Over the past week, Organic Consumers Association network members have deluged the U.S. congress with over 45,000 emails and 10,000 telephone calls. Thank you for your support. This nearly unprecedented grassroots upsurge has temporarily rattled Congress and the industry, delaying the initial Sneak Attack in the Senate on organic standards, resulting in a compromise amendment (H.R. 2744) September 21 calling for "further study of the issue." Unfortunately we expect another, possibly even more serious, Sneak Attack in the House/Senate Conference Committee over the next week as Congress members put the final wording together for the 2006 Congressional Agriculture Appropriations Bill . Therefore OCA is now calling on consumers and the organic community to apply pressure to their House of Representatives members as well as their Senators to stop the Conference Committee from degrading the standards. In addition we urge everyone to start applying pressure to the Organic Trade Association, who are unfortunately spearheading this Sneak Attack. We ask everyone who has read our SOS Action Alert and signed our petition to Congress to call your House of Representative member at this toll free number: 877-762-8762, as well as the OTA: 413-774-7511. Here is a link that might be useful: sign here please.

I read the bill and did some research on the current law. IMO, all this bill would do, if passed, is take a lot of things that are already contained in current law but are being enforced by a hodgepodge of agencies and instead give a new agency responsibility for enforcing the laws aimed at protecting consumers. The current legislative authority for the USDA and the FDA already contains most, if not all of this language - YOUR GOVERNMENT ALREADY HAS THIS POWER. The concern, and the backstory behind legislation like this, is those agencies aren't doing enough to protect us because they are beholden to their "industry partners" - big businesses that guarantee that the regulations are easy for them to deal with while being difficult for small farmers to deal with, so they can push their small farmer competitors out of business. As I read it, all this bill does is take the current laws regarding food safety and put them in the hands of an agency whose mandate is to protect consumers - someone we can go to if salmonella creeps into the egg supply to ask "what on earth happened?" Does this law have the potential to shut down small organic farmser? Sure. So does the current law of the land. Ask any organic farmer. The red-tape requirements are insane at this point. And if your neighbor the chicken farmer is making a living without bothering with that, that's great for him, but he's violating the current law just as much as he would violate this law, if passed. This really isn't bigger government than we already have. It's just government that isn't controlled by multinationals. Will it be corrupted by multinational corporate lobbyists? Probably. But I repeat: your government already has this authority. The only substantive change is it puts that authority into the hands of an agency with a mandate to protect consumers. That is not the mandate of the USDA or the FDA at this point. And Ricky, all the best thoughts heading your way.

Oh and I figured I would copy and paste this, this is just one of hundreds of links out there explaining importation and redistribution of pets.... footnotes also available to check this out at end of explanations. The answer for some shelters with empty runs has not been to contact shelters in their own regions or in other areas of the continental US, but to institute programs of importation from other countries and territories. According to their own records, one foundation, the Save a Sato 2 program championed by PeTA, has already sent 14,000 dogs to the US. Satos (a slang term for mixed-breed street dogs in Puerto Rico) arrive in US cities practically every day. Dozens of shelters are involved. Some of the shelters NAIA is tracking bring in 100-200 dogs each month and are placing them for $200-$250 each.3 From Florida, Texas and Michigan to New England 4 and the Pacific Northwest, more and younger Puerto Rican dogs and puppies are finding their way into American shelters every month. Massachusetts in particular is a magnet and a distribution center 5 for relocated surplus pets and strays, but other states with empty shelter runs are picking up the cause as well. This is not a phenomenon that can be brushed off lightly as a passing phase. If you examine the evidence and connect the dots, the steady influx of foreign strays reveals an evolving plan. New 501(c)3 charities devoted to rescuing dogs from distant lands are popping up in states across the US. They are not being formed to place only Puerto Rican dogs, but also to save dogs from as far away as Taiwan 6 and other Asian countries. Several shelters and rescue groups in the Northwest knowingly accept dogs from Taiwan, Puerto Rico or Mexico. There is another disturbing pattern developing, a trend toward importing progressively younger dogs. Two years ago when NAIA first began researching the issue, the foreign imports depicted on shelter web sites were of varied ages. Today, most of them are puppies. It is easy to speculate that if no one is capturing and altering the illusive strays that produce these orphans, then enterprising rescuers and shelter directors could help developing countries become breeding grounds for stocking US shelters. Long-term flooding of US cities with mixed-breed, foreign dogs has unavoidable implications for pet population dynamics in the US. The practice of importing dogs from developing countries not only prevents us from making further progress against 'pet overpopulation,' in time it could also diminish the responsible breeding and placement of well-bred, healthy dogs and cats.Many conscientious dog breeders are so concerned about 'pet overpopulation' they have already accepted the idea that a good breeder is one who seldom breeds. The problem with this conclusion is that it does not recognize the basic marketplace reality that demand drives supply. When responsible breeders quit breeding, it means only that in the future someone else will supply the public with the dogs or cats they want. In this specific case, it also means that the public will have fewer reliable sources for healthy, well bred and socialized purebred dogs. In the two years since introducing the subject of stray importation, (see /articles/archives/redefining.htm) the practice has taken off, with the result that some animal shelters are clearly operating as pet stores today. Whether they acquire their inventory from distant states or foreign countries or territories, they operate like commercial businesses, not charities formed to serve the public good. They acquire their stock at little or no cost 7, advertise their product using time-tested campaigns against 'pet overpopulation,' rotate inventory quickly, restock immediately and bring in staggering amounts of money. Projecting from figures on the web site of one active shelter, gross revenues from imports that include a constant supply of satos, will total more than $500,000 this year alone! It is also disturbing to see the animal rights party line being used against breeders to justify importation. The following quote was taken from the web site of the Humane Society of Snohomish County, a Seattle-area importer of dogs from Taiwan. "By saving Taiwan dogs, we do not feel this takes away from saving a dog at our own shelters. The majority of dogs from Taiwan are small and our own shelters do not have many small dogs. At this time we have over 38 people on our waiting list for small dogs. We feel it is better to bring small dogs in from another part of the world than to have these people going to a breeder. Many people, sadly, still do after they have been on our waiting list for an extended period." The Buddy Dog Humane Society 8 in Massachusetts shares the anti-breeder sentiment and offers a similar rationale on their web site: "Many people ask why we are taking dogs from Puerto Rico. The answer for us is simple. Most of the dogs are small, usually under 30 pounds, thus enabling Buddy Dog to find many adopters looking for a smaller dog, a new companion, without going to a pet store or breeder. At the same time we are helping homeless dogs get off the streets and into a caring home." A certain picture begins to emerge when reviewing Buddy Dog's statement of priorities: 1) to have the right product to fill consumer demands; 2) to prevent the public from getting a dog that was deliberately bred, whether from a pet store or a private breeder; and 3) to help a homeless dog. When coupled with the stated goal of the animal rights agenda 9 to eliminate the purposeful breeding of dogs and cats, the anti-breeder mantra echoed throughout this enterprise should convince even the most skeptical of readers that stray importation is only part of a far more ambitious plan. The oft-repeated vision for pet ownership espoused by PeTA's founder, Ingrid Newkirk makes humane relocation a moral imperative. "If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets." Eliot Katz, president of In Defense of Animals 10 and the foremost advocate of 'guardianship,' states a similar goal, "to convince people to rescue and adopt instead of buying or selling animals, to disavow the language and concept of animal ownership." IDA's leader says that it is essential for people to understand that, "an owner buys, a guardian adopts or rescues." Katz is currently leading the campaign to get Los Angeles to adopt 'guardian' in all of its municipal codes. NAIA unequivocally opposes the importation of stray dogs (and more recently cats) into the US for adoption. Importing strays is a dangerous and irresponsible practice and should be outlawed immediately. The only reason that laws don't already exist to prevent such destructive rescue activities is that no reasonable person could have imagined a scenario in which anyone would be irrational enough to do it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Health matters Even before considering the health issues, it is a reckless and indefensible practice to import stray animals into a country that pours hundreds of millions of public and private dollars annually, (and has for decades) into animal control and 'pet overpopulation' problems! Imports from other countries displace American shelter dogs that need homes, too. The importation of strays does not save lives, it sustains overpopulation and assures that adoptable dogs in US shelters will be euthanized. The current scale of importation also poses significant public health risks. These animals, destined to be domestic pets, are from countries where the standards of veterinary medicine are not as high as they are in the US. Diseases and parasites that are not found here may be endemic in poor or tropical countries. If the fundraising materials accurately describe the rescued dogs, they are not pets from private homes but strays from the streets and therefore are among the most likely reservoirs for parasites and diseases. In addition, they are bringing them into communal shelters where they are most likely to pass on whatever diseases or parasites they have to other companion animals or to their caregivers. Some diseases and parasites pose serious health risks for human health as well as for dogs and other species. Dogs are a leading vector for rabies 11 in many poor countries. Currently, the only thing required for a dog to enter the US is a health certificate and proof of a rabies shot. Given the incubation