Close
Home » Articles »   By WLJ
 
 
Monday, February 7,2005

Senate committee grills Johanns on border issue

by WLJ
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns got an unofficial welcome to Washington last Thursday when he testified to an at-times hostile Senate Agricultural Committee hearing. In sharp contrast to the warm reception at his confirmation hearings, Johanns faced probing questions about USDA's plans to reopen the Canadian border to live cattle. Johanns was also grilled about the lack of progress in opening the Japanese and other foreign markets to U.S. beef, as well as a lack of transparency in allowing some potentially dangerous products, such as tongue, into the country from Canada. The big issue, though, was the USDA final rule's contradictory exclusion of live cattle over 30 months from import, while beef products from those over that age are allowed as long as specified risk materials have been removed. Contending that there are two types of science at work here—health science and economic science—Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN.) attacked USDA's economic science as "out of Mad magazine." Charging that both Tyson Foods and Excel Foods are building large new slaughterhouses north of the border, he called the USDA rule "ignorant and offensive. This is going to cost us jobs; it's like it was crafted to benefit Canada and the larger processors." The entire rule, he said, "is a disaster. It will cost our industry $2.9 billion over several years. Whose interest is this in?" The attack was bipartisan. Although Republicans favored the rule more explicitly, virtually no one on the panel tried to defend the cattle/beef disparity. Johanns admitted that it bothered him too, and promised to review it quickly, before the actual opening of the border on March 7. He also said that he would release the full report on the state of Canada's compliance with its ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in the middle of February, with a further report on Canada's epidemiological practices due by the end of the month. “These reports will be critical as we consider any adjustments to current policies are warranted,” Johanns said. Though changes will be considered, Johanns added he is “very confident” that Canadian measures “provide the utmost protection t U.S. consumers and livestock.” Johanns also said the United States has done all it can to try to convince Japan to reopen its markets to American beef. “We’ve answered their technical questions. It’s time for the Japanese government to make the decision. There’s nothing more we could possibly provide,” he told the committee. Johanns also seemed to indicate that the U.S. officials are frustrated with the lack of progress. “Efforts to reopen this market have drawn on resources from across the federal government and the highest political levels,” he said. — WLJ

Read more
Monday, February 7,2005

U.S. beef to Taiwan expected

by WLJ
Taiwan is expected to announce by the end of February the results of its federal inspections of U.S. packing facilities that were supposed to mark the final stage in allowing U.S. beef back into the island nation, according to officials with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Taiwan suspended beef from the U.S. in December 2003 due to safety concerns over bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) after the discovery of a singe case of the disease at a Washington state farm. Several USDA officials said Taiwan health and agriculture officials have traveled to the U.S. and have conducted on-site inspections of the implementation of the U.S. safeguards against BSE. The Taiwan officials have completed the reviews necessary for resuming the beef trade, USDA said, adding that officials from the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) have also been contacting relevant Taiwan officials in an effort to speed up the paperwork so that U.S. beef can reenter the Taiwan market at an earlier date. AIT is a quasi-official organization authorized by Washington to handle U.S. exchanges with Taiwan in the absence of formal diplomatic relations between the two countries. USDA officials are now more reserved and low-key over the re-entry issue than before after Taiwan lodged a protest against the USDA for its unilateral announcement late last year concerning Taiwan's reopening of its market to U.S. beef. The USDA announced Oct. 26 that Taiwan agreed in principle to resume imports of U.S. beef and beef products. Taiwan officials told them that they were close to completing the reviews necessary for resuming the beef trade, with on-site inspections being the final step of the process. If everything went smoothly, it was expected that Taiwan would reopen its doors to U.S. beef and beef products before the end of 2004, the USDA news release said. However, that didn’t happen, and the final review to be released by Taiwan will now happen late this month or in March. Taiwan purchased $325 million worth of U.S. beef and beef products in 2003, prior to BSE being confirmed. That made the Asian Island the sixth-largest importer of U.S. beef before it imposed the ban in December 2003. Since then, Australian beef has replaced U.S. beef in the Taiwan market. More than 40 U.S. beef export markets, including Japan, the largest foreign consumer of U.S. beef, imposed embargoes against U.S. beef, seriously affecting the U.S. beef export trade worth $3.5-4 billion annually. — WLJ

