SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
cornucopia institute
Organics: Ferreting Out the Fraudulent Few, While Demanding Higher Standards, Better Enforcement
A recent series of articles by a Washington Post reporter could have some consumers questioning the value of the USDA organic seal. But are a few bad eggs representative of an entire industry?
Consumers are all for cracking down on the fraudulent few who, with the help of Big Food, big retail chains and questionable certifiers give organics a bad name. But they also want stronger standards, and better enforcement--not a plan to weaken standards to accommodate "Factory Farm Organic."
Jul 20, 2017
A recent series of articles by a Washington Post reporter could have some consumers questioning the value of the USDA organic seal. But are a few bad eggs representative of an entire industry?
Consumers are all for cracking down on the fraudulent few who, with the help of Big Food, big retail chains and questionable certifiers give organics a bad name. But they also want stronger standards, and better enforcement--not a plan to weaken standards to accommodate "Factory Farm Organic."
The Washington Post exposed a couple of companies, certified organic, that don't strictly adhere to organic standards. The Post and others also recently reported on what one lawmaker, who serves on a key U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) committee, called "uncertainty and dysfunction" at the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).
All these reports are troubling on multiple levels, especially to consumers who rely on the USDA organic seal to help them avoid pesticides, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), synthetic ingredients and foods produced using methods that degenerate soil health and pollute the environment. (It's important to note that none of these reports address the biggest marketing and labeling fraud of them all--products sold as "natural," "all natural" and "100% natural," a $90-billion industry that eclipses the $50-billion certified organic industry).
What can consumers do to ensure that the certified organic products they buy meet existing organic standards? And how do we, as consumers, fight back against efforts to weaken those standards?
The short answers: One, there are about 25,000 honest organic local and regional producers, vs. a handful of big brands, mostly national, who flout the rules. (Most "Factory Farm Organic" companies sell their products, and provide private-label products, for big retail chains like Costco, Walmart, Safeway, Albertson's, Kroger's and others).
Two, if consumers want stronger, not weaker organic standards, we need to demand them.
Bad actors hurt consumers and legitimate organic producers
Over the past several months, the Washington Post has reported the following:
- Eggland's Best eggs, marketed as certified organic by Herbruck's Poultry Ranch, come from hens that never go outside. (Even before the Post's expose, OCA had called for a boycott of Eggland's Best eggs).
- Aurora Organic Dairy, which supplies organic milk to Walmart, Costco and other major retailers, doesn't adhere to organic standards that require cows to be outdoors daily during the growing season. (OCA, Cornucopia Institute and other groups have been demanding better policing of Aurora Dairy for more than a decade).
- Some "organic" soy and corn imports aren't actually organic.
- Some "organic" foods contain a synthetic oil brewed in industrial vats of algae.
Stories like these erode consumer confidence in the organic seal. When consumers give up on organic, legitimate organic farmers and producers lose sales, too.
But that's only the part of the problem. By cutting corners on organic standards, big producers can sell at lower prices--that puts the smaller, local and regional organic producers who don't have big contracts with big retailers, and who must charge more because they actually follow organic standards to letter, at a competitive disadvantage in the market.
In some cases, it puts them out of business.
The Washington Post's Peter Whoriskey recently interviewed Amish organic dairy farmers who are struggling to compete against companies like Aurora, which the farmers say, don't deserve the organic label. The Post reported:
Over the past year, the price of wholesale organic milk sold by Kalona [Iowa] farms has dropped by more than 33 percent. Some of their milk -- as much as 15 percent of it -- is being sold at the same price as regular milk or just dumped onto the ground, according to a local processor. Organic milk from other small farmers across the United States is also being dumped at similar rates, according to industry figures.
After the Washington Post ran its April 30 expose on Aurora, Liz Bawden, an organic dairy farmer in New York and president of the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance and member of the Northeast Organic Farmers Association (NOFA-NY) board wrote:
A consumer reads "Why Your Organic Milk May Not Be Organic" on the front page of their newspaper. That might be the end consumer for the milk from my farm. And that person is sitting in front of a bowl of cornflakes wondering if she has been scammed all this time. Just a little doubt that the organic seal may not mean what she thought it meant. That is real damage to my farm and family income.
Boycott the organic imposters
Consumers choose organic for many reasons. At the top of the list health. Consumers believe food that doesn't contain pesticides, genetically modified organisms and synthetic/artificial ingredients, all of which are largely prohibited under USDA organic standards, is better for their own health.
That said, many consumers have an expanded list of reasons for buying organic, which include concern about the environment, animal welfare, fair trade and the desire to support local farms, and farmers committed to building healthy, rich soil capable of drawing down and sequestering carbon.
It's naturally discouraging to read articles that sow doubt about whether a certified organic product meets your expectations. Fortunately, there are things you can do to minimize the chances of ending up with an organic carton of milk or eggs produced by an "organic imposter."
- Boycott large, national brands. As demand grows for organics, Big Food is scooping up smaller organic brands. In most cases, nothing good comes this for consumers, as large corporations apply the "economies of scale" theory and ultimately skimp wherever they can on quality and production. As a general rule of thumb, the big players--like Aurora Dairy and Herbruck's Farm (Eggland's Best)--don't play by the rules.
- Steer clear of private-label organics. It's easy to identify the bad actors when they market products under their own names. But when it comes to private-label organics (think Safeway's O' Organic, Costco's Kirkland, Walmart's Great Value), it's not readily apparent who is producing those products for big retail chains. We know that Aurora, which doesn't market any milk under its own name, supplies organic milk to Walmart, Costco and Safeway. But in general, lack of transparency in the organic private label arena is a "huge problem," one industry consultant told us. Most big retailers are complicit in organic fraud. The best strategy is avoidance.
