11. Whole colonies are vanishing across the country
By Maurice Possley
Tribune staff reporter
Published March 28, 2007, 7:47 AM CDT
MISSOULA, Mont. -- The disappearance and deaths of millions of honeybees
in nearly half of the nation's states is a mystery seemingly befitting
an episode of "CSI" and is threatening an estimated $14 billion in crops
that rely on pollination.
In an inconspicuous office suite here-the home of Bee Alert Technology
Inc.-scientists are feverishly working to solve an entomological
mystery: What happened to tens of thousands of honeybee colonies in at
least 24 states?
These are crime scenes without bodies. Beekeepers have been opening
hives and instead of finding thriving colonies with as many as 60,000
bees, they find an apian ghost town.
"It's called Colony Collapse Disorder," said Jerry Bromenshenk, a
University of Montana professor and head of Bee Alert who has studied
honeybees for more than three decades. "We don't know that it's a
disease, we don't know if it's due to management practices by
beekeepers. There are so many variables. We can't yet find a common
denominator."
This baffling situation has sent shock waves through the agriculture
industry nationwide, particularly almond growers in California, where 80
percent of the world's almonds are produced. The growers rely on
pollination by bees.
While the U.S. honey-production industry generates more than $150
million annually, honeybees' pollination of crops is valued at about $14
billion a year, according to a Cornell University study. Beekeepers
truck billions of bees to orchards and farms to pollinate crops
including apples, grapes, cucumbers, cauliflower, cherries and almonds.
About three decades ago, S.E. McGregor, an apiculturist from Arizona,
estimated that one-third of what is eaten by humans is a direct result
of the work of honeybees. Bromenshenk suspects that today McGregor's
words are an understatement.
On Thursday, a U.S. Department of Agriculture subcommittee on
horticulture and organic agriculture is scheduled to conduct a public
hearing on the collapse of honeybee colonies. Bromenshenk says the panel
will consider the need for money for immediate research, future funding
for a sustained examination and whether to set aside money to compensate
beekeepers who have been virtually wiped out.
Just when this phenomenon began is hard to pin down, Bromenshenk said,
because the reporting of problems is not organized. He said he first
went to Florida late last year to investigate a report of empty hives,
but as the problem has gained notoriety , more and more reports have
emerged.
Bromenshenk is part of a national task force attempting to figure out
why bees leave their hives and don't return. He recently returned from
California with thousands of dead bees that he suspects were in colonies
in the midst of collapsing.
Those bees have been turned over to Dave Wick, whose company, BVS Inc.
of Stevensville, Mont., conducts biological screening in an attempt to
determine whether an as-yet-unidentified virus is responsible for the
mass disappearance.
"We are ... trying to figure out the unknown," Wick said in an
interview. "This is a devastating situation. If every honeybee
disappeared tomorrow, we would still have produce in our markets-it just
wouldn't come from the United States."
Bromenshenk's addition to the team studying the bees' disappearance was
prompted by the significant research he has conducted at the university
as well as the company that spun off from that work.
The firm has learned how to train bees to perform a variety of tasks,
including sniffing out poisons, a skill that can be applied to such
things as land mine detection or use of chemicals in a terrorist attack.
Bromenshenk said the company has discovered how to train a bee in less
than a day to identify things by smell or by sight.
While Illinois is not on the list of states where Colony Collapse
Disorder has been discovered, Steve Chard, an apiary inspection
supervisor with the Illinois Department of Agriculture, said this past
week that one possible case has been reported by a beekeeping hobbyist
in Decatur who lost nine colonies.
"It's too early to tell for the most part because the weather is just
starting to warm up enough to open up hives," Chard said. "We do have
one suspected case from Decatur and samples have been sent to the [U.S.
Department of Agriculture] for testing. There's no conclusive evidence."
In Michigan, Terry Klein, vice president of the Michigan Beekeepers
Association and a commercial beekeeper, said reports of huge losses are
beginning to filter in.
"One beekeeper started with 1,500 hives and had only 500 colonies left,"
Klein said. "Over three or four more weeks, he lost 70 percent of
those."
Klein, of St. Charles, Mich., said he lost 80 percent of his bees, but
he blames bad weather and mites.
"It's a hard thing to pin down," he said. "You can't autopsy the bodies
if they are gone. I am concerned about my survival."
Bromenshenk said that beekeeping largely hasn't changed in more than a
century and that the reports coming in don't point to a single cause.
