labeling of personal care products are dismissed as moot."

At issue are hydrosol water extracts, the water byproduct of steam distillation of plant material for essential oils. In order to make individual body care products appear to consumers to have a much higher percentage of organic ingredients, several cosmetic companies have been using hydrosols to count the ordinary water from steam as "organic." Organic consumers and companies claim this is problematic, given that recent studies by Rutgers University have verified that the majority of hydrosols is ordinary water from steam, not the plant.

Including ordinary water as an "organic" ingredient could not be allowed under the USDA National Organic Program for foods, as the central tenet of the NOP is that a product¹s organic content be determined without factoring water one way or another. Yet this practice is used by companies to make prominent labeling claims as high as "70 percent organic" on body care products that, in actuality, contain few organic ingredients. Hydrosols were also briefly marketed to food companies for uses in sauces and soups to enable inflated organic labeling claims before OCA filed the formal complaint, but ceased after the complaint was filed. Since then, no food company has actually purchased hydrosol water extracts for the sake of inflating organic labeling claims, unlike personal care companies. Thus, NOP ruled the issue was moot.

"We're pleased that the filing of the complaint stopped food companies from counting ordinary water as an organic ingredient," said Craig Minowa, an Environmental Scientist with the OCA. "However, the USDA's refusal to address this same issue in body care products leaves a regulatory vacuum in that problematic sector." In an effort to protect consumers from misleading "organic" labeling claims while supporting the organic industry, the OCA has announced it will be assisting personal care companies to identify and source functional organic ingredients. An exploratory meeting was held with body care companies at the Expo West show in Anaheim, California, regarding cooperative organic ingredient sourcing and information sharing. Participants were enthusiastic, and a fully developed program and website will be formally unveiled in the coming months. The OCA also commissioned Rutgers University in the summer of 2004 to do a further study using deuterated or "heavy" water during distillation of plant material to precisely measure the relative contribution of ordinary water from steam versus plant juice in hydrosol water extracts. This study was completed last year and the formal Rutgers report will be released later next month. The results should aid companies and certifiers in ascertaining the relative organic juice contribution of hydrosol water extracts make to multi-ingredient personal care products. In the meantime, the OCA says it will continue its watchdog role of the organic body care industry, which is especially needed in the absence of regulatory oversight from the USDA.

The OCA is a grassroots nonprofit organization concerned with food safety, organic farming, sustainable agriculture, fair trade and genetic engineering.
###
ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION · 6101 CLIFF ESTATE ROAD · LITTLE MARAIS, MN 55614 USA
Telephone: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652·
email: info@organicconsumers.org
www.organicconsumers.org

See a list of the over 300 body care related businesses who have signed on to endorse this OCA campaign! Thousands of consumers have signed on, as well.

The OCA believes that organic body care standards should mirror organic food standards, which stipulate a mandatory 70 percent minimum weight of non-water/non-salt agricultural organic content in a product for a "Made with Organic Ingredients" label claim to be made on the front panel. This means that:

*

Certified organic agricultural feedstocks are utilized in the manufacture of the key basic cleansing and conditioning ingredients, versus petroleum or conventional feedstocks.
*

Manufacture of such ingredients is ecological.
*

The toxicity of each ingredient is minimal
*

Non-agricultural water is not counted in any shape or form as contributing to organic content.

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

Safeguards Organic Standards Campaign

karina — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:41:43 GMT

Safeguard Organic Standards Campaign

Stung by a nationwide backlash by Organic Consumers Association members and the entire organic community, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced May 26 that it would rescind controversial policies issued last month that would have undermined organic standards and violated federal law requiring public input.

In April, the USDA announced that it would no longer monitor organic labels on non-food products, and added that pesticides, animal drugs, growth hormones, antibiotics, and tainted fishmeal would be allowed on organic farms. In response to this frontal assault on organic integrity, the OCA immediately sent out an Action Alert and launched a media campaign to pressure the USDA into reversing its controversial directives.

Thanks to all of you in our network, within two days, over 5,000 petition signatures were gathered and a landslide of faxes, emails and phone calls hit the USDA and National Organic Program offices. Amplifying OCA efforts, other public interest groups such as the Consumers Union and the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture joined the fray, while the Organic Trade Association rallied industry support. Meanwhile a class action lawsuit against the USDA was being prepared by Dr. Bronners (an organic soap and hemp bar company), the OCA, and others. The USDA ultimately capitulated on May 26, when it became clear that America's 30 million organic consumers were not going to accept the agency's dictatorial practices.

Unfortunately, consumers are still being locked out of many important policy discussions at the USDA, and of course Congress is still subsidizing--with our tax dollars--genetically engineered crops, factory farms, and chemical-intensive agriculture to the tune of $20-30 billion a year, while giving crumbs (less than $5 million annually) to organic programs for research, promotion, and monitoring. But the OCA, with your support, will continue to safeguard organic standards and move organic agriculture from a $15 billion dollar industry to becoming the dominant force in America's $800 billion food and fiber market.

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

Food Bytes

karina — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:38:56 GMT

Food Bytes
Posted on March 17th, 2005.
Posted in: Site News.

Beijing supermarket consumers are told to watch out for fake organic foods.

Consumers are being warned to watch out for fake organic food, which could account for about 10 per cent of all sales of “green” food in the capital.

Food producers in China have to follow a stricter rule to use the word “fresh” when advertising their products.
Beijing Consumers Association, which has conducted a survey into organic food, discovered much food labelled organic on sale in the city was fake.

The survey found that, in a random selection of 268 goods labelled organic, including rice, oil, eggs, vegetables and drinks, 25 samples were counterfeit.

Well, I would not be surprised if the same problem occurs here in the US as well. I’m so glad we have the Organic Consumers Association to keep consumers aware of changes happening to the USDA National Organics Program. There are some discussions going on at the moment about tightening up the national organic standards, so that synthetic ingredients that have been allowed in the processing and handling of organic foods would no longer be used. Definitely something I will keep an eye on.

From: http://www.greendigit.com/

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

OCA Alert

karina — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:36:27 GMT

Organics at a Crossroads

"Regime change" seems to be in the air this fall; whether we are talking about personal lifestyle changes, converting the marketplace, or transforming the political arena. Millions are saying "No!" to junk foods, frankenfoods, pesticides, industrial agriculture, and the general "Wal-Martization" of American life.

Hopeful trends, such as the growth of the organic food and holistic health sector, suggest that a critical mass of consumers are beginning to comprehend that our personal and family's health and well-being are directly related to what we eat and drink, what we breathe into our lungs, and what we wear or apply to our skin.

In terms of organic food, demand is growing so fast that most grocery items sold in North American and European supermarkets will likely be labeled "organic" within 20 years. The question is, how "organic" will they be? Genetically engineered crops, namely corn, canola, cotton, and soybeans, are already starting to contaminate the fields and seed stocks of organic and traditional indigenous farmers. Big corporations are lining up to buy out organic companies, monopolize retail outlets, and work with government bureaucrats to lower organic standards.
www.organicconsumers.org/organ...ave090604.cfm

The biotech and agri-toxics lobby are planting stories in the press, claiming that organic foods are neither safer nor better than industrial foods.
www.organicconsumers.org/organ...ttack090704.cfm

Congress doles out $25 billion a year to subsidize biotech and industrial agriculture, while family farmers, who desperately need help to convert to organic and sustainable practices, are getting next to nothing.

And finally, global treaties such as NAFTA and the WTO are programmed for disaster, designed to enthrone biotech and industrial agriculture, while driving two billion farmers and rural villagers off the land and into urban slums.
www.organicconsumers.org/corp/...s090604.cfm

We need to meet up and move together, as a massive organic consumer bloc and body politic, and change course.
*
We need to raise significant funds and raise mass consciousness.
*
We need to reward the farmers, the organic companies, and the politicians who are doing the "right thing," and put the "Biodevastators" on notice that regime change is coming.
* What You Can Do:

Vote with your consumer dollar! By supporting products and businesses that are established on the principles of Fair Trade and sustainable agriculture, you're putting your money where your mouth is. One way you can save money, support positive products, and the OCA, all at the same time, is by purchasing a $10 OCA Organic Coupon book, containing up to $400 worth of savings on nationally distributed products (for a detailed list of coupons, click here).

Please give us your support now, so we can expand our nationwide public education and mobilization activities... both before and after the upcoming November elections.

Save money and help the OCA by buying one or more of the OCA's Organic Coupon Books for $10 (up to $400 in savings). See a detailed list of the coupons here: www.organicconsumers.org/coupo...ndex.cfm
Host an OCA House Party and show the new highly acclaimed film, "The Future of Food," by Debra Koons Garcia. www.organicconsumers.org/party.htm
Donate: All contributions are tax-deductible. www.organicconsumers.org/donation.htm
Stay tuned to Organic Bytes and our website www.organicconsumers.org for the latest news and developments.

Bon Appetit,
Ronnie Cummins

ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION
6101 Cliff Estate Road
Little Marais, MN 55614
Phone: (218) 226-4164 Fax: (218) 353-7652

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

PlanetOrganics

karina — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:27:50 GMT

Has anyone here had a love story to share with Planet Organics?

http://www.planetorganics.com

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Natural Products Expo West

Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:22:10 GMT

Is anyone here attending the big show in Anaheim this weekend? I'm going to search out some new and interesting organic products for my natural product review weblog @ http://www.greendigit.com If you are heading that way, lets have a bite!

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

Farmer's Markets Specializing in Organic Foods

karina — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:17:00 GMT

What are some of your recommendations for Farmer's Markets in the Bay Area that special in Organic foods? Spring, Summer and Fall harvest are just around the corner :)

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Best Places to find organic food in the Bay Area

karina — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:39:35 GMT

I would highly recommend from my experience the following places to find organic food in the Bay Area:

(The ones below are specific to Santa Cruz and beyond, please contribute other cities):

* The Food Bin in Santa Cruz, CA
The Food Bin - 1130 Mission St., Santa Cruz, CA 95060. 831-423-5575.

* New Leaf Community Market & Deli - 3159 Hwy. 9, Boulder Creek, CA 95006. 831-338-7211.

* New Leaf Community Market & Deli - 1210 41st Ave., Capitola, CA 95060. 831-479-7987.

* New Leaf Community Market & Deli - 6240 Hwy. 9, Felton, CA 95018. 831-335-7322.

* New Leaf Community Market & Deli - 2351 Mission St., Santa Cruz, CA 95060. 831-426-1299.

New Leaf Community Market & Deli - 1134 Pacific Ave., Santa Cruz, CA 95060. 831-425-1793.

-----> http://www.newleaf.com

Staff of Life Natural Foods Market, Deli & Bakery - 1305 Water St., Santa Cruz, CA 95062. 831-423-8632.

*Some* Trader Joe's products
----> http://www.traderjoes.com

* Whole Foods & Half Foods
----> http://www.wholefoods.com

* Local Farmer's Markets
----> http://www.nrdc.org/greengate/guides/markets.asp

* Kresge Food Co-op - USCS Kresge College, Santa Cruz, CA 95061. 408-426-1506. Student-run cooperative health food store located at Kresge College on the University of California, Santa Cruz campus.
----> http://k9.dv8.org/~coop/

Places to find more information about organic farming in the Bay:

California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) - 1115 Mission Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. 831-423-2263 or toll-free: 888-423-2263. CCOF helped plant the seeds that grew the organic movement into an industry. Founded in 1973, CCOF was one of the first organizations to certify organic farms in North America. In 1990, CCOF founded the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) to fund research related to organic farming practices. CCOF is a member of the Organic Trade Association (OTA), OTA's Certifiers Council (OCC), and the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM). CCOF is a nonprofit, that consists of regional chapters. Online catalog featuring: videos, books, t-shirts, & hats.

-----> http://www.ccof.org/

WWOOF-USA - 309 Cedar Street #5C, Santa Cruz, CA, 95060. 831-425 - FARM (3276) (voicemail). Worldwide Opportunities on Organic Farms, USA is part of a world-wide effort to link volunteers with organic farmers, promote an educational exchange, and build a global community conscious of ecological farming practices. Our organization produces a quarterly directory of organic farmers in the United States who are willing to host volunteers on their land.

