Organic Farming Data

Here is a great post about organic farming data from Marion Nestle's blog Food Politics. It's got lots of USDA statistics, hits the topic of organic vs conventional nutrition and tells us who owns what in the organic realm.

Happy learning

USDA's High Tunnel Study

Wow the USDA is giving us small diverse farmers a piece of the pie. I think Boulder Belt will have to look into this.

If you watch the video, those tunnels in the White House garden are NOT High Tunnels. Those are low tunnels made from row cover on small hoops. The USDA does not seem to know what a high tunnel is which is a bit worrisome but if they wanna give money to us farmers who have beem doing season extension on a small scale for well over a decade, than cool.

Subject: FW: USDA Release: USDA TO LAUNCH HIGH TUNNEL PILOT STUDY TO INCREASE AVAILABILITY OF LOCALLY GROWN FOODS

USDA TO LAUNCH HIGH TUNNEL PILOT STUDY TO INCREASE AVAILABILITY OF LOCALLY GROWN FOODS

3-Year Project To Verify Effectiveness Of High Tunnels In Natural Resource Conservation

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17, 2009 - Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan today announced a new pilot project under the 'Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food' initiative for farmers to establish high tunnels - also known as hoop houses - to increase the availability of locally grown produce in a conservation-friendly way. Merrigan and other Obama administration officials highlighted opportunities available for producers in a video posted on USDA's YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07vtMJgp0no, which shows high tunnels recently installed in the White House garden.

"There is great potential for high tunnels to expand the availability of healthy, locally-grown crops - a win for producers and consumers," said Merrigan. "This pilot project is going to give us real-world information that farmers all over the country can use to decide if they want to add high tunnels to their operations. We know that these fixtures can help producers extend their growing season and hopefully add to their bottom line."


The 3-year, 38-state study will verify if high tunnels are effective in reducing pesticide use, keeping vital nutrients in the soil, extending the growing season, increasing yields, and providing other benefits to growers.

Made of ribs of plastic or metal pipe covered with a layer of plastic sheeting, high tunnels are easy to build, maintain and move. High tunnels are used year-round in parts of the country, providing steady incomes to farmers - a significant advantage to owners of small farms, limited-resource farmers and organic producers.


USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) will provide financial assistance for the project through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the EQIP Organic Initiative, and the Agricultural Management Assistance program. NRCS will fund one high tunnel per farm. High tunnels in the study can cover as much as 5 percent of 1 acre. Participating states and territories are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Pacific Islands, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

To sign up or learn more about EQIP assistance for high tunnel projects, contact a local NRCS office.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272(voice), or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).


#
USDA News
oc.news@usda.gov
202 720-4623

The Myth of HR 875 and SB 425

There has been a lot written and posted all over the world wide web and Internet about 2 bills in congress, HR 875 and SB 425.

Paranoid people with an agenda to kill all government regulation have interpreted this bill as one that will kill organic farming, criminalize the back yard garden, fine housewives for cooking food that they have grown in their own kitchens and make what I do for a living virtually illegal as small farmers will be forced to comply with the draconian regulations that may be imposed on the interstate/international corporate farms and food processors. I have even seen people claim that the NAIS is a part of these bills (it is not).

Amazing what a few writers good at arousing emotions can do on the interwebs.

The trouble stems from two emails that I guess started out life on a couple of anti government/pro farming blogs.

Here is one of them

http://shepardpolitics.blogspot.com/...aw-family.html

HR 875 Would Essentially Outlaw Family Farms In The United States

I get a lot of e-mails each day and one today (hi Cheryl!) pointed my attention to HR 875, a bill introduced into the 111th Congress for consideration. SO, I went and did something that members of Congress rarely do and actually went and read the bill, or more accurately, at least glanced through it which is still more than they ever do. It was introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT 3rd) and has around 36 co-sponsors including Congressman Andre Carson (D-IN 7th) as of this writing. It immediately strikes me as being terribly bad legislation.

Under a heading described as protecting the public health and ensuring the safety of food it creates a "Food Safety Administration" within Health and Human Services. Oddly, not just adding regulations to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) which is also under HHS. And don't we have the USDA as well? The bill applies to all manner of "Food Establishments" and "Food Production Facilities" (note the following excerpt).


(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.


The bill would appear to even cover fishing boats and your downtown hot dog street vendors. In fact, the bill probably would also apply to your family garden since no exemption is apparent.

What it essentially does is place a tremendous regulatory burden on all of these organizations and individuals by requiring them to have "food safety plans", consider all relevant hazards [note: I wish Congress would consider all "relevant hazards" or unintended consequences of everything THEY did], testing, sample keeping and to maintain all kinds of records. The bill also allows the government to dictate all manner of standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, packaging, temperature controls and other items.