"It doesn't appear to be related to poor practices or to those who are
organic or those who are not organic," he said.
He suspects that the phenomenon has occurred before, but because
reporting practices were not as sophisticated and because the problems
have been more publicized, more and more credible reports are being
made. He said something similar wiped out millions of bees in Texas,
Louisiana and several other Southern states about 50 years ago, but the
cause never was determined.
The company is seeking reports from any affected beekeepers at a Web
site, href="http://www.beesurvey.com">www.beesurvey.com. More than 400
reports have been filed, but Bromenshenk hopes to get 10 times that
number.
"We don't know if this is something new or if it's cyclic," Bromenshenk
said. "It is amazing that millions of bees have disappeared across the
U.S."
"We've got to figure this out this time," he said. "We've had beekeepers
tell us they are going out of business. The public forgets what a
critical role bees play in pollination. This is devastating."
[log in to unmask]
Copyright (c) 2007, Chicago Tribune <http://www.chicagotribune.com/>
12. Companies Offer "Farm Codes" Saying Where/How Organic Food is Grown.
Dole Foods and Organic Valley are two companies which have begun to
label their organic product offerings with "farm codes" to help
customers check the veracity of label claims. Dole's organic banana
"stickers" send consumers to doleorganic.com where typing in the
three-digit code identifies the plantation that grew the banana, along
with organic certification details, worker photos, and satellite map
images from Google Earth. Organic Valley has offered a similar feature
on its soy milk cartons since 2004. Entering the expiration date at
organicvalley.coop/soy brings up the bios of the farmers who grew the
beans. (Business Week, March 19, 2007)
13. Farmers discuss impact of milk bill Some say profits could more than
double; others say it's a niche market
Here is an article from Sunday's issue of the Wooster Daily Record:
March 25, 2007
By KATY GANZ
As the Ohio Legislature debates the legalization of raw milk sales, area
farmers await word on a decision that may nearly triple the profits for
some small dairies.
"It would be different," Holmes County dairy farmer Alan Kozak said.
"Instead of selling it to Smith Dairy or Reiter Dairy, the farmer could
sell it direct to the consumer and easily more than double their paid
price."
If Senate Bill 95 is passed, raw milk sales will be legal only at the
farm, thus cutting out a middle man.
"If a farmer would sell even 500 gallons a week, that doesn't sound like
a lot in today's commodity market because it's not worth much more that
$1 a gallon," said diversified farmer Ralph Schlatter. "But 500 gallons
at $3 a gallon you've increased your income by $1,000 a week."
With 52 weeks in a year a farmer could increase income by up to $52,000
a year, more than most small farms run on in a year, Schlatter said.
Schlatter doesn't use a middle man. He uses a technique known as direct
marketing, selling his grass-fed beef and raw cheeses out of a store
located on his farm in Defiance.
Having to do direct marketing, though, is one of the issues that may
prevent dairy farms from going into the raw milk business, said state
Rep. Bob Gibbs, a Lakeville Republican.
"I think the economic impact is relatively minor," Gibbs said. "You're
only selling it at the farm level. People have to come and pick it up."
Another problem is liability.
"It's not just straightforward when you decide to go into something like
that. There are a lot of safeguards that you have to be concerned with,"
said Leah Miller of the Farm Institute.
Even now Miller hears complaints from farmers about paperwork, and the
red tape would only get worse for a farmer with a raw milk license.
There are several farmers in the Amish community Miller said would
consider getting a license anyway.
And a few small-scale Amish farmers are all it would take to fill the
need for raw milk, said Holmes County Farm Bureau President Darrell
Kick.
"I don't think it's a large market." he said. "It's more of a niche."
Schlatter would disagree.
"This is all being done without advertising," Schlatter said. "These
people are doing 400 and 500 gallons a week when they are just doing it
by word of mouth and once it's legalized people won't have to be so
quiet."
Raw milk is consumer driven, Schlatter said. People often ask him if he
sells raw milk and although he has told people no, requests keep coming.
"It used to be that the dairy farmer got half of the consumer dollar, or
over 50 percent," Kozak said. "Over time the percent of the consumer
dollar that the dairyman has received has shrunk to about one-third.
Obviously this would correct a lot of that."
