At 05:06 PM 12/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>sanet-mg-digest Friday, December 11 1998 Volume 01 : Number 708
>
>
>
>In this issue:
>
> Re: Hogs and Crude Oil-Economic Questions
> Re: Join the SOS-Save Organic Standards Campaign
> Re[2]: Hogs and Crude Oil-Economic Questions
> RE: Join the SOS-Save Organic Standards Campaign -Reply
> RE: Join the SOS-Save Organic Standards Campaign -Reply
> URGENT BGH Action Sign-on
>
>See the end of the digest for information about sanet-mg-digest.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:06:51 -0800
>From: Loren Muldowney <loscott@snowfall.envsci.Rutgers.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Hogs and Crude Oil-Economic Questions
>
>Bill Duesing Says:
>> > year's supply of pork for two or more families, is worth only about $40
>> > on the open market. At that price, farmers lose between $50 and $75 on
>> > each pig they raise. Compare $40 for a whole hog to the cost of a
>> > supermarket ham or a breakfast muffin with sausage! The current price of
>> > the pig just doesn't make any sense.
>
>J. Mark Leonard says:
>> Considering the continual expansion of Seaboard and other factory hog farms
>> across the U.S., the price of the pig makes perfect sense. It's the
prices of
>> the supermarket ham and the breakfast muffin that are senseless, since
the pig
>> is an input for producing both.
>>
>> I get your point, your logic is just backwards.
>
>
>Seems to me that the "prices of the supermarket ham and the breakfast
>muffin" make perfect sense. Is this not a textbook example (I note that
>you hail from a Department of Agricultural Economics) of the result of
>monopoly (do I have to say "oligopoly"?) in a market sector? There is
>no incentive to pass along cost reductions to the final consumer, since
>real competition does not exist.
>
>I don't think Bill Duesing's logic is backwards at all. I think he is
>saying that it doesn't make sense for us, the citizens of this nation,
>to subsidize both the petroleum and the pork industry, when our losses
>in externalized costs and our losses to monopoly power far exceed any
>economic gain passed along to us.
>If he isn't saying that, then I will say it.
>
>So Bill's saying that "the current price of the pig just doesn't make
>any sense" is a statement that the market price for hogs does not
>reflect nearly all the costs. I can find no flaw in that statement or
>in that logic.
>
>Apologies to Bill, if I have misunderstood you!
>
>Loren Muldowney
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:13:48 -0500
>From: "Dan Hook" <guldann@ix.netcom.com>
>Subject: Re: Join the SOS-Save Organic Standards Campaign
>
>I AGREE, I was just ready some of Bill Duesing's essays. When I got to this
>section in his essay on the USDA standards it turned my stomach. Its
>UNCONTITUTIONAL(isn't that a US document? Have they read it lately). Think
>of all the things that hide behind this freedom of speach thing, porno is
>what I was thinking. Yet I could not have on a cardboard sign at a farmers
>market pesticide free, which would be the TRUTH. Outlawing the truth thats a
>good one. John is right us small producers don't need the USDA label
>however I would like the right (isn't that one of those American things
>rights, freedom?) to tell the truth. I suppose we could just label our
>stuff Not USDA certified and proud of it! Beth
>>The most important provision of the previously proposed national organic
>>standards to oppose is the provision that ...
>>OUTLAWS HIGHER STANDARDS
>>* The new laws will make it illegal for private, non-governmental
>>organic certifiers to uphold higher standards than the minimum standards
>>dictated by the USDA. The rules will also ban "eco-labels," making it
>>illegal to even imply through labeling or advertising that a product
>exceeds
>>USDA standards.
>>
>>Good luck,
>>
>>John Ikerd
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Debbie Ortman [mailto:safefood@cp.duluth.mn.us]
>> Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 9:33 AM
>> To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
>> Subject: Join the SOS-Save Organic Standards Campaign
>>
>> S.O.S. SAVE ORGANIC STANDARDS! ROUND TWO
>> _____________________________________________
>> NATIONWIDE BATTLE CONTINUES
>>
>> Earlier this year the U.S. Department of Agriculture
>>proposed national
>> organic standards that were so weak, they threatened the
>>entire future of
>> organic foods. In response over 275,000 people wrote the
>>USDA demanding
>> that these proposed organic rules be changed. The USDA
>>backed off
>> temporarily, but is expected to issue a new set of highly
>>controversial
>> regulations later this year or early in 1999.
