WASHINGTON, DC: The Cornucopia Institute, an organic industry research and watchdog organization, announced it has formally requested the USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) to investigate corruption at its National Organic Program resulting in the use of illegal synthetics in organic food and then allowing powerful corporations to “game the system” for approval “after the fact.”

The controversy surrounds products developed by Martek Biosciences Corporation. Martek, part of a $12 billion Dutch-based conglomerate, recently petitioned for approval of its genetically modified soil fungus and algae as nutritional supplements in organic food.

Martek’s formulated oils are processed with synthetic petrochemical solvents in a blend containing a myriad of other synthetic chemicals. Supplements derived from these oils, commonly marketed as DHA and ARA, are being added to milk, infant formula and other organic foods by such companies as Dean Foods (Horizon), Abbott Laboratories (Similac) and Nurture, Inc. (Happy Baby).

“This is a long-standing controversy that the USDA seems to think is just going to go away,” said Mark A. Kastel, Codirector of the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute.

After a formal legal complaint by Cornucopia, and an investigative story by the Washington Post, the USDA announced in April 2010 that it had “inappropriately” allowed Martek oils to be included in organic foods.

The scandal contributed to the removal of the previous director of the National Organic Program (NOP), who overruled her staff’s decision finding Martek supplements were illegal in organics—after she met with a prominent Washington lobbyist, William J. Friedman.

The former NOP director’s decision was reversed in April 2010. But instead of immediately ordering the removal of these unapproved synthetics from organic food, the Obama/Vilsack administration at the USDA delayed enforcement by 18 months in an apparent effort to permit corporate lobbyists to properly petition for review and possibly legal inclusion in organic food.

“It’s unacceptable that these materials are still in organic food and that corporations think they can manipulate the system and get away with it,” said Kastel. “It’s even worse because, according to our research and reports at the FDA, some babies have become ill after consuming Martek supplements in infant formula.”

In December, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the expert panel set up by Congress to advise the USDA Secretary on organic matters, narrowly approved the Martek petitions for their patented versions of DHA and ARA. “All hell broke loose at the meeting in Savannah as the controversy grew extremely heated,” Kastel noted.

In their complaint to the OIG, Cornucopia alleges that Martek misrepresented their novel, synthetic product and manipulated the vote by the NOSB.

“Martek oils, marketed under the Life’sDHA™ brand and included in organic infant formula, milk and baby food, are processed with petrochemical solvents like hexane or isopropyl alcohol, both of which are explicitly banned in organic production,” stated Charlotte Vallaeys, Director of Farm and Food Policy at Cornucopia.

Although Martek told the board that they would discontinue the use of the controversial neurotoxic solvent n-hexane for DHA/ARA processing, they did not disclose what other synthetic solvents would be substituted. Federal organic standards prohibit the use of all synthetic/petrochemical solvents, including isopropyl alcohol, which is currently used to extract DHA algal oil for use in products such as Horizon milk.

Martek again brought in William “Jay” Friedman, with the powerful Washington law firm of Covington and Burling, to lead their approval process. Friedman appeared to deliberately mislead NOSB members into believing that the powdered form of Martek’s DHA oil was not covered in the petition. This particular product formulation uses microencapsulation (banned in organics) and includes a number of additional synthetic materials that have never been reviewed or approved for use in organics.

When asked by NOSB Board chairperson, Tracy Miedema, “Are we approving dried powder or just oil?” Friedman stated on the record, “I can answer that. That’s not the petitioned material.”

Friedman’s statement was inconsistent with Martek’s formal petition to the NOSB, which states that “the petitioned material is unchanged from that which was authorized previously,” referring to the USDA’s earlier corrupted authorization of all Martek’s products, including the powdered form.

“Mr. Friedman’s statement thus appears patently false in an apparent attempt to intentionally mislead the NOSB. This apparent subterfuge led, in turn, to the NOSB’s failure to review other aspects of these materials which would have disqualified them, under law, for inclusion in organic food,” Cornucopia’s Kastel said.

In addition to the letter to the OIG, Cornucopia has requested the D.C. Bar conduct a formal ethics investigation of Mr. Friedman’s conduct.

“The dog and pony show put on by Martek and their largest customer, Dean Foods, was without precedent in the organic industry,” said Alexis Baden-Mayer, Political Director of the Organic Consumers Association, who was present in Savannah.

The only scientists who testified at the meeting on the DHA issue were all on Martek’s payroll, and focused on research showing benefits of consuming naturally occurring omega-3 fatty acids (such as those found in fish and breast milk), while ignoring the preponderance of published peer-reviewed research that shows that these health benefits are not gained from consuming Martek’s novel, manufactured DHA additive.

The written statements of leading scientists in this field, who did not attend the meeting but whose findings were presented to the Board members, including assertions that this field of research is “driven to a large extent by enthusiasm and vested interest,” were overpowered by the handful of corporate-sponsored scientists with a blatant financial interest in the outcome of the vote.

Dean Foods, Martek’s largest customer, brought in a well-known web-pediatrician, Dr. Alan Greene, who has acted as a public relations agent endorsing Horizon brand organic milk with the added Martek DHA oils.

Although Dr. Greene represented himself as a “consultant,” simply answering questions for Dean Foods, and stated he had previously worked for two other organic companies, but failed to disclose his multiple conflicts of interest in commenting on the benefits of Martek’s manufactured DHA supplements.

Greene has also accepted compensation from Mead Johnson, the largest conventional infant formula manufacturer, to promote Martek’s DHA oil in their products, and even has his own product line of nutritional supplements that include Martek DHA, marketed by Twinlabs with his name and photograph on the product package.

“It is unconscionable that a physician, who accepted money from a big drug company to promote synthetic DHA—which many believes promotes the use of baby formula at the expense of the nutrients in breast feeding—failed to disclose such a gross conflict of interest when he testified before the governmental body on certified ‘organic’ standards,” said Lisa Graves, Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy/PRWatch, which helps expose corporate PR tactics.

Greene’s role on behalf of Dean Foods and Martek was to directly dispute the preponderance of scientific literature, including two meta-analyses, that discredits Martek’s claims that their supplements promote cognitive development in infants and children.

Cornucopia’s complaint to the OIG also included evidence documenting that three corporate-backed members of the NOSB, who voted in favor of this petition, had undeclared conflicts of interest.

Two of the board members work for Earthbound Farms, a giant produce distributor that also compensated Dr. Greene during 2011. A third member of the NOSB board works for General Mills which partnered with Martek, starting in 2009, on the technology to microencapsulate their DHA and ARA oils.

