To:

Zcom_simple
Home » ZMag » Joshua Frank » Federal Food Policy
?1295269164

February 2006

Volume , Number 0
Activism

There are no articles.

Commentary

There are no articles.

Culture

There are no articles.

Features

Montreal Climate talks (2005)
Brian Tokar


War & Peace
Sofia Jarrin-thomas


Punishment
Don Monkerud


Labor Notes
Melissa Hornaday


Community Organizing
Lee Siu hin


Fog Watch
Edward Herman


Exporting
Alexandra Freedman


Labeling
Joshua Frank


Investigations
Nicolas J.S. Davies


“Free” Trade
Carolina Cositore


Gay & Lesbian Community Notes
Michael Bronski


Privatizing
Daniel Borgström


Rights & Wrongs
Olga Bonfiglio


Conservative Watch
Bill Berkowitz


Interview
David Barsamian


Reproductive Rights
Eleanor j. Bader


NSA Spying on Americans Is …
The aclu


Zaps

There are no articles.

NOTE: Z Magazine subscribers and sustainers have access to all Z Magazine articles here and in the archive. The latest Z Magazine articles available to everyone are listed in the Free Articles box at the top of the table of contents, and are starred in the list below. Questions? e-mail Z Magazine Online.

Federal Food Policy

By Joshua Frank
PDF Version
Printer Friendly Version
February 2006
 Change Text Size a- | A+

A s the rate of cancer continues to escalate, and with an obesity epidemic in the United States, people are turning toward healthier diets and lifestyles in hopes of enhancing their longevity. Awareness about food’s nutritional content is also on the rise—many people are concerned with the quality and content of their food. As these interests have grown, so has the organic food movement. Organics, as the general definition puts it, are products that are not genetically modified, and are developed without the use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, or hormones. 

In 1973, after the United States banned DDT, the underground organics industry grew almost overnight. With growing awareness of what DDT did to human and environmental health, consumers were growing wary of the corporate agricultural industry. People flocked to the land and planted crops on their own or joined food co-ops where they could grow and trade products among a community of like-minded people. The market soon reacted to this growing demand for organic foods and by the 1990s companies that produced organics estimated sales of more than $1 billion annually. 

Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) in 1990, which was attached to the Farm Bill, establishing the initial framework for National Organic Standards. OFPA mandated the formation of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which was organized to advise the secretary of Agriculture in setting the standards for the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program (NOP). NOSB based its recommendations on industry consensus and organic advocates were pleased. The next step, however, was a bit more cumbersome. Turning USDA’s organic standards into rules and regulations took some intense lobbying. In October 2002 the USDA officially began labeling as “organic” products with 95 percent organic content or higher. 

Today, attempting to define what the USDA considers organic is like trying to figure out which lie George W. Bush told last. Since 2002 the USDA keeps changing its definition, so today’s products labeled organic may not have been labeled the same in 2003. This sort of wavering has been met with criticism from organic food advocates who believe the USDA should stick to the standards it agreed to in 1990. Others, mostly industry CEOs, still believe USDA’s labeling is too stringent. And why wouldn’t they? 

“Certification is becoming big business,” writes Hilary Chop for Alternatives Journal. “Accredited certification agencies are becoming for-profit enterprises instead of farmer and consumer run organizations. This raises the potential for conflict of interests, particularly since farms pay the certifying agency based on their acreage. If a mega-farm wants an exception from the rules, it can be all too tempting for the enforcing officer who receives a commission, to make allowances.”  

Case in point: in 2002, shortly after the USDA announced its labeling policy, a controversy bubbled over when an accredited USDA-certifier allowed a Georgia chicken producer, Fieldale Chickens, to label its products organic while only having to use 10 percent organic feed instead of the 100 percent required under USDA guidelines. Fieldale spent tens of thousands of dollars to hire a Washington lobbyist to help change organic standards at the USDA. With the help of the Georgia delegation in Congress, they were successful.  

