On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 08:32:52 -0400, Pat Meadows
wrote:

IMHO, this is quite a sharp contrast to the traditional
attitude of the USDA. I believe that organic farmers and
gardeners in the USA have generally been frustrated by the
very notable lack of support they have received from the
USDA through the cooperative extension and other areas,
although if what I read can be believed the USDA is now
improving somewhat in this respect.

From here it looks like the USDA will muck it up more than help....

Assault on organic standards

It took 12 years of hearings, hundreds of thousands of comments from
the public, and the drafting of 600 pages of proposed standards to
create the "USDA Organic" label.

Issued last October, it was a major achievement. Even its toughest
critics agree that any food bearing the organic label must be produced
far more naturally, with far less impact on the environment, than
conventional food. Among the requirements: No synthetic fertilizers,
few chemical pesticides, no antibiotics or hormones, no irradiation or
genetic engineering, no animal byproducts in animal feed, and access
to the outdoors for all livestock.

No sooner did those tough standards go into effect, however, than
various enterprises began to look for ways to cash in on the USDA
Organic label without having to adhere to all the demanding rules. In
October, The Country Hen, a Massachusetts egg producer, applied to its
local organic certifier for permission to use the organic label. But
to meet the rule that its chickens would be able to go outside, the
producer indicated that it planned to put a few porches on its
henhouses, which held thousands of layers. Did this promise fulfill
the requirement for access to the outdoors? The local certifier said
no. But on appeal, the USDA overruled the certifier and said The
Country Hen could use the USDA’s and the certifier’s organic labels.

The certifier has since filed suit against the USDA, and Consumers
Union has urged the USDA to change its ruling. In the meantime,
Country Hen eggs are on the market with the organic labels.

In Georgia, some chicken producers wanted to use the organic label on
their broilers. But they discovered that organic feed, which is what
an organic chicken must eat, was relatively expensive. So the chicken
producers convinced Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) to push through Congress
a rider to the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill saying that if organic
feed cost more than twice as much as regular feed, organic livestock
could eat the regular kind.

As that drastic cheapening of the organic label became known,
Consumers Union and others objected. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
amassed enough support to repeal the feed exemption. But there was a
cost. Sen. Ted Stevens (D-Alaska) insisted that the legislation
instruct the USDA to authorize use of the organic label on seafood
caught in the wild. That includes not just salmon from the relatively
unpolluted waters off the Alaska coast but also swordfish and shark,
which the Food and Drug Administration says contain so much mercury
that children and pregnant women should not eat them.

Last October, with no hearings or public discussion, the USDA extended
its rules on organic labeling to cosmetics. There are now shampoos and
body lotions labeled "70 percent organic" based on the fact that their
main ingredient is an "organic hydrosol." What’s that? It is water in
which something organic, such as an organic lavender leaf, has been
soaked.

Consumers Union believes that Congress must stop entertaining requests
from special interests to cash in on the USDA Organic label and that
the USDA must become a strict steward of how the label is used.
Consumers want and need an organic label they can trust.

What you can do

To learn more or to express your views about these issues to the
appropriate government officials, visit the Consumers Union Guide to
Environmental Labels at www.eco-labels.org.