| Saturday, September 17, 2005 |  |
| New York Times Covers the Controversy in Organic Community | 0 comments |
| 17 Sep 2005 @ 00:35 New York Times Covers the Controversy in Organic Community over Factory Dairy Farms From: New York Times September 14, 2005 Does Organic Imply Grazing? By MARIAN BURROS JOHN MACKEY, chairman of Whole Foods Market, with the buying power of his 173 stores across the country behind him, said in a telephone interview yesterday that he wants the Department of Agriculture to strengthen its standards for organic milk. "I'm worried that it is getting bogged down in some kind of political process," said Mr. Mackey, who wields great power in the organic food industry. For at least four years, the National Organic Standards Board, which advises the department's National Organic Program, has sought a regulation to make the standards more rigorous so that milk labeled organic comes from cows that spend a certain amount of time grazing in pastures. Currently dairy farms that keep cows confined most or all of the time can legally claim their milk is organic if they use organic feed and do not use antibiotics or growth hormones. The current organic standards, which took effect in 2000, require that cows have "access to pasture," but do not require cows to be put in the pasture. "We think the average customer believes organic dairy cows are grazing full time," Mr. Mackey said, "and we would like organic standards to be more rigorous so the perception meets the reality." Mr. Mackey first discussed his company's position in an interview with Jim Slama in Conscious Choice, a monthly magazine. The organic standards board has proposed that dairy cows be allowed to graze during the growing season and that a lactating cow should not be confined in a barn. Farmers who confine cows can give them high-energy feed that helps them produce more milk than cows on pasture, reducing the cost. In public comments, two companies opposed the proposal: Aurora Dairy and Wild Oats, the 111-store chain of natural food supermarkets. Aurora Dairy does not allow its lactating cows in pastures. In its comments Wild Oats said the system was working well because it "facilitates the expansion of the organic milk supply." Ed Loyd, press secretary to the Secretary of Agriculture, said that the labeling of milk as organic has been an issue since 1993. "We don't know whether there is need for additional rule making or for guidance to the industry," he said. Within the next 12 months Whole Foods will announce what it calls "compassionate" standards for treatment of dairy cows. Mr. Mackey said he was almost certain the company would go beyond the standards the National Organic Standards Board is seeking. "We will clearly label products that are not animal compassionate so our customers can be fully informed about their practices," he said. Those who meet the company's standards will be so designated. "We don't want to see organic standards diluted down to where they don't mean what consumers think it means," he said. |
| EPA Rule Loopholes Allow Pesticide Testing on Kids | 1 comment |
| 17 Sep 2005 @ 00:34 EPA Rule Loopholes Allow Pesticide Testing on Kids From: EPA Rule Loopholes Allow Pesticide Testing on Kids by Andrew Schneider WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency's new rules on human testing, which the agency said last week would categorically protect children and pregnant women from pesticide testing, include numerous exemptions, such as one that specifically allows testing of children who have been "abused and neglected." The rules were revised under intense criticism from environmental groups, scientists and members of Congress after the disclosure that subjects in some earlier pesticide studies were unaware of what they were being exposed to and, in many cases, did not know why the testing was being done. One study would have used $2 million from the chemical industry to measure the pesticide consumption of infants in low-income households in Florida. In unveiling the new rules last week, the EPA promised full protection for those most at risk of unethical testing. "We regard as unethical and would never conduct, support, require or approve any study involving intentional exposure of pregnant women, infants or children to a pesticide," the rule states. But within the 30 pages of rules are clear-cut exceptions that permit: € Testing of "abused or neglected" children without permission from parents or guardians. € "Ethically deficient" human research if it is considered crucial to "protect public health." € More than minimal health risk to a subject if there is a "direct benefit" to the child being tested, and the parents or guardians agree. € EPA acceptance of overseas industry studies, which often are performed in countries that have minimal or no ethical standards for testing, as long as the tests are not done directly for the EPA. The EPA provided little clarification this week in response to questions about the exemptions. In a written response, officials said that abused and neglected children were specifically singled out to create "additional protection" for them, although they did not elaborate. They also denied there were any exceptions to the prohibitions on testing women and children. They added that the new rules met all the requirements set by Congress last spring and summer in a series of often heated hearings. More > |
| San Francisco Pledges to Use Municipal Purchasing To Promote Sweatshop Reform | 0 comments |
| 17 Sep 2005 @ 00:33 San Francisco Pledges to Use Municipal Purchasing To Promote Sweatshop Reform SF PLEDGES TO USE PURCHASING POWER TO PRODUCE SWEATSHOP REFORM Sept. 14, 2005 BY LISA LEFF Associated Press [link] hern_california/12637082.htm SAN FRANCISCO - San Francisco supervisors unanimously approved a new law Tuesday that requires city contractors to guarantee in writing that the uniforms, computers and other goods they supply were not made by workers exploited in so-called "sweatshops." By signing the "sweat-free code of conduct," manufacturers and wholesalers that do business with the city would be promising that their workers are paid the local minimum wage, have the right to unionize and enjoy safe working conditions. The pledge also vouches that no child labor, foreign convict or slave labor was used to produce the merchandise that winds up in San Francisco hospitals, fire stations and City Hall offices. The cities of Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Newark, N.J. and Albuquerque, N.M., already have anti-sweatshop laws on the books. But Valerie Orth, who campaigned for the ordinance as part of the international human rights group Global Exchange, said San Francisco's law goes the furthest because it includes an initial $100,000 for enforcement and a stricter definition of what constitutes a sweatshop. Companies with one major violation of the conduct code would be disqualified from future contracts. The purpose of the pledge is not to force the city to switch contractors, but to use the municipal government's $600 million in purchasing power to effect change at existing factories, according to Orth. "All of this is going to rest on a test case," she said. "Once we find a company that signs the code of conduct and then violates it by say hiring a subcontractor in Honduras where the union is busted, the city of San Francisco can say, 'You signed this code ... you have to let the workers organize." The law, introduced by Supervisor Tom Ammiano and Mayor Gavin Newsom, is scheduled to take effect in 90 days. During its first year, it will only apply to the garment industry, such as contractors who supply uniforms, sheets and towels. An advisory committee will decide what category of contractors to target next. As part of the registration process, contractors who sign the sweatshop-free pledge would have to disclose the names of their subcontractors, where their factories and located and what workers are paid. Randall Harris, executive director the garment industry trade group San Francisco Fashion Industries, said that out of the fewer than 200 companies producing apparel in San Francisco, none are under city contract. Harris said he nonetheless opposed the ordinance because he thinks it puts the industry in a bad light. "We need support in the city and county for the industry we have left here," he said. "We don't need the city of San Francisco perpetuating a belief that our industry is somehow dirty. We have worked very hard to clean it up." |