Having dropped the plans for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), USDA is back again for Round Two. The agency has proposed a rule that would require livestock producers, related businesses, and state livestock agencies to incur significant expense tracking animals that cross state lines—with few tangible benefits to farmers or their American customers.

Though less sweeping than the NAIS, the proposed animal traceability rule is still burdensome and a solution in search of a problem.

The USDA has again failed to identify the specific problem or disease of concern, and the real focus of the program is helping the export market—benefiting a handful of large agribusinesses, the costs and burdens will fall on individual farmers and ranchers, vets, sale barns and weigh stations, and already financially strapped states.

These new regulations will harm rural businesses while wasting taxpayer dollars that could be better spent on the real problems we face in controlling animal disease, food security, and food safety.

At a time when farmers and ranchers are facing significant economic problems, the last thing we need is additional burdensome rules hindering the economic viability of the small businesses of the nation.

TAKE ACTION

Please submit comments to USDA today! You can submit comments either online or by mail.

ONLINE:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=APHIS-2009-0091-0001

BY MAIL:

Docket No.APHIS–2009–0091
Regulatory Analysis and Development
PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8
4700 River Road Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737–1238

The deadline for comments is FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2011.
(Talking points and a sample letter can be found below.)

Please also send a copy of your comments to your Congressman and Senators. If you don’t know who represents you, you can find out at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov

Here are talking points you can use for your comments. A sample letter, which you can customize is at the end of this alert.

TALKING POINTS:

1) The agency should withdraw the proposed rule.

2) If the export market would benefit from the proposed rule, as the agency claims, then the agribusinesses that export meat should pay the costs and offer economic premiums to livestock producers to encourage them to participate in a voluntary system.

3) The agency needs to identify the specific diseases of concern and analyze how to best address those diseases, rather than continuing to push a one-size-fits-all generalized tracking program.

4) The agency’s analysis does not address the full costs of the program— this is a waste of money at a time when both private and government resources are already stretched thin. This is an unfunded mandate on both state governments and private businesses.

5) At the very least, significant changes need to be made:

• Apply the requirements to breeding-age cattle only and exempt feeder cattle from all new requirements.
• Exempt all direct-to-slaughter cattle, both for custom and for retail sales. The proposed rule provides for a temporary exemption, but then phases these animals into the program except for personal use.
• Recognize livestock brands as “official identification” among and between all states that currently have official state brand programs and “official supplementary identification” for all other states.
• Do not impose any new requirement for identifying poultry. There has simply been no evidence that imposing new requirements on small-scale poultry operations is warranted, while they definitely will cause significant economic harm.
• Provide that a physical description qualifies as an official identification method for horses without having to be approved by the health officials in the receiving State or Tribe.

MORE INFORMATION:

The program is fundamentally flawed because it is not designed to address the real problems we face, and it imposes burdens on producers for the benefit of Big Agribusiness’ export markets.

Some of the specific requirements for cattle pose particular problems. Along with new identification requirements imposed on all breeding-age cattle, the proposed rule would require identification and paperwork on non-breeding feeder cattle, despite the lack of evidence that such requirements will help disease control. In addition, anyone issuing official ID tags will have to keep records of the tags for five years, and sales barns will have to keep copies of paperwork for five years, even though many of these cattle will have been consumed years earlier.

State agencies will have to build compliant programs, database storage, and management and retrieval systems in order to handle all of the data, creating problems for many states’ budgets. The proposed rule doesn’t address what will be the consequences if states’ systems don’t meet the federal government’s goals. The sending and receiving states can agree to use alternative identification methods, such as brands and tattoos, but otherwise the brand and tattoo will no longer qualify as an official identification method.

Small-scale, pastured, and backyard poultry will be particularly hard hit by the proposed rule. While the large confinement operations will be able to use “group identification,” the definition of the term does not cover most independent operations. Since thousands of people order baby chicks from hatcheries in other states, these birds cross state lines the first day of their lives. Even if the farmer or backyard owner never takes the bird across state lines again, they will have to use individually sealed and numbered leg bands on each chicken, turkey, goose, or duck to comply with the language of the proposed rule.

Under the proposed rule, horses will have to be identified when they cross state lines. Official identification includes a physical description, digital photograph, or electronic identification. Although most, if not all, horses that are shipped across state lines are already identified in one of these ways, the language of the proposed rule creates a new complication. Whether or not a physical description is sufficient identification will be determined by the health officials in the receiving state, leaving vets and horse owners struggling with significant uncertainty as they have to anticipate what will be allowed.

The draft rule also covers sheep, goats, and hogs that cross state lines, essentially federalizing the existing programs which have been adopted state-by-state until now.

READ USDA’S DOCUMENTS:

You can read the proposed rule at:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/downloads/2011/Proposed%20Rule.pdf

You can read the USDA’s regulatory analysis, which includes its analysis of the costs of the program and the alleged benefits to the export market, at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/downloads/2011/Regulatory%20Impact%20Analysis.pdf

SAMPLE LETTER:

Please personalize these comments! Include a personal story at the beginning of your comments so that it is less likely to be viewed as a form letter. The personalization can be just a few sentences, but it does make a significant difference.

Dear USDA Secretary Vilsack:

I am a __________________ (farmer, local foods consumer, backyard poultry owner, horse owner, etc.). I am very concerned that the proposed animal traceability rule will __________ (not be workable for my farm; impose costs on my farmers that will then be passed on to me; make it prohibitively expensive for me to order baby chicks from out-of-state hatcheries; etc.)

I urge the USDA to withdraw the proposed rule.

If the export market would benefit from the proposed rule, as the agency claims, then the meat packing companies that export meat should pay the costs and offer economic premiums to livestock producers to encourage them to participate in a voluntary system.

The agency’s analysis does not address the full costs of the program, and this is a waste of money at a time when both private and government resources are already stretched thin. The proposed rule is an unfunded mandate on state agencies, private businesses, and individuals.

At the very least, significant changes need to be made:

• Apply the requirements to breeding-age cattle only and exempt feeder cattle from all new requirements.
  Exempt all direct-to-slaughter cattle, both for custom and for retail sales.
• Recognize the brand as “official identification” among and between all states that currently have official state brand programs and “official supplementary identification” for all other states.
• Do not impose any new requirements for identifying poultry. There has simply been no showing that imposing new requirements on small-scale poultry operations is needed, while it will definitely cause significant harm.
• Provide that a physical description qualifies as an official identification method for horses without having to be approved by the health officials in the receiving State or Tribe.

Sincerely,

Name
Address
City, State Zip

Action Alert

Corporate agribusiness wants to tell the rest of us how to farm, and shut anyone out of the market who does not follow their one-size-fits-all “food safety” standards for leafy green vegetables. The USDA is supporting their plan, which, if accepted, will allow a committee of industry representatives, lobbyists and other officials to write a set of so-called food safety standards for the entire leafy green farming community—this could competitively injure smaller, local and organic producers.

If passed, leafy green handlers/marketers who sign on to this agreement will require every grower they buy from to follow a uniform set of standards, which will be written with large-scale, monoculture, chemical-intensive farming methods in mind. Farmers do not sign on to the agreement – their buyers (brokers, distributors and supermarket chains) do. Sustainable organic and local growers who take different approaches to food safety will likely be shut out of the market when buyers refuse their buy their crops.

With the recent passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act, this proposal by industrial-scale, monoculture interests for industry self-regulation is simply unnecessary and counterproductive.

The USDA needs to hear the widespread opposition from the organic/local community, farmers and consumers together, before the July 28th commenting deadline.

This ill-conceived plan is proposed in the name of food safety, but fails to tackle the root of our nation’s food safety woes: the unnatural rearing and feeding practices of conventional beef and dairy cows, hogs and chickens on industrial-scale “factory” farms. There is nothing inherently dangerous about leafy greens—the problem lies in contamination of surface and groundwater, and even the air in farm country, from our nation’s filthy feedlots and animal factories!

Tell the USDA, which does not have the legal authority to supervise vegetable safety (Congress has exclusively charged the FDA with that responsibility) to withdraw the National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement proposal immediately.

Talking Points

Please submit your comments today, expressing your strong opposition to the proposed Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, for the following reasons:

• Industry self-regulation is the wrong approach to food safety: The Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement will give industry representatives authority to self-regulate for food safety, doing a disservice to our citizenry’s need for safer food.

• The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service has no food safety experience or expertise: With the recent passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act, which gives greater authority to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate for food safety, there is no need for the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service to get involved in food safety through industry self-regulation.

