What isn’t being discussed in Congress, during the ongoing debate on the broken federal food safety system, is the root cause of the most serious pathogenic outbreaks in our food—the elephant (poop) in the room.

The relatively new phenomena of nationwide pathogenic outbreaks, be they from salmonella or E. coli variants, are intimately tied to the fecal contamination of our food supply and the intermingling of millions of unhealthy animals. It’s one of the best kept secrets in the modern livestock industry.

Mountains of manure are piling up at our nation’s mammoth industrial-scale “factory farms.” Thousands of dairy cows and tens of thousands of beef cattle are concentrated on feedlots; hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of chickens are confined in henhouses at one location for the production of eggs and meat.

Livestock producing manure is nothing new. But the epic scale of animal numbers at single locations and the incredible volumes of animal waste is a recipe for disaster. It eclipses anything that was happening on old McDonald’s farm.

Feces carrying infectious bacteria transfer to the environment and into our food supply. Feeding heavily subsidized corn and soybeans to cattle, instead of grazing the ruminants on grass, as they were genetically designed to do, changes the pH in their digestive tracts, creating a hospitable environment for pathogenic E. coli to breed. The new phenomenon of feeding “distillers grains” (a byproduct of the ethanol refining industry) is making this risk even more grave.

The current near-nationwide contamination in the egg supply can be directly linked to industrial producers that confine millions of birds, a product of massive, centralized breeding, in manure-rich henhouses, and feeding the birds a ration spiked with antibiotics. These are chickens that the McDonald family would likely have slaughtered on the farm because they were “sickly.”

Thirteen corporations each have more than 5 million laying hens, and 192 companies have flocks of more than 75,000 birds. According to the industry lobby group, United Egg Producers (UEP), this represents 95% of all the laying hens in the United States. UEP also says that “eggs on commercial egg-laying farms are never touched until they are handled by the food service operator or consumer.” Obviously, their approach has been ineffective and their smokescreen is not the straight poop.

In addition to our national dependence on factory farms, the meatpacking industry, like egg production, has consolidated as well to more easily service the vast numbers of animals sent to slaughter from fewer locations. Just four companies now control over 80% of the country’s beef slaughter. Production line speed-ups have made it even harder to keep intestinal contents from landing in hamburger and meat on cutting tables.

All of these problems are further amplified by the scope of the industrial-scale food system. Now, a single contamination problem at a single national processing facility, be it meat, eggs, spinach or peanut butter, can virtually infect the entire country through their national distribution model.

As an antidote, consumers are voting with their pocketbooks by purchasing food they can trust. They are encouraging a shift back towards a more decentralized, local and organic livestock production model. Witnessing the exponential growth of farmers markets, community supported farms, direct marketing and supermarket organics, a percentage of our population is not waiting for government regulation to protect their families.

The irony of the current debate on improving our federal food safety regulatory infrastructure, now centered in the Senate, is that at the same time the erosion of FDA/USDA oversight justifies aggressive legislation, the safest farmers in this country, local and organic, might be snared in the dragnet—the proposed rules could disproportionally escalate their costs and drive some out of business.

While many in the good food movement have voiced strong concerns about the pending legislation—it’s sorely needed—corporate agribusiness, in pursuit of profit, is poisoning our children!

When Congress returns to Washington, we have no doubt that food safety legislation, which has languished for months, will get fast-tracked. In an election-year our politicians don’t want to be left with egg on their face.

We only hope that Senators will seriously consider not just passing comprehensive reform but incorporating an amendment sponsored by John Tester (D-MT), a certified organic farmer himself, that will exempt the safest farms in our country—small, local direct marketers. We need to allocate our scarce, limited resources based on greatest risk.

Farmers and ranchers milking 60 cows, raising a few hundred head of beef, or free ranging laying hens (many times these animals have names not numbers), offer the only true competition to corporate agribusinesses that dominate our food production system.

Mark Kastel and Will Fantle are codirectors of The Cornucopia Institute, a farm policy research group based in Cornucopia, Wisconsin.

The USDA continues to hold public meetings to discuss its “new framework” for animal traceability (formally known as the National Animal Identification System or NAIS). The agency has stated that this new framework will apply only to animals that cross interstate borders and will emphasize low-cost identification methods.

But Big Ag and Big Tech are pushing for a more expansive – and expensive — federal program, even as they also make plans to re-create NAIS at the state level.

The public meetings are an opportunity to have input before the agency writes its proposed rule. The next meetings are in August in Madison, Wisconsin, Atlanta, Georgia, and Pasco, Washington.

TAKE ACTION

Come to the meeting and make your voice heard!

Wednesday, August 18
Crowne Plaza Madison
4402 East Washington Avenue
Madison, WI 53704

Friday, August 20
Doubletree Hotel Atlanta Airport
3400 Norman Berry Drive
Atlanta, GA 30344

Tuesday, August 24
Red Lion Hotel
2525 N 20th Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301

The meetings will take place between 8 am and 4 pm. The USDA has more information posted at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/meetings/index.shtml

The morning will consist of presentations by government officials, followed by breakout sessions at tables based on species groups. After the small groups have reported back to the full audience, a USDA official will respond to written questions, and there may be an opportunity at the very end for oral questions or comments.

Below are a couple of suggestions to help you be effective:

1) Plan your written questions ahead of time. When the USDA official goes through the questions in the afternoon, if he doesn’t actually answer your question, stand up and politely insist on an answer.

2) At the small group discussion, be prepared to be an advocate for your views and to politely disagree with the facilitator(s). If they claim that a “consensus” has been reached with an answer that you don’t agree with, say so. At the end, one person from the table will report back to the full group. Let the spokesperson give his or her report, and then politely speak up to add any points that were covered by the group that were skipped.

