O Brother, Where Artificial Thou?

[Guest guest]

Maybe we can get some help from this group! - Rogene

" Muck it up: We welcome rumors, whistleblowing,

classified documents, or other useful tips on

environmental policies, Beltway shenanigans, and the

people behind them. Please send 'em to

muckraker@.... "

--------------------------------

http://www.citizens.org/news/newsletter/2005/october/articles/100505hl6.cfm#july\

6

O Brother, Where Artificial Thou?

Fight over synthetic ingredients splits organics

community

By Griscom Little, Grist Magazine

29 Sep 2005

What do xanthan gum, an artificial thickener, ammonium

bicarbonate, a synthetic leavening agent, and

ethylene, a chemical that accelerates the ripening of

fruit, have in common? These and other synthetic

additives commonly lurk behind that " USDA Organic "

stamp of approval you see on the organic products

increasingly crowding the shelves of big-box stores

and boutique food shops alike.

Controversy over the use of these artificial

substances in certified-organic products has been

simmering within the organics community for at least

three years, since the feds put national organic

standards into effect in 2002, and now it's finally

coming to a boil.

Last week, the Organic Trade Association, which

represents mainstream producers of organic products,

including Dole, Kraft, and Horizon, as well as

hundreds of smaller-scale farmers and producers,

provoked protest among community activists when it

lobbied the Senate to attach an amendment to the 2006

agriculture appropriations bill that would make it

legal for certain synthetic substances to continue to

be used in the preparation, processing, and packaging

of organic products that get the USDA seal. The OTA's

proposed amendment would effectively cancel out a

recent federal court ruling that determined synthetics

shouldn't be permitted in the processing of

certified-organic products -- a ruling that industry

reps argue could deal a huge blow to their bottom

lines.

If adopted, the OTA amendment would officially

green-light the use of 38 synthetic substances

(including the above-mentioned) that are already being

used in the production of organic products, and in

some cases would enable the U.S. Department of

Agriculture to continue adding others to the list

without getting feedback from the public or the

National Organic Standards Board, the independent

advisory group that crafted the first federal organic

standards.

The Organic Consumers Association, a network of

600,000 consumers of organic products, is up in arms

over the proposed amendment. Ronnie Cummins, the

group's national director, is particularly concerned

that it would weaken the NOSB, which he calls " the

primary thing that stands between us and the corporate

agribusiness takeover of the organics industry. " In

the past two weeks, says the nonprofit group, its

members and grassroots allies have deluged

congressional offices with tens of thousands of emails

and telephone calls opposing the amendment.

OTA's initial lobbying push fell short, resulting in a

compromise amendment to the Senate version of the

appropriations bill that calls for study of the issue.

This week, as the Senate and House dicker over a final

bill in conference committee, OTA is continuing its

efforts, hoping to get its amendment added at the 11th

hour.

DiMatteo, executive director of OTA, says

that while study " is a good step, " it would only

prolong ambiguity in the marketplace and harm organic

producers. " Companies have to make decisions soon

about purchasing the organic ingredients they put in

[next year's] products, " she says. " They will refrain

from doing so if it's unclear whether they can depend

on the same standards that we worked so hard to

establish years ago. "

Friedman -- an attorney with the D.C.-based

law firm Covington & Burling who is representing OTA,

and a former vice chair of the NOSB -- argues that

OK'ing continued use of the synthetic substances that

have been allowed up to this point is " the only way

for industry to continue offering consumers the same

certified-organic products that they are purchasing

today, and have been purchasing for the past three

years bearing the USDA seal. "

Indeed, many organic producers have grown accustomed

to using these artificial additives in their processed

products. Under the USDA's current rules, the organic

label can be applied to a product if at least 95

percent of its ingredients are organic, and the

remaining five percent can contain certain synthetic

substances.

But the court ruling on " Harvey v. Veneman " earlier

this year determined that the USDA rule governing

which synthetic substances are permissible

contradicted the original intent of the 1990 law that

called for creating national organic standards. Arthur

Harvey, an organic blueberry farmer in Maine, stunned

industry when he won on appeal against the USDA,

challenging the agency for allowing synthetics into

processed foods certified as organic.

Were the Harvey court decision to stand, products

containing the synthetic substances that have been

allowed for the past three years would no longer be

eligible for the full-fledged " USDA Organic " label.