Reporter Katy Ganz can be reached at (330) 674-1811 or e-mail
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Salinas Californian
14. E. COLI PROBE FAILS TO SOLVE OUTBREAK
Paicines Ranch officially named as source By DAWN WITHERS The Salinas
Californian
A report released Friday after seven months of investigation has
officially identified the Central Coast ranch where E. coli bacteria
contaminated spinach last fall, but it fails to show how the produce
became tainted.
A small ranch in San Benito County was the likely source of the
nationwide E. coli outbreak that killed three people and sickened more
than 200 others, state and federal officials said Friday.
Authorities with the California Department of Health Services and the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration - for the first time - said they had
isolated the deadly E. coli strain to sources on Paicines Ranch near a
field it leased to Mission Organics, a spinach grower.
Even with this revelation, federal and state health officials said
during a teleconference they still don't know how the pathogens
contaminated the spinach.
The most likely sources, however, are water or wild hogs, according to
the report. Streams, which run through the ranch and carry manure from
cattle, could have tainted the well water used for irrigation. The ranch
also has a large population of feral pigs that could have spread
contaminated feces, the report says.
Genetic matches were found between E. coli in Dole bagged spinach eaten
by people who fell ill last August and September and the E. coli
detected in 21 samples of soil and feces on or near the ranch.
The Paicines Ranch, which breeds Angus cattle and quarter horses, said
in a statement on its Web site that it leases land to crop growers and
was not under investigation in the outbreak. Ranch officials declined
further comment.
The report indicates the contamination probably occurred in the Mission
Organics-leased field during or just before harvest, but it goes on to
say the bacteria probably was spread to other spinach during bagging and
processing at Natural Selection's south processing plant in San Juan
Bautista.
But the information does little to help industry leaders take specific
action to protect their produce, even as spinach processors cope with a
roughly 40 percent drop in bagged spinach sales from recent years,
according to a Dole Food Co. representative.
Otto Kramm, chief operations officer for Mission Organics, said in a
statement that his company "has cooperated fully" with the FDA and that
it supports more research into food safety.
"The FDA report is helpful in narrowing the possible sources of the
problem," Kramm said, "but its studies did not find the specific strain
of E. coli that caused the outbreak in any of the fields where the
spinach in question was grown."
Improvements mandated
Mission Organics can't sell spinach until state health authorities
approve a new plan that shows they corrected their agricultural
practices to minimize bacterial contamination, officials said during the
morning teleconference. The company has said it's repairing broken
fences around its fields, and the report cites groundwater issues on the
ranch as a possible factor in spreading the E. coli. Mission Organic's
spinach fields were in the second year of a three-year transition to
organic production, officials said.
The report also identifies three other ranches where E. coli O157:H7 was
found in the investigation, although the strain present there wasn't a
genetic match to the E. coli that caused the outbreak.
The other three ranches were identified as Wickstrom Ranch in Aromas,
Taix Ranch in Hollister and Eade Ranch south of San Lucas.
State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, a vocal critic of produce
industry-led voluntary food safety guidelines, lambasted the report in a
statement, saying none of the farms identified have been fined. He
accused state and federal health officials of "relegating themselves to
'simple spectators' by reiterating recommendations made in the past and
failing to provide an action plan."
Ranchers aren't happy with the report, either. The FDA should have
provided each of the farms named in the report with a copy to prepare
them for the flurry of media, industry and government scrutiny, said
Jeff Gilles of Salinas-based Lombardo and Gilles, a law firm
representing Kramm, especially because the report contains inaccuracies.
"It would have been in FDA's best interest to meet with farmers to
review the report," Gilles said in an e-mail, "in order to correct
certain information provided therein."
Bill Marler, a Seattle-based attorney representing 93 people sickened
from the outbreak, said he will decide in the next few weeks whether to
add the three other farms to his lawsuits, which already target Mission
Organics.
Natural Selection criticized
Also already named in Marler's lawsuits are Dole Fresh Vegetables and
Natural Selection Foods, which were targeted by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation during visits to the companies last fall. In the report
released Friday, investigators pay particular attention to Natural
Selection's south facility - one of its two plants in San Juan Bautista
- where the contaminated spinach was processed and bagged. It lays out
numerous problems with the company's food safety program.
On Aug. 15, Natural Selection Foods processed the 13 bags of Dole baby
spinach that tested positive for the outbreak strain type. A total 34
brands of fresh bagged spinach packaged at the facility were pulled from
shelves when the FDA issued its Sept. 14 advisory not to eat such
produce.
