May, 18 2009, 12:22pm EDT
New Report: Many Organic Soy Food Brands Importing Beans from China
We no longer trust these imports to feed our pets They have no place in organics
CORNUCOPIA, Wisconsin
Tremendous
growth in the organic soy foods industry has occurred over the last two decades
as consumers seek healthy dietary alternative sources of protein. Many
companies touting their "natural" or "organic" soy brands
have found favor in the supermarket. A new report, released this week by
The Cornucopia Institute, lifts the veil on some of these companies, exposing
widespread importation of soybeans from China and the use of toxic chemicals to
process soy foods labeled as "natural."
The
report, Beyond the Bean: The Heroes and Charlatans of the Natural and
Organic Soy Foods Industry, and an accompanying ratings scorecard of
organic brands, separates industry heroes--who have gone out of their way
to connect with domestic farmers--from agribusinesses that are exploiting
the trust of consumers.
Part of
the meteoric rise in organic food sales has been built on the expectation from
consumers that organic foods support a more environmentally sound form of
agriculture and one that financially rewards family farmers through their
patronage. "Importing Chinese soybeans or contributing to the loss
of rain forests by shipping in commodities from Brazil just flat-out
contradicts the working definition of organic agriculture," said Mark
Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at The Cornucopia Institute.
Through
a nationwide survey of the industry, onsite farm, and processor visits, plus
reviews of import data, Cornucopia assembled a rating system aimed at
empowering consumers and wholesale buyers with the knowledge necessary to
support brands that respect the fundamental tenets of organics.
"The
good news in this report is that consumers can easily find, normally without
paying any premium, organic soy foods that truly meet their expectations,"
said Charlotte Vallaeys, a researcher at Cornucopia and the primary author of
the report.
One
company that had an excellent opportunity to meet consumer expectations by
supporting the growth of organic acreage in North America was Dean Foods,
makers of the industry's leading soymilk, Silk. Instead, after
buying the Silk brand, Dean Foods quit purchasing most of their soybeans from
American family farmers and switched their primary sourcing to China.
This cost-cutting move helped them build their commanding soy milk market share
using soybeans of questionable organic certification from China.
"White
Wave (the operating division of Dean Foods that markets Silk and Horizon
organic milk) had the opportunity to push organic and sustainable agriculture
to incredible heights of production by working with North American farmers and
traders to get more land in organic production, but what they did was pit cheap
foreign soybeans against the U.S. organic farmer, taking away any attraction
for conventional farmers to make the move into sustainable agriculture,"
said Merle Kramer, a marketer for the Midwestern Organic Farmers Cooperative.
And now
Dean, the $11 billion agribusiness behemoth and the nation's largest dairy
concern, has quietly abandoned organic soybeans in most of the Silk product
line, switching to even cheaper conventional soybeans without changing UPC
codes for retailers or lowering pricing to consumers.
After
reports from cooperative and independent natural foods retailers around the
country Cornucopia visited a Whole Foods store in downtown Milwaukee, Wisconsin
and found only one of 25 Silk soymilk products was organic. "This is
a radical departure by a brand that was widely viewed as an organic market
pioneer," lamented Kastel.
Cornucopia's
Vallaeys warned: "Health conscious shoppers should no longer
associate Silk with organic, and should seek the green USDA Certified
Organic seal when purchasing soy products."
"As
a vegetarian, for health and ethical reasons, I am appalled that some large
corporations are profiteering on my trust in their brand," said Joan
Levin, a Chicago consumer who says she is fiercely committed to organics.
Meanwhile,
highly committed companies like Eden Foods, one of the country's largest
organic soy foods producers, Small Planet Tofu, and Vermont Soy work directly
with North American organic farmers.
"Small Planet Tofu has bought
organic soybeans from me and other farmers I work with for the past 17
years," said Phil Lewis, an organic farmer in Kansas. "This
relationship is priceless, because I know that I can count on them even if I
have a bad year with droughts or floods," Lewis added.
"The
top-rated companies that nurture relationships with American organic farmers
should be rewarded in the marketplace. We hope that organic consumers
will use Cornucopia's soy scorecard when deciding which organic soy foods
to buy," said Kastel.
Some soy
food makers that did not participate in the scorecard study may have been
hesitant to share their sourcing information because they also buy organic
soybeans from China. "Their reluctance to disclose their sourcing
information makes sense, given the USDA's weak oversight of certifying
agents working in China," noted Kastel.
The USDA waited five years before sending auditors to China
to examine the practices of that country's certifying agents. And
even when in China, the USDA's auditors visited only two farms in the
entire country. On these two farms, they found multiple noncompliances with U.S. organic standards. USDA
auditors also discovered that Chinese-based organic certifying agents did not
always provide a translated copy of the U.S. standards to clients who apply for
organic certification.
The Chinese findings support concerns that American farmers
have raised for years, which is that organic imports from China may not always
be held to the same strict standards as American crops. They also raise
serious questions about whether Chinese farmers are adequately informed about
the USDA organic standards and requirements.
"If
the reputation of organic food is impugned through illegal and fraudulent
activities in China, and an incompetent level of oversight by the USDA, it will
be the domestic farmers and entrepreneurs that built this industry who will be
harmed," added Kastel.
Hexane:
The Dirty Little Secret of the Natural Soy Foods Industry
Behind
the Bean also
exposes the natural soy industry's "dirty little
secret": its widespread use of the chemical solvent hexane.
Hexane is used to process nearly all conventional soy protein ingredients and
edible oils and is prohibited when processing organic foods.
Soybeans
are bathed in hexane by food processors seeking to separate soy oil from the
protein and fiber of the beans. It is a cost-effective and highly
efficient method for concentrating high-protein isolates. But hexane is
also a neurotoxic chemical that poses serious occupational hazards to workers,
is an environmental air pollutant, and can contaminate food.
Residue
tests reveal that small amounts of hexane can and do appear in ingredients
processed with the toxic chemical. The government does not require that
companies test for hexane residues before selling foods to consumers, including
soy-based infant formula.
"Consumers
who are concerned with the purity and healthfulness of their food should
continue to seek out organic alternatives as part of their diet and support the
many high-integrity brands outlined in our study," Vallaeys stated.
The full
Cornucopia Institute report, or an executive summary, including the scorecard
of organic soy brands, can be found at www.cornucopia.org
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
Israeli Raid on UNRWA Compound Slammed as 'Dangerous Precedent'
"This latest action represents a blatant disregard of Israel’s obligation as a United Nations member state to protect and respect the inviolability of UN premises," said UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini.
Dec 08, 2025
United Nations officials and others strongly condemned Monday's raid by Israeli authorities on a facility run by the UN's office for Palestinian refugees in occupied East Jerusalem—an act one rights group decried as part of an ongoing effort "to undermine and ultimately eliminate" the lifesaving agency.
Israeli police and other officials forcibly entered the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) compound early Monday, pulling down a UN flag on the facility's roof and replacing it with an Israeli one. Israeli officials said the raid was ordered over unpaid taxes.
"They call it 'debt collection'—we call it erasure," Claudia Webbe, a socialist former member of British Parliament, said on social media. "Over 70,000 dead in Gaza, they now seek to kill the memory of the living. The occupation must end."
Police vehicles including motorcycles, trucks, and forklifts entered the compound, while communications were cut and furniture, computer equipment, and other property were seized from the facility, according to UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini.
"This latest action represents a blatant disregard of Israel’s obligation as a United Nations member state to protect and respect the inviolability of UN premises," Lazzarini said in a statement.
"To allow this represents a new challenge to international law, one that creates a dangerous precedent anywhere else the UN is present across the world," he added.
Secretary-General António Guterres was among the other senior UN officials who condemned Monday's raid.
“This compound remains United Nations premises and is inviolable and immune from any other form of interference,” he said.
“I urge Israel to immediately take all necessary steps to restore, preserve, and uphold the inviolability of UNRWA premises and to refrain from taking any further action with regard to UNRWA premises, in line with its obligations under the charter of the United Nations and its other obligations under international law," Guterres added.
In late 2024, Israeli lawmakers approved a ban on UNRWA in Israel over disproven allegations that some of its staffers were Hamas members who took part in the October 7, 2023 attack. Those accusations led to numerous nations suspending financial support for UNRWA, although most of the countries have since restored funding. Israel has also sought to ban UNRWA from Gaza since early 2024.
Israeli forces have killed more than 370 UNRWA staff members since October 2023 and destroyed or damaged over 300 of the agency's facilities in Gaza. Lazzarini and others have also accused Israeli forces of torturing UNRWA staffers in a bid to force false confessions of Hamas involvement.
In October, the International Court of Justice—which is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel—found that UNRWA has not been infiltrated by Hamas as claimed by Israeli leaders.
Others also condemned Monday's raid, including Human Rights Watch (HRW), which called the action part of an effort "to undermine and ultimately eliminate a United Nations agency providing vital services to millions of Palestinian refugees."
"Governments should condemn Israel's unlawful moves against UNRWA and urgently act to stop further abuses," HRW added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Tracks Trump 'War on Free Speech' and Urges Systemic Resistance
“Trump’s censorship playbook," said the report's author, "is to lie, distort reality for the public, and deploy a cadre of henchmen to carry out Trump’s threats of reprisal.”
Dec 08, 2025
The US advocacy group Free Press on Monday released a report examining how President Donald Trump and "his political enablers have worked to undermine and chill the most basic freedoms protected under the First Amendment" since the Republican returned to the Oval Office in January, and called on all Americans to fight back.
For Chokehold: Donald Trump's War on Free Speech & the Need for Systemic Resistance, Free Press analysed "more than 500 reports of verbal threats, executive orders, presidential memoranda, statements from the White House, actions by regulators and agencies, military and law enforcement deployment and activities, litigation, removal of website language on .gov websites, removal of official history and information at national parks and museums, and discontinued data collection by the federal government."
"While the US government has made efforts throughout this nation's history to censor people's expression and association—be it the exercise of freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress—the Trump administration's incessant attacks on even the most tentatively oppositional speech are uniquely aggressive, pervasive, and escalating," the report states.
The five recurring attack methods that Free Press identified are: making threats of retribution against would-be opponents; emboldening regulators to exact penalties; supercharging the militarized police state; leveraging heavyweight corporate capitulation; and ignoring facts, removing information, rewriting history, and lying on the record.
"Trump's censorship playbook is responsible for the administration's central retaliatory ethos and inspires a set of strategies that loyal actors in government use to silence dissent and chill free expression," said the report's author, Free Press senior counsel Nora Benavidez, in a statement. "This playbook is to lie, distort reality for the public, and deploy a cadre of henchmen to carry out Trump’s threats of reprisal."
Big new report out today @freepress.bsky.social chronicling the Trump regime's war on free speech and free expression. Heroic and harrowing work by @attorneynora.bsky.social and the team. Seeing all of the attacks together is astounding.
[image or embed]
— Craig Aaron (@notaaroncraig.bsky.social) December 8, 2025 at 11:12 AM
Free Press compiled a timeline of "nearly 200 of the most potent examples," including Trump's blanket pardon for the January 6, 2021, insurrectionists shortly after beginning his second term, the White House taking control of the presidential press pool in February, the president's alarming speech to the US Department of Justice in March, and the administration blocking the Associated Press from the Oval Office in April over its refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.
In May, Trump, among other things, signed an executive order to defund National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service. In June, he deployed the National Guard in Los Angeles. In July, he sued Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal for $10 billion over reporting on the president's ties to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In August, he deployed the National Guard in Washington, DC.
In September, under pressure from Brendan Carr, Trump's Federal Communications Commission chair, ABC temporarily suspended late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. In October, the Pentagon's new press policy—which journalists across the political spectrum refused to sign—took effect (the New York Times, which faces a defamation lawsuit from Trump, sued over it last week). In November, Trump threatened to sue to BBC over its documentary about January 6, 2021.
The administration has also targeted foreign scholars and journalists for criticizing US policy, from federal support for Israel's genocidal assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to the president's pursuit of mass deportations. The report stresses that "no one is safe from attack in Trump’s quest to control the message, though the administration targets the press most of all."
Today Free Press released a report examining the Trump's efforts to weaken the First Amendment.Analyzing nearly 200 attacks on free speech, it's sobering. But the report also charts a path to resist the censorship campaign w/ collective action. Our statement: www.freepress.net/news/report-...
