If you subscribe to the Organic Consumers Association’s newsletters, you know that organic standards have been under attack for quite a while, with big companies trying to bend and stretch the laws to include all manner of non-organic ingredients under the organics label. That fight now seems to be coming to a head. The Washington Post reports that the integrity of the USDA organic label’s coming under question, pointing out the many ways organic standards have been watered down during — you guessed it — the Bush Administration.
The root of the problem’s a common one we see in pretty much any environmental issue: Powerful multinational corporations are pushing to weaken standards, and government officials are too often at these companies’ beck and call.
Barbara Robinson’s the government official embroiled at the center of this controversy. This deputy USDA administrator’s been overruling staff decisions and issuing directives that favor big corporations, “without consulting experts, certifiers or the board” — and seems happy to continue doing so despite the fact that she had to apologize after a couple of her decisions — including allowing farmers to feed organic livestock non-organic fishmeal that can contain mercury and PCBs — got overruled, forcing her to apologize.
In fact, Barbara’s said the federal program’s main purpose is to “grow the industry,” according to The Washington Post. It seems Barbara’s more interested in helping big corporations use the organics label to greenwash their products than in preserving the integrity of the organic label — and this industry-friendly attitude can be seen in the way organic standards have been changed:
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…. Under the original organics law, 5 percent of a USDA-certified organic product can consist of non-organic substances, provided they are approved by the National Organic Standards Board. That list has grown from 77 to 245 substances since it was created in 2002.
Now for the good news: Things are looking up under the Obama administration, who’s promised to tighten enforcement of organic standards and whose proposed budget “has doubled resources devoted to organics and installed USDA leaders who support change.”
What can you do now? Get educated on the latest organic-related news by visiting Organic Consumers Association’s website — a site that can be a tad oversensationalistic at times, but nonetheless serves as an important educational resource.
And to put your money where your mouth is, consider avoiding organics products from big companies like Kraft and Dole that are part of the Organic Trade Association, which is actively lobbying to weaken organic standards. Here’s a handy chart of what organic companies are owned by big corporations to help you out.
Photo by Pete Prodoehl
I saw the organic Kraft mac & cheese a few weeks back and couldn’t help but wonder about the differences (if any!) between this and the original blue box variety.
Rosemary’s last blog post..Return Trip
Comment by Rosemary — July 6, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
The Organic Trade Association (OTA) would like to address some of the claims made in this piece and the Washington Post article it references.
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 would like to try to move the debate beyond this 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.
Comment by Organic Trade — July 7, 2009 @ 8:42 am
Thanks for the detailed comment, Organic Trade industry. I agree with your point about how relaxed standards aren’t necessarily what’s driving the growth in the organic market. I think a lot of the growth in the market can simply be attributed to a growth in the interest in and popularity of organic products.
I do have a Q though. You say that there’s “a very specific process that materials must go through before they are permitted for inclusion in organic products.” Yet in your comment you don’t really address the fact that a deputy USDA administrator approved materials by overruling staff decisions without consulting with others or putting things through “a very specific process” — and that her actions were so un-procedural that in the end she was forced to apologize — though not prevented from wreaking further havoc.
I assume your comment isn’t intended to ironically point out the fact that “a very specific process” is an extremely vague description that pretty much means nothing — so I’d be interested in hearing how exactly Barbara’s reportedly overreaching decisions were a healthy part of this “very specific process”….
Comment by Siel — July 7, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
Thank you for your thoughtful response to our comment. In answer to your question, the process that was outlined in our remark specifically relates to the process by which materials are reviewed by the National Organic Standards Board and does not address the decision-making process that takes place at the level of the National Organic Program. While there are differences of opinion as to the way in which the latter process occurred with respect to the materials identified in the Washington Post article, OTA is hopeful that the new administration’s commitment to expanding the human and financial resources for organic will increase transparency and reinforce in consumers’ minds the integrity of the organic system.
Comment by Organic Trade — July 8, 2009 @ 6:43 am