Food Porn

The organic standards proposed by the USDA are not yet law. Consumers have until April 30th to address comments and criticisms to the agency, which will review all submissions before drafting a finalized rule. But the question remains, how did these non-organic concepts get into the proposal to begin with?

Back in 1990, when Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act as part of the Farm Bill, the industry was a fledgling enterprise, made up of small farming networks—and supported by anti-pesticide groups—whose gross sales totaled $78 million in 1980. But with organic sales topping $4 billion in 1997 alone, and the industry growing at roughly 25 percent a year for the last seven years straight, organic foods are now a very popular commodity. A recent poll conducted by Prevention magazine and the Food Marketing Institute showed that three out of 10 shoppers now buy organically grown produce, while 54 percent said that a national standard would make them more likely to purchase organic foods.

But organics’ popularity could be greatly jeopardized by these proposed standards. Why all the fuss, particularly about genetic engineering, sewage sludge and irradiation, known in the organics trade as the “Big Three”? Bu Nygrens, vice-president of the Organic Trade Association, says, “The Big Three are red herrings to draw attention away from other important issues in the bill,” mainly livestock confinement and antibiotic issues, and synthetic additives.

But according to the Annapolis, Maryland-based Environmental Research Foundation, agribusiness giants like Monsanto pushed the agency heavily to allow genetically-engineered plants and small amounts of pesticides into organic crops, while the meat industry made its case for factory farming methods. As proposed, the organic standards for livestock allow factory farming confinement; non-organic feed; the use of offal, which has contributed to “mad cow” outbreaks in England; antibiotics; and synthetic additives, fertilizers and some pesticides. They also go so far as to actually prohibit the eco-labeling of crops (such as “pesticide-free”) grown with stricter organic methods.

Groups like the Organic Trade Association and Mothers and Others believe the labeling prohibition is the last straw in an already grossly flawed proposal. Farmers labeling their products as “irradiation-free,” “hormone-free,” “sludge-free,” or any other such “food disparaging” label would be prohibited under the new Rule—leaving shoppers unable to tell which foods are genetically-engineered or irradiated, for instance.

Laura Ticciati, executive director of Mothers For Natural Law, says, “The USDA has sacrificed organic standards to open this market to the mainstream food industry. Why? Because the organic market is the only segment of the food industry that is growing rapidly. Everyone wants a piece of it.”

Initial recommendations were made by the federally-mandated National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), made up of retailers, farmers, consumer advocates, environmentalists and scientists. But the USDA was heavily lobbied by some powerful players, and ignored the citizen-board’s recommendations.

Bob Anderson, NOSB chairman and president of Walnut Acres Organic Farms in Penns Creek, Pennsylvania, says, “I don’t think the standards will pass as is. The states are very definitely in opposition to what they perceive as lower standards. But this is extraordinarily political. We’ve got the American trade office promoting genetic engineering all over the world as the ‘be all, end all’ for the future of agriculture. We’ve got the Food and Drug Administration just approving the irradiation of meat. And we’ve got the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pushing sewage sludge as the answer to fertilizers.” Indeed, EPA Assistant Administrator Robert Perciasepe is reported to have personally asked Glickman to include sewage sludge in the new rules.

Says Betsy Lydon, Mothers and Others program director and an NOSB member, “When food is exposed to ionized irradiation, it is exposed to 300,000 rads of gamma radiation—the equivalent of 30 million chest x-rays—in order to extend shelf life and kill insects and bacteria. This amount is over 20,000 times the allowed annual exposure level for workers at a nuclear power site. The process is also known to produce new chemicals in the treated food called radiolytic products, some of which are known carcinogens.”

According to the National Sludge Alliance, sewage sludge contains some 60,000 toxic chemicals, a mix of residential, industrial and commercial discharge that includes hospital wastes, street runoff, heavy metals, PCBs, dioxin, solvents, asbestos and radioactive wastes. In 1989, the EPA also documented the presence of 25 infectious agents in sewage sludge—including Salmonella, E. coli and Hepatitis A.

In genetic engineering, scientists take the genes from one species and insert them into another to create advantageous traits, like tomatoes that are resistant to cold, or corn that’s immune to pesticides. Unfortunately, under the new Rule, consumers would have no idea that their potatoes contain fish genes or their soybeans contain Brazil nut genes—a major problem for people allergic to seafood or nuts. And according to the French Press, 1998 will have the U.S. growing 88 percent of the world’s genetically-modified crops.

A staunch supporter of genetically-engineered crops and irradiation, Glickman is seen by the organic community as riding the corporate pony. “The very best science has proven the products of biotechnology and the process of irradiation not only safe, but beneficial,” says Glickman.

The USDA does have some supporters. Alex Avery, director of research and education for the Hudson Institute, says, “This is the compromise you always get out of government agencies. It’s a little unrealistic for diehards to expect all of their positions to be supported, especially since some producers depend on what some would consider unacceptable sources—like sewage sludge. You can’t expect a government agency to reflect one extreme.”

Corporate influence can also be seen in the livestock feed section, says Lydon

, who points out that 20 percent of livestock feed can be non-organic under the Rule. “It’s the feed where you get a lot of the growth hormones and stimulants, and how animals get all these supplements and animal by-products,” she adds.

So how will the new label reflect “organic-ness”? Those containing 95 percent or more organic ingredients get the USDA seal and will be labeled “organic” on the main label. Those with 50 to 95 percent organic ingredients will be labeled “made with certain organic ingredients,” and products with less than 50 percent organic items may not use the term organic on the label, but can use the term on its ingredients’ list.

Says Glickman, “Consumers have shown they will pay a premium for organic food. National standards are our way of ensuring that consumers get what they pay for.” But the organic community asks, will people want to buy “organic” food treated with sewage sludge and irradiation?