Sounding Circle

Saturday, June 4, 2005

Dr. Bronner's Stands Up To USDA 0 comments

4 Jun 2005 @ 18:21 Organic Conumers Association website. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Adam Eidinger: 202-744-2671 David Bronner: 760-807-6203 June 2, 2005 DR. BRONNER'S & SUN DOG'S MAGIC WILL CONTINUE TO DISPLAY THE USDA NOP ORGANIC SEAL ON THEIR CERTIFIED ORGANIC FOOD-GRADE LOTIONS & BALMS NOP REVERSAL ON POLICY VIOLATES ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, IS NON-BINDING AND UNENFORCEABLE ESCONDIDO, CA - Dr. Bronner's & Sun Dog's Magic , makers of certified organic food-grade lotions, lip balms and body balms, is today announcing its intention to continue to label its products "certified organic" in accordance with the US Department of Agriculture National Organic Program ("NOP") rules and to display the USDA seal. Although USDA has informally indicated that it now believes personal care products cannot be so labeled, that position "represents a clear reversal of USDA's prior policy and cannot be lawfully enforced," stated company president David Bronner. "We want to reassure consumers, retailers and distributors that Dr. Bronner's and Sun Dog's Magic certified organic products can and will continue to be sold and can and will continue to display the appropriate USDA labeling and seal." In a foundational May 2002 "Policy Statement" on the scope of the NOP, USDA made clear that producers of non-food products such as personal care containing agricultural ingredients "are eligible to seek certification under the NOP." Based on this "Policy Statement," Dr. Bronner's and a number of other producers of body care, cosmetic and other classes of non-food products based on agricultural ingredients invested in sourcing and formulating with NOP-certified organic ingredients, and sought and obtained certification under the NOP, thereby allowing them to label and market their products as certified "organic" or "made with organic" under the NOP. Certifying agencies understood the Policy Statement to authorize such certification. Indeed, within the last week, the head of NOP was quoted in the press as saying that if a producer's "product was composed of agricultural ingredients, and you thought you could get certified, you were welcome to try." In April 2004, USDA issued a "Guidance Statement" reversing this position and indicating that producers of personal care products would not be eligible to seek certification. A month later, however, that "Guidance Statement" was ordered rescinded by then-Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman. Then, a few weeks ago, USDA issued an informal "response" to a statement of the National Organic Standards Board and, in that response, indicated again that personal care products are not eligible to be labeled in accordance with NOP. The newest USDA pronouncement mirrors the rescinded "Guidance Statement", and completely contradicts the foundational 2002 USDA NOP policy that formally invited body care companies to invest in certifying NOP qualified products. "Having issued a policy statement intended to have a binding effect, on which Dr. Bronner's and other companies justifiably relied, NOP cannot suddenly, without notice or opportunity for comment, adopt a new policy and purport to make it enforceable against producers of personal care products," Mr. Bronner said. "We have been advised that, under well established principles under the Administrative Procedure Act, to adopt such a change in its previously established policy, USDA is required to proceed by notice and comment rulemaking. They are not going to try and fine us for complying in full with the NOP. Furthermore, the NOP had in 2004 attempted to deny pet foods access to the NOP, but is now allowing pet foods to do so in order to divide and isolate personal care; but certified organic lip balms are consumed by people in a way that pet food of course is not, so the agency also flunks the arbitrary and capricious standard of administrative law." "The USDA NOP has been contradicting itself in ways that prejudice the rights of producers and consumers and will not stand up in court," said Mr. Bronner. "The agency has made a point of saying that their guidance documents are "non-binding" and presumably unenforceable. USDA knows that any enforcement action will be legally unsustainable and so we do not anticipate any such action. Organic olive oil does not become magically non-organic when used in a lotion instead of a salad dressing. Consumers and retailers want personal care that is nothing less than organic food for the skin. High quality certified organic body care products like ours should be distinguishable from low-quality so-called "organic" personal care that is based on standard conventional synthetic ingredients. Retailers and consumers who want organic food-grade personal care should look for the USDA organic seal."

National Campaign To Inform Consumers of Mercury In Seafood 0 comments

4 Jun 2005 @ 18:17 Organic Conumers Association website. National Campaign Demands Safeway & Other Supermarkets Inform Consumers of Mercury Contamination in Seafood CONTACT: Turtle Island Restoration Network Andy Peri, M.A. PO Box 400 * Forest Knolls, CA * 94933 Turtle Island Restoration Network Phone: 415-488-0370 x104 Email: andy@tirn.net Campaign Launched to Compel Safeway to Post Seafood Mercury Warnings Safeway's "Ingredients for Life" marketing campaign targeted SAN FRANCISCO, CA This week, with the placement of a full page ad in the New York Times, an environmental organization launched a new campaign aimed at national grocer retailer Safeway for its failure to warn customers nation-wide about mercury-contaminated seafood. The campaign was launched in the wake of stalled talks with upper Safeway management, which recently ended in a stalemate. Turtle Island Restoration Network is asking Safeway to expand its mercury-in-seafood health warning signs to all of its 1,802 Safeway-owned stores throughout the United States and Canada. "Safeway should be taking a leadership role and live up to its new 'Ingredients for Life' marketing campaign by posting signs in their stores throughout the nation," says Andy Peri, Public Health Analyst for Turtle Island Restoration Network. Is mercury-contaminated fish an ingredient for Olife¹ or an ingredient for illness and possible death?² Most of California's Safeway stores have warning signs at fish counters where high-mercury fish such as swordfish, shark and tuna are sold- but only in California as required under Proposition 65. Outside of California, however, Safeway is not willing to post the inexpensive warning signs. Steven Burd, CEO of Safeway, confronted by Peri at last week¹s Safeway¹s stockholders meeting, responded that there has been a lot of media attention on the issue, suggesting that additional warning signs aren¹t needed. ³Safeway is spending over $100 million dollars to promote its ³Ingredients for Life² marketing campaign but refuses to spend pennies per store to post warning signs where mercury contaminated fish is being sold. Mr. Burd knows better than anybody the importance of getting a marketing message out; his suggestion that a few news articles have adequately educated Safeway customers about the dangers of mercury lacks integrity. Safeway's lack of meaningful action is certain to result in more Safeway customers, especially children, being poisoned by mercury." Seafood consumers have written thousands of emails, letters and faxes to Safeway's CEO, Steven Burd asking him to require mercury warning signs nationwide, but the requests have not been acknowledged by Safeway management and to date, no action has been taken. Fish collected at Safeway stores by Turtle Island Restoration Network in 2004 revealed 78% of samples exceeding the FDA's action level of 1 part per million mercury with samples reaching as high as 1.5 parts per million, 50% higher the FDA action level. Even fish with levels of mercury below the FDA action level can cause significant harm to both children and adults. The FDA warns women of childbearing age and mothers not to eat swordfish at all. Despite this fact, Safeway does not feel compelled to remove mercury-tainted fish or meaningfully warn customers of the dangers of eating swordfish and other fish that are high in mercury like shark and albacore tuna. In a March 2004 joint advisory, the FDA and EPA warn women of childbearing age and mothers to not eat swordfish, shark, king mackerel and tilefish and to limit their consumption of albacore tuna because they contain high levels of mercury. If a 120 pound women were to consume 8 ounces of swordfish containing 1.5 parts per million mercury she would be exposed to more than 860% of what the FDA and EPA considers safe. Such a diet high in mercury-contaminated fish would put a nursing baby or a child in the womb at significant risk of neurological damage. Children are not the only populations at risk from methylmercury, however. A new report by the Research Institute of Public Health in Finland shows a significant increase of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease and heart attacks in men with elevated mercury levels. Fish consumers can protect themselves from mercury-contaminated fish by using an online mercury calculator at [link] The calculator allows consumers to choose the lowest mercury fish while avoiding fish with the highest levels of mercury-contamination. ³This ad is just the beginning of our campaign to alert the public to threats from eating contaminated seafood being purchased as supermarkets

Santa Cruz Fuels Up With an Urban Crop, Waste Cooking Oil 0 comments

4 Jun 2005 @ 05:36 Organic Conumers Association website. Santa Cruz Fuels Up With an Urban Crop, Waste Cooking Oil SANTA CRUZ, California, June 2, 2005 (ENS) - A group of business and government organizations in Santa Cruz is using a $75,000 grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to convert restaurant wastes into biodiesel fuel for area transit systems. The grant went to Ecology Action of Santa Cruz, which has teamed up with city of Santa Cruz, the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transportation District and the Santa Cruz Chapter of the California Restaurant Association. The project also includes a waste vegetable oil collector and Pacific Biodiesel, Inc. a biodiesel producer and supplier. Restaurants generate large amounts of waste vegetable oil which can be readily converted into biodiesel fuel suitable for all diesel vehicles. The biodiesel fuel produced by the project will be distributed and sold to local public sector fleets such as Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transportation District. The group also plans to use the EPA grant to demonstrate the economic viability of a community biodiesel collection, production and distribution chain using locally generated waste vegetable oil something that is currently underutilized. ³We are excited to be simultaneously encouraging alternative fuel use, reduced air pollution, and increased diversion of wastes from landfills,² said Jeff Scott, director of the Waste Division in the EPA¹s Pacific Southwest office. ³We hope this community-based project will be a model ultimately replicated across the country.² While many public diesel fleet operators want to switch to biodiesel, current high costs and low availability limits its market share. This pilot project focuses on places without ready access to an affordable agricultural crop as the primary feedstock for biodiesel. Project participants will collect local waste oil and process it into biodiesel for distribution and sale to local public sector fleets. Biodiesel and biodiesel blends can be used without modifying existing diesel engines. Waste minimization will be achieved by recycling the waste cooking oil. Air quality will be enhanced by burning biodiesel in place of petroleum diesel fuel, which will reduce particulate, and carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide emissions. Water quality will be improved because the increased market value of waste cooking oil decreases the likelihood of its improper disposal into sewers, storm drains and waterways, reducing watershed and storm runoff pollution. Restaurants and hotels in the United States produce over three billion gallons of waste cooking oil annually, the majority of which is disposed of in sewers and landfills. According to the EPA, waste oil dumped into sewers blocks drains and pipes and causes 40 percent of sewer spills.