March, 21 2011, 12:54pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Mark Kastel, 608-625-2042
Charlotte Vallaeys, 978-369-6409
Industry Watchdog "Dumbfounded" by USDA's Failure to Enforce Organic Law
USDA Continues Bush-era Policy of Allowing Unapproved Synthetic Additives
CORNUCOPIA, Wis.
The Cornucopia Institute, one of the nation's leading organic industry watchdogs, condemned the position of the United States Department of Agriculture that it will allow products containing unapproved synthetic additives to be labeled "organic" for an indefinite grace period.
The Cornucopia Institute had filed legal complaints against infant formula manufacturers and Dean Foods, manufacturer of Horizon dairy products, for adding unapproved additives: Martek Biosciences Corporation's omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids (DHA/ARA), derived chemically from fermented algae and fungus, to foods with the organic label.
The Cornucopia Institute maintains, and the USDA reiterated in a compliance letter issued March 16, that these additives are illegal in organics. But the USDA also stated it would not take enforcement action at this time. The USDA's compliance letter suggested that it would allow companies to continue adding the additives to organic foods during a phase-out period of unspecified length, despite its clear statement, in the same letter, that the additives were being used in organics due to an "incorrect" interpretation of the federal standards.
"Essentially, the USDA admitted once again in its letter that the DHA additives should never have been allowed in organics, and then goes on to state that they have chosen not to take enforcement action at this time," said Charlotte Vallaeys, Farm and Food Policy Analyst with The Cornucopia Institute.
The Wisconsin-based Institute stated that it is meeting with its legal team to determine its next course of action in its efforts to ensure that foods bearing the "USDA Organic" label are produced in accordance with the federal organic standards.
"We hope the current NOP management moves quickly to implement their position, that adding unapproved additives to infant formula constitutes a violation of the organic standards," said attorney Gary Cox who has long represented The Cornucopia Institute in its oversight of the USDA.
Cornucopia states that it is likely to file a lawsuit against the USDA for its failure to carry out its congressionally-mandated duties in protecting the purity and safety of organic food.
"Federal law clearly states that synthetic additives must be approved by the USDA, through a formal petition process, assuring their safety before they can legally be added to foods with the organic label," stated Vallaeys. "Martek's Crypthecodinium cohnii and Schizochytrium oils (sources of DHA) and Mortierella alpina oil (a source of ARA) have never been approved, and the USDA has once again caved to industry lobbyists."
The Cornucopia Institute is concerned with the USDA's failure to enforce the organic standards regarding unapproved accessory nutrients, because the synthetic additives have been linked to many serious reported gastrointestinal problems in infants and young children.
Megan Golden of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, watched her newborn son suffer from serious vomiting and gastrointestinal illness from the day he was born and given formula with DHA and ARA. At age 9 weeks, she switched to formula without these additives, and his symptoms disappeared. "By the next day, no lie, my son was a completely different infant. He was comfortable, was not as agitated, and the throwing up had stopped. His gas pains went away. His stools became normal. And he could finally relax enough to sleep. I am thankful for that," said Golden.
As of January 2009, more than a hundred similar adverse reaction reports have been filed with the Food and Drug Administration (a more recent open records request by The Cornucopia Institute is pending). Since few parents and healthcare professionals historically report the link between over-the-counter drugs or nutritional additives and adverse reactions to the FDA, scientists believe these reports constitute only the tip of the iceberg.
When USDA enforcement officials first became aware, in 2006, that infant formula manufacturers were adding unapproved additives to formula bearing the "USDA Organic" label, they recognized its illegality and sent an enforcement letter ordering them to take the unapproved additives out of organic infant formula.
Subsequently, discovered through a Freedom of Information Act request by The Cornucopia Institute, and reported in an investigative report by the Washington Post, corporate lobbyists convinced the former director of the USDA's National Organic Program, Dr. Barbara Robinson, to overrule her staff's decision, and allow companies to market products with Martek's unapproved algal-based and fungal-based additives.
The Cornucopia Institute has complained for years that this was an improper and illegal action by the agency. In 2010, the USDA, under the Obama administration, concurred with Cornucopia, stating in a public memorandum that this was an improper decision.
Unlike some essential nutrients (vitamins and minerals), unapproved additives like Martek's DHA and ARA are not required by the FDA in foods, but are popular with food manufacturers because they are useful in trying to create a competitive marketing advantage.
The Food and Drug Administration just announced that it will conduct a study to determine if marketing claims by infant formula manufacturers, such as claims that DHA and ARA "support brain and eye development," influence mothers' feeding decisions and discourage breast-feeding.
Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition at New York University and author of Food Politics, states about DHA and ARA in infant formula: "Competition for market share explains why formula companies want to put distinctive nutrients in their formulas-especially nutrients considered 'conditional.' Even if the health benefits are minimal or questionable, they can be used in advertising."
While they advertise these nutrients with questionable claims of benefits, companies do not share with consumers the process by which these nutrients are manufactured.
"Getting omega-3 fatty acids from natural sources like breast milk, or salmon, or flaxseed, and getting omega-3's from a synthetic additive in infant formula or milk are two completely different things," explains Vallaeys. "Companies like Martek don't like consumers to know that these additives are often chemically extracted, fermented in genetically engineered feedstock, treated with harsh chemicals, deodorized and bleached. There's a reason why so many consumers are turning to organic foods--to avoid these kinds of novel substances that masquerade as food," she adds.
Additives like DHA and ARA are not required by the FDA in foods, including infant formula, because scientific data fails to document benefits to human health or development. Dr. Katherine Kennedy of the University College of London's Institute of Child Health, along with several colleagues, wrote: "We contend this field of research has been driven to an extent by enthusiasm and vested interest."
The British scientific panel also stated, "Although the vast majority of infant formulas now contain long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids [manufactured by Martek], the scientific evidence base for their addition is recognized by most investigators and key opinion leaders in the field to be weak."
"After the USDA determined these materials were being illegally added to certified organic food, it's unconscionable that they would continue to drag their feet on enforcement even as more reports flow into the FDA on adverse health impacts," says Kastel.
Consumers exhibit marketplace loyalty in the organic label, because it represents a rigorous third-party certification system of strict federal standards that prohibit synthetic inputs unless they have gone through a rigorous approval process. Organic activists are concerned that if the USDA fails to rigorously enforce the standards, allowing big business to make up their own rules, that consumer confidence in the label will be eroded.
Industry observers speculate that the USDA has dragged its feet on forcing the removal of these unapproved additives in order to allow time for the powerful pharmaceutical companies manufacturing infant formula (Abbott Laboratories and PBM Nutritionals, the private-label manufacturer for Wal-Mart and Hain-Celestial's Earth's Best brand) and the nation's largest milk bottler (Dean Foods) to petition the National Organic Standards Board, the expert citizen's body created by Congress, to approve the Martek materials, after the fact.
"This is more than just a question of whether a particular additive is risky and inappropriate for inclusion in organics," Kastel lamented. "The question is whether or not organics will remain a trusted last refuge for families who don't want to experiment with the long-term health of their children."
MORE:
On March 14, the National Organic Standards Board released a controversial committee proposal that would allow any synthetic nutrient additive that comes on the market to be added freely to organic foods--without review.
Already, citizens are lining up to voice their disapproval of this industry-friendly committee decision, which will be debated and voted on by the full Board during its next meeting in Seattle, April 26-29.
"It's unfortunate that the committee, stacked during the Bush Administration with corporate representatives, has voted to open the door to just about any novel synthetic, chemically produced, additive to be added to organic foods--without the congressionally-mandated review," stated Kastel.
"While the split vote by the 7-person committee was in favor of potentially marketing gimmicky and risky synthetic additives, the organic community as a whole is going to fight like hell against this," Kastel stated. "There is no way that ethical organic companies, organic farmers, and organic consumers are going to allow a handful of pro-corporate board members to indiscriminately weaken the meaning of the organic label."
Cornucopia encourages consumers to submit written comments, to voice their opposition to the committee proposal allowing all synthetic "nutrient" additives in organic foods. An action alert with detailed information is available on Cornucopia's website, https://www.cornucopia.org/2011/03/keep-questionable-synthetic-additives-out-of-organics/
A brief summary of the overwhelming scientific literature questioning the efficacy of Martek's nutritional oils, and questioning their safety, can be found at: https://www.cornucopia.org/dha-safety-concerns/
Since the USDA is failing its mandate to ensure that all products bearing the "USDA Organic" seal are in fact complying with the federal standards that prohibit unapproved additives, the Cornucopia Institute has developed a list of products containing Martek's unapproved additives. The list is available on the Cornucopia website (viewable at https://www.cornucopia.org/DHA/MartekDHA_list.pdf), and will be updated on an ongoing basis. The products are also listed below:
For children and adults
Wegman's Organic Yogurt (Fruit on the Bottom Super Yogurt)
Horizon Organic Milk
Stremicks Heritage Foods Organic Milk
ZenSoy Soy on the Go
Baby Food (select products contain Martek's DHA)
Happy Bellies
Plum Organics
Tasty Baby Organic Infant Cereal
Infant Formula (all organic infant formula products contain Martek's DHA, with the exception of Baby's Only Organic Toddler Formula)
Bright Beginnings Organic
Earth's Best Organic
Parent's Choice Organic
Similac Organic
Vermont Organics
The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit farm policy research group, is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Their Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate and governmental watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit.
