• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

MAD COW FEED RECALL USA Albertville, AL -- June 16, 2006 --

flounder

Well-known member
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################

Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA Albertville, AL -- June 16, 2006 -- H.J. Baker & Bro.
Date: June 20, 2006 at 6:55 am PST
MAD COW FEED RECALL USA Albertville, AL -- June 16, 2006 -- H.J. Baker & Bro.


Recall -- Firm Press Release

FDA posts press releases and other notices of recalls and market withdrawals from the firms involved as a service to consumers, the media, and other interested parties. FDA does not endorse either the product or the company. This listserv covers mainly Class I (life-threatening) recalls. A complete listing of recalls can be found in the FDA Enforcement Report at: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/Enforce.html

HJ Baker and Bro., Inc. Announces National Recall of Three Animal Feed Products Containing Prohibited Ingredients
Contact:
Mark Hohnbaum
501-664-4870

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- Albertville, AL -- June 16, 2006 -- H.J. Baker & Bro. has announced today that in cooperation with the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) it has begun efforts to retrieve PRO-PAK WITH PORCINE MEAT AND BONE, PRO-LAK, AND PRO-AMINO II produced at its Albertville, AL facility. These products are used as an ingredient in the manufacturing of livestock feed, including feed for dairy animals. This action is being taken to address potential risk of unintentional contamination with ruminant derived protein that may have occurred at this facility from August 2005 to June 2006. Certain mammalian protein is prohibited for use in ruminant feed. These products were distributed in bulk or bags to feed manufacturers and dairy farms in Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, California, and Louisiana.

If you have received any of these products, discontinue their use immediately. Quarantine the product so that it cannot be inadvertently used in the manufacture of feeds and contact the manufacturer at 501-664-4870 for further instructions.

"All production and shipment of these products from the Albertville mill have ceased and all of our customers are being notified of the potential contamination. With the advice and support of the FDA, we were able to respond rapidly to address this matter," said Christopher Smith, President & CEO.

H.J. Baker & Bro., Inc., headquartered in Westport, CT, has served the fertilizer and animal feed industries since the Company was founded in 1850.

####


FDA's Recalls, Market Withdrawals and Safety Alerts Page: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/7alerts.html



lets see here now, we have mad cows in Alabama, we have mad cow feed in Alabama, however JUST another spontaneous event of more BSe. ...TSS

#################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html ####################
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Murgen said:
facility from August 2005 to June 2006

Almost a year of exposure! Is this what OT calls an effective feed ban?

I guess we'll find out in about what say, 5-10 years?

USDA says we virtually have no BSE in the US-OIE says the US will qualify as BSE free in less than a year :wink:
 

flounder

Well-known member
Subject: Re: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA Albertville, AL -- June 16, 2006 -- H.J. Baker & Bro.
Date: June 20, 2006 at 3:24 pm PST

June 20, 2006, 5:13PM
Feed Recalled Over Mad Cow Violation


© 2006 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Livestock feed ingredients shipped to nine states may have been contaminated with cattle remains in violation of a 1997 ban to protect against mad cow disease, a manufacturer said Tuesday.

H.J. Baker & Bro. Inc. said it was recalling three livestock feed ingredients, including two used to supplement feed given to dairy cows. A sample tested by the Food and Drug Administration was positive for cattle meat and bone meal, said Mark Hohnbaum, president of the Westport, Conn.-based company's feed products group.

"This is very concerning to us. This isn't something that happens to us. We are very serious about food safety," Hohnbaum said.

Mad cow disease is only known to spread when cows eat feed containing brain and other nerve tissue from infected cattle. Protein from cattle was commonly added to cattle feed to speed growth until the ban largely outlawed the practice.

Cattle tissue may have contaminated two feed ingredients given to dairy cows _ Pro-Lak and Pro-Amino II _ made by H.J. Baker between August 2005 and June. The third of the recalled ingredients, Pro-Pak with Porcine Meat and Bone, was mislabeled. It is used in poultry feed.

