October, 15 2008, 03:03pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164
Round One Legal Victory for Organic Consumers and Dr. Bronner's against "Organic Cheater" Personal Care Brands and Certifiers
SAN FRANCISCO
After hearing oral arguments earlier this month, the San Francisco
County Superior Court on Thursday Oct. 8th ruled that Dr. Bronner's
Magic Soaps can proceed with its lawsuit seeking to compel organic
cheater companies & certifiers to drop, or stop certifying,
deceptive organic label and brand claims. Culprit brands include
Avalon "Organics", Jason "Pure, Natural & Organic", Nature's Gate
"Organics", Kiss My Face "Obsessively Organic", Giovanni "Organic
Cosmetics", Head "Organics", Desert Essence "Organics" and Stella
McCartney's CARE "100% Organic". The culprit certifiers are OASIS and
Ecocert; Estee Lauder is also a defendant due to its expressed intent
to enter the market under its Aveda brand with misleading OASIS
certified "organic" products. The 800,000 supporter strong Organic
Consumers Association has played a leading role in exposing and
educating consumers about deceptive organic branding, and is a party in
the litigation with Ecocert.
The Court turned aside the defendants' arguments that Dr. Bronner's, in
its complaint filed with the Court, hadn't sufficiently spelled out how
actual consumers, the company and competition in the organic personal
care industry have been hurt by the defendants' deceptive practices.
The Court also rejected a claim by OASIS that its deceptive
certification could be protected as free speech. In so ruling, the
Court moved the case closer to full consideration of the merits of Dr.
Bronner's claims. Organic consumers expect that the main cleansing and
moisturizing ingredients in soaps, shampoos and body washes that are
labeled "Organic", "Organics" or "Made with Organic" will be made from
organic as distinct from conventional agricultural material, produced
without synthetic fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides, and be free of
petrochemical compounds. Dr. Bronner's products, in contrast to
defendants' products, contain cleansing and moisturizing ingredients
made only from certified organic oils, made without any use of
petrochemicals, and contain no petrochemical preservatives. The
misleading organic noise created by culprit companies' branding and
labeling practices, interferes with organic consumers ability to
distinguish personal care whose main ingredients are in fact made with
certified organic, not conventional or petrochemical, material, free of
synthetic preservatives.
Posted at www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare and www.drbronner.com/usda_organic_bodycare.html
for the media and public to review, is: one, the Case Management
Conference document filed jointly by Dr. Bronner's and Defendants that
frames the case from either position; two, the Court's recent Oct. 8th
rulings; and three, a detailed comparison of U.S. and European natural
and organic personal care standards, ranked by rigor and integrity,
including: USDA Organic (US); NSF (US); Soil Association (UK); BDIH
(Germany); Natural Products Association (US); Whole Foods Premium (US);
OASIS (US); NaTrue (Germany); and Ecocert (France).
Over the summer, Dr. Bronner's was pleased to settle with former
defendants Ikove and Juice Beauty. Ikove has committed to reformulate
problematic products to exclude any ingredients containing
petrochemical compounds and label their products appropriately. Dr.
Bronner's and Juice Beauty have entered into a Settlement Agreement,
in which Juice Beauty agrees to accept the Court's decision; but in any
event, even should the Court not so mandate, Juice Beauty has committed
that no ingredients including petrochemical compounds shall be in any
Juice Beauty product whatsoever, as of February, 2010. Says Dr.
Bronner's president David Bronner: "We're optimistic as the case
progresses, that other companies that have further to go will
nonetheless see the light and agree to settle rather than dragging this
out." Adds Ronnie Cummins, OCA Executive Director: "The writing is on
the wall for companies who misbrand conventional personal care as
organic to mislead consumers."
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots 501(c)3 nonprofit public interest organization, and the only organization in the U.S. focused exclusively on promoting the views and interests of the nation's estimated 50 million consumers of organically and socially responsibly produced food and other products. OCA educates and advocates on behalf of organic consumers, engages consumers in marketplace pressure campaigns, and works to advance sound food and farming policy through grassroots lobbying. We address crucial issues around food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children's health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental sustainability, including pesticide use, and other food- and agriculture-related topics.