This massive bloat in government regulation (and taxpayer expense to support it) would add additional cost and headache to every farm, fishing boat, restaurant, slaughterhouse, processing plant, CO-OP and anyone else associated with growing, storing or processing food. The bill authorizes fines of up to $1,000,000 (one million) dollars for "each act" and for "each day" of a violation.

We'll skip over the concern over how important food production and distribution, largely recession proof, could be if our economy continues to decline and inflation takes hold and just address this on the apparent lunacy that it is. As those familiar with history know, large dominant corporations often will use government to demand industry regulations that force the small competitor out of business or introduce barriers to entry that prevent new companies from starting up to compete. In the early part of the 20th century a tremendous amount of regulation was written by the industries themselves to be enacted into law.

In this case, I think this bill could do tremendous harm to family farms or independent food operators. Only massive companies have the ability to meet these regulations and imagine the legal expenses that could be incurred to defend oneself? Never forget, the government has near unlimited resources where you might have to cough up $200 to $500 an hour for a good attorney to defend yourself, your farm, boat, truck, restaurant, orchard, vineyard or hot dog stand. And what about the increased cost of food associated with the cost of compliance, it's not unreasonable to think that many places would have to hire staff or outside assistance just to comply with the law.

We have an excellent history in the United States of safe food, but as Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel suggested recently, "You should never want a serious crisis to go to waste." He spoke those words relative to looking for opportunities to do things that people would not otherwise accept without some crisis. We should be very careful not to let the very rare instance of something like the recent peanut problem be used as such a "crisis". There is no impetus to point the bureaucrats of government and the guns they control, their ability to not only deprive someone of life or freedom but to destroy whole families, careers and reputations, at everyone in the country who might be involved in ensuring we have stuff to eat.

We're doing just fine without this legislation.

Here are a couple of diatribes by Lin Cohen-Cole who writes for OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Goodbye-farmers-markets-C-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090303-287.html

and
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-s-dream-bill-HR-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090309-337.html

These articles talk about things that these congressional bills do not touch such as seed saving and NAIS (both under the jurisdiction of the USDA and not the FDA). She writes to scare people and get them all in a tizzy about a brand new bill that will not make it in to committee for many months, if ever.

Now here is what Tom Barlow has to say about these bills
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/03/12/will-proposed-national-legislation-kill-the-farmers-market/ he does not see these bills as doing anything close to shutting down farmers markets, criminalizing organic farming etc., etc..

Nor does the Organic Consumers Association which calls this fear mongering "the Internet Myth of the week"

This week, we received numerous calls and emails from OCA supporters who came across alarming YouTube videos and emails circulating on the Internet that claimed a new food safety bill (HR 875) introduced in Congress would make "organic farming illegal." Although the Bill certainly has its shortcomings, it is an exaggeration to say that is a secret plot by Monsanto and the USDA to destroy the nation's alternative food and farming system. In actuality, HR 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, is a limited-vision attempt by moderate Democrats and Republicans to craft food safety legislation to address the out-of-control filth and contamination that are inherent in our industrialized, now globalized, "profit-at-any-cost" food system.
This being said, OCA does not support HR 875 in its present form, given the fact that, if the Bill's regulations were applied in a one-size-fits-all manner to certified organic and farm-to-consumer operations, it could have a devastating impact on small farmers, especially raw milk producers who are already unfairly targeted by state food-safety regulators. Although the OCA deems this Bill as somewhat well-intentioned, we are calling on Congress to focus its attention on the real threats to food safety: globalized food sourcing from nations such as China where food safety is a joke and domestic industrial-scale and factory farms whose collateral damage includes pesticide and antibiotic-tainted food, mad cow disease, E.coli contamination and salmonella poisoning. And, of course, Congress and the Obama Administration need to support a massive transition to organic farming practices.

Food and water watch has this to say about these bills:

Food & Water Watch’ s Statement on H.R. 875 and the Food Safety Bills



The dilemma of how to regulate food safety in a way that prevents problems caused by industrialized agriculture but doesn’t wipe out small diversified farms is not new and is not easily solved. And as almost constant food safety problems reveal the dirty truth about the way much of our food is produced, processed and distributed, it’s a dilemma we need to have serious discussion about.

Most consumers never thought they had to worry about peanut butter and this latest food safety scandal has captured public attention for good reason – a CEO who knowingly shipped contaminated food, a plant with holes in the roof and serious pest problems, and years of state and federal regulators failing to intervene.

It’s no surprise that Congress is under pressure to act and multiple food safety bills have been introduced.

Two of the bills are about traceability for food (S.425 and H.R. 814). These present real issues for small producers who could be forced to bear the cost of expensive tracking technology and record keeping.

The other bills address what FDA can do to regulate food.



A lot of attention has been focused on a bill introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (H.R. 875), the Food Safety Modernization Act. And a lot of what is being said about the bill is misleading.

Here are a few things that H.R. 875 DOES do:

-It addresses the most critical flaw in the structure of FDA by splitting it into 2 new agencies –one devoted to food safety and the other devoted to drugs and medical devices.

-It increases inspection of food processing plants, basing the frequency of inspection on the risk of the product being produced – but it does NOT make plants pay any registration fees or user fees.

-It does extend food safety agency authority to food production on farms, requiring farms to write a food safety plan and consider the critical points on that farm where food safety problems are likely to occur.

-It requires imported food to meet the same standards as food produced in the U.S.

And just as importantly, here are a few things that H.R. 875 does NOT do:

-It does not cover foods regulated by the USDA (beef, pork, poultry, lamb, catfish.)

-It does not establish a mandatory animal identification system.

-It does not regulate backyard gardens.

-It does not regulate seed.

-It does not call for new regulations for farmers markets or direct marketing arrangements.

-It does not apply to food that does not enter interstate commerce (food that is sold across state lines).

-It does not mandate any specific type of traceability for FDA-regulated foods (the bill does instruct a new food safety agency to improve traceability of foods, but specifically says that record keeping can be done electronically or on paper.)



Several of the things not found in the DeLauro can be found in other bills – like H.R. 814, the Tracing and Recalling Agricultural Contamination Everywhere Act, which calls for a mandatory animal identification system, or H.R. 759, the Food And Drug Administration Globalization Act, which overhauls the entire structure of FDA. H.R. 759 is more likely to move through Congress than H.R. 875. And H.R. 759 contains several provisions that could cause problems for small farms and food processors:

-It extends traceability record keeping requirements that currently apply only to food processors to farms and restaurants – and requires that record keeping be done electronically.

-It calls for standard lot numbers to be used in food production.

-It requires food processing plants to pay a registration fee to FDA to fund the agency’s inspection efforts.

-It instructs FDA to establish production standards for fruits and vegetables and to establish Good Agricultural Practices for produce.

There is plenty of evidence that one-size-fits-all regulation only tends to work for one size of agriculture – the largest industrialized operations. That’s why it is important to let members of Congress know how food safety proposals will impact the conservation, organic, and sustainable practices that make diversified, organic, and direct market producers different from agribusiness. And the work doesn’t stop there – if Congress passes any of these bills, the FDA will have to develop rules and regulations to implement the law, a process that we can’t afford to ignore.

But simply shooting down any attempt to fix our broken food safety system is not an approach that works for consumers, who are faced with a food supply that is putting them at risk and regulators who lack the authority to do much about it.

You can read the full text of any of these bills at http://thomas.loc.gov

___________________________
Sarah Alexander
Senior Food Organizer
Food & Water Watch

1616 P St. NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
salexander@fwwatch.org
www.foodandwaterwatch.org

So you can see these bills while they need the wording tweaked a bit are not the death knell to small organic farms selling their products direct to the public.

All that said, NAIS Is a real threat to small farms that raise animals and NAIS is in committee and can be commented upon right now here is where you do that http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0096

Vilsack To Head the USDA-Obama What Are You Thinking!??!

I do not do a lot of political posts even though I feel food is a very very political thing and I am fairly politically active (I write/email my reps and I vote).

So I was incredibly disappointed and even disillusioned by Barak Obama's pick of Tom Vilsick for Secy of the USDA. I know I did my best to suggest far better people to head the USDA and be leaders of real change, people such as Jim Hightower. I was encouraged several weeks ago to learn that Vilsack had been deleted from the short list (or so the Obama people told the Organic Consumers Association and the organic food and farming community. Was that his first big lie to us foodies?) The Obama people said they were intersted in appointing someone who would change the USDA and make it much more firendly to eaters and farmers and not so friendly with Big farma, corporations and biotech farming.

Well Obama, you have nominated a man who is in lock step with everything that has made our national food and farming system so unsustainable and dangerous. You have shown me that, at least as far as the very very important sector of food, (far more important to our collective well being than energy-that we can live without but we cannot go more than a few days without food before nasty riots break out and no more than a few weeks before the riots die down becuase of all the starvation that is killing off anyone who was not killed in the food riots) you will be doing business as usual which is not good for the eaters and farmers of this great nation. But this will be wonderful for Monsanto, Cargill, ADM etc..

I voted for change and so far have seen very little indication there will be any. I had faith that Obama would at least listen to his constituants but I don't think he is listening to we the people and the websites that allow us to put in our thoughts and opinions are simply ruses. Something to keep us busy and thinking we are making a difference. I hope I am wrong and this is an anomaly but it is not looking good from where I stand.

