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

Re: E-M:/ Organic under attack, agribusiness mission is to make theterm "Organic" meaningless.


Praxis wrote:
Dear Richard and Elise,

Point well taken ,  When mportant everyday terms are made meaningless to manipulate public opinion, the public loses.

Many land grant university scientists have factually identified that many of the most toxic and persistent pesticides contain carbon atoms and are therefore by definition, "organic". That one did not fly, good try fellas. However, IPM (as its used now is Improved Pesticide Marketing) in Michigan and elsewhere has been completely coopted with more that 150 definitions mission accomplished, kudos' to the professional propagandists on Madison avenue, in agribusiness, and at the university.  This corporate tactic of destroying commonly and agreed upon meaning is cowardly and mean spirited.  Their is an excellent book that speaks to this, that many people might enjoy reading it is called 'Toxic Sludge is Good for You!' br John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton  the ISBN-1-56751-060-4 Common Courage Press.  Best Wishes.

Samuel DeFazio
2723 116th Ave.
Alleagan, MI  49010     269-673-2793

Richard & Elsie Freye wrote:
I'm afraid that the word "organic", like too many other once good words, has already become meaningless because of its being used in too many ways with too many different meanings, so some might deem it their right to apply whatever definition suits their fancies. ("Gay" & "recycle", are a couple of other grossly misused words). In chemistry for example, "organic" refers to any chemical including carbon. One definition of "organic" in my small dictionary. is "relating to or derived from living things" which could include sewage or other animal offal.  Couldn't another word or combination of words more adequately specify what, specifically, "organic" livestock is?
----- Original Message -----
From: Praxis
To: enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:06 AM
Subject: E-M:/ Organic under attack, agribusiness mission is to make the term "Organic" meaningless.

FYI  Samuel DeFazio, Praxis

Organic under attack, agribusiness mission is to make the term "Organic" meaningless.

Action Alert: U.S. Organic Standards Threatened
February 24, 2003

The new U.S. organic standards, which went into effect in October of 2002, are in serious danger of being weakened. Originally the standards required organic livestock to be raised on 100% organic feed. Recent changes will allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to certify meat, chicken and eggs as "organic" even if the animals have been fed on conventionally produced grain. A last minute amendment to a spending bill passed by the U.S. Congress on February 13, 2003, would not require enforcement of the 100% organic feed requirement if the USDA confirms that organically produced feed costs more than twice as much as conventional feed. Organic advocates urge U.S. voters to contact their representatives and urge them to support a repeal of these changes.

The New York Times reports the rule change was added to the massive spending bill at meeting held behind closed doors with only Republicans in attendance. The rider was slipped in at the request of Representative Nathan Deal, a Republican from the state of Georgia, who received US$4,000 in campaign contributions from employees of a poultry producer seeking an exemption to feed his chickens a mix of conventional and organic feed.

"The language is a threat to the organic label," said spokeswoman Holly Givens of the Organic Trade Association, which consists of organic suppliers and sellers. "And the fact that it was done in an underhanded way should not be allowed to stand as a precedent for other people to try."

When the changes were made public, Senator Patrick Leahy, (D-VT) one of the authors of the 1990 "Organic Foods Production Act," announced that he would introduce a bill to reverse the change after Congress re-convenes February 24, 2003. Leahy asserts, "Getting the organic standards that are behind the 'USDA Organic' label right was a long and difficult process, but critically important to the future of the industry. Along the way, some tried to allow products treated with sewer sludge, irradiation, and antibiotics to be labeled 'organic.' The public outcry against this was overwhelming. More than 325,000 people weighed in during the comment period. The groundswell of support for strong standards clearly showed that the public wants "organic" to really mean something. Those efforts to hijack the term were defeated, and this one should be too."

In the days since the changes were slipped through Congress, major food firms with organic products such as General Mills and Tyson's Foods have denounced the rollback in the standards, but officials at USDA attending the closed-door session remained neutral. "This department did not take a position on this" said Alisa Harrison, spokeswoman for Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman. "The department is ready to enforce the clause. We have to meet the will of Congress, so we will add a price component to a study that we began last year on the availability of organic feed."

"I think this jeopardizes the whole organic industry in the Unites States," Representative Sam Farr (D-CA) said of the provision. Senator Leahy and Representative Farr are drafting legislation to repeal the changes that will need a wide number of sponsors in both the Senate and House in order to pass.

The National Campaign For Sustainable Agriculture and the Organic Trade Association Organic are asking people to urge their legislators to sign on to a repeal of Section 771 of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill.

Contact your legislators through a direct link at the Organic Trade Association website at http://www.ota.com.


Weakening of Organic Standard Is Considered, New York Times, Feb. 14, 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/politics/14ORGA.html.

National Campaign For Sustainable Agriculture press release, February 14, 2003, http://www.sustainableagriculture.net/organicRelease.php.

Agri-Business Examiner, and Associated Press, Even Bush Administration and Producers Back Away from Organic Standards Bill Change While USDA Remains "Neutral," Issue 223, February 22, 2003.


National Campaign For Sustainable Agriculture, P.O. Box 396, Pine Bush, New York 12566; phone (845) 744-8448; fax (845) 744-8477; http://www.SustainableAgriculture.net, email contact@sustainableagriculture.net.

Organic Trade Association, http://www.ota.com.

PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and reporting on pesticide issues that don't always get coverage by the mainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide Action Network North America, a non-profit and non-governmental organization working to advance sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide.

You can join our efforts! We gladly accept donations for our work and all contributions are tax deductible in the United States. Visit http://www.panna.org/donate.