The WaPo brings us news of more government chicanery on behalf of big agribusiness:
Three years ago, U.S. Department of Agriculture employees determined that synthetic additives in organic baby formula violated federal standards and should be banned from a product carrying the federal organic label. Today the same additives, purported to boost brainpower and vision, can be found in 90 percent of organic baby formula.The government's turnaround, from prohibition to permission, came after a USDA program manager was lobbied by the formula makers and overruled her staff. That decision and others by a handful of USDA employees, along with an advisory board's approval of a growing list of non-organic ingredients, have helped numerous companies win a coveted green-and-white "USDA Organic" seal on an array of products.
Grated organic cheese, for example, contains wood starch to prevent clumping. Organic beer can be made from non-organic hops. Organic mock duck contains a synthetic ingredient that gives it an authentic, stringy texture.
Relaxation of the federal standards, and an explosion of consumer demand, have helped push the organics market into a $23 billion-a-year business, the fastest growing segment of the food industry. Half of the country's adults say they buy organic food often or sometimes, according to a survey last year by the Harvard School of Public Health.
But the USDA program's shortcomings mean that consumers, who at times must pay twice as much for organic products, are not always getting what they expect: foods without pesticides and other chemicals, produced in a way that is gentle to the environment.
The market's expansion is fueling tension over whether the federal program should be governed by a strict interpretation of "organic" or broadened to include more products by allowing trace elements of non-organic substances. The argument is not over whether the non-organics pose a health threat, but whether they weaken the integrity of the federal organic label.
The chief regulatory villain here appears to be a deputy USDA administrator, Barbara Robinson, who thinks her job is to, quote, "grow the industry." Unbelievable, these people. Robinson preceded the Obama administration in that post, and many of her controversial decisions undermining the organic label were made during the Bush administration, so you can't really blame Obama. But come on, Obama, do your job and put people in the USDA who will do what they're supposed to do, not what big agribusiness wants them to do.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I'm all for undoing the lax standards in organics and making it a more honest process.
I love how you blame Obamma for this capitalistic Republican agenda. Conservative values (namely money and cheapestpossible production) have caused this. Robinson is simply a reciever of bribes; It's obvious. Obamma cannot stoop to such a low level to correct this problem, instead look to the people that actually APPOINTED her, and that is who does she report to... Only a Republican would target Obamma for something that is clearly the result of mainstream corporate politics. The woman sold out to big buisiness, much like your beloved party.
I really think 'organic' is a meaningless category.
For instance, you were complaining about the addition of wood starch to something. Well, wood starch, being made from wood, is indubitably organic in the only classification which makes any sense.
My local Farm and Garden store was selling at higher prices "organic" top soil, and "organic peat moss." I think it would be very difficult for peat moss not to be organic.
In Chemistry, "organic" means containing carbon compounds. But some carbon compounds are among the most harmful chemicals there are.
What is it that you want when you want something that is organic?
I think most of you want something which does not contain anything harmful. Some of you seem to want products that are grown or created in ways which are harmless not only to you, but also to other people, animals and plants. "Camp" up above seems to want to have meat from cows that lived a happy life in a green field. That's fine, but it really has little to do with the word "organic."
What is needed is more specific labeling. For instance, the milk which claims it comes from cows not treated with growth hormone. It is not clear that this milk is harmful to humans at all, but it isn't very healthy for the cows, so if that matters to you, you can buy this milk. There could be labels saying things like "No organophosphate insecticides were used in the growing of this cabbage." That would be meaningful information. The word organic means too many different things to people for it to be a useful category.
Susan Peterson
I'm with Susan Peterson. 'Organic' is a stupid label to start with.
Chemically speaking, almost everything we ingest is 'organic', except water and salt, which are not. Drink a Mountain Dew, everything but the water is organic, which is almost certainly the opposite of what 'organic' fans thinks is true. Even the CO2 is organic.
If by 'organic' people mean 'made from plants or animals or bacteria', I remind people you can make plastic from animals. And cobra venom. Bovine hormones to increase milk productions are, I suspect, made from bacteria. (I don't know anything about that specifically, but almost all artificial hormones at made by subverting the DNA of bacteria.) Wood pulp is probably completely organic even in the non-pesticide sense...lumber companies don't use pesticides very much, they just throw trees out there, and come back in a decade for wood.
I'm not really sure what an 'organic' label is for, unless it's to stop people from putting gold flecks in our food.
What we need are 'no pesticide' labels, and 'no filler' labels, and 'no hormones' labels, and 'free range' labels.
All with clear definitions of what those mean. Some of which apply to the actual content of the food, and some of which apply to the conditions the food was made under regardless of whether or not it can be detected via chemical analysis.
But those would be much harder to think of imaginary reasons to allow exemptions, and hence agribusiness couldn't weasel their way around them.
The Organic Trade Association (OTA) and its members are organic advocates. We believe in, support, and advocate for the integrity of the organic label and strict enforcement of federal organic standards because this is fundamental to living up to the contract with consumers who choose or who are considering choosing organic products.
At the June 17 annual meeting of the OTA membership, Kathleen Merrigan, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, announced “the new era of equivalence and enforcement of organic standards.” She was met with a standing ovation from the packed house.
It is unfortunate the Washington Post article, “Purity of Federal ‘Organic’ Label Is Questioned”, July 3, 2009, focused on old news and urban legends. The article also chose to reinforce rhetoric that is not only inaccurate but serves a narrow agenda whose motivations go unquestioned in the article.
OTA, on behalf of its members, would like to correct some inaccuracies and try to move the debate beyond narrow rhetoric and toward a more fact-based perspective.
From the article: “Relaxation of the federal standards, and an explosion of consumer demand, have helped push the organics market into a $23 billion-a-year business, the fastest growing segment of the food industry.”
The federal organic standards have not been “relaxed.” Rigorously enforced standards can and do go hand-in-hand with growth. The author and those pitching this story have generously borrowed the rhetorical technique of setting up a false choice. The industry and OTA pushed for national organic regulations that consumers could rely on. Organic agriculture and products remain the most strictly regulated, as well as the fastest growing, food system in the United States today.
From the article: “But the USDA program's shortcomings mean that consumers, who at times must pay twice as much for organic products, are not always getting what they expect: foods without pesticides and other chemicals, produced in a way that is gentle to the environment.”
In fact, if this is what someone expects from food, his or her best bet is to purchase organic.
Organic agriculture protects the health of people and the environment by reducing the overall exposure to toxic chemicals from synthetic pesticides that can end up in the ground, air, water and food supply, and that are associated with health consequences from asthma to cancer.
Extensive pesticide residue testing by the U.S.D.A. has found that conventionally produced fruits and vegetables are, on average, three to more than four times more likely to contain residues than organic produce, eight to eleven times more likely to contain multiple pesticide residues, and contain residues at levels three to ten times higher than corresponding residues in organic samples.
From the article: “Several groups have filed complaints with the USDA saying they think the inclusion of fatty acids in organic products violates federal rules and laws ‘This is illegal rulemaking -- a complete violation of the process that is supposed to protect the public’" said Gary Cox, a lawyer with the Cornucopia Institute.”
The accusations are unfounded and reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the process by which organic regulations are made. Contrary to what is implied here, there is a very specific process that materials must go through before they are permitted for inclusion in organic products. In regards to fatty acids, the USDA regulators followed the recommendation of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).
NOSB, a citizen advisory board, consists of four farmer/growers, two handlers/processors, one retailer, one scientist, three consumer/public interest advocates, three environmentalists, and one USDA-accredited certifying agent. These volunteers assist the Secretary of Agriculture with the overall implementation of the National Organic Program (NOP).
NOSB conducts an extensive review of materials that are petitioned for inclusion in organic, solicits public comment, and makes a recommendation to NOP as to whether a material should be allowed. The NOP implements NOSB’s recommendation.
This process ensures that materials are NOT haphazardly permitted for use in organic production and reinforces the principles of transparency and integrity around which the organic system was built.
Because the position of the reporters’ sources did not ‘carry the day’ in this public review by no means makes the process illegal, and to characterize it as such is a great disservice to the public.
From the article: “Consumer groups and organics advocates are hopeful that the Obama administration will bolster the program. In his proposed budget, the president has doubled resources devoted to organics and installed USDA leaders who support change.”
The organic industry itself has long advocated for increased resources to support USDA’s National Organic Program and for parity for organic farmers within US agricultural policy. OTA and its members are thankful to have this support and are pleased by the important gains and intentions of USDA.
OTA members on March 26 called on 34 Senate and House offices advocating for OTA-endorsed FY2010 appropriations requests.
What exactly did OTA and the organic industry ask for?
•$6 million for NOP to better fund enforcement of the NOP regulations and strengthen certifier accreditation and training.
•$5 million for USDA Extension farming research; geared towards increase transition of acreage in the U.S. to organic production for the betterment of the environment.
This is consistent with OTA’s agenda since the NOP was fully implemented in 2002. OTA has always supported a strong NOP capable of clarifying, developing, and strictly enforcing the organic rule.
OTA and its members are pleased that the Obama administration, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan are supporters of organic agriculture and have expressed a commitment to ensuring the integrity of the USDA organic label.
Despite the misleading portrait painted in the article, organic agriculture and products offer lasting hope for better environmental and personal health.
Who we are:
The Organic Trade Association (OTA) is the membership-based business association for organic agriculture and products in North America. Its members include growers, shippers, processors, certifiers, farmers' associations, distributors, importers, exporters, consultants, retailers and others. OTA’s Board of Directors is democratically elected by its members. OTA's mission is to promote and protect the growth of organic trade to benefit the environment, farmers, the public and the economy.
Two-thirds of OTA members are small businesses with under $1 million dollars in annual organic sales. Nearly half of OTA members report under $100,000 in annual organic sales. All trade members have one vote, regardless of size.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.