- Check the codes on your milk carton. In her response to the Post's story on Aurora, Bawden told consumers how to avoid milk produced by Aurora Dairy by checking the code on the carton. If you find the number 08-29, you'll know that the milk comes from a plant that processes milk from Aurora Dairy. You can look up all the milk carton codes on the "wheredoesmymilkcomefrom" website.
- Do your homework. It would be great if you could rely entirely on the USDA organic seal. But given what we know about the weak links in that otherwise valuable chain, it pays to research. Googling brand names is one way to find information--but don't rely on company websites, which are often loaded with false claims. Visit the Cornucopia Institute's website, where you'll find organic dairy, eggs and other products "scored" according to various criteria.
- Pay attention to who certified your milk or eggs as organic. In addition to the USDA organic seal, certified organic products must list, on package, the name of the independent body that certified the product to organic standards. There's an argument to be made that certifiers should be held accountable for certifying products that don't adhere to organic standards. Until that happens, avoid certifiers like Quality Assurance International (QAI) and the Colorado Department of Agriculture, which certify Aurora Dairy. Some of the more reliable certifiers include Oregon Tilth, PCO (Pennsylvania Certified Organic) and California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF). For a complete list of organic certifiers, consult this list.
- Buy local. There's a lot to be said for getting to know, and for supporting, your local organic farmers. They are more likely to follow organic standards, partly out of dedication, and partly to protect their own reputation within their communities. Here's some advice for identifying local authentic and ethical farmers.
- Report suspected fraud. If you think a brand is violating organic standards, or falsely advertising/labeling a product "natural," "all natural" or "100% natural," email us at fraud@organicconsumers.org.
Consumers will have to help protect organic standards
Organic Consumers Association was founded, in 1998, when the USDA was writing the very first set of organic standards, as required under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). The policy writers wanted irradiation to be allowed in organic. And sewage sludge. And GMOs. We fought successfully to keep them out.
Since then we've had to go to battle with every administration since over the integrity and enforcement of organic standards. The Clinton Administration tried to get GMOs into organic. The Bush Administration made it easier to get synthetics into organic. The Obama Administration made it harder to get synthetics out of organic.
It didn't help any that in 2005, Congress passed a law that made it a lot easier for the largest food companies to create "organic" versions of their factory farm and processed foods.
Now those companies are stepping up their game, threatening to make changes to the OFPA and NOSB that could weaken organic standards beyond recognition. Why now? Two reasons.
One, as consumer demand for organic products grows, Big Food is buying up organic brands. This gives them a seat at the organic policymaking table, where, naturally, they are hard at work to lower standards in order to raise profit margins.
And two, they smell opportunity. The Trump Administration has made its position on regulations clear: more industry involvement, more concern for corporate profits, and less concern for consumer rights, public health, the environment.
Congress needs to hear from consumers--often, and in large numbers--that we want stronger, not weaker organic standards. Standards that support small, authentic producers.
Putting it in perspective
Organic isn't perfect. The standards aren't perfect. The enforcement process isn't perfect. And some of the players are downright crooked.
That said, consumers can by and large trust all organic produce. And if they're willing to do a little homework, they can identify the producers in the organic processed food arena who abide by the rules.
To put things in perspective, compare the $50-billion organic industry with the $90-billion "natural" industry. No standards. No ethics. And the clear intention to increase sales by falsely claiming that products that contain all manner of "unnatural" substances, including pesticides, synthetic ingredients--even drugs --are the "healthy choice."
So let's keep policing the organic industry, exposing the fraud, working for stronger standards and better enforcement of those standards.
But let's be just as vigilant about exposing the "Myth of Natural," and cracking down on what is arguably the biggest food marketing scam in the history of advertising.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Stop Irrigating 'Organic' Food with Fracking Wastewater, New Petition Says
'Oil wastewater puts the entire organic system at risk. If you can’t be sure what’s in your organic fruits and vegetables, what food can you trust?'
Mar 22, 2016
Most U.S. consumers are unaware that so-called "organic" produce can be grown with fracking wastewater, much less that the practice is common in drought-stricken regions such as California. Two environmental groups, the Sierra Club and the Cornucopia Institute, today publicized a petition asking the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to ban toxic irrigation of organic food.
"Consumers buy organic produce to support sustainable agriculture that doesn't use toxic chemicals," said Alexander Rony, Sierra Club's senior digital innovation campaigner, in a press statement. "Oil wastewater puts the entire organic system at risk. If you can't be sure what's in your organic fruits and vegetables, what food can you trust?"
Federal regulations currently allow "produced water," a euphemism for wastewater produced by the fracking process, to irrigate organic crops.
The practice has grown more common in regions desperate for new sources of water.
Big Oil has seized on the drought currently underway in California, for example, as an opportunity to rid itself of the tens of millions of gallons of toxic fracking waste it produces annually in the state. Back in 2015, Bloomberg Business noted that "companies are looking to recycle their water or sell it to parched farms as the industry tries to get ahead of environmental lawsuits and new regulations."
Areas desperate for water are taking fracking corporations up on their offer, and farmers irrigating their crops with wastewater are still permitted to sell that produce under the USDA's organic label.
Current organic certification regulations ignore the fact that "recycled and treated oil or gas wastewater used for irrigation can be contaminated by a variety of toxic chemicals, including industrial solvents such as acetone and methylene chloride, and hydrocarbons (oil components)," wrote Cornucopia staff scientist Jerome Rigot.
Rigot explained:
Testing by Scott Smith, chief scientist for the advocacy group Water Defense, of the irrigation water provided by Chevron was shown to contain a multitude of contaminants, ranging from several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, toluene, xylenes and acetone, methylene chloride, several hydrocarbons, high concentration of sodium chloride (table salt), other halide salts (bromide, fluoride, chloride), heavy metals, and radioactive metals (2 radium isotopes). Many of these compounds are potential and known carcinogens.
Furthermore, "published research indicates that certain plants are very efficient in taking up chemical and pharmaceutical residues from the soil where they then can accumulate in the plant's tissue," the petition notes.
An orange "is 90 percent water," says Tom Frantz, a Californian orange farmer featured in a February episode of the documentary series Spotlight California, "and where did that water come from?"
Watch the episode of Spotlight California here:
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Egg Industry, Scrambling
Dec 30, 2015
Americans eat about 265 eggs per person per year, according to the American Egg Board, and roughly nine in 10 are laid by hens confined in cages with little room to move.
That's changing. McDonald's, Dunkin' Donuts, General Mills and Nestle all said this fall they are gradually switching to cage-free eggs in the US. Consumers are buying more cage-free and organic eggs. Laws in five states, including California, ban caged hens.
But what do terms like "cage-free" and "organic" really mean? Not what you might imagine. According to a new report from the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute, a nonprofit that promotes organic food policy and farming, eggs labeled "organic" or "cage-free" can be produced in industrial-sized barns by hens that rarely see the light of day. No wonder consumers are confused.
The challenge for large-scale egg producers is clear. Their corporate customers and regulators are demanding that they convert to more expensive, cage-free methods. Less than 9% of US hens (there are 277 million of them in all) are now raised without cages, according to United Egg Producers, a trade group. Rose Acre Farms and Rembrandt Foods, the US's second-and third-largest egg producers, are among those expanding their cage-free operations. "The change is humongous," Marcus Rust, CEO of Rose Acre, told the AP.
Smaller companies that supply cage-free and organic eggs face challenges, too. As the industry shifts to cage-free, companies like Pete & Gerry's, Egg Innovations, The Happy Egg Co and Wilcox Farms will need to find new ways to set themselves apart. Some will promote their eggs as "free range" or "pastured", terms that, unlike "cage-free", mean that chickens get access to the outdoors.
Consumers, in the meantime, may need to look beyond labels. The Cornucopia Institute report includes a scorecard ranking 136 name-brand and private-label egg producers. Shoppers concerned about animal welfare may want to look for certifications from independent nonprofits like Animal Welfare Approved and Certified Humane.
No more jailbirds
Many of these changes have been driven by animal welfare groups like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). They won an epic battle in 2008 when California voters passed Proposition 2, a ballot measure that, among other things, required that all egg-laying hens raised in the state by 2015 be able to turn around and extend their wings. That meant abolishing conventional cages, which give each hen just 80 square inches of space in which to move, roughly the footprint of a laptop computer. Later, California lawmakers required that all shell eggs sold in the state be produced in compliance with Proposition 2.
"It was at that point that the egg industry realized that the status quo was not sustainable," says Josh Balk, HSUS's director of food policy. Since then, four states - Michigan, Ohio, Oregon and Washington - have enacted laws banning or restricting the use of wire cages. A sweeping animal welfare law is headed for the ballot next year in Massachusetts.
HSUS also has helped persuade more than 100 companies, including the US's three biggest food service firms, Aramark, Sodexo and Compass Group, to phase out caged eggs. The McDonald's promise in September to switch to cage-free eggs in North America over the next decade has been deemed a turning point by many, mostly because the company and its franchisees buy more than 2.1bn eggs a year.
The egg industry has fought the legislative mandates, arguing that banning cages will cost producers and consumers more, without improving animal welfare. But Chad Gregory, president of United Egg Producers, acknowledges that conventional cages are on the way out, for better or worse.
"Choices are being taken away from consumers by animal rights groups like the Humane Society of the United States," Gregory says. "You are increasing the cost of a high-quality protein significantly, sometimes doubling or tripling it."
He's not far off. On a recent visit to a Giant supermarket in suburban Washington DC, Pete & Gerry's organic free-range eggs were selling for $5.79 a dozen, Nature's Promise Naturals, a store brand, large cage-free eggs were selling for $3.49 a dozen, and a dozen conventional Giant eggs were priced at $2.99.
Some consumers willingly pay higher prices. Pete & Gerry's, for example, has grown by 20% or more a year since converting to organic and cage-free about 15 years ago. "We rose out of the ashes of the conventional egg business," says Jesse LaFlamme, the company's co-owner and CEO, who is Gerry's son. The company has expanded from a single New Hampshire farm into a network of about 100 family farms in the northeast and mid-Atlantic states to meet growing demand.
Not all eggs are created equal
Terms like "organic" and "cage-free", however, don't mean that hens spend their days bathed in sunshine and pecking at grass in a farmyard. "Cage-free" means only that hens are not kept in cages; they can still spend all their lives indoors. The organic label requires that farmers need to use organic feed and create access to the outdoors, but big farms can comply by building small porches around hen houses with as many as 150,000 to 200,000 birds.
The Cornucopia Institute is especially critical of large farms that use the organic label, but give birds extremely limited access to the outdoors, citing such brands as Chino Valley Ranchers, Eggland's Best, Horizon Organic and Land 'O Lakes. The researchers took aerial photographs of large organic egg farms and found few, if any, hens outside.
That violates the spirit of the organic standard, says Mark Kastel, Cornucopia's co-founder. Factory farmers who use the organic label are "misrepresenting themselves to consumers and injuring ethical farmers", Kastel says. "They are inconsistent with what consumers expect in terms of the humane treatment of animals, environmental standards and support for family farmers." The Cornucopia scorecard points consumers to smaller, family-owned farms that allow hens to spend all of their time on pasture; about 35 smaller firms earn the top "Five Egg" ranking.
Ranked in the middle are mid-sized producers like Pete & Gerry's, Wilcox Farms and Egg Innovations. They face a difficult challenge - explaining to consumers that their practices are superior to those of big organic farms and better than cage-free.
Pete & Gerry's relies in part on third-party verification. Its eggs are Certified Humane by an independent nonprofit and it was the first farm business in the US to become a certified B Corporation, according to LaFlamme.
"We have our work cut out for us in a category that's very confusing," LaFlamme said. "We are, to a degree, hanging our hat on the differentiation between cage-free and free range. But what we're really counting on is our brand."
Keep ReadingShow Less
More Than A Few Bad Eggs: Industrial Farms Exploiting 'Organic' Label for Profit
For some egg producers, the term organic 'appears to be nothing more than a profitable marketing term to apply to the agro-industrial production model'
Dec 15, 2015
Thanks to industrial food producers who are "gaming the system," eggs labeled as "organic" may not be very different from the factory-farmed versions consumers are trying to avoid, warns a new report from the non-profit Cornucopia Institute.
Indeed, for some large-scale producers, the label "appears to be nothing more than a profitable marketing term to apply to the agro-industrial production model, simply substituting organic feed for conventional and eliminating prohibited synthetic inputs, such as pesticides and antibiotics," according to the report, entitled Scrambled Eggs: Separating Factory Farm Egg Production from Authentic Organic Agriculture (pdf).
Released Tuesday alongside an organic egg scorecard, Cornucopia's analysis reveals that some emerging brands advertise their eggs as "pastured" although their birds are housed in fixed buildings, while other factory farm operators "literally raise millions of birds (both conventional and organic) with as many as 150,000-200,000 'organic' hens in single buildings."
That's despite the fact that current federal regulations clearly state that organic egg producers must grant "year-round access for all animals to the outdoors" and that "total continuous confinement of any animal indoors is prohibited." Beyond that, the National Organic Standards Board in 2002 passed a recommendation for organic egg producers stating that "bare surfaces other than soil (e.g. metal, concrete, wood) do not meet the intent of the National Organic Standards."
But Cornucopia's research indicates that "most industrial-scale organic egg producers are currently housing tens of thousands of hens inside hen-houses, only offering small concrete or wooden porches as 'outdoor access'--and they are getting away with it."
"For this report, we have visited or surveilled, via aerial photography/satellite imagery, a large percentage of certified egg production in the United States, and surveyed all name-brand and private-label industry marketers," said Mark Kastel, co-director and senior farm policy analyst at the Cornucopia Institute, which works to advance sustainable, organic agriculture and family farms.
"It's obvious that a high percentage of the organic eggs on the market are illegal and should, at best, be labeled 'produced with organic feed,' rather than bearing the [U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA]-certified organic logo," Kastel stated.
To that end, Cornucopia is calling not only for consumers to "vote in the marketplace" by purchasing ethically produced brands, but also for federal regulators to take a stronger stance when it comes to animal welfare and provision of legitimate outdoor access.
Furthermore, citing the USDA's failure to properly investigate transgressions within the organic poultry industry, Cornucopia has filed formal ethics charges against the National Organic Program's staff director, Miles McEvoy, and has asked USDA Secretary Thomas Vilsack to remove him from that post.
Noting that industrial-scale producers have publicly opposed proposals to strengthen regulations requiring outdoor access, Kastel said: "Circumstantial evidence indicates Mr. McEvoy, and his colleagues at the USDA, are paying more attention to the voices of agribusiness lobbyists, rather than the preponderance of consumers and ethical farmers in the organic industry."
Still, those ethical farmers provide the bright side to Scrambled Eggs. Take Alexandre EcoDairy Farms in Northern California, for example. With 25,000 birds in 16 movable hen-houses, they are proving they can scale-up the egg model without diminishing the organic-label integrity, Cornucopia said.
As the farm's Stephanie Alexandre puts it: "When consumers buy organic eggs, I think they expect that the hens were out on pasture, enjoying fresh air, running around, foraging in the pasture."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Help From USDA, Factory Farms 'Masquerading' Products as Organic
Cornucopia Institute sues 14 industrial farms over alleged fraud, mistreatment of animals
Dec 11, 2014
More than a dozen factory farms producing dairy and meat products for stores nationwide engaged in widespread organic fraud for years as the USDA stood idly by, an agriculture industry watchdog said on Thursday.
A months-long investigation by the Cornucopia Institute discovered that 14 farms around the country producing so-called organic products have been defying USDA regulations, keeping animals tightly packed in facilities with no real access to the outdoors, while federal management routinely ignored pressure to investigate conditions.
The institute filed suit against those farms on Thursday and called on the USDA to remove the industry management body, the National Organic Program.
Organic fraud is "unconscionable," said Mark A. Kastel, Cornucopia senior farm policy analyst. "The job of the USDA is to oversee the certifiers and ensure that they are doing their job. It is quite possible that, in this case, there could have been a conspiracy and/or negligence that the certifier was responsible for."
After what the Cornucopia Institute called "years of inaction" by the USDA, the watchdog group conducted an independent investigation into the conditions of a number of farms currently creating products for labels that market themselves as humane, environmentally conscious, and economically fair.
None of them passed muster.
Current organic rules dictate that animals designated as organic must have their "health and natural behavior" accommodated, allowing cows to graze and chickens to roam. Among the farms named in Cornucopia Institute's lawsuit is Horizon Dairy, a grocery store staple that depicts a happy, animated cow as its logo; but aerial photographs taken during Cornucopia's investigation show that Horizon farms, as well as the "vast majority" of large-scale farms that label themselves organic, "had 100% of their animals confined in giant buildings or feedlots," conditions which violate federal standards for organic farms, the institute says.
Other well-known brands whose dairies failed to measure up in Cornucopia's investigation were Herbruck's and Organic Valley.
"The federal organic regulations make it very clear that all organic livestock must have access to the outdoors and that ruminants, like dairy cows, must have access to pasture," Kastel said.
With the organic industry expanding in response to increased desire for more natural products and humane treatment of animals, consumers are likely to feel deceived to learn of the real conditions on those farms, Kastel added. "Shoppers, who passionately support the ideals and values represented by the organic label, understandably feel betrayed when they see photos of these massive CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) masquerading as organic."
This is not the first time that Horizon, or other brands named in the suit, have been in trouble for skirting regulations. Some of its largest dairy providers are still being investigated by the USDA for "improprieties."
But federal oversight is still inadequate, often taking years to respond to complaints and review appeals from dairies that continue operating illegally in the interim, Cornucopia says--actions which diminish profits for legitimate farms nearby.
"The inaction by the USDA places thousands of ethical family-scale farmers, who are competing with a couple of dozen giant dairies, at a competitive disadvantage," said Kevin Engelbert, an organic dairy farmer and former member of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), a citizen advisory panel. "Allowing these illegal dairies to continue to operate is a travesty and significantly undercuts the supply-demand dynamic that should be rewarding farmers in the marketplace and providing a decent living for our families."
The criticism against the USDA does not stop at inaction against illegal operators. The agency also restricted the oversight responsibilities of the NOSB and weakened rules for the use of synthetic ingredients in organic food production, Cornucopia says.
Many of those farms are denying that any impropriety exists. "A single photo doesn't really tell us anything about a farm and its practices," Sonja Tuitele, a spokesperson for Aurora Organic Dairy, told the Washington Post. "Our records do indicate that all of our lactating cows at the Coldwater facility were grazing on pastures on May 17th. Since we don't know what time of day this photo was taken, we can only assume this photo was taken outside of their daily grazing hours."
Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides and member of the NOSB, called the current situation "untenable."
He added, "Someone needs to take responsibility for the divide in this industry which has begun seriously undercutting the credibility of the organic label and the livelihoods of ethical organic farmers."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Local GMO Fights Smash Records as Monsanto's Millions Bankroll Opposition
Citizen-led initiatives to regulate GMOs in Hawaii, Oregon and Colorado face deep pockets of outside industry groups
Oct 29, 2014
As voters in Oregon, California, Hawaii and Colorado prepare to weigh in on whether genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, should be banned or regulated in their states or communities, grassroots campaigns are being overwhelmed by millions that agrochemical and food industry titans are pouring in to defeat such measures.
Monsanto alone spent roughly $14 million in various local races this election year.
According to reports filed with the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission on Monday, Monsanto has put over $5 million dollars into the campaign against a citizen-led Maui County ballot initiative to ban GMOs on the island. The measure, titled the Maui County Genetically Modified Organism Moratorium Initiative, stipulates that only until a comprehensive environmental and public health survey concludes that the cultivation of GMOs is safe and harmless can agrochemical companies continue to plant and test GMO seeds on the Hawaiian island.
Monsanto is the largest donor to the group Citizens Against the Maui County Farming Ban (CAMCFB), which opposes the moratorium. Despite billing themselves as a "citizens group," as of October 10, CAMCFB has raised nearly $8 million in donations, the vast majority of which was paid by Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences--both of which own large operations on the island that will be affected by the legislation. In contrast, supporters of the ballot initiative have raised less than $90,000 in donations from residents, local businesses and a crowd-sourced online fundraising campaign.
Big Ag's fight to suppress GMO legislation has become a routine narrative in campaign seasons. In 2012, the world's six leading pesticide makers spent over $20 million to defeat Proposition 37 in California, with Monsanto leading the way with over $8 million in donations. And again in 2013, outside industry groups spent over $22 million to defeat Washington's proposed labeling initiative.
However, according to Honolulu Civil Beat, CAMCFB's war chest is unprecedented in Hawaiian politics. "This is historic," Tony Baldomero, associate director of the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission, told Civil Beat. "This is the highest (amount raised) that I have ever seen since I have been here, by any candidate committee, ballot issue committee, non-candidate committee, even super PAC."
In Oregon, a 2014 ballot initiative to label food items produced with or containing GMOs has become the costliest ballot contest in state history. As of October 18, the No on 92 Coalition reported raising $11.1 million in donations from Monsanto and other industry donors, including Big Food multinationals such as Coca Cola, Kraft Foods and Pepsi Co..
In that race, campaign donations have resulted in a slew of television advertising against the measure which, according to recent polls, may be having a significant impact on voter opinions. A June poll by DHM Research along with Oregon Public Broadcasting found that 77 percent of residents supported the measure. That number dwindled to 49 percent in DHM's follow up poll in October.
A Colorado labeling initiative, Proposition 105, has faced similarly well-funded opposition. Democracy Now! reported on Tuesday that, by some counts, money raised by the No on 105 group "nearly tripled" that raised by the Colorado Right to Know campaign. According to nonprofit farm policy research group the Cornucopia Institute, as of October 23, Monsanto alone has poured $8,836,650 into campaigns opposing Colorado's Proposition 105 and Measure 92 in Oregon.