LATEST NEWS
UK Youth, Experts Occupy Coal-Sponsored Science Museum Gallery
"Why on Earth are we allowing a destructive industry to sponsor an educational exhibition whilst simultaneously setting fire to young people's futures?" asked Chris Packham.
Apr 14, 2024
A few dozen protesters from Youth Action for Climate Justice and Scientists for Extinction Rebellion this weekend occupied a new climate gallery at the Science Museum in London that is sponsored by the Indian coal and weapons giant Adani.
"To have a coal company sponsoring an exhibition on the future of energy is blatantly deceiving," Anya, a young person who occupied the Energy Revolution gallery, said in a statement. "Through this sponsorship deal, the Science Museum is helping Adani attach itself to the image of a positive and sustainable future when in reality it is a coal giant, weapons manufacturer, and genocide supporter. It's plain wrong for the Science Museum to be deceiving visitors, including young people like me, when it comes to the climate crisis."
The occupation came after over 150 people protested at the museum shortly before the gallery's opening last month. In response, an Adani representative claimed that the sponsorship—which has been condemned by climate action advocates since it was announced three years ago—was part of the company's effort to participate in the global energy transition. Ian Blatchford, director and chief executive of the Science Museum Group, defended the firm's involvement.
However, their comments didn't satisfy critics who participated in the weekend occupation. As Real Mediareported:
On Friday evening the activists smuggled in balloons and black paper which they used to create a large art piece—a mound of black coal—in the centre of the gallery. Their plan was to interact with the public on Saturday after their first night of occupation, including a People's Assembly to discuss the controversial sponsorship in the afternoon.
Police were called, but no arrests were made. However, perhaps embarrassed by the presence of the protest and their message about the climate-wrecking sponsors, the museum decided to prevent access to the gallery for the whole of Saturday, although supporters did come with more banners which they held near the entrance.
The protesters remained in the museum overnight on Saturday and ended their action on Sunday.
"It's not just Adani's brand that the Science Museum is greenwashing, they're also allowing the oil and gas giants BP and Equinor to sponsor their exhibits, disregarding the fact that these companies continue to expand fossil fuel production against the warnings of climate scientists," noted Aaron Thierry, one of the scientists who occupied the gallery.
"The latest science has shown we must leave the majority of fossil fuels unburned to prevent catastrophic changes to our climate," Thierry stressed. "That an institution like the Science Museum is working with such rouge companies is a disgrace. The museum's management needs to follow the example of Britain's other leading cultural institutions and drop all ties to the fossil fuel industry."
The young people and scientists were joined by naturalist and television presenter Chris Packham, who gave a speech Friday night.
"For me, science is the art of understanding truth and beauty and a lot of that beauty lies in the natural world. Science tells us that the fossil fuel industry is responsible for the accelerating destruction of our natural world," said Packham. "The Science Museum is a place to spark imagination, to provide answers but also to encourage us to ask questions."
"The question I'm asking today is a big one, 'Why on Earth are we allowing a destructive industry to sponsor an educational exhibition whilst simultaneously setting fire to young people's futures?'" he continued. "This is beyond greenwash—it's grotesque."
Packham emphasized that "we urgently need an 'Energy Revolution' to steer us away from the course of planetary destruction on which we are heading. We need a rapid, just transition to renewables—that revolution means an end to coal, and starts with the young people and scientists occupying this space this evening. Science tells us the truth, and the truth is that we must change."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Calls for De-Escalation Mount as Israel Plans to 'Exact a Price From Iran'
"Now is the time for restraint and diplomacy, not more unconditional support for military escalation," said one advocate.
Apr 14, 2024
Since Iran on Saturday sent hundreds of drones and missiles—which were mostly shot down—toward Israel to retaliate for an Israeli bombing of the Iranian consulate in Syria, anti-war voices around the world have called for de-escalation efforts.
"We are deeply concerned that Iranian retaliatory strikes following Israel's April 1 attack on its diplomatic compound in Damascus will move the region even further from the path to peace and security," said Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council. "The launch of a significant attack on Israeli territory from Iran is without recent precedent and, unless there is a serious effort towards deconfliction, may confirm that Iran, Israel, and the United States are in the midst of the regional war that so many have feared."
"We call on the Biden administration to exercise the United States' considerable diplomatic leverage to restrain Israel and Iran to ensure this conflict does not spiral further out of control," he continued. "Far too many innocents have already suffered in the war that began October 7, and the cycle of violence and inhumanity must be broken."