>>
>> There are conflicting factions inside the Clinton
>>administration. While
>> some have heard the thunderous response from consumers,
>>others are as ready
>> as ever to: lower pre-existing organic standards, allow
>>industrial-style
>> factory farming, and suppress the free speech of the organic
>>community by
>> making it illegal to set standards higher than the USDA's.
>>
>> Consumer rebellion has forced the USDA to temporarily back
>>down on the "Big
>> Three," genetically engineered food, toxic sludge, and
>>nuclear irradiation.
>> But most organic consumers have dozens of additional
>>objections to
>> regulations which disregard almost entirely the
>>recommendations of the
>> National Organic Standards Board. We remain concerned that
>>agribusiness and
>> its friends inside the USDA will subvert those legitimately
>>seeking change
>> and once again propose federal regulations which include:
>>
>> TOTAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL
>>
>> * The USDA will possess a "legal monopoly" over the word
>>"organic." Only
>> one organic label, "USDA Organic" will be allowed. The USDA
>>will have the
>> sole power to appoint members to the National Organic
>>Standards Board,
>> giving them the ability to weaken standards by "stacking"
>>the NOSB with
>> appointees sympathetic to industrial agriculture and genetic
>>engineering.
>>
>> OUTLAWS HIGHER STANDARDS
>>
>> * The new laws will make it illegal for private,
>>non-governmental organic
>> certifiers to uphold higher standards than the minimum
>>standards dictated
>> by the USDA. The rules will also ban "eco-labels," making it
>>illegal to
>> even imply through labeling or advertising that a product
>>exceeds USDA
>> standards.
>>
>> FACTORY FARMING
>>
>> * "USDA Organic" will allow inhumane, intensive confinement
>>of farm animals
>> and a host of other industrial, factory farm production
>>practices
>> (non-organic feed, toxic inert ingredients in pesticides,
>>antibiotics,
>> additional synthetic chemicals, etc.).
>>
>> THREATENS SMALL FARMERS
>>
>> * The USDA's proposed fees for government certification
>>and/or residue
>> testing will be prohibitively expensive for small and
>>medium-sized farmers,
>> certifiers, and producers.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> SAVE ORGANIC STANDARDS! IT'S IN OUR HANDS!
>>
>> This year's mass outcry from organic consumers, producers,
>>and farmers to
>> the USDA's first proposed organic rules made history--with
>>over 275,000
>> official comments. The SOS campaign has now given birth to
>>Organic
>> Consumers Action--a nationwide grassroots organization
>>dedicated to
>> protecting the integrity of organic food and promoting
>>sustainable
>> agriculture.
>>
>> JOIN Organic Consumers Action (OCA) in your local area. If
>>you want to
>> become a member or make a donation--call 218-726-1443 or
>>e-mail us at:
>> <safefood@cp.duluth.mn.us> Before the USDA issues its new
>>proposed organic
>> regulations you will be contacted by an OCA volunteer in
>>your local area.
>>
>> VOLUNTEER to become part of an OCA Coordination Team in
>>your area. Help
>> us mobilize consumers and retailers, carry out public
>>education and events,
>> and generate media coverage.
>>
>> ASK your local natural food stores, coops, community
>>restaurants, and
>> farmers markets to contact the OCA campaign so that we can
>>send them
>> posters and literature.
>>
>> SUBSCRIBE to Food Bytes, our free electronic newsletter,
>>by sending an
>> e-mail to:
>> majordomo@mr.net
>> with the simple message in the body of your email:
>> subscribe pure-food-action
>>
>> If you don't have access to a computer, and want to receive
>>Food Bytes by
>> mail, send us $20 for a year subscription.