As author and activist Michele Swenson notes in a Tuesday op-ed for Huffington Post, between 2012 and mid-2014, this "David (the people) vs. Goliath (giant corporations) struggle over GM food labeling" has unleashed a total of $100 million in spending by Monsanto and industry lobby group, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), to block GMO labeling in campaigns across the country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Are Organic Standards in Jeopardy? Watchdogs Say 'Yes'
May 23, 2014
When organic activist Alexis Baden Mayer of the Organic Consumers Association was arrested after leading a "spirited protest" against watering down organic standards last month, she wasn't at a rally on the street or in a park. She was at a meeting of the National Organic Standards Board, a 15-member advisory board with statutory authority to review what substances are allowed and prohibited in organic agriculture -- usually a relatively staid affair.
Organic foods and products are popular among consumers in the United States. It's the fastest growing sector of U.S. agriculture, with nearly $35 billion in sales as of 2012, and growing at 15-20 percent per year.
Organic foods are certified not to contain or be produced using genetically modified organisms (GMOs), pesticides, antibiotics, growth hormones, chemical fertilizers, or sewage sludge, and to contain as few synthetic or non-organic ingredients or treatments as possible. Organic farming methods build healthy soil, sequester carbon, and focus on humane treatment of animals.
Consumers buying organic products rely on standards to ensure this is the case.
But the growing organic market presents a temptation for business interests in the organic industry to look for ways to lower costs and gain bigger market share, including by lowering standards.
Organic pioneers and watchdog groups like the Organic Consumers Association and the Cornucopia Institute allege that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is capitulating to corporate interests and reversing 20 years of precedent by removing the ability of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to effectively decide the working definition of the organic food production system as well as what synthetic and non-organic materials are acceptable to include in organic agriculture and food on a temporary basis. Examples of non-organic materials that have been exempted include the use of antiobiotics like tetracycline on apple and pear trees; and algal and fungal oils as sources of DHA omega-3 fatty acids and ARA omega-6 fatty acids in infant formula and other foods, as The Progressive/Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) has reported.
USDA "Power Grab" Flips Review Process on its Head
For 20 years, until last fall, the NOSB reviewed exemptions for synthetic and non-organic ingredients allowed in organic foods every five years, automatically removing them from the list of allowed substances unless they voted to retain them for another five years, in what's known as a sunset process.
But USDA Deputy Administrator Miles McEvoy announced a new set of rules in the fall of 2013 in which exempted synthetic and non-organic materials are allowed indefinitely unless a two-thirds supermajority of the NOSB votes to remove them from the list. The rule change was not subject to the process of full public notice and comment.
Organic Law Authors Question Legality of USDA Policy Change
U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), original authors of the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act, wrote a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in April 2014, saying that they believe the policy change to be "in conflict with both the letter and intent of the statute."
The Congressmen emphasized that the "most alarming part of this sunset policy announcement was the decision by the agency to not subject this substantive policy change to full notice and comment rulemaking, a critical step to allow the public to provide scientific and market information to aid the Secretary and the NOSB in fulfilling its statutory review duties. Had the agency engaged in a full rulemaking process for the policy change, it would have given the Secretary the benefit of hearing about the strong objections to this change from the public, from many in the affected organic community, and from Members of Congress, such as ourselves."
Former NOSB Chairmen Criticise "Radical Shift," Warn of Court Challenge
Former NOSB Chairmen Jim Riddle, Jeff Moyer, and Barry Flamm called the rule change "a radical shift away from the collaborative government of the organic industry that Congress had clearly indicated and pioneering organic farming advocates demanded" in another letter to Secretary Vilsack.
Riddle, Moyer, and Flamm stressed that "specific violations" of the organics law "could lead to a court challenge" and called other violations of the intent of lawmakers "a grave insult to the current and past volunteers who have served on the National Organic Standards Board and the thousands of organic stakeholders who have, earnestly, participated in the public process to develop standards, materials and procedures for the NOSB."
USDA Attempts to Spin the Shift
USDA recently issued a "fact sheet" positing that the changes to the sunset review process as an "improvement," with a nifty diagram of the new process. Roger Blobaum, an organic pioneer who served as an agricultural staff member in both houses of Congress and was co-chair of the coalition that helped shape the organics law, called it "another USDA attempt to re-define the required sunset process and make it sound necessary and reasonable."
Blobaum noted that it "does not reflect the description and definition of sunset in the Leahy/DeFazio letter or the letter submitted by three former NOSB chairs or the public/private relationship mandated in the Organic Foods Production Act. It appears to me that the so-called fact sheet is part of USDA's overall public relations campaign to confuse consumers and others, including members of Congress..."
Watchdogs Cite Corporate Influence
Mark Kastel, Co-Director of the Cornucopia Institute, called the rule change a "power grab" and said that "corporate interests, including the industry lobby group the Organic Trade Association, have been gaming the system for years with the help of USDA. What has changed recently, as a result of the NOSB refusing to go along with agribusiness in approving gimicky synthetics and nutraceuticals in organic food, is that they have now had their minions at the USDA change the rules in the middle of the game."
Blobaum told CMD that because of the number of big corporate organic industry representatives that the USDA has placed on the NOSB in the places reserved for farmers and consumers, the supermajority required to remove materials from the list would be especially hard to achieve. There are specific seats reserved on the board for farmers, environmentalists, consumers, processors, a retailer, a scientist, and a certifier.
Organics at the Crossroads
Roger Blobaum has devoted his career to the organic movement since 1971 and recently launched a project helping the Wisconsin Historical Society identify and collect historic materials from the organic agriculture movement, including his own personal papers, documents, photos, and other historic materials.
At a recent lecture called "Building a Movement" at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Blobaum sketched the timeline of the history of the organic movement starting in 1911 with the publication of Farmers of Forty Centuries, which described how people in China had farmed the same fields for 4,000 years without depleting soil fertility, by former USDA Division of Soil Management chief F.H. King.
The Law and the Rule: 1990 Organic Foods Production Act
Blobaum described the process of crafting and passing the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act as well as developing the final rule implemented by the USDA in 2002. State pressure was instrumental, he pointed out, as 27 states supporting organic farming via statutes on the books by 1990. The NOSB, the duties of which were laid out in the law, was appointed in 1992 and helped craft the rule that would eventually govern organics.
After hearings around the country, the NOSB submitted a draft rule to USDA that had the buy-in of many different organic groups. But the draft the USDA published in response "trashed" the NOSB proposal, according to Blobaum. It "ignored many of the recommendations," opened the door to weakening organic standards across the board, "and challenged the authority of the NOSB to regulate materials, which was in the law."
In response, the organic community gathered to review the USDA proposal line-by-line, and published "The Sixty-Six Points of Darkness: Key Issues in the Proposed National Organic Program Rules as brought up by the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture's Organic Meeting." As a result of this concerted organic community pushback -- and 270,000 negative comments on the USDA's proposed rule, according to Blobaum -- the USDA took the rule back and rewrote it. After years of negotiations and public comments, that rule went into effect ten years later, in 2002.
Attempts to Undermine the NOSB
Since the organics rule went into effect, Blobaum said, "there's been an attempt almost all the time to undermine the role of the NOSB. And the NOSB represents us all, that's the whole point. When the NOSB was set up, it was part of the bargain.... The USDA didn't like what NOSB was doing, and they had the power to appoint NOSB members, so what they started doing was putting industry people in the slots that were reserved by law for farmers and for consumers. This was an abuse of their authority to appoint. And that's still going on."
Blobaum described the most recent crisis: "USDA is getting all kinds of pressure to approve more of these materials to lower the standards. They decided, well, let's change the rule here. These materials are going to stay on the list until we get a big vote from the NOSB to take them off.... It's another indicator of the USDA's bad attitude towards the NOSB."
Watchdogs Ask USDA not to Weaken Organics
As Blobaum pointed out, "the NOSB represents us all": farmers, eaters, scientists, environmentalists, certifiers, and retailers. Blobaum is concerned that the USDA is gradually reducing the statutory authority that the NOSB was given by the 1990 organics law, turning it into a mere advisory body.
Organic watchdog groups like the Organic Consumers Association and Cornucopia Institute are asking supporters to tell Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to reverse the rule currently weakening organics.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Food Defenders Protest Corporate Takeover of 'Organic' Standards
Protester arrested as groups fight for a natural food system people can 'trust'
Apr 29, 2014
Champions of organic food brought the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting to a halt on Tuesday as they raised their voices against what they see as the takeover of the organic standards by the corporate food industry.
The NOSB--an advisory board to the USDA and designed to represent farmers, consumers and other advocates of organic food--is charged with overseeing organic standards and presenting recommendations to the federal government. In recent years, however, critics charge the quality and intergrity of the national organic standards set by the NOSB have been eroded by the influence of a large agricultural interests and powerful corporations in the food industry.
In order to delay the opening of a four-day meeting in San Antonio, Texas, demonstrators stood at the front of the conference room displaying a banner which read: "Safeguard Organic Standards."
Tuesday's protest, organized by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), was held to draw attention to what the group is calling the "last straw" in the corporate-backed erosion of organic standards: a recent change to what is known as the "sunset process," which determines the synthetic ingredients that are permitted in organic foods.
As explained by Mark A. Kastel, co-director of The Cornucopia Institute, "agribusiness" and corporate food companies "had their minions at the U.S. Department of Agriculture" change the rules in order to push "gimmicky synthetics and nutraceuticals in organic food."
"Don't change sunset!" the group chanted until police arrived. One protester, Alexis Baden-Mayer, the political director for OCA, refused to disperse and was eventually placed under arrest and carried out.
Citing a recent Consumer Reports survey which found that 7 out of 10 Americans want as few non-organic ingredients approved for organic food as possible, Katherine Paul, OCA communications director, told Common Dreams that "people don't want this stuff in their food."
However, she added, "People don't have time to follow the wonky policy decisions, so it's easy for standards to be eroded without them knowing about it."
The so-called 'sunset process' required that non-organic food materials approved by the NOSB for use in organic foods--such as sausage casings from factory-farmed animals, synthetic vitamins, and the antibiotic streptomycin--must be reviewed every five years. Unless re-approved by a two-third majority vote, the items would be dropped from the list.
As Paul explains, the process was designed to ensure that these non-organic materials would only be temporarily allowed in organic foods until a better, organic option was found.
Under the new rules, non-organic ingredients are no longer dropped after five years and, instead, a majority vote is required to remove them from the list. The rule change "almost guarantees that the list of non-organic materials will just get longer and longer and it will be impossible to get them out," Paul said.
Organic industry watchdog groups--including The Cornucopoia Institute, The Center for Food Safety, The National Organic Coalition, the March Against Monsanto and OCA--are opposed to the change, which the USDA made in September 2013 without any input from the public..
The change to the sunset process, the groups say, is the "last straw" in the food industry's corruption of these safeguards.
"As consumer interest in organic grows, sales grow. These larger companies want a piece of that pie but dont want to play by the rules," Paul said, adding that food industry representatives "get themselves appointed to these boards and manage to, over time, corrupt these standards."
"Little by little these standards are being eroded, for the benefit for larger and larger organic and so-called 'natural' companies," Paul continued.
"Corporate interests, including the industry lobby group the Organic Trade Association, have been gaming the system for years with the help of the USDA," said Cornucopia's Kastel.
Later this week OCA is expected to announce the formation of a new trade association called the Organic and Natural Health Association.
"Our intent is to have a really legitimate trade association with very strict criteria so that companies that belong to this new association will be true organic companies that will be really committed to preserving these organic standards," OCA stated.
"Organic has to be a system people trust," added Cynthia Kurkowski, an organizer representing March Against Monsanto-San Antonio.
Further updates on the protest and NOSB meeting can be found on Twitter.
_____________________
Keep ReadingShow Less
New, Powerful Coalition Fights to 'Help' Consumers by Preventing Them From Knowing if Their Food Has GMOs
Influential industry groups unite to keep consumers 'misled about their food supply'
Feb 07, 2014
The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which poured millions into defeating measures in California and Washington to label food with genetically modified ingredients (GMOs), is leading a new coalition to press for congressional action in order to counter the growing statewide efforts to label GMOs.
In addition to the GMA, the 29-member Coalition for Safe Affordable Food is made up of powerful industry players including the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the National Corn Growers Association and the American Beverage Association, and is pressing for voluntary GMO labeling by industry.
"What we've determined is now is the time for us to stand together," Pamela Bailey, GMA's president and CEO, said during a call with reporters, adding that it "is a coalition that is unprecedented in the value chain."
A statement announcing the launch of the coalition says that their approach would "protect consumers" by "removing confusion" created by different state labeling laws, and would "affirm the FDA as the nation's authority for the use and labeling of genetically modified food ingredients."
In the statement, Bailey adds that GMOs "are safe and have a number of important benefits for people and our planet," and says that they can be used to address hunger on a planet with a growing population.
Among the "Facts about GMOs" listed in the statement is that "ingredients grown using GM technology require fewer pesticides."
Yet research has shown that GMOs have failed in those objectives, instead leading to an increase in the use of pesticides, fostering the growth of 'superweeds,' and failing to address food insecurity.
The resounding response to the coalition from consumer advocacy organizations was filled with scorn.
The Center for Food Safety denounced the coalition's effort as an attempt to keep consumers in the dark and counter the growing calls to label GMOs.
"These companies have failed to win over consumers who overwhelmingly support the mandatory labeling of GMOs and now they're trying to steal away consumer choice in Congress," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for Center for food Safety, in a statement.
"Instead of working together to meet consumer demand, GMA is using its deep pockets to ensure that Congress and consumers are misled about their food supply," Kimbrell added.
Mark Kastel, co-founder of the populist farm policy research group the Cornucopia Institute, echoed Kimbrell's message, telling Common Dreams, "This is more Orwellian doublespeak from the agribusiness/biotechnology coalition that is fighting like hell to prevent consumers from having a choice in the marketplace."
It is "just the latest packaging for the industry's same old agenda of obstructing consumers' right to know what's in their food," Patty Lover, Assistant Director of the watchdog group Food & Water Watch said in a statement sent to Common Dreams.
"It is offensive to assert that state and local legislators should not play a role in setting food policy for their constituents, since historically, these are the officials who have been most responsive to the concerns and rights of citizens," Lovera continued.
As to the coalition's urging that the FDA be tasked with the labeling of GMOs, Lovera pointed to body's track record.
"The FDA has failed consumers for more than 20 years on transparency about GMOs precisely because industry giants like those behind GMA and BIO wield an enormous level of control and influence over it. This so-called coalition is nothing but window dressing for the industry's attempt to crush people's desire for more transparency about their food," she stated.
___________________
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hopes for 'Critical Mass in the Marketplace' Grow as Second State Joins GMO Labeling Push
Connecticut governor signs GMO labeling bill
Dec 13, 2013
There was, however, one major caveat.
In order for the law to be enacted, at least four other Northeastern states, together totaling a population of over 20 million people, must enact similar GMO laws. This clause, according to the Danbury Daily Voice, was included to help local farmers "by ensuring regional adoption of the new labeling system before requiring local farms to analyze and label genetically engineered products."
Those states could include Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania or New Jersey.
However, on the other side of New England, Maine has already passed its own GMO labeling law, but this law also includes the same regional clause--meaning two New England states now require the labeling of GMOs, but only if the other nearby states join along.
However, while the rubik's cube of New England GMO labeling laws may seem difficult to line up, Malloy still remained confident that the move is a step in the right direction.
"This is a beginning, and I want to be clear what it is a beginning of," Malloy said at the public signing outside an organic restaurant in the city of Fairfield. "It is a national movement that will requiring (food) labeling."
"We are hopeful that legislators throughout the Northeast will follow the lead of Governor Malloy and all our legislative champions by passing laws that give consumers transparency in labeling," said Tara Cook-Littman, director of GMO Free CT and one of the advocates for the law.
Similarly, when Connecticut's law passed the state legislature this summer before heading to Malloy's desk this month, Mark Kastel, co-director of the Cornucopia Institute, said that such the law's caveat may not hurt the label-GMO fight in the long run.
"The hurdles in the Connecticut bill, if surmounted, would mean a critical mass in the marketplace that would emulate the impacts that would have materialized if California had passed its ballot initiative," said Kastel.
While other attempts at singular state initiatives to require labeling in states such as California and Washington have recently failed, in 2013 nearly half of all U.S. states have introduced bills that either require labeling or prohibit genetically engineered foods, according to the Center for Food Safety.
_______________________
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy