Tuesday, August 03, 2004


what's in those cans, cont'd.

this topic proves more consuming than expected. please follow the correspondence below:

"dear ted:

naturally your manifesto "what's in those cans?" wasn't on my website 5 mins. before an scaa pro member sent an email over my transom asking, if scaa is so into pure, why did they sign onto the recent i.c.o. compromise?

i replied "something's better than nothing in the ugly world of sausage-making." but i'm not happy with this answer. please advise.

happy coffee, pure & good,

f"

the wonderful thing about scaa chief ted lingle is that he answers direct questions directly:

"Dear Fortune:

The U.S. State Department declared that ICO Resolution 407 was an "illegal restraint of trade," and therefore the U.S. could not rejoin the ICO as along as it was "on the books." The ICO, by vote of their members (not SCAA) modified Resolution 407 to Resolution 420, clearly making the program "voluntary," which it already was to everyone except the U.S. State Department. Tactically, I think the ICO made the right choice, particularly with it's very survival at stake.

Did SCAA's pro member respond to the basic question: with international purity standards established on a "voluntary basis," shouldn't consumers be asking, "what's in those cans?"

Best consumer choice: "buy beans so you can judge the quality (impurity) level yourself!" SCAA and its members are not in the "sausage business."

Thanks,

Ted"

this is gold, gold, gold. i immediately asked:

"dear ted:

can i blog this too please?

'every day is ted lingle day on the internet!' (grin)

happy coffee,

f"

and the final response:

"Dear Fortune:

Please do. Do you also think your readers would respond to a poll question, "Do consumers have a right to know what's in those cans?"

Thanks,

Ted"

well, the only way to find out is to find out. herewith, ted's requested poll.

results will be forwarded to nca big-guy robert nelson.

posted by fortune | 12:12 PM | top | link to this | email this: | | | 0 comments