I have lifted the following article from the net as it aptly applies to a concern I have had since I purchased an “organic” pop for my stepson and discovered the drink was produced by Smuckers.

I do not have a problem with companies such as Kelloggs and Smuckers producing more and more organic goods - in fact given the size and the authority of the agri business industry, I welcome any “nutritional reform”.

I am however, bothered by how underhanded a lot of this is and how many people buy organic simply because they want to be anti corporate in their purchasing power.

What I have decided is that we must carefully consider when we make our purchases:

“do we wish to be organic for the purpose of better personal health?”

“do we buy organic because we believe it is better for the environment?”

“do we do th is because we wish to avoid supporting corporations whereever possible?

“do we believe in fair trade?”

These are all good reasons to buy organic. Suffice to say however, that purchasing organic, being ethical in our purchases, attentive to the environment and to our health is getting harder all the time.

What Is Organic?
Reporter: Anna Werner

Producers: Anna Werner, Abby Sterling

(CBS 5) 30 Minutes Bay Area
Sunday, December 18th, 6:30pm

SCRIPT:

It’s not your neighborhood natural foods store anymore….’organic’ has hit the big leagues, with mammoth grocery stores stocked full of products from organic pop-tarts to frozen dinners.

And if you’re wondering how those small companies can make all those processed products, maybe it’s because many of them aren’t so small anymore.

Big food companies are quickly trying to take over the organics business - so how will that change what is organic?

* * *

You won’t see their names on the labels of all these ‘organic’ products, but they’re behind them: Kashi cereals…now owned by Kellogg’s….Vegetarian Boca Burgers? Now owned by Kraft…itself owned by Philip Morris. Even that popular juice company:

WERNER: “Who owns Odwalla?”
JACKSON: “Coca-cola.”
WERNER: “Coca-cola?”

Justin Jackson, who decides what hits the shelves at Whole Foods, has watched the natural food chain go from 30 stores to 180 stores nationwide in just a decade.

JACKSON: “That is a lot of money. I think there’s a lot of money to be had in organic foods.”

And with an estimated 15 billion dollars in sales just this past year, many large corporations are buying their way in… it’s a trend that bothers many Whole Foods shoppers like Kate Kendall…

KATE KENDALL/Shopper: “I would like to think that buying organic means that you are supporting something other than the powers that be.”

Supporting people like farmer John Kolling. Over 20 years ago, he started growing organic apples in Sonoma County…

KOLLING: “This is a real premier area for apples.”

…producing organic apple juice and other apple products under the Solana Gold label.

KOLLING: “One of these boxes is about 20 cases of apple juice gallon.”

He sold them in natural foods stores, right alongside other California brands. But one by one, he says, bigger companies started taking over his once local competitors. Like Santa Cruz Organics and R.W. Knudsen

KOLLING: “Smucker’s bought those companies.”

That’s right. You won’t find it on their websites, but both are now owned by J-M Smucker…a company that also owns Pillsbury and Crisco along with their jams and jellies. And Kolling says with so many big companies now in the game:

KOLLING: “They just pushed you around. And you got knocked off the shelf.”

And that’s what Kolling believes happened to his apple juice at one large chain store.

KOLLING: “We were just notified–you’re cancelled, you’re off the shelf.”

And even at Whole Foods we found row after row of Smucker-owned Santa Cruz and Knudsen organic juices.

WERNER: “Do you think that consumers know, though, when they’re looking at the juice section that three-fifths is actually Smucker of Ohio?”
JACKSON: “Ah, that’s a… I do not think that consumers would know that, no.”

And the fight between many longtime organic advocates and big corporations isn’t just over shelf space. Some say it’s a fight over the very nature of organics itself. Over how much and what can be added to a product and still keep this valuable USDA organic label.

RONNIE CUMMINS/Organic Consumers Association: “These big companies don’t want to play by the traditional rules of organic integrity.”

He’s Ronnie Cummins, the head of the 600,000 member Organic Consumers Association– who says it’s been a constant fight.