LATEST NEWS
US College Students Demonstrate in Solidarity With Palestinians, Columbia Protesters
"Columbia University made a huge mistake calling the cops on student protesters," said one educator. "It has transformed the activism of hundreds of students into a student movement of thousands."
Apr 19, 2024
Undeterred by Columbia University's sanctioning of a crackdown by the New York Police Department in which at least 108 people were arrested on Thursday for protesting Israel's war on Gaza, dozens of students continued to camp out on the campus' West Lawn Friday as solidarity protests cropped up at other schools across the country.
Students at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (UNC) set up tents at a rally, while the Harvard College Palestine Solidarity Committee announced a walkout to express solidarity with "steadfast Columbia students" and emergency protests were announced at Boston University; Miami University in Oxford, Ohio; and Ohio State University.
"Columbia University made a huge mistake calling the cops on student protesters," said Jairo I. Fúnez-Flores, a faculty member at Texas Tech University. "It has transformed the activism of hundreds of students into a student movement of thousands with millions around the world watching."
National Students for Justice in Palestine, whose Columbia University chapter was shut down late last year after members protested against the institution's investments in Israeli companies and partnership with Tel Aviv University, called on all of its chapters across college campuses to join in solidarity actions.
"The supposed power of these administrators pales in comparison to the combined strength of the students, staff, and faculty committed to realizing justice and upholding Palestinian liberation on campus," said the national group.
At the impromptu rally at UNC, students chanted, "No justice, no peace!"
The solidarity actions came a day after Columbia president Minouche Shafik authorized the police to dismantle an encampment set up by dozens of students. Shafik testified before a Republican-controlled U.S. House committee on Wednesday where the focus was antisemitism on the school's campus, and admitted she has not witnessed anti-Jewish protests at Columbia since Israel began its assault on Gaza last October.
After the students were arrested Thursday, one student Barnard College—which is part of Columbia—posted on social media an email she had received from vice president and dean Leslie Grinage about the suspension of several students.
The students were forced to leave their housing and have had their access to all campus facilities revoked during the suspension.
Several members of the press reported being denied entry to Columbia's campus on Thursday and Friday, prompting the university's journalism school to offer its assistance and reiterate its support for a free press.
Barnaby Raine, an historian earning his Ph.D. at Columbia, urged fellow educators at the Ivy League school to demonstrate solidarity with the student-led protests.
"As my employer, Columbia University, calls armed riot police into campus to smash a peaceful protest against a genocide, we must all speak out," said Raine. "My former students have been arrested. I'm proud of you. History will be too."
Actor, activist, and former New York gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon, who graduated from Barnard, condemned the administrators' response to the protests.
"I am shocked and ashamed that [Barnard] and Columbia are violently crushing the right of students to peacefully protest," said Nixon. "This is not who we are. Both schools must immediately reinstate these students and protect their right to fight for a free Palestine."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Indigenous Brazilians Lament Lula's Unfulfilled Land Demarcation Promises
"This is revolting for us Indigenous peoples to have had so much faith in the government's commitments to our rights and the demarcation of our territories," said one Indigenous leader.
Apr 19, 2024
Friday is Indigenous Peoples Day in Brazil, and tribal leaders and activists used the occasion to criticize the left-wing government of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for falling short on promises to safeguard native land rights.
On Thursday, the Brazilian government announced the demarcation of Aldeia Velha, land of the Pataxó people, in the northeastern state of Bahia, as well as the territory of the Karajá people in Cacique Fontoura, Mato Grosso.
"Since the beginning of the current government, 10 areas have been regularized out of a total of 14 routed for approval," the government said in a statement. "The act reaffirms the focus of the federal government on the protection and respect of Indigenous peoples."
However, Indigenous peoples were anticipating the demarcation of six new territories. Lula acknowledged their disappointment.
"I know you are apprehensive and expected the demarcation of six Indigenous lands. But now we only announce two. And I'm being real with you," he said.
"Some of this missing land is occupied either by farmers or peasants," the president explained. "We cannot arrive without giving these people an alternative. Some governors asked for time to resolve, in a negotiated manner, the eviction of these territories so that we can demarcate them."
