[Corp. Watch] Big Food is gaming federal organic standards

[Corporation Watch]

Purity of Federal 'Organic' Label Is Questioned

  By Kimberly Kindy and Lyndsey Layton

(Washington Post, July 3) -- Three years ago, U.S. Department of  
Agriculture (USDA) 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. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has pledged to protect the  
label, even as he acknowledged the pressure to lower standards to let  
more products in.

	In response to complaints, the USDA inspector general's office has  
widened an investigation of whether products carrying the label meet  
national standards. The probe is also looking into the department's  
oversight of private certifiers who are hired by farmers and food  
producers and inspect products to determine whether they can use the  
label.

	Some consumer groups and members of Congress say they worry that the  
program's lax standards are undermining the federal program and the  
law itself.

	"It will unravel everything we've done if the standards can no longer  
be trusted," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who sponsored the  
federal organics legislation. "If we don't protect the brand, the  
organic label, the program is finished. It could disappear overnight."

	Organic advocates and food marketing experts said the introduction  
this month of new "natural" products by an organics division of Dean  
Foods is the latest sign that the value of the USDA label has eroded.  
The yogurt and milk products will be distributed under the Horizon  
label and marketed as a lower-priced alternative to organic products.

	Congress adopted the organics law after farmers and consumers  
demanded uniform standards for produce, dairy, and meat. It was aimed  
at preventing producers from falsely claiming their foods were organic.

	The law banned synthetics, pesticides, and genetic engineering from  
foods that would bear a federal organic label. It also required annual  
testing for pesticides. In 2002, the USDA created the National Organic  
Program to implement the law.

	By then, major food conglomerates had bought up most small,  
independent organic companies. Kraft Foods, for example, owns Boca  
Foods. Kellogg owns Morningstar Farms, and Coca-Cola owns 40 percent  
of Honest Tea, maker of the organic beverage favored by President Obama.

	That corporate firepower has added to pressure on the government to  
expand the definition of what is organic, in part because processed  
foods offered by big industry often require ingredients, additives or  
processing agents that either do not exist in organic form or are not  
available in large enough quantities for mass production.

	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. Companies must appeal to the board every five years to keep a  
substance on the list, explaining why an organic alternative has not  
been found.

	The goal was to shrink the list over time, but only one item has been  
removed so far. The original law's mandate for annual pesticide  
testing was also never implemented -- the agency left that optional.

	From the beginning, farmers and consumer advocates were concerned  
about safeguarding the organic label. In 2003, Arthur Harvey, who  
grows organic blueberries in Maine, successfully sued the USDA,  
arguing that the fledgling National Organic Program had violated  
federal law by allowing synthetic additives.

	"The big boys like Kraft realized they could really cash in by  
filling the shelves with products bearing the organic seal," Harvey  
said. "But they were sort of inhibited by the original law that said  
no synthetic ingredients." His victory was short-lived.

	The Organic Trade Association, which represents corporations such as  
Kraft, Dole, and Dean Foods, lobbied for and received language in a  
2006 appropriations bill allowing certain synthetic food substances in  
the preparation, processing, and packaging of organic foods --  
creating conditions for a flood of processed organic foods.

	Tom Harding, a Pennsylvania-based consultant for both small local  
farmers and big producers, including Kraft, said that broadening the  
law has helped meet demand by multiplying the number of organic  
products, and greatly expanded the amount of agricultural land that is  
being managed organically.

	"We don't want to eliminate anyone who wants to be a part of the  
organic community," Harding said. "The growth we've seen has helped  
the entire organic food chain."

Organics for Babies

	Today, labels on organic infant formula boast that they include DHA  
and ARA, synthetic fatty acids that some studies suggest can help  
neural development. But according to agency records, when the issue  
came before the USDA in 2006, agency staff members concluded that the  
fatty acids could not be added to organic baby formula because they  
are synthetics that are not on the standards board's approved list.

	The fatty acids in formula are often produced using a potential  
neurotoxin known as hexane, prompting many organics advocates to  
conclude that the board would not approve their use if it took up the  
matter.

	In a rare move, Barbara Robinson, who administers the organics  
program and is a deputy USDA administrator, over-ruled the staff  
decision after a telephone call and an e-mail exchange with William  
Friedman, a lawyer who represents the formula makers.

	"I called [Robinson] up," Friedman said. "I wrote an e-mail. It was a  
simple matter." The back-and-forth, he said, was nothing more than  
part of the routine process that sets policy in Washington.

	In an interview, Robinson said she agreed with Friedman's argument  
that fatty acids were not permitted because of an oversight. Vitamins  
and minerals are allowed, but "accessory nutrients" -- the category  
that describes fatty acids -- are not specifically named.