CUMMINS: “The USDA in ‘98 said that it would be ok to use genetic engineering, food irradiation, sewage sludge for example.”

That battle they won.

CUMMINS: “280,000 people wrote in to the USDA saying no way.”

Then in 2004…

CUMMINS: “They said, oh yeah, some of these previously banned pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, tainted animal feed that aren’t allowed in organic– we’re going to allow those after all.”

And once again Cummins says they managed to stop it. But now this year the fight has gone to Congress. And this time Cummins says they’re fighting a former ally - the Organic Trade Association, or OTA.

DiMATTEO: “The Organic Trade Association is a business association.”

She’s Katherine DiMatteo, the head of the OTA.

DiMATTEO: “We cover the entire chain from the farm through the retail store.”

And in campy videos like this one, they market themselves as the defender of organic farms and farmers.

(video clip from “Store Wars”) “…he’s now more chemical than vegetable…”

But Cummins says recently…

CUMMINS: “There’s basically been a takeover of the OTA by the big players.”

He says companies like Smucker and Kraft. And just two months ago the OTA had a last minute amendment inserted into the massive Federal Agricultural Appropriations Act, an amendment Cummins and many others fear will allow hundreds of synthetic ingredients to start appearing in organic products.

CUMMINS: “This amendment was concocted in secrecy. It was not shared with anyone in the organic community. They’re playing very hardball.”

DiMATTEO: “I’m sure to some people that is what they would think.”
WERNER: “But–did you get the word out?”
DiMATTEO: “No we did not.”

She says that the OTA didn’t need to.

DiMATTEO: “The amendment has now legalized or authorized the standards that we had all agreed to.”

But not so, according to the Chair of the prestigious National Organic Standards Board, which reviews the quality and content of organic goods. In an open letter two months ago, Jim Riddle called the OTA “false and misleading,” saying the group’s “action opens the door to numerous [additional] substances being used” in organic products.

And that even though “Congress received 320,000 calls and letters” opposing it, “those concerns were ignored by OTA and the Republicans who carried the amendment.”

DiMATTEO: “It’s his opinion.”
WERNER: “He’s directly contradicting you. He’s saying that you’re WRONG.”
DiMATTEO: “And we’re saying HE is wrong. Organic isn’t a religion you know. It’s FARM production.”

JOHN ARDREY\Eden Foods: “I disagree with her. And there IS a morality here.”

He’s John Ardrey of Eden Foods, one of the country’s oldest natural food companies, and a leader of the fight against the OTA’s amendment.

ARDREY: “We could do what conventional companies do. We could make things cheaper. We could use shortcuts. We could all make more money. But that’s not what we’re doing. We want to put out the very best thing we can do.

But will they be able to and still compete?

WERNER: “What do you fear happening to organic food?”
CUMMINS: “You can’t grow a 15 billion dollar industry into a 50 billion dollar industry unless you cut corners.”

DiMATTEO: “If you’re in business you have to make profit. You have to have, you know, a return on your investment.”
WERNER: “But do you think business is what organic food is supposed to be all about?”
DiMATTEO: “Ah that’s an interesting question.”

Steven Truscott, left, arrives with his wife Marlene at Ontario Court of Appeal in Toronto, on Monday. They are accompanied by sons Devon, back, and Ryan, right.
Photograph by : Canadian Press/Aaron Harris

Kelly Patrick, CanWest News Service; National Post
Published: Tuesday, June 20, 2006
TORONTO - For Steven Truscott, the road to the Ontario Court of Appeal’s review of his 47-year-old murder conviction has been extraordinarily long and plodding.

So it must have seemed especially swift to him Monday when the first bombshell of the modern case was dropped so soon after the history-making hearing opened.

A lawyer for Truscott entered into evidence a pair of autopsy drafts that suggested the pathologist who examined the body of 12-year-old Lynne Harper in 1959 initially concluded she died several hours too late to have been murdered by Truscott.

‘’We contend these were never disclosed to the defence,'’ said James Lockyer, one of Truscott’s four lawyers, as he handed the reports to the five-judge panel presiding at the review.

Truscott was 14 when he was sentenced to hang in 1959 for the sensational rape and murder of Harper. Her body was discovered in a wooded grove near the air force base in the southwestern Ontario town of Clinton where she and Truscott lived.

Truscott’s death sentence was eventually commuted to life in prison. He was paroled in 1969.

The time of death was one of the key pieces of evidence that helped convict Truscott. The Crown lawyer at the original trial in Goderich, Ont., called it the ‘’vice'’ that clamped down on Truscott as the only person with the opportunity to kill Harper.

Dr. John Penistan, the pathologist who performed the autopsy, testified at the original trial that Harper died between 7:00 and 7:45 p.m. on June 9, 1959, the night the Grade 7 student and dedicated Girl Guide disappeared.

Truscott admitted he was with her for part of that time.

However, witnesses confirmed Truscott was back at a schoolyard on the base by 8 p.m., meaning that if Harper died after that time he could not be her killer.

No autopsy report was entered at Truscott’s original trial.

In 1963 four years after Truscott was found guilty a copy of an autopsy report by Penistan was produced at the request of a Toronto author working on a book about the Truscott case.

The document further narrowed Harper’s time of death to between 7:15 and 7:45 p.m.

Lockyer entered the 1963 report into evidence Monday, but argued it was typed well after two earlier reports he also presented to the court.

The first report, a handwritten, undated document unearthed just last year from Stratford General Hospital, shows Penistan estimated Harper’s time of death as 40 hours before her body was brought in for examination, or 12:45 a.m. June 10, 1959.

The second report, a partially typed, partially scrawled draft, pushes Harper’s time of death even later, to between 4:45 and 10:45 a.m. June 10, 1959.

Both times of death would rule out Truscott as her murderer.

However, the question of when Harper died is far more complex than digging up long-hidden autopsy drafts. Time of death is expected to occupy a significant chunk of the three-week hearing.

Michael Pollanen, Ontario’s chief forensic pathologist and the doctor who supervised the exhumation of Harper’s body in April, testified on the subject all morning Monday.

After reviewing the three autopsy drafts, photos of Harper’s body and some 47-year-old slides of Harper’s liver and kidney tissue, Pollanen cast doubt on the 45-minute time-of-death window Penistan testified to in 1959.

Pollanen said Harper’s relatively full stomach pointed to a time of death on June 9, but that all the other evidence ‘’would tend to push an inference toward June 10.'’

‘’The time interval must be broadly inclusive,'’ he said.

But under cross-examination by Crown lawyer Alex Alvaro, Pollanen admitted his findings were still compatible with death before 8 p.m. on June 9.

Truscott, now 61, has maintained his innocence since Ontario Provincial Police first plucked him from his ordinary life as a shy, athletic teenager and charged him with raping and strangling Harper.

He walked into court Monday dressed in a maroon shirt and grey jacket, his wife of 35 years, Marlene, and his two grown sons by his side.

The family sat quietly on a reserved bench beneath a glittering copper chandelier in the majestic courtroom’s public gallery throughout Monday’s proceedings.

A handful of Truscott’s friends and supporters filled the few spots on benches not packed with reporters.

Among Truscott’s supporters in court Monday were two men waging their own battles for exoneration: William Mullins-Johnson and Romeo Phillion.

The Justice Department is currently reviewing their murder convictions.

Phillion, a 67-year-old released on bail in 2003 after serving three decades behind bars for a murder he insists he did not commit, said he came to the court partly to return a kindness Truscott showed him three years ago.

‘’When I came out (of prison) in 2003 he called me at home to congratulate me,'’ Phillion said.

‘’The guy’s been through a lot,'’ he said of Truscott. ‘’Set him free. Set him free.'’

Technically, Truscott has been free since 1969, when he was paroled after 10 years in prison but he is also still a convicted killer.

In 2001,Truscott moved to have that stain cleared from his name.

He applied to the federal minister of justice for a review of his conviction under a seldom-used section of the Criminal Code intended to remedy miscarriages of justice.

