Cornucopia Institute http://www.cornucopia.org Economic Justice for Family Scale Farming Sat, 02 May 2015 01:58:45 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Day Four (Thursday) Report: NOSB Members Voting While (not) at the Meetinghttp://www.cornucopia.org/2015/05/day-four-thursday-report-nosb-members-voting-while-not-at-the-meeting/ http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/05/day-four-thursday-report-nosb-members-voting-while-not-at-the-meeting/#comments Sat, 02 May 2015 01:58:45 +0000 http://www.cornucopia.org/?p=16352 Thursday was the fourth and final day of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting in the La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego, California. At least twice a year the 15-member expert stakeholder panel meets at different locations around the country. The NOSB was created by Congress to represent the interests of the organic community, rather than allowing the industry to be dominated by corporate lobbyists, as is the custom in Washington. High Drama: Synthetic

The post Day Four (Thursday) Report: NOSB Members Voting While (not) at the Meeting appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
NOSBSPring2015 NOSBMembers withcaption
Thursday was the fourth and final day of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting in the La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego, California. At least twice a year the 15-member expert stakeholder panel meets at different locations around the country. The NOSB was created by Congress to represent the interests of the organic community, rather than allowing the industry to be dominated by corporate lobbyists, as is the custom in Washington.

High Drama: Synthetic Methionine Approved at Higher Levels of Administration

The independent block of NOSB members, farmers and academics courageously led a fight to try to constrain the use of the synthetic amino acid, methionine, in poultry use.

Organic laying hens and meat birds need methionine, an essential amino acid, as part of their diet but they can get it from natural sources, being afforded legitimate outdoor access and a diet more suited to their species (as omnivores).

Intrepidly led by public interest representative Dr. Calvin Walker, the independents on the board tried and failed to convince their colleagues to both restrain methionine use and create a date certain for its removal from organic production.

Dr. Walker cited numerous past votes by the NOSB, working to reduce methionine use, and prevent its increased application, and asked the board colleagues to respect the history, and investment, of past NOSB members — to no avail. The livestock subcommittee chair, who was facilitating the debate, even cut Dr. Walker off before he could finish.

Vote Early and Often

That was a long-term slogan in the old days of Chicago electoral politics. When they looked at voting registrations it wasn’t unusual to find all the residents of a nearby cemetery on the voting rolls.

Well, that didn’t happen at the NOSB meeting, but it came close.

In a sad accident, NOSB handler-member, Harold Austin, fell in the bathroom on Monday, at the Marriott where we were staying, and fractured his hip. He ended up having surgery (we sincerely wish him a speedy recovery).

Since the majority block members of the board needed his vote to approve methionine use, at a higher level, they arranged for him to vote from his hospital bed, presumably highly medicated after surgery (although he seemed perfectly cogent to me).

Based on a question of parliamentary procedure, NOSB farmer-member Colehour Bondera challenged the propriety of someone voting by phone when there was no provision for that in the board’s Policy Procedure Manual (and doing so violated Roberts Rules which governs the conduct of the meetings). His appeal was rejected by board chair Dr. Jean Richardson.  Mr. Austin had also missed the extensive discussion of methionine that occurred Tuesday afternoon during the public testimony period.

It should be noted that, if I recall correctly, there is some history of not allowing votes by members not present. At one juncture in the past NOSB farmer-member Kevin Engelbert (now a member of Cornucopia’s board of directors) asked to participate in an NOSB meeting by phone. That request was denied and he was prevented from participating. (of course, at the time, Kevin served in a similar role as a conservative voice defending the integrity of organics).

When the methionine vote finally took place, in a dramatic move, farmer-member Nick Maravell stated he was going to leave the room and not vote. His gesture was intended to give Mr. Austin the ability to withdraw from voting as well (they both knew well that they were on the opposite sides of this issue).

Mr. Austin, an official of one of the nation’s largest conventional/organic apple producers, from Washington State, remained on the call and voted with the majority to approve the switch to lifetime averaging for methionine limits.

Those seeking this result had successfully – and questionably – manipulated the voting process to achieve their end.  (Cornucopia was neutral on the proposal that was approved, but strongly supported an expiration date to the continued use of synthethic methionine in poultry production.)

We All Love Organics

All the lobbyists, certifiers, nonprofit representatives in the audience, and the various members on the NOSB, all are at these meetings because they care about organics. They just care about organics differently.

Some industrial representatives are fixated on “growth.” It really doesn’t matter whether the organic commodities come from a giant factory farm or China, or might be produced with an inappropriate chemical. As long as the industry is growing we should all be happy.

Others passionately care about maintaining the true meaning of organics (and they want to see growth within those parameters).

As the meeting ended the board chair waxed philosophical about the organic industry. And no one could argue with anything she had to say. But there are plenty who would argue with some of the votes that she and others cast this week, and whether all NOSB members, and all members of the audience, were treated in a fair and evenhanded manner.

Also, at the close of the meeting, “farmer-member” Ashley Swaffar, who came to the board while working for a conventional/organic egg company, Arkansas Egg, and now works for another conventional/organic business, Vital Egg, urged a number of public interest groups, including Cornucopia, Center for Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides, and others, to more vocally support organics.

What does she think our staff, board of directors, policy advisors (one of whom, Jim Gerritsen, was present at the entire meeting and helping us), and especially the thousands of members who support these groups, are doing? None of us have any profit motives for attending these meetings (it cost us thousands). We are here because we are promoting real organics. And we hope the business representatives on the board will recognize, and give us some respect, for what motivates us (whether they agree with our positions or not on any particular issue).

That’s all folks! Numerous Cornucopia staff members worked a number of consecutive weekends, and late nights, preparing our formal written comments, the recap of comments from all individuals and organizations, and oral testimony prior to the meeting. We’re going to take a few days off and recharge our batteries but will be back at it next week. I’m still in San Diego and have a few meetings today but I am looking forward to being back at home, in Wisconsin, on the farm.

A special thank you to Cornucopia members who volunteered as “citizen lobbyists” this week at the NOSB meeting in helping us present oral testimony. NOSB members were highly complementary in terms of your individual contributions.

And thanks to Cornucopia members, NOSB members and allies from other important groups who attended our reception last night. We really enjoyed the opportunity to share some hors d’oeuvres and donated organic wine (thank you Ocean Beach Co-op!).

And finally, thanks to all our members for the nice comments and responses concerning our coverage of the National Organic Standards Board meeting here in the Golden State. Your kind words keep us motivated and we are humbled by your continued confidence and financial contributions that funded our presence here in California.

Mark A. Kastel
Codirector
The Cornucopia Institute

The post Day Four (Thursday) Report: NOSB Members Voting While (not) at the Meeting appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/05/day-four-thursday-report-nosb-members-voting-while-not-at-the-meeting/feed/ 0
Day Three (Wednesday) Report: Kowtowing to Corporate Agribusiness?http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/day-three-wednesday-report-kowtowing-to-corporate-agribusiness/ http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/day-three-wednesday-report-kowtowing-to-corporate-agribusiness/#comments Thu, 30 Apr 2015 22:59:59 +0000 http://www.cornucopia.org/?p=16346 NOP Deputy Administrator Miles McEvoy Source: USDA Wednesday was the third day of the four-day National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting in the La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego, California. At least twice a year the 15-member expert stakeholder panel meets at different locations around the country. The NOSB was created by Congress to represent the interests of the organic community, rather than allowing the industry to be dominated by corporate lobbyists, as is the

The post Day Three (Wednesday) Report: Kowtowing to Corporate Agribusiness? appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
NOP Deputy Administrator
Miles McEvoy
Source: USDA

Wednesday was the third day of the four-day National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting in the La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego, California. At least twice a year the 15-member expert stakeholder panel meets at different locations around the country. The NOSB was created by Congress to represent the interests of the organic community, rather than allowing the industry to be dominated by corporate lobbyists, as is the custom in Washington.

Most of Wednesday was dominated by reviewing synthetic and non-organic materials that will “sunset” in 2017. For a few of them, comments were made by board members but most of the 140 materials were listed along with their uses, but with little information pertaining to potential concerns.

According to disputed new USDA rules, organic stakeholders (such as The Cornucopia Institute) must enter into the record evidence of concerns surrounding 2017 Sunset materials before this meeting for the NOSB to consider them. Comments can be submitted prior to the next meeting, when the NOSB will take an actual vote on each 2017 Sunset material; however, those comments will be “untimely” for consideration.

Under its new edicts, USDA’s National Organic Program, led by Mr. Miles McEvoy, has made it, theoretically, impossible for interested citizens to fully participate in the important sunset process:

  1. There are over 200 materials for review at this meeting. That’s why I referred to this as “organic regulatory theater.” The board, and organic stakeholders, cannot possibly do justice to this level of workload.
  1. Next, according to the edict from Mr. McEvoy, we were supposed to have (written or oral) comments in on all 2017 materials by this meeting. However, the USDA has not even released requested Technical Reviews (TRs) for some of the materials, which Congress has authorized for NOSB members and the public. Even with the Technical Reviews that were available, Cornucopia scientific staff spends hundreds of hours looking at these materials. Without all of the TRs needed this becomes a near impossibility.
  1. Our staff uses minutes of the NOSB subcommittees that drill down and look at these materials (Handling, Crops and Materials Subcommittees). Running up to the meeting in San Diego the most recent minutes available to the public were from February 2 even though six additional subcommittee meetings have taken place. The subcommittee notes help us understand what the potential concerns of NOSB members are, or who might be carrying water for corporate interests. This lack of transparency on the part of the NOP process is inexcusable.
  1. And finally, the entire sunset voting process has been turned on its head. Unless the board takes action, materials will stay on the List in perpetuity. They may never sunset (as the law passed by Congress requires). And if they decide to take a vote, in an arbitrary reversal to the entire history of the organic program, it will take a two-thirds supermajority to remove the material. The USDA is already being challenged in court on how they developed this cockamamie legal approach.

By now you might recognize how this process is so stacked in favor of chemical manufacturers and industrial-scale “organic” agricultural producers. One of the farmer-members of The Cornucopia Institute, testifying Monday, Phil McGrath, stated that if you really are good at your job, managing the quality and diversity of soil life, you don’t need a lot of commercial inputs to ensure healthy production.

Long live real organic farming and food production!

Incompetency, Spin or Outright Lying to the Public?

Cornucopia staff has uncovered numerous examples of some board members spinning the science in the favor of corporate interests. Here are just a few examples embedded in a couple of the debates yesterday:

Ferric Phosphate

Ferric phosphate is a material used as a slug and snail bait to protect crops from damage. Ferric phosphate itself doesn’t seem to be an objectionable material, and the products containing this active ingredient seem to be effective. However, there’s a catch: they are only effective if they include an “inert” chelating agent.  All the products on the market today contain the same chelating agent, called EDTA.

EDTA is highly toxic to soil microorganisms and non-target species including earthworms. The earthworms and microbes are our friends. They are needed in sustainable farming systems to help break down organic matter into usable nutrients for the plants (and nutrients for us in our food).

EDTA is not appropriate for use in organic farming and probably shouldn’t be used in conventional farming.

NOSB board member Ms. Zea Sonnabend justified keeping ferric phosphate on the National List of approved substances by stating there was “only one study” that showed EDTA killed earthworms. She went on to state that we shouldn’t consider this study because it has not been replicated. Many scientific studies have not yet been replicated, but that does not void the results of the peer-reviewed publication. Suggesting that it “hasn’t been replicated” sounds ominous. If scientists had tried and failed to replicate a study it might indicate that it could be fraudulent. But if scientists evaluated the study and felt comfortable with its findings they might not have an incentive or the funding to replicate the research. This was pure spin on the part of Ms. Sonnabend, the board’s scientist representative.