The company announced the recall in the wake of ongoing FDA inspections of its Albertville, Ala. plant, Hohnbaum said. The inspections have found manufacturing and clerical issues, he added.

The company shipped the ingredients to feed manufacturers and dairy farms in the following states: Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi and Tennessee. The company is notifying its customers of the voluntary recall. It does not know how much of the feed ingredients it sold, Hohnbaum said.

___

On the Net:

Food and Drug Administration animal feed information: http://www.fda.gov/cvm/animalfeed.htm


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/3987413.html


OOOOPS!





TSS
 

Econ101

Well-known member
You have to wonder if the AL positive had anthing like this as a transmission route. Since we can not really trust the USDA to do a competent inspection (Phyllis Fong's report was definitive) and the investigation details were minimal, we are asked to "trust me" on that one once again.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
On this one, you and I agree Econ, it's pretty hard trusting Food Safety in the US, when the USDA is on the job.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
And it is funny how the political game got rcalf to say how the risk of bse is low in the U.S. with such a credibilty problem at the USDA.

Sometimes the political game (I am not blaming rcalf for this) gets in the way of the truth. It is how the country is being run right now. The corporate money buys the policy, the air time and the soundbites are all that count. It is as if we are all in a big commercial.

I have vacationed down in FL where the movie "The Truman Show" with Jim Carey was filmed and it seems like we are all in the movie.

It is no way to run the country--unless you are a politician.

The responsibility of feed ban bse transmission needs to be put on those who are making money off of it. That includes Tyson. It is the only way to get it to stop.
 

William Kanitz

Well-known member
FDA SAYS;An animal food manufacturer receives commingled product from three different facilities and produces an animal feed finished product. The product is sold directly to farmers as feed, and also to subsequent animal food manufacturers who commingle it with other food ingredients and make a final saleable product. What information must the records established and maintained by the original manufacturer contain?

A: The firm manufactures a product that is both a finished feed and a feed ingredient. As discussed in the response to comment 61 in the Final Rule preamble, "food" includes food ingredients. For the purpose of this rule, the only difference in the record requirements therefore concerns the container of the product. If the manufacturer is placing the product in contact with a finished container in which it will be received by an individual consumer (not a business), the manufacturer must establish and maintain records of the receipt of the finished container in accordance with 21 CFR 1.327(k) and must identify the specific source of the finished container in the record of release of the finished food as specified by §1.345(b). With respect to all other ingredients incorporated in the product, the manufacturer must always establish and maintain records of receipt that include the information specified in §1.337, including the lot or code number or other identifier if it exists. When the manufacturer releases the finished product, it must establish and maintain records of release to any person who is not an individual consumer, including farms. Although farms themselves are exempt from all requirements as provided by §1.327(a), records must be established and maintained by the nontransporter (including the original manufacturer) and transporter immediate previous source of food released to farms.


They need better recordkeeping as to who sold them the ingredients and how they were commingled with cattle by-products.
 

Bill

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
And you guys wonder why my son and I eat organic beef. Us ordinary consumers have no idea what the beef we buy at the supermarket was fed...

Honest question R2. Is it certified organic and what exactly does that mean? Do any of those animals graze pasture watered with efluent? Are all the creeks, streams or other water sources fenced off so the cattle can't drink water containing herbicides or pesticides or fertilizers.

Don't get me wrong, despite what some post here I believe North Americans have one of the safest food supplies in the world. I am just trying to look at this through a consumer's eyes and understand how much safer organic beef is supposed to be than what I raise myself.
 

Bill

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Bill said:
reader (the Second) said:
And you guys wonder why my son and I eat organic beef. Us ordinary consumers have no idea what the beef we buy at the supermarket was fed...