MORE INFORMATION

The USDA has held five public meetings on its new animal traceability framework. Linked is a report from the public meetings, produced by our allies at the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance website:

The USDA’s new proposal was developed by a “Regulatory Working Group” (RWG) made up of five state vets and five tribal representatives. The proposal includes four performance standards, which set how quickly States and Tribes must be able to perform four activities:

1. The State where the animal is located must notify the State or Tribe where the animal of interest was originally identified: 95% within 1 business day
2. The State or Tribe where the animal of interest was officially identified must identify the “traceability unit” in which the animal was identified: 75% within 5 business days, with a later phase requiring 95% within 2 business days
3. The State where the animal is located must notify the State or Tribe from which the animal was last shipped: 95% within 7 business days, with a later phase requiring 95% within 3 business days
4. The State from which the animal was last shipped must identify the “traceability unit” from which the animal was shipped: 75% within 5 business days, with a later phase requiring 95% within 2 business days

Judith McGeary represented FARFA at both the Colorado meeting in May and the Texas meeting in July. Many farmers, sale barn owners, horse owners, and consumers also came, and we raised many concerns.

• What is the basis for the new proposal? While the “performance standards” are less stringent than NAIS was, they still lack a scientific basis. At my breakout table, a USDA vet stated that the performance standards were based on the “experience” of the state vets and regulatory officials. While experience is important, why is their experience prioritized over the experience of animal owners who deal with animal health every day? Before imposing any new requirements on animal owners, the agency needs to provide solid scientific and economic analyses to show why these steps are needed.
• Are performance standards the right approach? Should USDA be setting standards when it is far from clear how the States would be able to achieve them?
• There is still no analysis of where the real problem lies. Is it truly an animal identification problem? Or are the problems with traceability due to bureaucratic inefficiencies or other issues? On the issue of animal health, where exactly are the gaps?
• There is a continued assumption that electronic ID is the best approach. While USDA has committed to using low-tech methods for the framework, there are repeated references to “progress over time,” and every government speaker emphasized the benefits of RFID tags. I asked whether USDA intended to analyze the effectiveness of the program before moving towards electronic ID, pointing to the success of the scrapie program using non-electronic ID. In response, Neil Hammerschmidt said there were no such plans. Dr. Wiemers went further, and contended that, while non-electronic ID has worked for the scrapie program, it is not sufficient for tracing all movements. Yet the advocates of electronic ID continue to fail to show that it is needed or cost-effective.
In addition to the problems with the substance of the proposal, the public meeting also revealed problems with USDA’s process in developing the new framework:
• The Regulatory Working Group (“RWG”), which wrote the new standard, was chosen after getting recommendations from “industry.” But, to our knowledge, no sustainable agriculture or small farm organizations were asked for recommendations. Yet again, Big Ag got to set the stage.
• While there were 10 people on the RWG, they created three subgroups. Only one subgroup wrote the standard. So the proposed performance standards were developed by just three or four regulatory officials.
• The proposal is confusing and unclear. For example, there is no written definition of “traceability unit,” and we’ve now heard three different definitions at three different public meetings. At the Colorado meeting, Colorado State Vet Dr. Roehr stated that it was a geographical unit and could be anything from the whole state to a set of counties to a county to an individual premises. At the Utah meeting, Montana State Vet Dr. Zaluski stated that the traceability unit was either a physical location or a group of animals. At the Texas meeting, Oklahoma State Vet Dr. Brewer stated that “ultimately” it is a premises. Three members of the RWG, with three different statements on what the term means!

How can the public provide input when the people who drafted the proposal can’t even explain it clearly? How can we provide useful input without first getting answers about what the program is, how it will be implemented, its purposes and goals?

The proposal is extremely ambiguous, but it appears to set the stage for traceability back to individual premises and ultimately RFID tagging of each animal. Is this USDA’s intent? Or is it being driven by industry and the career bureaucrats who have spent more than a decade building NAIS? Right now, it’s not clear.

Come to the meetings in Wisconsin, Georgia, and Washington, and make your voice heard!

WASHINGTON, DC – A federal appeals court ruled today, overturning a lower court decision, that a group of California almond farmers have the right to challenge a USDA regulation requiring the treatment of their raw almonds with a toxic fumigant or steam heat prior to sale to consumers. For the past three years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has denied American consumers the right to buy raw almonds, grown in the USA, when they shop in grocery and natural food stores.

A group of almond growers sued the government to challenge USDA’s rule, but the federal district court ruled that courtroom doors were closed to the growers’ claims. The controversial rule has cost individual farmers millions of dollars in lost sales since it was enacted in September 2007.

“We are delighted by the court’s decision,” said Will Fantle, Cornucopia’s Research Director. Cornucopia has been coordinating the legal strategy for the farmers’ lawsuit. “At long last the farmers who have been injured by this rule will have the opportunity to stand in court and state why this poorly thought out regulation should be thrown out,” Fantle added.

The USDA and the Almond Board of California imposed the treatment scheme to minimize the risk of salmonella contamination outbreaks like those that had occurred with almonds in 2001 and 2004. USDA investigators were never able to determine how salmonella bacteria somehow contaminated the raw almonds that caused the food illnesses but they were able to trace back one of the outbreaks, in part, to the country’s largest “factory farm,” growing almonds and pistachios on over 9000 acres.

Family-scale growers have argued that the onerous and expensive mandated treatment regime is only needed by the giant industrial producers, who have less control over the quality of their nuts, and has hurt their market because it consumer resistance.

Many in the industry have questioned the logic exempting foreign-grown almonds from the treatment scheme. Imports have displaced raw domestic nuts in many major markets and retail locations across the U.S. This regulatory loophole is part of what has been crushing California producers.

“I am very happy with this first step in overturning this destructive regulation,” said Nick Koretoff, an almond farmer and plaintiff in the lawsuit. “The treatment mandate has been a financial catastrophe for me. My consumers want raw, untreated healthy almonds and I have been denied the opportunity to sell them what they want.”

Attorney John Vetne, who has been representing the almond farmers, said the Appeals Court made a “very strong decision affirming farmers’ rights.” The USDA had been arguing that farmers did not even have the right to legally challenge the USDA regulation. “We are pleased that the Appeals Court rejected USDA’s argument that courthouse doors are closed to farmers. We now intend to demonstrate to the federal district court that USDA acted outside of authority granted by Congress when it denied California almond growers a consumer market for raw almonds,” Vetne added.

Tens of thousands of consumers have expressed their discontent with the raw almond treatment rule in comments to the USDA. Organic and raw foods enthusiasts were particularly incensed that the nuts, despite being processed with propylene oxide (identified as a carcinogen by the federal EPA) or steam-heat, were still allowed to be labeled as “raw” — many believe that essential nutrients in food can be destroyed by heat, radiation and toxic chemicals.

The Cornucopia Institute, an organization known for its research and defense of family farmers involved in organics, artisan and local food production, was impressed with how many consumers have a real passion for maintaining the availability of raw food and nuts, including almonds, and have been willing to financially support the farmers in their legal challenge. “Contributions continue to flow in supporting this effort,” Fantle noted.

“I and many of my friends look forward to the day when we will once again be able to easily purchase truly raw, authentic almonds from California in my local store,” said Joan Levin, a Chicago resident and raw foods consumer. “We hope this Appeals Court ruling brings that day closer,” she said.

For more on the raw almond issue, and to support the legal effort for truly authentic raw almonds, go to Cornucopia’s Raw Almond Project page.

CORNUCOPIA, WI: In a move to protect the growing organic industry from undue corporate influence, a leading organic watchdog group released a letter, dated June 7, calling on the USDA to collaborate with the organic community on pending appointments to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).

The Cornucopia Institute, and other organic advocates, have long been concerned that representatives from corporate agribusiness have obtained a disproportionate influence on rulemaking at the USDA.

“During the Bush administration we saw crass politics, at its worst, in play during the NOSB appointment process,” said Will Fantle, Codirector of The Cornucopia Institute.

In one instance, an employee of General Mills was nominated to fill a slot on the board that Congress had earmarked for a consumer representative. “Abuses of this nature are repugnant to the organic community and certainly betray the letter and spirit of the Organic Foods Production Act, the law passed by Congress giving the USDA authority to oversee the industry,” added Fantle.

Although Cornucopia and other independent industry observers have been overwhelmingly satisfied with the new direction the Obama administration has taken in staffing the National Organic Program, and responding to criticism over past ethical lapses in management, including a recent audit by the Inspector General’s office, not all stakeholders have been pleased with the NOSB nominating/appointment process.

In 2009, the first time the Obama/Vilsack administration at the USDA named new NOSB members, they continued the Bush administration policy of keeping secret the nominees and the related corporations or organizations they work for or represent.

Some in the organic community feel that the lack of openness in the appointment process has resulted in some important missteps that have hurt the credibility of the board and its work. “Keeping nominees and their affiliations secret raises questions of the process that is a slap in the face to organic principles,” said Rebecca Goodman, a certified organic dairy farmer from Wonewoc, Wisconsin.

Goodman had been nominated to the farmer-slot on the board. But instead of choosing one of the legitimate certified organic farmers, widely respected and viewed as qualified and who were under consideration at the time, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack chose an animal husbandry specialist employed by one of the largest organic livestock product marketers in the country.

While this appointee had grown up on a conventional farm, her immediate occupation is not that of an active organic farmer.

“The PhD scientist chosen for that NOSB producer-slot certainly can add an important perspective, but her appointment reduces the voice of actual organic farmers on the board who are, arguably, the most important stakeholders in the industry,” lamented Fantle.

There is widespread concern that these appointments marginalize the voices of consumers and farmers who have built this industry, and places a disproportionate control of national organic policy in the hands of board members working for multinational for-profit enterprises like Whole Foods, Earthbound Farms, Quality Assurance International, Organic Valley, Philips Mushrooms and Campbell Soup.

“Those serving on the NOSB would most ideally be producers and consumers who are on the front line of implementing and reviewing the rules, not those who would appear to have a financial interest in the outcome of the rules implemented,” said Goodman.

“Many of the corporate organizations that are represented on the board sell just a few percentage points of their product lines as organic,” said Fantle. “Other marketers and farmers, whose livelihoods are dependent upon the effort to maintain the integrity of the organic label, might view this as a conflict of interest.”

The Cornucopia Institute’s letter to Secretary Vilsack said the reason they are calling on the USDA to make these nominations public is because they, and many other stakeholders in the industry, know that many eminently qualified candidates have in the past been passed over because they did not have the political clout to be appointed.

“We simply want the organic community to be able to help Secretary Vilsack choose the very best candidates available for the NOSB,” added Fantle.

Cornucopia’s letter went on to say that although they are an aggressive governmental and corporate watchdog they are in no way “anticorporate.” They state there are many examples of larger corporations that subscribe to the ethical foundation of the organic movement. But both the Bush and Obama administrations have given disproportionate prominence on the NOSB to major corporate players. “Without denigrating Whole Foods, and their commitment to organics, you have to question why this giant corporation again has a seat on the board, whereas the approximately 275 consumer-owned cooperatives, with hundreds of thousands of members and shoppers, have again been shut out,” Goodman said.

In a side note, The Cornucopia Institute also called upon Secretary Vilsack to consider providing a modest stipend for NOSB members who are not affiliated with a corporate entity or well-funded nonprofit organization.

“There are many working farmers, and other citizens, who cannot afford the extraordinary amount of time away from work necessary for NOSB meetings, committees and the reading of important materials necessary to help advise the Secretary, as Congress had intended, on managing the complex, $25 billion organic industry,” said Fantle. “The corporate representatives sitting on the Board are collecting their salaries. It’s a shame that some of our most qualified potential candidates are so economically disadvantaged.”

Cornucopia, the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, and other groups have sent out several alerts regarding the food safety bills in Congress. We are continuing to monitor the situation with S. 510, the Senate’s version of the bill.

As written, this bill 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. It’s critical that the bill be amended or stopped!

The bill’s progress has been slowed by controversial proposed amendments. The first controversy is over Senator Tester’s (D-MT) proposed amendment, that we strongly support, and that would exempt small-scale processors and direct-marketing farmers from the most onerous requirements.

Senator Hagan (D-NC) is co-sponsoring the Tester amendment, which is critical to the continued vitality of the local foods movement. Over 150 organizations have signed a letter of support for these amendments, posted at http://farmandranchfreedom.org/sff/Amend-S510-May-25.pdf

Another major source of controversy is Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) proposal to ban Bisphenol A (BPA) from baby bottles and other food and drink containers. Studies have shown that BPA can migrate from can linings into food, disrupting the endocrine system with many potential health consequences. Several industrial food organizations have threatened to withdraw their support for S. 510 if the BPA amendment is included.

There’s also word that Senator Dorgan (D-ND) may introduce an amendment to allow drug re-importation from foreign countries, creating more controversy.

All of these developments have slowed the bill down and pose barriers to its passage. The Senate may vote on the bill this month, but it’s not certain. We must use this time to build more support for the Tester-Hagan amendments!

TAKE ACTION

Here are three actions you can take to protect local foods and farms:

1) Contact your U.S. Senators (even if you have called before), and ask to speak with the staff person who handles food safety. Ask for them to co-sponsor the Tester-Hagan amendment to S. 510. Please circle back to let us know what the response is.

2) Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. Keep it short (150 words or less). Here are a few talking points:

A) One size does not fit all. Virtually all of the well-publicized incidents of contamination in recent years occurred in industrialized food supply chains that span national and even international boundaries. Imposing an industrial-style regulatory framework on local farmers and food producers is unnecessary, unfair, and counterproductive.

B) Local and state governments have well-established programs to protect public health. In most areas of the country they are already working with small producers to develop practical guidelines that are appropriately scaled to the level of risk in a direct-to-consumer transaction. Local regulation is more than enough for local foods.

C) Explain briefly how the proposed law would impact your farm, your farmers market or your cooperative — and if you are a consumer, your access to authentic food. Make it personal to you and your community!

D) Conclude by calling for your Senators to support the Tester-Hagan amendments. It helps to mentioned their names (ex: “I urge Senators Cornyn and Hutchison to co-sponsor these important amendments.”), to catch their staff’s attention.

3) Get your local newspaper to publish an editorial in support of the Tester-Hagan amendments. Here are some strategies that can help:

A) Approach the editorial page editor or editorial board and ask for a meeting to discuss concerns about how the Federal Food Safety Bill will impact small local food businesses and farmers market vendors. If an in-person meeting won’t work, then set up a phone call and email them materials ahead of time.

B) Come prepared with materials, including the sign on letter and other talking points. Additional resources are posted at http://farmandranchfreedom.org/food_safety_bills_09.

Thank you for all your hard work on this!

- Judith McGeary
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance

Washington, DC: In a strong departure from Bush-era policy, the USDA’s National Organic Program released a memo today banning synthetic “accessory nutrients” — ending a scandal that brought down its former organic leadership.

At issue were some of the nation’s leading manufacturers of infant formula that had been illegally adding synthetic forms of omega-3 and omega-6 oils to their organic products after a sweetheart deal between a powerful industry lobbyist and Dr. Barbara Robinson, the former head of the USDA’s organic program—exposed by a 2009 investigative report in the Washington Post.

Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), by The Cornucopia Institute and shared with the Washington Post, indicated that Robinson, after meeting with Jay Friedman, a lawyer and lobbyist with the powerful Washington law firm of Covington Burling, rescinded a ruling made by USDA career civil servants who found the inclusion of synthetic oils in organic infant formula to be illegal.

“Justice prevailed in this matter but it took a change in the administration in Washington to make this happen,” said Mark A. Kastel, Codirector of The Cornucopia Institute.

Cornucopia, an organic industry watchdog, first investigated the use of these “novel” nutritional oils, derived from soil fungus and algae, in infant formula, because they are extracted using a neurotoxic chemical, hexane, which is explicitly banned in organic production. “We couldn’t understand why the USDA was allowing this to happen,” Kastel said.

Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act, as part of the 1990 farm bill, charging the USDA with defending the interests of ethical industry participants and protecting organic consumers against fraud.

Cornucopia researchers were shocked when they started investigating the DHA/ARA oils, manufactured by Martek Biosciences Corporation, Columbia, MD, and found they were implicated by parents and healthcare professionals in severe and chronic health problems in infants around the country.

“Organics should be the last bastion of pure, natural and unadulterated food for consumers,” said Charlotte Vallaeys, lead author of Cornucopia’s report, Replacing Mother — Imitating Human Breast Milk in the Laboratory.

Through a separate FOIA request to the FDA, Cornucopia learned that there was an apparent correlation between the use of Martek’s nutritional oils and severe gastrointestinal problems sometimes resulting in highly-invasive testing procedures and hospitalizations.

“Based on FDA adverse reaction reports, we discovered that many parents, physicians and healthcare practitioners found that chronic problems with infants, often resulting in ‘failure to thrive,’ acute dehydration (caused by dangerous diarrhea/vomiting) and severe emotional stress on the babies and their families, were often immediately resolved when switching to formula without DHA/ARA supplementation,” stated Vallaeys.

After learning about the health problems, Cornucopia immediately stepped up its legal efforts at the USDA to remove Martek’s oils not only from organic infant formula, but also from organic baby food and organic milk manufactured by the nation’s leading brand, Horizon, owned by the dairy giant Dean Foods.

“It’s concerning enough that these Martek oils are being widely introduced in the marketplace, in both organic and conventional products, but there is no authoritative research that suggests they actually benefit children’s development, as is claimed by the industry,” said Marsha Walker, RN, IBCLC, Executive Director of the National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy.

Infant formula manufacturers like Enfamil (Mead Johnson) promote their products as being “our closest formula to breast milk,” and research indicates such advertisements might have discouraged some women from breastfeeding, which is universally recognized as being superior to formula in numerous ways, including for the health and development of babies.

“This seems to be a crass marketing gimmick, using our children as guinea pigs to enhance the bottom line at the major pharmaceutical companies that manufacture infant formula,” lamented Kastel. “The fact that this material is being illegally added to certified organic formula is highly repugnant and left mothers, who could not breastfeed for whatever reason, with few alternatives in the marketplace.”

Over the past few years, infant formula manufacturers have raised their prices after adding Martek oils to their products. With the exception of some prescription formulas, available with approval from pediatricians, only one over-the-counter formula is available without synthetic DHA/ARA, Baby’s Only, an organic product manufactured by Nature’s One in Columbus, Ohio.

“After today’s official announcement by the USDA, all other organic formula manufacturers will need to remove Martek’s oils from their products,” Cornucopia’s Vallaeys stated.

In the meantime, The Cornucopia Institute also has filed petitions with the FDA requesting that their Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) designation for the Martek oils be revoked.

“When Martek’s additives were originally granted GRAS status, it was with extreme reservations on the part of the FDA review panel because of adverse reactions to these oils” said Valleys. “When we reviewed FOIA documents, we were astonished to find that none of the infant formula manufacturers had complied with the FDA’s request to monitor adverse reactions and perform post-market surveillance of these materials.”

Like baking soda or any other synthetic ingredient that manufacturers would like to use in organic products, Martek and the infant formula manufacturers who would like to use synthetic DHA/ARA oils will now be allowed to petition the National Organic Standards Board for a safety review. Cornucopia projects an aggressive lobbying fight with public interest groups and powerful manufacturers once again squaring off.

“We have to say we are continuing to be impressed by the ethical turnaround at the USDA, in their oversight of the organic industry, since the new administration took control in Washington and Secretary Vilsack promised members of the organic community that he would appoint leadership who ‘shares our values’,” Kastel affirmed.

According to The Cornucopia Institute, widely recognized as one of the industry’s most aggressive independent watchdogs, organic consumers have every reason to feel more confident every day in the integrity of the USDA organic label.

MORE:

USDA memorandum reversing previous position on nutrient vitamins and minerals in organic foods, available upon request: cultivate@cornucopia.org

Link to The Cornucopia Institute report, and other background documents: Replacing Mother — Imitating Human Breast Milk in the Laboratory: http://www.cornucopia.org/2008/01/replacing-mother-infant-formula-report/

The manufacturing process for Martek’s oils likely includes genetically engineered organisms and neurotoxic synthetic solvents, which are both explicitly banned in organic production. According documents submitted by Martek to the FDA, the process to make their oils includes growing algae and fungus in a medium that is made primarily of dextrose derived from corn, yeast extract or a hydrolyzed vegetable protein, which is usually derived from soybeans. Given that the vast majority of corn and soybean products in the food supply are produced through genetic engineering, the likelihood that Martek’s DHA and ARA oils are grown in a medium of genetically engineered organisms is almost certain. The use of genetic engineering is, of course, strictly prohibited in organics.

In a document submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, Martek also specifies that they use a neurotoxic chemical solvent, hexane, to extract the oil. Martek writes: “The oil is first extracted by blending the dried biomass with hexane in a continuous extraction process.” Synthetic solvents such as hexane, which carry serious environmental and occupational safety concerns, are also prohibited in organic food processing.

Cornucopia, WI—While the organic label is the gold standard of eco-labels on food packages, one major loophole in the federal organic standards remains—which an organic industry watchdog is asking the USDA to close. Companies are tightly regulated in terms of their use of the word “organic” on food packaging, but some businesses are deceiving customers by using the words “Organic” or “Organics” in their company name on food that does not legally qualify as organic.

“Companies are getting away with using the word ‘organic’ in their company name, listed prominently on food packages, even if the product they’re selling isn’t certified organic,” explains Charlotte Vallaeys, Farm and Food Policy Analyst with The Cornucopia Institute. “These companies are taking advantage of the good name and reputation of organics, without going the extra mile to actually source all organic ingredients in their products.”

Today, The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy research group, sent a formal legal complaint to the USDA’s National Organic Program, and a second similar complaint to the Federal Trade Commission, highlighting labeling improprieties with three food brands; Oskri Organics, Organic Bistro and Newman’s Own Organics. These companies sell products that do not qualify to bear the “USDA Organic” seal, yet may appear organic to consumers based on the prominence of the word ‘Organic’ in their brand name.

Oskri Organics sells a variety of foods, including fruit preserves, nutrition bars and tahini (sesame butter). Some of their products, however, contain no certified organic ingredients. These Oskri Organics products are therefore no different from conventional foods, yet many consumers are presumably being unethically led to believe they are organic based on the company name, displayed on product packaging.

Organic Bistro sells frozen entrees made with organic vegetables, but uses non-organic chicken and turkey. “There is certainly no shortage of organic chicken or organic turkey, which are, obviously, more expensive than conventional meats,” said Mark Kastel, Cornucopia’s codirector. “By using conventional ingredients to cut costs, yet displaying the word ‘Organic’ so prominently on their packages, Organic Bistro is unfairly competing with truly organic companies that commit to sourcing organic meat.”

Newman’s Own Organics sells some certified organic products and some that only qualify for the “made with organic” label (70% organic content), yet uses the term “Organics” in their name—on all food packages.