• Wildlife and biodiversity: Experiences in California have shown that industry-driven food safety measures ignore important environmental, wildlife, and biodiversity concerns. The California LGMA has resulted in the wholesale loss of wildlife habitat and destruction of natural vegetation, even though it has not been proven that these are material factors in food contamination.

• The NLGMA will be a setback for the organic movement: With the current proposal to reserve only one slot on the 26-member committee for an organic producer, the food safety benefits of organic and sustainable farming practices will likely not be factored in to the LGMA’s standards. Organic and sustainable farmers who choose not to follow the LGMA’s standards will likely to be shut out of the market, doing irreparable harm to the growth of the organic and sustainable farming movement—and the availability of organics for consumers.

• Failure to address the root of the problem: The LGMA metrics will do nothing to tackle the root of the problem, which is, in most cases, bacterially tainted manure from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that contaminate nearby fields and waterways

• One-size-fits-all standards hurt family farmers: It is unclear how a set of national rules can accommodate both large-scale, monoculture growers in one part of the country and small-scale, diversified farms in other regions in the US. Rules that may be appropriate for one type of farm may put unnecessary burdens on other producers—and with large-scale growers setting the standards, chances are that the smaller-scale and diversified farms’ needs and concerns will be the first to go.Smaller, owner-operated, local and organic are likely producing the safest and most nutritious food in this country. If any problems occur, these events are isolated given smaller geographical marketing footprints. It would be a blow to produce safety if this growing trend towards diffuse, regional production is competitively injured.

Sample Letter

We encourage you to write your own comment using the talking points above, but you may also cut and paste the following sample letter:

Dear Ms. Schmaedick,

I am strongly opposed to the proposed National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement. Allowing an industry to regulate itself is simply the wrong approach to food safety. With the recent passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act, this proposal is simply unnecessary.

I am most concerned with the way in which this proposed agreement would impact organic, small-scale and sustainable farmers. With only one slot on the 26-member committee reserved for an organic producer, it is unlikely that the food safety benefits of organic and sustainable farming practices will be factored in to the Agreement’s standards. Organic and sustainable farmers should not have to choose between following metrics that were written by and for large-scale, monoculture farming operations, and finding a market for their vegetables.

The proposal is merely a band-aid solution to food safety concerns, doing little to address the root of the problem (such as bacterially tainted manure from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that contaminate nearby fields and waterways) while shutting smaller-scale, owner-operated, local and organic farms out of the market.

Please withdraw the proposed National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement.

Take Action

1. Submit your comment before the July 28 deadline.

To submit your comment electronically, follow the link: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=AMS-FV-09-0029-0150

We strongly encourage to also email the USDA’s Melissa Schmaedick, author of the proposal, directly with your comment: Melissa.Schmaedick@ams.usda.gov, with “AMS-FV-09-0029” in the subject line.

To submit your comment via mail:

Address your comment to:

Hearing Clerk, United States Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1031-S
Washington, DC 20250-9200

Please make sure to place the following docket number on your letter: AMS-FV-09-0029 and state clearly that you are opposed to the National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement

2. Please e-mail/Facebook your family and friends and encourage them to submit their comments as well!

* Please take the time to submit your comment by clicking on the link to http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=AMS-FV-09-0029-0150.  This is the official government website for comments.

• an organic [agricultural] producer [farmer/rancher/grower];
• an organic handler [processor, grain elevator, etc.];
• a consumer/public interest representative;
• a scientist;
• and an environmentalist

The positions aim to represent various sectors of the organic industry, and to ensure that the Board contains a variety of members with expertise in fields including toxicology, ecology, and biochemistry.

In the past, widespread abuse during the Bush and Obama administrations led to corporate agri¬business representatives being appointed to positions that were earmarked for farmers or consumer advocates. Because of this history, Cornucopia is appealing to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to respect the will of Congress and to make the nomination process public so that the very best candidates can be appointed. Transparency and openness will help the organic community advise the USDA on the best possible candidates for the NOSB, so we have also asked that the department release a list of candidates, to allow the public to supply input.

The NOSB is responsible for determining allowed and prohibited substances/inputs used in organic agricultural production and food, as well as advising the USDA Secretary on organic regulations and policy.

