Fwd: FW: Food Bytes #8 April 21, 1998 - REFORWARD
sal (sals@rain.org)
Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:18:40 -0700
>Subject: FW: Food Bytes #8 April 21, 1998 - REFORWARD
>
>>Reply-to: bd-l@biodynamics.com
>>Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:08:35 -0500
>>To: bd-l@biodynamics.com
>>From: "S. Moore" <sfmoore@earthlink.net> (by way of BIODYNAMIC MAIL LIST)
>>Subject: FW: Food Bytes #8 April 21, 1998 - REFORWARD
>>
>><This would have been forwarded sooner, but it arrived as a 30k unformatted
>>pile of ascii junk, sent to the wrong address. -AB>
>>
>>
>>To: pure-food-action@mr.net
>>From: Ronnie Cummins <alliance@mr.net>
>>Subject: Food Bytes #8 April 21, 1998
>>Sender: owner-pure-food-action@mr.net
>>Precedence: bulk
>>
>>FOOD BYTES
>>News & Analysis on Genetic Engineering & Factory Farming
>>Issue #8 (April 21, 1998)
>>by: Ronnie Cummins, Pure Food Campaign/SOS (Save Organic Standards)
>>email: alliance@mr.net
>><http://www.purefood.org/>http://www.purefood.org
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>*U.S. Organic Standards: The Battle Continues
>>*Food Irradiation: Another Assault on Public Health & Consumer Choice
>>*Monsanto and Fox TV Supress Investigative Report on rBGH
>>____________________________________________________________
>>Organic Standards: Who Really Speaks for the Organic Consumer?
>>
>>Quote of the Month: "Where in our mission statement do we talk about trying
>>to be liberal, progressive, or universal?" John Mackey, CEO of the billion
>>dollar natural food supermarket chain, Whole Foods. Quoted by Jim
>>Motavalli in the April 5, 1998 issue of In These Times.
>>
>>Question of the Month: Who really speaks for the U.S.'s several million
>>hard-core organic consumers and the thousands of small to medium-sized
>>coops, retailers, processors, certifiers, and farmers who have
>>painstakingly built up a nationwide organic food network over the past 30
>>years? Who is responsible for the mobilization since December 15 of several
>>thousand stores, coops, and farmers markets and the distribution of almost
>>a million leaflets and newsletters? Who has organized and inspired over
>>100,000 people to write protest letters to the USDA and call their
>>legislators demanding that the USDA's bogus organic regulations be
>>withdrawn?
>>
>>According to the New York Times, in a March 25 article by Marian Burros,
>>the massive grassroots backlash to the USDA's proposed organic rules has
>>been organized primarily by the Whole Foods supermarket chain, Horizon
>>Organic Dairy, and the Organic Trade Association (OTA). From the standpoint
>>of the grassroots, the Times might benefit from a bit more fact-checking.
>>If the Times had bothered to speak with the real rank-and-file of the
>>organic food movement they might have learned that Whole Foods, Horizon,
>>and most of the other "Big Players" in the natural foods industry (with
>>notable exceptions such as Eden Foods and Wild Oats) : (1) have been rather
>>slow to get involved; (2) have contributed almost no funds to the overall
>>grassroots effort; (3) have most often been deliberately narrow in their
>>objections to the proposed rules (focusing too much on the obvious big
>>three--biotech, sludge, and irradiation--while ignoring other equally
>>crucial issues such as factory farm intensive confinement and organic
>>certifiers' rights to certify and label according to higher standards); and
>>(4) have consistently been far too willing to compromise--even claiming up
>>to the present moment that a "satisfactory agreement" can likely be reached
>>with the USDA. Nonetheless, the grassroots organic movement would
>>certainly welcome a miraculous transformation in the Big Players' behavior.
>>If Whole Foods, Horizon, and the top leadership of the OTA ever find the
>>courage to really stand up to the USDA and support the grassroots organic
>>movement, we'll be among the first to congratulate them. In the meantime,
>>as Bob Dylan warned a number of years ago: "Don't follow leaders. Watch
>>your parking meters."
>>____________________________________________________________
>>Organic Standards: What's the USDA Got Up Their Sleeve?