"The definition of these lands is already ready. What we do not want is to promise you today, and tomorrow you read in the newspaper, that a contrary decision was made," Lula added. "The frustration would be greater."
But the frustration was already there—and growing.
"This is revolting for us Indigenous peoples to have had so much faith in the government's commitments to our rights and the demarcation of our territories," Alessandra Korap Munduruku, a member of the Munduruku people and a 2023 winner of the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize, told Amazon Watch in a statement published Friday.
"We hear all of these discussions about environmental and climate protection, but without support for Indigenous peoples on the front lines, suffering serious attacks and threats. Lula cannot speak about fighting climate change without fulfilling his duty to demarcate our lands," she added.
Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB), an umbrella group, said in a statement earlier this week that "the most serious thing is that the Lula government is tarnishing its historical trajectory."
"Since campaigning for his first term in 2002, the president has committed to demarcating Indigenous lands, but he was one of the governments that demarcated the least," the group contended. "And now, like other old and conservative governments, in the name of the country's progress and economic development, [Lula's government] undermines the basis of Indigenous peoples' existence, becoming hostage to the market, the powerbrokers, agribusiness, evangelicals, and the military."
APIB demanded that Lula "put an end to the criminal organizations that intimidate our people and communities, persecute and murder our leaders" and "dedicate farms for agrarian reform and demarcate our lands, which have been invaded and plundered for centuries by the invaders who arrived here 524 years ago and their current descendants."
Thousands of Indigenous peoples from throughout Brazil are expected to rally in the capital Brasília next week for the Terra Livre—or Free Land, camp—the country's largest annual native mobilization. Two years ago, Lula, then a presidential candidate, told Terra Livre attendees that he would end illegal mining on Indigenous lands. Despite a crackdown that resulted in an initial dramatic drop in illicit mineral extraction on Indigenous lands, illegal miners have returned with a vengeance in places including land belonging to the Yanomami people.
Criticism of Lula's demarcation process and the Brazilian government's Indigenous rights record came from outside Brazil as well.
"Human rights defenders are under extreme threat in Brazil. The federal government knows this but has so far failed to put the structures in place to provide them with better protection and tackle the root causes of the risks they face," Mary Lawlor, the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, in a Friday statement after an official visit to Brazil.
"Land is also the key to the protection of these defenders," she continued. "When I asked them what they thought would protect them they were clear: removal of invaders and demarcation now; accountability for environmental crimes. This for them is what collective protection, which is what is needed, means."
"There must be demarcation and titling," Lawlor added. "There can be no more delay."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Person Self-Immolates Outside Courthouse of Trump's NY Trial
An unverified online manifesto identifies the person as "an investigative researcher" who has discovered that "our own government (along with many of their allies) is about to hit us with an apocalyptic fascist world coup."
Apr 19, 2024
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
Law enforcement officials confirmed to CNN that someone lit themself on fire Friday outside the New York City courthouse where former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, is on trial for allegedly falsifying business records.
"The man walked into the park across the street from the courthouse, throwing flyers into the air," the network reported, citing law enforcement. "He then pulled something out of a backpack—it was not immediately clear what the item was—and lit himself on fire."
Journalists were in the area for the historic trial and CNN anchor Laura Coates was among those who described the scene live on-air as New York Police Department officers and emergency responders worked to extinguish the fire.
Police were "slow to respond in part because of barricades around park," Politico's Emily Ngo explained, sharing photos and videos from the scene on social media. There is "only one way to get into park outside the courthouse without jumping the fence. It's been barricaded in anticipation of protests. And since there hasn't been much in the way of protests, police presence is light. Police had to run all the way around to get to the man."
The person who self-immolated "was responsive when he was removed but he is very, very badly burned. Body charred," Ngo said.
CNN reported that the flyers featured allegations of wrongdoings against New York University and said, "NYU is a mob front."
A self-identified citizen journalist named Jack shared on social media a photo of a booklet the person reportedly left in the dirt.
An unverified Substack post says in part: "My name is Max Azzarello, and I am an investigative researcher who has set himself on fire outside of the Trump trial in Manhattan. This extreme act of protest is to draw attention to an urgent and important discovery: We are victims of a totalitarian con, and our own government (along with many of their allies) is about to hit us with an apocalyptic fascist world coup."
Inside Manhattan Criminal Court, the remaining jurors were sworn in for Trump's case, in which he faces 34 charges for records related to alleged hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. There are 12 jurors and six alternates.
The former president was indicted by a New York grand jury last spring. He also faces two federal criminal cases—one related to his handling of classified material and another for trying to overturn his 2020 loss, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection—as well as an election interference case in Georgia.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular