Budget Bill Riders Set Anti-Environmental Policies

[Guest guest]

http://ens-news.com/ens/feb2003/2003-02-14-10.asp

 

Budget Bill Riders Set Anti-Environmental Policies

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, February 14, 2003 (ENS) - Republicans slid a host of

anti-environmental riders into the final text of the $397.4 billion spending

bill passed by Congress yesterday. One rider blocks appeals against a pending

decision on whether to expand protection for Alaska's Tongass National Forest.

Others cut funding for land conservation, weaken the national organic labeling

standard, and expand a pilot forest thinning program that environmentalist decry

as a further subsidy for timber companies.

" Congress just bought smaller, more degraded forests and open spaces, " said

Bonnie Galvin, director of budget and appropriations for The Wilderness Society,

a national conservation organization based in Washington, DC.

The process to stuff the appropriations for all federal agencies except the

Defense Department into one bill was never expected to be pretty, but even

seasoned members of Congress are surprised by the end result.

Arizona Senator John McCain (Photo courtesy Office of the Senator)

Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, blasted his colleagues for a 3,000

page document that " no one in this body has had time to thoroughly review,

examine, and debate. "

Members of Congress complained that they were forced to pass the massive

spending bill, because allowing the government to continue operating through

stopgap resolutions was a worse alternative. The bill will fund the government

for the remainder of fiscal 2003, which ends in September.

The House adopted the bill by a vote of 338 to 83, the Senate by a vote of 76 to

20.

 

There are a lot of anti policies, here is one of them.

 

Weakening the Organic Standard

The huge spending bill includes a rider that imposes a significant change to the

national organic standard, allowing livestock producers to certify and label

meat as organic if the animals were fed partially or entirely on conventional

grain.

Organically raised c attle could be fed conventional rather than organic feed.

(Photo by Keith Weller courtesy USDA)The rider would not allow any funds to be

used to enforce the 100 percent organic feed requirement for certified organic

livestock operations unless a report prepared by the Secretary of Agriculture

confirms organically produced feed is commercially available at no more than

twice the cost of conventionally produced feed to meet current market demand.

Included to placate the poultry industry, this language was rejected by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) last June.

The organic industry is " outraged " by the rider, according to Katherine

DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association. DiMatteo calls

the rider " an underhanded attempt to circumvent consumer expectations and the

integrity of the organic industry. "

" This is a slap in the face to the many certified organic farmers who are

legitimately following the standards, " she said. Her organization hopes a

pending report from the USDA will show that organic feed is commercially

available in adequate quantities and at prices that fall below the limit set in

the language intended to subvert the requirements.

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

 

 

[Guest guest]

-

Frank

gettingwell

Saturday, February 15, 2003 12:38 AM

Budget Bill Riders Set Anti-Environmental Policies

 

Budget Bill Riders Set Anti-Environmental Policies

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, February 14, 2003 (ENS) - Republicans slid a host of

anti-environmental riders into the final text of the $397.4 billion spending

bill passed by Congress yesterday. One rider blocks appeals against a pending

decision on whether to expand protection for Alaska's Tongass National Forest.

Others cut funding for land conservation, weaken the ------snip----

 

Frank,

 

I have an educational and working background in Forestry and Agriculture. My

present business is the production of Organic Fertilizer. I am personally

acquainted with one of the fourteen members of the National Organics Standard

Board, and have attended seminars hosted by USDA concerning this subject.

 

The objective of at least some of those involved in this program is to try to

produce healthier food for everyone, not just the wealthy, by greatly improving

the things we eat while keeping the costs under control. There's no doubt that

there are many who are using this forum to advance their own agendas, but that

seems always to happen. The member of the NOSB, told me how some who want to

cause the organic movement to fail by making it too restrictive and expensive,

are using the old story of the chicken and the egg. In other words, You can't

have an organic chicken unless it came from an organic egg, and you can't have

an organic egg unless it was laid by an organic chicken, which had to come from

an organic egg, ad infinitum. Some state regulators are taking the position that

organic fertilizers must meet the criteria we learned in school when we studied

organic chemistry. To be organic a substance must contain atoms of carbon.

That's true, but that position does nothing to advance the cause of providing

wholesome and nutritious food to as many people as possible. OMRI (The Organic

Materials Review Institute) allows mined minerals provided they are not

processed or adulterated in any way. Our depleted soils are in great need of

minerals, since the plants cannot take up minerals that aren't there.

 

Even if there were no unnecessary roadblocks standing in the way of the

organic movement, it seems that every step we take raises the costs to those at

the next level. It costs more to make an approved organic fertilizer, and it

costs more to control insects and diseases without pesticides and so on, also

everyone in the system must make a profit or they just can't do it. I believe

that the reason the administration wanted to lift the restriction on the use of

non-organic feed was to " get half a loaf " by encouraging more livestock

producers to accept the other restrictions while using the only source of feed

available to them. There is very little organic feed available across the

country, and it's going to take time. I believe this move will encourage

feedstock growers to switch to organic if they see more livestock producers

going in that direction.

 

Concerning the anti-environmental riders from the republicans, as a forester

I've learned that there are a lot of so called " environmenal organizations " that

are, because of their policies and programs, occasionally doing harm to the

environment. The Yellowstone fire of a few years ago put a huge quantity of

greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and killed many endangered plants and

animals. No thinning was allowed there and these people opposed fire control

calling the fire " natural " . A few years before that there was a serious bark

beetle epidemic on Forest Service land in Texas, where some of these same

organizations kept any control efforts involving harvest of dead and dying trees

from taking place. The result was an uncontrolled spread to thousands of acres

of government and privately owned land, a great increase in the production of

greenhouse gases and loss of habitat for many forest creatures. The appeal

rights you mention are those which can be initiated by anyone with a pen and the

price of a postcard. If you just wake up on the wrong side of the bed in the

morning or are mad at someone who works on some forest, you can , with no effort

or expense, bring almost any program to a screeching halt. The government agency

must then spend many tax dollars proving the propriety of the program, only to

have it appealed again.

 

I could go on, but since I'm not PC, I may have already annoyed some folks.

 

Les

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://ens-news.com/ens/feb2003/2003-02-14-10.asp

 

Budget Bill Riders Set Anti-Environmental Policies

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, February 14, 2003 (ENS) - Republicans slid a host of

anti-environmental riders into the final text of the $397.4 billion spending

bill passed by Congress yesterday. One rider blocks appeals against a pending

decision on whether to expand protection for Alaska's Tongass National Forest.

Others cut funding for land conservation, weaken the ------snip----

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day