Organic is not always organic

[Perseus]

I make it mainly from scratch.  We humans in our house are semi-raw fooders and buy only a few processed (but cert. organic) convenience foods for ourselves.  The rest is certified organic real food which we share with our guys.  Understandably, I spend some time in the kitchen, but I believe it is worthwhile, and some can be prepared in advance, while others just needs some chopping or planning.  We buy some cert. organic convenience treats for our dogs, chinchilla, rats, and birds.  We buy some certified organic bird pellets which we have for emergencies.  Is there a special place on this forum where I can put the company names for these cert organic commercial pet food/treat suppliers, I didn't see any treat suppliers listed? 

Rosie, you can put the names of the treats under "Pet Treats" as a new topic, or just add to the one started "Suggestions for Treats".  For the names of the pet foods, there's a long list under "Specific Brands of Dry or Wet Foods".  If your brands aren't on the list, just go ahead and add them as a New Topic.

It's very interesting that you have a chinchilla, I am wondering that you feed him/her (and anything you care to tell us!).

[Bonkers]

‘organic’ label’s integrity under fire

Consumers who pay up to twice as much don’t always get what they expect.

   "Three years ago, U.S. Department of Agriculture employees determined that synthetic additives in organic baby formula violated federal standards and should be banned from a product carrying the federal organic label. Today the same additives, purported to boost brainpower and vision, can be found in 90 percent of organic baby formula.

   The government's turnaround, from prohibition to permission, came after a USDA program manager was lobbied by the formula makers and overruled her staff. That decision and others by a handful of USDA employees, along with an advisory board's approval of a growing list of non-organic ingredients, have helped numerous companies win a coveted green-and-white "USDA Organic" seal on an array of products.

   Grated organic cheese, for example, contains wood starch to prevent clumping. Organic beer can be made from non-organic hops. Organic mock duck contains a synthetic ingredient that gives it an authentic, stringy texture.

   But the USDA program's shortcomings mean that consumers, who at times must pay twice as much for organic products, are not always getting what they expect: foods without pesticides and other chemicals, produced in a way that is gentle to the environment.

   The market's expansion is fueling tension over whether the federal program should be governed by a strict interpretation of "organic" or broadened to include more products by allowing trace elements of non-organic substances. The argument is not over whether the non-organics pose a health threat, but whether they weaken the integrity of the federal organic label.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has pledged to protect the label, even as he acknowledged the pressure to lower standards to let more products in."

   The complete article can be found here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31719136/ns/health-more_health_news/

[raggiesrule]

Again it is about no truth in labelling and the multinationals bullying govt in to accepting what they want and the consumers right to an informed decision being no where on the priority list for either the multinationals or govts.

If you want to add synthetic or contaminated additives to foodstuffs fine do so but you should not be allowed to call it certified organic. Consumers should have the right to make an informed decision about what standard of food they want to bring into their home. If you want to grow and use GM fine, just tell me which products contain it so I do not have to buy them, you think irradiation is safe and negates the need for hygiene in the production line fine just put it on the label so I can choose not to buy it, you want to water down milk to "make it consistant" right oh you do that just put on the label what you have watered it down with and how much of that product you have added.

The reason companies do not want to label their products with what is actually in them or the process they have used is because they know consumers will choose not to buy these products. The reasons govts let this continue to happen is because they listen to the lobbyists hired by these companies because they get donations from them and/or are scared of them turning their money (and that means power) against them individually. The reason they don't give a rats about what we, the voter, thinks is because they are under the impression we are too dumb to know whats good for us - after all they read the information the lobbyist gave to them and that one sided view supported the line they are taking.

Following the poisoning of our cats in Australia not once but twice and after extensive lobbying (thankfully on this second occasion the press, vets and the RSPCA came on board and assisted affected cat owners) the govt has finally acknowledged that irradiation is not a safe treatment for cat food. Whilst this is a step in the right direction it is still a long way short of ensuring the food we feed is safe. Champion foods Orijen brand also claimed to be free of synthetic antioxidants - this was found to be a false claim when food was tested by affected Orijen owners. What happens to companies that make false claims about their products - nothing as far as I can see. It is left up to consumers to warn other consumers, in the case of pet foods recalls are voluntry regardless of the number of animals they manage to kill/maim through their negligence.

This has to stop - govts have to start taking into consideration the welfare of their constituants not just the pocket books of their backers.

Jo