	As for hexane, Robinson said the law bans its use in processing  
organic food, but she does not believe the ban extends to the  
processing of synthetic additives. "We don't attempt to say how  
synthetic products can be produced," she said.

	Manufacturers say the fatty acids are safe and provide health  
benefits to infants. "We test every lot that comes out for hexane, and  
there is no residue," said David Abramson, president of Maryland-based  
Martek Biosciences, which produces the fatty acids used by formula  
companies.

	Several groups have filed complaints with the USDA saying they think  
that the inclusion of the fatty acids in organic products violates  
federal rules and laws. And they say that Robinson did not have the  
authority to make the decision on her own.

	"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, an organics advocacy group. Cox and others  
make the same argument about other decisions by Robinson and several  
members of her staff.

	In 2004, Robinson issued a directive allowing farmers and certifiers  
to use pesticides on organic crops if "after a reasonable effort" they  
could not determine whether the pesticide contained chemicals  
prohibited by the organics law.

	The same year, Robinson determined that farmers could feed organic  
livestock non-organic fish meal, which can contain mercury and PCBs.  
The law requires that animals that produce organic meat be raised  
entirely on organic feed.

	After sharp protests from Sen. Leahy, Consumers Union, and other  
groups, then-Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman rescinded these and two  
other directives issued by Robinson.

	The orders were signed by a staff member, but Robinson took  
responsibility, saying she had made the decisions unwisely without  
consulting organics experts, certifiers or the standards board. "I  
failed, and take this as a learning experience and do not want it to  
happen again," she told board members in 2004.

	Earlier this year, however, Robinson issued a series of directives  
without consulting experts, certifiers, or the board. She said that  
because the issues were urgent, including one on food safety, she had  
to act quickly.

	In an interview, Robinson said she believes the federal program's  
main purpose is to "grow the industry," and she dismissed  
controversies over synthetics in organic foods as "mostly ridiculous."  
Joe Smillie, a board member, said he thinks that advocates for the  
most restrictive standards are unrealistic, and are inhibiting the  
growth of organics.

	"People are really hung up on regulations," said Smillie, who is also  
vice president of the certifying firm Quality Assurance International,  
which is involved in certifying 65 percent of organic products found  
on supermarket shelves. "I say, 'Let's find a way to bend that one,  
because it's not important'."

	"What are we selling?", he said. "Are we selling health food? No.  
Consumers expect organic food to be growing in a greenhouse on Pluto.  
Hello? We live in a polluted world. It isn't pure. We are doing the  
best we can."

Waiting for Standards

	Under Robinson, the National Organic Program has repeatedly opted not  
to issue standards spelling out how organic food must be grown,  
treated, or produced -- despite 65 instances since 2002 in which the  
standards board has made recommendations that the agency has not acted  
upon.

	This has created a haphazard system, in which the private certifiers  
have set their own standards for what products can carry the federal  
label.

	For example, the agency has not acted on a 2002 board recommendation  
that would answer a critical question for organic dairy farmers: how  
to interpret the law requiring that their cows have "access to  
pasture," rather than be crowded onto feedlots.

	The result has been that some dairy farms have been selling milk as  
organic from cows that spend little if any time grazing in open spaces.

	"This is really a case of 'justice delayed is justice denied'," said  
Alexis Baden-Mayer, national political director for the Organic  
Consumers Association. "The truly organic dairy farmers, who have  
their cows out in the pasture all year round, are at a huge  
competitive disadvantage compared to the big confinement dairies."

	Robinson has blamed the delays on the program's small staff, saying  
that "we have to prioritize."

	Without specific standards, the wide discretion given to certifiers  
has invited producers and farmers to shop around for the certifiers  
most likely to approve their product, consumer groups say.

	Sam Welsch, president of Nebraska-based organic certifiers OneCert,  
said his company has lost as many as a dozen fruit and vegetable  
farmers this year to other certifiers that allow the use of certain  
liquid fertilizers, which most organics experts believe are prohibited  
by organics laws because they are unnaturally spiked with high levels  
of nitrogen.

	"The rules should be clear enough that there is just one right  
answer," Welsch said.

	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.

	Vilsack's deputy, organics expert Kathleen Merrigan, told consumer  
groups three weeks ago that she intends to heighten enforcement.  
Merrigan helped write the original organics law and get the federal  
program off the ground in 2002.

	And Vilsack said he wants to protect the organic label. "That term,  
'organic,' needs to be pure," he said in an interview. "You can't  
allow the definition to be eroded to where it means nothing. ... We  
have to fight against that kind of pressure."

	Still, at the standards board's meeting last month, Chairman Jeff  
Moyer noted the growing tension. "As the organic industry matures, it  
is becoming increasingly more difficult to find a balance between the  
integrity of the word 'organic' and the desire for the industry to  
grow."