In April 2004, after intense lobbying efforts by agri-industry giants like ConAgra and Monsanto, the USDA proposed new rules that would have allowed USDA-certified organic farms to use fertilizers and pesticides that contain “unknown” ingredients—rather, ingredients that could not be identified by either the grower or the inspector. Also on the butcher block were USDA-certified organic dairy cows. Until 2004 organic certified cows could not be fed any antibiotics or non-organic feed. That changed fast, as the desire for organic products grew, so did awareness among the big-agriculture folks who lobbied until they succeeded. Luckily, organic activists didn’t back down. There was a public outcry and, in May 2004, the USDA retracted their proposed changes. If they hadn’t reversed their plea, USDA-certified cows could have been administered antibiotics or fed non-organic fishmeal, made with synthetic preservatives and potentially contaminated by mercury and PCBs. 

On December 13, 2005 the U.S. Senate passed the 2006 Appropriations Bill, which further weakened labeling standards. Young dairy cows can now be treated with antibiotics and fed genetically engineered feed. Not only that, numerous synthetic food additives and processing agents can now be used. In case of “emergency decrees,” or a shortage of organic goods (shortage is determined by the USDA, not the U.S. public), loopholes now exist in the federal statutes that allow for the substitution of non-organic ingredients without any public notification or oversight. The new changes are a result of a recent fight over USDA standards that began heating up in 2002 when organic blueberry farmer Arthur Harvey of Maine filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for allowing products containing synthetic ingredients to be sold as “organic.” Harvey contended that the USDA’s organic standards were ambiguous, thereby undermining consumer organic goods and confidence in USDA labels. 

In January 2005 the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Harvey’s favor. The court mandated that the USDA had one year to re-write their regulations. It looked like a win for the organic community. “The decision said that synthetic substances were not permitted in any type of product labeled as organic,” Joe Mendelson, legal director for the Center for Food Safety, told reporters after the decision. Such products could not be labeled with the official green USDA “organic” stamp of approval. 

But when big money is involved, justice won’t often prevail. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who had stood up for organic standards in the past, inserted language in the Agriculture Appropriations Bill of 2006 countering Mendelson. “The Harvey case could have major impacts on the future of the organic industry, both for producers and processors,” Leahy said. “That is why I added language to the Senate bill instructing USDA to study the implications of the decision and report back to Congress. I believe a deliberative process to achieve consensus within the organic community would have been more appropriate.” Leahy received over $32,000 from agribusiness during the 2004 election cycle. 

Leahy’s amendment forces the U.S. Agriculture secretary to analyze, within 90 days of the bill’s passage, whether reinstating the organic labeling standards set in 2002 “would adversely affect organic farmers, organic food processors, and consumers.” The secretary also has to analyze “issues regarding the use of synthetic ingredients in processing and handling” certified organic products. 

The amendment had been opposed by many organic food growers, as well as public health officials, environmental organizations, the National Grocers Association, the National Organic Coalition, the Rural Advancement Foundation, Beyond Pesticides, the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, and the Organic Consumers Association, among others. 

This is where the Organic Trade Association (OTA) comes into the picture. The OTA represents virtually all the companies hoping to turn a profit in the organic foods market. According to the OTA’s number crunching, had rules of the Harvey case gone into effect, 25 percent of organic manufacturers would have left the business, which they estimated would account for almost $758 million in lost sales per year. OTA also argued that 20 percent of organic farmers would have had to abandon their farming methods. 

Not surprisingly, it was industry Goliaths like General Mills and Dean Foods who, along with others, opposed the ruling. The entrance of such big names into the organic market is a good indication that organic foods have been corporatized. Examples of the corporate influx include: 

  • McDonald’s restaurants in the Northeast will be carrying organic fair-trade coffee 
  • General Mills owns Cascadian Farms and the popular organic Muir Glen brand  
  • Kraft, which is owned by Phillip Morris, owns Boca, a popular soy burger company 
  • Dean Foods, the dairy giant, owns White Wave and Silk soymilks, as well as Horizon
    Organic milk 

As the organic food industry has matured, USDA standards have waned. The result is that consumers can no longer be confident their foods meet organic standards even if the USDA gives its green mark of approval.

Joshua Frank is the author of Left Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press). 
Loading_border