Newman’s Own Organics, founded by the late actor Paul Newman and his daughter Nell, is a prominent company in the natural/organic marketplace and respected for the generous donations of their profits to charity.

Newman’s Own Organics Newman-O’s cookies contain conventional sugar, conventional canola oil and conventional cocoa, yet the webpage displays the “USDA Organic” seal and states: “Like our other products, Newman-O’s are certified organic by Oregon Tilth.” Yet these products do not legally qualify to bear the word “Organic” or the “USDA Organic” seal on their packaging.

“Newman-O’s, a product similar to Nabisco’s Oreo cookies, are not organic, yet consumers are led to believe that they are,” says Vallaeys. “Products that contain conventional ingredients, which are freely available in organic form, would never qualify for the USDA Organic seal. We think it’s time for the USDA to crack down on corporations gaming the system by putting the word ‘Organic’ or ‘Organics’ in their company name.”

This issue is up for discussion at the semiannual meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), an expert citizen panel set up by Congress to advise the USDA. The NOSB meeting begins April 26 in Davis, California. But The Cornucopia Institute contends that the USDA already has the authority, under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and current organic regulations, to take action against the misuse of the word “Organic” in company names. And, the public-interest group stated that, “the FTC clearly has the authority to crack down on deceiving labeling claims.”

“Current organic standards specify that processed foods that are represented as ‘Organic’ must contain 95-100% organically produced raw or processed agricultural products,” explains Vallaeys. The only minor ingredients allowed that are not certified organic must be unavailable in organic form and approved by the NOSB. “By naming themselves ‘Organic Bistro’ or ‘Newman’s Own Organics,’ these companies are attempting to circumvent the standards, representing their products as organic without meeting the organic labeling standard.”

Other companies that offer both conventional and organic products have not acted deceptively, by eliminating the term “Organic” from their company name or company logo on their non-organic packaging.

Although Dean Foods’ WhiteWave division took a lot of heat last year when they introduced their first non-organic dairy products under the Horizon label, for example, the giant dairy conglomerate no longer uses the term “Organic” in their name or on its brand logo for its new “Natural” product line.

“Deceptive labeling practices, like putting organic in a company or brand name, hurts the ethical competitors and the entire organic food industry by blurring the meaning of the word “Organic” for consumers,” added Kastel. “Consumers should be able to trust that any food package with the word ‘Organic’ displayed prominently is truly certified organic, contains predominantly organic ingredients, and meets the letter and spirit of the law.”

MORE:

Newman’s Own Organics appears to intentionally mislead its customers when, on its website, it uses the USDA Organic seal and the accompanying line “The USDA Organic Seal assures that at least 95% of the ingredients are organically certified” on web pages of products that are not 95% Organic, such as their Chocolate Peanut Butter Cups.

Worse yet, the Butter Cups’ product description, on its website, reads: “When organic peanut butter meets organic chocolate the results are Newman’s Own Organics Peanut Butter Cups.” This would suggest to consumers that their Butter Cups are organic, made with organic peanut butter and organic chocolate. Yet a close look at the ingredients list shows that non-organic peanut butter, and non-organic peanut flour, are used. This is a gross misrepresentation of their product—either in error or a deliberate attempt to trick consumers into thinking their products are in fact certified organic when they are not.

Newman’s Own Organics states on its website that its Hermits cookies are “made with organic raisins,” yet the ingredients list shows that, in addition to organic raisins, conventional raisin paste is also used. Research conducted by the USDA and Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, indicate that grapes (raisins) are one of the fruits with the highest levels of pesticide contamination.

For consumers who wish to avoid pesticide residues in their foods, especially pregnant women and parents of young children, it is important to look for certain ingredients as organic. “To see Newman’s Own Organics state that they use ‘organic raisins’ when non-organic raisin paste is used in the same product, is very troubling, especially since high levels of pesticide residues have been found on non-organic grapes, which are used to make raisin paste,” says Vallaeys.

Like many others in the organic food industry, The Cornucopia Institute respects the Newman’s Own company, of which Newman’s Own Organics is an off-shoot, for its generous donations of its proceeds to charity. Cornucopia contacted Nell Newman to bring this issue to her attention and request a meeting, to attempt to resolve the issue. Although the company acknowledged receipt of an e-mail, and stated they would forward it to Ms. Newman, as of press time, Cornucopia has not received a response to their e-mail contact nor to a letter delivered via Federal Express.

To view an image of a company that properly handles organic in its packaging, click here.

To view a screenshot of Newman’s Own website, click here.

Cornucopia, WI – For years, the USDA’S National Organic Program has failed to enforce federal organic standards that prohibit the use of certain unapproved synthetic substances in organic infant formula and other organic foods. The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based food and farm policy research group, is taking action to rein in the practice with the re-filing of a formal legal complaint with the USDA calling for the removal of the additives from organic infant formula.

The additives, DHA and ARA, are nutritional oils grown from fermented algae and soil fungus, and are being added to most conventional as well as organic formula brands. They have been linked to serious illness in some infants.

“Consumers rightfully expect organic foods to be purer and safer than conventional foods — in part because federal regulations require that they be free from potentially harmful synthetic additives,” says Charlotte Vallaeys, Farm and Food Policy Analyst with The Cornucopia Institute, a non-profit farm and food research group. “But in the case of the synthetic, chemically extracted additives DHA and ARA, the system of federal regulations ensuring organic integrity was undermined by corporate lobbying and backroom deals during the Bush Administration.”

Cornucopia’s initial research, and a related investigation by the Washington Post, revealed that career regulatory staff at the National Organic Program (NOP) initially determined the addition of DHA and ARA to organic infant formula was illegal, but were overruled by the former Director of the program, Dr. Barbara Robinson, who has since been replaced as head of the NOP.