Cornucopia said that these board members should have considered recusing themselves from voting on this issue because of the apparent conflicts of interest. One of the members was the prime champion of the Martek petition during board deliberations.

Adding fuel to the controversy, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) just announced the end of its investigation into Dean Foods’ advertising campaign for Horizon DHA supplemented milk, forcing the dairy giant to alter claims in its advertising concerning “brain development or function, cognitive development or function, intelligence, learning abilities in children over the age of two.” This action resulted from a complaint filed by The Cornucopia Institute based on its research of the fraudulent and misleading health claims.

“While they did not fine Dean, or its WhiteWave division, for its misrepresentations in Horizon marketing, we are pleased that the FTC has taken this action to protect children and prevent the defrauding of their parents,” said Vallaeys.

Although the FDA has dismissed complaints about the safety of Martek products in infant formula, reports persist from parents and healthcare providers of infants who experience serious gastrointestinal symptoms from consuming Martek’s DHA and ARA oils in infant formula, raising serious public health questions about the marketing of these products.

The Cornucopia Institute has sent a formal briefing paper on these matters to all members of the National Organic Standards Board.

Cornucopia contends that the board did not fulfill its legal responsibilities of due diligence, and instead solely accepted unsubstantiated statements by Martek that their products were not genetically engineered and were not “synthetic.”

“We are asking the NOSB to reopen their deliberations and consider rescinding their approval of Martek nutritional oils,” Kastel added. “If the board fails to act now, protecting the integrity of organics, it risks changing the working definition of the organic seal and degrading its value in the eyes of consumers.”

-30-

MORE:

Stakeholders in the organic community who would like to send an formal message to the National Organic Standards Board, expressing their support for reevaluating the Martek materials, can do so by accessing an action alert distributed by The Cornucopia Institute.

The Organic Consumers Association, a Minnesota-based organization, is calling on the USDA to immediately remove the powdered form of Martek’s oils from all organic products, including infant formula and baby cereals. OCA believes that Martek’s lobbyist, Friedman, realized that the powdered form would never be approved by the NOSB, and that he, through his oral testimony, effectively changed the petition to exclude the powdered DHA oil.

“Let me play devil’s advocate here. If Friedman wasn’t being dishonest, it means that the powdered form was not recommended for approval by the NOSB and thus should be immediately removed from baby food and infant formula,” says Alexis Baden-Mayer, Political Director of the Organic Consumers Association.

Consumers wishing to reap the health benefits of omega-3 fatty acids can find these naturally occurring nutrients in a variety of foods, including leafy green vegetables, fish, flax, walnuts, milk and meat from grass-fed animals, and pastured eggs.

Research suggests that increasing the amount of omega-3s in the diet by supplements, such as fish oil, will not confer health benefits unless the consumption of omega-6-rich foods, especially corn and corn-based foods such as grain-fed meat and milk, is simultaneously decreased.

An online guide to avoiding foods with Martek’s genetically mutated DHA oils will be available soon on the Cornucopia website: www.cornucopia.org. A list of organic food brands that currently contain Martek DHA algal oil is already available.

After this controversy became prominent in the media, a number of companies that included Martek’s DHA in organic foods in the past have removed these controversial ingredients. These brands include ZenSoy organic soymilk, Plum Organics baby foods, and NuGo organic nutrition bars.

USDA seeks comments for Monsanto and Dow genetically engineered crops

Cornucopia, WI – Over the holidays, the United States Department of Agriculture announced its approval of a novel strain of genetically engineered corn, developed by Monsanto, purportedly being “drought tolerant.”

Despite receiving nearly 45,000 public comments in opposition to this particular genetically engineered (GE) corn variety (and only 23 comments in favor), the Obama administration gave Monsanto the green light to release its newest  GE corn variety freely into the environment and American food supply, without any governmental oversight or safety tracking.

“President Obama and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack just sent a clear message to the American public that they do not care about our concerns with genetically engineered food and their questionable safety, adverse environmental impacts, and detrimental effects on farmers, especially organic farmers,” says Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst with The Cornucopia Institute.

“This is just the latest in a string of approvals of genetically engineered crops, and it is clear that despite campaign promises of change from Obama, he has not had the courage to stand strong against the powerful agribusiness and biotechnology lobbies,” Kastel added.

In addition to its announcement approving Monsanto’s newest GE corn variety, the USDA also opened a 60-day public comment period for two additional petitions – one for Monsanto’s GE soybean containing higher levels of an omega-3 fatty acid, that does not naturally occur in soybeans, and the other from Dow AgroSciences for corn that has been genetically engineered to better resist the poisonous herbicide 2,4-D.

The public can comment on Dow’s 2,4-D corn at:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2010-0103-0001

While the USDA attempts to assure the public that 2,4-D is safe, scientists have raised serious concerns about the safety of this herbicide, which was used as a key ingredient in “Agent Orange,” used to defoliate forests and croplands in the Vietnam War.

2,4-D is a chlorophenoxy herbicide, and scientists around the world have reported increased cancer risks in association with its use, especially for soft tissue sarcoma and malignant lymphoma.  Four separate studies in the United States reported an association with chlorophenoxy herbicide use and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

“The concern is that, just like Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn that is resistant to RoundUp™ (glyphosate) herbicide, the approval of a cultivar resistant to 2,4-D will cause an exponential increase in the use of this toxic agrichemical,” Kastel stated.

Research by the EPA found that babies born in counties with high rates of 2,4-D application to farm fields were significantly more likely to be born with birth defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, as well as defects of the musculoskeletal system like clubfoot, fused digits and extra digits. These birth defects were 60% to 90% more likely in counties with higher 2,4-D application rates.

The results also showed a higher likelihood of birth defects in babies conceived in the spring, when herbicide application rates peak.

In its petition, Dow AgroSciences states that 2,4-D is increasingly important for chemical farmers because of the presence of weeds that have developed resistance to glyphosate, as a result of the widespread use of Monsanto’s genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops.

When Monsanto introduced glyphosate, it was touted as a safer and less toxic alternative to herbicides like 2,4-D.  Now, an emerging body of scientific literature is raising serious concerns about the safety of glyphosate as well.

“The concern that the use of GE crops, which are resistant to particular herbicides, leads to the creation of ‘superweeds’ is now shown to be valid and serious, as even the chemical companies now recognize and admit this is a problem,” says Kastel.

“In 2012 the USDA is proposing approving a new GE corn variety that is resistant to a different toxic herbicide, escalating the toxic treadmill in chemical-dependent agriculture,” said Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides. “This is nothing more than a band-aid solution to a serious problem, and will only give rise to more superweeds, more herbicide pollution in our environment, more herbicide poisoning, while likely leading to the need for even more toxic herbicides a couple of years down the line. This foolish circle has to end,” Feldman said.

Farm research groups like The Cornucopia Institute are also concerned with the impact of genetically engineered crops on organic farmers, whose organic crops are already at risk of contamination with Monsanto’s unnatural DNA, from pollen drift.

In its Environmental Assessment of the “drought tolerant” Monsanto corn, the USDA conceded that gene flow of corn pollen is likely to occur.  It is well-established that corn pollen travels, and pollen from genetically engineered plants will contaminate natural corn plants.

“The irony, of course, is that organic fields and crops are much more drought tolerant, because common sense and field trials show healthy and biologically active organic soil retains moisture much better than tired and depleted soil on conventional monoculture farms, and organic crops are healthier and more robust than conventional crops,” said Charlotte Vallaeys, a researcher at Cornucopia.

“But Monsanto cannot profit from healthy soil and healthy organic crops, while they can profit from genetically engineering, patenting, and owning new life forms,” Vallaeys continued.  “It’s unfortunate that the Obama administration is equally misguided by supporting Monsanto and Dow’s petitions and ignoring citizens’ demand for an immediate end to approving these genetically engineered crops in our food supply.”

More:

The newest genetically engineered soybean petitioned by Monsanto is one of the first to claim a public health benefit, since it has been engineered to contain higher levels of an omega-3 fatty acid, stearidonic acid.

“Genetically engineering a ubiquitous monoculture crop to contain higher levels of just one particular nutrient will not solve our public health crisis, and might even exacerbate it, since a healthy diet is about much more than simply increasing the levels of one particular omega-3 fatty acid,” said Vallaeys.  “It’s another band-aid solution that will do little to address the root of the problem with our nation’s “nutrition” problem, which is people eating too many processed foods containing corn and soybean derivatives, and not eating a varied diet of nutrient-rich wholesome foods.”

The USDA surveyed 43 foods and compared their nutritional content in 1999 to original testing that took place in 1950.  Half of the nutrients measured declined by 6 to 38%.  “Industrial agriculture, as compared to organics, have relegated our diets to a lot of empty calories,” Vallaeys added.

On the campaign trail in 2007, the President said that genetically modified foods should be labeled because Americans “should know what they are buying.”

Despite promises of change, Mr. Obama appointed former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack as USDA Secretary, who had gained notoriety in agricultural circles after being named Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Obama subsequently appointed two pro-GMO agrochemical company lobbyists to powerful positions in his administration.  Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lobbyist, became food czar at the Food and Drug Administration.  Islam Siddiqui, a lifelong pesticide lobbyist and GMO advocate, was appointed Chief Agricultural Negotiator.

These appointments revealed the tight grip that Monsanto and other biotech corporations have on elected officials, and raised further doubts regarding the promises for change by the current administration.

Adding insult to injury, the Obama USDA’s timing for announcing notices related to genetic engineering mirrors the Bush administration’s approach of burying the news and actively discouraging public participation. The FDA declared GMO salmon was safe, on the Friday before the long Labor Day weekend in 2010.

Then the USDA made their highly controversial decision to deregulate GMO alfalfa during the busy holiday season of 2010.  Their decision is being challenged by The Cornucopia Institute, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety and scores of other plaintiffs in federal court.

More recently, the announcement that Monsanto’s newest genetically engineered corn had been deregulated, and that Monsanto and Dow had petitioned for additional approval of GMO corn and soybeans, came the week between Christmas and the New Year Day holiday.

“When attempting to bury controversial news, it’s not uncommon for the government to issue press releases on days when the public isn’t paying attention and the news media is on vacation,” noted Cornucopia’s Mark Kastel.  “The Bush administration did the same thing when announcing that bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) had entered the domestic food chain.”

Citizens can comment on the proposed approval of Dow’s 2,4-D tolerant corn and Monsanto’s stearidonic acid soybeans until February 27, 2012.

An online petition opposing Dow’s 2,4-D corn variety, which will be sent to President Obama and Secretary Vilsack, can be signed here.

Like every public interest charity we depend on the generosity of our members at the end of the year to carry out our mission.

For the first time in the history of the organic movement we are going in reverse. We are losing farmers, and crop acreage, because some folks are losing money in organics while watching their conventional neighbors cash in on high grain prices driven by demand for ethanol and a tight market around the world. And organic markets have been injured by fraud and cheating.

Simultaneously, we’re seeing corporate shenanigans undermining the reputation of the organic label by including dubious synthetics and even genetically modified inputs.

Don’t sit back as we lose control of our food supply and see some of our best farmers economically damaged.

The USDA certified organic label is still the best option for most consumers (in addition to organic food from farmers that you can make a local and personal connection with). The scorecards on the Cornucopia website help separate the true heroes from the organic charlatans—please exercise your economic clout by choosing carefully in the grocery aisles.

Your gift today to The Cornucopia Institute will support us in fighting for the integrity of the good food movement.

Of course, as an IRS 501(c)(3) charitable institution, your contributions are deductible to the full extent of the law.

On behalf of our staff, Board of Directors, and especially our farmer-membership, I again want to thank you very sincerely for your support.

Best regards and warm greetings,

Mark A. Kastel
Cofounder

P.S.: Your generous contribution at the end of this year will help us show foundations and large donors, who are considering funding Cornucopia in these troubled financial times, that there continues to be true widespread support from farmers and consumers willing to invest their hard-earned dollars in protecting sustainable and organic food and farming.

PPS: Please read the latest news about another massive factory farm Cornucopia recently busted (and the additional work we all need to do to make sure the USDA protects the interests of the organic community):

http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/12/enforcement-hammer-falls-on-giant-arizona-organic-factory-farm-dairy/

Mark A. Kastel
The Cornucopia Institute
kastel@cornucopia.org
608-625-2042 Voice
866-861-2214 Fax

P.O. Box 126
Cornucopia, Wisconsin 54827
www.cornucopia.org

USDA Action Spurred by Industry Watchdog’s Investigation

CORNUCOPIA, WI – An industrial-scale organic dairy, located south of Phoenix in the desert Southwest, is poised to lose its USDA organic certification.  The enforcement action at Shamrock Farms is the result of a USDA investigation into organic livestock management practices that was triggered by a formal complaint from The Cornucopia Institute.

Shamrock operates a massive dairy that was milking approximately 16,000 cows at the time of an inspection by Cornucopia staff in 2008.  Between 700 and 1,100 of the cows at the split operation were in the organic milk herd; the remainder were part of a conventional dairy that is part of the same sprawling complex.  Shamrock is Arizona’s first-ever certified organic dairy.

“We found inadequate, overgrazed pasture adjacent to their milking facility, and we were told by Shamrock employees that the confined cows had not been out in weeks,” said Mark A.  Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute, an organic industry watchdog.

Federal organic regulations require that cows be grazed, and the practice has been a contentious issue in the organic arena.  A number of factory-scale dairies — some milking thousands of cows each — have been spotlighted by Cornucopia’s investigations for skirting the law.  Formal complaints to the USDA from the farm policy group have led to similar enforcement actions against other giant dairies that they say are “masquerading as organic.”

“As an organic dairy farmer who believes in and follows the law, I am upset that outfits like Shamrock are allegedly cheating and deceiving organic consumers,” said John Boere, a Modesto, California dairy producer who ships his milk to Organic Valley, a cooperative of primarily family farmers.   “Over the past few years there has been a surplus of organic milk, which injured plenty of farms like mine.  Ethical producers like me could have recovered some of our income if certifiers and the USDA had been doing their jobs,” added Boere.

Shamrock’s organic certifier, Quality Assurance International, has been asked by the USDA to handle the suspension.

“This dairy operation never should have been certified in the first place,” Kastel noted, “and it’s unacceptable that it took more than three years from the time of our complaint to the announcement of this enforcement action.  There’s simply no excuse for this level of foot-dragging and procrastination at a USDA administration that proclaimed this the ‘age of enforcement.’”

The Wisconsin-based organization has been increasingly critical of the Obama/Vilsack administration at the USDA for failing to live up to its own rhetoric, and high expectations after appointing widely respected industry participants to run the National Organic Program.

“We filed the formal legal complaint against Shamrock towards the end of the Bush administration,” said Kastel.  “This kind of delay, as consumers apparently were continuing to unknowingly buy fraudulent organic milk, is a grave disservice and abdication of the USDA’s congressional mandate to protect the industry from improprieties.”

Shamrock Food Company’s milk and sour cream products are distributed in the Rocky Mountain and Southwest regions and available at such retailers as Walmart.

The Cornucopia Institute, with almost 6,000 members, has more organic farmer-members than any other policy group in the country.  On the organization’s website (www.cornucopia.org) pictures of Shamrock’s industrial-scale dairy can be viewed in the photo gallery.

“At a time when conventional and organic dairy producers are all being squeezed by extraordinarily high feed prices, there is no doubt that large corporate-owned, vertically-integrated operations like Shamrock put downward pressure on farm gate prices,” said Will Fantle, Cornucopia’s Research Director.  “If this dairy was indeed violating the law, they have taken profits out of the pockets of hard-working family farmers in the Southwest.”

Cornucopia has also produced an online scorecard for consumers rating all organic dairy brands sold in grocery stores around the country for their adherence to the spirit and letter of the federal law and regulations governing organic food and agriculture.

“The good news for organic consumers in the Southwest, and elsewhere, is that based on our research 90% of all organic dairy brands are produced with high integrity,” Kastel affirmed.  “In every market buyers can find organic milk, cheese and yogurt, butter and ice cream that truly respect organic consumers’ values and the federal law.  Scofflaws like Shamrock are unfortunate aberrations.”

MORE:

The Cornucopia Institute was formally notified by the USDA that it had completed its investigation of Shamrock’s Arizona dairy by referring the 2008 complaint to the operation’s certifier, Quality Assurance International (QAI).

“Since Shamrock, based on our allegations, was in flagrant violation of the law, which should have been evident to its certifier, upon initial inspection and on subsequent annual inspections, we question the propriety of the USDA depending on QAI rather than conducting their own investigation,” said Fantle.

In the past, when Cornucopia filed formal legal complaints against other industrial dairy operations, such as Aurora Dairy in Colorado, which USDA investigators found was in “willful” violation of federal law, the certifier was also found complicit and was initially earmarked, by the USDA, for suspension.

In 2007, another giant dairy certified by QAI, owned by Case Vander Eyk Jr., in Pixley, California milking 10,000 cows, in a split operation, also lost its organic certification after a Cornucopia investigation and subsequent legal complaint.

“The USDA’s job, operating an accreditation program, is to assure that the certifiers are performing their duties properly,” said Fantle.  “Subcontracting investigations to certifiers, when serious allegations crop up, when the certifier itself could also be responsible, is inappropriate.”

The USDA’s letter to Cornucopia states that, “QAI issued a Letter of Proposed Suspension to Shamrock” and that the corporation has appealed the action and their milk remains in the market.

“Besides the unacceptable delay, what is outrageous about this notice is its lack of transparency,” added Fantle.  The USDA has refused, thus far, to release the actual Letter of Proposed Suspension, breaking from tradition.

“Even the Bush administration was willing to inform the public when an enforcement action took place and fully delineate the violations that were confirmed,” lamented Kastel.

Although, on at least one occasion, The Cornucopia Institute was forced to sue the Bush USDA in order to compel the release of documents that the public was legally entitled to, it now states it is more disappointed in the Obama administration’s approach to openness at the USDA.

“This isn’t exactly news, as the mindset of the Obama administration has been well documented in the media, including the New York Times, in terms of their increasing levels of secrecy, after professing, as President Obama took office, its commitment to transparency.  This level of secrecy is highly disappointing to find at the National Organic Program (NOP),” said Kastel.

“There wasn’t anything positive in terms of governmental openness at the NOP during the Bush years, but now we find that documents that had been previously released are being withheld. What’s more, when the Department now complies with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests most of the documents are so heavily redacted they are rendered useless to the public and media endeavoring to understand whether or not our regulators are properly enforcing the law,” Kastel added.

The National Organic Standards Board November meeting in Savannah, GA, held Nov. 29 to Dec. 2, revealed the deep divide that exists in the organic industry between public interest groups (like Cornucopia), farmers and consumers fighting for a strong and meaningful organic label and corporate executives and their paid lobbyists and scientists pursuing weaker standards in pursuit of profit.