----> http://www.wwoofusa.org/

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

SF VegNews Magazine: January 2005 Newsletter

karina — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 04:34:16 GMT

* January 2005 Edition *
Brought to you by VegNews Magazine
vegnews.com http://www.vegnews.com/

*In this issue*
• Don't Miss the Veggie Awards Bash
• VegNews Magazine on "Wife Swap"
• Inside the New Issue
• Inside the 2005 Wedding Boxes
• Warm, Nourishing Vegetarian Soups
• Hot New Product! Vegan Marshmellow Cream
• Coming Up in February's VegNewsletter

Thanks so much for your interest in VegNews, America's premier
vegetarian lifestyle magazine. The popular "VegNewsletter" arrives
in your e-mailbox just once a month and is filled with vegetarian
news, tidbits, recipes, products, reviews, and more. It's the perfect
accompaniment to a VegNews subscription.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* San Francisco Veggie Award Bash *
http://r.vresp.com/?VegNewsMagazine/330e90dd75/279757/8ef5c3ece6/beb6ace
Don't miss the veg event of the year! Celebrate the San Francisco winners of the 2004 VegNews Veggie Awards with Mayor Gavin Newsom, Julia Butterfly Hill, VegNews Magazine and Millennium Restaurant. The wine will be pouring, organic hors d'oeuvres abundant, soy lattes brewing, and the excitement astonishing as
we honor the best of the best in the vegetarian industry. Winners being recognized are Millennium (Best Vegetarian Restaurant), Eric Tucker (Best Vegetarian Chef), Ferry Plaza Market (Best Farmer's Market), Whole Soy Yogurt (Best Dairy-Free Yogurt), Herbivore Restaurant (Best Vegan Brunch), Rainbow Natural Foods (Best Health Food Store), and San Francisco (Most Veg-Friendly
City). Winners in other categories will also be present to share their top-rated products, including wine tasting by Frey Vineyards, herbal coffees by Teeccino, and vegan chocolate by Tropical Source.

Wednesday, February 9
5:30PM to 7:30PM
Millennium Restaurant
$40 (advance reservations required)

Don't miss out on this exciting evening of food, wine & good ole organic fun! Tickets are very limited and are selling fast, so call Erica or Paula at 415.345.3900 x 11 today to reserve yourself a spot.

Click here to read more about the VegNews Veggie Award Bash
http://r.vresp.com/?VegNewsMagazine/330e90dd75/279757/8ef5c3ece6/beb6ace

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* VegNews Magazine on Hit Show "Wife Swap" *

The wedding edition of VegNews Magazine will be featured on an upcoming episode of the new hit reality series, "Wife Swap." Being shown on television will provide excellent exposure for the magazine, and we'll be sure to let readers know the air date once it's announced. Check back on our website frequently to ensure you don't miss our television debut!

http://r.vresp.com/?VegNewsMagazine/37f2a9f5b5/279757/8ef5c3ece6/beb6ace

http://r.vresp.com/?VegNewsMagazine/37f2a9f5b5/279757/8ef5c3ece6/beb6ace

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://r.vresp.com/?VegNewsMagazine/bc5b6d2f52/279757/8ef5c3ece6/beb6ace *
Inside the 2004 Wedding Issue *

If you haven't seen a copy of our 2005 Vegan Wedding Edition, what are you waiting for? Readers have called it the "best ever," and copies are flying off the newsstand shelves. Each year, VegNews showcases eight spectacular vegan couples and their weddings in our January/February edition. From food to favors and tuxedos to honeymoon destinations, you'll learn how these couples created
the compassionate weddings of their dreams. Chosen from a pool of dozens of applicants hoping to be featured in this issue, these eight couples planned elegant, stylish and unforgettable weddings that will inspire everyone.

Of course, we've got more than just weddings in this issue. How about vegetarian aphrodisiacs (ooh la la), vacationing in Maui, sumptuous appetizers, vegan bakeries, the top 10 veg stories of 2004... plus all of the latest news, must-read books, global events, the hottest new veg products, celebrity buzz, and so much more. Pick up a copy today!

Click here to purchase the wedding issue right now
http://r.vresp.com/?VegNewsMagazine/bc5b6d2f52/279757/8ef5c3ece6/beb6ace

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A Peak Inside the 2005 Wedding Boxes *

http://r.vresp.com/?VegNewsMagazine/aef12f98c4/279757/8ef5c3ece6/beb6ace
Speaking of weddings, we couldn’t resist sharing the top-notch contents of the 2005 wedding boxes. Generously provided by VeganEssentials.com, one of the most popular online veg superstores, each of our eight couples featured in the January/February wedding issue were sent a box. Inside were a BeansWax soy candle, chocolate truffles from Givere, and massage oil from Nature’s Acres. Couples also received a one-year subscription to VegNews along with our signature oversized tote bag. No wonder we had so many applicants! You may now kiss the bride.

Click to peruse all of Vegan Essentials cruelty-free items
http://r.vresp.com/?VegNewsMagazine/aef12f98c4/279757/8ef5c3ece6/beb6ace

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Nourishing Vegetarian Soups *

http://r.vresp.com/?VegNewsMagazine/1e775942cf/279757/8ef5c3ece6/beb6ace
The weather is cold, and that calls for warm, nourishing soup! While miso soup is the fastest to make, it doesn't have that wonderful aroma and cozy feeling of a hearty bowl of soup. Still, when time is tight, miso soup is as tasty and healthful as any soup there is. For two servings, in a small pot, boil two cups of water. When it's boiling, turn off the heat and add one to two tablespoons of miso paste, depending on how strong you want the flavor to be (miso is sold in the refrigerated section of natural food stores and most supermarkets.). Stir thoroughly to dissolve. Optional additions include chopped green onion (scallions) or sliced red or yellow onion, small cubes of fresh tofu, and any other vegetables you like. These additions should be added to the boiling water before the miso is added.

Recently, I discovered another fairly quick soup that's also delicious: Garbanzo Bean & Tomato Soup from Jennifer Raymond's The Peaceful Palate. Using canned organic tomatoes makes the preparation even faster. Two cups of chopped cabbage is less than one quarter of a large head, so any leftover chunks of cabbage from
another meal are perfect for this. Green cabbage makes a prettier soup, but red cabbage works just as well. You can even substitute dried parsley for the fresh. I hope you like it as much as I do!

Garbanzo Bean & Tomato Soup

2 teaspoons olive oil
1 onion, chopped
1 garlic clove, crushed
1 cup chopped tomatoes, fresh or canned
2 cups cabbage, chopped
1 potato, diced (peel first if using a russet potato)
1/4 cup finely chopped fresh parsley
4 cups water or vegetable stock
One 15-ounce can garbanzo beans, drained and rinsed
1 teaspoon paprika
1/4 teaspoon black pepper
1/2 to 1 teaspoon salt

Heat the oil in a large pot and sauté the onion until soft, about 3-5 minutes. Add the garlic, tomatoes, cabbage, potato, parsley, water or stock, garbanzo beans, paprika, and black pepper. Simmer until the potato and cabbage are tender, about 15 minutes. Ladle approximately 3 cups of the soup into a blender. Starting on a low speed, blend until smooth, making sure to hold the lid on tightly. Return the blended soup to the pot and stir to mix, adding salt to taste.

http://r.vresp.com/?VegNewsMagazine/1e775942cf/279757/8ef5c3ece6/beb6ace

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Hot New Item: Vegan Marshmallow Fluff *

http://r.vresp.com/?VegNewsMagazine/648db9b029/279757/8ef5c3ece6/beb6ace
In late 2004, the VegNews staff started to hear rumors of a vegan Marshmallow Cream coming to the market. Imagine our delight when discovering the sweet, fluffy Ricemellow Crème at a trade show, especially as it was oozing out of warm s’mores. We’ve since tried it in rice crispy treats, on hot chocolate and even in a Ricemellow and peanut butter sandwich. This will be your new favorite indulgence! The company also makes a delicious line of flavored Rice Syrups (the chocolate variety tastes wonderful with the Ricemellow Creme).

Click here to learn more about Ricemellow Creme
http://r.vresp.com/?VegNewsMagazine/648db9b029/279757/8ef5c3ece6/beb6ace

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Preview of the February VegNewsletter*

You won't want to miss the next "Chocolate" edition of the VegNewsletter. Plus we've got loads of great veggie tidbits and information to arrive in e-mailboxes everywhere in February.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please help us get the word out. We'd be most grateful if you could share this edition of the VegNewsletter with your friends, family, colleagues and any related lists you're on. If this issue was forwarded to you, please visit our home page at vegnews.com <http://www.vegnews.com/> to begin receiving your own
copy each month. Past editions are available for your enjoyment by clicking on "See our past VegNewsletters" at vegnews.com <http://www.vegnews.com/>.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVACY POLICY: We don't share your information with anyone. Period. And we don't want to be anyone's junk mail. If you no longer wish to receive the VegNewsletter, please reply to us with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe http://unsub.vresp.com/u.html?42b9c29ab2/8ef5c3ece6/beb6ace

VegNews Magazine
PO Box 320130
San Francisco, CA 94132
415-665-NEWS (24-hour hotline)

Read http://www.verticalresponse.com/content/pm_policy.html the
VerticalResponse marketing policy.

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

For those who eat Organic Vegetarian Food - Here's a list of newsletters

karina — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:35:56 GMT

http://www.bayareaveg.org/
http://www.rawguru.com/html/issue5.html
http://www.treeoflife.nu/familynews.html
http://www.treeoflife.nu/cafenewsletter2.html
http://www.treeoflife.nu/cafenewsletter1.html
http://www.thebestdayever.com
http://www.llu.edu/llu/vegetarian/
http://www.hos.ufl.edu/vegetarian/vegetarian_index_page.htm
http://mylist.net/listinfo/veggietable
http://www.happycow.net/newsletter.html
http://www.fabulousfoods.com/community/mailings/veg.html
http://www.savvyvegetarian.com/newsletter/index.shtml
http://www.envirolink.org/resource.html?itemid=3680&catid=6
http://veggietable.allinfo-about.com/
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art465.asp
http://veggietable.allinfo-about.com/newsletter/nl-archives.html
http://www.vegkitchen.com/advertise.htm#subscribers
http://www.sfvs.org/benefits.php#enewsletter
http://www.vegetarianorganiclife.com/
http://www.vegetarianorganiclife.com/about.htm
http://www.vegetarianstuff.com/links/Publications/Newsletters/
http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vegetarian_weight_loss_newsletter.htm
http://www.veganoutreach.org/enewsletter/
http://www.veganoutreach.org/newsletter/
http://vrg.org/
http://vegetarian.lifetips.com/OurGurus.asp
http://www.vegetariantimes.com/subscribe.cfm
http://www.vegfamily.com/
http://www.bootsnall.com/tk/interact/vegtravel.shtml
http://vegweb.com/newsletter/
http://vegetarian.miningco.com/

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

EW REPORT ON WIDESPREAD ROCKET FUEL POLLUTION IN NATION'S FOOD AND WATER

karina — Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:46:37 GMT

From: http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/011405.cfm
perchlorates: NEW REPORT ON WIDESPREAD ROCKET FUEL POLLUTION IN NATION'S FOOD AND WATER
CLICK HERE TO SEND INSTANT LETTER TO YOUR SENATORS!

1/14/2005

This week the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released its long anticipated report on the human health effects of perchlorates, a byproduct of rocket fuel. Perchlorates, which are a common pollutant near military sites, have recently been found in the water at concerning levels in 35 states as well as in 93% of lettuce and milk.

The government funded NAS report reveals that perchlorates are roughly ten times more toxic to humans than the Department of Defense has been claiming. Perchlorates can inhibit thyroid function, cause birth defects and lower IQs, and are considered particularly dangerous to children. Due to pressure on congress from the U.S. military complex, there are currently no federal environmental policies regulating perchlorates.

The new NAS report recommends human exposure at no more than .0007 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. If this were developed into an actual drinking water standard, it would translate into no more than around 20ppb for drinking water. This is bad news for military sites and rocket fuel plants around the country, including Henderson, Nevada, where EPA well monitoring has found perchlorates at a level 30,000 times higher than that. Again, due to lack of federal policy on perchlorates, this excessive pollution is currently legal.

To date, only one Senator has had the backbone to propose legislation that would hold the military (and other perchlorate polluters) responsible for this excessive pollution of the U.S. food and water supply.

Feinstein proposes legislation that would spend $200 million to identify and clean up perchlorate sources and provide grants for technologies to clean up existing contamination. She also plans to seek a new federal limit for perchlorate in drinking water and hold perchlorate polluters responsible for cleanup efforts.

"It is imperative that we reduce the perchlorate in our drinking water and protect Californians, especially pregnant women, the unborn, infants, and young children from this threat to their health," said Feinstein of the bill

21st CENTURY TIMELINE OF U.S. ROCKET FUEL POLLUTION SCANDAL

* 2002: EPA releases draft report highlighting widespread water contamination of a toxic rocket fuel byproduct known as perchlorate. The report indicates that most of the pollution is coming from U.S. military sites. [Source]
* January 2003 : Courtroom proceedings reveal that aerospace and defense contractor Lockheed Martin was concealing documents for several years indicating the company knew about toxic levels of percholate contamination in the nation's vegetable produce. [Source]
* March 2003: California's Senator Feinstein demands the military clean up perchlorate pollution as a matter of public safety. The Department of Defense responds by saying it should be exempt from perchlorate liability, as a matter of anti-terrorist "readiness." [Source].
*
April 2003: Bush Administration puts gag order on the Environmental Protection Agency, mandating complete silence regarding military perchlorate pollution and human health impacts. [Source]
* November 2004: FDA finds perchlorate in 93% of lettuce and milk samples across the nation. Bush Administration requests no regulatory action take place until the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concludes investigation of human health implications. [Source]
* January 2005: NAS announces perchlorates are as much as ten times as toxic as what the Department of Defense had been claiming. Senator Feinstein of California announces forthcoming bill proposal to create federal perchlorate regulations and to allocate funding for clean-up of existing contamination. [Source]

http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/perchlorate010605.cfm

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Pesticide Companies Worry About Growing Movement for Organic Lawns & Gardens

karina — Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:42:25 GMT

http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/beyondorg012005.cfm

Pesticide Companies Worry About Growing Movement for Organic Lawns & Gardens

U.S. lawn-care industry fighting back against pesticide bans

By JOAN LOWY
Scripps Howard News Service
January 17, 2005

- Fearing that a Canadian movement to ban the use of pesticides on lawns
will take root in the United States, the lawn-care industry has thrown down
the gauntlet - literally.