But what is even more troubling is that her presentation, and advice to other board members, was factually inaccurate.

One of Cornucopia’s researchers quickly fact-checked her statement and found two peer-reviewed, published papers on the subject, not one:

Edwards et al. (2009)

From line 341 of the 2012 TR: “Results from the OECD test in Edwards et al. (2009) showed that iron phosphate combined with either EDTA or EDDS had the greatest adverse effect on earthworm survival compared with the other treatments [emphasis added]. Estimated LD50 values were 78.16 mg/kg for iron phosphate combined with EDTA, 82.98 mg/kg for iron phosphate combined with EDDS, 156.46 mg/kg for EDTA, and 145.57 for EDDS.

From line 347 of the TR: Iron phosphate by itself was not toxic to earthworms in the OECD artificial soil test with a calculated LD50 value greater than 10,000 mg/kg. (This demonstrates that Ferric Phosphate doesn’t work, isn’t absorbed by worms/slugs without a chelating agent.)

Langan and Shaw (2006)

From line 373 of the TR: The study authors reported that iron phosphate pellets (Sluggo®) caused negative effects on earthworm survival and growth compared [emphasis added] to metaldehyde and control pellets (Langan and Shaw, 2006).

See Table 2 here: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5100083.

In an example of twisted logic she suggested that, somehow, over the next five years, before the next sunset review, these companies would voluntarily take EDTA out of their formulations. We don’t know why they would do so without any economic incentive to do so. Rather, the board could have voted to allow this material to Sunset in 2017, due to the fact that all formulations contain EDTA (and it is ineffective without the addition of EDTA).  The sunset of ferric phosphate (formulated with EDTA) would have created a market for a safer alternative.

As we have frequently noted, the intent of the Sunset provision in the organic law was to prod improvements, and incentivize the threat of a substance’s removal from the National List as a way to encourage the development of organic materials.

We encourage board members to reconsider their 11-3 vote, which keeps this chemical on the List, based on this misinformation.

Ethylene Gas

Another synthetic agent, ethylene gas, proved controversial.  The question is whether this material is “essential” for the production of organic pineapples.  NOSB farmer-member Colehour J. Bondera, from Hawaii, who actually grows pineapples, along with nearby neighbors, explicitly stated that this material is neither essential nor necessary for pineapple production.

Mr. Bondera stated that he and his neighbors have no problem growing pineapples without ethylene gas. Rather, it is used by industrial-scale growers as a ripening agent enabling year-round harvesting and marketing.

Is it proper in organics to use a synthetic strictly to expand the marketing season for a particular crop? Would we be better off having truly organic pineapples available for a shorter season? These are legitimate questions but Ms. Sonnabend postponed debate instead suggesting the board needed to poll foreign growers.

The decisions made by this board should not be a popularity contest. Synthetic chemicals either are safe and meet the letter of the law or they are not.

Copper Sulfate/Fixed Copper

Copper-based materials are used for disease control on organic farms. The Cornucopia Institute and other public interest groups joined certifiers and industry lobby groups in supporting its retention on the List. But it needs to be used carefully because it can cause an unsafe buildup/pollution in the soil.

During discussion yesterday, Ms. Sonnabend stated definitively that it takes 10 years for copper to accumulate to potentially toxic levels in soil.

One of our researchers, Dr. Linley Dixon, has this response:

While that MAY be true for fruit tree production [which Ms. Sonnabend has first-hand experience with], I have first-hand experience from visiting large scale Tomato farms.

Owners of these Industrial Organic operations directly stated to me that they have to stop using their acreage for tomato production after 3 years because of copper toxicity which develops within a few years at their usage rates.

These are “factory farm” producers of tomatoes that routinely use materials like copper as their primary means of disease control instead of more sustainable cultural practices, the kind that farmer Phil McGrath talked about in his testimony. This is an unfortunate example of an NOSB member (who also works for the country’s largest, multimillion dollar organic certifier, CCOF), softening concerns regarding the use of an off-farm input.

Ms. Sonnabend is well regarded by her colleagues.  Our bringing up these discrepancies will, presumably, once again produce allegations that Cornucopia is “attacking” members of the USDA’s organic governance program.

We speak truth to power, on behalf of family-scale organic farmers, and their urban allies, who truly believe in foundational precepts of organic agriculture. Our Codirector, Will Fantle, likes to call Cornucopia “an organic truth squad.”

We demand truth and transparency in this process.

The NOSB is filled with volunteers who truly believe in the merits of organic agriculture. But they need to be treated respectfully by the USDA management, providing timely, objective and accurate Technical Reviews and they need everyone involved in the process to act in an honest and forthright manner.

More news from the organic circus in San Diego later. In the interim, please see updates, in real-time, at www.cornucopia.org or on Cornucopia’s Twitter feed which you can sign up for on our website.

Mark A. Kastel
Codirector
The Cornucopia Institute

DAMNING — LATE-BREAKING NEWS: The staff director at the National Organic Program, Miles McEvoy, was interviewed at the meeting here in San Diego by a reporter from the Washington Post. In the article, entitled Is Organic Food Safer and Healthier? The guy in charge of US organics won’t say, McEvoy refuses to outline any of the benefits to human health or the environment embodied in the organic farming and food movement:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/30/is-organic-food-safer-and-healthier-the-guy-in-charge-of-u-s-organics-wont-say/

The post Day Three (Wednesday) Report: Kowtowing to Corporate Agribusiness? appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/day-three-wednesday-report-kowtowing-to-corporate-agribusiness/feed/ 0
Follow the National Organic Standards Board Meeting in La Jolla, CA #NOSBhttp://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/follow-the-national-organic-standards-board-meeting-in-la-jolla-ca-nosb/ http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/follow-the-national-organic-standards-board-meeting-in-la-jolla-ca-nosb/#comments Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:28:27 +0000 http://www.cornucopia.org/?p=16170 Last Updated: 4-30-15, 3:22 p.m. PT Join The Cornucopia Institute as we live tweet from the National Organic Standards Board meeting in La Jolla, California. We will be sharing the play by play with our Twitter followers under #NOSB or simply follow our stream. If you’re not already following us on Twitter, please do so here. Read The Cornucopia Institute’s written comments to the NOSB here. You can also stay updated throughout the meeting right

The post Follow the National Organic Standards Board Meeting in La Jolla, CA #NOSB appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
CI_NOSBTwitterGeneric_1Last Updated: 4-30-15, 3:22 p.m. PT

Join The Cornucopia Institute as we live tweet from the National Organic Standards Board meeting in La Jolla, California. We will be sharing the play by play with our Twitter followers under #NOSB or simply follow our stream.

If you’re not already following us on Twitter, please do so here.

Read The Cornucopia Institute’s written comments to the NOSB here.

You can also stay updated throughout the meeting right here:

Thursday, April 30, 2015

3:22 p.m. PT: Livestock subcommittee concludes its review of 2017 sunset materials. Full board now looking at subcommittee workplans, prior to some ceremonies before adjournment.

2:45 p.m. PT: NOSB back in action after a short lunch. They have turned their attention to the 2017 list of sunset materials – a total of 40 they they are reviewing. The 4 day meeting is set to end late this afternoon.

12:43 p.m. PT: Carmela Beck states there are no alternatives currently and we need to act now, while Nick, Calvin, Francis and Colehour prefer to send it back to subcommittee to propose holistic rulemaking. The vote to average synthetic methionine over the lifespan of the bird passes 10-4 with Nick Maravell abstaining in objection to the ability of Harold to vote from Skype. Harold’s vote allows the motion to pass. A resolution that the NOSB is committed to the phase out of methionine passes quickly after.

12:19 p.m. PT: Board moves to vote on the methionine proposal before it. Nick Maravell announces he is uncomfortable with the process of bringing in an absent member and withdraws from the vote. The board adopts the proposal by a 10-4 vote. It only passed with the questionable insertion of an absent member by Skype allowing him to vote.

12:12 p.m. PT: NOSB debate continues on proposal to change methionine usage in poultry, much of the discussion is complicated by procedural matters. Board member Francis Thicke describes the current approach to methionine as input substitution for better practices. Indicates that there is little motivation by the industry to change practices. Board member Calvin Walker notes that Europe is using different breeds to address methionine issues. To understand more on this issue, check out Cornucopia’s comments.

NOSB (from left to right): Calvin Walker, Jennifer Taylor, Nick Maravell
NOSB (from left to right): Ashley Swaffar, Tracy Favre

12:11 p.m. PT: Colehour Bondera argues that the subcommittee never discussed an expiration date. Zea Sonnabend states this is a multidimensional problem and it requires a whole system approach. A task force is needed but in the end this is an urgent animal welfare matter.

11:48 a.m. PT: Mac Stone states we need to take a holistic view of this and come back with a consensus. Nick Maravell states that management and cultural practices, such as breed selection can be changed to prevent the need for synthetic methionine. We need to look at other alternatives, including an omnivore diet, back in subcommittee. Calvin Walker recalls that we’ve tried expiration dates on this issue in the past and it hasn’t worked to reduce the reliance on synthetic methionine.

11:38 a.m. PT: Long debate on synthetic methionine vote ensues. Calvin Walker’s well articulated argument to respect past NOSB votes and consumer’s desire for an expiration date is cut short by Tracy Favre. Mac Stone wonders whether we should allow retail concerns over maintaining a vegetarian diet in a naturally omnivorous animal should impact policy.

11:25 a.m. PT: Objection over Harold Austin’s right to vote via Skype from the hospital includes the reading of Robert’s Law by Colehour Bondera which states “The right to vote is limited to members that are actually present at the meeting.” Objections overruled by Jean Richardson who, in a written prepared statement, acknowledges Harold’s attendance at the meeting via Skype and allows him to participate. Harold fell and broke his hip two days ago at the meeting. Some view his vote at this meeting as essential to getting their positions passed.

Zea Sonnabend, NOSB

10:25 a.m. PT: Near the end of the seed panel contamination discussion, NOSB member Zea Sonnebend calls for continued GMO labeling efforts and litigation to keep pressure on the promoters of GMO food and crops.

9:57 a.m. PT: Last presenter on the panel notes, if we start with pure seed (no contamination), gmo free food can be grown (he was specifically talking about corn).

9:54 a.m. PT: NOSB members Calvin Walker, Francis Thicke and Mac Stone listen to deliberations at the NOSB meeting, below.

NOSBSpring2015 NOSB2_edited-1

9:45 a.m. PT: Unanimous agreement from the 4 members of the Seed Purity Panel that GMO contamination likely can’t be prevented. Discussing “Coexistence” may appease some in the Organic community. Are there sure answers outside of a ban on GMO production to keep GMOs out of Organics?

9:20 a.m. PT: 2nd panel presenter notes than new genetically engineered techniques are coming online that may not require federal regulation and/or a very difficult to detect. This will further threaten organic seed production and integrity.

8:53 a.m. PT: There is a problem with antitrust and seed, notes the first of four seed contamination panel members, as the NOSB resumes discussion on the last day of its meeting in LaJolla. The speaker was referencing the incredible consolidation of the seed industry, with Monsanto, Syngenta, and others buying up many, many seed companies and shrinking the availability of seed varieities. This is a real problem for organic farmers and consumers.

NOSBSpring2015 SeedPanelSeed Contamination Panel

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

4:37 p.m. PT: As the afternoon wears on, two NOSB members ask “Did I put you all to sleep” as the board offers little reaction to presentations on the various materials. It’s an indication of the overwhelming technical analysis task this 15 member volunteer board faces.

4:06 p.m. PT: NOSB members make very few comments on crops materials.

3:17 p.m. PT: The crops subcommittee has moved onto a discussion of 40 materials that are on the 2017 Sunset schedule. The remainder of the afternoon meeting is devoted to this overarching discussion.

3:11 p.m. PT: The motion to remove Hydrogen Chloride for use as a cotton seed delinter for mechanical planting fails, closing the door for starch-coated organic cottonseed opportunities.

3:01 p.m. PT: Earthworms (the symbol of healthy organic soil) beware! 2016 Sunset material Ferric phosphate (formulated with the earthworm killing chelating agent EDTA) is voted to remain on the NL.

2:45 p.m. PT: NOSB considers contamination of farm inputs discussion document stressing that this is the perfect example of how the NOSB would like the opportunity for a continuous open docket to hear from the organic community between meetings.

2:42 p.m. PT: Board members continue to wrestle with how to allow public comments between meetings to help their deliberations on materials and issues. The board has discussed an open docket. NOP Director McEvoy indicates that they have been looking at this for three years. He adds that to focus on it now would keep resources away from other issues, like animal welfare.

2:30 p.m. PT: NOSB vote 14-0 to reject all 3 petitioned materials – Calcium sulfate (FGD synthetic), exhaust gas and 3-decen-2-one — for addition to National list.

12:38 p.m. PT: Board breaking for lunch, Handling Subcommittee has completed their first review of 2017 Sunset materials.

9:16 a.m. PT: The first half of the NOSB’s morning is devoted to discussion of handling substances scheduled for Sunset in 2017. They have set aside 2 hours for discussion of 104 materials – or about a minute per substance. No votes will occur on these today, that will occur this fall.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

6:39 p.m. PT: Sodium acid pyrophosphate and for use only as a leavening agent is voted to remain on the NL due to the fact that health concerns were raised only at this meeting, which are considered untimely.

Tetrasodium pyrophosphate for use only in meat analog products is voted to be removed from the NL based on availability of non-synthetic alternative protein sources.

6:24 p.m. PT: 2016 Sunset of boiler materials cyclohexylamine, diethylaminoethanol, and octadecylamine are voted to be removed from the National List due to their toxic nature on humans and the environment. The petition to add PGME as a boiler steam additive for use in feed pellet mills is denied based on the fact that PGME DOES come into contact with food, a concern that Cornucopia brought to the NOSB for consideration a year ago.

6:15 p.m. PT: Motion to remove 2016 sunset handling material Peracetic acid for use in wash and/or rinse water according to FDA limitations for use as a sanitizer on food contact surfaces fails. Peracetic acid remains on the National List.

6:10 p.m. PT: Motion to remove 2016 sunset material Activated Charcoal only from vegetative sources; for use only as a filtering aid on 205.605(b) fails, it remains on the National List.

6:06 p.m. PT: Motion to remove Microorganisms from 205.605(a) fails (living organisms such as bacteria and fungi), but the issue of bacteriophage will be referred back to subcommittee).

5:58 p.m. PT: L-Malic acid: Board votes 12 to 2 to keep L-Malic acid on the National List.

5:46 p.m. PT: 2016 sunset material Eggwhite Lysozyme used in wine and cheese making is voted to be removed from the National List. Eggwhite Lysozyme is a purified enzyme preparation extracted from chicken egg whites using an inert polymer resin.

5:31 p.m. PT: Ancillary substances permitted in microorganisms are voted to be sent back to the subcommittee for further work. Ancillary substances are intentionally added to formulated generic handling substances (but do not have a technical or functional effect in the finished product) and are not considered part of the manufacturing process that has been reviewed by the NOSB.

5:15 p.m. PT: Triethyl citrate petitioned for use as a whipping enhancer for egg whites is unanimously voted to not be listed at 205.605 due to lack of essentiality

5:02 p.m. PT: First two votes by the NOSB are unanimous.
Agricultural glycerin is added to 205.606 limiting non-organic glycerin to be used only when organic glycerin is commercially unavailable.
Whole algal flour manufactured with algae by fermentation and used as a food additive is voted to not be added to 205.605a based on concerns over redacted information in the petition.

4:18 p.m. PT: Marty Mesh of Florida Organic Growers closes out public testimony, promoting organics as a way to heal the planet.

4:10 p.m. PT: Derek Casady, co-manager of the Ocean Beach Food Co-op in the San Diego area, presents testimony on a variety of handling materials coming before the NOSB. He is a Cornucopia member and volunteer citizen lobbyist.

4:02 p.m. PT: Mohamed Mousa testifies for the continued need to provide synthetic methionine. Mohamed passes himself off as a concerned citizen interested in animal welfare (a legitimate concern). In reality, he represents the massive Michigan-based egg producer (see photo here: http://www.cornucopia.org/organic-factory-farm-investigation/photo-gallery-green-meadow/), with 85,000 birds per building.

3:41 p.m. PT: Poultry industry representatives continue throughout the afternoon to lobby for continued use of synthetic methionine. See what Cornucopia says.

2:43 p.m. PT: NOSB Board members Francis Thicke (2nd from right) and Calvin Walker (3rd from right) ask several questions of the public during the afternoon about the use of synthetic methionine in egg laying and meat birds.

NOSBSpring2015 NOSB

2:13 p.m. PT: Maggie Yount, a personal trainer and citizen lobbyist for Cornucopia, calls for allowing a broader, diverse diet for poultry and outdoors access to address the need for synthethic methionine (methionine is an essential amino acid). Cornucopia supports an expiration date for the use of the material and aggressive research into viable alternatives to the synthetic.

NOSBSpring2015 WillFantle
Maggie Yount
Will Fantle

2:08 p.m. PT: Cornucopia Codirector Will Fantle tells that NOSB that we are moving from the “age of enforcement” to the “age of litigation” as an antidote to overreach by the USDA into authority and governance of the NOSB. He also calls upon the NOSB to retake control over their agenda and topics they address – a power taken away by the USDA.

12:46 p.m. PT: Faith Attaguile, an urban organic farmer and Cornucopia volunteer lobbyist, expresses her concern about the workload for NOSB members. Expresses support for the relisting of lidocaine for use with livestock.

Faith Attaguile
Elizabeth Wolf

12:19 p.m. PT: Elizabeth Wolf of The Cornucopia Institute calls on the NOSB to take a strong stand against nanotechnology. Notes that Cornucopia’s role as a watchdog is critical, and speaking truth to power. Draws parallels to watchdogs of the past that spoke out against use of sewage sludge and irradiation in organics, a fight fought 20 years ago.

11:43 a.m. PT: Mark Squire, a retailer, calls on the NOSB to keep GMOs out of organics, particularly in ingredients and additives – including the processing of the product’s ingredients.

11:35 a.m. PT: Pam Larry, California mom and organic consumer, tells the NOSB that they need to hold the line to keep organic integrity and trust for consumers.

11:34 a.m. PT: Melody Meyer of food distributor UNFI is critical that proactive steps are taken to keep GMOs out of organics. New form of genetic engineering, synthetic biology, must be precluded from organics.

11:22 a.m. PT: Dana Perls of Friends of the Earth tells that board that products made from synthetic biology – including mutagenesis computer generated DNA – are coming onto the market, and the NOSB needs to make a declaration against them. She also says the USDA needs to declare a full prohibition on nanotechnology.

11:07 a.m. PT: Cindy Elder of accredited certifier OCIA tells the NOSB that they have refused to certify hydroponic operations as there are no clear regulations. Hydroponics should not be eligible for organic certification. Also tells the board that the changes to Sunset are wrong.

9:52 a.m. PT: Hain Celestial representative opposes removal of non-organic lecithin (de-oiled) from the national list, as not all their products can use the organic version of lecithin de-oiled.

9:26 a.m. PT: Representative of maker of non-organic lecithin (de-oiled) opposes removal of material from National List. Her company, a subsidiary of DuPont, argues that new sources of the organic lecithin will not meet demand or perform properly. Cornucopia supports removal of this non-organic material from use in organics.

9:22 a.m. PT: Beth Unger of Organic Valley: We can’t use organic celery powder, must keep non-organic on the list.

9:13 a.m. PT: Alexis Randolph of certifier QAI reached out to clients soliciting comments, and did not receive too many comments to explain the necessity to keep materials on the list.

9:08 a.m. PT: Gwendolyn Wyard, OTA: Move seed purity discussion document forward. Organic gylceryin is ready to go, remove synthetic version.

Charlotte Vallaeys

8:53 a.m. PT: Charlotte Vallaeys of Consumers Reports/Union: All materials on the National List must be fully reviewed. Reject Whole Algal Flour, as an addition to the list. Only synthetic nutrients required by FDA to be in food should be allowed. Calls on board to differentiate between useful marketing tools (ingredients) and what is essential.

8:47 a.m. PT: First two presenters testify in favor of a new teat dip for infection control in dairy cattle, acidified sodium chlorite. The treatment appears promising. Cornucopia is nuetral at this time on adding it to the National List.

Monday, April 27, 2015

6:37 p.m. PT: Cornucopia states: Past recommendations by the NOSB have not taken into account the impact of chemical intensive agriculture from which colors are derived.

Real possibility that high levels of pesticide residues may exist in concentrated fruit or vegetable extracts, which are used to make natural colors.

5:41 p.m. PT: Cornucopia volunteer Sue Ostling says there are outstanding questions that need to be researched before organic aquaculture standards for land-based systems can be considered. Open-water organic aquaculture systems should be banned.

Sue Ostling
Keith Schildt
Cheryl Leutjen

5:38 p.m. PT: Keith Schildt for Cornucopia: Peracetic acid is an effective sanitizer with low toxicity and does not leave residues. Cornucopia supports relisting of Peracetic acid.

5:25 p.m. PT: Cheryl Leutjen for Cornucopia: Coated produce should be labeled, and the components of the coating listed.

Only ancillary substances either from organic sources or approved for organic use be allowed in non-synthetic waxes or shellac-based coatings.

5:21 p.m. PT: Cornucopia member Victoria Wexley questions the essentiality of the 2017 sunset material egg white lysozyme.

James Isaacs

5:06 p.m. PT: Dr. James Issacs, a vetrinarian and Cornucopia citizen lobbyist, tells the NOSB that copper and zinc sulfate, should not be allowed, in his personal opinion. Notes that Cornucopia is neutral on the materials.

4:52 p.m. PT: Elyse Batkis, a consumer and Cornucopia citizen lobbyist: Remove L-Malic acid. Bacteriophages need to be separated from the use of microorganisms, they pose unknown health programs.

4:45 p.m. PT: Bill Wolf of Wolf, DiMatteo & Associates, a consulting company for organic operations, says we shouldn’t think in terms of limiting the National List.

4:40 p.m. PT: Jim Gerritsen, Cornucopia policy advisor and OSGATA president states that Integrity demands that there be independence between the NOSB and USDA.

4:23 p.m. PT: Former NOSB board member Jay Feldman testifies that for this meeting, NOSB members need to make sure that all stakeholders are heard. Sunset is important, and sets a high bar for entry into Organic.

Anne Mossness

4:05 p.m. PT: Commercial fisherman Ann Mossness states openwater aquaculture netpens are incapable of confining fish, disease, and waste.

3:56 p.m. PT: Aimee Simpson, Consumers Union: 71% of consumers want no artificial substances in organics, according to their national polling data.

Requested the NOSB keep legal standards in mind. They don’t mention commercial availability as one of criteria for use of synthetics or artificial substances.

3:38 p.m. PT: Jackie Sleeper of certifier Oregon Tilth expresses concerns about contamination of organic farms by GMO crops and contamination of seedstock.

Dennis Holz
SteveSprinkel2 NOSBSpring2015
Steve Sprinkel
Phil McGrath
Abby Youngblood

3:21 p.m. PT: Judy Frankel, California author, organic consumer and grower of her own fresh veggies:
We live in a soup. Proof of this is the huge deadzone at the end of the Mississippi. Shares her concern that we are not doing a great job of protecting consumers from the creep of synthetic materials into organics.

3:09 p.m. PT: Cornucopia member Dennis Holz questions whether starch coated cotton seed could replace HCl delinted cotton seed for mechanical planting.

3:04 p.m. PT: Steve Sprinkel, former board chair of Cornucopia, organic farmer and organic restaurant owner: We need to listen to the words of Consumers Union and PCC on consumer concerns about organic. I see young farmers that skoff at organic certification. I ran to certification when I was in my 30’s. This is very concerning, these young farmers are on the cutting edge.

2:58 p.m. PT: Cornucopia member Kanta Masters testifies that ferric phosphate is not effective without the use of chelating agents that do not meet OFPA criteria.

2:34 p.m. PT: 5th generation Ventura County, California farmer and Cornucopia member Phil McGrath states copper products are not needed under proper cultural management

2:21 p.m. PT: Jo Ann Baumgartner of the Wild Farm Alliance says to remove copper sulfate from organic agriculture for wildlife health.

2:17 p.m. PT: Abby Youngblood of the National Organic Coalition expresses deep concerns over allowing nanotechnology in organics. Nano materials must be permanently prohibited.
We must also move to abandon synthetic and non-organic materials.

2:04 p.m. PT: Lisa Bunin of the Center for Food Safety recommends the NOSB go back to nanotechnolgy and seek a prohibition in organics.

12:25 p.m. PT: Urvashi Rangen of the Consumers Union: The organic label is out of line with what consumers expect, and has led Consumer’s Union/Reports to downgrade the label. Supportive of lawsuit on Sunset filed by 15 stakeholders (including Cornucopia).

12:20 p.m. PT: Steve Etka of NOC: Close commercial availability loophole created by 606. 606 materials should be reviewed using full OFPA criteria.

12:10 p.m. PT: Terry Shistar comments on hot topics including chlorine materials, copper, fermentation, aquaculture, excipients, and contaminated inputs.

12:05 p.m. PT: Curtis Bennett from Clarkson Soy Products calls on the NOSB to remove conventional lecithin de-oiled from use in organics. Indicates they have developed organic alternatives. This is how the sunset process was intended to work, driving innovation.

Cornucopia’s Linley Dixon, PhD
PCC’s Trudy Bialic

11:56 a.m. PT: Cornucopia’s Linley Dixon urges the NOSB to annotate copper materials to specific uses and work with the EPA to ban persistent herbicides.

11:53 a.m. PT: Trudy Bialic, of PCC Natural markets, calls for organic standards to catch up to consumer expectations on animal welfare (not pasturing animals).
Says organic brand may lose consumer trust, consumer attitudes are frequently belittled by some on the board.
When asked a question by NOSB member Calvin Walker on how to improve consumer confidence, says texturizers and animal standard failures have hurt consumer confidence.

11:35 p.m. PT: Organic winemaker Phil LaRocca says he has a hard time finding a source for organic yeast.

Cornucopia’s Mark Kastel

11:30 p.m. PT: Cornucopia Codirector Mark Kastel testifies that sunset materials deserve a thorough examination, not a cursory examination. Who owns the organic label. We all do, he says.

11:20 a.m. PT: Comment from Colehour Bondera asks how inerts’ interaction with active ingredients causes more powerful product and how that is evaluated.

11:05 a.m. PT: Representative Clive Davies from EPA shares information on their Safer Choice program.

10:50 a.m. PT: Inerts review has been underway since 2010. EPA has a Safer Choice list that is being explored for inerts work review.

10:46 a.m. PT:  NOP staff member Emily Brown Rosen updates on inerts, substances found in allowed pesticides that are not active ingredients. Inerts are known to have their own impacts.

10:14 a.m. PT:  NOP staff member Dr. Lisa Brines outlines the 200+ materials and several petitions up for review by the NOSB this year. See Cornucopia comments.

10:04 a.m. PT:  Richardson adds that she thinks, in the last year, the relationship between the National Organic Program and NOSB has improved.

9:59 a.m. PT:  NOSB chair Jean Richards urging all to seek common ground, notes lawsuits will be decided outside of the process. Calls on Cornucopia to withdraw recent letter calling for new management at NOSB.

9:50 a.m. PT:  Plan for an open docket, between meetings for ongoing public input, still on hold.

9:43 a.m. PT:  Biodegradable biobased mulch film is allowed if 1) Compostable 2) Biodegradable 3) Biobased
Certifiers must verify that all biomulch is biobased, not synthetic.

9:42 a.m. PT:  NOP’s Miles McEvoy says “engineered nanomaterials” are prohibited in organic production…yet recent policy memo allows their use to be petitioned on a case by case basis.

9:33 a.m. PT:  An Aquaculture Task Force will be assigned to survey current organic aquaculture production practices and their alignment with OFPA provisions. This task force will report to the NOSB by the Spring of 2016.

9:20 a.m. PT:  Miles McEvoy describes the strategic plan that has just been released and is online here.

NOSB Factoid: The budget for the NOSB is $190K. There are four new openings on the NOSB, including two farmer slots. Deadline May 15.

9:13 a.m. PT:  Miles McEvoy continues his remarks and indicates that organic aquaculture and pet food standards are expected this summer.

9:11 a.m. PT:  The organic animal welfare standards are being readied for release.

9:09 a.m. PT:  Miles McEvoy, in his opening remarks at the NOSB meeting, announces that the long awaited origin of livestock rules has been released today.

The post Follow the National Organic Standards Board Meeting in La Jolla, CA #NOSB appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/follow-the-national-organic-standards-board-meeting-in-la-jolla-ca-nosb/feed/ 0
Day Two Report: Will the NOSB Chicken Out in San Diego?http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/day-two-report-will-the-nosb-chicken-out-in-san-diego/ http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/day-two-report-will-the-nosb-chicken-out-in-san-diego/#comments Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:52:03 +0000 http://www.cornucopia.org/?p=16308 Tuesday was the second day of the four-day National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting in the La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego, California. At least twice a year the 15-member expert stakeholder panel meets around the country. The NOSB was created by Congress to represent the interests of the organic community, rather than allowing the industry to be dominated by corporate lobbyists, as is the custom in Washington. Corporate Patriots or Pandering for Profit? Unlike

The post Day Two Report: Will the NOSB Chicken Out in San Diego? appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
Tuesday was the second day of the four-day National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting in the La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego, California. At least twice a year the 15-member expert stakeholder panel meets around the country. The NOSB was created by Congress to represent the interests of the organic community, rather than allowing the industry to be dominated by corporate lobbyists, as is the custom in Washington.

USDA.PowerGrabCorporate Patriots or Pandering for Profit?

Unlike on Monday, on Tuesday there seemed to be less rhetoric from the opposing sides.  Public interest groups, including Consumer Reports, Center for Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides, Organic Consumers Association, National Organic Coalition and The Cornucopia Institute, continued to articulate grave concern about what has commonly been referred to as a “power grab” by the USDA, stripping authority from the NOSB, and other related issues.

On the opposite end of the spectrum many professionals in the industry, most associated with the powerful Organic Trade Association, and including employees of multimillion-dollar organic certifiers, continued to praise the USDA and call for peace and harmony in the industry. The coded language was to tell the nonprofits to “sit down, shut up and clap louder.” The corporate-affiliated representatives might have a financial incentive to support the USDA, but all the NGOs are accountable to our members who passionately care about the integrity of the organic movement. We are not about to go away quietly.

Staff member Elizabeth Wolf defended Cornucopia’s role in the organic community stating that, while some might dislike the noise a watchdog makes barking in the middle of the night, it is a necessary function to maintain the foundational precepts of why we have worked so hard, together as a community, to nurture the organic movement.

Chicken Man… He’s Everywhere, He’s Everywhere!

Although there was much diverse testimony regarding the synthetic and non-organic materials that are up for review at this meeting, the discussion regarding removing supplemental methionine, a synthetic amino acid fed to poultry, was front and center.

The nonprofit community considers this an important adjunct to industrial-scale egg and meat production, considering it a “growth promoter.” In contrast, there was much testimony from egg industry representatives claiming that methionine is an important chemical that prevents chickens from becoming aggressive and injuring each other, and is essential to their nutrition.

Although the scientific analysis agrees that methionine is an important component in the birds’ diet, the question of whether poultry can obtain enough through natural supplements and dietary changes, versus feeding the synthetic amino acid, was part of the debate. The elephant in the room was the fact that the industry players did not discuss the fact that these birds, omnivores not vegetarians, were being systematically prevented, on giant factory farms, from exhibiting their natural instinctive behavior outdoors and enjoying a diverse diet of insects, worms and fauna. Also, the question of whether chickens should be allowed to eat organic meat scraps, as had always been the custom in raising poultry, was explored.

Who are these egg industry players? One expert testified on behalf of Herbruck’s, one of the largest players in the industry with an industrial-scale operation in Michigan licensed to hold over 1 million laying hens. He identified himself at the public meeting as a “private citizen” concerned with animal welfare and never even mentioned the name of the company who employs him.

Herbruck’s (Michigan)

Two other giant agribusiness representatives identified themselves with “Coleman,” a long-term player in the “natural” and organic chicken industry. What the representatives failed to articulate is the fact that a number of years ago Coleman was purchased by the poultry giant Perdue. The volume of their organic poultry operation might be — might be — 5% of their total, but it’s likely less than 1%. And they want to influence the direction of the organic industry!

What do all of these egg industry representatives have in common? They all work for companies that have “split” production (producing both conventional and organic eggs). In fact, I think at every one of these companies conventional production is dominant with organics representing a minority, sometimes a minute minority, of their business. These are the folks that are going to set policy for the organic industry?

NOTE:  The photos here of “farms” owned by Herbruck’s, in Michigan, and Chino Valley Ranchers, in Texas, were taken during our 2014 flyover investigation. Cornucopia members underwrote this aerial photography project, which culminated in our filing of 14 formal legal complaints against (certified organic) “factory farm” across the country. None of the confinement poultry operations had any chickens outdoors, as the federal organic law clearly requires. For a full view of the photographic evidence, visit www.cornucopia.org/organic-factory-farm-investigation/.

ChinoValleyRanchersChino Valley Ranchers (Texas)

Secrecy and Subterfuge Continues As Part of Organic Governance

Under previous NOSB chairs there had been improvement in the long-standing problem of agribusiness representatives failing to fully identify themselves at these meetings. Unfortunately, except for the Perdue employees, a number of corporate lobbyists and consultants have been able to testify at this meeting without disclosing who their clients are. In one example, in the past, a pediatrician was allowed to register as a “private citizen” and testify on behalf of adding a gimmicky, and potentially dangerous, nutraceutical to organic infant formula and milk, when, at a time, he was actually retained by the dairy giant Dean Foods (now WhiteWave). We hope the current management of the NOP, and the current NOSB leadership, will refocus the need on transparency in terms of public commentary.