"What's at stake is nothing less than stopping a regionwide war in the Middle East, which the United States would surely be drawn into."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the Hamas-led October 7 attack on Israel with an assault of the Gaza Strip called plausibly genocidal by the International Court of Justice. Israeli forces have killed at least 33,729 people, wounded 76,371 more, and obliterated civilian infrastructure, displacing most of the 2.3 million Palestinians who live in the besieged enclave.
Blasting Iran's Saturday attack on Israel as "another unacceptable turn in a dangerous escalation spiral," Win Without War executive director Sara Haghdoosti said that and U.S. President Joe Biden and senior administration officials "must use all their diplomatic heft and leverage to prevent further violence."
"What's at stake is nothing less than stopping a regionwide war in the Middle East, which the United States would surely be drawn into. There are no military solutions to this crisis—only diplomatic ones," she stressed. "The Israeli government's destructive and failing campaign in Gaza has driven violent instability throughout the Middle East, which was further exacerbated by Prime Minister Netanyahu's reckless attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus. And the Iranian government's own inexcusable retaliation, which we utterly condemn, has put the lives of people across the region—including communities in Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran—at terrible risk."
While repeatedly urging the the Israel Defense Forces to more precisely target militants in Gaza over the past six months, the Biden administration has also opposed multiple United Nations cease-fire resolution and sent more weapons to Israeli troops while pushing for a support package worth more than $14 billion—on top of the $3.8 billion in annual military aid that the United States gives to Netanyahu's government.
"Preventing a regional war must be the top imperative and this may mean that Joe Biden must finally say 'no' to Israel and Netanyahu," argued Abdi. "Biden's bearhug approach towards Israel has completely failed and has put the U.S. at the risk of entering a war of choice—Netanyahu's choice. Israel launched a military attack on a diplomatic compound, violating international law and all but guaranteeing an Iranian response."
"Netanyahu appears eager to extend and expand the disastrous war in Gaza and draw the U.S. into a regional war and, by continually abetting the war and enabling Israel's worst instincts, Biden may have granted Netanyahu's wish," he said. "Now is the time for restraint and diplomacy, not more unconditional support for military escalation. President Biden must put his foot down to do what's necessary to prevent further military engagement between Israel and Iran and to demand a cease-fire to end the humanitarian tragedy in Gaza."
Israel this weekend fended off most of the Iranian drones and missiles with help from Jordan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Benny Gantz—a member of the Israeli War Cabinet with Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant—said Sunday that his nation now intends to "build a regional coalition and exact a price from Iran, in a way and at a time that suits us."
Biden publicly reaffirmed "America's ironclad commitment to the security of Israel" but a White House official also confirmed to Reuters that during a call with Netanyahu, the president made clear the U.S. will not join any military offensives against Iran.
Denouncing the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' retaliation against Israel, Center for International Policy president and CEO Nancy Okail said Sunday that "escalatory actions by both countries threaten to fan the flames of conflict throughout the region, endangering the lives of millions."
"We appreciate the apparent advance diplomatic efforts by the United States and others behind the scenes—as well U.S., U.K., and Jordanian participation in air defense measures—to minimize the impact of Iran's attack," she continued. "Prioritizing civilian protection and de-escalation was clearly the right approach and should continue to serve as the international community's objectives in the critical days and weeks ahead."
Okail emphasized that "achieving those goals requires not only arresting the escalation of violence between Israel and Iran, but securing a cease-fire in Gaza that halts the killing of civilians, releases the hostages, allows vital humanitarian aid to actually reach those who need it, and lowers tensions in the region. The continued unconditional supply to the Netanyahu government of the arms it is using in Gaza undermines those objectives, as well as U.S. and international law."
"Netanyahu's repeated disregard of U.S. red lines in Gaza, moves to deepen permanent occupation in the Palestinian territory, and escalation with Iran are destabilizing the entire region," she added. "With American forces already drawn into hostilities with the Iranian-backed Houthis and actively engaging Iranian missiles and drones, President Biden cannot afford to let the extremist prime minister continue to have a harmful, undue influence on the course of events. Hopefully, the president's efforts have averted a wider regional war with Iran; we urge him to bring that same level of effort to save the people of Gaza."