"The gloves are off," declares an industry ad running in trade magazines
under a picture of masculine-looking leather gardening gloves lying atop a
lush green lawn.

"Yes, legislation and regulations have been throwing the green industry
some rough punches," the ad says. "And we're about to start fighting back."

The ads are underwritten by Project Evergreen, a trade association formed
by pesticide makers, applicators, garden centers and mower manufacturers
that plans to launch a national public-relations campaign this spring
touting the health and lifestyle benefits of thick, green lawns.

The green industry, as the lawn-products industry calls itself, has reason
to worry. Increasing concern about the impact of pesticides and synthetic
fertilizers on human health and the environment is fueling a movement to ban
or restrict the "cosmetic" or "aesthetic" use of artificial chemicals for
lawns and gardens.

In Canada, the province of Quebec and nearly 70 cities and towns -
including Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Halifax - have passed laws
banning or restricting the use of pesticides for lawn care.

Some activists are predicting that pesticides will become the next tobacco.
"Pesticides are a bit like secondhand smoke - if you can smell your neighbor
using them on their property, then you're being exposed, too," said Michel
Gaudet, president of the Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, in St.
Bruno, Quebec.

The picture in the United States is more complicated. Over the last several
years, the pesticide industry has successfully lobbied state legislatures to
pass what are known as "pre-emption laws." These give states responsibility
for pesticide regulation and prevent cities and towns from enacting their
own laws. So far, 30 states have adopted pre-emption laws.

"Local communities generally do not have the expertise on issues about
pesticides to make responsible decisions," said Allen James, president of
RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment), a pesticide-industry
lobbying group. "Decisions are made much more carefully and the train moves
much more slowly" at the state level.

At the same time, however, 20 states have adopted laws requiring signs or
some sort of public notification when pesticides are applied to lawns.
Dozens of communities have also adopted policies barring or restricting the
use of pesticides on school property, public ball fields and parks.

Beyond Pesticides, an environmental group in Washington, has responded to
Project Evergreen's "gloves are off" ad with a copycat ad that features a
pair of feminine-looking gardening gloves decorated with daisies over the
headline, "Get a Grip."

"The chemical lawn care industry is worried that the word is getting out on
the toxic hazards of lawn pesticides," the ad says. "It is possible to have
a green lawn without toxic pesticides."

A team of medical researchers with the Ontario College of Family
Physicians, a Canadian professional society for family doctors, released a
report last year that analyzed 250 previously published epidemiological
studies from around the world on possible adverse effects of pesticides on
human health. The report found "consistent positive associations" between
popular pesticides used in lawn care and cancers, reproductive problems,
neurotoxic effects and other serious illnesses.

Pets and wildlife are at risk, too. Another study, by scientists at Purdue
University in Indiana, found that Scottish terriers were four to seven times
more likely to develop bladder cancer if they had been exposed to lawn
chemicals.

But industry officials say pesticides must pass 120 different tests before
they can be marketed in the United States. The Environmental Protection
Agency determines how much human exposure to a particular pesticide is safe.

However, roughly half of homeowners admit they don't read or follow label
directions when applying pesticides and synthetic fertilizers to lawns,
often using significantly more than the recommended amount, lawn-care
experts said.

"The unintended failure to follow some small part of the label - a minor
misapplication - does not jeopardize human health," James said. "It takes a
massive misuse of the product to cause harm."

The manufacture of specialty pesticides - lawn products as well as indoor
pest killers - is a $2.5 billion annual industry in the United States, James
said.

A recent survey sponsored by Organic Gardening magazine in conjunction with
the National Gardening Association estimates that of the 90 million U.S.
households with yards, about 5 million are exclusively using organic
methods, 31 million are using a combination of organic and chemical methods
and 35 million are using primarily chemical methods.

"This confirms what we've suspected for a long time, which is that a
significant portion of people are interested in or moving toward organic
methods," said Scott Meyer, editor of Organic Gardening. "Not everybody has
adopted the full idea of having an organic lifestyle, but a lot of people
are saying, 'I know what I don't want.' "

On the Net: www.projectevergreen.com

www.beyondpesticides.org

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Monsanto Still Suing Farmers for Saving Seeds.

karina — Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:40:12 GMT

http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsa...seedsave012105.cfm

Monsanto Still Suing Farmers for Saving Seeds

Monsanto sues farmers, calls them seed technology pirates
Associated Press
Posted Thursday, January 20, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO - Monsanto Co.'s "seed police" snared soy farmer Homan
McFarling in 1999 and the company is demanding he pay it hundreds of
thousands of dollars for alleged technology piracy.

McFarling's sin? He saved seed from one harvest and replanted it the
following season, a revered and ancient agricultural practice.

"My daddy saved seed. I saved seed," said McFarling, 62, who still grows soy
on the 5,000-acre family farm in Mississippi and is fighting the
agribusiness giant in court.

Saving Monsanto's seeds, genetically engineered to kill bugs and resist weed
sprays, violates provisions of the company's contracts with farmers.

Since 1997, Monsanto has filed similar lawsuits 90 times in 25 states
against 147 farmers and 39 agriculture companies, according to a report by
The Center for Food Safety, a biotechnology foe.

In a case a year ago, Tennessee farmer Kem Ralph was sued by Monsanto and
sentenced to eight months in prison after he was caught lying about a
truckload of cotton seed he hid for a friend.

Ralph's prison term is believed to be the first criminal prosecution linked
to Monsanto's crackdown. Ralph has also been ordered to pay Monsanto more
than $1.7 million.

The company said it annually investigates about 500 "tips" that farmers are
illegally using its seeds and settles many cases without suing.

Monsanto said it is attempting to protect its business from pirates in much
the same way the entertainment industry does when it sues underground
distributors of music, movies and video games.

In the process, it has turned farmer on farmer and sent private
investigators into small towns to ask prying questions of friends and
business acquaintances.

Monsanto's licensing contracts and litigation tactics are coming under
increased scrutiny as more of the planet's farmland comes under genetically
engineered cultivation.

Many of the farmers Monsanto has sued say that they didn't read the
company's technology agreement close enough. Others say they never received
an agreement.

The company counters that it sues only the most egregious violators and is
protecting the 300,000 law-abiding U.S. farmers who annually pay a premium
for its technology. Soy farmers, for instance, pay a "technology fee" of
about $6.50 an acre each year.

Some 85 percent of the nation's soy crop is genetically engineered to resist
Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, a trait that makes it easier to weed fields.

"It's a very efficient and cost-effective way to raise soy beans and that's
why the market has embraced it," said Ron Heck, who grows 900 acres of
genetically engineered soy beans in Perry, Iowa.

Heck, who is also chairman of the American Soybean Association, said he
appreciates Monsanto's crackdown on competitors who don't pay for their
seed. "You can save seed if you want to use the old technology," he said.

The company said the licensing agreement protects its more than 600
biotech-related patents and ensures a return on its research expenses of
more than $400 million a year.

The company said it has gone to trial five times and has never lost a legal
fight against an accused pirate.
Share your thoughts at OCA's web forum!

News | Campaigns | GE Food | Organics | Irradiation | Find Organics | Events
Mad Cow | Globalization | Cloning | rBGH | Food Safety | Newsletter | Search
Volunteer | Donate | About | Home | Recommend Site | Email This Page | Site Map

Organic Consumers Association
6101 Cliff Estate Rd, Little Marais, MN 55614
E-mail:Staff ·Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 ·Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Monsanto Still Suing Farmers for Selling Seeds...

karina — Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:39:20 GMT

http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/seedsave012105.cfm

Monsanto Still Suing Farmers for Saving Seeds

Monsanto sues farmers, calls them seed technology pirates
Associated Press
Posted Thursday, January 20, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO - Monsanto Co.'s "seed police" snared soy farmer Homan
McFarling in 1999 and the company is demanding he pay it hundreds of
thousands of dollars for alleged technology piracy.

McFarling's sin? He saved seed from one harvest and replanted it the
following season, a revered and ancient agricultural practice.

"My daddy saved seed. I saved seed," said McFarling, 62, who still grows soy
on the 5,000-acre family farm in Mississippi and is fighting the
agribusiness giant in court.

Saving Monsanto's seeds, genetically engineered to kill bugs and resist weed
sprays, violates provisions of the company's contracts with farmers.

Since 1997, Monsanto has filed similar lawsuits 90 times in 25 states
against 147 farmers and 39 agriculture companies, according to a report by
The Center for Food Safety, a biotechnology foe.

In a case a year ago, Tennessee farmer Kem Ralph was sued by Monsanto and
sentenced to eight months in prison after he was caught lying about a
truckload of cotton seed he hid for a friend.

Ralph's prison term is believed to be the first criminal prosecution linked
to Monsanto's crackdown. Ralph has also been ordered to pay Monsanto more
than $1.7 million.

The company said it annually investigates about 500 "tips" that farmers are
illegally using its seeds and settles many cases without suing.

Monsanto said it is attempting to protect its business from pirates in much
the same way the entertainment industry does when it sues underground
distributors of music, movies and video games.

In the process, it has turned farmer on farmer and sent private
investigators into small towns to ask prying questions of friends and
business acquaintances.

Monsanto's licensing contracts and litigation tactics are coming under
increased scrutiny as more of the planet's farmland comes under genetically
engineered cultivation.

Many of the farmers Monsanto has sued say that they didn't read the
company's technology agreement close enough. Others say they never received
an agreement.

The company counters that it sues only the most egregious violators and is
protecting the 300,000 law-abiding U.S. farmers who annually pay a premium
for its technology. Soy farmers, for instance, pay a "technology fee" of
about $6.50 an acre each year.

Some 85 percent of the nation's soy crop is genetically engineered to resist
Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, a trait that makes it easier to weed fields.

"It's a very efficient and cost-effective way to raise soy beans and that's
why the market has embraced it," said Ron Heck, who grows 900 acres of
genetically engineered soy beans in Perry, Iowa.

Heck, who is also chairman of the American Soybean Association, said he
appreciates Monsanto's crackdown on competitors who don't pay for their
seed. "You can save seed if you want to use the old technology," he said.

The company said the licensing agreement protects its more than 600
biotech-related patents and ensures a return on its research expenses of
more than $400 million a year.

The company said it has gone to trial five times and has never lost a legal
fight against an accused pirate.
Share your thoughts at OCA's web forum!

News | Campaigns | GE Food | Organics | Irradiation | Find Organics | Events
Mad Cow | Globalization | Cloning | rBGH | Food Safety | Newsletter | Search
Volunteer | Donate | About | Home | Recommend Site | Email This Page | Site Map

Organic Consumers Association
6101 Cliff Estate Rd, Little Marais, MN 55614
E-mail:Staff · Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

What if there were a healthy solution to harmful household products - would you be interested?

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:28:24 GMT

Hello, Jay and Shelley here,
Got some new exciting information for you - have a read!

As you know - my "big picture" is to eliminate expenses through healthy choices with a consumable product. It is true, I have been researching a company over the past 4 months after first being exposed to them at the Health symposium in the latter of 2004.

Shelley and I have decided to add it to our expense elimination program for the following reasons:
1) It is an amazing substitution to products we purchase weekly and highly consumable.
2) The products are highly versatile and create a very healthy environment for our home and bodies.
3) The testimonials are incredible both here in Canada and the US ( I witnessed it firsthand at the Richmond Private Golf & Country Club at a hosted event by the top Canadian Distributor)
4) The products replace the following products we use daily ( which by the way may have harmful ingredients such as Propylene Glycol, DEA, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS), Alcohol, Aluminum, Talc and many more. Here are the everyday products they replace:
a) Body soap, hand soap, bath soap,
b) toothpaste
c) Shampoo, Conditioner, Moisturizer ( body, face )
d) First Aid applications, Sunburn applications,
e) Greens products and Flax products
f) Laundry soap, Dish soap
g) Body deodorant, under arm deodorant
h) House cleaners, auto cleaners
and the list goes on........

To sum up: Many applications with health and safety paramount, very exciting, lateral spending from purchases we make weekly, monthly etc. ( no new added expense! ) with the ability to reduce everyones expenses, increase vitality and overall health and create a healthy harmonious home & body environment, only in the US and Canada presently and ofcourse fits in with Shelley and I's Expense Elimination Program we have implemented for 2005.

Footnote: I polled a few of my most sceptical friends that have always looked down on products such as this and here is the responses I received:

"Jay, from all the products you have shown us - these products interest us because it just makes sense"

"Shelley and Jay, you've really hit something big with this - we're definitely looking at this product line for our family and home"

"We're interested! When can we have a look at this website!"