The application and a federal report by retired Justice Fred Kaufman eventually led then-justice minister Irwin Cotler to conclude a miscarriage of justice had likely occurred in Truscott’s case.

Cotler ordered the Ontario Court of Appeal review.

Testimony by witnesses is expected to run until July 7. Oral arguments in the case are expected to be presented in January.

After that, the Ontario Court of Appeal will have four options: to dismiss Truscott’s appeal or to quash his conviction and order a stay of proceedings, a new trial or an acquittal.

kpatrick@nationalpost.com

Win Wahrer
Director of Client Services

AIDWYC
85 King Street East, Suite 318
Toronto, Ontario
M5C 1G3
Phone: 416-504-7500 Fax: 416-203-9088
aidwyc@on.aibn.com

I have been struggling with how to respond to the recent arrest of 17 Muslim young men in the Toronto area. For all of us security is a concern - there can be no doubt about that. However, I have not felt settled in how the media has reported on this recent heightening of fear among the Canadian public. Somehow the recent events all seem too pat.

Tom Walkom wrote an excellent article in the Toronto Star in which he urged scepticism. I too am sceptical.

All I have heard so far amounts to Orwellian “thought crime” - a young man uttered a threat to behead Stephen Harper and take over the parliament buildings. Young people do this. I know. As a teacher, I often hear threats against teachers from students - especially when a student has done poorly in his or her estimation. So far, no one has taken action on this utterances. There are other allegations too. Apparently explosives were either purchased or a purchase was being considered. This is evidence that must come out in court.

Threats of violence and politically motivated violence must be taken seriously - there can be no doubt about that. They cannot, however, be used to smear a whole religion or a culture as seems to be happening right now. Timothy McVeigh - the Oklahoma Bomber - was a Christian extremist - yet we did not tar Christianity with his crime - and he did something. We don’t need nor want that kind of thing to happen in Canada, but is this the way to stop it happening?
We must be careful when we paint of picture of the strangers in our midst who seek to destroy a way of life in Canada. I know many fine Muslims. I have attended meetings at the local mosque and in the Islamic community.

I have yet to meet the kind of extremist we are hearing about right now. Canada cannot afford to retreat from the culture of openess and acceptance for which we have been famous and there are those right now in power who desire that most zealously. We cannot embrace the seige mentality of the United States or the hyperbole of Tony Blair. This only serves the interests of those who believe we are too open and too tolerant and so far I have seen no evidence that our open society is inferior to any other culture on the face of the earth.

I hope that the article below is informative and thought provoking. Ish writes in a similar vein to what I have tried to express. He is more thorough and he offers us the contributions of others to consider as well. Let’s consider what we have to lose by reacting instead of thinking.

Phil Allt

When skepticism is needed, most media outlets let us down

Security sting of terror suspects seems a bit too pat and may well be.

Dateline: Tuesday, June 06, 2006

by Ish Theilheimer

Last weekend, federal and Toronto authorities swooped down on and arrested 17 Canadian Muslim youth and young men for allegedly plotting to bomb landmarks and public buildings. It is alarming to think that “home-grown” acts of terror are likely or inevitable, as many reporters and sources are convinced. It is just as alarming when an ideologically-driven government uses an event to drive support for itself and a harsh agenda of pro-American foreign policy and repressive American-style policing and legislation at home.

No country is immune from terrorism, but neither is any country safe from politically-motivated and heavy-handed police operations that are intended to scare the public as much as to protect them. We should wonder about the credibility of a sting operation and media circus headed up by Stockwell Day, whose penchant for hyperbole is well known. (His partner in ideology is Justice Minister Vic Toews). We should also wonder why the media is not more cautious.

There is reason to believe there are Muslim extremists in Canada. But there are also a lot of holes in what is being presented to the public. Unfortunately, Canada’s news media have, for the most part, told the story to the public much as the government and police have told it. Then they have moved on to discussions about why young Muslims in Canada would turn to violence. This skips an important part of the proceeding — proof and a trial — and proceeds quickly to incitement of racism and reactionary measures.

