Sqwertz > wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:13:24 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

>> Investigative reporting revealed the alleged problems in January, 2005.
>> Big retailers such as those named in the litigation have the
>> ability to follow up and investigate on their own, when reports
>> such as these surface. So, I would say if they were still selling
>> the product as organic as of mid-2005, then assuming the allegations
>> hold, they are party to the liability.

>I don't see anything in particular about the unofficial 2005
>investigation in there.

People concerned about organic milk have been looking at
Aurora for awhile. Same with Horizon, but there it's more
fuzzy -- they have lots of sources, some good, some with
problems along the lines of Aurora.

>"Aurora agreed to change some of its practices in a settlement
>with the USDA this summer, and it has reduced the number of cows
>at its Platteville, Colo., facility from 4,000 to about 975, said
>company spokeswoman Sonja Tuitele. But it was allowed to keep its
>organic certification and was put on probation for a year."

>While I did miss the fact that these retailers were co-branding
>the milk, I still don't think it's up to them to investigate the
>supplier after the USDA allowed them to keep their certs.

Certainly the USDA approval constitutes an argument in
favor of that defense.

Steve