Trita Parsi, an expert on Iran and the Middle East and EVP at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said that "if you give Biden (deservingly) credit for having helped prevent the region from falling off the cliff last night, you must also give him credit for helping bring the region to the edge of the cliff in the first place by refusing to restrain Israel and blocking a cease-fire."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Major Media Outlets Urge Biden, Trump to Commit to 2024 Debates
"There is simply no substitute for the candidates debating with each other, and before the American people, their visions for the future of our nation."
Apr 14, 2024
After Tuesday previews by CNN and The New York Times, a dozen major U.S. news outlets on Sunday called on Democratic President Joe Biden, who is seeking reelection, and former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, to agree now to debate each other.
Although the presidential primary season is ongoing, the two historically unpopular candidates have already secured enough delegates to receive their parties' nominations at the conventions this summer. The nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) last year announced the date, time, and location of three debates scheduled for September and October.
"With the contours of the 2024 general election now coming into clear focus, we—the undersigned national news organizations—urge the presumptive presidential nominees to publicly commit to participating in general election debates before November's election," says the joint letter signed by ABC News, The Associated Press, CBS News, CNN, C-SPAN, Fox News, NewsNation, NBC News, Noticias Univision, NPR, PBS NewsHour, and USA Today.
"General election debates have a rich tradition in our American democracy, having played a vital role in every presidential election of the past 50 years."
"General election debates have a rich tradition in our American democracy, having played a vital role in every presidential election of the past 50 years, dating to 1976," they wrote. "In each of those elections, tens of millions have tuned in to watch the candidates debating side by side, in a competition of ideas for the votes of American citizens."
The news organizations noted that "though it is too early for invitations to be extended to any candidates, it is not too early for candidates who expect to meet the eligibility criteria to publicly state their support for—and their intention to participate in—the commission's debates planned for this fall."
"If there is one thing Americans can agree on during this polarized time, it is that the stakes of this election are exceptionally high," the letter concludes. "Amidst that backdrop, there is simply no substitute for the candidates debating with each other, and before the American people, their visions for the future of our nation."
In a Thursday letter to CPD leaders acknowledging the media organizations' call, Trump's campaign wrote that "the commission must move up the timetable of its proposed 2024 debates to ensure more Americans have a full chance to see the candidates before they start voting, and we would argue for adding more debates in addition to those on the currently proposed schedule."
"We have already indicated President Trump is willing to debate anytime, anyplace, anywhere—and the time to start these debates is now," the campaign letter adds. This, despite the Republican National Committee's 2022 withdrawal from the CPD.
At a Saturday rally in Schnecksville, Pennsylvania, Trump stood next to a podium with a sign that said "anytime, anywhere, anyplace" and renewed his call for Biden to debate him. The twice-impeached former president—who faces four ongoing criminal cases—has a track record of defying debate rules.
As ABC Newsdetailed Sunday:
Biden has mostly avoided commenting publicly on engaging in debate with Trump. Asked following his State of the Union address in March if he would commit to one, Biden remarked to ABC News: "It depends on his behavior."
"Well, if I were him, I'd want to debate me too," Biden said earlier in March, after Trump challenged him to debate "anytime, anywhere, anyplace."
"He's got nothing else to do," Biden added.
The Times reported earlier this week that "the Biden campaign has not ruled out agreeing to the debates, according to a person with direct knowledge of the discussions, who requested anonymity to share details intended to be private. But the campaign does not see an advantage to publicly committing to participate this early in the year, the person said."
Trump declined to participate in the Republican primary debates this cycle and Democrats didn't hold any, despite protests from longshot candidates. In 2020, there were only two presidential debates; a third was canceled after Trump tested positive for Covid-19 and refused to shift to a remote format.
In February, Ralph Nader, who has run for president as an Independent, suggested holding presidential debates in major cities and swing states, writing in a Common Dreams opinion piece that "unlike the one-shoe-fits-all model of the CPD, this proposal would provide a greater variety of debate formats and reflect national issues by the moderators but also regional issues."
"The proverbial named 'empty seat' for no-show candidates would be visible to millions of TV viewers if an invited candidate declined to participate," he argued. "All that is needed to make these debates happen is for the mayor and city council in each city to establish a representative host committee to organize the details of when, where, and how these debates are to be planned."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular