Organic Standards Still Face Challenges

[Guest guest]

http://www.consciouschoice.com/issues/cc116/organicchallenges.html

Organic Standards Still Face Challenges

by Liane Clorfene-Casten

Conscious Choice, November/December 1998

When the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) tried to change the meaning

of " organic food " this spring, proposing new regulations that would make

possible the dubious opportunity for consumers to buy " organic " drug-treated

meat, genetically modified or irradiated food laced with toxic sludge,

consumers rose up angry. In no uncertain terms consumers let Agriculture

Secretary Dan Glickman know that they would not tolerate this blatant

accommodation to giant agribusinesses. Thanks to thousands of individual

organic eaters, environmental groups (the Chicago-based Sustain played a

prominent role in organizing opposition to the proposed new standards),

health and alternative medical magazines, food co-ops, and natural and

organic markets across the country, the USDA admitted to receiving well over

275,000 protests. Such an overwhelming response prompted the Secretary to go

back to the drawing board.

But the issues are not over; they are only heating up. Despite the fact that

a poll conducted in February, 1997 found that 54 percent of consumers want

to eat organic food, we're only at the first chapter in what may be a long

and difficult battle.

" In 1993, the EPA estimated that over two billion pounds of pesticide-active

ingredients a year are applied throughout the U.S., " says Jay Feldman,

director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Coalition Against the Misuse

of Pesticides. " The agriculture industry accounted for 84 percent of this

pesticide use. Also, manufacturing industries are disposing of hazardous

wastes and using them as fertilizer ingredients, spreading them around to

farms. So not only is American produce sprayed with a combination of

pesticides, much of the fertilizer plowed into the fields is toxic, our food

is often sprayed again on its way to market and once again at the market. "

Dr. n Moses, founder of the Pesticide Education Center in San Francisco

and author of the book, Designer Poisons: How to Protect Your Health and

Home from Toxic Pesticides, along with countless pesticide watch

organizations, all contend that the Environmental Protection Agency, which

is supposed to regulate pesticides, has not tested all the ingredients in

certain chemicals. Nor does it require companies to disclose or label their

so-called inert ingredients. Jay Feldman adds the fact that government

studies and regulations do not take into consideration the effects of

pesticide combinations (the synergistic effects), but draw their conclusions

of risk only from studies of individual pesticides -- one at a time. Such a

procedure is unrealistic since crops are sprayed with a variety of mixtures.

But such scientific approaches help the pesticide industry claim that

certain conclusions about toxic effects are not yet known.

Yet scientists already know a great deal. Dr. Moses notes that chronic

health complaints from pesticide exposure include birth defects, cancer,

brain damage, and reproductive damage. Sufficient studies are available to

indicate a special class of chemicals, called endocrine-disrupting chemicals

or estrogenic pesticides, can indeed cause breast cancer and affect the

sexual characteristics of animals. (Evidence of human reproductive damage is

still being examined.)

Thus, the organic movement. In 1997 consumers spent $3 billion on Certified

Organic food. Although that only accounts for one percent of our

food-production system, it is a significant start. Some 60 percent of

Americans, according to a survey cited in the December 15, 1997 issue of the

New York Times now voice interest in buying " organic " foods, making organic

and pesticide-free foods a growing industry.

So where is the problem? There are several. The first comes with the

inadequate supply of genuinely labeled organic food, in the wake of growing

consumer demand.

" Everyone is getting into the act, " says Skirvin, whose job at Goodness

Greeness, the largest Midwest wholesale supplier of certified foods in the

Midwest, is both to supply the growing demand to supermarkets across the

Chicago metropolitan community, and to persuade Midwest farmers across

Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio (eight states in all)

to devote more and more of their fields to organic growth. " A growing number

of consumers are demanding pure food, " he states..

Goodness Greeness is a giant 30,000 square-foot storage/cooling space

located on 59th Street, just blocks west of the Dan Expressway, off a

scattered mix of run-down private homes and commercial enterprises. On one

side of the warehouse is the building-long dock, where trucks come to load

up their orders. The inner space is divided into an assortment of rooms with

varied temperatures. Each specific cooler is dedicated to preserve the

various perishables that need different degrees of coolness to guarantee the

shelflife of all the produce: potatoes, tomatoes, grapes, apples,

grapefruit, spinach, celery, raisins -- whatever is commercially sold. Then

add juices and dairy products. Individual pieces of fruits or vegetables are

labeled, " Certified Organic, " usually with the proud name of the grower

included on the label.

" I can't get enough of this stuff, " Skirvin said in frustration, barely able

to talk to this reporter for more than ten minutes at a time. The phone was

ringing off the hook.

" More and more stores are wanting organic foods and I just can't source

enough to fill the growing demand, " he said. " In addition to the standard

stores like Whole Foods, Wild Oats, and Sunset Foods, now add the chains

like Treasure Island, Dominick's and Jewel. In response to consumer demand,

every upscale store in Chicago now has shelves of organic. There's money out

there, and research indicates consumers will pay more for organics. But, the

farmers are not growing enough to supply us. [And] importing produce becomes

more expensive because of the transportation costs. It's always a battle. "

That's one reason Skirvin went to a conference in Decatur, Illinois on

August 22, 1998, sponsored by the Illinois Stewardship Alliance. Skirvin

spoke to a gathering of environmentalists and farmers who came to hear about

the newest trends in organic farming.

While Skirvin has one battle on his hands, consumers and growers may very

well have another. Gwinn, former president of the Illinois chapter of

the Organic Crop Improvement Association, spoke at the Decatur conference as

well. Gwinn is concerned that the federal government wants to take over the

organic standards, standards which up to now have been established by

private certification agencies throughout the U.S. " The Organic Farm

Production Act of 1990 gave the USDA the right to establish national

standards, under the guidance of the National Organic Standards Board --

whose members are appointed by USDA. In December, 1997, the first of these

standards were posted, and outrage ruled the day. It was a calculated effort

to blindside the organic community. "

Gwinn went on to describe the current certification process. It's not easy,

and any farmer willing to work his fields and meat production organically

has to sweat far more than the large corporate farmer. In addition to using

land that is off chemicals for three years, farmers of organic crops must

rotate crops (to maintain proper nutrients in the soil); identify the right

fields to lie dormant for a season; find and maintain proper mineral

balance; and use clean seeds -- and this could mean growing your own. They

must find a good certification agency; and they must research the market. No

one wants to go to all that work and have no place to sell their products.

In 1990, there were 14 certified organic farmers in Illinois. By 1998, in a

gradual, steady growth, there are now 80 such farmers. " It's slow, " Gwinn

admitted. " The organic community is waiting for the final USDA rules,

supposedly [to be] out by the end of 1998. But, considering the fact the

final draft will need review and public comment, and considering the fact

that Secretary Glickman admitted 'it will take time to work out

compromises,' it's clear the pressures [to dilute the standards] are out

there. We need vigilance everywhere. "

Gwinn is especially frustrated with the USDA labeling process and proposed

costs. They have captured the use of the word, " organic, " he claims. " Unless

approved, labels would be strictly limited. That means we won't know if a

milk product is BGH-free; meat cannot be labeled. It may become illegal -- a

position attorneys are ready to challenge -- for any farmer to use any label

other than the USDA's label. So far, USDA standards are the very lowest. "

As for costs, the USDA is proposing a set of expenses and record keeping

(farm history, income, expenses, crop rotation policies, projected plans)

that are so costly, so time-consuming, Gwinn is convinced that small organic

farmers will be wiped out. The USDA is also expected to make it illegal for

regional or non-governmental organic certification bodies to uphold

standards stricter than federal standards. If such a rule were approved, the

legal hammer of the World Trade Organization -- already holding a series of

meetings to define the term " organic " -- could be used to force European and

other nations to lower their organic standards as well.

What Gwinn failed to mention is the stealth effort by agri-businesses such

as Monsanto to introduce these foods into the marketplace below the

threshold of public awareness. By 1997, a wide variety of genetically

engineered foods had been placed, unlabeled, on supermarket shelves.

Thousands more products already include some genetically engineered

ingredients. Two dozen biotech foods and crops have already been approved

for use in the U.S., and millions of acres of biotech crops were harvested

in the fall of 1997. According to Earth Island Journal, (Fall, 1997)

Secretary Dan Glickman is a vocal supporter of biotechnology as well as

factory farming.

Back in the summer of 1998, after USDA's embarrassed retreat on organic

standards, Monsanto asked for a three-year moratorium on making any

decisions on bio-engineered foods. It's not that the company will stop

creating these new forms of seeds -- they won't. But for now, Monsanto will

spend its time aggressively buying up other seed companies, like Asgrow Seed

Co. and Cargill, and working with other major companies in the U.S. such as

DeKalb, Northrup King Co., and Pioneer Bi-Bred International Inc., to patent

new formulas and rush batches of these engineered seeds into the marketplace

worldwide.

One example: in the space of three years, genetically modified foods have

come from nowhere to representing thirty percent of all the soya grown in

the U.S. and over a quarter of the maize. Much of these crops are grown from

seeds produced by Monsanto. According to BBC's Tomorrow's World Magazine,

the company controls ten percent of the global seed supply, and its share is

growing rapidly. It is now on the verge of winning an even bigger prize. In

buying the company that jointly holds the patent on the deeply controversial

" Terminator Technology, " Monsanto might gain unprecedented control over

global agriculture.

Terminator Technology tricks crops into producing infertile seeds. Farmers

planting these crops will not be able to save seeds from their own crops but

will be forced to buy new seed stock each year from, of course, Monsanto

dealers everywhere. Since saving seeds is fundamental to peasant

agriculture, and fundamental to guaranteeing organic farmers the continued

production of organically clean product, two goals might be accomplished at

the same time. The seeds for organic production could fall in short supply;

and the small peasant farmer will have to go to the corporate store for the

next round of planting. In the past, giant seed companies lost potential

profits every year from the recycling of seeds. Now, if marginal farmers are

forced every year to buy new seeds, they may be pushed into extinction,

grossly undermining food security in the developing world.

But, that's not the only problem with Monsanto's bioengineered seeds. Dr.

Mae-Wan Ho, a geneticist from the Open University, says, " The problem with

Terminator Technology and with a lot of the techniques used by genetic

engineers is that virus-like agents are used to get the new genes into the

plants in the first place. These agents could spread to bacteria and then to

people. We already know that virus genes can spread to mice if they eat food

containing those genes. These virus genes can then end up in white blood

cells and the liver and spleen. I see no reason why this couldn't happen in

people too. "

Closer to home are the genetically manipulated soybeans sold under the brand

name Roundup Ready Soybeans (RRS). They have been made resistant to the

herbicide Roundup, with the active agent glyphosate. The herbicide Roundup

kills plants and is also used in agriculture as a weedkiller. A gene

inserted in the soybeans ensures that they can survive twice the normal dose

of Roundup.

" The seed patented by Monsanto has been on sale in the U.S. since the spring

of 1996. Monsanto's strategy is clear: now this chemical group will not only

rake in the profits from the development of genetically manipulated seed,

they have also given a huge boost to sales of Roundup. Worried by fears that

they might end up getting stuck with their genetically manipulated soybeans,

Monsanto, together with the U.S. authorities, have taken the greatest pains

to ensure that these beans need not be labeled, with the result that

consumers remain in the dark as to what they are getting. Harvests of

natural soya and genetically manipulated soya will be mixed in the U.S. "

Listing a number of already identified problems, Greenpeace notes, " The

risks for the environment and health cannot be calculated. " The

environmental group states there are still large gaps in our knowledge, with

the leap from limited experimental release in small fields to large-scale

growth. Will the new bean force out other plants? Will it enter other

ecosystems? Will it change in the long term due to its resistance to toxic

substances? Since the company's application forms show that feeding tests

were conducted for a maximum of ten weeks, it is impossible to forecast

possible long-term effects on animals and future generations. As a result,

people become unsuspecting guinea pigs to the effects of changes in protein

structure. Such changes could trigger new allergies or full-scale poisoning

of the population from the creation of entirely new toxins or the unexpected

buildup of existing ones.

Scientists who attended an American Association for the Advancement of

Science forum in Washington, D.C. in May, 1998 are equally concerned. " I've

come to believe that the potential power of genetic engineering dwarfs that

of nuclear power, " said Liebe Cavalieri, Professor of Environmental Science

at State University of New York at Purchase. Dr. Cavalieri said that society

" shouldn't be carried away with fantasies " promised by biotechnology

promoters. Farmers at the Decatur conference all agreed. " If you mess with

the structure of, say, corn, it's not corn any more -- whatever it looks

like, " said one angry farmer.

As for Roundup, and the active ingredient glyphosate, there are some serious

problems here. It is estimated that Roundup accounts for approximately 15

percent of Monsanto's total sales, making it the most widely sold herbicide

in the world. In the U.S. alone, it is estimated that up to 11,800 tons

annually are sprayed on fields, roadside verges, and gardens. The patent on

this 25-year-old herbicide expires in two years, which gives Monsanto a

strong incentive to use Roundup Soybeans to secure the market. Despite

Monsanto's claims of safety, Roundup has been identified as the third most

commonly reported cause of pesticide-related illness among agricultural

workers in California. And the National Coalition Against the Misuse of

Pesticides reports that glyphosate can create kidney and liver damage in

humans. And even though Monsanto claims that the product will biodegrade,

glyphosate could be traced in the soil one year later in Germany, and in

Swedish forests, residues could still be found three years later. Moreover,

herbicide resistant soybeans encourage increased herbicide use and an

increased risk of weed resistance -- a costly problem for farmers.

The battle for the fate of organic agriculture continues in the fields of

the U.S. and Europe. Farmers committed to their organic enterprises will

need help and vigorous market support to keep their crops as pure as

possible. (Eden Foods is one company that refuses to accept USDA standards

and claims a constitutional right to produce foods as they want.)

Consumers -- that's us -- will need to be ever-vigilant in the wake of this

new bio-engineered assault on our food. And we all have to be willing to

fight hard against the USDA and its bioengineering partners. As Ronnie

Cummins of the Washington, D.C.-based Pure Food Campaign says, " If the final

USDA rule bans free speech [and labeling], we've had it. We're going to

sound the alarm now. In the spring [of1998], we got literature about the

changes in organic standards into 1,500 stores across the country. We are

ready to do it all again. "