Group takes standards board to task over grading organic fish

Font: Regular Medium Large

Print Story

Email Story

Group takes standards board to task over grading organic fish

By MICHELLE BRUNETTI For The Press

Published: Sunday, November 30, 2008

Consumers Union warned last week that the National Organic Standards Board has moved to downgrade requirements for fish to be labeled organic and that the changes make a mockery of the program by ignoring longstanding organic standards.

"To slap an 'organic' label on this fish is deceptive and undermines the entire organic program," said Urvashi Rangan, senior scientist and policy analyst at Consumers Union. "If enacted, this gutting of the organic standards will not only allow subpar organic fish to be sold with a premium but will undermine consumer confidence in the entire organic marketplace."

According to Consumers Union, the NOSB recommendations would allow:

Fish to be fed food other than 100 percent organic feed - the gold standard that must be met by other federal Agriculture Department-certified organic livestock;

Fishmeal used to feed farmed fish from wild fish - which has the potential to carry mercury; and

Open net cages to be used - which flush pollution, disease and parasites from open-net fish farms directly into the ocean, adversely impacting wild fish supply, sustainability and the health of the oceans.

The recommendations have been transmitted to the USDA, which will issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking immediately.

A recent Consumers Union Poll revealed that 93 percent of Americans think fish labeled organic should be produced by 100 percent organic feed, like all other organic animals. Nine in 10 consumers also agreed organic fish farms should be required to recover waste and not pollute the environment, and 57 percent are concerned about ocean pollution caused by organic fish farms. Nearly 30,000 signatures have been collected in favor of maintaining strong standards for the organic label for fish.

New twist on check scam

The fraudulent-check con artists have a new approach - now they are sending out realistic-looking $10,000 "award letters" supposedly from Pub-
lisher's Clearinghouse or Op-
rah's O Magazine, with the (also fraudulent) stamp of approval from major celebrities, along with $5,000 "checks" to cover "expenses."

Recipients are told to call a toll-free number to get the details. When they do, they are asked to deposit the check, wait for it to clear, then wire the $5,000 back to the company so a representative can send you your $10,000 check.

Banks often will remove the temporary hold on the money, leading consumers to believe it has cleared before they find out the check is fraudulent. Mean-
while, the consumer has wired real money to the perpetrators. So the consumer now is the victim, having lost $5,000 they rarely can get back, as many of these scammers are based in foreign countries.

Be skeptical about any award checks you get in the mail. Any time a company asks you to pay to receive winnings, you know it's a scam. Never wire money to any unknown company, especially in another country.

For more information, visit:

www.consumer-action.org

Consumer Action will re-
spond to each properly submitted letter about a problem or question, either in this column or by letter or phone. Letters must include copies of all relevant documentation and a name, address and phone number at which you can be reached. Send letters to: Consumer Action, The Press, 11 Devins Lane, Pleasantville, NJ 08232.