"My wife who absolutely has no time for these products but is considering this line because of it's logic and the lateral spending of monies we spend already with the opportunity to get it really healthy as we progress in age"

I think you will agree that this has the potential to serve your body in a way we have never tapped into before, it's not a fad or a trend just a healthy solution to live in a very non-toxic environment.

If you check out www.JaysVentures.com you will see it partnered up with our Xango Juice nutritional line - a fine addition.

Jay Simons "Jay's Ventures Inx."
Creator of "Blueprint for YOUR Successful Approach to Great Health!"
jaysventures@yahoo.com
www.revealed.themastersmiracle.com

Ask us about: Expense Elimination System 1 Expense Elimination System 2 & the Phenominal Automated Follow-up System

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

VICTORY! USDA Backs Off from Degrading Organic Standards

karina — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:58:59 GMT

http://www.organicconsumers.org/newsletter/OV04spring.htm

OCA
Homepage

ORGANIC VIEW

A publication of the Organic Consumers Association
Membership Update - Spring 2004
VICTORY! USDA Backs Off
from Degrading Organic Standards

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and the organic community won a major victory on May 26, when the US Department of Agriculture reversed themselves and announced they were suspending controversial changes in organic standards proposed in April 2004. These changes would have allowed the use of previously banned pesticides, antibiotics, animal drugs, growth hormones, and non-organic animal feed on organic farms. Proposed changes also would have formally suspended USDA monitoring and policing of organic label claims on non-food products, opening the door for unscrupulous companies to put bogus organic labels on products such as fish, body care products, pet foods, vitamins, fertilizer, and clothing.

In the case of seafood and body care products, the marketplace is already starting to become flooded with products bearing the organic label, even though the production methods (industrial fish farms) or content (“organic” shampoos with organic claims based upon added water) in many of these products violate traditional organic principles. Besides giving the green light to bogus organic labels, the recent policy changes proposed by the USDA would have penalized genuine organic companies that have begun sourcing, certifying, and labeling their products as organic.

Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman’s surrender came in the wake of a major nationwide mobilization and media campaign spearheaded by the OCA and its allies. OCA was joined in this effort by nearly the entire public interest and organic community, including the Consumers Union, the Organic Trade Association, organic farmers, organic businesses, certifiers, and the National Organic Standards Board. As the USDA bureaucrats were flooded with calls and faxes from irate consumers, as public interest attorneys prepared to file a lawsuit, and as mass media coverage of the controversy began spreading, the Bush administration apparently decided that they already had enough problems on their hands in this election year.

While the OCA mobilized its nationwide network, organic businesses were gearing up for a lawsuit against the USDA. Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, a leading manufacturer of organic and natural body care products, published an open letter to the Organic Trade Association saying that it would pay for all legal costs associated with a lawsuit against the USDA. David Bronner, CEO of Dr. Bronner’s, said, “Non-food agricultural products can support organic agriculture and processing just as much as organic food products do. Taking away the opportunity to certify non-food products under the NOP would have been an enormous disincentive to non-food industries to source from and support organic agriculture.”

OCA warns however, that we must remain vigilant. The campaign to Safeguard Organic Standards must continue. Corporate agribusiness and the biotech lobby have decided that strict organic farming practices and the booming organic market constitute a threat to their bottom line. They will continue to call on their friends in Washington to degrade organic standards and prepare for a gradual takeover of the organic market by factory-style industrial farms and transnational food corporations. Six years ago, as you probably remember, the Clinton administration USDA tried to do the same thing, proposing that genetic engineering, food irradiation, and the use of sewage sludge be allowed on organic farms. Only after an unprecedented nationwide consumer backlash by the entire organic community, led by the OCA, did the USDA back off on these proposals. Last year, a similar attempt to allow non-organic feed to be fed to animals on organic farms was also defeated.

Congratulations to everyone who helped spread the alarm about this latest attack on organic standards. A sincere thanks to those who responded to our Action Alert, and to those who gave donations to the OCA to help us carry on our work. The next step involves “regime change” in Washington and the USDA—pressuring politicians to stop putting $20-30 billion dollars of our federal tax money every year into subsidizing genetically engineered crops, chemical intensive agriculture, and factory farms, and instead to subsidize family farms so they can make the long overdue transition to sustainable and organic farming practices. The next 2007 Farm Bill must cut off destructive subsidies for export crops such as genetically engineered and pesticide-intensive cotton, and help tens of thousands of family farmers and ranchers make the transition to organic. We must also make sure that future congressional bills include adequate funding for the National Organic Standards Board and the National Organic Program, so that these bodies can properly monitor and enforce the integrity of organic label claims in the marketplace.
A Message from the Director

Spring greetings from the Organic Consumers Association. As I write this letter, I have just returned from an inspiring week of meeting with activists and OCA supporters in California, where the movement against GE foods and industrial agriculture has reached a new level of effectiveness. Ever since last December, when the Mad Cow crisis burst into the headlines and reminded Americans that our industrial-style food system is out of control, and March 2, when Mendocino County, California residents successfully won a David versus Goliath battle against Monsanto and became the first county in America to ban GE crops and animals, long dormant seeds of resistance have begun sprouting. After several decades of hard work, public education, and what, at times, seemed like beating our heads against the wall, the organic consumer community has blossomed into a major force for progressive change. Millions of Americans are developing what can only be described as an appetite for change. Consumers and youth nationwide are waking up to the fact that our health and environment are under assault, that we are being adversely affected by what we eat, wear, and use on our bodies, and are realizing it’s time for a “regime change,” both in the marketplace and in the realm of public policy. As more and more people like yourself vote with their consumer dollars for health and sustainability, organics and Fair Trade are booming, providing a beacon of hope, which we call BioDemocracy.

Underlining the need for “regime change” in Washington, on April 14 and 28, the USDA announced startling changes in National Organic Standards—changes that, if implemented, would have seriously degraded traditional organic standards and facilitated the “takeover” of the organic market by industrial agribusiness. Thanks to a nationwide mobilization by the OCA and complaints from the entire organic community, the USDA announced on May 26, that they were backing off on these proposed changes and would henceforth listen more closely to the organic community. The USDA’s quick turnaround on this issue provides further evidence of the growing strength of the OCA and the nation’s 30 million organic consumers.

The OCA is growing by leaps and bounds. We now have over 600,000 organic consumers in our network, and 125,000 regular subscribers on our email list. At least 300,000 people a month visit our website, including leading activists and journalists. Over the summer we’re rolling out a nationwide campaign called Organic Consumers United, setting up literature, petition, and voter registration tables in front of natural food stores, farmers markets, and college campuses. Eventually we’ll be organizing “Meet-Ups” and film screenings in your local community. Of course to do all this requires volunteers and money. If you haven’t already, please click here to send us a donation. And thank you so much for your previous financial support and volunteer efforts.

Regards & Solidarity,
Ronnie Cummins
OCA Pushing for Strict Organic Body Care Standards

OCA’s Coming Clean Campaign has been successfully pressuring the natural body care industry over the past year in an effort to establish strict production and labeling standards for organic cosmetics. A recent victory came when the Organic Trade Association’s Personal Care Task Force (PCTF) in March rejected a scheme of counting ordinary water as organic in body care products. In a 13-2 vote at the Natural Products Expo West in Anaheim, California, the task force of natural body care companies condemned the practice of counting as organic the water added during the steaming of botanicals to make the hydrosol water extracts in shampoos, conditioners, and other products.

The PCTF is currently discussing what other ingredients should and should not be allowed in organic body care products. The OCA is pushing for food grade or near-food grade standards for organic body care products, given that our skin absorbs and reacts to body care products in a manner similar to our body’s intake of foods. For this reason, OCA believes that synthetic preservatives like parabens, (suspected carcinogens) should not be allowed in body care products labeled as organic, nor should any petroleum-based ingredients. Unfortunately, some of the companies in the PCTF are currently leaning towards allowing certain synthetic chemicals under the organic label. These synthetic ingredients are commonly found in many leading “natural” body care brands. These shampoos, skin creams, cosmetics, and conditioners, prominently displayed in natural food stores, are misleading consumers by using the word “organic” on their labels, when, in fact, an examination of the specific ingredients on their back panels reveal that they contain many of the same toxic or problematic ingredients found in mainstream cosmetics. Genuine organic body care companies, such as Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, Vermont Soapworks, or Terressentials have consistently supported the OCA in calling for an end to this practice.

As evidenced by the USDA’s recent, fortunately failed, attempt to abdicate responsibility for monitoring and policing organic label claims on body care products, the struggle to achieve strict organic standards in this sector will not be easy.

Establishing strict food grade or near-food grade consumer-friendly organic standards for cosmetics will mean little if companies are allowed to defraud consumers by calling their body care products organic, when they are not. While taking legal and political action to force the USDA to agree to once again monitor and police organic labels on a broad range of products, including body care products, OCA is determined to put an end to fraudulent labeling in the marketplace, whether it means filing litigation against offending companies, and/or working with conscientious companies and certifiers to establish an organic label for body care products that consumers can trust. In short, OCA’s Coming Clean Campaign is moving forward. Stay tuned to our website and newsletters for further developments and Action Alerts.

www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/index.htm
BIODEMOCRACY ALLIANCE:
Spreading GE-Free Zones Throughout the Americas

We stand at a crossroads in modern history: Biodemocracy or Biotechnology. Although organic and sustainable farming is the fastest growing component of world agriculture, 150 million acres of GE crops are planted across the US, Canada, Argentina, and China. Since their commercial introduction almost 10 years ago, studies have shown that GE crops and animal drugs are damaging public health, polluting the environment, contaminating organic crops, and steadily turning the world’s 2.4 billion farmers and rural villagers into bioserfs. Despite a global propaganda barrage by Monsanto and the other Gene Giants (“GE crops will feed the world,” “GE crops use less toxic pesticides”), despite denial of consumers’ demands for labeling and testing of GMOs, despite attempts to dump GE-tainted corn and soybeans on impoverished nations, despite widespread intimidation of critics, Frankencrops are dying on the vine.

Biodemocracy is spreading. Activists, farmers, and concerned consumers around the world have been inspired and energized by the historic vote in Mendocino County, California on March 2, 2004 banning the production of GE crops and animals in that county. Mendocino, following the example of GE-Free Zones in Europe, is the first of the nation’s 3300 counties to implement such a ban. Mendocino residents voted for the GE ban despite the biotech industry’s outrageous $700,000 disinformation campaign.

Inspired by the Mendocino vote, local farmers, organic consumers and grassroots activists in at least 12 of California’s 59 counties are organizing ballot initiatives and petition drives for local GE-Free zones. Creation of additional GE-Free zones in California, the nation’s most important agricultural state, coupled with the expansion of the organic foods market, could mark the beginning of the end for agricultural biotechnology and industrial agriculture in the US.

In Pennsylvania, more than 50 townships have passed ordinances that regulate the expansion of local factory farms.
As in California, the state Farm Bureau and biotech interests are teaming up to implement legislation that would make it illegal for communities to have this kind of local control.

In Vermont, grassroots activists have been successful in passing a “Farmer’s Right to Know” bill that requires labeling of GE seeds in all retail outlets. Finally, as a result of a truly international grassroots effort, Monsanto has shelved plans to introduce its controversial genetically engineered Roundup Ready wheat.

From Canada to Brazil, farmers, consumers, and activists are creating GE-Free zones across the Americas. The latest to join the Biodemocracy movement is Venezuela, with President Hugo Chavez announcing the first national GE-Free zone in the Western Hemisphere. This terminates Monsanto’s plans for 500,000 acres of GE soy in Venezuela. Venezuelans join the Landless Workers Movement (MST) of Brazil and the Zapatistas of Chiapas in reclaiming local communities’ right to safe food and locally based sustainable agriculture.

The Mendocino victory poses a serious threat to Monsanto and the other Gene Giants. The biotech industry fears that grassroots activists across the US and Canada will now follow Mendocino’s example. As Allan Noe, vice-president of CropLife America, a front group representing Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, Dupont, and Syngenta stated, “We don’t want to see this pick up any steam. The activist community is well-known for championing causes and for going all out to fuel their beliefs.” Currently, plans are afoot in the California state legislature to overturn Mendocino’s victory and deny counties the right to legislate bans on GMO crops. Since March, biotech and agribusiness interests have been lobbying key members of the state legislature to introduce a bill to overturn Mendocino’s GE ban, and to prohibit other California counties from enacting similar bans. GE-Free Zones present a major roadblock to Monsanto, Bayer, and other biotech companies’ plans to plant controversial GE crops such as Bayer’s Liberty Link rice and Monsanto’s GE alfalfa in California.

In response, the OCA and its allies are mounting an enormous campaign to defend Mendocino’s Measure H, as well as to spread BioDemocracy throughout the Americas. The campaign includes education and outreach efforts, grassroots lobbying, and local-to-international network building.

OCA believes, despite industry propaganda, the tide has turned. The people of the world are not willing to turn over their food and farm sovereignty to a handful of transnational agribusiness corporations and biotechnocrats. We are moving into the age of Biodemocracy, where organic and sustainable farming, and a global system of Fair Trade, will become the norm.

www.organicconsumers.org/ge-free.htm
Millions Against Monsanto

In February, 2004, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) launched its Millions Against Monsanto campaign to mobilize one million consumers to end Monsanto’s global corporate terrorism. Since then, concerned consumers all over the world have joined the campaign by signing the online petition, volunteering their time, and/or donating to the OCA’s work. Here’s an update on Monsanto’s recent activities around the world:

North America · Monsanto has been forced to shelve plans to introduce its controversial genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready wheat. This is a bitter defeat for Monsanto and a well-deserved victory for family farmers and consumers.

Canada · On May 21, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled in the Percy Schmeiser case that Monsanto owns the seeds of all farmers whose crops test positive for patented GMOs—even if the farmers never purchased the gene-altered seeds. The verdict has enraged farmers and consumers worldwide, and opens up Monsanto for liability damages in a class-action lawsuit by 1000 organic farmers in Canada.

Africa · Monsanto has withdrawn attempts to release a GE sweet potato that the company has been working on for three years, given embarrassing studies showing conventionally grown potatoes resist viruses just as adequately and have a higher yield.

Brazil · The International People’s Tribunal has found Monsanto guilty of illegally spreading GE soybeans in Brazil. Although the crop is banned in the country, much of soya grown in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul is genetically modified.

Australia · After six years of efforts to push GE canola on Australian farmers, Monsanto is being forced to admit failure, since most Australian States have now banned the experimental crop.

Argentina · Monsanto has announced it will stop selling genetically engineered soybean seeds, due to the company’s inability to make a profit on the product.

Indonesia · An investigation is underway regarding an alleged $50,000 bribe Monsanto gave to an Indonesian government official to overlook compliance issues the corporation has been having in the country. Also in Indonesia, Monsanto has been forced to stop selling GE cotton, due to farmers complaining about two years of overpriced seeds and low yields.

Austria · An Austrian facility producing Monsanto’s Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) was found to be contaminated, forcing Monsanto to reduce its production of the drug by 50%. Due to human and animal health risks, the genetically engineered hormone is banned in every industrialized nation other than the US, Mexico, and Brazil.

India · Monsanto is being accused of biopiracy as the company recently acquired patents and exclusive rights to a type of wheat that Indian farmers have bred for generations. With patents in hand, Monsanto now has the legal right to charge people for using this popular wheat, which is used to make chapatti, the flat bread staple of Northern India.

Vietnam · Thirty years after the Vietnam war, Monsanto’s deadly Agent Orange is still causing severe birth defects. Although the company initially claimed the chemical would breakdown and dissipate over a short time, toxic levels of Agent Orange in the environment continue to plague the Vietnamese, who are once again unsuccessfully seeking supplementary funding from the US to treat the steadily increasing number of deformed children. Although Monsanto makes $5 billion/year, the corporation continues to avoid all financial responsibility by claiming the chemical is not toxic.

Take Action! Join OCA’s Millions Against Monsanto Campaign!
The End of Massive Cotton Subsidies?

In a late April landmark ruling, the World Trade Organization (WTO) supported a Brazilian complaint against the US regarding massive cotton subsidies in wealthy nations to corporate agribusiness. The US subsidizes large cotton plantations with $3 billion of taxpayer money each year (note: $3 billion per year is enough money to provide health insurance for over half of the nation’s uninsured children). These subsidies have lowered the world price of cotton by 40%, and have driven 15 million cotton farmers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America into desperate poverty. The WTO has now ruled that these subsidies are illegal impediments to free trade. The WTO decision will likely lead to similar lawsuits from other cotton exporting countries. President Bush has vowed to appeal.
Bush Stopping Protection of Ozone Layer

George W. Bush has shocked the world (again) by threatening to pull out of the most significant international environmental treaty ever signed. The Montreal Protocol of 1987 was a global agreement to phase out the use of chemicals that cause the depletion of the ozone layer. Although every industrialized nation in the world has been working for over a decade under this treaty to protect the ozone layer, President Bush wants out.

Bush claims the US strawberry and tomato agriculture industry should be able to continue using the pesticide methyl bromide, the most dangerous ozone depleting chemical in use. Interestingly enough, the majority of growers who would benefit from this violation of international treaty are in California and Florida, critical electoral states in the coming election.
OCA Introduces Organic Coupon Collection

The OCA is publishing a Coupon Book to raise money for our nationwide network building efforts and campaign to spread GE-Free Zones throughout the Americas. The book calls attention to some of the best organic and Fair Trade companies in North America. Because the books will be distributed nationwide, only nationally distributed products are being featured. Of course, OCA always encourages support of local and regional farmers and businesses as well.

Sometimes it’s hard to know which companies are just “greenwashing,” riding the organic wave, and which are responsible companies with genuine organic values and practices. The discount coupons in this book represent a select number of companies that we can stand behind.

Please consider supporting the OCA’s crucial work by ordering one or more of these Organic Coupon Collection books and sample the products of some of America’s best Organic and Fair Trade companies. Click here for ordering information, or to learn more about the Coupon Collection.
Mad Cow Updates

The US Government is under criminal investigation for allegedly falsifying documents pertaining to the recent case of Mad Cow Disease in Washington state. Specifically, the USDA reported that the beef that tested positive for the disease came from a “downer” cow (a cow too ill to walk). In actuality, three key eye-witnesses at the slaughterhouse say the cow was walking and appeared to be healthy. The US Government used the documents to alleviate concerns that cattle are not tested sufficiently for this deadly disease in the US.

The USDA also attempted to appease domestic and international consumer concerns by announcing wider testing for Mad Cow and new stricter regulations on the feeding of blood, slaughterhouse waste, and manure to animals, hoping this would reduce the potential spread of the fatal disease. However, these rules are still not implemented, six moths after the USDA announced its new policies.

In other Mad Cow news, pressure is mounting for a federal investigation into a possible second case of Mad Cow Disease in San Angelo, Texas. In April 2004, a cow staggered and collapsed at the Lone Star Beef slaughterhouse, and under federal law should have been tested for the deadly disease. A federal inspector was in the process of taking a brain sample to test for the disease but was ordered to stop by the regional headquarters of the Texas Department of Agriculture. Instead, the cow was sent to a rendering plant to be made into animal food.
Hot off the Press!

Ronnie Cummins and Ben Lilliston’s top-selling book on Genetically Engineered Food. Completely revised and updated 2004 addition. Copies can be ordered from this link. $17.95 includes shipping & handling.
Generation to Generation

-a poem by Sandy Spieler

My Grandmother carried a seed in her hair
On a long boat ride
The seed was a gift from the old homeland
For memory and health to survive

A gift for my father, he planted his seed
In his own backyard
With help from the bees, with help from the sun
It grew right up to his knees

From the best crop he plucked a seed
For me, yes he plucked it for me
Contained in its flesh is the secret of life
So ancient and yet so new

This seed I hold is a gift for my boy
So busy-but eat he must
From the ground comes health, from the pulse comes love
Light in the flesh strength in the bone

And now for his daughter, this seed is saved
A promise of health for her days
From her table shared wide with family and friend
This vessel of life will provide

My grandmother carried a seed in her hair
On a long boat ride
My grandmother carried a seed in her hair
In her hair she carried a seed

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Grassroots literature regarding Organic Label changes

karina — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:56:49 GMT

Political Action Needed to Turn Back Threats to Organic Integrity

By Roger Blobaum

I want to talk with you today about recent political developments that are undermining organic integrity and the support of consumers and environmentalists and that may be putting your markets and incomes at risk. My comments will focus on organic business trends, the organic guarantee system, the performance of the National Organic Program, and the integrity of USDA’s organic label.

The effort by organic farmers to develop and adopt farming methods that protect the environment and provide an economically-viable alternative to industrial agriculture practices has won much public good will and support. Consumers willingly pay premium prices because of the high quality of organic food and their awareness of the many public benefits organic farmers provide.

Organic farming is both a worldwide movement and a fast-growing global economic sector that generates a estimated $25 billion a year in sales. Other growth indicators are the increase in organization memberships in the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements to more than 700, and the more than 300 organic certifiers now operating worldwide. This growth is spectacular across Europe where governments support organic agriculture with a trouble-free regulatory system, incentive payments, and the full range of research, education, extension, and other programs.

The United States is the only country with a large organic sector where the federal government has a history of failing to help organic farmers. Most state governments have tried to be helpful. But the attitude of the federal government in general, and of USDA in particular, has ranged from unhelpful to hostile.

It probably is just as well that most people no longer remember Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz, a Republican, demanding to know how we would decide which 50 million people would starve if organic farming methods were adopted. Or Deputy Secretary John White, a Democrat, claiming that we would need manure piles as high as the Empire State Building to make organic farming work.

A rare example of good times came in 1980 when Agriculture Secretary Bob Bergland, a Minnesota farmer with an organic farmer neighbor, decided to find out why USDA wasn’t helping organic farmers. He appointed a team of USDA scientists who spent several months on a report that recommended a comprehensive list of research, extension, marketing, and other initiatives to support organic farming. USDA appointed

_____________________________________________________________________

Presentation by Roger Blobaum at the OFARM Annual Meeting in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, February 25, 2004.

an organic farming coordinator, organic farming information meetings were scheduled

at several land grant universities, and more than 20,000 requests flowed in for copies of the report.

But this era of cooperation ended abruptly when the new Reagan Administration came in. The organic farming coordinator was fired, the meetings were cancelled, the recommendations were scuttled, and USDA ordered the destruction of all remaining copies of the report.

Organic farmers and their consumer and environmental and other supporters, disappointed but a lot wiser, launched a productive decade of working with state governments, expanding inspection and certification capacity, and developing new products and new markets. By the end of the 1980s a vibrant organic sector had been developed, both domestic and export markets had been developed, and organic sales were expanding at an annual rate of more than 20 percent.

The Organic Food Production Association of North America (OFPANA), convinced that even faster growth was possible, decided to try once again to involve the federal government. This new group, which later changed its name to the Organic Trade Association, petitioned Congress for assistance in developing national standards to strengthen the organic guarantee and help develop national and international markets.

The result was enactment in 1990 of the Organic Foods Production Act, which was bitterly opposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and viewed with both suspicion and apprehension by many organic farmers. But it was lobbied hard by organic companies, supported by state departments of agriculture and the Food Marketing Institute, and backed by a coalition of national consumer, environmental, and animal protection organizations.

The Senate approved the bill after stripping it of all references to health and environmental benefits of organic farming, a change that has enabled agriculture secretaries ever since to declare on USDA’s behalf that organic farming is no better than any other kind of farming. The stripped-down version, now little more than a marketing bill, got a cold reception in the House Agriculture Committee and it refused to report the bill out. However it came to the floor as a farm bill amendment and, in a stunning defeat for the committee, passed with the winning margin provided by members from urban districts.

Fierce opposition from USDA and the House Agriculture Committee, which continued to the bitter end, should have been a warning to all of us of big trouble ahead. But supporters had written in provisions for accreditation of certifiers, for peer review of the accreditation process by representatives of the organic community, for establishment of a National Organic Standards Board with most of its seats reserved for organic farmers and consumer and environmental representatives, and for giving the NOSB sole authority to determine what would be on a national list of approved materials.

Few were more pleased than I was over the idea that USDA was finally being forced to give organic farming the national recognition it deserved. And, like many others, I viewed the safeguards written in as an effective deterrent to USDA mischief or manipulation, as a guarantee that organic integrity would be protected, and assurance that the farmers and consumers who developed organic farming would control its future.

Beginning early in 1992, NOSB members did their job, and more, by holding 15 meetings of several days each in all parts of the country. Each one included a full day of public comments, seemingly endless hours of open discussion, and tours of organic farms. Multiple rule drafts were submitted to the public in an attempt to reach consensus. The end result was broad support from farmers and consumers alike for the final recommendations.

This was reflected in “Toward Organic Integrity,” a guide to the proposed standards prepared by Michael Sligh, who had skillfully led this process as NOSB chairman. “These recommendations, standards, and materials are built upon a very long history of farmer knowledge,” he noted in the preamble. “The rule must reflect and preserve this rich history and wealth of experience and passion.”

Sligh also warned the organic community that the soul of organics was at stake. “This process will institutionalize the word “organic” within the U.S. government,” he wrote. “And if this process proves to be too onerous or false, the soul of organics will be lost. Then, those who love organics will have two choices: to reclaim the word and concept, or find new words and concepts. The future will determine this.”

When the future Sligh referred to finally arrived late in 1997, the organic community was stunned. My own reaction to the rule that was proposed, like that of many others, was feelings of shock, disbelief, and betrayal. We had trouble believing that USDA would ignore many of the NOSB’s recommendations and overturn many others and that it would open the door to the use of sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetically modified organisms and to irresponsible use of antibiotics. Or that it would challenge the NOSB’s authority to control the national list or include loopholes for factory farming practices.

