Unfortunately, eBay has seen fit to try to force all sellers to register PayPal accounts and accept this as the only form of payment for those who specify it. The problem with PayPal is that we, as sellers, must incure the extra finance charges, on top of eBay's listing charges, as well as any credit card surcharges, and then wait 7 days or more for our funds to be released. Furthermore, whilst PayPal offers buyer protection, no such courtesy is extended to sellers.

We are not prepared to pass these added costs on to our customers. At the same time, we cannot afford to absorb the extra costs (not to mention inconvenience of delayed payments) ourselves. We run very tight margins - that's how we can offer our products cheaper than anywhere else in Australia - so with the new changes, selling on eBay is now no longer profitable. As you can imagine, we are not the only former eBay seller who has reached this decision.

Whilst we apologise to those who may have been looking forward to picking up a few eBay bargains, the good news is that we shall soon be listing our discount items on Oztion.com.au. As a seller, www.oztion.com.au has no listing fees, automatic relisting of unsold items, free images and other information, and we only pay for what we sell. In addition to this, Oztion.com.au is an Australian company - unlike eBay - which means our money stays right here.

For we at Australian Natural & Organic, it simply makes economic sense. But for you, the customer, the rewards are even better. Oztion.com.au is in its infancy - that means fewer bidders to compete with, and ultimately better deals for buyers.

So, keep an eye out for our new Oztion account name - naturalorganic - and don't forget that all our products are available from our normal website (www.naturalorganic.com.au) and we will combine freight for any items, regardless of where they are purchased (either here or on Oztion).

If you have any queries about our special offers or postal charges, please contact us at info@naturalorganic.com.au or phone (08) 8121 9588 (10am-6pm WST) or 0405 012 730.

See you at Oztion!

By Graeme Samuel
Herald Sun
12/7/2007

THE growing demand for organically certified goods in recent years has been an alluring sight for many small businesses eager to get a foothold in the sector.

According to the government's Rural Industries Research and Development Organisation, organic food production is estimated to be growing between 15 and 25 per cent a year, with Australia well positioned to export organic goods to Asian markets.

Unfortunately, becoming a recognised organically certified business has not always been a straightforward task, with no central body responsible for authorising businesses to use the organic tag.

That may soon change, with moves to develop a nationally recognised Australian standard receiving a recent financial boost.

The Organic Federation of Australia is to receive $216,000 towards developing a national organic standard, providing much needed funding to accelerate the project.

The money stems from enforcement action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission against an egg producer who admitted, to the ACCC, to selling non-organic eggs under the organic tag.

The producer, Go Drew Pty Ltd, had been marketing free range organic eggs sourced from another grower that were certified by the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia. Go Drew itself produced free range but not organic eggs.

However, former Go Drew manager Timothy Drew admitted that when the company was unable to fulfil supply obligations, it had deliberately substituted the usual deliveries with non-organic eggs over a two-year period to make up for shortfalls in production sourced from its contracted organic grower.

Go Drew has undertaken to the ACCC to pay $54,000 to NASAA which will go towards enhancing the organisation's organic certifying and monitoring programs.

The good news for businesses and consumers is a strengthening of the certifying process and the development of a national, mandated benchmark by Standards Australia.

A national standard will not only allow customers to have greater confidence in the goods they buy, it will be a win for organically certified businesses who will have a clear picture of what is required of them to comply with the standards.

At present, a handful of different bodies are responsible for certifying organic goods for export but there is a lack of standardisation for goods intended for sale within Australia.

Businesses found to be selling their goods as organic when they are not can potentially be in breach of the Trade Practices Act. However, defining what is and is not legitimately organic can be difficult without a national standard. Having that national standard may make it easier for bodies such as the ACCC to prosecute rogues, thereby protecting other legitimate organic businesses. Further, a national standard will provide legitimate businesses with an objective basis to market and differentiate themselves and to foster consumer confidence.

More information about gaining organic certification for a business and a list of certifiers is available from the Organic Federation of Australia at www.ofa.org.au. The ACCC has also recently produced a food labelling guideline to help businesses understand the correct way to describe particular qualities of food, such as organic, so as not to mislead customers and potentially breach the law. It is available for download at www.accc.gov.au or from the small business helpline on 1300 302 021.

* Graeme Samuel is chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

ENDS

By Paul Stokes
The Daily Telegraph (UK)
22/06/2007

WOMEN who use make-up on a daily basis are absorbing 2kg of chemicals a year into their bodies, it has been claimed.

Many use more than 20 different beauty products a day striving to look their best while nine out of 10 apply make-up which is past its use-by date.

Dependence on cosmetics and toiletries means that a cocktail of 2kg of chemicals a year is absorbed into the body through the skin.

Some synthetic compounds involved have been linked to side effects ranging from skin irritation to premature ageing and cancer.

Richard Bence, a biochemist who has spent three years researching conventional products, said: "We really need to start questioning the products we are putting on our skin and not just assume that the chemicals in them are safe.

"We have no idea what these chemicals do when they are mixed together, the effect could be much greater than the sum of the individual parts."

Mr Bence, an advocate of organic beauty products, believes that absorbing chemicals through the skin is more dangerous than swallowing them.

"If lipstick gets into your mouth it is broken down by the enzymes in saliva and in the stomach. But chemicals get straight into your bloodstream, there is no protection," he said.

Warnings over using out-of-date lipstick and mascara have also been issued by the Royal College of Optometrists which believes such items are a "hothouse" for harmful bacteria.

Clio Turton, of the Soil Association, said: "Many women are using over 20 different products a day, bombarding themselves with hundreds of different chemicals. They should be asking themselves 'is that eyelash conditioner really essential?' "

Among chemicals under scrutiny are parabens (para-hydroxybenzoic acids) which are preservatives used in products including soap, shampoo, deodorant and baby lotion. Traces of parabens have been found in breast tumour samples, although its link to the development of the cancer is disputed.

Sodium lauryl sulphate, used to help create lather in soaps, shampoo, shaving foam, toothpaste and bubble bath, can cause skin irritation.

The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association said there was no reason for worry because the products were covered by European Union rules requiring them to be safe.

A spokesman said: "The cocktail effect is an urban myth. We do know how different chemicals react individually and can predict how they interact with each other and this is taken into account when the safety of products is assessed."

ENDS

Associated Press
7/5/2007

ROME: Researchers yesterday told a United Nations conference that a large-scale shift to organic agriculture could help fight world hunger and improve the environment.

Crop yields initially can drop as much as 50 per cent when industrialised, conventional agriculture using chemical fertilisers and pesticides is converted to organic.

Researchers in Denmark found there would be no serious negative affect on food security for sub-Saharan Africa if 50 per cent of agricultural land in the food-exporting regions of Europe and North America were converted to organic by 2020.

Total food production would drop, but by much less than previously assumed, and the resultant rise in world food prices could be mitigated by improvements in the land and other benefits, the study found.

A similar conversion to organic farming in sub-Saharan Africa could help its hungry by reducing their need to import food, Niels Halberg, a senior scientist at the Danish Research Centre for Organic Food and Farming, said.

Farmers who go back to traditional agricultural methods would not have to spend money on expensive chemicals and would grow more diverse crops that are more sustainable.
And if crops are certified organic, farmers could export surpluses, earning cash from organic food's premium prices.

ENDS

By Blair Speedy
The Australian
8/3/2007

AFTER years of infighting between different schools of organic farming, surging demand for chemical-free produce has prompted the creation of a national standard to regulate the industry.

Standards Australia is developing a national standard for organic and biodynamic produce, which have been entirely unregulated.

As a de facto domestic standard, the industry has been using the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service's export standards for organic produce, under which AQIS accredits independent bodies to operate organic certification schemes.

Farmers can then apply to these organisations for organic certification, which allows them to sell their produce as "certified organic''.

However, each of the certification schemes has slightly different methods of assessing producer's organic credentials, leading to confusion about what can rightly be labelled organic.

Standards Australia has canvassed more than 30 stakeholder organisations in the organic sector and is now working on a definitive national benchmark for organic food production.

This can be used as a reliable legal benchmark for prosecution of those attempting to pass off conventionally-grown food as organic produce.

There's a lot at stake -- while some may question whether organic food is more nutritious or better-tasting than conventionally-grown produce, there is no doubt that it is more expensive.

Andre Leu, chairman of the Organic Federation of Australia, says the demand is growing much faster than supply.

"It's a rapidly-growing market which is consumer-driven. We've got gaps in supply such that Australia is now a net importer of organic products,'' he said.

With all this demand and the lure of premium selling prices, it is unsurprising that producers may be tempted to pass their conventionally-farmed produce as organic.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission brought legal action in 2005 against egg farmer GO Drew Pty Ltd over claims the company had included some non-organic eggs among those packaged as organically produced.

More bizarrely, a number of companies have recently sold "organic'' water -- a spurious claim given that only mechanical and chemical processes are involved in its production, and one that is believed to have drawn the attention of Consumer Affairs in Victoria's Department of Justice.

Mr Leu said while organic fraud is not widespread, it was important to nip it in the bud while the industry was still growing, and a national standard would allow for more rigorous policing of the industry than is currently possible with multiple accreditation systems and no regulation.

"Most of the major retailers and wholesalers won't touch something unless it is certified. As long as people are buying certified products there isn't really any problem with fraud.

"But the industry is worth $500 million a year, and you need a good regulatory system to ensure the integrity of the products.''

ENDS

By Derek Parker
The Australian
24/6/2004

THE image of organic farming was once associated with neo-Luddite hippies, but today little could be further from the truth. While there remains a degree of lifestyle preference amongst organic farmers, the sector is worth hundreds of millions of dollars – large enough to require its own system of regulation and accreditation.

"Yes, it's a niche market,'' says Andrew Monk, chief executive of the organic farmer industry association Biological Farmers of Australia, based in Brisbane. "But it's a pretty big niche, and it's getting bigger. The science that underpins it is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and is having a profound influence on traditional farming methods.''

Organic farming is usually defined as agriculture that does not use artificial chemicals, such as manufactured pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers, although the definition has expanded, since its introduction in the 1960s, to prohibit irradiation, hormone-based growth enhancers, and genetically-modified organisms. This is not to say that no fertilisers can be used; but organic farming draws a distinction between acceptable rock phosphate and superphosphate (which uses sulphuric acid in its production to assist solubility).

There are differing figures about the size of the sector, but Monk estimates the annual dollar value at between $250 million and $300 million, in retail terms. A significant portion of this, approximately 10 per cent of organic produce, is exported, mainly to Europe and Japan.

"Demand for organic produce has grown steadily, as people have become more conscious of health issues,'' says Monk. "In the overseas picture, there has been a string of food safety scares, such as Mad Cow disease. Consumers have shown that they are willing to pay a premium for produce that they know they can trust, and that has brought more producers into the market, which in turn has expanded the amount and range of organic produce.''

The issue of trust is central to organic farming, and has brought a complex system of regulation into being. Bodies such as Australian Certified Organic, a subsidiary of Biological Farmers of Australia, are authorised by the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service to certify produce, and organisations in the production chain, as organic.

There are about 2000 organisations in the certification system. There are three levels of certification: Level A is for "certified organic'', Level B is for farms converting to organic (farmers must have used organic methods for at least three years before moving to Level A), and then there is pre-certification farms (less than 12 months using organic methods). While most of the organisations in the certification system are farms, the system extends to providers of inputs (such as fertiliser) as well as sellers of organic produce, and even restaurants.

The basis for certification is the National Standard for Organic and Bio-Dynamic Produce, a set of rules developed by government and the organic produce industry. Certifying authorities check compliance through unannounced inspections, audits and random checks of produce. Complying produce can display a logo that certifies it as organic.

The high price of organic produce, compared with produce from traditional farms, relates mainly to the greater labour required, especially because weeds must be removed using manual methods rather than artificial herbicides. But there are other factors that add costs. Organic wheat, for example, must be stored under chilled conditions, rather than being treated with pesticides and stored in the open. Cows on organic farms take longer to reach maturity than those raised using growth-enhancing hormones.

Despite its greater production costs, Monk identifies organically-produced beef as a growth area, especially for the export markets of Europe and Japan. Demand for organic vegetables and dairy products is also rising steadily, and organic wine and oilseeds are finding markets.

"Organic farmers and traditional producers are sometimes thought to be adversaries, but in my experience that is not the case,'' Monk says. "Many conventional farmers see that the market is changing and want to be able to take advantage of it. Also, there is a broad move towards sustainable agriculture, pushed along by government agencies and ongoing research.''

ENDS