comment on the 1rst article
Would it  be nice if instead of having to work on the quality of food,  we
work hard on  a comercially efficient labelling.? is asking the heath
conscious government of usa.
comment on the 2nd one
the industrialisation of food  or  seed production is to be questionned that
be organic or not if we want to have nutritionally valuable food like it was
still available not that long ago.

jean-claude

Monday, January 22, 2001
By Associated Press
New [USA] regulations for organic food aim to help the burgeoning $7.8
billion industry, but some farmers worry they could get hurt because
of the one-size-fits-all government standards.
The [USA] Department of Agriculture announced last month that foods
grown and processed according to the standards, a decade in
development, will bear a seal of "USDA Organic."

Diane Schill, who farms 700 acres of organic grain in Hannah, N.D.,
said the label only attests to a minimum standard.

"To put everyone in the same boat together eliminates my edge," she said.
"This kind of a rule opens it up to big business and really threatens the
small farmers. Big farms will be able to just slide under that label."

The standards, to be implemented over 18 months beginning in
February, ban pesticides, genetic engineering, growth hormones and
irradiation of organic foods, and require dairy cattle to have access
to pasture. They replace a hodgepodge of state rules and varying
private certification standards.

"I see this rule as laying the groundwork for an industrialized
organic food system," said Theresa Podoll, executive director of the
Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society, an educational
association of organic farmers and certifiers.

"And that system will not be friendly to organic producers who will not
compromise in their drive for excellence. It will take away the right of
farmers to differentiate their products in the marketplace."

Certification of organic food will be done by private agencies hired by the
Agriculture Department. That, too, has created controversy.

"We have a problem being solely an agent of the government," said Annie
Kirschenmann, president and CEO of Farm Verified Organic, an organic
certification agency based in Medina, N.D., which is considering a
challenge of the restriction.

"Private certification is fundamental to the growth of the organic label.
It's hard to imagine the government being on the cutting edge. It's the soul
of organic that's at stake," she said.

"The landscape has changed for certification organizations," said
Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade
Association. "They become, instead of standard-setters,
standard-enforcers. What you're hearing is they don't like that."

Keith Jones, who runs the Agriculture Department's organic program,
said an advisory board established in 1992 to come up with the
standards can make recommendations on changes as the need arises.

"If the standards need to be increased, the National Organic
Standards Board is the venue for that," he said. "We want to create a
process that is
orderly."

Jones said nothing in the new rules prohibits a producer from making a
truthful claim on the product in addition to the USDA seal - for example,
that it exceeds a specific standard. What is prohibited is a separate seal
that certifies the product meets a definition of organic other than
the USDA one.

"The (1990) act required us to set a uniform national standard," Jones said.
"Historically, certifiers have tried to differentiate themselves by saying,
'My organic is better than your organic.' Now we have a uniform national
standard, and certifiers will have to compete like any other service
provider — by being effective and efficient."


Copyright 2001, Associated Press
.........................................................................
More on the nutrient value of
> > intensively produced food


