Seafood to e labelled Organic?

April 20, 2003

Subj: Fwd: [polymva] Seafood label outrages organic advocates

Date: 4/17/2003 2:48:06 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: <A HREF= " mailto:Radwick " >Radwick</A>

<A HREF= " mailto:Arnoldgore " >Arnoldgore</A>

-----------------

Forwarded Message:

Subj: [polymva] Seafood label outrages organic advocates

Date: 4/17/2003 10:16:07 AM Eastern Standard Time

From: <A HREF= " mailto:SOLEMATE@... " >SOLEMATE@...</A>

Reply-to: <A HREF= " mailto:polymva " >polymva </A>

<A HREF= " mailto:polymva " >polymva </A>

Sent from the Internet (Details)

Seafood label outrages organic advocates

Amendment tacked on war spending bill

Tuesday, April 15, 2003

<http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/info/copyright/>San Francisco Chronicle

URL:

<

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/15/MN17

4559.DTL>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/15/MN17

4559.DTL

First it was chicken feed. Now it's wild seafood. For the second time

in two months Congress has used maneuvers to make a major change in

the nation's organic food standards.

The latest change, proposed by Alaska Republican Sens. Ted s

and Murkowski to benefit Alaska's salmon fishermen, orders the

federal government to find a way to certify wild seafood as organic.

In a ploy that outraged organic advocates, the seafood amendment was

tacked onto the hard-won repeal of the earlier change, which diluted

feed requirements for organic chickens and livestock. Both were

attached to the Iraq war spending bill that awaits President Bush's

signature.

" We've been working really hard on the repeal of this bogus livestock

amendment, and we got that -- but in its place we got the fish

provision we were opposed to, " said Simon , Bay Area spokesman

for the Organic Consumers Association.

The seafood amendment requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to

devise a plan to certify wild-caught fish and shellfish as organic.

It has been sought for several years by s and by California's

fishing industry; both see the organic label as a potent marketing

tool.

The idea was turned down by the National Organic Standards Board,

which helped write the standards that took effect last October.

The organic standards are built around the idea that animals and

produce are raised in closed systems where their foods and their

access to any chemicals are controlled, explained Riddle, board

secretary. Wild fish don't fit that framework because there's no way

to know what they've been eating or whether they've been swimming in

pristine or polluted waters, he said.

s tried again during debate of last year's farm bill, and the

fishing industry was granted the right to put " wild " on labels.

Last week, with repeal of the organic feed provision on the line,

s, as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, grabbed his

opportunity and played hardball: no seafood amendment, no repeal.

" I am delighted, " said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific

Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations in San Francisco. Under

the organic standards, he said, " Farmed fish could potentially get an

organic label but wild fish could not. I thought that was haywire. "

Grader doesn't think most wild fish would be able to win organic

certification -- certainly not fish from the polluted Gulf of Mexico,

or San Francisco Bay. But testing water and fish might allow some to

qualify, he said.

Full story

<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/

15/MN174559.DTL & type=printable>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/15/M

N174559.DTL & type=printable

April 20, 2003