Read more
Monday, January 31,2005

Beef Bits

by WLJ
McD’s late ‘04 sales jump McDonald's Corp., last week reported that global system-wide sales for its restaurants increased 9.6 percent in December and 9.5 percent for the 2004 fourth quarter compared with the same periods in 2003. According to McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner, the company served more than 48 million customers per day during 2004, an increase of 1.6 million customers per day over the prior year. December and fourth quarter results were fueled by the performance of the U.S. burger business, which was up almost seven percent from the same time period of 2003. Uruguay sends most exports to U.S. The U.S. imported 148,434 metric tons of Uruguayan beef in 2004, in excess of a four-fold increase from 2003. The United States was the major market for Uruguayan beef last year, receiving approximately 63 percent of total Uruguayan fresh and frozen beef exports. Uruguay is allocated an annual U.S. beef quota of 20,000 metric tons, of which 99 percent was filled last year. However, the majority of beef, 128,618 tons entered the U.S. subject to the 26.4 percent over-quota tariff. The tariff is typically paid by the Uruguayan exporter and included in the bid price for U.S. importers. Sara Lee sales up, profits down Despite sales increases in the second fiscal quarter, Sara Lee Corp. reported that higher meat commodity prices are taking a toll on the company's bottom line. For the quarter ended Jan. 1, Sara Lee posted total earnings of $326 million, or 46 cents a share, up from $312 million for the prior-year period. Total sales for the period were up 3.6 percent to $5.2 billion. But higher meat commodity prices pulled down the division's operating profits almost 26 percent to $85 million, prompting the company to lower its full-year earnings outlook to between $1.46 and $1.56 per share, versus previous predictions of $1.61 to $1.71. New BSE in Spain A Spanish laboratory on Jan. 21 confirmed a new case of BSE in the country. The National Reference Laboratory of Zaragoza reported the diagnosis of mad-cow disease on a four-year-old cow, which had died, in Galve de Sorbe, Guadalajara. This was the eighth case in the autonomous municipality since 2000, according to a report of the Castilla-La Mancha Board. The Agricultural Advisory has ordered an immediate slaughter of all cows born up to 12 months before or after the birth of the infected cow, which were raised close to it. It also ordered the slaughter of the offspring born two years before the cow's death and the destruction of the animal feed of animal origin. Since 2000, a total of 519 BSE-positive cases have been detected in the country, five of them this year, said the Castilla-La Mancha Board. Steakburgers donated America’s Second Harvest, The Nation’s Food Bank Network, and MasterCard International announced the donation of 402,304 Steak n Shake STEAKBURGER patties to help feed the hungry in 18 states. Sixty-eight America’s Second Harvest food banks are receiving STEAKBURGER patties thanks to the success of MasterCard International and Steak n Shake’s recent TAKHOMACARD gift card program. As part of the program, the 425-store restaurant chain agreed to donate one STEAKBURGER patty to America's Second Harvest for every $5 in TAKHOMACARD gift card purchases. For more information on how to help your local food bank, visit www.secondharvest.org or call 800/771-2303. British beef sales up in 2004 Sales of English beef saw healthy gains during 2004, with total value of beef sales for the year hitting 1.5 billion lira. The growth is shown in figures released by the Meat and Livestock Commission on behalf of the English Beef Executive. The data shows that the value of beef sold in Britain rose by 4.4 percent over 2003. The area that saw the most growth were cuts more suited for marinades of beef, which increased over 2003 by 32.4 percent. Koreans using RFID chips In a effort to quell consumer fears of BSE in Korea, the Korean Veterinary Research and Quarantine Service is tracing all imported beef with radio frequency identification (RFID) chips in a new pilot program. Beginning April 1, beef with embedded chips will be sold at several Galleria stores so consumers will be able to scan the beef and get a report on its country of origin distribution path. This system will also allow for immediate recalls if the government decides in the future to ban imported beef from that country. The Korea Times reported that the system will eventually include native cattle.