Board meetings customarily occur twice a year, in the spring and fall, in various locations across the country.

If you are interested in applying for one of the vacancies, visit www.regulations.gov and search for AMS-NOP-11-0006-0001. Individuals can nominate themselves for one of the appropriate slots. Nominations must be postmarked by July 17. For more information, contact katherine.benham@ams.usda.gov at the USDA.

Please feel free to contact us at The Cornucopia Institute if you’re considering applying for one of these slots.

It’s imperative that we have truly qualified and independent stakeholders in the organic community helping guide the future of this movement and industry. We hope you will consider this important opportunity for public service.

Organic foods provide a refuge from the toxins, synthetics, and chemically processed ingredients that masquerade as food in the conventional food supply.

Through corruption at the USDA some questionable ‘nutrient’ ingredients—produced by Martek Biosciences Corporation’s (DHA/ARA oils from algae and soil fungus) — have illegally found their way into organic foods, including organic infant formula, baby food and milk. And they are making some children very sick.

The corporations whose profits depend on these untested and unnecessary novel ingredients have launched a full-blown lobbying effort to chip away at the integrity of the organic label.

Not only have they convinced the USDA to not enforce the law (current federal standards prohibit these materials in organics), corporate lobbyists are now pressuring the National Organic Standards Board to adopt new rules that would open the door to these additives, and hundreds of others like them.

We cannot allow these powerful corporations to water down the organic label.

Watch our latest 4-minute video, which shows the importance of ensuring that suspect and unproven ‘nutrient’ additives like Martek’s DHA and ARA oils stay out of organics.

And sign our petition asking for immediate enforcement action that would rid the organic marketplace of unnecessary, untested, non-organically produced ingredients.

- Comments Due April 10! -

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which advises the Secretary of Agriculture on organic policy and rulemaking, is considering several changes to the USDA’s organic standards that would water down organics, catering to corporate interests.

We cannot allow corporate-backed members of the NOSB to chip away at the integrity of the label. The following proposals are highly objectionable. The comment period has closed, but you can sign Cornucopia’s petition, which will be delivered at the meeting in Seattle.

Synthetic Additives

The proposal would allow any synthetic additive that qualifies as a “nutrient” to be added freely to organics, even those that have never been tested for safety by the FDA. Currently, organic law requires all synthetic additives, including nutrients, to be individually petitioned, carefully reviewed and approved by the USDA before they can be added to organics.

Message to the NOSB: Reject the Handling Committee’s proposal regarding nutrient additives. Nutrient additives must be individually petitioned, reviewed and approved as safe and appropriate for organics before they can be used, as the law currently requires.

Already, some companies are illegally adding a synthetic form of DHA omega-3 (from algae) and ARA omega-6 (from soil fungus) oils to organic food, including organic infant formula. These additives have been linked to serious gastrointestinal reactions in some babies and toddlers.

More information: An action alert on this topic was sent out in late March. If you already sent in your comments—Thank You! If you haven’t already commented, please sign our petition.

Space for Chickens

Factory farms, with as many as 100,000 birds in a building, that do not have legally mandated access to the outdoors, would be shut down if new strict rules are put into place.

The good news is that the NOSB Livestock Committee proposal would outlaw the tiny enclosed porches that industrial-scale producers had been illegally calling “the outdoors.”

But our struggle for meaningful animal welfare standards is not over! The committee caved once again to industry pressure—proposing outdoor space requiring just 2 ft.² per layer and 1 ft.² per broiler! In the European Union, organic standards require at least 43 ft.² per bird outdoors and the US leading organic brand, Organic Valley, affords their birds 5 ft.² outdoors.

2ft.² and 1 ft.² is simply not enough for birds to have meaningful outdoor space where they can exhibit their natural behaviors (like running around and “foraging”).

Furthermore, the proposal would grant 1.2 ft.² indoors for laying hens and 1.0 ft.² for meat birds, which is no better than the current industry standard for factory farms, and certainly inadequate for organics. Many legitimate organic farmers currently provide 1.5 ft.² of indoor space for their laying hens.

Message to the NOSB: Please resist pressure by the industrial-scale producers to reduce the outdoor space requirements for chickens any further. When I buy organic eggs and chicken, I expect that the birds were raised with ample access to real outdoor runs—5 ft.² should be the bare minimum!