> > > I thought some of you might be interested in this article which
appeared
> > in
> > > the British newspaper 'The Guardian' about the possible effect of
> > fertilizer
> > > on the nutritional quality of foods.
> > > CH
> > > --------------
> > > Matthew Engel
> > > Guardian
> > > Tuesday February 20, 2001
> > >
> > > If you sit anywhere long enough - be it the banks of the Ganges or the
> > > saloon bar of the Dog and Duck - sooner or later you will hear someone
> say
> > > something interesting. It happened to me last week in the most
> improbable
> > > place imaginable: the public gallery of the European parliament at
> > > Strasbourg, where whole aeons can pass without anyone saying anything
> > > remotely interesting.
> > > The remark I heard, or thought I heard, was: "Broccoli has lost 80% of
> its
> > > nutritional value." The implications of this were staggering. No other
> > item
> > > of food so powerfully represents the dictates of healthy eating
against
> > > pleasurable eating. "Eat your broccoli or else," is the most
consistent
> > > mantra of the average mother-son relationship. In our household, we
have
> > > staged - in my wife's absence - NSB (No Stupid Broccoli) weeks as a
> > > counter-attack.
> > > It has even acquired political resonance. When George Bush Snr
declared,
> > as
> > > president, that he hated broccoli, he was furiously denounced by all
the
> > > worthy mothers of America. But I can tell you that Al Gore lost
heavily
> > > among male voters because he was, quite obviously, an enthusiastic
> > broccoli
> > > eater. You can tell.
> > > So was it possible? Had I misheard? If broccoli isn't good for you,
> what's
> > > it good for? I rang Tim Lang, professor of food policy at Thames
Valley
> > > university, who said: "I wondered when someone was going to get on to
> > this."
> > > He put me in touch with a man called David Thomas who said: "At last!"
> > > Thomas is a Sussex-based researcher who did something simple, the
> essence
> > of
> > > all major breakthroughs. He went to the British Library and found all
> the
> > > past editions of The Composition of Foods by McCance & Widdowson, the
> > Wisden
> > > of British nutrition, which notes the content of all major foods. The
> book
> > > first came out in 1940 and by checking right back, he was able to plot
> > some
> > > startling trends.
> > > The problem is both broader and narrower than the Strasbourg broccoli
> > remark
> > > suggests. Thomas's research refers specifically to trace elements,
those
> > > obscure minerals which we all know we need because it says so on the
> side
> > of
> > > cereal packets. He discovered that, since 1940, there had been some
> > stunning
> > > declines of these in all fruit and vegetables: calcium is down 46%;
> sodium
> > > down 49%; copper down 75%. More specifically, carrots have lost 75% of
> > their
> > > magnesium; broccoli has lost 75% of its calcium; and sodium has
> > disappeared
> > > entirely from runner beans. There are less dramatic declines almost
> across
> > > the menu.
> > > Most of us are vaguely aware that we need calcium for healthy teeth
and
> > > bones: that's the sort of thing you hear from adverts. But copper?
> > > Apparently, it's a crucial guard against premature ageing in general,
> and
> > > ailments as varied as piles and emphysema in particular. Sodium? You
can
> > get
> > > too much of it, but it's essential to the working of the nerves and
> > muscles.
> > > Magnesium, meanwhile, has all kinds of magical properties in warding
off
> > > anything from kidney stones to PMT. And virtually all our intake comes
> > from
> > > vegetables, fruit and nuts. That much is accepted science.
> > > There are at least two possible explanations for these findings.
Thomas
> > > himself thinks it is to do with the nature of modern agri-business,
> which
> > > has dumped huge quantities of fertiliser on the soil, increasing the
> > content
> > > of the basic NPK growth elements at the expense of everything else.
> > > Professor Lang takes it further back: to plant breeding in general.
> > > Every keen gardener will by now have received a load of seed
catalogues,
> > > offering all kinds of newly developed vegetable varieties. They will
> have
> > > been specially bred to mature earlier, to resist disease, to last
> longer,
> > to
> > > look better. The unglamorous business of trace elements is way down
the
> > > priority list. And if that's true for ordinary gardeners, it's going
to
> be
> > > 10 times more true at the industrial level, where our diet is
> controlled.
> > > Thomas, it has to be said, is not a wholly unbiased observer. He is in
> the
> > > food supplements business, which the EU is now attempting to control
in
> > the
> > > interests of harmonisation. He thinks it's possible that somewhere in
> > these
> > > statistics are the answers to the mysterious increase in a variety of
> > > diseases and problems - diabetes, asthma, allergies in general,
> leukaemia,
> > > eczema and so on. For all I know, this is drivel. But there are
> questions
> > > here that require answers.
> > > Professor Lang thinks so: "I don't understand why nutritionists aren't
> > > looking at this. It's an issue that will come, I'm absolutely
> convinced."
> > > In the meantime - and this is not going to go down well with at least
> one
> > > eight-year-old I know - the answer is not that we can give up
broccoli.
> On
> > > the contrary, we have to eat four or five times as much to get the
> benefit
> > > that would have been available 60 years ago. Eat MORE broccoli or
else!