Read more
Monday, January 31,2005

Bush eats ‘natural’ U.S. prime rib

by WLJ
During the week of his second inauguration, President George W. Bush celebrated by eating beef produced from a Wyoming ranch and produced by a Colorado Springs company. Ranch Foods Direct, which operates a fabrication plant in Colorado Springs, shipped 1,200 pounds of prime rib roast to Washington D.C. to be served at the White House on Wednesday, Jan. 19. The beef was originally produced from a Wyoming ranch under “natural” production protocol. “It was wonderful, really tasty," said Max Hansen, chef and owner of Max and Me Catering, who prepared and served the presidential dinner. “It was a hot item, too, not just temperature-wise; it was very popular. The fact that it was U.S. produced and natural—both of those are great selling points. In our catering company, we aim for the best quality we can find. Ninety to 95 percent of our products are American raised and produced.” Vice President Dick Cheney, a Wyoming native, previously sampled Ranch Foods' Naturally Tender Beef on a campaign stop at the University of Wyoming. A portion of Ranch Foods cattle are raised on Doug and Susan Samuelson's historic Warren Ranch Company, Cheyenne, WY. All Ranch Foods Direct beef is produced under the Naturally Tender Beef by Callicrate label and protocol including only the highest quality cattle raised without hormones, subtherapeutic antibiotics and fed natural rations free of animal byproducts. The beef all carries a “Born and Raised in the USA” label and has been documented as being of U.S. origin. All of the cattle involved in the program are raised within 300 miles of Colorado Springs and processed locally. "The Bush administration and Vice President Cheney wanted to serve Wyoming beef," said Mike Callicrate, owner of Ranch Foods Direct. “Considering the state of our industrial food system, the increase in imported food, and the threat of (BSE) coming in from Canada, I'm proud that our company could offer them great beef knowing where it came from, how it was raised and that it would be exceptionally tender, wholesome and safe.” — WLJ

Read more
Monday, January 31,2005

Bush eats ‘natural’ U.S. prime rib

by WLJ
During the week of his second inauguration, President George W. Bush celebrated by eating beef produced from a Wyoming ranch and produced by a Colorado Springs company. Ranch Foods Direct, which operates a fabrication plant in Colorado Springs, shipped 1,200 pounds of prime rib roast to Washington D.C. to be served at the White House on Wednesday, Jan. 19. The beef was originally produced from a Wyoming ranch under “natural” production protocol. “It was wonderful, really tasty," said Max Hansen, chef and owner of Max and Me Catering, who prepared and served the presidential dinner. “It was a hot item, too, not just temperature-wise; it was very popular. The fact that it was U.S. produced and natural—both of those are great selling points. In our catering company, we aim for the best quality we can find. Ninety to 95 percent of our products are American raised and produced.” Vice President Dick Cheney, a Wyoming native, previously sampled Ranch Foods' Naturally Tender Beef on a campaign stop at the University of Wyoming. A portion of Ranch Foods cattle are raised on Doug and Susan Samuelson's historic Warren Ranch Company, Cheyenne, WY. All Ranch Foods Direct beef is produced under the Naturally Tender Beef by Callicrate label and protocol including only the highest quality cattle raised without hormones, subtherapeutic antibiotics and fed natural rations free of animal byproducts. The beef all carries a “Born and Raised in the USA” label and has been documented as being of U.S. origin. All of the cattle involved in the program are raised within 300 miles of Colorado Springs and processed locally. "The Bush administration and Vice President Cheney wanted to serve Wyoming beef," said Mike Callicrate, owner of Ranch Foods Direct. “Considering the state of our industrial food system, the increase in imported food, and the threat of (BSE) coming in from Canada, I'm proud that our company could offer them great beef knowing where it came from, how it was raised and that it would be exceptionally tender, wholesome and safe.” — WLJ

Read more
Monday, January 31,2005

China eases Canada bans

by WLJ
China recently lifted its ban on imports of poultry and poultry products from Canada, processed from Jan. 18 can now be imported. In addition, China has approved Canadian collection centers and processing facilities for bovine semen and embryos, and porcine semen and blood products, allowing trade to resume. This restores partial access to one of Canada's most important export markets in Asia. “China is one of our most important Asian markets, and we are very pleased with their decision to immediately resume trade in these areas. The decision underlines the level of confidence in Canada's food safety systems and the measures we have put in place," Canada’s Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Andy Mitchell said in a statement. “I am pleased that our two countries are taking a science-based approach to resolving these important issues,” said Canada’s International Trade Minister Jim Peterson, during a Canadian trade mission to China last week. “We will continue discussions with China to open the border to remaining beef products and live animals," he said. In 2003, poultry and poultry products exports to China totaled more than $5 million (Canadian), and exports in semen and embryos totaled $3.5 million. Imports of poultry and poultry products were halted in February 2004 following the discovery of highly pathogenic avian influenza in Canada. China's decision to lift the ban was based on evidence provided by Canada which showed that the disease had been eradicated and was consistent with the guidelines of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). A ban on imports of bovine and certain porcine products followed the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in a Canadian cow in May 2003. China lifted the ban on a number of products in September 2004, following a series of technical discussions with Canadian officials. In October, during a visit to Beijing, Mitchell signed two protocols establishing the animal health conditions for resumption of trade in bovine semen and embryos. The recently approved Canadian establishments can now begin immediately to export these products, as well as porcine blood products, to China. "These developments are extremely positive news for both the poultry, the beef and the porcine industries, and reflects the success of recent efforts and discussions reinforcing the stringent measures we have in place to ensure the safety of Canadian products," Mitchell said. — WLJ

Read more
Monday, January 31,2005

Crabgrass can be a first rate forage

by WLJ
Crabgrass is a troublesome weed for most producers. But, with a little careful planning and management, it can be a first rate forage, according to Bruce Anderson, extension Forage Specialist for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. When Anderson says crabgrass, he asks producers what comes to mind? A tangled up mess on cultivator shanks? Aching fingers from weeding the garden? Crowded out plants in an alfalfa field? Anderson agrees crabgrass can be a problem. But he says it also can be an outstanding forage grass when used in the right place, at the right time and in the right way. “Cattle love crabgrass,” said Anderson. “When given a choice, cattle will graze crabgrass before almost any other forage. That's why you rarely see much of it in pastures. And they perform well, too. Steers have gained over two and one-half pounds per day on well-managed crabgrass.” Generally, Anderson has found that most producers use crabgrass in a double crop or multi-crop program. Producers plant it after grazing out rye or another small grain. Later, when the crabgrass goes dormant during cooler weather, a small grain is drilled again, directly into the crabgrass residue. According to Anderson, it also can be grown in combination with sudangrass, pearl millet, or forage corn. To use crabgrass most effectively, Anderson said natural reseeding should be encouraged so the crop need not be planted each year. “This might cause some lower animal production as you delay use to assure good seed production, especially during the first year,” he said. “But, after that, plenty of seed probably will be in the soil for several years.” Like other grasses, Anderson added that crabgrass will respond well to nitrogen fertilizer, irrigation, and rotational grazing. “In the wrong place, crabgrass is a problem weed,” said Anderson. “If used correctly, though, you can make it one of your best pasture crops.” — WLJ

Read more
Monday, January 31,2005

COOL changes discussed

by WLJ
— Seafood protocol could set precedent for beef. The sixth annual R-CALF USA convention included a “surf and turf” theme during its country-of-origin-labeling (COOL) session. Margaret Bryan Curole, shrimper and representative of the Louisiana Shrimp Association, spoke to the group about the way her industry deals with new compliance rules for mandatory COOL, some of which could affect beef producers down the road. One of the major changes Curole cited was the exemption of labeling of processed foods. USDA defines a processed food as an item that “is changed in character by processing or combining it with other food components.” By this definition, Curole said a wider range—approximately 50 percent—of seafood product is exempted. “Exempting 50 percent of the product does not accurately reflect the law, nor consumer preference to know the country of origin of the seafood they purchase,” said Curole. Curole used canned salmon as an example. Under the new COOL regulations, this product is exempt from COOL. “In these cases, wild salmon fishing communities in the U.S., will not have the opportunity to benefit since consumers will not be able to choose their product based on this knowledge and consumers will remain in the dark about where their food comes from,” she said. She also indicated that the regulation change on processed fish is especially worrisome to that industry since research has indicated that most of those products are found to come from other countries and have high levels of contaminates. Some of the contaminates are chemicals banned in the U.S., but permitted in other countries. She noted that only one to two percent of all seafood imported into the U.S. is inspected. “COOL labeling will allow consumers to know if the seafood is farm raised in countries with less stringent health regulations,” said Curole. Just as some in the beef industry believe, Curole said, many in the seafood industry believe USDA should maintain country-of-origin information throughout the chain of production. “If a viral outbreak occurs, the seafood in every grocery store freezer and at every fish farm has to be traced back to every source,” said Curole. USDA perspective Bill Sessions deputy administrator of USDA’s Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) addressed the crowd about the COOL changes, and noted that the official rule for COOL was issued in October 2004 and the effective date is April 2005. The principal components of the interim final rule are: who must label, what must be labeled, determining origin and method of production, record-keeping, and compliance and enforcement. These components are some of the same issues R-CALF members have been dealing with, meaning the seafood industry could set precedence for the beef industry if and when mandatory COOL comes to fruition. In terms of labeling, Sessions explained that Congress was very clear in saying that designated retailers are defined in the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA). The PACA definition exempts a lot of small fish markets, as well as restaurants and food service establishments. These establishments will lawfully be allowed to sell seafood without labeling it’s country of origin. To address Curole’s concern over the exclusion of processed foods, Sessions reiterated that was also a requirement of Congress’ law, which USDA had to interpret. “The statute that Congress gave us said that any time a covered commodity was an ingredient in a processed food item, it was exempt from labeling,” said Sessions. He added that the food product either had to undergo a change of character through cooking, curing, canning, smoking or restructuring or be combined with another commodity to be considered as a processed food. For farm-raised seafood to be labeled as of U.S. origin, it must be hatched, raised, harvested and processed in the U.S. and not undergo a substantial transformation outside of the U.S. As far as beef, animals must be born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. to receive U.S. country of origin labeling. In a departure from the proposed rule, Sessions noted that each of the processes for farm-raised fish must be noted. For example, he said some fish are hatched in Canada and brought to the U.S. to be raised and processed. Under the previous rule, those fish would have been labeled as U.S. origin. However, after revisions, the final rule mandates that those fish be labeled as Canadian origin, processed in the U.S., the same label required by the Customs Department. Sessions said this simplifies the rule and should reduce the cost. In the instance that a product is blended, he indicated that the label must say all the countries that influenced the making of the product. According to the proposed rule, the countries were to be listed according to the amount present. This type of rule could set tenure for the beef industry when selling hamburger. Sessions noted the changes made to record-keeping requirements for mandatory COOL. Under the proposed rule, suppliers would have had to maintain records for two years, but under the final rule, they are only required to keep records for one year. Retailers have to keep records for one year as well. This is expected to result in lower costs for maintaining COOL. The other change to the record-keeping regulation is that suppliers only have to identify the previous source and the subsequent recipient. In terms of the cost of implementing mandatory COOL for the seafood industry, Sessions remarked that USDA’s estimated cost for the proposed rule was $159 million. Because of the program changes, he said, the new estimate reflects a cost of $89 million. On a final note, Sessions said the comment period is open until Feb. 2. He suggested producers visit USDA’s COOL web site, review the official regulations and submit comments before the final rule is published in the Federal Register. Sessions did not give an indication as to when the final rule would be published. — WLJ

Read more
Monday, January 31,2005

Horse slaughter increases

by WLJ
— Legislation banning practice to be proposed. New figures from USDA reveal an increase in the number of horses slaughtered in the U.S. last year for human consumption. Nearly 65,000 horses were slaughtered in 2004, 28 percent more than 2003. However, those horses aren’t processed for domestic U.S. consumption. The horses are slaughtered at one of three foreign-owned slaughter plants, and the meat is sent to Europe and Asia, where it is considered a delicacy. Because a large majority of the horses processed are competitive racehorses in the public spotlight and pets, several animal rights groups are stepping up their efforts to have the practice made illegal, including through congressional action. The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (AHSPA), sponsored in the House of Representatives by Rep. John E. Sweeney, R-NY, received the support of more than half the House’s members last year, but stalled out in the Agriculture Committee. A similar bill introduced in the Senate, by Sen. John Ensign, R-NV, was also popular with lawmakers, but did not progress sufficiently. There are indications AHSPA will be reintroduced in the 109th Congress before the end of February. The proposed law also would prevent the slaughter of wild horses. That would combat a rider amendment in the 2005 omnibus spending bill instructing the federal government to send thousands of wild horses to auction, where they are likely to be bought for slaughter. Under that amendment, introduced by Sen. Conrad Burns, R-MT, wild horses would be put up for adoption three separate times, and if a particular animal isn’t adopted after the third time, auctioning off the animal is the next option. Western ranching interests called the Burns legislation appropriate because wild horses don’t stay within fenced areas of federal land very well and once they get out they infringe on private ranch lands and utilize a lot of the forage set aside for cattle, sheep and other livestock. — WLJ

Read more
Monday, January 31,2005

Johanns asked to listen to whistleblower

by WLJ
Eighteen farm, consumer and public interest groups last Wednesday delivered a letter to new Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, expressing concern about the apparent retaliation against the chairman of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals (NJC), who recently made disclosures covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act about the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) rules on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). On Dec. 8, NJC chairman Charles Painter sent a letter on behalf of the the government meat inspectors' union to the USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), outlining concerns about the removal of "specified risk materials" (SRMs) from cattle and FSIS inspectors' ability to enforce the export requirements for products destined for Mexico. SRMS are the nervous system tissues believed to be most likely to carry the infectious prions that cause BSE. Among his concerns: 1) Plant employees are not correctly identifying and marking animals over 30 months old, which means plant employees and government personnel further down the line are unaware that numerous parts should be removed as SRMs and these high-risk materials are entering the food supply, and 2) Production line inspectors are not authorized by the USDA to take actions when they see plant employees sending products that do not meet export requirements past the point on the line where they can be identified and removed. Rather than addressing the issues raised, USDA reacted to the letter by directing extraordinary resources to targeting the NCJ chairman and other regional union presidents: • On Dec. 23, an FSIS compliance officer appeared unannounced at the home of Painter while he was on annual leave to question him about the allegations in the letter. • On Dec. 28, Painter received a notice from FSIS that he was under formal investigation. • On Jan. 6, Painter was ordered to Washington, D.C., to be questioned for three hours by FSIS. • On Jan. 7, seven regional council presidents for the NJC also were ordered to appear in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 11 for an interview. "Mr. Painter offered this information to the USDA because he was concerned that the agency's inadequate policy could put consumers in danger," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's food program. "The USDA should have been grateful, but it chose to attack the whistleblower instead of attacking the problem. Secretary Johanns has emphasized that USDA employees should be treated with 'equality, dignity, and respect.' We urge him to live up to those words and stop this retaliatory investigation of Mr. Painter." In his letter, Painter did not identify specific plants where reports had come from because he did not know. In fact, he chose not to learn the identity of the plants, so that he would not be forced to disclose this information, which could allow the agency to take retaliatory action against the inspectors assigned to these plants. "This case presents a classic example of the value and necessity of whistleblowers," the letter from the public interest groups said. "The concerns outlined by Mr. Painter's letter are of vital interest to consumers, especially in light of recent announcements of the discovery of two more cases of mad cow disease in Canada and the agency's intent to re-establish imports of live animals from Canada. The public has the right to know that the reality inside meat plants is not the same as the picture being painted for the media by USDA officials in Washington, D.C." The groups urge Johanns to immediately investigate this incident and to reconsider the decision to initiate a formal misconduct investigation of Painter. The USDA also should take steps necessary to establish an environment inside FSIS that encourages employees to disclose issues of waste, fraud or threats to public health, the groups said. The groups signing onto the letter include: the American Corn Growers Association, Cancer Prevention Coalition, Center for Food Safety, Community Nutrition Institute, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Policy Institute/Consumers Union, Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease Foundation, Inc., Family Farm Defenders, Government Accountability Project, Global Resource Action Center for the Environment, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Iowa Farmers Union, Lane County Food Coalition, Organic Consumers Association, Public Citizen, Safe Tables Our Priority, The Humane Society of the United States and the Weston A. Price Foundation. — WLJ

Read more
 
 
User Box (click to open)
 
SEARCH IN WLJ
Get WLJ In Your Inbox!
   
 
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18* 19 20 21 22 23
24 25* 26 27 28 29 30*
31
 
 

© Crow Publications - Any reprint of WLJ stories, except for personal use, without permission, written consent and appropriate attribution is prohibited. 2008 Crow Publications. All rights reserved.