The report states that from Aug. 15 to 26, Natural Selection Foods
didn't conduct its normal sanitation testing and that discrepancies
occurred between sanitation schedules and the company's sanitation
procedures on the frequency of cleaning for certain areas of the south
facility.
"Information and documents obtained from NSF revealed the firm did not
update or review (food safety) procedures ... already in use at the
north facility prior to initiation of production at the south facility,"
the report said.
Additionally, starting Aug. 13 the company experienced almost a week of
chronic labor shortages in its south facility for quality assurance
testing and cleaning the facility.
Natural Selection Foods also operated the facility from April 1 to Sept.
15 last year without a license from the California Department of Health
Services.
Replying to questions, Natural Selection Foods' spokeswoman Samantha
Cabaluna said the company's "commitment to food safety is unwavering,
and we are taking an aggressive stance on the issue."
The company also hasn't thoroughly vetted the report, Cabaluna said.
The statement also highlighted the company's overhauled food safety
program, which it said includes "multiple barriers and extensive
pathogen-specific testing" for both its growers and processing facility.
"We believe our salads are safer than ever before," it says.
Report will help
Although the evidence from the spinach outbreak points to one crop, food
safety investigators call the problem of contamination multifaceted,
complicated and unable to be pinpointed to just one source.
But the report's findings, as well as information gathered at two public
hearings, will help the FDA find ways to prevent future outbreaks, said
David Acheson, the FDA's chief medical officer and head of the Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
"There is a need for uniform application of good agricultural practices
and good manufacturing practices," Acheson said, "because without them,
clearly the potential for illness associated with leafy greens is still
there."
Produce-related illnesses are a rising problem, with 72 outbreaks in the
past 10 years associated with fresh fruits and vegetables. Leafy greens
have been blamed in 22 outbreaks, followed by tomatoes and melons.
While it's impossible to completely eliminate the risk of E. coli
contamination in leafy greens, said Kevin Reilly, deputy director of
prevention services for the state Health Department, the report points
to ways to reduce risk factors through proper food safety practices.
"If we can put into place good agricultural practices on the farm level
on every field to reduce the risk, then we can manage the risk and
prevent food borne illnesses," Reilly said.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS and LOS ANGELES TIMES contributed to this report.
Contact Dawn Withers at [log in to unmask]
E. coli that tainted spinach traced to San Benito County cattle ranch By
Brandon Bailey San Jose Mercury News Article Launched:03/23/2007
09:07:17 AM PDT The spinach responsible for last fall's nationwide
outbreak of illness and death was likely grown by a company called
Mission Organics on a ranch in San Benito County, state and federal
officials said today.
As reported by the Mercury News earlier this week, officials said they
weren't able to determine exactly how the spinach became contaminated,
despite an unprecedented six-month investigation.
But they said samples taken from manure, water and a dead pig found on
the ranch were an exact genetic match to the deadly strain of E. coli
bacteria that killed at least three people and sickened more than 200
others.
Any of those sources could have led to the contamination, said Dean
Cliver, a microbiologist and professor of food safety at the University
of California, Davis.
State and federal health officials issued their report this morning and
planned to discuss it at a news conference later today.
An attorney for Mission Organics, a Hollister company that grew the
spinach, has previously said the company doesn't believe it was
responsible for the outbreak. The company has been named in a lawsuit
filed by an attorney representing dozens of people who became sick, but
health officials have not confirmed the name before today.
But health investigators said they traced the contaminated batch of
bagged spinach, which was sold under the Dole label, to one batch
processed by Natural Selection Foods of San Juan Bautista. The spinach
in that batch came from four farms in the area.
Investigators found traces of deadly E. coli O157:H7 bacteria at all
four farms, but only the samples from the Mission Organics site were an
exact genetic match to the strain implicated in the outbreak.
While E. coli is often found in the intestinal tracts of cows and can be
transmitted through their manure, investigators will probably never know
exactly how the bacteria got onto the spinach, according to Dr. David
Acheson, a top food-safety official for the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.
However, investigators have theorized that the bacteria could have been
spread by a cow or pig that wandered through the field, or through
contaminated irrigation water.
The field is part of the Paicines Ranch, a large property that is
primarily used to raise cattle. Owners of the ranch have said they are
not responsible for any crops grown by companies that lease portions of
the ranch.