When the organic community came together to assess the damage and seek consensus on a plan of action, one outcome was a document that listed what we called “The Sixty Six Points of Darkness.” The other outcome, later backed up by a national outpouring of 278,000 negative comments, was a demand that USDA withdraw the proposed rule and do it over.

Even when the new rule we asked for was proposed nearly two years later, many serious problems remained. Worse yet, USDA added new provisions giving itself the

final authority to make certification decisions, setting unenforceable composting

requirements, and adopting conflict of interest provisions that prohibited organic farmers from serving in any capacity in their own certification organizations. A special

call for comments on the question of whether USDA should have the final word on all

certification decisions, for example, was opposed 8,429 to 9. But USDA brushed aside this strong public “no” vote and adopted its own grab for power anyway.

So now, more than a year into implementation, where does that leave us? The government’s response, largely endorsed by the industry, is that the organic sector is booming with expanding export sales, hundreds of new organic products, wide consumer acceptance, and a growth rate exceeding 20 percent a year. Organics has gone mainstream and last year, for the first time, more than 50 percent of organic sales were in conventional supermarkets and in Wal-Mart and other discount outlets. So why isn’t everybody happy?

One reason is growing uneasiness over a rapid move toward bigness and concentration and cannibalism by outsiders of organic businesses. Also important is diminishing influence over the future direction of organic agriculture by farmers like you who share the organic farming vision, have built consensus around its principles, and have responded to consumer expectations by establishing systems guaranteeing organic integrity. All this plus growing consumer interest in new labels dealing with humane treatment of livestock, fair trade, locally grown, and other attributes many feel are no longer reflected in organic products.

I became aware of other concerns in two conference workshops. In one the spokesman for an organic company being swallowed up in a buy-out announced, “we aren’t going to be buying from small farmers anymore.” The conventional company that engineered the buy-out and now sources organic grain has a captive supply grown on farms in a vertically integrated setup. At another session a venture capitalist explained that plans for infusing new capital into an organic company often include an exit strategy for the founder. It is important to investors, he said, to get rid of the people who stressed values in building these organic companies and to replace them with managers who will focus on the bottom line.

I would urge you to get a copy of “Who Owns Organic?,” a new report by Rural Advancement Foundation International that documents increasing concentration in the U.S. organic sector and questions whether rapid growth, expansion, and concentration

can be balanced with the broadest principles of organic agriculture. It includes a chart showing that seven of the world’s 25 largest food companies have bought up a long list of pioneer organic companies. Included are companies like Odwalla Organics, Earth’s Best, Walnut Acres, Arrowhead Mills, Stoneyfield Farms, and Cascadian Farms.

This report also touches on some new political problems. It warns that environmental organizations concerned about the dangers of industrial farming,

including some with a long history of supporting organic agriculture, are losing interest. They have become disillusioned with what has happened since USDA took over. I can

tell you from my own personal experience that, with one exception, they aren’t showing up at organic meetings in Washington anymore.

Consumers Union, which has been one of organic farming’s most loyal supporters, has a press release on its web site warning that USDA actions are undermining the integrity of the organic label. The section of its web site that provides information to the media, and is viewed by millions of consumers as well, casts doubt specifically on the organic label on broilers and other poultry products. “Consumers Union,” a spokesperson reported, “has had to change its rating of the organic label from

‘highly meaningful’ on all organic products to a downgraded rating for poultry.” The press release focuses on outdoor access but also cites last year’s attempt in Congress to set aside the 100 percent organic feed requirement for poultry.

Is this situation a “60 minutes” or “20/20" television expose waiting to happen? And, if it does, with concerned consumers speaking out and film showing organic production in big factory-type complexes with bad air and no outdoor access, how will the organic community defend itself? This merits your attention because these are important organic grain buyers.

I could cite other examples of fallen away friends. But I think a piece by Michael Pollack in the New York Times Magazine comes closest to summing up what we should be concerned about overall. “Now that organic food has established itself as a viable alternative food chain,” Pollack wrote, “agribusiness has decided that the best way to deal with that alternative is to own it.” “The question now,” he continued, “is what will they do with it? Is the word organic being emptied of its meaning? Many organic advocates at the same time are asking, ‘is organic becoming what we hoped it would be an alternative to?’”

This brings us to the critical question: Can the philosophical values embedded in the word “organic,” the vision shared by the farmers and consumers in developing the organic alternative, and the domestic and foreign markets organic farmers depend on survive USDA’s implementation of the Organic Foods Production Act? More important, what can we do to make sure they do survive? We can begin by weighing in on some important and pressing issues.

One is the current appeals process breakdown. This involves a recent National Organic Program order overturning an accredited certifier’s refusal to grant an organic certificate to a large egg producer that was not complying with the access to the outdoors standard. The producer appealed to the administrator of the National Organic Program who the next day ordered the certifier to issue the certificate. The certifier

appealed to a USDA administrative law judge who upheld the administrator’s decision and said, in effect, that the certifier has no appeal rights.

The certifier has since appealed to the next level within USDA, arguing that the government has usurped the role of the certifying agent and undermined the organic standard. Also at issue is failure to provide due process. The certifier reports that the NOP reversed its decision overnight without reviewing any files, checking with its certification committee, or even making a phone call. I wonder how overseas buyers, especially militant consumers like those from Japan, will respond when they find out U.S. certifiers not only have lost the authority they once had to de-certify but now are being forced by the government to certify producers who don’t comply with standards.

Another unresolved issue is the drive to diminish the authority of the NOSB and turn it into just another of USDA’s many toothless advisory committees. This began when many of the NOSB’s initial recommendations were ignored or overturned during the rulemaking process. The NOSB has since lost control over its budget and its meeting agendas and more than 50 of the recommendations it has made over the last five years are gathering dust. USDA has refused to acknowledge, reject, or adopt them and contends that under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act it has no legal obligation to do so.

The peer review process also has been scuttled. USDA’s response to a consumer organization’s petition a year ago that formally requested appointment of the required peer review panel was a statement saying the NOSB’s accreditation committee would serve as interim peer reviewers. But committee members were denied access to documents that would enable them to carry out this function. The agency finally responded to the growing demand for a peer review panel by contracting with the American National Standards Institute, an entity with no organic experience or expertise, to conduct a one-time audit. It is unclear when, or whether, the results will ever be disclosed to the NOSB, the organic community, or the general public.

A different kind of threat is sneak attacks on organic standards on Capitol Hill. One of the worst trends in lawmaking in Congress is legislating through language inserted, and often hidden, in appropriations bills. These stealth attacks, which frequently occur without warning late at night, bypass the normal procedures of bill introduction, hearings, reports, and open markups. It was inevitable that special interests in the organic sector would use this approach to obtain favors they could never obtain through the normal lawmaking process.

So far these appropriations subcommittee sneak attacks have directed USDA to approve an organic label for wild salmon, allow sulfates in organic wine, and set aside the rule requiring 100 percent organic feed for poultry. The poultry feed provision, which was hidden in a $347 billion appropriations bill, embarrassed the House speaker and an angry organic community eventually forced Congress to rescind it.

It is time to revisit Michael Sligh’s warning seven years ago that we were putting the soul of organic at risk, and gambling on the future of organic farming, when we put

our trust in USDA to follow the NOSB’s recommendations in writing a rule. There is evidence our trust has been betrayed and that we may have gambled and lost.

What we have ended up with is a rule that still contains many provision we opposed, a highjacked certification system out of line with international norms, flawed and uneven performance in organic program implementation, weak underfunded enforcement, consumer questions about organic integrity, and a threat to organic markets and the incomes of organic farmers. There is the real possibility, as Michael Pollack noted in describing the organic industrial complex, that we will end up with the kind of system that we hoped organic would be an alternative to.

Is it too late to fix it? I’m not optimistic but I know we can’t afford to let them get away with this. I doubt if this can be fixed without the intervention and active involvement of organic farmers, of consumers and environmentalists, and all the others who submitted the 278,000 comments six years ago that forced USDA to take back its first rule and do it over. I challenge all of you, as farmers and as OFARM leaders, to begin taking political and other steps to make certain the integrity of the organic label is guaranteed, that the confidence of consumer and others who have traditionally supported organic farming is restored, and that your markets and your income and the markets and incomes of organic farmers across the country are protected.

More news items at www.MeatFYI.com
Corporate financials, SEC filings, other company data in “players” section at www.Ellinghuysen.com

*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*
For verification and authentication this posting, please refer to the origin of the material as noted in the material itself. Best wishes!

Back to news stories

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

USDA weakens organic label

karina — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:55:52 GMT

U.S. Accused of Weakening Organic Standards
May 25, 2004
Associated Press

FREDERIC J. FROMMER

WASHINGTON (AP) - New government guidelines allowing limited use of pesticides and antibiotics in organic farming have provoked a backlash from farmers and consumer groups who say they devalue the federal organic label.

With a weakening of the standards, ``consumers and farmers could lose confidence in the USDA label,'' said Pam Riesgraf, who owns a 60-cow organic dairy farm in Jordan, Minn., about 35 miles outside Minneapolis.

The guidelines, announced last month by the Agriculture Department, were in response to questions from government certifiers, said Barbara Robinson, a deputy administrator in charge of the USDA's National Organic Program, which oversees certification of the organic label. The fast-growing organic food industry has sales of about $10.8 billion a year.

``We want them to apply the standards consistently,'' she said. ``It's ludicrous to assume that the department said, `The heck with the law, let's change the regulations.'''

That's what some critics think happened.

``They are new interpretations that are contrary to the regulations as written, and they contradict previous policy 100 percent,'' said Jim Riddle of Winona, Minn., vice chairman of the 15-member National Organic Standards Board, which recommends policy to the Agriculture Department.

Sen. Pat Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who wrote the 1990 Organic Food Productions Act, plans to circulate a letter this week to urge Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman to rescind the new guidelines. Leahy called them ``unilateral fiats'' that violate the sprit of the law.

At issue are several guidance statements and enforcement directives issued last month. Specifically, they allow:

-Organic producers to use pesticides that may contain inert chemical ingredients even if a ``reasonable effort'' fails to determine what the ingredients are. Pesticide makers are not required to list all inactive ingredients in their products.

-Milk from a cow that has been treated with antibiotics to be sold under the USDA organic seal as long as the cow has been antibiotic-free for 12 months.

-Ground fish to be used as a protein supplement in livestock feed.

Consumer and organic groups are angry at both the end result and the process, saying the department should have consulted with the standards board before issuing its guidance statements.

``It was always our view this was a public-private partnership,'' said Michael Sligh, the board's founding chairman, which helped develop original guidelines in the 1990s for the federal program. ``We're worried about a breakdown.''

Robinson said agency officials didn't consult with the organic standards board because they believed they were simply implementing the regulations.

``I suppose we'll give them more of a heads-up (next time),'' Robinson said.

Urvashi Rangan, a scientist at Consumers Union in Yonkers, N.Y., said the new directives weaken the value of the organic label. She cited guidelines allowing fishmeal in cattle feed as an example.

``We have some questions as to whether cows eat fish to begin with,'' she said. ``The second issue is that fish are not certified as organic. And we already know that fish have some problems like PCPs and mercury.''

As for the antibiotics in cows, Rangan said the issue isn't that people will be exposed to the hormones 12 months after the cow has been antibiotic-free.

``It's a question of adding value, and is the milk worth the premium?'' she said. ``Organic is a program that says you don't use antibiotics.''

On the Net:

National Organic Program: http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/

National Organic Standards Board: http://www.ams.usda.gov/nosb/

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Changes in Organic Label: May 2004 (USDA) =\!

karina — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:50:38 GMT

From: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5067422/

"Pam and Jeff Riesgraf, organic farmers in Jordan, Minn., are among the critics of the USDA revisions to organic rules.

The Associated Press
Updated: 3:41 p.m. ET May 26, 2004

WASHINGTON - The Agriculture Department's decision Wednesday to rescind recent guidelines to its organic food standards followed a backlash from farmers and consumer groups who say they devalued the federal organic label.

advertisement
With a weakening of the standards, “consumers and farmers could lose confidence in the USDA label,” said Pam Riesgraf, who owns a 60-cow organic dairy farm in Jordan, Minn., about 35 miles outside Minneapolis.

The guidelines, announced last month by the Agriculture Department, were in response to questions from government certifiers, said Barbara Robinson, a deputy administrator in charge of the USDA’s National Organic Program, which oversees certification of the organic label. The fast-growing organic food industry has sales of about $10.8 billion a year.

“We want them to apply the standards consistently,” she said. “It’s ludicrous to assume that the department said, ‘The heck with the law, let’s change the regulations.”’

fact file Deciphering food labels
• About

• Organic certification

• Other labels
About
Organic. Natural. Free-range. Those in search of healthier food can find themselves in a whirlwind of labels.

Some, like the certified organic mark, can help the discerning shopper. Many -– including the word "natural" itself -– tell us little about what’s in our food and how it was produced.

The best way to check on your food is to talk to the people who made it. That can be difficult, so you might try producers' Web sites or ask the buyers at your local market.

Select a tab above to learn more.
Organic certification
As the only federally certified standard, organic labels have specific requirements, though some loopholes remain.

Produce must be grown without synthetic fertilizers or chemicals. Genetic engineering and several other techniques are prohibited. Animals eat organic feed and must be treated humanely.

But be careful: Even organic labels must be read closely.

Click the graphic above for details.
Organic producer: Some 90 certifiers, approved by the USDA, check every step of the process from farm to finished package.

Farms that grow or raise organic foods must receive their own certification. Ingredients, like organic flour, must be certified.

The final product must be certified too, along with the company that makes it. A certification seal for the producer appears on packages of organic foods.
Organic product: Only a product with 95 to 100 percent organic ingredients is considered a true organic product. The exact percentage is sometimes listed on the package.

Only these may contain the word organic in the product name: organic milk, organic cereal.

And only these may carry the USDA’s organic seal, though they don't have to. The certifying agency's name must always be listed.
Made with organic ingredients: Products using the "made with" label contain between 70 and 94 percent organic ingredients. They cannot be called organic products and can't use the USDA seal, but must name their certifier.

Labels should be examined closely. The word "organic" may appear several places on the label.

Anything with less than 70 percent organic ingredients can't be marketed as organic.
Other labels
Plenty of other labels show up besides the organic tag. A few have basic government guidelines, but most aren't regulated and are the responsibility of the food producer.

Click the graphic above for details.
NATURAL: Probably the most used, and perhaps the least meaningful.

Basic guidelines exist for "natural" meat and poultry products: no artificial ingredients or colors, and minimal processing. But it tells you nothing about animals' food or treatment.

Though companies use it to denote products without artificial ingredients, it has no officially defined meaning for fruits, vegetables or other foods.
GRASS-FED: Usually refers to meat and poultry that eat grass, silage or hay, not grain or other feed. Unregulated.

Only meaningful if it is "100 percent grass-fed" or similar. Otherwise, the animals may have been given normal feed.

"Grass-finished" or "pasture-finished" can be more helpful, as it often indicates animals ate grass or silage until slaughter.
NO GMOs: Refers to products made without the use of genetically-modified organisms. Unregulated.

While it can be hard to guarantee products are completely GMO-free, many ingredients can be verified as genetically unmodified. All organic ingredients must not be GMOs.

However, U.S. foods that do use GMOs are not required to be labeled as such.
FREE-RANGE: Another popular but largely unregulated term. Basic USDA free-range rules say poultry must have some access to the outside. It does not specify how much and it does not verify claims.

The term has almost no meaning in terms of livestock or eggs.

"Cage-free" is a more precise term, indicating animals were allowed to roam openly, though it is not regulated either.
NO HORMONES: Another unregulated claim.

Because animals have natural hormones, labels are beginning to indicate more precise terms, like "no added hormones," or "no hormones administered," for which the USDA has basic standards.

With the exception of organic products, standards are not verified.
VEGETARIAN DIET or GRAIN FED: Like "grass fed," but animals may also have been fed corn or other grain.

Only meaningful if it includes "100 percent" or similar. Otherwise, meat or poultry may have been fed animal by-products.

The terms are unregulated and unverified.
* Quality Assurance International (QAI) is a popular organic certifier. Dozens of other groups also certify. Source: MSNBC research, Eco-labels.org • Print this

Law's author among critics
That’s what some critics think happened.

“They are new interpretations that are contrary to the regulations as written, and they contradict previous policy 100 percent,” said Jim Riddle of Winona, Minn., vice chairman of the 15-member National Organic Standards Board, which recommends policy to the Agriculture Department.

Click for related story

USDA rescinds organic food guidelines

Sen. Pat Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who wrote the 1990 Organic Food Productions Act, called the guidelines “unilateral fiats” that violate the sprit of the law.

At issue were several guidance statements and enforcement directives issued last month. Specifically, they would have allowed:

* Organic producers to use pesticides that may contain inert chemical ingredients even if a “reasonable effort” fails to determine what the ingredients are. Pesticide makers are not required to list all inactive ingredients in their products.
* Milk from a cow that has been treated with antibiotics to be sold under the USDA organic seal as long as the cow has been antibiotic-free for 12 months.
* Ground fish to be used as a protein supplement in livestock feed.

Consumer and organic groups were angry at both the end result and the process, saying the department should have consulted with the standards board before issuing its guidance statements.

“It was always our view this was a public-private partnership,” said Michael Sligh, the board’s founding chairman, which helped develop original guidelines in the 1990s for the federal program. “We’re worried about a breakdown.”

Click for related story

'Today' show food expert on organic labels

USDA didn't feel talks were needed
Robinson said agency officials didn’t consult with the organic standards board because they believed they were simply implementing the regulations.

“I suppose we’ll give them more of a heads-up (next time),” Robinson said.

SPECIAL COVERAGE
• News on nutrition, tastes and trends
Urvashi Rangan, a scientist at Consumers Union in Yonkers, N.Y., said the changes would have weakened the value of the organic label. She cited guidelines allowing fishmeal in cattle feed as an example.

“We have some questions as to whether cows eat fish to begin with,” she said. “The second issue is that fish are not certified as organic. And we already know that fish have some problems like PCPs and mercury.”

As for the antibiotics in cows, Rangan said the issue isn’t that people would have been exposed to the hormones 12 months after the cow has been antibiotic-free.

“It’s a question of adding value, and is the milk worth the premium?” she said. “Organic is a program that says you don’t use antibiotics.”
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

www.OmOrganics.org

Melanie — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:19:23 GMT

Comprehensive site on organic-related issues and popular directory for all things organic (edible!) in the SF Bay Area.

posted in 0rganic - 1 reply

Organic Links

karina — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 02:38:02 GMT

I have a collection of them, anyone here interested in adding to the list of URLS? Please copy them to this post ! Thank you for the contribution in advance!

posted in 0rganic - 5 replies

Organic Label commentary (Jul/Aug 1998)

karina — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:16:58 GMT

Reprinted from The Ecologist, Vol. 28, No. 4, July/Aug 1998
Organic Vs "Organic":The Corruption of a Label

http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/john.rose/orglab.html

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) did its best to quietly set new legally-binding national standards for organic food late last year. The agency previewed the proposed federal regulations to the press on the Wednesday before the national holiday Thanksgiving, playing down any potential controversy. Then the recommended rules were made public on December 16, just prior to the Christmas holidays. The rules themselves were released in the form of 600 pages of legal speak ˜ so dense and technical as to be unintelligible to the average citizen. Although a number of food activists had predicted months earlier that the USDA's organic regulations would likely try to waterdown the current tougher standards upheld by the nation's 40 non-governmental and state organic certifiers, as the lengthy document began to be decoded, shockwaves spread through the organic industry.

Deeply embedded in the government's proposed Organic Rule are over 60 major "deal breakers" that threaten to undermine the entire philosophy, integrity, and longstanding practices of the organic community. Organic industry analysts were stunned that the USDA and the Clinton administration disregarded nearly every policy proposal made in the previous five years by the official advisory board in charge of making recommendations ˜ the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). Among the more controversial proposals were to allow under the mandatory "USDA Organic" label the use of genetic engineering, nuclear irradiation, toxic sewage sludge, intensive confinement of farm animals and a host of other conventional factory farm agricultural practices. If these rules become institutionalized as federal law, the United States will gain the dubious distinction of having the lowest organic standards in the world.

Moreover, the rules as presently written will give the USDA a monopoly over the word "organic" and make it illegal for organic certifiers and producers to set higher standards than the minimum standards dictated by the USDA. As groups such as the Pure Food Campaign and Sustain pointed out, the December 16 regulations would constitute nothing less than an "unfriendly takeover" of the nation's rapidly-growing $4 billion organic food industry.

The numerous loopholes and provisions in the rules would open the door for large-scale industrial agribusiness to overwhelm an alternative food system largely composed of small farmers, retailers and processors.

As the word began to spread in late December and early January on the USDA's proposed rules, consumers responded en masse. SOS (Save Organic Standards) and Keep Organic Organic posters were distributed to consumer co-ops, farmers' markets and natural food stores throughout the country exhorting consumers to tell the USDA to withdraw the organic rules. The internet became a major organizing tool as tens of thousands submitted comments through the USDA's website. Hundreds of protestors, both farmers and consumers, rallied and at times disrupted USDA public hearings on the organic rules in Texas, Iowa, Washington and New Jersey. A steady flow of critical letters, faxes and emails became a torrent. Before the storm subsided at the end of official public comment period on April 30, the USDA had been hammered with an unprecedented 220,000 comments, 99 per cent of which roundly denounced the agency's new definitions and rules.

USDA head Dan Glickman admitted to the St. Louis Post Dispatch on March 26, that "This is probably the largest public response to an [Agriculture Department] rule in modern history." In fact the response was 20 times greater than anything ever before proposed by the USDA.

In the same St. Louis Dispatch article, a spokeswoman for the powerhouse National Food Processors Association (NFPA), Regina Hildwine, categorized consumer and industry critics of the proposed rules as "true believers who seem to be on a holy war" against the USDA. In a news story published on March 23 by Reuters, Hildwine emphasized that the USDA's proposed rules (vocally supported by three of the Clinton-Gore administration's favourite trade associations ˜ the Grocery Manufacturers of America, the NFPA, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization) have nothing to do with the issues or concerns of consumers. As Hildwine put it, "Organic does not mean safer. Organic does not mean healthier."

On May 8, Glickman announced that, although the USDA will not completely withdraw the proposed rules, the agency will carefully consider the comments received and then resubmit a revised Final Rule later this year or in 1999. In what appears to be a significant turnaround from previous comments, Glickman stated: "Biotechnology, irradiation and biosolids ... neither fit current organic practices nor meet current consumer expectations about organics, as the comments made clear." Analysts warn however that Glickman's ban on biotech, sludge and irradiation under the organic label is not necessarily a permanent ban, as evidenced by the emphasis in his May 8 statement on "current" organic practices and "current" consumer expectations. Shortly before the end of the comment period, the nation's biotechnology leader, Monsanto, advised the USDA to back off temporarily on trying to include gene-altered products under the organic label for a three-year period and then to try again.

What's at Stake? A Booming $4 Billion Industry
The massive grassroots backlash against the USDA's proposed organic rules highlights the recent dramatic growth of the organic food sector. Several million US households (out of a total of 90 million) now buy significant amounts of organic food every week from one of several thousand retail outlets. The organic food industry has grown to over $4.2 billion a year, expanding 20 per cent a year since 1990. In a national poll published in February 1997, conducted on behalf of the Swiss-based biotech and pharmaceutical giant Novartis, 54 per cent of American consumers said they would like to see "organic" food production become the dominant form of agriculture in the United States.

Even many conventional supermarket chains have been forced by consumer demand to start offering at least limited lines of organic foods in their stores. According to a survey by the Food Marketing Institute, 75 per cent of food industry senior management believe that organic and natural foods are becoming an important trend.

Why is organic food consumption growing so rapidly, not only in the US, but in the rest of the industrialized world? Of course the answer is the increasing concern over food safety. The handful of transnational food, chemical and biotech corporations who dominate world agriculture from field to plate are increasingly offering food that is artificial, contaminated, and adulterated. Large-scale agribusiness views the organic market as a genuine threat to maximizing profits. Their global game plan is to drive several billion "inefficient" small and medium-sized farmers and peasants from the land, replace these family farmers with high-tech chemical and biotech food factories, and then serve up these factory farm food consumables to a mass of indoctrinated and corporatized consumers.

For a number of years this game plan seemed to be moving ahead on schedule. But a body of mounting public health concerns, an apparently unending series of well-publicized food scares, food-poisoning epidemics, and finally mad cow disease have profoundly affected consumer consciousness and altered market conditions.

As the majority of consumers and concerned parents now understand, cheap industrial food has hidden costs. Not only does factory farming destroy the environment, impoverish rural communities, inflict unnecessary cruelty on farm animals, and contaminate the water supply, but the end product itself is inevitably contaminated. Routinely contained in nearly every bite or swallow of non-organic industrial food are antibiotics and other animal drug residues, pathogens, faeces, chemicals, toxic sludge, rendered animal protein, genetically modified organisms, chemical additives, irradiation-derived radiolytic chemical by-products, and a host of other hazardous allergens and toxins. The BSE catastrophe in Europe is only the most dramatic example of an increasing global trend: consumers are more and more anxious about the food they are eating and serving to their families.

Americans suffer from a literal epidemic of food poisoning (over 80 million cases per year), immune and reproductive system disorders, obesity, heart disease, and food˜ and water-related cancers and diseases. Over 80 per cent of American consumers now consistently express concern over pesticide, hormone and antibiotic residues; faecal or bacterial contamination; as well as the health hazards posed by genetically engineered products such as the Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH or rBST).

Millions more are concerned about animal cruelty, environmental hazards, and adverse economic impacts on small family farmers of the giant beef feedlots, corporate hog farms, and massive chicken and poultry operations. For these reasons, millions of US consumers are turning toward organic food. A recent survey commissioned by Environmental Media Services in Washington, D.C. found that: one-third of Americans say they buy organic food regularly, while 40 per cent buy organic at least a few times a year; and 85 per cent would support national organic standards, but oppose labelling as "organic" food that which has been genetically modified, grown with toxic sludge, irradiated or treated with antibiotics.

Nothing New from the USDA
The USDA's recent attempts to degrade current high organic standards ˜ standards upheld by the nation's 40 private and state organic certification bodies ˜ are consistent with the agency's track record as a staunch defender of factory farm style food production. For decades the USDA has vigorously promoted the latest technologies developed by large-scale agribusiness and biotechnology corporations, from DDT and animal antibiotics, to genetically engineered hormones, seeds and crops. Several billion pounds of toxic chemicals are applied to American farmlands and pastures annually, while an estimated 24 million acres were planted with transgenic or genetically-altered crops in 1997 ˜ up from 6 million acres in 1996.

Pressure on the USDA to weaken pre-existing organic standards has come from several government agencies as well as powerful trade associations such as the National Food Processors Association, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the Grocery Manufacturers of America. Advocates for the immediate or eventual inclusion of genetic engineering and other factory farm technologies has come from the US Trade Representative office as well as the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Science and Technology's presidential advisory committee includes biotech giant Monsanto's senior vice-president for public policy, Virginia Weldon.

Lobbying to allow residential and industrial sewage sludge to pass as fertilizer under the USDA organic label has come from the nation's major toxic polluters as well as the Environmental Protection Agency itself, which has long been a strong advocate of disposing of what they euphemistically call "biosolids" by dumping them ˜ often covertly or semicovertly ˜ on farmlands and pastures. In a similar vein, the Food and Drug Administration and the nuclear industry have been pushing for wholesale nuclear irradiation of meat and other foods. And finally, the Clinton administration has pandered to their friends and donors in the biotech industry by enthusiastically approving every genetically engineered product presented to it (the total is now 33) for commercialization.

The USDA until recently was reluctant to get involved with organic food ˜ including efforts in 1990 to stop the US Congress from passing the Organic Foods Production Act. The discomfort the agency feels is largely due to political and economic considerations. At a public hearing earlier this year, a USDA official privately admitted to activists that the Clinton administration is faced with the awkward political dilemma of excluding agricultural practices under the organic label which are routinely used in conventional agricultural practices. How could Washington claim that chemical-intensive agriculture, intensive confinement of farm animals and genetic engineering are perfectly safe, and then permanently ban these practices under the federal organic label? How could the White House try to force controversial foods on the European market, for example hormone-tainted beef, using the hammer of the World Trade Organization, and then not allow these same foods to enjoy the USDA organic seal of approval?

This public relations and trade dilemma was revealed in a confidential memo reported in Mother Jones magazine in April 1998. The USDA memo said: "Few if any existing [organic] standards permit GMOs [genetically modified organisms], and their inclusion could affect the export of US Grown organic product. However, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Foreign Agricultural Service [USDA divisions] are concerned that our trading partners will point to a USDA organic standard that excludes GMOs as evidence of the department's concern about the safety of bioengineered commodities."

The National Organics Standards Board (NOSB), mandated by Congress in 1990 to set up a "National List" of substances allowed in organic food, was relatively free of these political dilemmas. They passed on to the USDA tough standards which had the full support of the organic food industry and consumer groups.

Now, as part of their proposed rules, the USDA is trying to usurp control from the NOSB. The 1990 law says that the USDA cannot add any substances to the list without NOSB approval. But the USDA internal memo published in Mother Jones describes the agency's plans to take away the statutory power of the NOSB to decide what is synthetic or natural, and what is allowed or prohibited under the organic label. The USDA claims that since the word "list" is written at times in lowercase letters in the 1990 statutes, the Law then allows the USDA to add substances to the list without the board's approval. White House lawyers also propose that the NOSB's statutory control over the National List is possibly "unconstitutional". But legal experts, as well as the authors of the 1990 National Organic Food Production (OFPA), Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), deny the USDA's interpretation of the 1990 law.

The USDA has decided to ignore or twist the NOSB's recommendations in the following fundamental ways:
The proposed rules allow the use of antibiotics in meat and poultry production. Recently, scientists around the world have voiced their concerns that farmers using antibiotics in chickens, cattle and fruit orchards are creating drug-resistent bacteria and pathogens that end up as dangerous residues in the food people eat. In response, there is mounting pressure on the US to impose stiff new requirements on the makers of new animal antibiotics.
The proposed rules lower traditional organic standards for the intensive confinement of farm animals, use of non-organic animal feed and other factory farm practices. In doing so, the USDA is opening up the organic market for the US's meat, poultry and dairy cartels, all of whom stand to gain billions of dollars in extra profits under relaxed or degraded rules for organic meat and animal products.
The leaked USDA memo published in Mother Jones also makes it clear that Washington bureaucrats consider it a "Hot Issue" to prevent the nation's several dozen non-governmental private organic certifiers from certifying and labelling organic products using standards higher than the USDA minimum. As the leaked memo makes clear, America's food giants not only want relaxed rules so that their products can be labelled as "USDA Organic" without having to make any substantial changes in their production methods, but they also want to eliminate any competition in the marketplace from smaller organic producers who are using genuine organic production methods.
The rules not only give USDA bureaucrats a legally-binding monopoly over the word "organic" but also empower the USDA to regulate or even prohibit eco-labels of any kind. As the proposed rules state: "the labelling or market information that directly or indirectly imply organic production and handling practices" may be prohibited. Examples of prohibited labelling would include: "produced without synthetic pesticides", "pesticide-free farm", "No growth stimulants administered", "raised without antibiotics", "humanely raised" and "ecologically produced".

Another important consideration is how degraded organic rules will affect international standards and trade. The USDA rule allows for a number of materials and practices that contradict existing international norms for organic production and processing as set by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Accreditation Programme, Codex guidelines and European Union regulations. Examples of these include the intensive confinement of livestock, the use of toxic inert ingredients in allowed pesticides, highly soluble fertilizers, no requirement for soil-building crop rotations in grain production, and lower percentages of organic ingredients in multi-ingredient products.

"What's happening is that the USDA is attempting to shift the whole organic concept from a process-based approach (emphasizing the way something is grown) to a product, or performance-based, approach (emphasizing measurable properties of the final product). This meshes very well with current US Trade policy, and it dovetails very well with the government's opposition to mandatory labelling for genetically engineered products," states Michael Sligh, programme director for the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), and founding chairman of the NOSB.

Organic Takeover and Consumers Right to Know
Of course the USDA plan to mis-label organic foods and criminalize dissent is just part of a larger political strategy designed to restrict consumer choice and force controversial agricultural practices on an unwilling public. In order to facilitate this, labels need to be either prohibited or rendered meaningless. But fortunately opposition is mounting, as evidenced by the dramatic increase in organic sales, the one brand of food products that consumers know they can trust.

But opposition to the US's "no-labelling" policies has begun to manifest itself on other fronts as well. On May 27, in Washington, D.C a coalition of scientists, health professionals, religious leaders and chefs, led by attorneys from the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), joined plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) policy of allowing genetically engineered foods on the market without mandatory safety testing or labelling. The plaintiffs in the suit are challenging the marketing of 33 different genetically engineered foods which include potatoes, tomatoes, soy, corn, squash and many other fruits and vegetables to which a variety of new genes from different species have been added.

"The FDA has placed the interests of a handful of biotechnology companies ahead of their responsibility to protect public health," stated Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the ICTA, and co-counsel on the case. "By failing to require testing and labelling of genetically engineered foods, the agency has made consumers unknowing guinea-pigs for potentially harmful, unregulated food substances."

On the same day the lawsuit was announced, in Ottawa, Canada, a broad cross-section of environmental and consumer public interest organizations rallied and held press conferences to pressure the GATT Codex Alimentarius Commission to require mandatory labelling of all genetically engineered foods on a global basis. In front of a bank of TV cameras and news reporters outside the Codex meeting hall, Consumers International was joined by representatives of Greenpeace International, the Council of Canadians and the Pure Food Campaign. Speakers from each of these organizations stressed that unlabelled, untested biotech foods pose significant health and environmental threats to the public and constitute a major global roadblock to the development of sustainable and organic agricultural practices.

In a dramatic and well-received speech inside the Codex meeting hall, Julian Edwards, Director General of Consumers International (CI), a network of 235 consumer organizations in 109 nations, presented evidence to the Codex assembly that consumers internationally have a fundamental right to mandatory labelling of genetically engineered foods, "to know what's in their food and how it has been produced." As Edwards explained, "One of the ironies of this issue is the contrast between the enthusiasm of food producers to claim that their biologically engineered products are different and unique when they seek to patent them and their similar enthusiasm for claiming that they are just the same as other foods when asked to label them .. .. The argument that ordinary people are not ˜ or should not be ˜ concerned about this issue is completely wrong."

Organic Standards: What's the USDA's Next Move?
How the USDA and powerful corporate interests will ultimately respond to the massive public rejection of their proposed organic rules remains to be seen. Most informed sources in Washington believe that the USDA will try to push through a compromised Final Rule late this year or in 1999 which will lower standards somewhat while trying to avoid setting off the kind of massive backlash that resulted from their more blatant December 1997 proposals. As long as the USDA has a legal monopoly on the word organic, as long as it's a civil crime for non-USDA organic certifiers and producers to use alternative higher standards and labels, the transnational corporations can afford to go more slowly, gradually degrading the standards further, over a period of several years, or even a decade. The Final Rule, the USDA tell us, will be a compromise rule, something we must swallow for the good of the economy and the bottom line of the food sector.

The flaw in this plan is that millions of organic consumers ˜ as well as certifiers, farmers and retailers ˜ are now so disillusioned and distrustful of the USDA that they are no longer willing to accept any compromises at all.

In an important tactical move, 27 leading non-USDA organic certifiers recently agreed to unite and adopt common high standards which basically conform with the recommendations of the National Organic Standards Board and international IFOAM requirements. These high standards are not only what 90 per cent of consumers want, this is what they demand.

The organic certifiers' Independent Accreditation system will provide a national and internationally-recognized set of standards and labels which will serve as an alternative to the forthcoming "USDA Organic" federal regulations.

Consumer organizations, organic farmers and natural food retailers (at least the small and medium-sized ones) are preparing for a protracted battle with the USDA. Any Final Rule published by the USDA which gives Washington bureaucrats a monopoly on the word "organic" is totally unacceptable. Any Final Rule which prohibits non-governmental organic certifiers and state government certifiers from labelling according to standards higher than the minimum standards of the USDA represents a violation of American consumers' Constitutional rights to free speech. Any Final Rule that prohibits producers and certifiers from utilizing eco-labels that even imply organic production will be vehemently opposed. As the proposed USDA rules read now, Monsanto, Tyson, Perdue, Cargill, Kraft, Kroger, Safeway, McDonald's ˜ any of America's food giants ˜ will have the legal option to sue any farmer, co-op, retailer, processor or handler in court for certifying or labelling, or even implying in their advertising, that their products are genuinely 'organic', and exceed the world's lowest minimum organic requirements, those of the USDA. This is not just a bad law, this is Food Fascism.

A Unique Opportunity for Food Activists
On June 5 a number of leading organic activists in the US announced the formation of "a new nationwide activist organization for organic consumers", the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). The OCA is capitalizing on the increased consumer awareness and activism resulting from the USDA's proposed rules. The OCA will be working through natural food co-ops, retail stores, farmers' markets, and other community organizations (holistic health practitioners, community restaurants, public interest organizations, vegetarian and animal protection groups, community media, etc.) to build a formidable political force.

While the USDA's degraded rules clearly pose a direct threat to organic food in the US and ultimately worldwide, they have also provided a unique opportunity for food activists. Rarely have the lines been more clearly drawn. The national organic standards controversy in the US has provided consumers and activists with an opportunity to truly challenge the transnational food corporations, mobilize a mass base, and win.

Ben Lilliston & Ronnie Cummins

Further information is available from:

Ben Lilliston, Sustain: The Environmental Information Group, 920 N. Franklin, Suite 206, Chicago, IL 60610, 312-951-8999. E-mail: ben@sustainusa.org
OR
Ronnie Cummins, Pure Food Campaign/SOS (Save Organic Standards), 860 Hwy 61, Little Marais, Mn. 55614,
Tel: 218-226-4164, Fax: 218-226-4157. E-mail: alliance@mr.net http://www.purefood.org

To subscribe to the free electronic newsletter, Food Bytes, send an e-mail to: majordomo@mr.net with the simple message: subscribe pure-food-action
The full text of Julian Edwards' speech is available on the internet at: http://www.consumersinternational.org/campaigns/codex/jedwards.html

posted in 0rganic - 0 replies

Rinsing veggies and fruits

kathi — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:06:25 GMT

Do you rinse you veggies and fruits before eating them? I've never worried about it, so I don't. Should I be?

posted in 0rganic - 8 replies

Welcome to 0rganic!

karina — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:10:04 GMT

For those who live, breathe and eat the Organic lifestyle. For those who consume Organic foods and products.

posted in 0rganic - 2 replies