[image or embed]
— Free Press (@freepress.bsky.social) December 8, 2025 at 2:45 PM
The publication also pushes back against "Trump's claims that he's protecting people and defending free speech," and acknowledges that "the administration's censorial tactics are amassing tremendous resistance across political and geographic lines, with a majority of people worried about the government's attacks on free speech."
Benavidez emphasized that "if only one person speaks out against injustice, their speech is notable, but it is also more vulnerable to attack and subversion under this administration."
"If more people speak out against injustice, the collective drumbeat can more easily withstand government reprisals," she continued. "Democracies erode little by little; would-be dictators need to scare only some of us, and the rest will follow. The very reason we must speak out together is so we can leverage our collective power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Envoy Ripped for Claim That 'Benevolent Monarchy' Is Best for Middle East
"The US labels dictators and monarchies benevolent when their behavior is aligned with US interest and when their behavior isn’t aligned with US interest they are despots," said one critic.
Dec 08, 2025
Tom Barrack, President Donald Trump's ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria, faced backlash Monday after arguing that US-backed Middle Eastern monarchies—most of which are ruled by prolific human rights violators—offer the best model for governing nations in the tumultuous region.
Speaking at the Doha Forum in Qatar on Sunday, Barrack, who is also a billionaire real estate investor, cautioned against trying to impose democratic governance on the Middle East, noting that efforts to do so—sometimes by war or other military action—have failed.
“Every time we intervene, whether it's in Libya, Iraq, or any of the other places where we've tried to create a colonized mandate, it has not been successful," he said. "We end up with paralysis."
"I don’t see a democracy," Barrack said of the Middle East. "Israel can claim to be a democracy, but in this region, whether you like it or not, what has worked best is, in fact, a benevolent monarchy."
Addressing Syria's yearlong transition from longtime authoritarian rule under the Assad dynasty, Barrack added that the Syrian people must determine their political path "without going in with Western expectations of, 'We want a democracy in 12 months.'"
While Barrack's rejection of efforts to force democracy upon Middle Eastern countries drew praise, some Israelis bristled at what they claimed is the suggestion that their country is not a democracy, while other observers pushed back on the envoy's assertion regarding regional monarchies and use of what one Palestinian digital media platform called "classic colonial rhetoric."
"The reality on the ground is the opposite of his claim: It is the absence of democratic rights, accountable governance, and inclusive federal structures that has fueled Syria’s fragmentation, empowered militias, and pushed communities toward separatism," Syrian Kurdish journalist Ronahi Hasan said on social media.
Ronahi continued:
When an American official undermines the universal principles the US itself claims to defend, it sends a dangerous message: that Syrians do not deserve the same political rights as others and that minority communities should simply accept centralized authoritarianism as their fate.
Syria doesn’t need another foreign lecture romanticizing monarchy. It needs a political system that protects all its people—Druze, Alawite, Kurdish, Sunni, Christian—through genuine power-sharing, decentralization, and guarantees of equality.
"Federalism is not the problem," Ronahi added. "The problem is denying Syrians the right to shape their own future."
Abdirizak Mohamed, a lawmaker and former foreign minister in Somalia, said on social media: "Tom Barrack made public what is already known. The US labels dictators and monarchies benevolent when their behavior is aligned with US interest, and when their behavior isn’t aligned with US interest they are despots. Labeling dictators benevolent is [an] oxymoron that shows US hypocrisy."
For nearly a century, the US has supported Middle Eastern monarchies as successive administrations sought to gain and maintain control over the region's vast oil resources. This has often meant propping up monarchs in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran (before 1979), the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Qatar—regardless of their often horrific human rights records.
While nothing new in terms of US policy and practice in the region, the Trump administration's recently published National Security Strategy prioritizes "flexible realism" over human rights and democracy and uses more candid language than past presidents have in explaining Washington's support for repressive monarchs.
"The [US] State Department will likely need to clarify whether Barrack’s comments represent official policy or personal opinion," argued an editorial in Middle East 24. "Regardless, his words have exposed an uncomfortable truth about US foreign policy in the Middle East: the persistent gap between democratic ideals and strategic realities."
"Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this episode is what it reveals about American confidence in its own values," the editorial added. "If US diplomats no longer believe democracy can work in challenging environments, what does this say about America’s faith in the universal appeal of its founding principles?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