>>
>>Since last July we've done our best to warn people about the diabolical
>>maneuvers of the USDA and the agribusiness special interests whom they
>>represent. Food Bytes was among the first to sound the warning on the "big
>>three" and other issues and to predict just how bad the December proposed
>>rules would actually be. So far our Washington sources and our analyses of
>>the crisis have been pretty much on the mark. Likewise our allies' and our
>>own suggestions for strategy and tactics (see Food Bytes #7, "National
>>Organic Standards: The Battle We Can't Afford to Lose") have seemed to
>>resonate with a lot of folks. Now it's time for another warning: beware the
>>recent conciliatory rhetoric coming from the USDA. Although Glickman and
>>company are doing their utmost to sound reasonable, their game plan remains
>>the same. They are presently modifying their tactics, and are willing to
>>postpone a confrontation on some of the major issues, but their overall
>>strategy remains the same. They intend to divide and conquer the organic
>>movement, ram through factory farm and biotech friendly organic
>>regulations, and criminalize dissent.
>>
>>In an article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on March 26, USDA head Dan
>>Glickman admitted that "This is probably the largest public response to an
>>(Agriculture Department) rule in modern history." After his typical
>>rhetoric that the final rules will be neither "offensive" nor
>>"objectionable," Glickman let slip, however, that the government will act
>>"in the total public interest" (i.e. in the interest of large multinational
>>corporations, food processors, gene engineers, and supermarket chains),
>>rather than basing federal regulations solely on what organic consumers,
>>retailers, and farmers want. In the same article, Regina Hildwine, a
>>spokeswoman for the powerhouse National Food Processors Association (NFPA),
>>made an even more revealing statement when she categorized consumer and
>>industry critics of the proposed rules as "true believers who seem to be on
>>a holy war" against the USDA. In an article published March 23 by Reuters,
>>Hildwine emphasized that the USDA's proposed rules (vocally supported by
>>their favorite "big three" trade associations--the Grocery Manufacturers of
>>America, the NFPA, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization) have
>>nothing to do with the issues or concerns of consumers. As Hildwine put it,
>>"Organic does not mean safer. Organic does not mean healthier."
>>
>>Any lingering doubts concerning Clinton administration treachery were
>>recently dispelled by the magazine Mother Jones. In their May-June 1998
>>issue Mother Jones published revealing 1997 internal USDA documents on the
>>proposed organic rules. As Mother Jones writer Leora Broydo states, the
>>"internal USDA documents... show the agency has bowed to pressure from
>>biotech interests and flouted the recommendations of a congressionally
>>empowered board of representatives from the organic industry..." Among
>>other gems the memo describes USDA plans to take away the 1990 statutory
>>power of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to decide what's
>>allowed or prohibited under the organic label (a statutory power White
>>House lawyers now claim is possibly unconstitutional), as well as USDA
>>plans to degrade traditional organic rules and practices on genetically
>>engineered food and inputs, antibiotics, pesticides, ingredient
>>requirements, and food additives, among others. The USDA memo also makes it
>>clear that Washington bureaucrats consider it a "Hot Issue" to prevent the
>>nation's several dozen non-governmental private organic certifiers from
>>certifying and labeling organic products utilizing standards higher than
>>the minimum standards dictated by the USDA. On the internet the USDA
>>"smoking gun" documents can be found at:
>><http://www.motherjones.com/>http://www.motherjones.com
>>
>>After the official comment period closes on April 30, what should we expect
>>from the USDA? First of all expect a delay, combined with a PR message that
>>they're "listening to the people." The USDA fully expects consumer and
>>organic industry rage to die down after the comment period ends. The Agency
>>will utilize this lull period to make tactical adjustments in the rules as
>>well as to reach out to the Big Players in the organic industry and the
>>Congress to "make a deal." The USDA and Monsanto were heartened by a recent
>>Organic Trade Association poll of its organizational members which found
>>28% would accept a non-prohibition on genetically engineered inputs as long
>>as the government decided on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on a
>>"case-by-case" basis. The nuclear and sludge industry noted with some
>>disappointment that only 6% would allow irradiated food under the organic
>>label and only 5% would allow sewage sludge, but were happy that 24% of OTA
>>members believe that nuclear irradiation is an acceptable practice for
>>conventional agriculture.
>>
>>Even more heartening to Corporate America, on the absolutely crucial issue
>>of lowering traditional organic standards so as to allow for the intensive
>>confinement of farm animals and other factory farm practices, under which
>>rules the nation's meat, poultry, and dairy cartels stand to make billions
>>of dollars in extra profits, the OTA leadership has been noticeably silent.
>>On the issue of higher standards, the USDA tactic will continue to be to
>>try to divide the state government certifiers from the non-governmental
>>private certifiers by claiming they'll allow the states to have higher
>>standards (which is doubtful), while prohibiting non-governmental
>>certifiers from upholding higher standards. The USDA has determined that
>>the OTA's Big Players will allow private organic certifiers' rights to be
>>suppressed, and eco-labels to be banned or restricted, as long as there is
>>a postponement or modification on the "big three" and lip service paid to
>>NOSB recommendations.
>>
>>After April 30 we can expect an official announcement that the USDA intends
>>to resubmit new proposed rules, probably in 1999 (or at least after the
>>November 1998 elections). Some sources warn, however, that the USDA could
>>carry out a "preemptive strike" as soon as late-summer. A number of
>>agribusiness and biotech hardliners would prefer for the USDA to implement
>>legally binding interim or final rules as quickly as possible, but the
>>administration appears to believe that this tactic is too risky before the
>>November elections. Meanwhile Monsanto and the biotechnology industry have
>>decided that pushing too hard for blanket approval of genetically
>>engineered organisms at the present time is a mistake. The door will be
>>left open under the new USDA definition of GMOs for certain gene altered
>>inputs (enzymes, production aids, rBGH, etc.), but Monsanto has agreed to a
>>three year moratorium on genetically engineered seeds and organisms.
>>According to informed sources in Washington, the new 1998 or1999 proposed
>>organic rules will revise somewhere between 50-70% of the controversial
>>proposals contained in the first round of rules. However there will not be
>>a permanent prohibition of the big four (genetic engineering, toxic sludge,
>>irradiation, or intensive confinement/factory farming), nor a relaxation of
>>the ultimate "deal-breaker," outlawing non-governmental certifiers from
>>certifying and labeling according to higher standards. The USDA instead
>>will propose that, after a three year moratorium, genetically engineered
>>organisms be decided on a case-by-case basis, that the Environmental
>>Protection Agency tighten up its standards on sewage sludge (making them
>>more closely resemble EU standards) prior to any legally binding decision,
>>and that, while nuking organic food for the moment will be forbidden, no
>>permanent prohibition on irradiating food will be implemented.
>>
>>Regarding the statutory powers of the NOSB to decide on what's allowed on
>>the "National List" of organic inputs, the USDA will continue its efforts
>>to erode NOSB's powers, rather than eliminate them all at once. Over time
>>the USDA expects to pack the NOSB board with more agribusiness friendly
>>members, meanwhile cultivating those current Board members whom they
>>consider "more reasonable" and open to compromise. Monsanto and others now
>>believe that NOSB attitudes (or Board membership) can be altered within
>>three or more years. Finally, the USDA has learned their lesson in terms of
>>allowing a relatively long (in the first round 135 days) official comment
>>period. The next time around we can expect a much shorter comment period.
>>In fact the USDA may not allow more than 30 days, hardly enough time for
>>the public to respond to another lengthy, barely intelligible document.
>>
>>So what should the organic movement do after April 30 to derail the USDA's
>>next moves? How can food activists prevent the Big Players in the organics
>>industry from brokering The Great Compromise? In simplest terms, we must
>>continue raising hell. We must organize ourselves into a more coherent and
>>powerful movement. Educate and agitate in every community. Ally ourselves
>>more closely with the international organic movement. Prepare the
>>groundwork for a global boycott of everything labeled "USDA Organic" once
>>the final bogus rules are implemented. Turn up the heat on the U.S.
>>Congress, as we've already begun to do. (Some U.S. Senators have already
>>received over 500 letters and phone calls from angry constituents). Demand
>>an investigation by the Governmental Accounting Office (GAO). Organize
>>thousands of people into grassroots action networks (telephone, fax, and
>>email) in all 50 states and 435 Congressional Districts. And last, but not
>>least, support non-governmental private and state certifier efforts to
>>bypass the USDA and adopt our own standards and labels for "real organic"
>>foods. (See next article.)
>>____________________________________________________________
>>Organic Certifiers Declare Independence from the USDA
>>
>>At what can only be described as an historic meeting April 3-4 in Chicago,
>>Illinois, several dozen of the U.S.'s leading private (non-governmental)
>>and state organic certifiers roundly rejected the USDA's proposed organic
>>rules as completely "unacceptable" and began the process of establishing a
>>National Independent Accreditation system for organic products. This
>>Independent Accreditation system will provide a national and
>>internationally-recognized set of standards and labels which will serve as
>>an alternative to the forthcoming "USDA Organic" federal regulations.
>>
>>The certifying organizations gathered in Chicago agreed to move beyond the
>>current patchwork of private and state U.S. organic regulations and unite
>>around a unified system of strict standards based upon current high
>>standards already in place, NOSB recommendations, IFOAM (International
>>Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) standards, and recent official
>>comments made to the USDA. At the April meeting the certifiers set up a
>>broad-based National Independent Accreditation Steering Committee (NIASC),
>>designed to represent all stakeholders in the organic community. The NIASC
>>has been delegated to come up with recommendations for a national and
>>internationally recognized accreditation and standard setting proposal for
>>the organic industry by June 1, 1998. The NIASC currently includes
>>representatives from leading organic certifiers (three private and one
>>state), as well as representatives from organic inspectors, farmers,
>>retailers, handlers, and consumer organizations. Food Bytes is happy to
>>announce that Ronnie Cummins has been selected as one of the two
>>representatives from consumer organizations. The next meeting of the NIASC
>>is scheduled for May 8-10 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
>>____________________________________________________________
>>Nuking America's Dirty Food: Another Assault on Public Health & Consumer
>Choice
>>
>>As you (see Food Bytes #3) undoubtedly already know, America's corporate
>>food giants, especially the meat cartels, currently have a serious "image"
>>problem. Upwards of 80% of consumers, in a variety of polls, have expressed
>>increasing concern over food safety issues. The recent "Mad Cow/Food
>>Slander" trial of Oprah Winfrey and Howard Lyman in Texas (see
>><http://www.prwatch.org/>http://www.prwatch.org/) and the BSE panic in
Europe
underline the
>>dangerous and volatile situation that industry faces. But in order to
>>guarantee themselves hefty profits, the Food Lords have become dependent
>>upon a national, and increasingly global, system of factory farms and
>>industrialized food production and processing. This system is based upon
>>heavy use of toxic chemicals, drugs, steroids, hormones, rendered animal
>>protein (animal cannibalism), toxic sewage and industrial sludge, genetic
>>engineering, raw manure (as low-cost feed for animals), and other
>>questionable practices. As a direct result of this "profit-at-any-cost"
>>food regime American consumers suffer from a literal Guinness Book of World
>>Records epidemic of food poisoning, obesity, food allergies, antibiotic
>>resistance, and food-related cancers, as well as immune, reproductive, and
>>developmental disorders--not to mention an increasingly contaminated water
>>supply and environment. As a USDA microbiologist admitted to Time magazine,
>>the processed chicken in America's supermarkets is "no different than if
>>you stuck it in the toilet and ate it."
>>
>>Business as usual finds corporate America's mega-feedlots, slaughterhouses,
>>hog and poultry operations, and processing plants filled with sick,
>>drugged, filthy, and diseased animals, most of whom have been intensively
>>confined, terrorized, pumped full of antibiotics, and transported in
>>hellish conditions over long distances. To guarantee even higher profits,
>>large slaughterhouses are typically run at breakneck speed, with little or
>>no regard for basic sanitation, public health, or the safety and welfare of
>>the hapless (generally Latino or African-American, often illegal immigrant)
>>workers who are unfortunate enough to have to work in these "modern" animal
>>factories. For an in-depth expose of America's meat industry, read Gail
>>Eisnitz's recently-released book, Slaughterhouse: the Shocking Story of
>>Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment inside the U.S. Meat Industry
>>(Prometheus Books, 1997)
>>
>>As reported in previous Food Bytes, the majority of non-organically
>>produced American meat products are now routinely contaminated with feces,
>>bacteria, and dangerous pathogens such as e-coli, salmonella, and
>>campylobacter--not to mention pesticide and drug residues. No wonder 51% of
>>American consumers recently polled by Prevention magazine said they would
>>gladly buy "certified" organic meat and poultry if these products were
>>available in their local communities. No wonder the meat cartels have
>>prevailed upon the USDA to allow factory farm style intensive confinement,
>>antibiotics, non-organic feed, rendered animal protein, irradiation, and
>>other conventional agribusiness practices under the proposed "USDA Organic"
>>label. Tyson, Perdue, ConAgra, Cargill, IBP, and the other meat giants know
>>full well that millions of safety conscious and ethically concerned
>>meat-eaters are ready and willing to go organic. The big ag players just
>>want to make sure that real organic standards, as currently practiced by
>>free-range and certified organic small ranchers and farmers, are
>>eliminated, or at least degraded sufficiently, so that their factory-farmed
>>brand name products end up on supermarket shelves at bargain prices with
>>USDA labels that say organic.
>>
>>The problem, however, is that Factory Farm Inc.'s current products are so
>>contaminated they can no longer keep the nation's (and the world's)
>>consumer backlash under control. When even government bureaucrats admit
>>that every non-vegetarian in America is probably getting food poisoning at
>>least once a year, when every media organization drools at the prospect of
>>another sensational, ratings-boosting food safety story, it's time for
>>decisive action. Not decisive action in the sense of cleaning up or making
>>their operations more humane. Rather decisive action in terms of utilizing
>>nuclear waste to irradiate feces and bacterially-contaminated meat and
>>produce.
>>
>>Never mind that food irradiation destroys 20-80% of essential vitamins and
>>nutrients (this in addition to nutrients destroyed through cooking or
>>canning), that it produces carcinogenic byproducts such as benzene and
>>formaldehyde (which in turn are augmented by other carcinogenic byproducts
>>after food is fried or overcooked), that it kills off beneficial bacteria
>>and creates ideal breeding conditions for deadly aflatoxins and botulism,
>>that new, virulent radiation-resistant bacteria will emerge, that having
>>food irradiation facilities in hundreds of towns and communities will
>>inevitably mean more radioactive spills and accidents. Never mind that food
>>irradiation will give the nuclear industry a propaganda boost and provide a
>>way to get rid of some of their radioactive waste--thereby prolonging the
>>life of a deadly industry that should have been phased-out long ago. Never
>>mind that animals fed irradiated food in numerous experiments developed
>>cancer tumors, kidney damage, sterility, lung damage and heart problems,
>>and that children in India fed irradiated wheat suffered chromosome damage
>>
>>For further information on Food Irradiation see the Pure Food website at:
>><http://www.purefood.org/>http://www.purefood.org
>>Or call the activist organization Food and Water at 1-800-EAT SAFE or
>>802-563-3300. You may also want to search for several books in your library
>>such as Food Irradiation: Who Wants It? by Tony Webb and Tim Lang; or The
>>Food That Would Last Forever by Dr. Gary Gibbs; or the Biology of Food
>>Irradiation by David Murray.
>>
>>The problem up until now for the food giants has been that U.S. federal law
>>basically requires mandatory labeling of irradiated food sold at the retail
>>level (except for spices and processed food ingredients). Since 77% of
>>Americans remain opposed to irradiated food--despite a barrage of
>>pseudo-scientific propaganda--manufacturers and retailers are fearful of
>>forcing yet another unpopular food technology on the public. Consequently
>>less than 10% of spices and vegetable seasonings, and an even much smaller
>>percentage of poultry and produce, are currently irradiated. However the
>>solution is simple: stop labeling. On Nov. 21, 1997 President Clinton began
>>this process by signing into law the so-called Food and Drug Administation
>>(FDA) Reform Bill. This bill included an industry-inserted section that
>>allows manufacturers to stop telling consumers on the front of a food
>>package that the food has been irradiated. Instead Corporate America can
>>now tell folks the bad news in tiny letters on the back of the package.
>>
>>But even this isn't enough. In closed-door industry and government meetings
>>over the past several years food giants such as McDonald's and ConAgra have
>>made it clear that they will never irradiate their food products until all
>>government labeling provisions are eliminated. But once labeling is
>>outlawed, nearly everyone has agreed they will get on board. Formalizing
>>this decision on behalf of its members, on February 9, 1998 the National
>>Food Processors Association (yes, the trade association lobbying overtime
>>to degrade organic standards), with a wink and nod from the Clinton
>>administration, filed a legal petition with the government to facilitate an
>>end to the labeling of all irradiated foods. The question is no longer will
>>the government take away consumers rights to know whether their food has
>>been irradiated, just as they've already done with genetically engineered
>>foods, but only when it will do so. Food Bytes predicts they'll wait at
>>least until after the 1998 November federal elections.
>>
>>Of course the one good thing about the wholesale nuking of the American
>>food chain and the simultaneous taking away of labeling rights for
>>consumers is that this will create yet an even greater demand for foods
>>labeled "certified organic" or "non-irradiated." This is assuming of course
>>that we stop the USDA and the NFPA from degrading organic standards and
>>outlawing alternative eco-labeling. In any case another huge food fight
>>looms on the horizon. Stay tuned to Food Bytes for further information.
>>____________________________________________________________________
>>Monsanto and Fox TV Unite to Suppress Journalists' Free Speech on Hazards
>>of Genetically Engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH or rBST)
>>
>>On April 2 two award-winning Florida TV producers, Jane Akre and Steve
>>Wilson, held press conferences in Tampa and Tallahassee to announce a
>>lawsuit against a Fox TV network television station, WTVT. The reporters
>>sued Fox for firing them after they refused to broadcast false reports
>>about Monsanto's controversial genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone
>>(rBGH or rBST). Akre and Wilson were fired after a year-long battle over a
>>TV news feature series they produced which highlighted the public health
>>dangers of Monsanto's rBGH (increased antibiotic residues, increased levels
>>of a potent human growth hormone factor called IGF-1, linked to the
>>promotion of cancer tumors). Shortly before the original TV series was to
>>run, an attorney from Monsanto contacted Fox TV and demanded that the
>>script be altered. The station gave in to Monsanto's demands and told Akre
>>and Wilson to rewrite and tone down the script. One year and 73 rewrites
>>later Monsanto still wasn't satisfied and Akre and Wilson were fired. rBGH
>>was approved by the FDA in February, 1994, with no labeling or special
>>pre-market safety testing required, despite massive opposition by consumers
>>and dairy farmers, and over the objections of scientific experts from the
>>Consumers Union, the Cancer Prevention Coalition, and other organizations.
>>
>>At the April 2 press conference, Jane Akre emphasized that the public has a
>>right to know the truth about the health hazards of rBGH, despite the
>>strongarm tactics of Monsanto:
>>
>>"Every parent and every consumer has the right to know what they're pouring
>>on their children's morning cereal. We set out to tell Florida consumers
>>the truth about a giant chemical company and a powerful dairy lobby. That
>>used to be something investigative reporters won awards for. As we've
>>learned the hard way, it's something you can be fired for these days..."
>>
>>As reported by Jeanette Batz in the St. Louis newsweekly, Riverfront Times,
>>David Boylan, WTVT station manager, was blunt in demanding that Akre and
>>Wilson tell the story about rBGH the way Monsanto wanted it told. "We (the
>>Fox TV network) paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will
>>decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." So much for
>>freedom of the press in the era of Corporate Power. Full details of the
>>lawsuit and the BGH story are available at:
>><http://www.foxbghsuit.com/>http://www.foxBGHsuit.com
>>
>>Food Bytes salutes Jane Akre and Steve Wilson for their courage and
>>journalistic integrity. We're proud to say we worked with them in
>>developing their censored story on rBGH and Monsanto.
>>____________________________________________________________
>>
>>Ronnie Cummins/Pure Food Campaign/Save Organic Standards860 Hwy
>>61Little Marais, Mn. 55614Tel. 218-226-4164Fax 218-226-4157email
>>alliance@mr.net<<http://www.purefood.org/>http://www.purefood.org>To
subscribe
to the monthly
>>electronic newsletter, Food Bytes, send an email message
>>to:majordomo@mr.netwith the simple message:subscribe
>>pure-food-action-------------- If you no longer wish to receive
>>information, please send email to: majordomo@mr.net with the command:
>>unsubscribe pure-food-action in the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
An organic growers homepage check out
http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".