And, a recently completed investigation and report by the Office of Inspector General at the USDA was harshly critical of Dr. Robinson during her tenure overseeing the organic program.

Freedom of Information Act documents obtained by Cornucopia revealed that Robinson ordered her staff to misinterpret the organic standards — substituting an informal recommendation for an official rule — after she had been in contact with a prominent lobbyist working for the infant formula industry.

“I called [Robinson] up,” William J. Friedman, a lawyer and lobbyist with the powerful Washington firm of Covington and Burling told the Washington Post. “I wrote an e-mail. It was a simple matter.” The back-and-forth, he said, was nothing more than part of the routine process that sets policy in Washington.

The nutritional additives, produced by Martek Bioscience Corporation, are chemically extracted from fermented algae and soil fungus, using hexane, a petroleum-based solvent explicitly banned in organic production, before being added to infant formula. Parents have linked their infant’s suffering — severe diarrhea, vomiting, and other reactions that sometimes required hospitalization — to these synthetic additives. When switching their babies to organic formula without these additives, these parents noticed the chronic symptoms would vanish, sometimes literally overnight.

“Within 24 hours of switching to formula without DHA and ARA, we had a brand new, entirely different baby. She had no abdominal distress, she smiled and played … and for the first time ever we heard her laugh,” says Karen Jensen, whose baby suffered severe gastrointestinal symptoms from formula with these synthetic additives.

Infant formula makers claim that adding DHA and ARA to formula improves brain and eye development. However, two recently published comprehensive scientific review studies on the topic both substantiate Cornucopia’s findings that challenge these claims. These two meta-analysis studies collectively consider the results of 18 clinical trials, and conclude there are no proven benefits to DHA/ARA supplementation in infant formula.

Given reports of infants getting sick from these additives, and comprehensive scientific data showing there are no proven benefits to adding DHA and ARA to infant formula, The Cornucopia Institute has re-filed a formal legal complaint with the USDA’s National Organic Program to enforce the organic standards, which currently do not allow synthetic oils such as Martek’s DHA and ARA.

“With new management in place at the USDA and the National Organic Program, which has proclaimed we have entered the ‘age of enforcement,’ we are hopeful that the organic standards will finally be earnestly enforced,” says Mark Kastel, Cornucopia’s co-director.

In addition to organic brands of infant formula, such as Earth’s Best, Similac and Wal-Mart’s Parent’s Choice, some brands of organic baby food and Horizon milk are also being supplemented with the novel oils, that have never been part of the human diet.

Besides for the prohibition of hexane as a processing agent in organic food, non-agricultural synthetic additives of this nature are required to be reviewed by the National Organic Standards Board prior to inclusion in organic products. According to Cornucopia, a formal review of Martek’s additives has never taken place.

A lawyer for The Cornucopia Institute, Gary Cox, was also quoted in the Washington Post, in response to Robinson’s actions, “This is illegal rulemaking—a complete violation of the process that is supposed to protect the public.”

Concerned parents can find at least one brand of organic formula, Baby’s Only, that is made without Martek’s synthetic DHA/ARA oils. It is available at most of the nation’s consumer-owned food cooperatives, many specialty stores like Whole Foods, and online. In addition, some conventional prescription formulas are available without the supplements.

Parents who think their babies have suffered adverse reactions to DHA and ARA in infant formula are encouraged to contact The Cornucopia Institute or the FDA directly.

“Mothers and fathers who pick a can of organic infant formula from a store shelf should be able to trust the “USDA Organic” label. They should not have to check ingredients lists to ensure the product is truly free from unapproved additives,” says Vallaeys.

The Cornucopia Institute’s research paper, Replacing Mother, an investigation into DHA/ARA, can also be viewed here.

MORE:

The manufacturing process for Martek’s oils likely includes genetically engineered organisms and neurotoxic synthetic solvents, which are both explicitly banned in organic production. According documents submitted by Martek to the FDA, the process to make their oils includes growing algae and fungus in a medium that is made primarily of dextrose derived from corn, yeast extract or a hydrolyzed vegetable protein, which is usually derived from soybeans. Given that the vast majority of corn and soybean products in the food supply are produced through genetic engineering, the likelihood that Martek’s DHA and ARA oils are grown in a medium of genetically engineered organisms is almost certain. The use of genetic engineering is, of course, strictly prohibited in organics.

In a document submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, Martek also specifies that they use a neurotoxic chemical solvent, hexane, to extract the oil. Martek writes: “The oil is first extracted by blending the dried biomass with hexane in a continuous extraction process.” Synthetic solvents such as hexane, which carry serious environmental and occupational safety concerns, are also prohibited in organic food processing.

Cornucopia, WI — The new USDA organic pasture rule strengthening the requirement for grazing and pasturing livestock may not apply to beef cattle and other ruminants in meat production. In fact, the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) is seeking comments from farmers and consumers on a proposal to allow some level of confinement in feedlots for, as an example, organic beef cattle during the last four months of their lives during the “finishing” period prior to slaughter (when industry standards would feed them mostly grain/corn).

The Cornucopia Institute, a farm policy research group based in Wisconsin, surveyed a broad spectrum of organic meat producers to better understand their production practices. The results reveal a wide range of practices.

Cornucopia found that the vast majority of organic beef producers graze their beef cattle on pasture until slaughter, never confining them to a feedlot. Approximately 60% of organic beef producers never feed any grain to their cattle (100% grass-fed). And another 20% maintain their cattle on pasture but provide small amounts of grain. The new rule’s proposed exemption for ruminant slaughter stock from obtaining feed from pasture is therefore not needed by the vast majority of farmers and ranchers producing organic beef.

The balance of organic producers say they need to depend on feedlots for finishing their cattle on grain in order to conform to market demand for meet that grades-out at choice under the USDA inspection system.

“In order to accommodate all production models we are asking the USDA to implement a new labeling approach for organic meat that better reflects the realities in organic agriculture,” said Mark Kastel, Cornucopia’s Senior Farm Policy Analyst.

The three labels proposed for organic meat from ruminants would be “Organic – Grain Finished,” “Organic – Pasture/Grain Finished,” and “Organic – 100% Grass Fed.”

Consumers are increasingly interested in grass-fed meats. Some would likely be surprised to find that “organic” and “grass-fed” are not synonymous. The environmental advantages of grass-based livestock agriculture, its nutritional superiority as well as animal welfare benefits are reported not only in scientific articles, but are also covered extensively in the popular media, ranging from Mother Earth News to Time Magazine, Forbes and the Oprah Winfrey Show.

Producers of organic grain-fed beef strongly believe that consumer preference and the marketplace dictate their production practices. American consumers have grown accustomed to the texture and flavor of meat that’s gained by corn-feeding cattle in a feedlot. The USDA’s current grading system for meat also rewards high levels of intramuscular fat in beef — which is more easily achieved through finishing cattle on grain instead of grass.

As an alternative, some organic farmers and ranchers also add small amounts of grain to their animal’s diet while they remain on pasture. This approach helps with weight gain and the flavor familiar to many consumers and leads some organic supporters to feel that it more accurately reflects the environmental and animal husbandry values the organic label is based on.

“We think the three-tier labeling system will help farmers and ranchers better develop their markets and consumers will gain transparency and choice in their consumption of organic meat,” Kastel explained.

The NOP is accepting public comments on its proposed feedlot exemption from pasture for organic beef ruminants until April 19. Mailed comments must be postmarked by that date and email comments are accepted until midnight on the 19th at www.regulations.gov (search for AMS-TM-06-0198 on the site)

The Cornucopia Institute has filed legal complaints with the USDA alleging that Wal-Mart, and a North Carolina-based company, HOMS LLC, are violating the USDA organic standards by using conventional agricultural oils, and other ingredients, in pest control products that bear the word organic and the green “USDA organic” seal.

The pest control products in question are marketed under the Bio Block label (see front of bottle, back of bottle, and company webpage product screenshot).

A debate has been raging for years whether non-food products, such as pet food and personal care products, are included in the strict regulations that determine the use of the word “organic” on packaging. Most of those products at least had organic ingredients involved in their manufacture, whereas Bio Block pest control products contain not a single organically produced ingredient.

However, there has never been any question that the green “USDA Organic” seal can be used only by producers that follow the rigorous standards mandated by Congress and administered by the USDA’s National Organic Program.

In addition to using the word organic prominently on its label, HOMS uses the USDA seal on at least one of its Bio Block products without specifying that organic ingredients were used, and without disclosing the identity of the organic certifying agent, which is also required by federal organic regulations.

“This amounts to, allegedly, illegally usurping the value of the organic label,” says Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at Cornucopia. “The USDA Organic seal is meaningful to consumers and should not be used frivolously. This places ethical industry participants at a competitive disadvantage.”

The Bio Block products that appear to violate the organic standards were discovered on the shelves of Wal-Mart stores, resurfacing concerns long held by The Cornucopia Institute, and others in the organic industry, that the giant corporation has failed to take the organic standards seriously.

For years, Cornucopia has criticized Wal-Mart for inventing a “new” organic—food from corporate agribusiness, factory farms, and cheap Chinese imports of questionable authenticity.

Wal-Mart’s store brand organic milk, for example, comes from Aurora Dairy in Boulder, Colorado. In 2007, federal investigators found that Aurora had “willfully” violated 14 tenets of the organic standards, including confining their cattle to feedlots, instead of grazing, and bringing thousands of illegal conventional cows into their organic operation.

Inside Wal-Mart stores, Cornucopia researchers at the time discovered that the company was mislabeling conventional foods as organic, including yogurt, sugar, rice milk, soy milk and produce. Cornucopia notified Wal-Mart’s CEO of the problems with in-store signage, but the corporation ignored these concerns until officials of the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and the USDA took enforcement actions against Wal-Mart in 2007.

“These instances of mislabeling are emblematic of the company’s lack of investment in knowledgeable staff, its inexperience, and its questionable commitment to organics,” says Kastel.

While Wal-Mart vowed to solve its false and misleading in-store signage problems, Cornucopia says it has failed to ensure that its store brand organic milk, and some of its other product offerings, come from ethical family farmer following the spirit and letter of the organic law.

Now the organic industry watchdog alleges Wal-Mart is once again marketing organic products fraudulently.

Cornucopia contends that it is not only up to farmers, food processors and certifiers to ensure that foods labeled “organic” are truly organic, but that retailers play an important role as well.

Retailers can and do invest in the resources necessary to ensure organic integrity in their stores. The Wedge, a member-owned cooperative grocer in Minneapolis, handled Bio Block pesticides very differently from Wal-Mart when recently approached by one of HOMS’ distributors.

Since the Wedge has invested years in recruiting, hiring and training qualified staff, it came as no surprise that one of their buyers questioned the legality of Bio Block’s labels.

The Wedge is one of about 275 cooperative grocers in the country, which collectively helped pioneer the growth in the organic industry. The Wedge was one of the first certified organic retailers in the country and has a full-time Organic Certification and Sustainability Coordinator, Susan Stewart.

“We take the confidence our members and shoppers have in The Wedge very seriously,” said Stewart. “Our job is to protect the integrity of the organic label and the authenticity of the food and products we offer in our store.”

Cornucopia states that this collaboration between farmers, organic processors and retailers, in partnership with the USDA, makes the organic label the gold standard in helping consumers choose safe and ethically produced food.

“As an organic industry watchdog, we make sure that stakeholders in the organic community, like The Wedge, are not placed at a competitive disadvantage by outfits like Wal-Mart that are attempting to profiteer from the trust consumers have in the organic label,” stated Cornucopia’s Kastel.