More information: Watch the video and read Cornucopia’s report, Scrambled Eggs. A complete action alert on the NOSB’s proposal for organic poultry is also available.

Indoor and Outdoor Space for Growing Pigs

The Livestock Committee’s proposed space requirements for growing pigs are so small, even standards set by the National Pork Board—which is controlled by industrial hog producers—are more generous! The proposed space requirements would make it impossible for growing pigs to turn around in their bedded indoor space, with even less space outdoors.

Message to NOSB: The proposed space requirements for growing pigs are woefully inadequate. If organic standards are going to be the gold standard in terms of animal welfare, growing pigs should be granted more space than what is currently proposed.

More information: A complete action alert for organic hogs is available.

Indoor Space for Dairy Cows

The opposite is true for dairy cows. The latest proposal for indoor space requirements is so overly generous that it could essentially put thousands of family-scale dairy producers out of the organic business.

Many small-scale organic dairy farmers use stalls in their barns to position the cows and direct their manure away from their bedding. The proposed space requirements would have cows lying in their own excrement. Most family farm producers would have to build new barns to meet these space requirements—a capital investment that many could not afford, forcing them out of the organic business.

Message to NOSB: A previous recommendation, which had been accepted by the full NOSB, already requires stall barns to provide one full, traditional stall per animal. Therefore, indoor space requirements for dairy producers with stall barns are unnecessary.

More information: A complete action alert for organic dairy cows is available.

Take Action

Please sign Cornucopia’s petition, which will be delivered at the meeting in Seattle.

Tell your family and friends to sign as well!

To speak in person at the NOSB meeting (important if you can make it):
In addition to sending their written comments, organic farmers and consumers living in the Seattle area, or willing to travel, are encouraged to also sign up for a five-minute speaking slot at the meeting at the end of April. Individuals can find more information about the meeting, and can pre-register for a slot by April 10, 2011, by visiting http://www.ams.usda.gov/nosbseattleslots or by calling (202) 720-3252.

Please email cultivate@cornucopia.org or call 715-514-2627 if you are planning on attending the Seattle meeting.

March 21, 2011

In conventional foods, the government allows the use of toxic pesticides, genetically engineered crops, and novel synthetic additives that have not been tested for safety. As organic consumers, we say: “No thanks, we’d rather not be part of this huge uncontrolled experiment!”

Organic foods offer an alternative, but some pro-corporate members of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the panel set up by Congress to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on organic standards, would like to open the door to all synthetic additives to be added freely to organic foods—as long as they have, theoretically, nutritional value.

Any “nutrient” synthetic additive that comes on the market would become fair game for organics, even those that have never before been part of the human food system, chemically extracted with toxic solvents, grown in genetically engineered feedstock, and otherwise produced in ways that would shock any organic consumer.

Synthetic “nutrient” additives often have no scientifically proven benefits, and act primarily as corporate agribusiness marketing gimmicks.

We must reject this outrageous proposal! The USDA is encouraging citizens to send them your comments. The members of the NOSB and the National Organic Program need to hear the following message from organic consumers, farmers and businesses:

• The NOSB Handling Committee’s proposal to allow any and all “nutrient” additives —without the required vetting as required by Congress—in organics is outrageous.
• Essential nutrients that are required by the Food and Drug Administration should remain allowed in organics—but the organic standards should not be broadened to allow any synthetic, novel, untested “nutrient” additive created by agribusiness and biotechnology corporations.
• Please reinforce that all synthetic additives should continue to be individually reviewed and approved for use in organics.
• Reports from parents and health care professionals suggest that some infants react with diarrhea, vomiting, and other gastrointestinal symptoms to two unreviewed synthetic additives already in organic infant formula. This should not be tolerated in organics!

The synthetic “nutrient additives” DHA and ARA, added to infant formula despite extremely weak scientific evidence of their benefits, and reportedly linked to serious gastrointestinal side effects in some infants, provide a striking example of the importance of keeping the organic standards strong.

The committee proposal is couched in terms of consumer “maximum freedom of choice” and “harmonizing government agency rules.” Consumers who wish to consume synthetic nutrient additives that were not carefully regulated by the National Organic Program are always free to buy conventional foods. If this proposal is accepted by the full Board at the April meeting, there will be one clear winner: corporations whose synthetic, non-organic, novel and untested additives will be allowed freely in organic foods.

Take Action

Sign the petition to the NOSB and NOP, asking them to take immediate action to ensure that organic foods are free from unreviewed and unapproved synthetic ingredients. Click here to sign the petition!

Join us on Facebook;  Share this on Facebook

To speak in person at the NOSB meeting:
In addition to sending their written comments, organic consumers living in the Seattle area, or willing to travel, are encouraged to also sign up for a five-minute speaking slot at the meeting at the end of April. Individuals can find more information about the meeting, and can pre-register for a slot by April 10, 2011, by visiting http://www.ams.usda.gov/nosbseattleslots or by calling (202) 720-3252.

Want to Become an Expert? In-depth Background:

Under current federal organic standards, any manufacturer of a synthetic nutrient additive must petition the NOSB, have the additive reviewed by experts for safety and environmental sustainability concerns, give the opportunity for all members of the organic community to comment, and finally, gain approval from the Secretary of Agriculture before it can add the synthetic nutrient to organic foods.

This rigorous process protects consumers from novel, synthetic additives that could potentially be dangerous to human health or the environment. It is what sets organic foods apart—not just any additive developed in a laboratory and chemically produced in a factory can be added to organic foods without first being carefully reviewed by experts and accepted by the organic community.

Since federal regulations favor strong organic standards and work on behalf of organic consumers seeking safe and wholesome foods, it should come as no surprise that corporate agribusiness, and their friends on the National Organic Standards Board, seek to change this regulation—in favor of corporate profits.

Why the Battle over “Nutrient Additives”?
The battle over the role of “nutrient additives” in organics has come to the forefront after the Cornucopia Institute discovered, through Freedom of Information Act requests, that the previous administration at the National Organic Program (NOP) had inappropriately allowed the synthetic additives DHA and ARA in organic infant formula.

As reported in a Washington Post investigative report, the manager of the NOP under the Bush administration had brokered a backroom deal with a corporate lobbyist to misinterpret the federal organic standards in order to allow these profitable additives in organic foods.

In April 2010, the current manager of the National Organic Program at the USDA admitted publicly that this was an improper decision. The current NOP administration publicly shared its view that the decision to open the door to any additives allowed by the FDA was based on an “incorrect interpretation” of the organic standards, and encouraged the NOSB to clarify the situation. The Board should have reinforced that only vitamins and minerals required by the FDA should be allowed freely in organics—all others should be petitioned and carefully reviewed, as the law currently requires.

As a shock to the organic community, the corporate-affiliated members of the NOSB committee have proposed the exact opposite—to allow any synthetic additive, with alleged nutrient value, that comes on the conventional market to also be allowed in organic foods.

An example of “nutrient additives”—DHA and ARA
DHA and ARA are striking examples of why the committee’s proposal would indeterminably weaken the integrity of the organic label. Synthetic DHA and ARA would qualify as “nutrient additives.” They are produced by Martek Biosciences Corporation from fermented algae and fungus that have never before been part of the human diet. They have never been formally approved for use in organics, yet food manufacturers that believe they are above the law are already adding them anyway.

According to Martek, these organisms are cryogenically frozen, fermented in corn syrup (that is likely genetically engineered), chemically extracted with a toxic solvent, deodorized and bleached. The resulting oils, added to infant formula, contain nutrients that are structurally different from the nutrients found naturally in breast milk.

Numerous scientific review studies and meta-analysis studies conclude that there are no benefits to infant development from these additives—yet they are advertised as “supporting brain and eye development.”

Most disturbingly, reports from parents and health care professionals suggest that some infants react with diarrhea, vomiting, and serious gastrointestinal symptoms from these additives.

The NOSB Committee Proposal—A Sellout of Organic Values

The proposal by the NOSB’s Handling Committee will be voted on by the full Board at their April 26-29 meeting in Seattle, WA. The committee vote was split, 4-3, along pro-corporate profit/pro-consumer interest lines. With enough public outrage over this proposal, the full Board is likely to reject this outrageous proposal.

We urge the rejection of this proposal, not only to protect the future integrity of the organic label, but to ensure that synthetic additives like DHA and ARA, which have been linked to serious symptoms in some infants, are taken out of organics immediately.

The committee proposal is available on the NOP website. The proposal would change the organic standards to allow the following synthetics:

Nutrients, Vitamins and Minerals, Materials required or allowed by law for the purpose of enrichment, supplementation or fortification of foods, including infant formula, and materials the use of which is supported by the FDA or the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

There is currently no federal definition for “supplementation” of foods (a company looking to boost the protein level of an organic energy bar could therefore add chemically-extracted, conventional soy protein isolate, and argue it qualifies as a “nutrient additive”). There is currently no standard for what is “allowed by law.”

The proposal is poorly researched and poorly written—clearly with the intent of opening loopholes and allowing food manufacturers free rein to add any “nutrient” additive they’d like to organics.

Most importantly, the proposal’s authors clearly do not “get” organics. To say that any nutrient that is allowed by law or supported by the FDA should be allowed in organics is equivalent to stating that any pesticide that is allowed by law or supported by the EPA should be in organics.

It is a nonsensical statement—the whole point of organics is that the standards are stricter than those set for the conventional food supply. Organic consumers actually want strict standards, precisely because we are not interested in consuming anything that corporations develop to boost their own profits—especially when they are not tested for safety.

Say No to Synthetic Additives!
The strength of the organic label lies in the trust that consumers have in the strict standards and third-party certification system. Consumers like to know that their organic foods were grown without dangerous pesticides, genetically engineered crops, and other dangerous inputs, and that unapproved synthetic additives are kept out.

Organic consumers, farmers and business owners must send a strong message to the NOSB: the committee proposal on “nutrient additives” would allow untested, synthetic additives to organics—and we can not allow that to happen.

The budget legislation passed by House Republicans in the wee hours of February 19 (no Democrats voted for it) would slash $747 million — about 10 percent — from the 2011 budget for the Special Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants and Children. It’s commonly known as “WIC.”

Created in 1974, WIC provides very modest but crucial food assistance to low-income moms and little kids who are at “nutrition risk.” To qualify, recipients must be poor — very poor. Some 68 percent of WIC beneficiaries live at, or below, the poverty line. That’s about $22,000 for a family of four.

Cutting funding to WIC during the worst economy in 80 years is an unacceptably lopsided and wrong-headed approach to food and agriculture policy. The House Republicans’ budget inflicts serious damage to a food program for poor kids and pregnant women, but it cut not one penny from the farm subsidies that go to big agribusinesses and wealthy landowners — at a time when they are enjoying record-high crop prices and incomes. By cutting just a fraction of these subsidies we could have held WIC harmless.

Because the budget process is ongoing, this isn’t the last time your representative will vote on funding for food programs. Join EWG Action Fund in calling on members of Congress to do the right thing on future votes.

Use the form here to tell your representative that you want a fair, equitable food system that begins to help the country heal its dietary and environmental woes.

On December 16, the USDA released its Final Environmental Impact Statement on Monsanto’s genetically engineered Round-up Ready Alfalfa. Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and a fundamental source of livestock forage for dairy and beef farmers.

Alfalfa is a perennial crop that is open-pollinated by bees and other insects – with a pollination radius as large as 5 miles. Monsanto’s controversial GE Alfalfa threatens to contaminate both conventional and organic agriculture year after year with the drift and spread of its novel DNA. It has sparked an ongoing court battle and stiff opposition from both conventional and organic farmers, seed producers, beekeepers, exporters, and a mix of food and farm groups, retailers and organic food manufacturers.

Despite the risks, the USDA has now made it clear that they are not interested in regulating Monsanto’s GE Alfalfa but instead will either approve it for planting this spring by farmers or perhaps impose limited geographic restrictions on the planting of GE alfalfa in a few seed growing regions of the country. A final decision could be announced as soon as January 24.

Farmers and consumers: Contact President Obama and let him know that the USDA’s approval of GE Alfalfa is dangerous and unacceptable.

Tell President Obama that you don’t want organic and conventional agriculture contaminated by GE Alfalfa, and that you have a right to eat meat, dairy, and eggs from livestock who consume non-genetically engineered crops.

President Barack Obama

Phone: (202) 456-1111

Fax: (202) 456-2461

Email: Contact the Whitehouse

For a fact sheet with additional information on GE Alfalfa, click here.

Even though an agreement was reached on the Tester-Hagan amendment last week, by the leadership in the Senate, this issue in the food safety bill is still not over!