See No Evil

Subsequent to a number of prudent votes choosing not to approve new synthetics, one of the most disturbing events yesterday was the relisting, at sunset, of the synthetic food ingredient sodium acid pyrophosphate, also known as SAPP. The material is used as a leavening agent. It was supported to remain on the National List of approved substances by Hain Celestial Group and WhiteWave Foods (which indiscriminately endorsed every sunset material with the exception of boiler treatments). The giant food manufacturers were joined by two trade-lobby groups, the International Food Additives Counsel and the Organic Trade Association.

I’m sure organic consumers will feel comfortable that their interests are being protected by the NOSB when they listen to lobbyists from the International Food Additives Counsel (sardonic humor intended).

On the other side of the equation, three public interest groups — The Cornucopia Institute, Beyond Pesticides and Consumer Reports — all expressed their concerns about negative potential impacts on the environment, human health risks and the fact that safer alternatives exist for use as leavening agents, approved for use in organic food.

Here’s the rub: the NOSB member who led this debate claimed that the information on potential deleterious impacts came in at the last minute and couldn’t be considered based on current NOP instructions. So the board will revisit this concerning information five years from now when SAPP next comes up for sunset review.

Whoa, Nelly!

How many citizens could have their health impacted in the meantime? When evaluating these materials the board should be using the “precautionary principle” and erring on the side of caution rather than risking the health of eaters who look at the organic label as the last refuge of truly safe, natural food.

First, are the members of this board telling me that if Dr. Jonas Salk rose from the dead today and appeared at this meeting to testify, stating that SAPP was conclusively endangering the health of young children, and he had the scientific analysis to back up that claim, that they would nevertheless allow the use of a dangerous synthetic material in organic foods to continue for the next five years? All because the management at the NOP instructed them not to take pertinent information into consideration at this time?

The fact of the matter is that our colleagues, Dr. Terry Shistar at Beyond Pesticides and Charlotte Vallaeys at Consumer Reports, submitted scientific analysis and basis for the removal of this material, in 2014 and 2015, and again pursuant to the docket that was open prior to this meeting, indicating SAPP could cause kidney damage and calcium deposits and hormone-mediated harm to the cardiovascular system.

Today (Wednesday), NOSB member Zea Sonnabend said the Handling Subcommittee is going to prioritize looking at the health effects of accumulated phosphates in food between now and the next meeting. But that will be too late for SAPP! They just voted to bless it for another five years. It is not clear whether or not this could have been tabled until the next meeting (otherwise this should have been removed from the list).

This is a real stick in the eye to public interest groups like Beyond Pesticides, Consumer Reports and Cornucopia. Just like yesterday, when the OTA received preferential treatment denied Cornucopia, last fall, a certifier, acting as a corporate lobbyist, forwarded a letter, at the 11th hour, stating they needed a particular material (Tragacanth gum) that the NOSB appeared to be posed to remove from the list.

Did the NOSB deem their last-minute lobbying as “untimely” and deny its consideration, as they did with the erroneously described “last-minute” health concerns regarding SAPP? You can bet your bottom dollar they didn’t. They rolled out the red carpet and catered to the one agribusiness in the country requesting to keep that material on the list.

We demand equal respect for the advocacy efforts of researchers like Dr. Shistar at Beyond Pesticides, as that afforded industry trade-lobby groups and certifiers acting on behalf of their clients.

We will contact the board members and ask one of them who voted in favor of the material (the vote was 3 in favor of removing and 11 against), based on parliamentary procedure which governs the meetings, to move for reconsideration and a new vote. The health of organic consumers, and the integrity of the organic label, are at stake.

The long day of work, ending at 6:30 p.m., was rewarded by a gala reception sponsored by one of the largest organic certifiers, Quality Assurance International, at the Scripps Howard aquarium overlooking the Pacific Ocean. The food was incredible and the adult beverages flowed liberally. An organization like Cornucopia could never have afforded to sponsor such a gathering but our staff of five (a larger contingent than any of the other organizations, even the powerful OTA), thoroughly enjoyed the hospitality and sincerely thanks QAI, CCOF and the OTA for sponsoring the event and inviting all attendees to participate.

More news from the organic circus in San Diego later. In the interim, please see updates, in real-time, at www.cornucopia.org or on Cornucopia’s Twitter feed which you can sign up for on our website.

Mark A. Kastel
Codirector
The Cornucopia Institute

The post Day Two Report: Will the NOSB Chicken Out in San Diego? appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/day-two-report-will-the-nosb-chicken-out-in-san-diego/feed/ 0
How the Government Allows Chemicals in “Organic” Foodhttp://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/how-the-government-allows-chemicals-in-organic-food/ http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/how-the-government-allows-chemicals-in-organic-food/#comments Tue, 28 Apr 2015 19:26:50 +0000 http://www.cornucopia.org/?p=16283 Washington Post by Peter Whoriskey You might think  the USDA “organic” label is reserved for foods produced without any man-made chemicals. But under government rules, “organic” food may be grown or processed with the aid of scores of synthetic substances, as long as those chemicals have been deemed essential. Exactly which chemicals should be allowed? This week, in a process that is largely invisible to consumers but that has become a semi-annual ritual of controversy within the

The post How the Government Allows Chemicals in “Organic” Food appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
Washington Post
by Peter Whoriskey

500px-USDA_organic_seal_svg - wikicommonsYou might think  the USDA “organic” label is reserved for foods produced without any man-made chemicals. But under government rules, “organic” food may be grown or processed with the aid of scores of synthetic substances, as long as those chemicals have been deemed essential.

Exactly which chemicals should be allowed?

This week, in a process that is largely invisible to consumers but that has become a semi-annual ritual of controversy within the world of organic politics, a committee called the National Organic Standards Board is selecting those synthetic substances that organic farmers and processors may use.

For a movement largely built around skepticism toward synthetic pesticides and additives, the task of choosing the exceptions can be particularly delicate.

The 15-member board, composed of farmers, processors and other organic experts selected by the USDA, often finds itself balancing the ideal of chemical-free food against the practical requirements of farming.

For while many would prefer to exclude the use of any synthetic chemicals, there are some substances – including herbicides, fungicides, emulsifiers and other additives – that some organic farmers say they cannot do without.

At its meeting this week, for example, the NOSB is weighing the merits of more than 200 substances that at least some farmers say are necessary to produce organic food. Others, including consumer groups, meanwhile urge caution.

The pleadings unfold in a blur of chemistry and agronomy. Among the dozens of public commenters on Monday were a potato grower from Oregon who asked for the board to approve a chemical to keep his stored spuds from sprouting; a maker of organic lecithin – lecithin is an emulsifier common in may foods – who wanted the board to close the loophole that allows synthetic lecithin; and an organic advocate from Vermont who, speaking for some strawberry farms, wanted the board to preserve the exception for ferric phosphate, a chemical used as a slug and snail bait.

The potato grower, Derin Jones, from Chin Family Farms, acknowledged that a natural substance, clove oil, can be used to keep potatoes from sprouting. But a chemical known as “3-decene-2-one” or “3D2,” works much better, and he showed pictures to prove his point.

“Clove oil has been a wonderful product,” he said. But “we don’t feel it is effective enough. It’s hurting our business.”

At stake, however, is the value of the organic label, a word whose value to consumers is the foundation of a growing $32 billion industry.

Organic farms use only a small fraction of the synthetic chemicals allowed on conventional farms, and even the critics generally acknowledge that foods bearing the “organic” label offer distinct benefits. But watchdog groups argue that the board must forcefully move to minimize the exceptions or risk degrading the label’s integrity.

The USDA organic label “may have been in the lead 10 or 15 years ago, but they’re not anymore,” said Urvashi Rangan, executive director of food safety and sustainability at Consumer Reports. “This is something they need to focus on.”

Mark Kastel, co-founder of the Cornucopia Institute, a watchdog group devoted to organics, blamed the rapid pace of the deliberations for preventing the public from weighing in. He called the meetings this week “organic regulatory theater.”

Others, however, defended the process. Jean Richardson, a maple syrup producer and professor emerita from the University of Vermont, is the chairperson of the panel. She notes that the decisions they make must balance the livelihoods of farmers against the consumer demand for purity.

“We’re romantic realists,” Richardson said. “Our values are really strong – we want the world to be a better place in every way. But we’re realistic…We recognize that there is not a perfect answer.”

The board findings are sent to the USDA, and serve as the basis for the final rules regulating what is and what isn’t organic.

The post How the Government Allows Chemicals in “Organic” Food appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/how-the-government-allows-chemicals-in-organic-food/feed/ 0
Sparks Fly on Day One of NOSB Meeting in San Diego – Reporthttp://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/sparks-fly-on-day-one-of-nosb-meeting-in-san-diego-report/ http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/sparks-fly-on-day-one-of-nosb-meeting-in-san-diego-report/#comments Tue, 28 Apr 2015 19:00:20 +0000 http://www.cornucopia.org/?p=16264 Miles McEvoy Source: USDA Instead of looking at the legal and ethical concerns articulated by The Cornucopia Institute’s call on the Obama/Vilsack administration for a change of leadership at the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP), numerous speakers yesterday, most of them financially benefiting from the status quo in Washington, praised Miles McEvoy, the current head of the NOP. The praise for the USDA’s organic program and leadership was far from universal as a number of

The post Sparks Fly on Day One of NOSB Meeting in San Diego – Report appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
Miles McEvoy
Source: USDA

Instead of looking at the legal and ethical concerns articulated by The Cornucopia Institute’s call on the Obama/Vilsack administration for a change of leadership at the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP), numerous speakers yesterday, most of them financially benefiting from the status quo in Washington, praised Miles McEvoy, the current head of the NOP.

The praise for the USDA’s organic program and leadership was far from universal as a number of working farmers, public interest groups and consumers expressed grave reservations in how the program is undercutting the authority of the NOSB and undermining the integrity and reputation of organics.

A Question of Fairness

The meeting usually opens with reports from the head of the NOP (Mr. McEvoy) and a brief reading/opening statement by the chair of the NOSB (Jean Richardson).

The most newsworthy aspect of the NOP report was the release, yesterday, of the long-awaited draft “origin of livestock rule.” Mr. McEvoy identified this as a top priority in 2010. Many of us believe that the USDA has historically misread the regulations allowing conventional cattle, mostly on factory dairy farms, to be brought into organic operations. Factory farms have operated with a competitive advantage. Cornucopia will be out soon with an analysis and there will be a 90-day opportunity for public comment.

Although Dr. Richardson, in her opening remarks, specifically praised Cornucopia’s research work she was critical of our organization’s call to remove current leadership at the NOP.

We find it troublesome that the current chair would choose to politicize her position, which should be one of neutrality. The NOSB is split, as is the organic community/industry, on whether the actions of the current NOP represent violations of the intent of Congress in terms of running the program and in terms of the ethics and performance of its current management.

Basing Organic Decision-Making on Science — Conflicts of Interest

My opening remarks focused on the “Organic Regulatory Theater” with around 200 different synthetic and non-organic materials needing to be reviewed along with some other policy issues. It has not been humanly possible for this volunteer board and stakeholder groups, like Cornucopia, to perform proper, in-depth analysis of these substances.

One of the problems is we lack current Technical Reviews. The USDA has either decided they aren’t needed (Congress gave this power to the NOSB, not the USDA staff), or they are woefully late, and in some cases they’ve contracted with organizations that have an appearance of a conflict of interest (and they have allowed the scientists performing the analysis to remain anonymous).

I blasted the secrecy and the conflicts of interest and used as an example The Organic Center, which is part of the Organic Trade Association. I said it was “the fox guarding the organic henhouse.”

NOSB Chair Richardson later read, verbatim, an email from an OTA staff person claiming my testimony was inaccurate with The Organic Center/OTA no longer doing technical reviews and trying to distance themselves from responsibility, inferring that was old history and the OTA had nothing to do with the formation of TOC.

Although we have verified that they are no longer doing reviews, the TOC has done reviews as recently as the last 2-3 years and, like much of what is secretive at the NOP, the current list of contractors was never publicly updated. In its last technical review, The Organic Center/OTA did disclose the identity of the author of their studies (an individual with a PhD in agricultural economics rather than the biological sciences that would perhaps better qualify him for such a position).

Furthermore, the OTA had not just recently become involved with The Organic Center as their spin, read by Dr. Richardson, inferred. In reality, OTA leadership founded the TOC as a nonprofit arm so they could raise money for organic research. They’ve always had interrelated Board of Directors and, currently, the OTA appoints the board of TOC and it is housed in the OTA’s offices.

But the OTA didn’t say that, and Dr. Richardson was unwilling to give us the same opportunity for a brief rebuttal as she gave the powerful industry lobby group.  We take great exception when our organization, and its 10,000 members (working organic farmers being our primary constituency), are treated as second class citizens at a meeting sponsored by the federal government.

We hope Dr. Richardson will reconsider giving us equal time and read our brief statement to the board and audience today.

It should be noted that at least one more “nonprofit,” that gets the vast majority of their funding from corporate agribusiness and government, Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI), that is also doing technical reviews for the NOSB, praised Mr. McEvoy in testimony —the government official who is responsible for underwriting part of their paychecks.

There are more conflicts of interest in this process than Carter’s got pills.

Certifiers Acting as Industry Trade Groups Rather than Independent Arbiters

We have been concerned for some time about the propriety of the accredited certifying organizations, who are acting as agents of the federal government, lobbying the NOSB regarding materials or practices. A number of them have directly rejected our concerns.

It has the appearance of a conflict of interest when certifiers represent the interest of their paying clients. The claim that they are just doing survey work doesn’t negate the concerns.

Furthermore, it doesn’t matter whether 200 or 2,000 farmers or handlers are using a particular synthetic material. This is not a popularity contest. The law requires the NOSB to judge synthetic materials by three criteria: safety to the environment, safety in terms of human health and the essentiality/necessity of the products. They need to meet all three.

Just because the clients of the certifier want a product (maybe it’s the cheapest alternative) doesn’t mean it passes muster for use in organics. Furthermore, these are not scientific surveys. There might be an equal or greater number of farmers/handlers that have never used the product or find it unnecessary because of their superior management skill and commitment to organic philosophy — like California farmer Phil McGrath testifying on behalf of The Cornucopia Institute.

Who’s a farmer?

Just like some of the vertically integrated industrial livestock companies that sit on the phony-baloney “Farmer Advisory Council” at the OTA and touted in their testimony yesterday (this would be like General Motors having their own hand-picked worker council representatives and calling it a “union”), at least one individual testified in front of the board for the continued use of synthetic methionine and represented himself as a “Farmer.”

What does an organic farm look like? And what does it mean to be a farmer? Here is a photo of the operation owned by the Kreher family.

KreherFacility

This is just one of the facilities operated by this split operation (organic and conventional). They are currently under investigation by the USDA after a formal legal complaint was filed by The Cornucopia Institute, along with 13 other “factory farms,” that aerial photography indicated were not allowing their chickens and cattle legal access to the outdoors for pasture:

http://www.cornucopia.org/organic-factory-farm-investigation/

Subterfuge

Consultants to corporate agribusiness continued to testify in front of the NOSB without being asked to disclose their clients/who they are working for.

One such consultant stated he used to serve on boards in Washington with Mr. McEvoy, and denigrated Cornucopia by saying we were encouraging the NOSB to vote against “all” materials. And then he said he was going to be canceling his Cornucopia Institute membership in making no further financial contributions.

Well, as we like to say, “You are welcome to your own opinion but you are not welcome to your own facts.”

This gentleman has never been a member of The Cornucopia Institute and it’s ironic that he was testifying in favor of retaining copper and sulfur (to materials that can cause pollution even though they are naturally-based) as organic compliant crop materials. Both of these materials are supported by The Cornucopia Institute to be retained on the National List (with restrictions to protect the environment).

Is Hydroponics Organic?

Again, the question is, what does an organic farm look like? Some of the hydroponic installations are now investing tens of millions of dollars in giant industrial complexes, in urban areas, growing food and water and a nutrient solution, under artificial lighting, and suggesting they have the same nutritional value as food grown in healthy organic soil with a complex microbiota that converts organic matter in the soil into vitamins, antioxidants and other diverse, immune-enhancing and flavorful compounds.

HydroponicFarm

hydroponicfarm2

This is somewhat controversial because one of the issues the NOP is charged with is disrespecting the will of the NOSB and unilaterally allowing hydroponic farms to proliferate.

More news from the organic circus in San Diego later. In the interim, please see updates, in real-time, at www.cornucopia.org or on Cornucopia’s Twitter feed which you can sign up for on our website.

Mark A. Kastel
Codirector
The Cornucopia Institute

The post Sparks Fly on Day One of NOSB Meeting in San Diego – Report appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/sparks-fly-on-day-one-of-nosb-meeting-in-san-diego-report/feed/ 0
The Existential Crisis Facing GMOs – They Don’t Work and We Don’t Want Themhttp://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/the-existential-crisis-facing-gmos-they-dont-work-and-we-dont-want-them/ http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/the-existential-crisis-facing-gmos-they-dont-work-and-we-dont-want-them/#comments Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:24:22 +0000 http://www.cornucopia.org/?p=16172 Ecologist by Colin Todhunter Source: Vida Dimovska The GMO industry has legitimised itself via a vast network of lobbyists and the assiduous capture of the politicians, regulators and scientists that should be holding it to account, writes Colin Todhunter. But as the failure of the GM revolution and its disastrous impacts become ever more evident, the industry’s legitimacy is fast eroding away. Author of ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth‘ Steven Druker recently talked of how back in

The post The Existential Crisis Facing GMOs – They Don’t Work and We Don’t Want Them appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
Ecologist
by Colin Todhunter

Source: Vida Dimovska

The GMO industry has legitimised itself via a vast network of lobbyists and the assiduous capture of the politicians, regulators and scientists that should be holding it to account, writes Colin Todhunter. But as the failure of the GM revolution and its disastrous impacts become ever more evident, the industry’s legitimacy is fast eroding away.

Author of ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth‘ Steven Druker recently talked of how back in the 1970s a group of molecular biologists formed part of a scientific elite that sought to allay fears about genetic engineering by putting a positive spin on it.

At the same time, critics of this emerging technology were increasingly depicted as being little more than non-scientists who expressed ignorant but well-meaning concerns about science and genetic engineering.

This continues today, but the attacks on critics are becoming more vicious. Former British Environment Minister Owen Paterson recently attacked critics of GMOs with a scathing speech that described them as a self-serving, elitist “green blob” that was condemning“billions” to misery.

Professor Anthony Trewavas has continued this theme by stating:

“Greenpeace notably decides its opinions must prevail regardless of others, so it arrogates to itself the right to tear up and destroy things it doesn’t like. That is absolutely typical of people who are unable to convince others by debate and discussion and in the last century such attitudes, amplified obviously, ended up killing people that others did not like. But the same personality type – the authoritarian, ‘do as I tell you’, was at the root of it all. Such groups therefore sit uneasily with countries that are democracies.”

According to this, critics of GMOs possess authoritarian personality types, are ignorant of science and unable to convince people of their arguments and thus resort to violence.

All voices against GMOs are ‘biased’

Part of the pro-GMO narrative also involves a good deal of glib talk about democracy. In an open letter to me, Anthony Trewavas says:

“It would be nice if you could say you are a democrat and believe that argument is better than destruction but argument that deals with all the facts and does not select out of those to construct a misleading programme.

“Misleading selection of limited information is causing considerable problems in various parts of the world that leads some into very violent behaviour, particularly in religious belief. I am sure you agree that this is not a good way forward … Whatever their[farmers’] choice is … they must be allowed to make that decision … That is the nature of every democracy that I hope all will finally live under?”

Pro-GMO scientists have every right to speak on psychology, politics and democracy. However, let a non-scientist criticise GMOs and they are accused of self-serving elitism or ignorance. Indeed, let even a scientist produce scientific evidence that runs counter to the industry-led science and he or she is smeared and attacked.

Let a respected academically qualified political scientist, trade policy analyst or social scientist whose views are in some way critical of GMOs and the corporations promoting them express a coherent viewpoint supported by evidence from their specific discipline, and they are attacked for being little more than ideologues with an agenda, or their evidence or sources are described as ‘biased’.

Any analysis of the role of the IMF, World Bank and WTO and their part in restructuring agriculture in poor nations or devising policies to favour Western agribusiness is suddenly to be side lined in favour of a narrow focus on ‘science’, which the masses and ideologues could not possibly comprehend.

By implication, they should therefore defer to (pro-GMO) scientists for the necessary information.

‘Science’, ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ are what we say they are

The pro-GMO lobby talks about choice, democracy and the alleged violence of certain environmental groups – but says nothing about the structural violence waged on rural communities resulting from IMF / World Bank strings-attached loans, the undermining of global food security as a result of Wall Street commodity and land speculators, the crushing effects of trade rules on poorer regions or the devastating impacts of GMOs in regions like South America.

To discuss such things is political and thus ‘ideological’ and is therefore not up for discussion it seems.

Much easier to try to focus on ‘the science’ and simply mouth platitudes about ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom of choice’ while saying nothing about how both been captured or debased by powerful interests, including agribusiness.

By attempting not to appear to be ideological or political, such people are attempting to depoliticise and thus disguise the highly political status quo whereby powerful corporations (and some bogus notion of a ‘free market’) are left unchallenged to shape agriculture as they see fit, says Kevin Carson of Center for a Stateless Society:

“Anyone who’s seen the recent virally circulated Venn diagrams of the personnel overlap between Monsanto and USDA personnel, or Pfizer and FDA, will immediately know what I’m talking about … A model of capitalism in which the commanding heights of the economy are an interlocking directorate of large corporations and government agencies, a major share of the total operating costs of the dominant firms are socialized (and profits privatized, of course), and ‘intellectual property’ protectionism and other regulatory cartels allow bureaucratic corporate dinosaurs … to operate profitably without fear of competition.”

The ‘free market’ as an engine of hunger and poverty

If certain politicians or scientists and the companies they support really do want to ‘feed the world’ and are concerned with poverty and hunger, they should forget about GMOs and focus their attention elsewhere: not least on how the ‘free market’ system that they cherish so much causes hunger and poverty – whether for example through food commodity speculation by powerful banking interests or a US foreign policy that has for decades used agriculture to trap nations into subservience.

Rather than have the public focus on such things, such people try to mislead and divert attention away from these things with puerile notions of authoritarian personality types who reject some illusory notion of open debate, free choice and democracy.

But even with this power and political influence at its disposal, the GMO agritech industry is far from being a success. Much of its profits actually derive from failure: for example, Andrew Kimbrell notes that after having chosen to ignore science, the industry’s failing inputs are now to be replaced with more destined-to-fail and ever-stronger poisonous inputs.

The legacy of poisoned environments and ecological devastation is for someone else to deal with. In his book, Steven Druker has shown that from very early on the US government has colluded with the GMO agritech sector to set a ‘technical fix-failure-technical fix‘ merry-go-round in motion.

This system is designed to stumble from one crisis to the next, all the while hiding behind the banners of ‘innovation’ or ‘research and development’. But it’s all good business. And that’s all that really matters to the industry.

If you’re going to tell a lie, make sure it’s a whopper!

There’s always good PR ground to be made from blaming critics for being ‘anti-science’, and money to be made from a continuous state of crisis management (‘innovation’ and bombarding farmers with a never-ending stream of new technologies and inputs). Part of the great con-trick is that it attempts to pass off its endless crises and failures as brilliant successes.

For many promoters of the GMO cause, it is a case of not even wanting to understand alternative approaches or the devastating impacts of GMOs when their lavish salary or consultancy fees depend on them not wanting to understand any of it.

When it comes to labelling unsafe and untested GM food in the US, the pro-GMO lobby grasps at straws by saying too much information confuses the public or sends out the wrong message.

When it says sound science should underpin the GMO issue, it does everything it can to circumvent any science that threatens its interests.

When it says its critics have a political agenda, it side lines debates on how it hijacks international and national policy making bodies and regulatory agencies.

When it talks about elite, affluent environmentalists robbing food from the bellies of the poor, its private companies are owned by people who form part of a privileged class that seek to turn their vested interests into policy proscriptions for the rest of us.

The fraudulent ‘concensus’ is breaking down

The pro-GMO lobby engages in the fraudulent notion that it knows what is best for humanity. Co-opting public institutions and using science as an ideology, it indulges in an arrogant form of exceptionalism.

The world does not need GMO food or crops, especially those which have not been proven safe or whose benefits are questionable to say the least. There are alternative ways to boost food production if or when there is a need to. There are other (existing) ways to tackle the impacts of volatile climates.

However, the alternatives are being squeezed out as big agritech and its captured policy / regulatory bodies place emphasis on proprietary products, not least GMOs and chemical inputs.

The pro-GMO lobby has a crisis of legitimation. No amount of twisted truths or altered genes, expensive PR or attacks on its critics can disguise this.

The post The Existential Crisis Facing GMOs – They Don’t Work and We Don’t Want Them appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/the-existential-crisis-facing-gmos-they-dont-work-and-we-dont-want-them/feed/ 0
There’s a Raging Debate Over Whether These Types of Lettuce and Tomato Are Really Organichttp://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/theres-a-raging-debate-over-whether-these-types-of-lettuce-and-tomato-are-really-organic/ http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/theres-a-raging-debate-over-whether-these-types-of-lettuce-and-tomato-are-really-organic/#comments Sat, 25 Apr 2015 11:23:59 +0000 http://www.cornucopia.org/?p=16161 Washington Post by Peter Whoriskey Source: Scott Miller Consumers associate the word “organic” with healthy and safe, and that sounds simple enough. But exactly what kind of food should get the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “organic” label has been the subject of repeated controversies, and some of the fiercest divisions have opened recently over the eerily beautiful, scar-free produce that is grown in controlled water-based environments – that is, with the roots of the plants resting

The post There’s a Raging Debate Over Whether These Types of Lettuce and Tomato Are Really Organic appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
Washington Post
by Peter Whoriskey

Source: Scott Miller

Consumers associate the word “organic” with healthy and safe, and that sounds simple enough.

But exactly what kind of food should get the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “organic” label has been the subject of repeated controversies, and some of the fiercest divisions have opened recently over the eerily beautiful, scar-free produce that is grown in controlled water-based environments – that is, with the roots of the plants resting in covered water tanks rather than soil.

These methods, valued for their efficiency and reliability, have produced sometimes flawless lettuce and tomatoes that are sold in supermarkets.

But critics say that because these so-called aquaponic and hydroponic systems depend entirely on what humans put into the water, the produce they generate offers less nutritional value than the produce generated by plants grown in rich soil.

“Those heads of lettuce that are grown indoors? Yes, they’re beautiful. But its just a green leaf with water in it,” said Jeff Moyer, long-time farm director of the Rodale Institute, an organic research outfit. “They can’t possibly have the vitamins and minerals that lettuce grown in soil would have.”

So far, despite the objections of its organic advisory board, the USDA has decided that the produce generated by such systems is worthy of the valuable organic label, as long as the other organic guidelines are followed. The designation allows the farmers to charge a premium of as much as 30 percent or more.

The debate over aquaponics and hydroponics is one front in much broader war over what may be sold as “organic.”

On Friday, the Cornucopia Institute, a nonprofit group representing some farmers and other interests, called for the resignation of the chief of the USDA’s National Organic Program, citing the aquaponics decision and other issues. The focus of Cornucopia’s discontent is the way in which the USDA has, in their view, ignored the recommendations of the organic advisory board, a 15-member panel created by Congress to help shape the organic rules. Board members and USDA officials have also differed on an array of topics including how animals should be treated and what kinds of synthetic materials may be added to organic products.

The contest has often split the organic world into multiples camps, sometimes pitting smaller outfits against larger, more corporate entities. “Although the USDA ignored some of the [board] recommendations in the past, until recently they never went 180 degrees in the opposite direction in deference to the preferences of powerful corporate interests,” Kevin Engelbert, a former board member from Nichols, New York said in a statement.

A spokesman for the USDA noted that the government is convening a special task force to reconsider the water-based systems. “Emerging technologies in hydroponic and aquaponic production have prompted [the USDA] to seek the most current information and opinions of industry experts,” the department said.

Hydroponics, or growing plants in a nutrient solution root medium, is a growing area of commercial food production, with more than $500 million in annual revenues, with the best-sellers being tomatoes and lettuce, according to market analysis by IBISWorld. Since 2002, a few dozen such operations have obtained the USDA organic certification, according to government figures.

Defenders of the aquaponics contend that  the produce they generate is nutritionally equivalent and moreover, cleaner.

Al Eisler, owner of an aquaponic farm in Cocoa, Florida grows lettuce, spices and tomatoes in water tanks inhabited by tilapia. The only things he adds to the water, he says, are organic fish food and, occasionally, some minerals.

The plants mainly feed off of the wastes generated by the fish.

“It’s a natural cycle,” Eisler said. “It’s what happens in rivers and ponds.”

Besides, he said, he has an incentive not to cheat by adding chemicals, as some other farmers may.

“The fish don’t lie – if we cheat, they die,” he said. “That’s our motto.”


Peter Whoriskey is a staff writer for The Washington Post handling investigations of financial and economic topics. You can email him at peter.whoriskey@washpost.com

The post There’s a Raging Debate Over Whether These Types of Lettuce and Tomato Are Really Organic appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/theres-a-raging-debate-over-whether-these-types-of-lettuce-and-tomato-are-really-organic/feed/ 0
Coalition Challenges Expansion of Hazardous Herbicidehttp://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/coalition-challenges-expansion-of-hazardous-herbicide/ http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/coalition-challenges-expansion-of-hazardous-herbicide/#comments Fri, 24 Apr 2015 20:00:49 +0000 http://www.cornucopia.org/?p=16165 PAN North America Paul Towers, Pesticide Action Network, ptowers@panna.org, 916-216-1082 Paul Achitoff, Earthjustice, 808-599-2436 Abigail Seiler, Center for Food Safety, 202-547-9359 Lori Ann Burd, Center for Biological Diversity, 847-567-4052 Source: Lite-Trac EPA allows nine additional states to use toxic 2,4-D on GE corn and soy crops San Francisco, CA – A coalition of conservation, food safety and public health groups filed a motion today (April 20, 2015) challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s decision to

The post Coalition Challenges Expansion of Hazardous Herbicide appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
PAN North America
Paul Towers, Pesticide Action Network, ptowers@panna.org, 916-216-1082
Paul Achitoff, Earthjustice, 808-599-2436
Abigail Seiler, Center for Food Safety, 202-547-9359
Lori Ann Burd, Center for Biological Diversity, 847-567-4052

Source: Lite-Trac

EPA allows nine additional states to use toxic 2,4-D on GE corn and soy crops

San Francisco, CA – A coalition of conservation, food safety and public health groups filed a motion today (April 20, 2015) challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s decision to expand the use of “Enlist Duo” on genetically engineered (GE) corn and soy crops to nine additional states: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma and North Dakota.

Earthjustice and Center for Food Safety filed the motion in the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Environmental Working Group, the National Family Farm Coalition and Pesticide Action Network North America. This motion builds on the coalition’s earlier challenge of Enlist Duo, which already includes six Midwestern states where EPA previously approved the herbicide’s use on GE corn and soy crops.

The groups are challenging EPA’s decision to allow the use of Enlist Duo in 15 Midwestern states because of the serious impacts the powerful new herbicide cocktail, which combines glyphosate and 2,4-D, will have on farmworkers, neighboring farms, and ground and surface water, as well as endangered species. For instance, 2,4-D has been linked to serious illnesses like Parkinson’s disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and reproductive problems. EPA’s analyses also plainly demonstrate that the herbicide may affect endangered species like the whooping crane, Louisiana black bear and Indiana bat through consumption of prey contaminated with the toxic chemical.

“Big chemical is profiting by dumping more and more toxins in our air, water and bodies — and killing our endangered wildlife,” said Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff.  “Instead of being an environmental watchdog, EPA is playing lapdog and allowing this deadly herbicide to be sprayed on millions of acres without adequate impact assessment. We filed our motion so we can finally stop the cycle of more and more pesticides with less and less oversight.”

“Our federal regulators have again unlawfully bowed to the chemical industry, rather than protect our communities, land and farms,” said George Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety senior attorney, counsel in the case. “We will continue to defend them vigorously.”

“In expanding its approval for this super-toxic chemical cocktail, EPA has shown an utter disregard for human health, our drinking water, and endangered species like the iconic whooping crane,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “EPA has left us with no choice but to go to court.”

“Rural communities rely on EPA to take its job seriously. But in approving Dow’s proposed use of 2,4-D, EPA has failed to protect their health, their vulnerable crops and their livelihoods,” said Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network North America.  “Communities across the Midwest are furious, knowing that they now face unprecedented levels of 2,4-D drift each summer.”

EPA approved Enlist Duo to address the epidemic of glyphosate-resistant superweeds that now infest tens of millions of acres of U.S. farmland as a result of overuse of glyphosate on crops genetically engineered to resist the herbicide’s effects. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp and was recently designated a probable carcinogen. Dow Chemical has introduced 2,4-D resistant crops as a quick fix to the problem, allowing farmers to douse their fields with both 2,4-D and glyphosate to kill resistant weeds.

Independent and USDA scientists, however, predict that the Enlist Duo “crop system” will only foster resistance to 2,4-D in addition to glyphosate, continuing the GE crop pesticide treadmill.

