Organic food rules changed arbitrarily

[Ugg]

Link (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/22/MNGMT6QD0H1.DTL)

The changes in the National Organic Program standards, made in April, expand the use of antibiotics and hormones in organic dairy cows, allow more pesticides in the organic arsenal and for the first time let organic livestock eat potentially contaminated fishmeal.

Program administrators also reversed themselves and said seafood, pet food and body care products can use "organic" on their labels without meeting any standards at all.

And in what the $11 billion organic food industry, consumer and farm groups call a dangerous precedent, program administrators made last month's changes in three "guidances" and one "directive" without seeking public comment or consulting with their own advisers on the National Organics Standards Board.

Emphasis mine. Another attempt by gw & co. to gut the environmental movement. It's unbelievable that the organic lable can now be used without regard to the contents.

[skunk]

Emphasis mine. Another attempt by gw & co. to gut the environmental movement. It's unbelievable that the organic lable can now be used without regard to the contents.
Rather like the WMD label, isn't it? Not what it says on the tin.

[Voltron]

On the basis of current evidence, the Agency's assessment is that organic food is not significantly different in terms of food safety and nutrition from food produced conventionally. The Agency recognises that organic food contributes to consumer choice.

A more detailed explanation of the Agency's position on each of the key issues is set out in the main submission made by the Agency in May 2002 to the Welsh Assembly's Agriculture and Rural; Development Committee. Issues relating to organic meat are contained in a supplementary submission.

http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/science/sciencetopics/organicfood/

The way I read the way things happened in 1999 and 2000 is that it is the USDA that makes National Food Organic Standards not the President of the US. The only story I found on this is the very one you posted.

Maybe I should start posting stuff like;

God Save the King! King Clinton who guaranteed safety "for the children". Notice the happy serfs to the left who are living very much in the fashion of the Branch Davidians: a small group of people interacting peaceably together. Let us consider their fate by reading the following articles. Click on the titles below and consider the fate of the serfs.

WACO! WACO! WACO!
Clinton Murders Babies

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/wacowaco.htm

Then again maybe not.

[Ugg]

http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/science/sciencetopics/organicfood/

The way I read the way things happened in 1999 and 2000 is that it is the USDA that makes National Food Organic Standards not the President of the US. The only story I found on this is the very one you posted.

Maybe I should start posting stuff like;

Then again maybe not.

I'm not sure what the UK's food standards have to do with the US' FDA?

I fail to understand what Waco has to do with organic food? The FDA is clearly controlled by the Prez. He has obviously made it known that he is more concerned about big, pesticide and fertilizer agribusiness than he is about the largely small-farm organic foods movement.

[Desertrat]

Ugg, my problem with your conclusion about the Prez and his interests is that a helluva lot of this stuff happens way down in the lower echelons. Unless you really see activism from the White House press releases, this sort of thing isn't even on the radar. And it's pretty much true for most of the agencies. I'm often dubious that even Agency heads know what's going on, which is why so many of them wander aimlessly with a "How did that happen?" look on their faces.

'Rat

[Neserk]

Ugg, my problem with your conclusion about the Prez and his interests is that a helluva lot of this stuff happens way down in the lower echelons. 'Rat


If Georgie had an ounce of integrity in his body he would have vetoed.

[Desertrat]

Neserk, you should have read the article. The decision was made at a very low level, but apparently the gal responsible for it has the authority, without having to get approval from the Secy/Ag. It is only now that anybody is following the usual procedures to review and possibly rescind the decision. The normal bureaucratic process is underway.

Further, the President has no statutory authority to rescind the decision. (Well, okay, an Executive Order, but those aren't used for something this trivial.) He can advise the Secy/Ag, but that's it. I really doubt that anybody who frequents this board has a clue as to what anybody has said to the Prez, if anything at all has gotten that far up the "chain of command".

'Rat

[zimv20]

i don't see this as a trivial change. regardless of how likely or unlikely it is that bush either was fully informed, not at all informed, or initiated the change, its logic is fully in line w/ how i view this administration on such matters: damn the consumer, make it more profitable for business

after decades of carefully crafting and setting high standards for organic food, it's suddenly all been undone? i want to see the administration stand up and say, "hey, this isn't beneficial to consumers, so let's undo it."

i want ralph nader to quit ****ing around w/ the presidency and return to his targeted consumer protection plans. that's where we need him.

[pseudobrit]

I don't buy organic food anyway. It's often massively overpriced. I used to bug a roomate of mine because she'd spend $100 on two small bags of organic foods and let two loaves of organic bread go mouldy while she ate out at restaurants and diners every night instead. Which is not to say I don't think I should have the option of buying genuine organic food if I should so choose. Now let me get to my real point, which is centred on these very prices.

It's clear what's happening: true organic foods cost more because it's done on a smaller scale and with lower yields, therefore the lower supply and higher production costs lead to inflated prices at the counter. Such small-scale approaches don't appeal to the traditional argicultural industry because it goes completely against their core business model.

Now, with the new rules, the traditional, high tech, high volume agri-biz giants can get into the act, flood the market with "organic" foods that are produced in a non-organic way and destroy the small-scale farmers who rely on the organic market. The prices will drop and family farms, unable to profit because their costs are higher and yields are lower, will have to look elsewhere for their income, getting out of the organic foods business.

The upshot for the ag giants is that their non-organic "organic" foods will initially undercut the genuine competition to destroy the small-scale organic farms and promptly return to the higher prices that the market has proven that it can sustain for organic foods.

The genuine organic farmers could of course now switch to using hormones and pesticides, sure, but they cannot profit or compete against the giants in that market, which is why they were in a niche market in the first place.

So the new rule of thumb is: don't buy organic foods at all. If you want to support family farms, buy your produce directly from their roadside stands (do they still have these in other parts of the nation? I'm in a county where the honor system still applies to some unattended farmer stands -- you put your money in the box and take as much as you paid for).

[Desertrat]

zim, from the standpoint of the use of Executive Orders, this issue is trivial. As an issue for some people, it is of prime importance, which I readily acknowledge.

Heck, I'm a natural food freak. That's why I eat deer and quail. No growth hormones.

:), 'Rat