orangeclouds has graciously allowed me to diary a VMD (aka Vegetables of Mass Destruction) issue. And, it's an "URGENT TAKE ACTION" variety. Why the urgency you may ask, well...
Though Monday, March 3, the USDA is taking comments on a proposal to change the usage of the term "naturally raised" on beef/livestock product labels in stores. (PDF of Proposal)
Consumer polls indicate the average person imagines meat labeled "Naturally Raised" comes from animals that spent their drug-free lives freely roaming the fields of a family farmer, eating wild flora and being humanely slaughtered. A 2007 Consumer Reports survey shows 83% of consumers assume such labeling means "it came from an animal raised in a natural environment." The USDA, however, has released a standard for "Naturally Raised" meats that is so weak it would apply to a cloned animal raised in the confines of a factory farm.
Would this new label mean the cattle were grassfed? No.
Have had access to outdoors? No.
Were humanely treated? No.
(what to do below the fold...)
What to do.....
Submit your comments opposing USDA’s proposal by Monday, March 3rd, 2008. You can submit comments several ways:
- Electronically – submit your comments online at the following link: www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main? main=SubmitComment&o=09000064803b3e50.
- Via fax to 202-720-1112.
Important: All comments must reference "Docket No. AMS-LS-07-0131".
Also: Be sure to include your name, address, and if appropriate, affiliation(s) and/or interest(s) in the issue.
(Or take action via the Organic Consumers Association website...)
TALKING POINTS (Thanks to Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Organic Farming Research Foundation and The Ethicurean)
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.
With its less than comprehensive definition of "naturally raised" and seemingly similar relationship to other labels, the proposed label would confuse consumers. It could also undermine the consumer confidence in all other label claims, including the well-established and trusted "certified organic" label which numerous producers have built their respective businesses around.
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.
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.
Hormone and antibiotic supplementation and the use of animal byproducts as a feed source are extremely important issues that could 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. This approach would provide consumers with clear, reliable signals that will allow them the opportunity to make informed decisions about what they are purchasing, while sustaining their confidence in the integrity of all USDA process-verified labels.
Don't think labels matter? Did you know that the USDA classified frozen french fries as "fresh vegetables?"
Did you know that Cloned Offspring are already in the Food Supply but hasn't been labeled as such?
Don't think consumer action does anything? Think again.
There are about 200 state laws that regulate food and food labeling independent of the federal government, according to Consumers Union. About two years ago, the House of Representatives passed a National Food Uniformity act, which would have limited such laws. The act died in the Senate in the face of consumer opposition. - NYTimes
Looking for REAL "grassfed" meat?
Eatwild's state-by-state Directory of Farms lists more than 800 pasture-based farms. It is the most comprehensive source for grass-fed meat and dairy products in the United States and Canada.
...Farm products include pastured beef, pork, lamb, bison (buffalo), rabbits, chevon (goat meat), deer, chicken and turkey. You will also find eggs from pastured hens and milk, butter and cheese from grass-fed cows or goats, along with some wild-caught seafood, produce, nuts, honey, and more.
Producers listed on Eatwild certify that they meet our exacting criteria. These standards insure that the animals and the land are well-treated, that the products are exceptionally high in nutrition, and that they are free of antibiotics and added hormones. Many of the farms are organically certified; others lack certification, but follow many of the organic standards....
Keeping livestock AND farms truly "natural" will help agricultural states' economy, too.
...Today's young adults are moving to places with vibrant natural resources, thriving communities and healthy economies. But for two decades Iowa's leaders have sat silently while a corporate system of animal agriculture planted itself firmly in the state, undermining these crucial amenities. Our leaders are evading this issue and ignoring the barrier that large confinement operations create to a prosperous future.
Political leaders in Iowa have uncritically embraced the industrialization of animal agriculture and by doing so have contributed to the ongoing decline of family farms and rural communities. Iowa's leaders took it a step further by ensuring that Iowa citizens have no recourse against the environmental destruction industrial livestock facilities sow upon the state.
...If Iowa is serious about keeping young people in the state, it should work first to stop, and then reverse, the rise of large confinement operations. By destroying the economic and social fabric of rural Iowa and degrading the environment of the state, confinement facilities make returning to Iowa undesirable.- DesMoinesRegister
Take action! Let your voice be "herd."