During public testimony, audience members applauded Cornucopia Codirector Mark Kastel, who asked the Board members whether they were here to protect the organic market for organic consumers, organic farmers, and ethical organic entrepreneurs, or to pave the way for corporate profit. Kastel urged the Board members to preserve the integrity of the organic label by rejecting the various petitions for dubious synthetics in organic food, and by standing up for strong animal welfare standards.

Sulfites in wine – The Board rejected the petition to allow synthetic preservatives (sulfur dioxide) in organic wine – a clear victory for the organic community and especially for organic winemakers who have been producing award-winning organic wine for decades. Cornucopia worked with a strong contingent of winemakers who illustrated the lack of need for preservatives by hosting a wine reception for the board with products that were lauded for their quality.

Poultry and outdoor access – The Board voted on some of the recommendations for animal welfare standards, and announced it would continue its work on animal welfare at the NOSB meeting in May 2012.

The good news is that covered porches will no longer count as “outdoor access.” Industrial-scale producers like The Country Hen, Kreher’s and Herbruck’s that currently give their hens no access to the outdoors/soil/vegetation will no longer be allowed to call their eggs “organic.”

The Board adopted outdoor space requirements for organic chickens, and in an apparent attempt to appease industry interests, recommended a range of 2-5 ft2 for organic laying hens and as little as 1 ft.² for broilers. This is a disappointing compromise, since a range is likely no different from the minimum lowest number in the range. In this case, a range of 2-5 ft2 simply means a minimum of 2 ft2, which we do not believe is enough to protect the land, ensure adequate vegetation in the outdoor run, and conform to consumer expectation and the legal requirement that organic livestock be allowed to exhibit their natural instinctive behaviors.

The minimum indoor space requirement in the NOSB’s final recommendation is 2 ft2 for laying hens. It is unclear why the Board adopted such a high number, when the previous draft of the recommendation called for 1.2 ft2 per laying hen if all hens have perches, or 1.5 ft2 if 20% of the birds have perches, and Cornucopia had urged 1.75 ft2. If any of our members who produce organic eggs have serious concerns about 2 ft2 indoors, which had never been discussed by the NOSB, please contact us.

The NOSB also recommended that pullets do not have to go outside until after 16 weeks (since this is generally the age young birds are moved to the laying house, this effectively means that they will never be outside when immature and will likely be unused to/scared of the outside as a mature adult). After moving to the laying house, they can then be confined for up to five weeks to get used to “nesting,” meaning that most birds will probably not have outdoor access until 21 weeks of age (and many only remain in production for one year). In a positive move, the Board recommended that mature swine must be on pasture during the grazing season, with a pasture that consists of at least 25% vegetative cover.

DHA algal oil and ARA fungal oil – The Board voted to accept Martek Biosciences Corporation’s genetically mutated DHA algal oil and ARA fungal oil, with the exception that it could not be extracted with the use of the toxic and air pollutant petrochemical hexane. Since all DHA algal oil and ARA fungal oil in organic infant formula is currently extracted using the hexane solvent, and has never been approved by the NOSB, we are urging the National Organic Program to take immediate enforcement action.

However, the compromise of prohibiting the hexane-extracted oils, negotiated by lawyers and lobbyists for Martek Biosciences Corporation, and the dairy behemoth Dean Foods (Horizon), appears to have been a dirty deal. Although the compromise proposal outlaws hexane, it does not outlaw the general category of “synthetic solvents” for extraction, and Martek uses the synthetic solvent isopropyl alcohol to extract the algal oil for use in Dean Foods’ Horizon milk. Moreover, prohibiting only hexane, instead of all synthetic solvents, could potentially lead Martek to use even more dangerous solvents, like acetone or benzene, to manufacture their nutritional oils for use in organic infant formula.

DHA algal oils and powders that are not hexane-extracted were approved for use in organic drinks and foods, with the requirement that any other agricultural ingredients used must also be organic (the DHA algal oil in Horizon’s milk, for example, currently contains conventional sunflower oil).

While these changes are important – consumers clearly do not want hexane-extracted oils and conventional ingredients in their organic foods – they do not go far enough! Prior to the meeting, the USDA National Organic Program had concurred with Cornucopia in urging the Board members to closely examine “other ingredients” used in petitioned substances. In an organic baby food currently on store shelves (Happy Babytm cereal), DHA algal oil contains unapproved and unreviewed synthetics including mannitol (a sugar alcohol), sodium polyphosphate, sodium ascorbate, modified starch and glucose syrup solids. Most consumers who seek out organic food are trying to avoid these types of synthetics.

All but four Board members voted for the Martek compromise approving DHA algal oil, knowing full well that their “yes” vote would approve these synthetics as part of DHA algal oil in certified organic food, including organic baby cereal – often the very first solid food a baby consumes. The vote came after a last minute backroom deal to add the annotation to the Martek petition, which was crafted between Board members and lobbyists to meet some of the concerns raised at the meeting and to secure the votes of two swing members needed for approval (a supermajority of 10 was required for adoption).

The growing gulf between those who fight for a strong organic label and those whose pursuit of profit trumps any concern for the integrity of organics was amplified by the legions of paid lobbyists, scientists and lawyers who paraded before the NOSB seeking approval for Martek and Dean/Horizon’s DHA algal oil. The wave of power and money swamped the board with questionable science, interpretations and half-truths.

Cornucopia and its allies will continue to fight for strong organic standards, on behalf of our family farmer and consumer members like you.

We would especially like to thank the 15,000 citizens that signed and returned their proxy letters, and forwarded other communications. During public testimony, we had to borrow a wheeled industrial cart from the hotel engineering staff to deliver the many large boxes full of signed letters. The volume of letters cautioned the NOSB members and USDA staff that they should not act recklessly, because thousands of organic farmers and consumers care deeply about these issues, and are carefully following the process.

Thank you for your continued support. We are continuing to work with the heroes on the NOSB and USDA staff, to correct some of the apparently illegal decisions that were made. If we are unsuccessful in persuading them to act, Cornucopia might very well end up challenging some of these decisions, that violate the congressional mandate to protect the organic label, in court.

Cornucopia, WI—The Cornucopia Institute, one of the nation’s leading organic industry watchdogs, is urging members of the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), in formal testimony, to vote to preserve the integrity of organic food and farming at its upcoming meeting in Savannah, Georgia.

Some of the hot button issues on the agenda, including using artificial preservatives and genetically modified ingredients, would seem Orwellian to many longtime organic farmers and consumers. The forecasted dustup will be debated by a USDA panel, deeply divided between corporate agribusiness representatives and organic advocates.

Under the Bush and Obama administrations, the USDA Secretaries have been criticized for appointing a significant number of corporate representatives, whose primary interest appears to be loosening the federal organic standards, allegedly in pursuit of enhanced profits.

“We think this meeting may well decide the fate of organic food and agriculture in this country,” said Mark A. Kastel, Codirector of The Cornucopia Institute, which represents family-scale organic farmers and their consumer allies across the U.S.

The 15-member NOSB is a citizen panel, set up by Congress, to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on organic policy and rulemaking. Upcoming votes concern the use of genetically modified and synthetic additives that have been petitioned for use in organic foods and drinks, including baby foods and formula.

While these synthetics seemingly fail the legal criteria for inclusion in organic foods, the NOSB committee recommending their use is comprised mostly of representatives working for corporations like General Mills and Campbell Soup that have only a sliver of their total sales in the organic food sector.

Additives being recommended for use in organics include nutritional oils manufactured by Martek Biosciences Corporation, part of the $30 billion multinational conglomerate Royal DSM. These oils, genetically modified to provide isolated omega-3 and omega-6 nutrients DHA and ARA, are derived from algae and soil fungus, and stabilized with a wide variety of synthetic ingredients.

When incorporated in infant formula, these oils are processed with a neurotoxic solvent, n-hexane. A byproduct of gasoline refinement, n-hexane is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a hazardous pollutant. The recommendation to approve Martek’s oils, processed with hexane, has industry observers scratching their head since solvents, commonly used in conventional food production, are expressly forbidden in organic food production.

“What is most egregious about the NOSB push to approve the Martek Biosciences Corporation petition is that these DHA and ARA oils are in no way essential in organics, as claimed by Martek,” states Cornucopia’s Kastel. “Other organic manufacturers have successfully used fish oil and egg yolks as legal and natural alternative sources of supplemental DHA.”

According to a poll of nearly 1,500 Seattle area organic consumers, conducted by PCC Natural Markets, the largest member-owned food cooperative in the United States, the overwhelming majority of shoppers would reject organic products with Martek’s oils if they knew the manufacturing details of Martek’s “Life’sDHA®”.

76.4% of shoppers polled in the PCC survey would not purchase organic products with DHA from genetically modified algae, and 88.6% would not purchase organic products if hexane-extracted. If consumers knew that Martek’s oils are stabilized with synthetic ingredients, the poll suggests that 78.3% of consumers would reject the products as well.

The NOSB will also vote on a petition allowing the use of the synthetic preservative sulfur dioxide (sulfites) in wine. Winemakers who currently use sulfites are prohibited from using the USDA organic seal on their labels. “Approving sulfites, not only a synthetic preservative but a common allergen, would represent another blow to consumer confidence in the organic label, which has always signified the absence of artificial preservatives,” Kastel noted.

The success of a growing number of certified organic winemakers that shun artificial preservatives proves that this synthetic is not essential to making a high quality organic wine.

“If the standards are weakened by the USDA, allowing these synthetics, it will significantly narrow the difference between organic and conventional wine,” said Paul Frey of Frey Vineyards. “A major strength of the organic standards comes from consumers trusting that organic foods are wholesome and free from artificial preservatives and other threats to health and environmental stewardship.”

Meanwhile, the Livestock Committee of the NOSB, which is refining the standards aimed at ensuring high levels of animal welfare on organic farms, appears to be backing away from adopting strong, enforceable standards for laying hens and other species.

“They are caving to the factory farm lobby, listening to giant vertically integrated egg producers, and ignoring the voice of rank-and-file family farmers,” said Tim Koegel, a nationally prominent certified organic farmer producing pastured eggs and chickens. “The NOSB has an opportunity to make organics the true gold standard in terms of animal husbandry but instead might choose to make the organic label a joke.”

The proposal for chickens would give animals as little as one square foot of living space. “Like allowing synthetics, this woefully inadequate standard would violate the organic law that requires animals be allowed to exhibit their natural instinctive behaviors,” added Koegel. “Hell, those birds will not even be able to fully span their wings, let alone forage outside for insects, seeds and worms.”

This is not the first time the organic community, farmers and consumers, have come together to defend the integrity of the organic label. In the mid-90s, when the Clinton Administration first suggested allowing antibiotics, genetic engineering and sewage sludge in organics, over 300,000 citizens recorded their objections with the USDA—and they won.

“We have already received numerous proxies, downloaded from our website (www.cornucopia.org) from organic stakeholders demanding that the NOSB back away from sweetheart deals for corporate agribusiness at the expense of the organic label,” affirmed Kastel. “We hope many other folks, who care about organics, will make their voice heard as well.”

MORE:

The Cornucopia Institute has a proxy letter on its web page that concerned farmers and consumers can sign and mail. Cornucopia will hand-deliver the letters at the NOSB meeting in Savannah. The proxy can be found here: http://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Proxy-letter-NOSB-2011.pdf

“This is an important time; time for the NOSB to choose the high road and bring organic standards, and enforcement of those standards, up to a level of integrity that the consumer expects. Failure to do so will undermine the future of the organic label, injuring the legitimate family farmer and deceiving the public,” added Koegel, a New York certified organic livestock producer.

Cornucopia testimony and detailed analysis on Martek Biosciences Corporation’s proposed novel DHA/ARA oils can be found at: http://www.cornucopia.org/official-comments-of-the-cornucopia-institute-to-the-usda-national-organic-standards-board/

Cornucopia’s response to the wine industry lobby’s request for artificial preservatives (sulfites) in organic wine can be viewed at: http://www.cornucopia.org/official-comments-of-the-cornucopia-institute-to-the-usda-national-organic-standards-board/

A detailed response from The Cornucopia Institute, to the NOSB livestock committee’s proposal on animal welfare standards can be found at: http://www.cornucopia.org/official-comments-of-the-cornucopia-institute-to-the-usda-national-organic-standards-board/

CORNUCOPIA, WIS: A revelatory report released by The Cornucopia Institute, an organic industry watchdog, has stirred controversy in the natural foods marketing arena by highlighting abusive marketing practices by some of the nation’s largest breakfast cereal manufacturers. In some cases, companies such as Kellogg’s, Quaker Oats (PepsiCo), Barbara’s Bakery and Whole Foods Market are selling products contaminated with toxic agrichemicals and Monsanto’s genetically engineered organisms while promoting them as “natural.”

The new report, Cereal Crimes: How “Natural” Claims Deceive Consumers and Undermine the Organic Label—A Look Down the Cereal and Granola Aisle (available at www.cornucopia.org) explores this growing trend of marketing conventional foods as “natural” to lure health-conscious and eco-conscious consumers and their shopping dollars.

Unlike the organic label, no government agency, certification group, or other independent entity defines the term “natural” on processed food packages or ensures that the claim has merit.

In contrast, breakfast cereals displaying the USDA’s “certified organic” label are produced under a strict set of verified standards prohibiting the use of petrochemical-based fertilizers, sewage sludge, synthetic toxic pesticides, genetically modified crops, and other many common conventional agricultural and manufacturing inputs.

Cereal Crimes details how prominent agribusinesses are increasingly using various strategies to create the illusion of equivalence between the “natural” and organic labels to mislead consumers.

“Some companies that started out organic, and built brand loyalty as organic brands, have switched to non-organic ingredients and “natural” labeling,” said Charlotte Vallaeys, Director of Farm and Food Policy at Cornucopia.

One such brand, Peace Cereal® is an example of what Cornucopia calls “bait-and-switch.” In 2008, the Peace Cereal® brand switched from organic to cheaper conventional ingredients, without lowering its prices. Today, the cereal is sold in natural food stores and mainstream grocers at prices above many of their certified organic competitors that are using more expensive organic ingredients.

Although the prices may be similar, in reality, there is a vast difference between organic and “natural” products from grain produced with the use of toxic pesticides. In some cases, companies charge high prices for “natural” products that even contain genetically engineered crops developed by St. Louis-based Monsanto.

Pesticides that are strictly prohibited in organics are commonly used to produce ingredients for “natural” products. For example, organophosphate pesticides were developed from World War II-era nerve gas and are designed to be toxic to the neurological systems of target organisms. They are deadly to insects but also have been proven damaging to humans—with fetuses and children especially at risk.

Several recent studies have linked organophosphate pesticide exposure to a wide range of developmental disorders in children, including behavioral problems, poorer short-term memory and motor skills, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).. ¬, , , While federal law prohibits organic farmers from using these toxic pesticides, no such restriction exists for “natural” products.

“This is exactly why parents are seeking out truly natural (organic) products for their children and are deceived by corporate agribusinesses and their Madison Avenue agencies,” said Vallaeys.

USDA testing has found residues of organophosphate pesticides like chlorpyrifos and malathion on corn, soy, wheat flour, and oats, which are all common ingredients in breakfast cereals. In the case of wheat flour, residues were found in more than 60% of samples.

Given increasing consumer interest in avoiding genetically engineered (GE) ingredients, The Cornucopia Institute contracted with an independent, accredited laboratory to test many “natural” breakfast cereals for potential genetic contamination.

“Natural” cereals from brands including Kashi (Kellogg’s), Mother’s (PepsiCo), Nutritious Living, Barbara’s Bakery (Weetabix), and 365 (Whole Foods Market) contained high levels of genetically engineered ingredients (all above 28%, some as high as 100%) —even though a number of these companies represent their products as “non-GMO” to the public.

To help health-conscious consumers make informed grocery purchases, Cereal Crimes is accompanied by a scorecard rating various breakfast cereal and granola brands for the true support of healthy and environmentally sustainable practices. The scorecard can be viewed at: cornucopia.org/cereal-scorecard

“Consumers probably find this marketplace subterfuge less surprising when they learn that many of the leading ‘natural’ cereal brands are really manufactured by giant agribusinesses like Kellogg’s, hiding behind the façade of well-established niche brands,” said Harry Bennett, a marketing official with the Kansas Organic Producers Association, a cooperative of marketing organic grain.

Despite finding that “natural” cereal products offer few, if any, advantages over conventional products, companies typically charge substantially high prices for products with “natural” labeling claims.

Analysis by Cornucopia of wholesale and retail cereal and granola prices revealed that “natural” products often are priced higher than equivalent organic products. This suggests that some companies are profiting from consumer confusion.

For example, prices in the leading natural/organic food distributor’s wholesale catalog for multigrain flakes show that two of the least expensive products are actually certified organic, offered by industry leader Nature’s Path and Food for Life. Meanwhile, Kashi’s 7-grain cereal, made with cheaper non-organic grains by the multinational corporation Kellogg but disguised as an independent sounding “natural” brand, is priced higher than equivalent organic options.

Karen Zwicky of Minneapolis, MN said she just bought several boxes of Kashi cereal for her 2 year old daughter, who she’s been feeding a “pretty” strict organic diet.

“Target was handing out samples of Kashi, and she loved the taste and I trusted the brand, even though it isn’t labeled as organic,” Zwicky explained. “I don’t mind that the big brands buy out the smaller organic and more sustainable companies, what really is disturbing to me is that it seems that they are only doing so in order to buy consumer trust.”

“Committed organic companies, rated highly in the Cornucopia’s online scorecard, must compete against giant multinationals such as Kraft Foods (Back to Nature), Pepsico (Mother’s) and Kellogg’s (Bear Naked /Kashi) and misleading “natural” marketing claims,” stated Mark A. Kastel, Codirector at the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute. “When marketers intentionally mislead consumers with their “natural” products, they are taking business away from the companies providing truly safe and healthy food and supporting certified organic farmers.”

- 30-

MORE:

Become an expert in 4 min. (YouTube video): http://www.youtube.com/user/CornucopiaInstitute

Organic farmers in the US received lower prices for their grains as cereal companies drop their demand for certified organic ingredients and switch to “natural” labeling and cheap, conventional ingredients.

According to research by the Natural Marketing Institute, a market research firm, two-thirds of U.S. consumers believe foods today are less safe to eat because of chemicals used during the growing and processing of foods. Given this widespread interest in avoiding foodborne chemicals, it is increasingly important for consumers to realize that buying “natural” foods does little, if anything, to avoid synthetic inputs and toxins used on the farms and inside the manufacturing plants.

“While calling their products natural, some of the largest breakfast cereal manufacturers are adding ingredients processed with the neurotoxic solvent hexane, a processing agent that is banned in organic food production,” added Kastel.

Hexane is a solvent commonly used to separate the oil, fiber and protein from grains and seeds. Some granola and cereal manufacturers use soy ingredients, such as soy grits and soy protein isolate, which are commonly hexane-extracted and can contain residues.

Debra Boschee, an astute consumer from Rapid City, South Dakota, said “It isn’t the things we know that scare us, it’s the things we don’t know, such as ‘what’s really in my food.’”

In addition to accessing The Cornucopia Institute’s new scorecard, comparing the nation’s natural and organic cereal brands, families who are interested in feeding their families the safest and most nutritional food can also find the ratings of over 120 organic dairy brands, to augment a healthy breakfast, on the Cornucopia website: www.cornucopia.org

V.A. Rauh, Garfinkel, R. et al. (2006), “Impact of Prenatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure on Neurodevelopment in the First 3 Years of Life Among Inner-City Children,.” Pediatrics 118(6). (Available online at: www.pediatrics.org/ cgi/content/full/118/6/e1845.) See also B. Eskenazi, B., Marks, A.R. et al. (2007), “Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure and Neurodevelopment in Young Mexican-American children,” Environmental Health Perspectives 115(5):792–798.
P. Grandjean, Harari, R. et al. (2006), “Pesticide Exposure and Stunting as Independent Predictors of Neurobehavioral Deficits in Ecuadorian School Children.” Pediatrics 117(3). (Available online at www. pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/117/3/e546.)
P.Z. Ruckart, P.Z., Kakolewski, K. et al. (2004), “Long-Term Neurobehavioral Health Effects of Methyl Parathion Exposure in Children in Mississippi and Ohio,” Environmental Health Perspectives 112(1): 46 –51.
D.S. Rohlman, Arcury, T.A. et al. (2005), “Neurobehavioral Performance in Preschool Children from aAricultural and Non-agricultural Communities in Oregon and North Carolina,” Neurotoxicology 26(4): 589–598.
M.F. Bouchard, Bellinger, D.C. et al. (2010), “Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Urinary Metabolites of Organophosphate Pesticides,” Pediatrics 125:e1270–e1277.

USDA Extends Deadline for Public Comments on New Animal ID Rule
Non-Profits Representing Farmers and Ranchers Appealed to Vilsack, Applaud Decision

WASHINGTON, DC (October 7, 2011): The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced that it was extending the deadline for public comments on its proposed rule for mandatory animal traceability, following a request by forty-nine organizations for a deadline extension.

The organizations had sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack requesting an extension to allow sufficient time for the people who will be affected to analyze the rule and submit comments.

“We have significant concerns about the substance of the rule, and we appreciate the USDA providing more time for public comment,” stated Judith McGeary, Executive Director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance and vice-chair of the USDA Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Animal Health. “Our farmers are already struggling with the poor economy and terrible weather conditions in many parts of the country, and they needed additional time to be provide comment to the agency about the impact this proposed rule will have.”

While the USDA already has traceability requirements as part of existing animal disease control programs, the proposed rule goes much further to require animal tracking even absent clear and documented disease threats. The proposed rule has raised significant concerns among family farm and ranch advocates, who accuse the agency of pushing a program to benefit corporate agribusiness interests rather than animal health.

“The USDA keeps saying that this is an animal health program, but it has failed to provide valid animal health reasons for it,” argued Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA. “The real push for this program comes from the giant meat packing corporations who want international standards to help their export markets.” Farm advocates have suggested that meatpacking companies that wish to export meat should enhance the current voluntary programs that compensate farmers and ranchers for the extra paperwork and costs involved with complying.

The USDA draft rule greatly expands what animals must be identified, including young feeder cattle, which are processed at a young age and never enter the breeding herd.

“While any animal can become sick, there is no evidence that tracking feeder cattle will do anything to address animal disease issues in this country,” continued Ms. McGeary. “To the contrary, requiring the large numbers of feeder cattle to be tagged and accompanied by paperwork could actually harm our ability to respond to animal diseases by swamping the system with unnecessary stacks of paper.”

While expressing appreciation for the extension to the comment period, the groups continue to argue that the agency needs to reconsider the substance of the rule as well.

“For the sake of all Americans, the USDA should put the interests of family farmers ahead of the meatpacking lobby,” stated Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at The Cornucopia Institute.

Have you ever purchased “natural” Kashi breakfast cereal or Bear Naked granola? Did you know they were manufactured by Kellogg’s?

Have you ever purchased Back to Nature granola (Kraft) or something “natural” from Quaker Oats (PepsiCo)?

You won’t find the names of any of these major corporate agribusinesses on the label, or on their website. They are all masquerading as independent green companies.

Do you think when you feed your children natural cereal that you are avoiding toxic pesticides and genetically modified organisms …. Think again! Sadly, the majority of consumers when polled think that’s what the natural label means.

Then there are some well-known brands that used to be 100% organic (including Peace Cereal or Annie’s) that have kept their higher pricing and switched away from organic ingredients (Peace is now 100% conventional / “natural” and 80% of Annie’s cereal offerings are now conventional / “natural”).

Most of the cereals labeled “natural” are produced from grains with pesticide contamination (based on extensive USDA research).

And most “natural” products come from crops produced with Monsanto’s genetically modified plants…. Even some labeled “non-GMO.”

And maybe the greatest insult is that many of these companies are charging the same, or even more, then certified organic heroes like Nature’s Path cereal or Grandy Oats granola (both 100% certified organic).

Here’s where we need your help. If you have ever purchased one of these brands thinking that they were healthier, or if you ever have purchased them when they were organic and not noticed that they switched to conventional ingredients, would you please send us a one or two sentence quotation that we can use in our media work? We will also need your city and state and phone number for confirmation (you can include your occupation and how many children you have if you’d like – optional).

Please send your quotation ASAP to: cultivate@cornucopia.org

And thanks for helping protect the integrity of the organic label!

Mark A. Kastel
Codirector and Senior Farm Policy Analyst
The Cornucopia Institute

With the help of award-winning documentary filmmakers Gretta Miller and Aarick Beher we have produced three videos that are now posted on our YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/CornucopiaInstitute. Subscribe to our channel and you will get notification when our next Hollywood blockbuster comes out this September.

Our videos have been viewed on YouTube almost 80,000 times and have been viewed at least that many times on other websites. These are folks who might not be reading the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post.
Our goal is to make everyone an expert in less than five minutes on some of the major issues we are working at. Check out the three current videos:

DHA/ARA in Infant Formula-Linked to Serious Illness and Babies

The Dirty Little Secret in the “Natural” Soy Product
Production—the Neurotoxic Solvent Hexane

Scrambled Eggs—Outing Corporate Agribusiness on “Organic” Egg Production with as Many as 100,000-Birds in a Single Building—Are Your Eggs Authentic?

Don’t forget to cook the organic popcorn before tuning in to the Cornucopia YouTube channel!

- Mark Kastel,
Co-Director of The Cornucopia Institute