The police, for instance, linked the suspects to the terrorist group Al Qaeda, without providing evidence, claiming the suspects were “inspired” by Al Qaeda.

One of the few journalistic exceptions has been, surprisingly, in the Toronto Sun, where Eric Margolis wrote:

“Before we rush to judgment, it’s worth remembering the 19 foreign students, mostly from Pakistan, arrested in 2003 in and around Toronto, allegedly for plotting to blow up the nuclear reactors at Pickering or the CN Tower.

“After a huge media uproar and lurid claims the charges were dropped and the accused deported for visa irregularities… These raids… against a relatively small number of mostly young Muslim suspects in Mississauga, Toronto and Kingston suggest this high-profile operation may have been designed as much for public relations and diplomatic reasons as national security. No doubt, Washington will be very pleased…

“FBI and Canadian authorities believe they have uncovered an important terrorist cell plotting major attacks in Canada and the US, but the FBI’s track record to date has not been impressive. Recall that of the more than 2000 Muslims arrested in the US since 2001 for suspicion of terrorism, less than 15 were convicted, and those mostly for minor visa offenses.”

Margolis believes terrorist attacks in Canada are a certainty given Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan. He is, however, one of few media voices expressing skepticism about the Toronto arrests.

Two others appear in the Toronto Star: Linda Diebel and Thomas Walkom.

Diebel vividly described the first media view of the suspects: “under massive police security which included sharpshooters on nearby roofs and tactical squad officers with submachine-guns, suspects were brought in leg irons to the provincial courthouse in Brampton.”

“These events,” she writes, “were as much about creating an image for the public as about charging the individuals. And it’s an image, they argue, that could hurt the right of the accused 12 men and five youths to a fair trial.”

The police, for instance, linked the suspects to the terrorist group Al Qaeda, without providing evidence, claiming the suspects were “inspired” by Al Qaeda.

Diebel quotes US security expert John Pike of Virginia as saying, about the Canadian police show of force. “They are putting on a good spectacle, a show. We are used to that here. There has been an inexorable militarization of the police in the United States since the 1980s, but there has been a substantial ratcheting up of security since 9/11.”

Also in The Star Tom Walkom pointed to many inconsistencies:

“What we do know about Operation O-Sage is that the RCMP, as well as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, have been tracking the suspects since 2004. We also know that at least some of their neighbours knew police were watching them. Presumably, some of the suspects did, too.

“If the alleged conspirators knew they were under surveillance, it seems odd that they continued along merrily with plans to make explosives.

“But perhaps they are not bright terrorists. Or perhaps they are not terrorists at all.

“With luck, we will get these answers at trial. This time at least, Canada has chosen to deal with alleged terrorists in the proper way, by charging them with criminal offences and allowing the case to come to court in Canada.”

He contrasts this with the case in 2002 where CSIS agents escorted alleged Canadian terrorist Mohamed Mansour Jabarah across the border to be arrested by the FBI. Then there was the New York arrest (with RCMP cooperation) of Canadian Maher Arar, who was later transferred to Syria and tortured.

The recent Muslim round-up just happened to dovetail perfectly with the political agenda of Canada’s new federal RepubliCon government. Police action shows the government is tough on crime. It ingratiates Canada to George W Bush and America. And it builds political support for more American, repressive police work.

Does it make Canadians any safer?

Canadians, under Harper, can look forward to a lot more of this sort of stuff, with the Harpocrats using this event much as Bush did after 9/11 to move forward on an imperial agenda.

Straight Goods makes no apologies or excuses for those who would kill innocent people. We do not dismiss the possibility that there may be some among those arrested who are making such plans. However, we expect our national media to have professional skepticism and concern for the public interest when reporting these arrests and the police and political circus surrounding them.

Ish Theilheimer has been Publisher of the leading, independent Canadian online magazine Straight Goods since founding it in January 2000. He lives in Golden Lake ON, in the Ottawa Valley.