States that are now approved to use Enlist Duo on GE corn and soy crops:

  • Arkansas – NEW
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Iowa
  • Kansas – NEW
  • Louisiana – NEW
  • Minnesota – NEW
  • Missouri – NEW
  • Mississippi – NEW
  • Nebraska – NEW
  • North Dakota – NEW
  • Ohio
  • Oklahoma – NEW
  • South Dakota
  • Wisconsin

The post Coalition Challenges Expansion of Hazardous Herbicide appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/coalition-challenges-expansion-of-hazardous-herbicide/feed/ 0
Prominent Government Watchdog Asks Obama Administration to Remove Organic Leadership at USDAhttp://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/prominent-government-watchdog-asks-obama-administration-to-remove-organic-leadership-at-usda/ http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/prominent-government-watchdog-asks-obama-administration-to-remove-organic-leadership-at-usda/#comments Fri, 24 Apr 2015 14:05:59 +0000 http://www.cornucopia.org/?p=16149 National Organic Program Divisive and in Crisis NOP Deputy Director Miles McEvoy tours a hydroponic farm Source: USDA The nation’s preeminent organic industry watchdog, The Cornucopia Institute, sent a letter today to the White House, and to USDA Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack, requesting a change in leadership at the regulator’s National Organic Program (NOP).  A radical shift in the unique public-private governance in the organic sector, established by Congress in 1990, has created deep fissures

The post Prominent Government Watchdog Asks Obama Administration to Remove Organic Leadership at USDA appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
National Organic Program Divisive and in Crisis

NOP Deputy Director Miles McEvoy
tours a hydroponic farm
Source: USDA

The nation’s preeminent organic industry watchdog, The Cornucopia Institute, sent a letter today to the White House, and to USDA Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack, requesting a change in leadership at the regulator’s National Organic Program (NOP).  A radical shift in the unique public-private governance in the organic sector, established by Congress in 1990, has created deep fissures within the organic community and, more recently, resulted in 15 organic stakeholders, including Cornucopia, suing the USDA.

Previous administrations faced plenty of criticism from organic advocates.  However, during the Clinton and Bush years, USDA officials were universally viewed as respecting the purview of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).  This 15-member, multi-stakeholder body was established by Congress to review all synthetic/non-organic ingredients and materials used in organic farming and food production.  Congress also mandated that the USDA Secretary seek the counsel of the NOSB on all aspects of implementing the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA).

“Although the USDA ignored some of the NOSB recommendations in the past, until recently they never went 180 degrees in the opposite direction in deference to the preferences of powerful corporate interests,” said Kevin Engelbert, a former NOSB member from Nichols, New York.  “And they never reversed the 23-year tradition of allowing the NOSB the autonomy to create their own procedure manual, set their own agenda and create their own workplan.”

cornucopia logo125The Cornucopia Institute, established in 2004, with 10,000 members, is thought to represent more certified organic farmers than any other organization in the nation.  Mr. Engelbert and his family were the first certified organic dairy farmers in the United States.

In 2009, President Obama and Mr. Vilsack were universally praised for their choice of appointing Miles McEvoy, a former organic official with the state of Washington, to lead the NOP.  Yet, after an extended honeymoon, public sentiment has taken a decisive turn toward disappointment and controversy in recent years, brought to a head by several unilateral decisions made by the USDA without collaborating, as had been the custom, with the NOSB.

Although many organic industry observers were already becoming disillusioned with the approach during the Obama/Vilsack administration, Mr. McEvoy threw gasoline on the fire, in the fall of 2013, when he unilaterally reversed the “Sunset” procedure. Mandated by Congress, this procedure required the NOSB to review every synthetic material/ingredient approved for use in organics every five years.

Dr. Barry Flamm, a conservation expert and former chairman of the NOSB later lamented, “I thought we had improved the Sunset process during my tenure on the Board.  Besides taking the teeth out of the Sunset provisions, the reversal is a real affront to all of us who believed in the public governance process that Congress built into the organic law.”

Under the old procedure, synthetics were reviewed every five years and then sunsetted off the National List unless voted to be relisted if appropriate. Under the new USDA procedures, these materials will instead stay on the list in perpetuity unless the NOSB takes action to remove them (and in a complete reversal, the removal of a material will require a two-thirds super-majority to remove a material).

Although the change in the Sunset provisions, bypassing the NOSB, was supported by many of the corporate agribusinesses that have invested in organics, by a number of the major certifiers who oversee their operations, and by industry lobbyists, it was universally viewed as a stick in the eye by farmers, consumers and public interest groups that have been able to collaborate on the process in the past.

In addition to “gutting the Sunset procedure,” as The Cornucopia Institute referred to it, a diverse subset of organic stakeholders have also expressed grave concern about several other positions the USDA has taken in direct conflict with the direction of the NOSB.  These include:

Nanotechnology
In 2010, the NOSB made clear, in a resolution, that inadequate science currently existed enabling it to conclude that food, or food packaging, manufactured through nanotechnology, was safe for human consumption or appropriate for inclusion in certified organic food products.  They recommended a more thorough examination and asked the USDA for technical assistance to conduct a more thorough examination, including convening a symposium on the subject. Instead, five years later the NOP unilaterally decided against any moratorium on organic food containing nanoparticles and instead ruled to allow them to be petitioned for use on a case-by-case basis, like any other synthetic or non-organic substance.

Hydroponics
Also in 2010, the NOSB clearly stated that U.S. organic law required organic plants to be grown in soil with federal regulations focusing on enhancing soil fertility, thus positively impacting the nutritional content of organic food. Growing plants in water, or air, using a narrow mixture of natural and synthetic nutrients, in the opinion of the Board, does not meet the letter or spirit of OFPA.  However, the NOP, and some major U.S. certifiers, are allowing giant, multimillion-dollar installations to grow plants indoors, under artificial lighting, and labeling the products organic without even identifying their origin as hydroponic.

Aquaculture
At the bequest of economically powerful agribusiness lobbyists, the USDA has charged ahead pushing the NOSB to approve a myriad of synthetic inputs, without even having in place a regulatory framework for how organic aquaculture would be managed.  Many advocacy groups have challenged whether or not open net fish farming in the oceans could be done without environmental degradation.

Organic Regulatory Theater
At the next NOSB meeting, beginning April 27, the volunteer panel faces the unrealistic task of carefully reviewing approximately 200 synthetics and materials that will Sunset in 2016 and 2017, in addition to a number of broader policy issues.  In the past when the workload has exceeded the NOSB’s capacity, the USDA has scheduled a third meeting during the year and/or added extra days to NOSB gatherings.  This has not happened despite this year’s workload grossly exceeding what the NOSB, and oversight groups like The Cornucopia Institute, can realistically examine.

Enforcement
When Miles McEvoy took over as staff director of the NOP, the new Deputy Administrator publicly stated that the organic industry was now entering “the age of enforcement.”  Yet major fraud investigations have languished and some perpetrators have even received favorable treatment and anonymity during his tenure.  “We have giant factory farms, like Shamrock Dairy in Arizona, which the USDA has found to have violated the law, still operating more than six years after legal complaints were originally filed,” said Mark A. Kastel, the Institute’s Codirector. “If it weren’t for the work of The Cornucopia Institute, this ‘pending’ enforcement action would still be secret.”

Despite the potential deterrent effect, the USDA has systematically refused to publicize the full background, nature of violations, and names of any companies or farms under investigation – even after these entities were found to have broken the law and were fined or otherwise penalized.

In what appears to be a serious ethical lapse, at a recent USDA training for accredited organic certifiers, Mr. McEvoy appeared to coach attendees on damage control tactics concerning organic livestock factory farms that have been the target of recent outside investigations and accused of violating organic law.  The take-away message by certification officials from what Mr. McEvoy said was that industry watchdogs were “bashing your operations.” [emphasis added]

“Since the NOP is responsible for not only investigating the alleged improprieties at these factory farms, but also overseeing the performance of the certifiers that inspect those operations, the apparent bias is extremely troubling,” added Kastel.

This is not the first time The Cornucopia Institute has called upon the USDA Secretary to change management at the NOP for what appears to be inappropriate favoritism and collaboration with the corporate sector.

Cornucopia, in 2009, collaborated with a Washington Post investigation exposing a sweetheart deal between a powerful industry lobbyist and Dr. Barbara Robinson, then head of the USDA’s organic program.  She allegedly illegally approved materials for use in organics, overruling her staff and bypassing the NOSB.  Cornucopia subsequently called upon both President Obama and USDA Secretary Vilsack to remove Dr. Robinson, which ultimately occurred later that year.

“For those of us who were practicing organic agriculture prior to Congress authorizing the USDA to oversee this industry, the behavior of current management at the NOP is a big disappointment,” said Helen Kees, Cornucopia’s Board President and an organic beef and vegetable producer from Wisconsin.  “The authority of the NOSB has been undermined, and it doesn’t really matter whether Miles McEvoy is the chief architect or just willingly carrying out orders.  The organic community needs an independent voice that can be universally respected to head this important regulatory body,” Kees asserted.

MORE:

In the past, the process by which the NOSB operated was developed by the Board itself, in collaboration with organic stakeholders, after being officially noticed in the Federal Register.

“The Policy Procedure Manual (PPM) was developed by the Board, after extensive public input, and approved by the USDA during the Bush administration,” according to former NOSB Chairman Dr. Flamm.

During his five years on the NOSB, Dr. Flamm also served for four years as the chairman of the Policy Subcommittee, which developed the NOSB’s PPM.

“You don’t need to take The Cornucopia Institute’s word alone in supporting the thesis that the USDA has overstepped their legal authority and undermined the unique process Congress set up to assure organic stakeholders that corporations would not wield undue influence in promulgating organic law,” Cornucopia’s Kastel added.

Last year, in a blunt letter, the two primary authors of the enabling legislation, the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, Representative Peter DeFazio and the Senate’s longest-serving member, Patrick Leahy, both clearly expressed that, in their unique position to judge, the edict reversing the Sunset procedures clearly violated the will of Congress.

The two congressional leaders were echoed,  in another letter to Secretary Vilsack, by three prominent past chairman of the NOSB: James Riddle, founder of Independent Organic Inspectors Association; Jeff Moyer, a longtime organic farming educator/leader with the Rodale Institute; and Dr. Barry Flamm, a natural resource and environmental consultant, the first certified organic cherry producer in Montana, and board secretary of The Cornucopia Institute.

More Organic Regulatory Theater
Since the NOSB was designed to have broad industry representation, and is not a scientific panel, Congress gave the body the authority to engage scientific experts to do Technical Reviews of synthetics and other materials up for consideration. This part of the law has never been respected. Instead, the USDA has hand-picked the contractors. In the earlier history of the organic program, they chose agribusiness executives and consultants to review materials petitioned by corporate agribusiness. This was a clear conflict of interest, thoroughly outlined in Cornucopia’s white paper, The Organic Watergate.

Currently, the USDA is contracting nonprofit organizations funded by corporate agribusiness to conduct the materials reviews. In one case, the nonprofit wing of the powerful industry lobby group, the Organic Trade Association, is preparing Technical Reviews for the NOSB.

“This is a clear conflict of interest and the proverbial fox watching the organic chicken coop,” stated Cornucopia’s Kastel.  “A further cloak of secrecy the USDA has donned, regarding the conflicts exposed in The Organic Watergate report, is that the agency is now refusing to disclose the names of the scientists writing the Technical Reviews for this public body —this makes critiquing potential conflicts of interest impossible.”

Along with the nearly insurmountable workload imposed on the NOSB by the USDA, the agency has refused to spend adequate dollars to pay for Technical Reviews the NOSB has requested.  Instead, NOP officials are touring the country in what some have charged is an expensive public relations campaign selling organics. “This leaves the NOSB ill-equipped to rigorously review many of the synthetic and non-organic materials that are up for review and that were not properly scrutinized when they were added to the National List in the first place,” stated Kastel.

The post Prominent Government Watchdog Asks Obama Administration to Remove Organic Leadership at USDA appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.

]]>
http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/04/prominent-government-watchdog-asks-obama-administration-to-remove-organic-leadership-at-usda/feed/ 0