Honest question R2. Is it certified organic and what exactly does that mean? Do any of those animals graze pasture watered with efluent? Are all the creeks, streams or other water sources fenced off so the cattle can't drink water containing herbicides or pesticides or fertilizers.

Don't get me wrong, despite what some post here I believe North Americans have one of the safest food supplies in the world. I am just trying to look at this through a consumer's eyes and understand how much safer organic beef is supposed to be than what I raise myself.

CJD is untreatable and a horrible way to die. Although the risk is small, I have more fear of CJD than of cancer from herbicides or pesticides. Many of the families who have seen what the disease does won't eat beef or have switched to organic.

Certified organic (Laura's and Coleman are the two I buy) is my way of trying to avoid eating beef fed possibly contaminated with BSE feed.

Due to my age (56), since the incubation is 10 - 20 years, I am not strict and eat non-organic steaks in restaurants. I try to only eat ground beef products that are organic but sometimes slip there.

You know what you feed your beef I hope although maybe not given these feed ban loopholes and violations. Us consumers really have no guarantee I believe given feed ban loopholes, violations, downers being slaughtered and entering the food chain, downers being brought to and slaughtered at regular slaughter houses, calves being fed milk replacer, etc.
Organic beef can still be fed protein supplements, colostrum substitiutes and milk replacer. They may also recieve some vaccines derived from ???.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Bill said:
Organic beef can still be fed protein supplements, colostrum substitiutes and milk replacer. They may also recieve some vaccines derived from ???.

Bill, it is my understanding that an animal that is certified organic can't be fed anything that isn't certified organic...the pasture that grows the grass the animal eats has to be certified organic.
 

Bill

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Bill said:
Organic beef can still be fed protein supplements, colostrum substitiutes and milk replacer. They may also recieve some vaccines derived from ???.

Bill, it is my understanding that an animal that is certified organic can't be fed anything that isn't certified organic...the pasture that grows the grass the animal eats has to be certified organic.
My post wasn't worded properly but my point is that it seems to some that the gov't agencies and packers that deal with organic beef are 100% credible but not the ones who are in control of the rest of our beef? Wouldn't some of them be one in the same?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Bill said:
RobertMac said:
Bill said:
Organic beef can still be fed protein supplements, colostrum substitiutes and milk replacer. They may also recieve some vaccines derived from ???.

Bill, it is my understanding that an animal that is certified organic can't be fed anything that isn't certified organic...the pasture that grows the grass the animal eats has to be certified organic.
My post wasn't worded properly but my point is that it seems to some that the gov't agencies and packers that deal with organic beef are 100% credible but not the ones who are in control of the rest of our beef? Wouldn't some of them be one in the same?

Bill, bunch us all in the human group and you have the same argument. It isn't very helpful.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Certified organic can still be fed 25% non organic feeds.

Certified organic can still be poured with ivomec or the like until the third trimester of gestation.

Years back when Loblaws introduced "natural" beef it created more questions from consumers like "is the other beef synthetic?"

When tested it was found the "natural" beef had higher levels of post treatment chemicals in it. The rationale was that most minerals were not allowed in a "natural" product and the cattle chewed posts looking for minerals.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
Certified organic can still be fed 25% non organic feeds.

Certified organic can still be poured with ivomec or the like until the third trimester of gestation.

Years back when Loblaws introduced "natural" beef it created more questions from consumers like "is the other beef synthetic?"

When tested it was found the "natural" beef had higher levels of post treatment chemicals in it. The rationale was that most minerals were not allowed in a "natural" product and the cattle chewed posts looking for minerals.

Jason, you know little about organic production or are trying to mislead people with what you are saying here. To show this, here is a 10 second google on organic and the issue you just brought up. The bolded parts of your post refer to the mother cow of an organic calf. In addition, naturally occuring minerals are not considered violations of the organic standards your last paragraph alludes to. It is just a bunch of BULL.
Facts Concerning the Production of Organic Beef
Print this page


Facts Concerning the Production of Organic Beef


Organic Practices
The philosophy of organic production is to provide conditions that meet the health needs and natural behavior of the animal. Thus, organic livestock are given access to the outdoors, fresh air, water, sunshine, grass and pasture, and are fed 100 percent organic feed. Any shelter provided must be designed to allow the animal comfort and the opportunity to exercise. Organic practices prohibit feeding animal parts of any kind to ruminants that, by nature, eat a vegetarian diet. Thus, no animal byproducts of any sort are incorporated in organic feed at any time.

National organic standards require oversight of production and handling systems. For instance, production and handling operations must undergo onsite inspections and have farm or operating plans in place in order to be certified organic. The standards also specify feed requirements, including what is and is not allowed.

For instance, in organic production, livestock cannot be fed plastic pellets for roughage, or formulas containing urea or manure. They cannot be given antibiotics or growth hormones. All of these are allowable practices in conventional agriculture. For an animal to be raised for organic beef, its mother must have been fed organic feed for at least the last third of gestation.

To read specific organic livestock requirements, including feed, health care practices, and living conditions, see: www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/standards/prodhandreg.html.

In processing operations that handle both organic and non-organic meat products, processors must segregate their handling of organic and non-organic meat. There also are specified cleaning agents that are allowed and prohibited in such operations.

Traceability
Organic certification, by a U.S. Department of Agriculture-approved agent, is required for the farm and the processing and handling facilities prior to delivery to retail outlets.

Because farmers and handlers must keep extensive records as part of their farm and handling plans in order to be certified organic, the organic production system offers traceability of the animal from birth to marketing of the resulting meat. Thus, when one purchases organic meat, there is a guarantee of traceability.

Marketing of organic meat
Under national organic standards, when marketed as organic, meat by itself is 100 percent organic. If a consumer buys organic hamburger, it means that all of the meat has been produced organically.

You don't know a lot about corn yields either.

Keep the sales job on something you do know about.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Conman opens mouth and inserts foot.

The cow obviously is the one poured with ivomec (reference to up to the third trimester.).

BTW conman a cow has a 9 month gestation or pregnancy...do I need to type slower? A trimester would be a 3 month period of said pregnancy.

So a cow could be poured until she is 6 months pregnant and the calf still qualifies for organic.

The said organic calf can be fed 25% of its diet with non organic (ie chemically raised) feeds.

Your own google search proves it.

For an animal to be raised for organic beef, its mother must have been fed organic feed for at least the last third of gestation.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
Conman opens mouth and inserts foot.

The cow obviously is the one poured with ivomec (reference to up to the third trimester.).

BTW conman a cow has a 9 month gestation or pregnancy...do I need to type slower? A trimester would be a 3 month period of said pregnancy.

So a cow could be poured until she is 6 months pregnant and the calf still qualifies for organic.

The said organic calf can be fed 25% of its diet with non organic (ie chemically raised) feeds.

Your own google search proves it.

For an animal to be raised for organic beef, its mother must have been fed organic feed for at least the last third of gestation.

Jason, here is the link to the rules:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Q&A.html

On your assertion about minerals:


questions and answers
The questions and answers below are categorized by subject matter and will be updated on a monthly basis.

General Topics
Definitions
Applicability
Organic Production and Handling Requirements
Labels, Labeling, and Market Information
Certification
Accreditation of Certifying Agents
National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances
State Organic Programs
Exporting Organic Products

General Topics

Q: Where can I get a copy of the National Organic Program regulations?

A: You can obtain a copy of the NOP regulations by contacting the NOP through this website.

Top

Definitions

There are no Questions and Answers for Definitions at this time

Top

Applicability

Posted 6/26/03
Q: Can salt and water be certified organic under the National Organic Program?

A: No. Salt, in all of its forms, and water can not be certified as organic under the National Organic Program. Only agricultural products produced and handled in accordance with the National Organic Program may be certified as organically produced. Salts are minerals not agricultural products. Water is a chemical substance used in the production of agricultural products but is not itself an agricultural product. Section 2106(c) (7 U.S.C. 6505 (c)) of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, as amended, and section 205.302 of the National Organic Program require the exclusion of salt and water when calculating the percentage of organic ingredients in a multi-ingredient product. Further, National Organic Program sections 205.303(b)(1) and 205.304(b)(1) provide that “Water or salt included as ingredients cannot be identified as organic.”

On your assertion about the calf being fed 25% non organic, you are just plain wrong. The calf in the cow is not being fed non organic feed, its mother is. When the calf is born, it must be fed organic the whole time of its life to be considered organic.

Like I said, you need to stick to sales of the things you know instead of providing misleading and false information.

The unfortunate thing about the organic debate is that the standards are being changed for the advantage of big business wanting to cash in. Here is an article on just exactly that happening and the political corruption that lead to it:


ARCH


NEWS SERVICE


LETTERS
ABOUT DV CONTACT SUBMISSIONS



Federal Food Policy: Organic Inconsistencies
by Joshua Frank
www.dissidentvoice.org
December 17, 2005

Send this page to a friend! (click here)






Healthy living has become the national obsession these past few decades. As the rate of cancer continues to escalate, and with the obesity epidemic as it is in the United States, people are turning toward healthier diets and lifestyles in hopes of enhancing their longevity. Awareness about food’s nutritional content is also on the rise -- many health conscious Americans are concerned with the quality and content of the food they are scarfing down every day. As these interests have grown, so has the organic food movement. Organics, as the general definition puts it, are products that are not grown genetically, and are developed without the use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides or hormones.

In 1973, after the United States banned the perilous DDT, the underground organics industry grew almost overnight, due in part to the expanding consumer opposition to chemical pesticides as well as the desire to eat foods that were produced without negatively impacting the environment. Many people feared that conventional store bought food was not as safe to eat as chemical produced goods and with the growing awareness of what DDT did to human and environmental health, consumers were growing weary of the corporate agricultural industry. So people hastily flocked back to the land and planted crops on their own, or joined food co-ops where they could grow and trade products among a community of like-minded comrades. The market soon reacted to this growing demand of organic foods and in the 1990s companies that produced organics estimated sales of more than $1 billion annually. Organic food was here to stay.

Congress soon followed and passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) in 1990, which was attached to the Farm Bill and established the initial framework to create National Organic Standards which set the legal standards for organic foods. OFPA mandated the formation of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which was organized to advise the Secretary of Agriculture in setting the standards for the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program (NOP). NOSB based its recommendations on industry consensus an organic advocates were pleased. The next step, however, was a bit more cumbersome. Turning USDA’s organic standards into rules and regulations, took some intense lobbying. Americans didn’t seem ready to put the food they ate to the test. But in October 2002, USDA officially began labeling foods that met the agency’s definition of ‘organic’ -- products with 95% organic content or higher.

Attempting to define what the USDA considers “organic” is like trying to figure out which lie George W. Bush told last -- it is a difficult, if not impossible task. Since 2002, the USDA has changed their definition almost every year. So, today’s products labeled “organic” by the Agency may not have been labeled the same in 2003. This sort of wavering has been met with much criticism from many organic food advocates who believe the USDA should stick to the standards it agreed upon in 1990. Others, mostly industry suit coats, still believe the USDA’s labeling is too stringent. And why wouldn’t they? The lesser the standards, the fatter their bottom-lines. And here is where the lobbying efforts on the part of the agriculture giants come into play.

“Certification is becoming big business,” writes Hilary Chop for the Alternatives Journal, “Accredited certification agencies are becoming for-profit enterprises instead of farmer -- and consumer run organizations. This raises the potential for conflict of interests, particularly since farms pay the certifying agency based on their acreage. If a mega-farm wants an exception from the rules, it can be all too tempting for the enforcing officer who receives a commission, to make allowances.”

Case in point: In 2002, shortly after the USDA announced its labeling policy, a controversy bubbled over when an accredited USDA-certifier allowed Georgia chicken producer, Fieldale Chickens, to label its products organic while only having to use ten percent organic feed instead of 100 percent required by the NOP under USDA’s guidelines. Fieldale spent tens of thousands of dollars to hire a prime time Washington lobbyist to help change organic standards at USDA. And with the help of the Georgia delegation in Congress, they were successful.

Later in April 2004, after intense lobbying efforts by ag industry giants like ConAgra and Monsanto, the USDA proposed new rules that would have allowed USDA-certified organic farms to use fertilizers and pesticides that contain "unknown" ingredients, or rather, ingredients that could not be identified by either the grower or the inspector. Also on the butcher block were USDA-certified organic dairy cows. Up until 2004, organic certified cows could not be fed any antibiotics or non-organic feed. That changed fast, as the desire for organic products grew publicly, so did the awareness among the big-agriculture folks who lobbied until they succeeded. Luckily, organic activists didn’t back down from the fight. There was a public outcry, and in May 2004, USDA retracted the proposed changes they had put forth a month prior. If they hadn’t reversed their plea, USDA-certified cows could have been administered antibiotics or fed non-organic fishmeal -- made with synthetic preservatives and potentially contaminated by mercury and PCBs, which is a known carcinogen.

Nonetheless, if industry giants are anything, they’re persistent. And by June 2004, the USDA had reinstated one of the directives from April of that same year. Today all seafood, body care products, and clothing, fertilizers and pet food can be labeled “organic” regardless of how they were manufactured. And on December 13, 2005, the U.S. Senate passed the 2006 Appropriations bill, which included language that weakened even more USDA organic labeling standards.

Young dairy cows can now be treated with antibiotics and can also be fed genetically engineered feed. Not only that, numerous synthetic food additives and processing agents can now be used in USDA approved organic foods. And in case of “emergency decrees,” or rather, in case of a shortage of organic goods (shortage is determined by the USDA, not the U.S. public) loopholes now exist in the federal statutes, which allow for the substitution of non-organic ingredients without any public notification or oversight. The new changes are a result of recent fight over USDA standards that began heating up in 2002 when organic blueberry farmer Arthur Harvey of Maine filed a federal lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture for allowing products containing synthetic ingredients to be sold as ‘organic’. Mr. Harvey contended that USDA’s organic standards were ambiguous, which undermined consumer organic goods and confidence in USDA’s labels.

In January of 2005, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Harvey's favor. The court mandated that USDA had one year to re-write their regulations. It looked like a win for the organic community. “The decision said that synthetic substances were not permitted in any type of product labeled as ‘organic,’” Joe Mendelson, legal director for the Center for Food Safety told reporters after the decision. Such products could not be labeled with the official green USDA ‘Organic’ stamp of approval.

But when big money is involved, justice won’t often prevail. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who has stood up for organic standards in the past, inserted the language in the Agriculture Appropriations Bill of 2006, countered Mendelson, “The Harvey case could have major impacts on the future of the organic industry, both for producers and processors. That is why I added language to the Senate bill instructing USDA to study the implications of the decision and report back to Congress. I believe a deliberative process to achieve consensus within the organic community would have been more appropriate.” Leahy received over $32,000 from the agribusiness sector during the 2004 election cycle.

The Senator’s amendment now forces the U.S. Agriculture Secretary to analyze, within 90 days of the bill’s passage, whether reinstating the organic labeling standards set in 2002 “would adversely affect organic farmers, organic food processors, and consumers.” The secretary also has to analyze “issues regarding the use of synthetic ingredients in processing and handling” certified organic products.

This is where the Organic Trade Association (OTA) comes into the picture. The OTA represents virtually all the companies hoping to turn a profit in the organic foods market, regardless of their size. By and large the OTA was not in the least bit happy with the court’s ruling in the Harvey case. They want to make money for their clients. The amendment had been opposed by many organic food growers, as well as public health officials, environmental organizations, including National Grocers Association, National Organic Coalition and Rural Advancement, Beyond Pesticides, National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, Organic Consumers Association among others.

According to the OTA’s number crunching, had rules of the Harvey case gone into effect, 25 percent of organic manufacturers would have left the business, which they estimated would account for almost $758 million in lost sales per year. Clearly the OTA was putting potential profits over consumer and environmental health. The group also argued that 20 percent of organic farmers would have had to abandon their farming methods. So in effect, Harvey’s case will have no real impact on the way USDA manages and labels organic food. Not surprisingly, it wasn’t small organic farmers who opposed the Harvey ruling, but rather it was industry Goliaths like General Mills and Dean Foods, who, along with others, hold considerable sway over the OTA.

The entrance of such big names into the organic market is a good indication that organic foods have been corporatized. Of course, the fear is that such companies are more concerned with fattening their bottom lines than to adhering to any sort of environmental ethic. They are in it to make big money and there are billions to be made. An example of corporate influx: McDonald’s restaurants in the North East will be carrying organic fair-trade coffee. General Mills owns Cascadian Farms and the popular organic Muir Glen brand. Kraft, which is owned by Phillip Morris, owns Boca, a popular soy burger company. And as mentioned above, Dean Foods, the dairy giant, owns White Wave and Silk soymilks, as well as Horizon Organic milk. And this is just the tip of the ever-expanding iceberg.

As the organic food industry has matured, USDA standards have waned. Consumers can no longer be confidant that their foods meet organic standards, even if the USDA gives them its green mark of approval.

Joshua Frank is the author of Left Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, just published by Common Courage Press. Check out Josh's radical news blog at www.brickburner.org, where the book can also be purchased. He can be reached at: [email protected]

The national official organic standards for the U.S. can be found at the USDA's website and the pertinent rule change discussed is:



AMS NEWS RELEASE



AMS No. 138-06

Joan Shaffer (202) 720-8998

[email protected]

Billy Cox (202) 720-8998

[email protected]



USDA PUBLISHES FINAL RULE TO REVISE NATIONAL ORGANIC

PROGRAM REGULATIONS



WASHINGTON, June 5, 2006 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture will publish a final rule in the Federal Register June 7 that revises the National Organic Program (NOP) regulations to comply with the final court order in the Harvey v. Johanns lawsuit and implement the 2005 amendments to the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (the Act or OFPA).


The final rule restores the National List of synthetics used in products labeled as “organic” to the pre-lawsuit status made by the 2005 amendments to the Act. The effective date of this final rule revision is June 7, 2006, the date of the final rule’s publication in the Federal Register.



The final rule revises the NOP regulations to clarify that non-organically produced products listed in section 205.606 of the regulations may be used as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic” only when such organic products are not commercially available. The effective date of this final rule revision for section 205.606 is June 9, 2007.



The final rule also revises section 205.236 of the NOP regulations to eliminate what is commonly known as the “80/20” feed provision, and no milk may be labeled as organic and enter the stream of commerce after June 9, 2007, as a result of the 80/20 feed provision. Thereafter, transitioning dairy producers will no longer be able to use 20 percent non-organic feed during the first nine months of whole herd conversion from conventional to organic production.



The final rule further addresses dairy herd conversion by allowing crops and forage from land, included in the organic dairy system plan, of a dairy farm that is in its third year of organic management to be fed to the converting animals. The effective date of this revision is June 7, 2006, the date of the final rule’s publication in the Federal Register.



Many commenters asked USDA to address the current two-track system for converting dairy replacement animals. USDA intends to engage in further rulemaking to address this issue.

I think I would be wary of anything you had to say, Jason.
 

Latest posts

Top