<<<
I have been watching this discussion for several days. We are small
producers of organic, grass finished beef. We personally have no problem
with the understanding that if we need to treat an animal with antibiotics,
that animal can no longer be marketed as organic. Doesn't mean we can't
market it with all the other labels - grass finished, naturally lean, no
hormones, no synthetic wormers, etc. We believe it has to be this way, and
know we may occasionally have an animal that we must medicate. So be it.
It's the way we already function, and it's the most honest way to deal with
our customers.
Paul and Alison Wiediger
Au Naturel Farm
http://www.aunaturelfarm.homestead.com
> ----------
> From: Grace Gershuny[SMTP:graceg@ConnRiver.net]
> I'm just going to respond to the reference to "economically necessary."
> No
> such concept was ever part of the first proposed rule. You may be
> thinking
> of "commercially available." This is something the organic industry has
> used for quite some time, and that is retained in the new proposal for
> good
> reason--but it has nothing to do with the rationale for *practices*, just
> organic inupts such as ingredients or seeds. Even here, the claim of
> commercial unavailability has to be backed up by documentation.
>
>
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 05 2000 - 20:00:33 EDT