period for rabies, from five days to several years, with 20-60 days being the norm, unquarantined importation of street dogs from poor countries with low rates of vaccination for rabies, is a disaster waiting to happen. Exotic parasites, worms, protozoa and certain ticks pose significant risks as well. Living in a country where it is difficult to get a banana through customs, (especially since 9-11) and where livestock importation is strictly regulated and animal protection groups seek ever-tighter regulation of dogs from breed enthusiasts along with commercial breeders, it is a sick and intolerable paradox that poorly bred, often diseased, foreign-bred dogs enter our country by the thousands with the barest of regulation - often on airlines that fly them to the US at no charge to help out the 'cause.' Seemingly, the only unregulated operators in the animal world today are the 'animal dealers' working in the animal protection groups that fundraise on overpopulation while importing dogs from overseas. Indeed, the only thing that puts the madness into perspective is the fact that importing groups and the national animal rights groups that support them are still fundraising on the issue of 'pet overpopulation!' At NAIA we salute anyone working to improve the welfare of animals so long as they conduct themselves responsibly. If groups such as PeTA that support importation of strays want to help animals in poor and developing countries, though, we recommend that they take a fraction of their millions and fund spay and neuter clinics or launch public education campaigns. Those initiatives might actually help. Importing Satos or Taiwan strays, on the other hand, does little more than displace US shelter animals with ones that are more suitable for fundraising. NAIA recognizes that most people working in animal shelters and rescue conduct themselves honorably while performing a difficult and often thankless job. This article is not intended to tar the whole sheltering community with the irresponsible actions of a few. Even so, if the good people who work in animal control and protection remain silent on the issue, they are culpable as well. For too long, extreme groups like PeTA have co-opted the animal movement and brought shame to the cause of animal protection. It's time for reasonable people in animal welfare to separate themselves from the corrupt and radical fringe and bring respect back to their cause. The public needs to know that being humane doesn't't have to mean being insane! For more information on this and other issues affecting dog and cat owners and breeders, visit the NAIA web site at www.naiaonline.org NAIA and NAIA Trust will continue to work on the issue of stray imports. NAIA will pursue researching and reporting on the subject and NAIA Trust will set out an agenda for dealing with it legislatively and legally. If you have information on the subject, please contact naia@involved.com If you would like to work with NAIA Trust on this issue, contact naiatrust@involved.com. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Footnotes http://www.petpopulation.org http://www.saveasato.org http://www.daws.org/sato.htm http://www.northeastanimalshelter.org/special.html http://www.sterlingshelter.org/services/puppyrescue.html http://www.geocities.com/~t-aarf/main.html http://www.humanityforanimals.org/howyoucanhelp.html http://www.buddydoghs.com/html/satoInfo.html /articles/archives/aragenda.htm http://www.idausa.org http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/osh/info/rage_e.html Note: The synopsis below was taken from the following link: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/osh/info/rage_e.html "The World Health

In Canada, when we sell, we use the average price. I bought shares in a dependable bank (only half a dozen biggies and more highly regulated in Canada) 50 years ago for about $4.25 per share, paying about 10 - 12 cents annual dividend, at lower tax rate than one pays on interest income, which is taxed at top rate, could have sold in 2007 for $107. , paying $3.08 annual dividend ... and when they were heavily involved in the financial fiasco in a nearby country in 2008, share price went down to $40. or so. People said, "Oh, my God! What a loss - I hope you sold earlier!". When the loss is small, one chooses to let the fluctuation ride, and when it goes down further, one doesn't want to take that loss. I asked them whether they felt that a Canadian bank might go broke, this week or next? A number of experts said later that that bank darn near did go broke - gov't. bailout? Others said that they would almost surely cut the dividend, heavily. They didn't - it stayed the same for about 4 years. I hoped that one day it would pay me each year the price I'd paid for the stock in the first place - granted - about 40 years before ... when a dollar was worth a lot more. The stock has recovered to about $124. dollars recently, $111. now ... paying $5.60 dividend, $1.35 above the original stock price, at low tax rate. How much have I paid a money manager to take good care of it through those 50 years? Not one penny. If you'd like mutual funds, about 90% of whose managers don't produce better than the segment of the markets in which they operate, that's your choice ... but spend some time learning how money and investments work, maybe starting in the library. If you're in Canada, check "Canadian MoneySaver" magazine, which doesn't carry ads: maybe attend one of the 40 or so groups of subscribers that meet to discuss investments - I've been involved monthly for about 20 years. After you've gained some experience, maybe done paper trading for a while, put some of your investable assets into quality stocks ... and pay yourself the 1.5 - 2.5% or so of their price that you pay the managers of the mutual funds. ole joyful