BUSH EVEN LIES ABOUT OUR FOOD.....and now he's a SCIENTIST?
Organic: Friend or Faux?
By Amanda Griscom, Grist Magazine
May 24, 2004
The Bush administration is giving Americans new reason to watch what
they eat – and it has nothing to do with carbs. Over the course of 10
days in mid-April, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued three
"guidances" and one directive – all legally binding interpretations of law
– that threaten to seriously dilute the meaning of the word "organic" and
discredit the department's National Organic Program.
The changes – which would allow the use of antibiotics on organic dairy
cows, synthetic pesticides on organic farms, and more – were made
with zero input from the public or the National Organic Standards
Board, the advisory group that worked for more than a decade to help
craft the first federal organic standards, put in place in October 2002.
The USDA insists that the changes are innocuous: "The directives have
not changed anything. They are just clarifications of what is in the
regulations that were written by the National Organic Standards Board,"
USDA spokesperson Joan Shaffer told Muckraker. "They just explain
what's enforceable. There is no difference [between the clarifications
and the original regulations] – it's just another way of explaining it."
But Jim Riddle, vice chair of the NOSB and endowed chair in
agricultural systems at the University of Minnesota, argues that what the
USDA is trying to pass off as a clarification of regulations is actually a
substantial change: "These are the sorts of changes for which the
department is supposed to do a formal new rulemaking process, with
posting in the federal register, feedback from our advisory board, and a
public-comment period. And yet there is no such process denoted
anywhere."
Organic activists suspect that industry pressure drove the policy shifts.
They point out that the USDA leadership has long-standing industry
sympathies: Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman served on the board of
directors of a biotech company, and both her chief of staff and her
director of communications were plucked right out of National
Cattlemen's Beef Association.
"Even though it evolved as a reaction against large-scale American
agribusinesses, the organic food industry has seen tremendous growth,
roughly 20 to 24 percent a year for the past 10 years," said Ronnie
Cummins, founder and national director of the Organic Consumers
Association. "That, not surprisingly, has brought with it investments from
big business and demands for conventional farming practices more
favorable to mass production."
One practice favored by large agribusiness is the use of antibiotics on
cows, and a guidance [PDF] issued on April 14 will allow just that on
organic dairy farms, a dramatic reversal of 2002 rules. Under the new
guidelines, sickly dairy cows can be treated not just with antibiotics but
with numerous others drugs and still have their milk qualify as organic,
so long as 12 months pass between the time the treatments are
administered and the time the milk is sold.
"This new directive makes a mockery of organic standards," said
Richard Wood, a recent member of the FDA's Veterinary Medicine
Advisory Committee and executive director of Food Animal Concerns
Trust. "Organic farmers that we have talked to are furious because they
have been very careful to follow the antibiotics rule. [The rule change]
undercuts their ability to make a living doing things right."
Furthermore, said Wood, the use of antibiotics will reduce the pressure
on organic farmers to provide healthy accommodations for their
livestock. If they know they can pump their animals up with drugs, they
won't have to worry so much about disease spreading when cows are
penned up in close quarters, or about weaning calves from their mothers
at an unnaturally early age.
"It's hard to deny that this looks awfully like a political move by USDA
to do the bidding of larger dairy operations that want to produce organic
milk by expanding their herds with cattle that were once on non-organic
farms," Wood said.
Another new guidance [PDF]put out on the same day would allow
cattle farmers to feed their heifers non-organic fishmeal that could be
riddled with synthetic preservatives, mercury, and PCBs and still sell
their beef as organic.
And the following week, on April 23, the USDA took the particularly
egregious step of issuing a legal directive [PDF] that opens the door for
use of some synthetic pesticides on organic farms.
Previously, organic farmers were only allowed to use natural, non-toxic
pesticides on their crops, which effectively prohibited use of pesticides
with hidden ingredients (pesticide manufacturers often don't list certain
ingredients, claiming the information is proprietary).
According to the new guidelines, however, organic farmers and certifiers
are only required to make a "reasonable effort" to find out what is in the
pesticides being applied to crops. "If they can't come up with the info on
toxic inert ingredients that may be in their pesticides, they're off the
hook" said Liana Hoodes, organic policy coordinator for the National
Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture. "This takes all the pressure off of
pesticide manufacturers to reveal their ingredients and develop non-toxic
products. In fact, it creates a disincentive."
Last but certainly not least, another guidance [PDF] released on April
14 narrows the scope of the federal organic certification program to
crops and livestock and the products derived from them, meaning that
national organic standards will not be developed for fish, nutritional
supplements, pet food, fertilizers, cosmetics, and personal-care
products.
"Consumers beware: This basically allows any opportunistic company to
put fraudulent 'organic' labels on products outside of the regulated
domain, without any liability concerns," Hoodes told Muckraker.
There have never been federal organic standards for these product
categories – which is why you cannot now trust an "organic" label on a
bottle of shampoo or a package of farm-raised salmon – but the USDA
had previously said it would develop such standards. In anticipation of
that eventuality, many companies have invested millions of dollars over
the past decade to develop fish farms and factories for non-agricultural
products that adhere to criteria consistent with those for organic crops
and livestock.
"All that effort has just flown out the window," Cummins told
Muckraker. "It's an outrage for the 30 million consumers who pay a
premium for organic products and expect that they can trust the organic
claim."
The USDA rejects activists' interpretation of this particular guidance:
"There's a process to go through [to develop organic guidelines for
non-agricultural categories] and it hasn't happened [yet]," said Shaffer.
"It could still happen. I'm not clairvoyant."
Despite the USDA's demurrals, activists view the department's changes
as a serious threat to hard-won standards for organic products. The
National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture and other groups are
investigating possible industry influence into the USDA's process, and
some environmental groups are preparing to take legal action.
"Secretary Veneman should withdraw these new directives and follow
the appropriate rulemaking procedures," said Riddle of the NOSB. "We
want them withdrawn and to do it right."
« Home « EnviroHealth |