>>
>> Visit our web sites (and links) regularly for updates and
>>background
>> information:
>> http://www.purefood.org
>> http://www.icta.org
>>
>> SEND us a letter, fax, or e-mail which we will forward to
>>President
>> Clinton and Vice-President Gore, your U.S. Senators, and
>>Congressional
>> Representative. Tell your elected public officials that you
>>want the USDA
>> to preserve strict organic standards, and that any final
>>rule must not
>> contain any of the objectionable provisions outlined in this
>>leaflet.
>> Demand especially that the USDA allow private,
>>non-governmental organic
>> certification bodies to maintain and publicize stricter
>>organic standards
>> than the minimum standards proposed by the USDA.
>>
>>
>> Organic Consumers Action
>> 860 Highway 61
>> Little Marais, Minnesota 55614
>> Tel. 218-726-4792
>> Fax. 218-226-4157
>> e-mail <oca@purefood.org>
>> http://www.purefood.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ronnie Cummins
>> Campaign for Food Safety/Organic Consumers Action
>> 860 Hwy 61
>> Little Marais, Mn. 55614
>> Tel. 218-226-4164
>> Fax 218-226-4157
>> email alliance@mr.net
>> http://www.purefood.org
>> To subscribe to the free electronic newsletter, Food Bytes,
>>send an email to:
>> majordomo@mr.net
>> with the simple message:
>> subscribe pure-food-action
>>
>>
>>
>> Debbie Dunbar Ortman
>> National Field Organizer
>> Organic Consumers Action
>> 3547 Haines Rd.
>> Duluth, MN 55811
>> (218) 726-1443
>> (218) 726-1446 Fax
>> safefood@cp.duluth.mn.us
>> http://www.purefood.org
>> Join the Organic Consumers Action in
>> your local area. If you want to become a member or a
>>volunteer--or make a
>> donation--call (218)726-1443
>> To subscribe to the free electronic newsletter, Food Bytes,
>>send an email
>> to: majordomo@mr.net
>> with the simple message: subscribe pure-food-action
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:31:14 -0600
>From: "John M Leonard"<leonajm@okway.okstate.edu>
>Subject: Re[2]: Hogs and Crude Oil-Economic Questions
>
>Loren Muldowney said:
>
>> Seems to me that the "prices of the supermarket ham and the breakfast
>> muffin" make perfect sense. Is this not a textbook example (I note
>> that you hail from a Department of Agricultural Economics) of the
>> result of monopoly (do I have to say "oligopoly"?) in a market sector?
>> There is no incentive to pass along cost reductions to the final
>> consumer, since real competition does not exist.
>>
>> So Bill's saying that "the current price of the pig just doesn't make any
>> sense" is a statement that the market price for hogs does not reflect
nearly
>> all the costs. I can find no flaw in that statement or in that logic.
>
>
>If his point was due to "imperfect prices" I would probably agree
>wholeheartedly. Which is why I said, "I get your point." My problem is
only
>with how that point was stated.
>
>If we assume oligopoly, as you say, the incentive to pass on cost
reductions to
>consumers is the ability to steal your opponent's customers, thereby
increasing
>your sales and profits. That's why oligopolies are inherently unstable (see
>OPEC) without some means of forcing them to exist, as each firm always
wants to
>undercut the competition. For this market, it might be argued very well
that
>USDA packing regulations serve this purpose. Again, I wouldn't argue
against
>that. My point was simply that Bill's argument could have been more clear.
>
>I don't mean to defend Seaboard or any other hog factory. I was really
>searching for clarification, without entering the perennial debate on how
best
>to "fix" incorrect prices. I'm in constant amazement at the existence of
these
>factories, but then I don't eat pork.
>
>Mark
>-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>J. Mark Leonard Department of Agricultural
Economics
>Senior Research Specialist Oklahoma State
University
>(405)744-9988 522
Agricultural Hall
>leonajm@okstate.edu Stillwater, OK
74078-6033
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:16:00 -0500
>From: Grace J Gershuny <Grace_J.Gershuny@usda.gov>
>Subject: RE: Join the SOS-Save Organic Standards Campaign -Reply
>
>Dear SANETERS,
>
>The misinformation about the proposed organic standards continues
>unabated, and Ronnie Cummins is among the worst perpetrators. I have
>heard that he is claiming to funders that all the people who responded to
>the proposed rule are members of his organization.
>
>Unfortunately, the particular issue that John emphasizes is one that has
>been outrageously twisted to imply all sorts of things that are totally
>false. I have been working on a long rebuttal to the charges made by the
>Pure Food Campaign in an article published in the fall issue of The
>Ecologist. What follows is an excerpt from that (still ufinished) letter,
>which represents my own knowledge and experience as one of the
>authors of the proposed rule that was pubished last year, and as a
>twenty plus year veteran of the grassroots organic movement (not an
>official USDA position or communication). I wrote it because of my own
>need to set the record straight, and will be glad to post the whole thing
>once it goes out.
>
>organically yours,
>
>Grace Gershuny
>USDA National Organic Program staff
>
>[segment of letter to The Ecologist magazine]
>
>Confusion about label claims and *higher* standards
>
> Another issue cited by the authors as contradicting the NOSB*s
>recommendations is the prohibition against certifiers using their seals to
>represent *higher* standards. In fact, this provision agrees with the
>NOSB*s recommendations about use of certifier seals. One of the main
>purposes of the Organic Foods Production Act is to facilitate interstate
>trade by establishing consistent national standards for organic
>production. There continues to be a lot of confusion about what is
>meant by *standards,* especially when the standards reflect a whole
>management system approach. Making comparisons between whole
>systems according to how strict they are about one provision or another
>turns the whole concept on its head. For example, one important organic
>principle is to establish nutrient cycling systems, most commonly by
>integrating livestock and crop production. A program that requires only
>100% organic feed for livestock may appear to have *higher* standards,
>but in effect it may discourage crop producers from keeping animals
>because of the difficulty in obtaining enough organic feed at a
>reasonable price. Is it better to be *stricter* or to encourage integrated
>nutrient cycling practices?
>
> Perhaps one reason for confusion about *floor* versus *ceiling*
>in standards is that environmentalists and activists are unaccustomed to
>the kind of market development regulations represented by this program,
>as opposed to the kind of regulations that protect the public from
>pollution. It makes a great deal of sense for states to be able to enact
>stricter standards for air and water safety than those enacted at the
>federal level. Regulations that set standards to facilitate interstate
>commerce are a different can of worms. In this case the fight among
>certification groups who want to promote their programs by marketing
>their certification seals based on differences in standards is misguided,
>and has created a more nightmarish bureaucracy than anything the
>government could dream up. This is one of the situations that the federal
>law was enacted to try to remedy.
>
> To characterize the requirement that products labeled as
>*organic* comply with the USDA*s regulations as giving the agency a
>*monopoly* on the word is idiotic, as is the claim that it would either limit
>free speech rights or *criminalize dissent.* The preamble to the
>proposed rule clearly states that individual producers or processors can
>continue to make any truthful label claims they wish, and that any
>accredited certifier can verify that these claims are accurate. Any
>organization that wishes to establish *higher* standards for its members,
>owners, or products can do that, and market this claim as it sees fit*fair
>labor practices is one I would personally like to see gain in popularity.
>For example, if a baby food manufacturer wants all of its ingredients to
>be tested to show no detectable pesticide residue it could do so, make
>that claim on its product labels, and request its organic certifier to verify
>that this standard is being met. The manufacturer*s label could be
>promoted as meaning *no detectable pesticide residues.* Under the
>proposed regulations, however, the USDA accredited certifier could not
>market its logo as a claim of *no detectable pesticide residues* if that is
>not a requirement of the federal organic program.
>
> Unfortunately, this is one issue in which deliberate misinformation
>has been spread, and which has succeeded in further confusing things
>for the public The so-called *eco-labeling* prohibition is also a case of
>interpreting a request for public comment as an intent to do something
>that nobody wants. The examples we gave of phrases that may
>possibly imply that a product was organically produced was included so
>that people would know what we were talking about, in hopes that they
>would give us specific terms that should or should not be considered the
>same as making an organic claim.
>
>[end of segment]
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:25:59 -0600
>From: "Ikerd, John E." <IkerdJ@missouri.edu>
>Subject: RE: Join the SOS-Save Organic Standards Campaign -Reply
>
>To the growing circle;
>
>Granted, higher and better, like beauty, is mostly in the mind of the
>beholder. So just substitute "different in ways that some might find to be
>higher or better" for "better" in my earlier communication.
>
>To put my earlier comments into context, the eco-labeling controversy arose
>at around the same time as the food anti-disparagement law controversy.
>There seemed little doubt the intent of the anti-disparagement movement is
>to prohibit public claims of any kind - including advertising and labeling -
>that one food product might be superior to another with respect to health
>risks, nutritional value, production methods, production ethics, etc. unless
>the alleged superiority of the end food product can be proven
>scientifically. One simply need to consider the history of scientific
>inquiry into issued such as nicotine and cholesterol to speculate as to how
>much time and money might have to be spent to satisfy the scientific
>community of the validity of a product claim related to food. The presumed
>claim of superiority by one would constitute legal disparagement of any
>others with which it competes in the market place. Any producer who claimed
>to have a different product - in terms that might be construed as a claim of
>superiority -- could be sued by anyone or everyone who claimed to have lost
>sales because of a presumed claim of superiority. The organizations and
>corporations who support anti-disparagement laws were no doubt involved in
>the USDA organic standards proposal - they are the major players in the
>agricultural establishment. So, it seems only rational to conclude that
>their intent was the same in both cases - possibly to protect consumers from
>false claims, but almost certainly to protect the current industrial food
>system from the growing competition of individual producers.
>
>If the intent in establishing organic standards is simply to facilitate
>interstate commerce, why treat the USDA organic label any differently from
>the label for USDA Choice Beef -- or other existing USDA grades and
>standards. No one has to have an USDA meat grader certify their claim
>that their beef is "lean" or "grass fed" to protect USDA Choice beef from
>disparagement. For most individual producers, certification of any claimed
>difference is tantamount to prohibition. The customer can decide for
>themselves if the claim of "lean" beef is valid or whether being "grass fed"
>means anything. Let the producer prove their claims to their customers -
>they are the ones who matter. Having the USDA Choice grade certainly
>facilitates interstate commerce in beef - and reduces the dollar and cent
>cost of marketing for those who are satisfied with the USDA Choice standard
>- -- but it doesn't keep anyone else from claiming their beef is "different"
>from USDA Choice. Individuals and producer organizations have their own
>standards and labels - such as Laura's Lean Beef and Certified Angus Beef.
>The beef market isn't in chaos because of the looseness of its grading and
>labeling requirements. So, why do we need fundamentally different language
>for organic? It's illegal to stamp beef USDA Choice unless it has been
>graded by a USDA grader, and it would be illegal to label anything USDA
>Organic unless it has been certified by a USDA approved certifier, period.
>
>Anything more quite logically can be construed as driven by ulterior
>motives. I am not suggesting some sort of agro-industrial conspiracy.
>Neither am I suggesting any urgent need for national organic standards at
>all. Perhaps the organic market can operate to the greatest benefit of
>consumers, producers, and society as a whole through local and regional
>markets - without significant interstate commerce. I am simply suggesting
>that corporate agriculture is committed to protecting its markets against
>increasingly effective competition from individual producers -- and
>certainly is not above soliciting government help to do it. The
>eco-labeling section, like some other, was included by USDA as an item for
>public comment. The official comment period is over, but that should not
>preclude further comments.
>
>John Ikerd
>University of Missouri
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grace J Gershuny [mailto:Grace_J.Gershuny@usda.gov]
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 12:16 PM
> To: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu;
>safefood@cp.duluth.mn.us; sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
> Cc: Mike I.Hankin@usda.gov; briant@earth.goddard.edu
> Subject: RE: Join the SOS-Save Organic Standards
>Campaign -Reply
> Sensitivity: Personal
>
> Dear SANETERS,
>
> The misinformation about the proposed organic standards
>continues
> unabated, and Ronnie Cummins is among the worst
>perpetrators. I have
> heard that he is claiming to funders that all the people who
>responded to
> the proposed rule are members of his organization.
>
> Unfortunately, the particular issue that John emphasizes is
>one that has
> been outrageously twisted to imply all sorts of things that
>are totally
> false. I have been working on a long rebuttal to the
>charges made by the
> Pure Food Campaign in an article published in the fall issue
>of The
> Ecologist. What follows is an excerpt from that (still
>ufinished) letter,
> which represents my own knowledge and experience as one of
>the
> authors of the proposed rule that was pubished last year,
>and as a
> twenty plus year veteran of the grassroots organic movement
>(not an
> official USDA position or communication). I wrote it
>because of my own
> need to set the record straight, and will be glad to post
>the whole thing
> once it goes out.
>
> organically yours,
>
> Grace Gershuny
> USDA National Organic Program staff
>
> [segment of letter to The Ecologist magazine]
>
> Confusion about label claims and *higher* standards
>
> Another issue cited by the authors as contradicting
>the NOSB*s
> recommendations is the prohibition against certifiers using
>their seals to
> represent *higher* standards. In fact, this provision
>agrees with the
> NOSB*s recommendations about use of certifier seals. One of
>the main
> purposes of the Organic Foods Production Act is to
>facilitate interstate
> trade by establishing consistent national standards for
>organic
> production. There continues to be a lot of confusion about
>what is
> meant by *standards,* especially when the standards reflect
>a whole
> management system approach. Making comparisons between
>whole
> systems according to how strict they are about one provision
>or another
> turns the whole concept on its head. For example, one
>important organic
> principle is to establish nutrient cycling systems, most
>commonly by
> integrating livestock and crop production. A program that
>requires only
> 100% organic feed for livestock may appear to have *higher*
>standards,
> but in effect it may discourage crop producers from keeping
>animals
> because of the difficulty in obtaining enough organic feed
>at a
> reasonable price. Is it better to be *stricter* or to
>encourage integrated
> nutrient cycling practices?
>
> Perhaps one reason for confusion about *floor*
>versus *ceiling*
> in standards is that environmentalists and activists are
>unaccustomed to
> the kind of market development regulations represented by
>this program,
> as opposed to the kind of regulations that protect the
>public from
> pollution. It makes a great deal of sense for states to be
>able to enact
> stricter standards for air and water safety than those
>enacted at the
> federal level. Regulations that set standards to facilitate
>interstate
> commerce are a different can of worms. In this case the
>fight among
> certification groups who want to promote their programs by
>marketing
> their certification seals based on differences in standards
>is misguided,
> and has created a more nightmarish bureaucracy than anything
>the
> government could dream up. This is one of the situations
>that the federal
> law was enacted to try to remedy.
>
> To characterize the requirement that products
>labeled as
> *organic* comply with the USDA*s regulations as giving the
>agency a
> *monopoly* on the word is idiotic, as is the claim that it
>would either limit
> free speech rights or *criminalize dissent.* The preamble
>to the
> proposed rule clearly states that individual producers or
>processors can
> continue to make any truthful label claims they wish, and
>that any
> accredited certifier can verify that these claims are
>accurate. Any
> organization that wishes to establish *higher* standards for
>its members,
> owners, or products can do that, and market this claim as it
>sees fit*fair
> labor practices is one I would personally like to see gain
>in popularity.
> For example, if a baby food manufacturer wants all of its
>ingredients to
> be tested to show no detectable pesticide residue it could
>do so, make
> that claim on its product labels, and request its organic
>certifier to verify
> that this standard is being met. The manufacturer*s label
>could be
> promoted as meaning *no detectable pesticide residues.*
>Under the
> proposed regulations, however, the USDA accredited certifier
>could not
> market its logo as a claim of *no detectable pesticide
>residues* if that is
> not a requirement of the federal organic program.
>
> Unfortunately, this is one issue in which deliberate
>misinformation
> has been spread, and which has succeeded in further
>confusing things
> for the public The so-called *eco-labeling* prohibition is
>also a case of
> interpreting a request for public comment as an intent to do
>something
> that nobody wants. The examples we gave of phrases that may
> possibly imply that a product was organically produced was
>included so
> that people would know what we were talking about, in hopes
>that they
> would give us specific terms that should or should not be
>considered the
> same as making an organic claim.
>
> [end of segment]
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:07:05 -0800
>From: Organic Farming Research Foundation <research@ofrf.org>
>Subject: URGENT BGH Action Sign-on
>
>>X-From_: joemend@icta.org Fri Dec 11 12:22:36 1998
>>From: Joe <joemend@icta.org>
>>To: msligh@rafiusa.org, melaniea@ix.netcom.com, mark@ofrf.org,
>> mmellon@ucsusa.org, merrigan@access.digex.net, casawg@igc.apc.org,
>> ehendrsn@redsuspenders.com, Joe <joemend@icta.org>, alliance@mr.net,
>> arc@sunsite.unc.edu, arseidel@compuserve.com, bb@omri.org,
>> benbrook@hillnet.com, bgray15452@aol.com, blydon@mothers.org,
>> Charles.Margulis@dialb.greenpeace.org, cspi@cspinet.org,
>> cvof@iquest.net, demeter@baldcom.net, dianeb@ccof.org,
>> dnageng750@aol.com, edward@wedgecoop.com, emilybrown@aol.com,
>> enid.wonnacott@together.org, erorganic@aol.com, farmaid1@aol.com,
>> farmbox@inreach.com, farmvo@daktel.com, fogoffice@aol.com,
>gls@mwt.net,
>> hallje@consumer.org, hansmi@consumer.org, jeg30@columbia.edu,
>> jesse@bpco-op.com, jay.kardan@sfsierra.sierraclub.org,
>jfagan@mum.edu,
>> Joe
>> <joemend@icta.org>, jriddle@luminet.net, kcom@daktel.com,
>> kennje@consumer.org, kozer@nffc.net, lynncoody@compuserve.com,
>> mmcevoy@agr.wa.gov, mofga@biddeford.com, nbeauba1@rodalepress.com,
>> ncamp@ncamp.org, nesfi@igc.apc.org, nofany@aol.com,
>ntaylor@moscow.com,
>> Amy Bricker <bricker@icta.org>, ota@igc.apc.org, rainycrkjb@rr1.net,
>> rmarks@nrdc.org, sprinkraft@aol.com, svaupel@organicfoodlaw.com,
>> tkleese@aol.com, tsullivan1@cwix.com, wacresrba@hotmail.com,
>> wiocia.1@mwt.net,
>> "'Natl. Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture'"
>> <campaign@magiccarpet.com>
>>Cc: "'beb@igc.apc.org'" <beb@igc.apc.org>,
>> "'mritchie@iatp.org'"
>> <mritchie@iatp.org>
>>Subject: BGH Action Sign-on
>>Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:30:57 -0500
>>
>>Dear Everyone,
>>
>>On Tuesday, December 15,1998, CTA is filing a legal petition with FDA
>>seeking the suspension and revocation of Monsanto's new animal drug
>>application approval of Posilac - ie. we are seeking to revoke the apporval
>>of genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.
>>
>>The petition is based upon new evidence coming out of Health Canada showing
>>that FDA failed to investigate a Monsanto rat feeding study which showed
>>that oral exposure to rBGH produced thryoid cysts and prostate responses in
>>male rats. It will be announced at a press conference here in DC. We
>>need/want your participation!
>>
>>Any organization interested in signing on should e-mail me ASAP. I can get
>>you a draft petition to look at (do not circulate in any way please). Then,
>>if it is a go please send your organization, address and two sentence
>>organizational description to me by 4 pm ESt on Monday.
>>
>>I know this is extremely short notice, however we have had to be on
>>extra-rapid response for this one as well. Sorry about that.
>>
>>Joe Mendelson
>>CTA
>>
>>
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of sanet-mg-digest V1 #708
>******************************
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe
sanet-mg-digest"
>