The Tester-Hagan amendment would exempt smaller, organic and local growers from expensive regulatory burdens.

For over a year, the big Agribusiness trade organizations have supported passage of S.510, the Food Safety Modernization Act. From agribusiness’s perspective, the bill was a win-win: they could absorb the costs of the regulations because of their size; they’d gain good PR for supposedly improving food safety practices, gain some protection from legal liabilities—and hobble the competition—local food producers by crushing them with new regulatory burdens.

Their anti-competitive motivation was only speculation until now. But when the Senators agreed to include the Tester-Hagan amendment in the bill, to exempt small-scale direct-marketing producers from some of the most burdensome provisions, agribusiness revealed its true colors. Late last week, twenty agribusiness lobby groups fired off a letter stating that they would oppose the bill if it included the Tester-Hagan amendment.

The letter from the agribusiness groups states: “[B]y incorporating the Tester amendment in the bill, consumers will be left vulnerable to the gaping holes and uneven application of the law created by these exemptions. In addition, it sets an unfortunate precedent for future action on food safety policy by Congress that science and risk based standards can be ignored.”

The full letter can be viewed at:

http://www.unitedfresh.org/assets/files/Letter%20on%20Passage%20of%20S%20%20510%20and%20Tester%20Amendment.pdf

What science and risk? No one has produced any data or evidence of any widespread problems caused by local producers and marketed directly to consumers. All of the major foodborne illness outbreaks have been caused by products that went through the long supply chains of corporate agribusiness, many emanating from factory-scale farms.

Agribusiness’s real concern about the Tester-Hagan amendment isn’t food safety, but the precedent set by having Congress recognize that small, direct-marketing producers are different, and should be regulated differently, from the large Agribusinesses.

Corporate agribusiness is trying to convince the Senators to pull the Tester-Hagan amendment back out. While the amendment is currently part of the “Managers’ Package” – the amended version of the bill agreed to by six bipartisan sponsors – nothing is certain until the actual vote.

This Thanksgiving week, please take a moment to call or email your Senators to tell them to hold firm on KEEPING the Tester-Hagan amendment part of the bill. The legislation will likely come up for a vote when they go back into session early next week.

You can call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or go to www.senate.gov to find your Senator’s website (if the phone lines are busy, the best way to reach them is through the “contact” page on their website)

Prepared by the staff of The Cornucopia Institute and the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance

It now appears that the Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510) will be voted on in the Senate during the “lame-duck” session as early as Wednesday, Nov. 17.

This bill, as we have noted before, would impose extremely burdensome and unnecessary requirements on the thousands of small farmers and food processors who are producing safe, nutrient-dense foods for their local communities — in fact, it may force some of these producers out of business.

A key amendment sponsored by Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) would exempt small farmers who direct market more than 50% of their products.

These famers must have gross sales (direct and non-direct combined) of less than $500,000, and sell to consumers, stores, or restaurants that are in-state or within 400 miles. This amendment is especially important for off-farm retail locations such as farmers markets and CSAs.

Please call your Senators today (most offices have voice mail where you can leave a message) and ask them to support the Tester Amendment on the Food Safety bill.

If you are a farmer this is important to protect your livelihood. If you are a consumer, where will you buy your safe and nutritious food if your local farmers are forced out of business?

It’s easy to call. Go to Congress.org and type in your zip code in the box in the upper right hand corner. Click on your Senator’s name, and then on the contact tab for their phone number. You can also call the Capitol Switchboard and ask to be directly connected to your Senator’s office: 202-224-3121. Once connected ask to speak to the legislative staff person responsible for agriculture. If they are unavailable leave a voice mail message. Be sure to include your name and phone number.
The message is simple:

“I am a constituent of Senator___________. I ask that he/she support the Tester Amendment to the food safety bill. The Tester Amendment will exempt the safest, small, owner-operator farms and food facilities and farmers who direct market their products to consumers, stores or restaurants. Food safety legislation should not create inappropriate and costly regulatory barriers to family farms and the growing healthy food movement in the drive to crack down on corporate bad actors. Please support the Tester Amendment and market opportunities for small and mid-sized family farms, and small food processing facilities.”

Thank you for your help and support for those producing some of the nation’s safest and most nutritious food!