I should have voted for Nader. This appoujntment soo pisses me off

Prevent New “Naturally Raised” Label

Passing this along from our partners at the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. For more information, see: http://www.msawg.org/

Help prevent USDA from developing a new “naturally raised” label that would mislead consumers and undermine the vibrant markets created by sustainable livestock producers!

Please submit comments opposing USDA’s proposal by the January 28th deadline.

If USDA’s proposal goes through, livestock producers could label their meat USDA verified “naturally raised” without any concern for animal welfare or environmental stewardship and without the animals ever necessarily stepping foot on pasture. Producers would only be required to certify that their livestock were never given antibiotics, hormones, or animal byproducts.

While these proposed requirements address very important concerns, this could more simply and accurately be signaled through “no supplemental hormones added” and “no antibiotic used” labels USDA had previously proposed in conjunction with the recently approved grassfed label, and another label claim under review for “free range” and “pasture raised.” Feeding of animal byproducts could be addressed with a “no animal byproducts fed” label claim.

We support labels that are easy for consumers to interpret and that producers could use in appropriate combination to communicate with their clientele. However, should USDA’s draft proposal for a vague and non-comprehensive “naturally raised” claim proceed, consumers will be confused and consumer confidence in all USDA verified or certified labels would no doubt decline. In addition, the integrity of the markets that took decades for sustainable livestock producers to create, and upon which increasing numbers of consumers rely, would be seriously jeopardized.

It’s easy to submit your comments:

Letters: Send written comments to Naturally Raised Marketing Claim, Room 2607-S, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0254 or via fax to 202-720-1112.

E-mail: To submit electronic comments, visit http://regulations.gov and type “naturally raised” in the “Comment or Submission” field. Select the “send a claim or submission” tab under the naturally raised claim title.

Important - Please Note: All Comments Must Reference “Docket No. LS-07-16” by writing at the top of the letter or email “Re: Docket No. LS-07-16”

Also: Be sure to include your name, address, and if appropriate, affiliation(s) and/or interest(s) in the issue.

Remember: The public comment deadline is January 28, 2008.


Some possible talking points to choose from and put in your own words in your comment letter to USDA:

The proposed “naturally raised” standard fails to address many of the high standards consumers expect from sustainable livestock production, including animal welfare, access to pasture, and conservation and environmental requirements. Quite simply, the “naturally raised” label as proposed would not mean what consumers would think it implies and should be abandoned.

The naturally raised label claim would completely defeat a very important purpose of providing the label in the first place -- to provide clear and reliable signals to consumers who want to make informed, environmentally-friendly, and healthy choices about their food purchases.

Hormone and antibiotic supplementation, and the use of animal byproducts as a feed source, are extremely important issues that should be succinctly and accurately addressed through individual labeling claim standards. USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service had previously proposed the development of “no antibiotics used” and “no supplemental hormones used” labels, both of which would provide clear and reliable signals to consumers. USDA should move immediately to issue these clear and unambiguous label claims rather than issuing a misleading and vague naturally raised label claim.

The implementation of a “naturally raised” claim would further mislead consumers who are already uncertain and skeptical about the meaning of the “natural” label claim currently overseen by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The natural claim refers to processing of meat whereas the naturally raised claim refers to the production of livestock. The implementation of two distinct claims, both using the term “natural” yet addressing completely distinct issues and administered by two separate agencies, will create confusion for consumers and farmers alike.

Please personalize your message and include any additional points you would like to offer.

The 2007 Season Was a Good One

Our regular marketing season is over for 2007 and it was a good one. Despite drought, high heat, insect hoards and other environmental ills we had a great season. The garden produced well for us (thanx to drip irrigation and a lot of skill, especially on Eugene's part) and we broke our one day sales record at least 5 times this season. We did not break our yearly sales records due to slow sales in July and early August but we are working on that.

I give a big round of applause to Larry the OFMU manager. He did a really nice job of managing the Saturday market. I had my doubts about him early on when our sales were lagging, lots of changes were made to the Saturday market that involved craft people setting up and selling and it seemed that the attendance was down. I was against this letting a lot of crafter/artisans set up at market idea due to horror stories from other market farmers about how the artisans took over the farmers market and pushed the farmers out completely. But, after watching how the market grew because of craft vendors I am not as against this idea any longer. Still, I must take a wait and see attitude as the artisans could usurp the market from us farmers 5 or 10 years down the line. For now, the artists nicely fill space and attract customers to the market (though food is definitely the main reason for going to the farmers market).

The Tuesday market was not quite as good as past years as far as sales go but it was far better as far as farmer attendance. Not once did we have a week where we were the only people setting up. We always had at least 2 stands and usually 4 to 6 set up. There were a couple of weeks when no one came to market due to weather, but what can you do? I believe that next year the Tuesday market will do better than in the past. One thing I noticed this fall was that a lot of Miami Students are suddenly interested in local and organic food and were thrilled to find a farmers market that was open when they were awake (early Saturday mornings are not good for most undergrads and quite a few grad students).

The Tuesday market was a lot more fun than Saturday because it is smaller and far less busy. On Saturdays we would get to market set up for 15 to 20 minutes (a quick set up as we have around a ton of food to get out on the tables) and than do nothing but sell, sell, sell until after 11:30. No socializing with the other farmers, no buying from other farmers, just selling. And this is a good thing. But Tuesdays were a lot more laid back. we would show up around 4pm, haul our tables, shelter, produce, signs, etc., from the van to the grass and take about 20 minutes to set up (often making a couple of sales while setting up). We would get done with setting up and if there were no customers around (common) we would socialize with Debra and whomever else was there (Don, The Ellises, Dan the Tee Shirt man, J Harris). Around 5pm Eugene would be sent for malts at UDF as the three of us would get malts every Tuesday. I usually got a peanut butter malt made with chocolate milk. Debra would get a chocolate malt and Eugene got whatever was on sale. Some weeks we would be pretty busy during the market other weeks would would talk of all sorts of things from politics to opera to birding. And of course there was the 3rd of July market when we got removed from the park for the day so the City's Parks and Recreation Dept could have their 4th of July kids carnival on July 3rd without letting us Farmers know about the change (it's not like we didn't have a permit for that park for every Tuesday evening may through October). Yeah I am still pissed off about that glitch. but overall I am really pleased with both markets.

Now, if we can get the farm store off the ground we will be golden. The farm store, I am afraid, is not thriving the way the other markets are. I believe a lot of this has to do with lack of publicity. The people who need to know about us do not. The local population (PC/Eaton) simply does not care much about local and organic foods. Most seem to be very content to shop at the local Wal-Mart and eat awful processed food. I suppose in another 10 to 15 years the locals will realize that local and organic is the only safe way to eat. But for now, they do not. So I have to get the word out to people in the Dayton and Cincinnati areas that we exist and are well worth the effort to find. I don't know if paid ads are the way to go or to just depend on the local Harvest/New farm/Boulder Belt Website listings. I have recently found a great list serv called Cincinnati Locavores that is full of people seeking local foods. they only problem is few on the list seem willing to drive out to the farms to get food off season. They all want the food no more than 5 to 10 minutes away, just like Wal-Mart or Kroger's

As long as the FDA and USDA keep on providing all of us with scary suspect food I can see only growth for local food and that should mean better and better sales in 2008.

OCA Threatened with Lawsuit

This I guess this can go under money talks and all the whistle blowers need to shut up of face the consequences. I am soo damned glad the USDA NOP is looking out for the consumer (she says with dripping sarcasm).

ALERT OF THE WEEK:
AURORA THREATENS ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION WITH LAWSUIT
Just when we thought it couldn't get any hotter (or any more mind-boggling), the "organic" dairy factory farm controversy reached a new level of intensity over the past week. The USDA announced, to the disappointment of the organic community, that they were not going to take further disciplinary measures against Aurora Organic Dairy, a company that just a few weeks ago had a portion of its organic certification suspended by the USDA for "willfully" violating National Organic Standards since 2003 by failing to pasture its animals and by bringing conventional calves onto its feedlots and then declaring them organic. But caving in to pressure from Aurora and other big corporate players in the organic sector , the USDA now says the #1 organic private label dairy processor in the U.S. can continue selling milk produced on its factory farms as "organic" to its longstanding customers including Target, Wal-Mart, Costco, Safeway, and Woodstock Farms.

In a mind-twisting manipulation of logic, the new acting Secretary of Agriculture, Chuck Connors, a notorious cheerleader for biotech and corporate agribusiness, announced last week that this issue, regarding Aurora's violation of the USDA National Organic Standards, falls outside the scope of the USDA National Organic Standards. "I know there is controversy out there on a number of issues that really fall outside the bounds, if you will, of what constitutes that organic standard that is necessary in order for the product to have our seal," said Connors.

Now that they have the USDA in their pocket, Aurora is threatening to sue the Organic Consumers Association and Cornucopia Institute for educating and mobilizing consumers to oppose Aurora's blatant violations of organic integrity. In related news, the recent issue of Fortune Magazine reports Aurora's factory farms generated a record 100 million dollars in "organic" dairy sales to consumers this year. In other words, when it comes to suing the OCA, Aurora has plenty of money, from selling its cheap "organic" factory farm milk to Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, and Safeway . So given this David versus Goliath situation, OCA needs your financial support today, more than ever, to defend ourselves from this attack by Aurora and to expose the ongoing negligence of the USDA.

Organic Loopholes

More efforts to weaken organic standards to the low corporate levels. This is yet another sterling example of why we at Boulder Belt opted out of the USDA NOP. To us organics is a way one farms, not a markeing gimmick. We would like to see higher standards, not lower. Buy local folks, buy local.

"Organic" food rule could have up to 38 loopholes
By Scott J. Wilson
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003741899_organic1...
Los Angeles Times

With the "USDA Organic" seal stamped on its label, Anheuser-Busch calls its

Wild Hop Lager "the perfect organic experience."

But many beer drinkers may not know Anheuser-Busch got the organic blessing

from federal regulators even though Wild Hop Lager uses hops grown with
chemical fertilizers and sprayed with pesticides.

A deadline of midnight Friday to come up with a new list of nonorganic
ingredients allowed in USDA-certified organic products passed without
action
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), leaving uncertain whether
some foods currently labeled "USDA organic" would continue to be produced.

The agency is considering a proposal to allow 38 nonorganic ingredients to
be used in organic foods. Because of the broad uses of these ingredients -
as spices, colorings, and flavorings for example - almost any type of
manufactured organic food could be affected, including organic milk,
cereal,
sausages, bread and beer.

Organic-food advocates have fought to block all or parts of the proposal,
saying it would allow food makers to mislead consumers.

"This proposal is blatant catering to powerful industry players who want
the
benefits of labeling their products 'USDA organic' without doing the work
to
source organic materials," said Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the
Organic Consumers Association of Finland, Minn., a nonprofit group with
850,000 members.

USDA spokeswoman Joan Shaffer declined comment.

Food manufacturers said last week that they were hoping the agency would
act
by Friday to allow labeling of organic products to continue.

A federal judge had given the USDA until midnight Friday to name the
nonorganic ingredients it would allow in organic foods, but the agency did
not release a list.

"They probably don't know what to do" Cummins said. "On the other hand,
it's
hard to believe they're going to make people change their labels, although
that's what they should do."

Demand for organic food in the United States is booming, as consumers seek
products that are more healthful and friendlier to the environment. Sales
have more than doubled in the past five years, reaching $16.9 billion last
year, according to the Organic Trade Association in Greenfield, Mass.,
which
represents small and large food producers.

But with big companies entering what was formerly a mom-and-pop industry,
new questions have been raised about what goes into organic food.

Supporters dismayed

For food to be called organic, it must be grown without chemical
fertilizers
and pesticides. Animals must be raised without antibiotics and growth
hormones and given some access to the outdoors.

Many nonorganic ingredients, including hops, are already being used in
organic products, thanks to a USDA interpretation of the Organic Foods
Protection Act of 1990. In 2005, a federal judge disagreed with how the
USDA
was applying the law and gave the agency two years to fix it.

Organic-food supporters had hoped the USDA would allow only a small number
of substances but were dismayed last month when the agency released the
proposed list of 38 ingredients.

"Adding 38 new ingredients is not just a concession by the USDA, it is a
major blow to the organic movement in the U.S. because it would erode
consumer confidence in organic standards," said Carl Chamberlain, a
research
assistant with the Pesticide Education Project in Raleigh, N.C.

In addition to hops, the list includes 19 food colorings, two starches,
sausage and hot-dog casings, fish oil, chipotle chili pepper, gelatin and a

variety of obscure ingredients (one, for instance, is a "bulking agent" and

sweetener with the tongue-twisting name of fructooligosaccharides).

The proposed rule would allow up to 5 percent of a food product to be made
with these ingredients and still get the "USDA Organic" seal. Even hops,
though a major component of beer's flavor, are less than 5 percent of the
final product, because the beverage is mostly water.

Organic beer, though still a small portion of total beer sales, has been
growing even faster than overall organic-food sales, reaching $19 million
in
2005, a 40 percent increase over the previous year (2006 figures were not
available).

In addition to hops, two other items on the USDA list have attracted
particular attention: casings for sausages and hot dogs, and fish oil.

Casings are intestines from cows, pigs or sheep, and have been used for
centuries to wrap meat into sausages and frankfurters.

While the casings are a tiny portion of the overall sausage, organic
purists
object to eating anything from animals raised on conventional farms, where
animals may be housed in tight quarters and given antibiotics and growth
hormones. Further, they note that the USDA's food-safety division has
identified cow intestines as a possible source of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, or mad-cow disease.

Fish oil's presence on the USDA list has drawn objections because it could
carry high levels of heavy metals and other contaminants, said Jim Riddle,
a
former member of the National Organic Standards Board. But fish-oil
producers said such contaminants can be screened out.

USDA doesn't enforce

The USDA rules come with what appears to be an important consumer
protection: Manufacturers can use nonorganic ingredients only if organic
versions are not "commercially available."

But food makers have found their way around this barrier, in part because
the USDA doesn't enforce the rule directly. Instead, it depends on its
certifying agents, 96 licensed organizations in the United States and
overseas, to decide what it means for a product to be unavailable in
organic
form.

Despite years of discussions, the USDA has yet to provide certifiers
standardized guidelines for enforcing this rule.

"There is no effective mechanism for identifying a lack of organic
ingredients," complained executives of Pennsylvania Certified Organic, a
nonprofit certifying agent, in a letter to the USDA. "It is a very
challenging task to 'prove a negative' regarding the organic supply."

Flock-Killing Planned if Bird Flu Found

Flock-Killing Planned if Bird Flu Found

WASHINGTON, Apr. 19, 2006

(AP) If deadly bird flu shows up in U.S. chickens or turkeys, the government will kill off any flocks suspected of having the virus even before tests are completed, officials said Wednesday.

At greater risk are free-ranging chickens and small, backyard flocks _ as many as 60,000 in Los Angeles alone.

If bird flu arrives, "quick detection will be key to quickly containing it and eradicating it," said Ron DeHaven, head of the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

Most of America's chickens come from big commercial farms that keep birds indoors and are well-protected against the spread of disease. Yet there are many flocks in people's backyards _ officials are unsure how many _ and free-range flocks that are outdoors and could mix with wild birds or their droppings.

Officials encourage those producers to bring flocks inside and watch for signs of flu _ dead birds; lack of appetite; purple wattles, combs and legs; coughing or sneezing; diarrhea _ and report them immediately to state or federal authorities.

"We can't afford for this virus to be smoldering six months before we find it," DeHaven said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Owners will want to report sick birds because they will be paid fair market value for destroyed flocks, DeHaven said. Stopping the spread of bird flu has been more difficult in countries that can't afford to compensate farmers, he added.

The virulent strain of bird flu spreading through Asia, Europe and Africa has killed 110 people and hundreds of millions of birds. Scientists fear it could mutate into a form that spreads easily among people, sparking a worldwide epidemic.

Authorities say it's likely to arrive in the United States this year. The government is testing more wild birds than usual, as many as 100,000 in Alaska and other migratory pathways. Chicken and turkey companies are testing nearly every flock for the virus.

"If the virus does arrive in the U.S., we think we'll find it quickly," he said. "We don't think that it would ever make it into the food chain."

Regardless, poultry is safe to eat if people cook it to 165 degrees and follow basic kitchen safety rules, DeHaven said.

If the virus turns up in commercial chickens or turkeys, the government plans to quarantine the farm, restrict bird movements within about two miles and boost testing within about six miles.

If screening tests suggest a potentially virulent flu virus is present, and the birds show signs of flu, they'll be killed immediately, even before more detailed testing is finished, DeHaven said. Flocks would be confined and killed with carbon dioxide gas, essentially putting them to sleep, DeHaven said. Authorities refer to this as "depopulation."

Disposal of dead birds is tricky, because they still may carry the virus. In the past, large numbers of birds have been buried, put in landfills or incinerated, but those things can be expensive and cause bureaucratic hassles.

Now, the industry intends to compost the carcasses inside houses where birds are killed.

To be composted, carcasses are layered with mulch, hosed down and left alone, inside, for four to six weeks, said Richard Lobb, spokesman for the National Chicken Council, an industry group. Intense heat generated by composting is more than enough to kill the virus, Lobb said.

The government has vaccines to protect poultry from the virus but is reluctant to use them because vaccinated birds can still spread the virus without appearing sick, said John Clifford, the department's chief veterinarian. Vaccines could be used in flocks surrounding the area of an outbreak, he said.

___

On the Net:

Agriculture Department: http://www.usda.gov

Biosecurity for the birds campaign: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/birdbiosecurity/



Okay, this plan seems to be against the small holder with healthy pastured poultry. I noticed that all outdoor flocks will be executed even before a test says whether or not they are actually infected while the factory farms will just be put under quarantine. it os nice that growers will be reimbursed for their dead birds at fair market value. I sell my birds for $4 a pound (and believe me they are worth every penny) and I even have a paper trail that says this has been the case for the past 5 years but I will be willing to bet if the feds come for my birds I will get nothing approaching what I get for a dressed whole bird and will more likely get the fair market value of a factory farmed bird. Likely around 30¢ a pound (which would not even cover for the feed they get over 7 weeks much less our labor or the cost of the chicks)
Lucy

Bird Flu vs Pastured Poultry

A picture of our pastured hens about 4 years ago hanging out in the doorway of their coop

An article from AP (This reported contacted me to interview me for this story but since I do not have any birds currently I did not respond)


Free-range Farmers Dispute Whether Flocks At Risk For Bird Flu

by Carrie Spencer Ghose - Associated Press

REYNOLDSBURG, Ohio - State officials and poultry
researchers say there's little risk of bird flu coming to
Ohio, but if it does, the flocks most at risk are the ones
being raised in outdoor pastures to meet growing
consumer demand.

Farmers who specialize in free-range poultry downplay
the concerns, saying their birds are protected and their
farming methods inherently healthier.

A new strain of avian influenza that infected geese
appeared in July in Asia, and the worry is that the disease
could spread to wild birds that migrate to North America,
said Theresa Morishita, an Ohio State University
veterinarian. The disease also could be imported through
smuggling of parrots, songbirds or fighting chickens.

About 90 percent of Ohio poultry are raised in cages in
enclosed barns, according to OSU. Strict measures to
prevent germ transmission should protect them, state
Agriculture Director Fred Dailey said.

About 5 percent of Ohio's wild ducks, geese and other
waterfowl carry bird flu, but it's a weak type that doesn't
make the birds sick and does not transmit to humans. At
worst, if it infects domestic poultry, they lay fewer eggs -
but that means money to farmers.

If wild birds do bring the more virulent form of the
disease to this country, they could mix with the small
number of outdoor flocks, said Y.M. Saif, head of the
food animal health program at the OSU agriculture
research center in Wooster.

"It could be then a danger to commercial birds," Saif said.

The virus rarely transmits to humans, so the risk of that
here is extremely low. Free-range farmers said wild birds
generally don't mingle with their flocks. They said they
watch their birds constantly for health concerns, such as
not eating or drinking.

"I want to follow good science, not just emotionalism
about what's better," said Carl Bowman, co-owner of
Bowman & Landes. The 140-acre farm in western Ohio
has one of the state's largest open-pasture turkey
operations in the state, with 60,000 turkeys. The company
raises another 13,000 at a farm in north central Ohio.

Bowman & Landes raises some turkeys for a different
purpose in barns. "By far our healthiest birds have been
the ones on range," he said.

The only wild geese he's seen mingling with his birds are
so-called resident Canada geese, which don't migrate.

Still, Bowman said he might be more concerned about
bird flu next year if the disease spreads beyond Asia. All
the chicks the company hatches are tested.

Eventually, the Ohio Poultry Association would like all
commercial producers to test their birds, said Jim
Chakeres, executive vice president. The U.S. Agriculture
Department has biosecurity recommendations for smaller
flocks.

Safety starts off the farm for a larger scale indoor
operation, said Terry Wehrkamp, production manager of
Cooper Farms in Oakwood in northwest Ohio. The
company has divisions that raise feed, raise poultry and
even cook the birds for deli and grocery products.

Employees are screened for exposure to other birds, even
pet birds, and pigs. If they break biosecurity rules, such as
not showering and changing into work clothes kept only
in the barns, they're fired.

Indoor poultry growers are prepared if an outbreak were
to occur, Wehrkamp said.

"I would be very nervous if my livelihood depended on
free-range products right now," he said.

Chickens at Brunty Farms outside Akron are protected
from wild birds in 12-by-12-foot pens covered with a net
about 3 feet high, owner Ron Brunty said. The pens,
which house about 1,000 free-range chickens on two
sites, are moved through the pasture throughout the day to
give the chickens fresh grass to feed on.

"I'm not concerned about our birds catching it," Brunty
said. "I'm concerned about people flipping out about it to
the point where they don't buy."

AP International

---

I do not currently raise poultry but I was planning to get 50 or so pullets this coming spring and perhaps a few adult hens as well. but now I don't know. I am not so much afraid of the actual strain of avian flu taking out a flock of birds but rather what the reaction of the ODA or USDA to a positive bird in a pastured flock will be. I figure the government will over react by a factor of 10x and will try to kill off every pastured fowl in the USA or at the very least will come up with some horribly complex system of monitoring the birds that will take several hours every day for a small flock and most of the day for large flocks. This will ensure the small farmer either has to give up on pastured poultry or give up on other aspects of farming.

I really hope this is all bad paranoia on my part and this does not happen and we small farmers can go about our business unimpeded by bad logic.

As one person wrote on SANET saturday:

"The problem of Avian Flu is an opportunity for us to stop and ask some very basic questions. Firstly, why does the pathogenic virus manifest in the first place? Little importance is given to the conditions that result in the creation of the virus. A lot of attention is given to exposure avoidance and eradication once the virus manifests. As many have stated throughout history, it is not the virus that we should focus on, but rather, the condition of the birds or people that manifest the virus. What is it about these birds or humans that created a fertile environment for the virus? This question must be explored not just from an exposure avoidance perspective but from a health building perspective."
Alan Ismond, P.Eng.
Aqua-Terra Consultants

I can only hope some of these questions will be asked before any flu eradication program goes any further. But I doubt it because if such questions are asked than the way corporations raise animals for consumption will be called into question. And since these are the folks who hold the purse strings I think the conventional wisdom will be:

Pastured Poultry bad; Caged/Confined poultry good