The final investigation report can be viewed at: http://www.dhs.ca.gov
<http://www.dhs.ca.gov/>
15. Antibacterial soap ingredient triclosan may be harmful to humans
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/go-nofa/message/850;_ylc=X3oDMTJxb2VjMzJi
BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0OTEzOTg0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzIzNDU3OARtc2dJZAM4
NTAEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE3NDY0MDA4MA-->
NewsTarget.com printable article
Originally published March 15 2007
Antibacterial soap ingredient triclosan may be harmful to humans
by David Gutierrez
Triclosan, widely used as an antibacterial ingredient in household hand
sterilization products, breaks down rapidly when exposed to chlorinated
water and produces toxic chemicals including chloroform, according to a
study published on the Environmental Science & Technology research
website As Soon As Publishable (ASAP), suggesting that many
antibacterial products may not only be ineffective, but harmful.
Jump directly to: conventional view | alternative view | resources |
bottom line
What you need to know - Conventional View
A previous study demonstrated that pure triclosan reacts with free
chlorine to produce chloroform, a toxic chemical and probable
carcinogen.
This 2005 study led to the removal of all triclosan-containing
products from the British chain Marks & Spencer, as well as all
triclosan-containing toothpaste from stores in China.
In the new study, the same researchers from the Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University tested 16 household products, including
lotions, soaps and body washes. All the products containing triclosan
produced either chloroform or other chlorine byproducts when exposed to
tap water.
The researchers found that people using these products would be
exposed to chloroform levels 40 percent higher than that found in tap
water.
Triclosan decomposes into chlorine byproducts in as little as one
minute when exposed to chlorinated water at 100 degrees Fahrenheit, a
temperature commonly reached in household use. This led the researchers
to question whether triclosan-containing soaps even provide the
purported anti-bacterial benefit.
Quote: "At fairly low levels of chlorine, the triclosan degrades
rapidly [into chlorine byproducts]." - Researcher Peter Vikesland
What you need to know - Alternative View
Statements and opinions by Mike Adams, executive director of the
Consumer Wellness Center
What this groundbreaking study reveals is that antibacterial products
containing triclosan are a hoax. This chemical is proving to be a real
threat to human health, and that doesn't even include the fact that it
can accelerate the breeding of antibiotic-resistant superbugs.
I strongly advise consumers to avoid purchasing antibacterial products
made with triclosan. Use natural products containing tea tree oil or
other herbal ingredients that are naturally antibacterial.
Resources you need to know
Worldwatch Institute page on triclosan:
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1501
<http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1501>
Bottom line
Antibacterial ingredient triclosan degrades rapidly when exposed to
chlorinated tap water, producing potentially toxic byproducts.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is
protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole
responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products
and earns no money from the recommendation of products. Newstarget.com
is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not
be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner.
Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this
material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit
www.NewsTarget.com/terms.shtml
16. The Big Fix: Secret Letter Exposes Major Organic Dairy Brands
Lobbying
USDA to Eliminate 30% Pasture Feed Requirement
* Milk Processors Clout Versus the Voice of Dairy Farmers
Cornucopia Institute
Straight to the Source
[Download Organic Dairies Secret Letter to the USDA
http://www.organicconsumers.org/artman2/uploads/1/Processors_Allliance_F
INAL_Letter.pdf
<http://www.organicconsumers.org/artman2/uploads/1/Processors_Allliance_
FINAL_Letter.pdf>
OCA Web Note (March 19, 2007):
Thousands of organic consumers and dairy farmers, represented by the
Organic Consumers Association and Cornucopia Institute, have repeatedly
complained to the US Department of Agriculture over the past five years
that the USDA must close the glaring loopholes in the National Organic
Dairy Standards. These loopholes have allowed unscrupulous dairy
companies such as Horizon and Aurora Organic to operate intensive
confinement dairy feedlots (where the animals have little or no access
to pasture) and still label their milk and dairy products as "USDA
Organic." This is the reason why the OCA has launched a boycott of
Horizon and Aurora products, as well as the private label milk brands
supplied by Aurora and sold by Wal-Mart, Costco, Wild Oats, Safeway,
Giant, UNFI, and others. This is the reason why thousands of organic
consumers, and an increasing number of retailers, have dropped Horizon
and Aurora products.
We are therefore not surprised to learn that Horizon and Aurora have
been busy lobbying the USDA to keep pasture and feed requirements
vague--hoping to deceive consumers by claiming that organic dairy
animals must have access to pasture, but then not requiring a particular
minimum percentage by weight of their feed--at least 30%--to come from
pasture grass. What this means in practical terms is that the USDA will
soon propose new federal organic dairy standards that allow so-called
organic factory farms to create the impression that their milk cows are
being grazed on pasture, while in fact unscrupulous certifiers and
bureaucrats in the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) will allow them
to get away with "symbolic access to pasture" i.e. intensively confined,
stressed-out dairy cows briefly chewing their cuds outside giant milking
parlors in between their three-times-a-day milkings.
What is surprising to learn is that three highly respected organic dairy
brands have joined with Aurora & Horizon to lobby the USDA for this "Big
Fix": Stonyfield Farm, Organic Valley, & Humboldt Creamery. (download
letter PDF above). We have no evidence that Stonyfield Farm, Organic
Valley, and Humboldt Creamery are deceiving the public--as Horizon and
Aurora are--by not requiring their farmers to pasture their animals and
provide them with at least 30% of their diet with pasture grass, but we
certainly do have the evidence that they are jointly lobbying the USDA
for the continuation of vague and non-enforceable standards ( download
letter PDF above ). OCA will be shortly asking organic consumers and
farmers to contact these companies to formally rescind their previous
statement to the USDA, and to formally and publicly state that new NOP
dairy regulations must require a minimum of 30% of feed (by dry weight)
from pasture. Otherwise consumers will continue to lose faith in the
already tarnished "USDA Organic" label on dairy products.
Ronnie Cummins, Organic Consumers Association
__________________________________________________________
Late last year we learned that the nation's largest organic dairy
processors (Organic Valley, Horizon, Stonyfield, Aurora and Humboldt)
collaborated on drafting a secret letter to the USDA Secretary proposing
their own "fix" to the controversy regarding factory-farms and whether
their cattle are allowed to graze in compliance with the federal organic
standards.
We've just obtained a copy of this letter and feel that dairy producers
have a right to see and review it very carefully. (Download letter PDF
above).
It sounds good, its goals are laudable, but it depends on interpretation
which is the weakness that some have criticized as the Achilles heel of
the current standards.
Do you trust the corporations, that own and operate the massive
factory-farms that have been gaming the system for years, to collaborate
in good faith with certifiers such as Quality Assurance International?
QAI is the corporate-friendly certifier that has been giving their
blessing to the majority of all organic CAFOs. And do you trust the USDA
to enforce another standard open to "interpretation" when it has looked
the other way on this issue since they were given the responsibility by
Congress to create a fair and level playing field?
Since the two largest factory-farm operators signed onto this letter,
how much teeth do you think they believe it will have in real-world
applications?
The Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, the Midwest Organic
Dairy Producers Association, the Western Dairy Producers Alliance along
with The Cornucopia Institute, the National Campaign for Sustainable
Agriculture and many other consumer and farm organizations, and
virtually every dairy farmer in the United States, has backed, in the
addition to the flowery language that this letter contains, hard
benchmarks to set extremely modest minimums (farmers will have to graze
for the entire growing season, but not less than 120 days, and average
at least 30% Dry Matter Intake [DMI] from pasture).
Dairy producers should consider contacting their milk handlers and
demand that this letter be formally retracted. Farmers and consumers
worked together for years, in public dialogue with the National Organic
Standards Board, to come up with the consensus proposal (120 days/30%).
The dairy processors should not be allowed, working with their powerful
Washington lobbyists and lawyers, to have more say than the hard-working
families who have built this industry through sweat and getting their
hands dirty.
The voice of the consumer and the organic farmers in this country needs
to prevail in this matter.
Mark Kastel & Will Fantle
Codirectors - The Cornucopia Institute
PS: While you are on the Cornucopia site if you have not had the
opportunity to view the photo galleries of the massive "organic"
industrial dairies that have caused this brouhaha in the first place we
invite you to take a look.
March 22, 2007 SPIEGEL ONLINE International
Vicki Morrone
Organic Vegetable and Crop Outreach Specialist
Michigan State University
C.S. Mott Sustainable Food Systems
303 Natural Resources Bldg.
East Lansing, MI 48824
517-353-3542
517-282-3557 (cell)
517-353-3834 (fax)
http://www.MichiganOrganic.msu.edu/
http://www.mottgroup.msu.edu/
If you would like to access previous postings to the Mich-Organic listserv you can copy and paste the following URL into your browser address bar
http://list.msu.edu/archives/mich-organic.html