Instead, they could bear the claim " Made With Organic

Ingredients, " which can be applied to products

containing a minimum of 70 percent organic

ingredients. Some organic producers worry that such a

downgrade for their products would mean serious

financial losses, because consumers are willing to pay

a premium for products with a stamp that certifies

them as organic, but would be less inclined to fork

over so much dough for those that merely contain

organic ingredients.

Says Friedman, " Up to 90 percent of the

multi-ingredient products that today bear the USDA

organic seal would have to be relabeled. " Most

crackers, breakfast cereals, bread, milk, cheese,

yogurt, tofu, bananas, lettuce, and any products

containing sugar would not be able to bear the organic

label, he says, because ingredients now used to make

them would be prohibited by the Harvey ruling. As a

result, " entire product lines would have to be

eliminated, " Friedman claims.

Urvashi Rangan, director of the Eco-labels.org project

of Consumers Union, the nonprofit research group that

publishes Consumer Reports, doesn't believe the blow

would be so severe. " There has been lots of pressure

to weaken standards so companies can capitalize on the

synthetics market, " she says. But many of the

synthetic ingredients at issue, such as leavening

agents, ripening agents, and thickeners, could have

natural -- albeit somewhat more expensive --

counterparts, as does the carbon dioxide that is used

to preserve bananas and lettuce. " We should be pushing

the market to develop, cultivate, and adopt these

natural processing agents and ingredients, not their

cheaper artificial counterparts, " she argues.

Many organic consumers would seem to agree. Says

Rangan, " According to our research, 46 percent of all

consumers buy organic-labeled food products, and 85

percent of all respondents say they do not expect food

labeled as organic to contain artificial ingredients.

In other words, allowing synthetics leads to

fraudulent labeling, plain and simple, and erodes the

credibility of the term organic. "

Spend Your $.02

Discuss this story in our blog, Gristmill.Organic

farmer Cissy Bowman -- CEO of Indiana Certified

Organic, a USDA-accredited certifying organization --

says she feels excluded from the lobbying efforts of

OTA, of which she has been a longtime member: " I don't

feel that they have been open and transparent with

their members about their efforts to push this

amendment through Congress, and I don't believe it

represents my interests or the interests of my

clients. " Bowman says her clients are working on

finding natural alternatives to synthetic substances.

She suggests that the USDA could clear up consumer

confusion and help resolve the situation by creating a

separate official seal for products made with at least

70 percent organic ingredients.

Cummins characterizes the OTA's lobbying as an attack

on the definition of organic, and likens it to the

USDA's past efforts to dilute organic standards: " In

1997 and 1998, the department proposed that genetic

engineering, food irradiation, and use of toxic sludge

be permissible on organic farms, " he says. And last

year, the USDA made moves to allow hitherto prohibited

pesticides, tainted feeds, and antibiotics in the

production of organic goods.

In these cases, the organics community -- including

both industry groups and consumer-advocacy groups --

rose up in a unified force against the USDA to beat

back these rollbacks. What makes the current situation

different is that organic adherents themselves are

warring.

" We're seeing the community split in two, " said

Cummins. Jim Riddle, chair of the NOSB, echoed that

sentiment: " I am very concerned about the fractured

state of the organic community. "

Muck it up: We welcome rumors, whistleblowing,

classified documents, or other useful tips on

environmental policies, Beltway shenanigans, and the

people behind them. Please send 'em to

muckraker@....

[Guest guest]

This is exactly what Anner was telling me about a couple of days ago. This

is insane! Organic should be organic, why pay the extra money if it isn't?

Kenda

>

> O Brother, Where Artificial Thou?

>

> Fight over synthetic ingredients splits organics

> community

>

> By Griscom Little, Grist Magazine

>

> 29 Sep 2005

>

> What do xanthan gum, an artificial thickener, ammonium

> bicarbonate, a synthetic leavening agent, and

> ethylene, a chemical that accelerates the ripening of

> fruit, have in common? These and other synthetic

> additives commonly lurk behind that " USDA Organic "

> stamp of approval you see on the organic products

> increasingly crowding the shelves of big-box stores

> and boutique food shops alike.

>

> Controversy over the use of these artificial

> substances in certified-organic products has been

> simmering within the organics community for at least

> three years, since the feds put national organic

> standards into effect in 2002, and now it's finally

> coming to a boil.

>

> Last week, the Organic Trade Association, which

> represents mainstream producers of organic products,

> including Dole, Kraft, and Horizon, as well as

> hundreds of smaller-scale farmers and producers,

> provoked protest among community activists when it

> lobbied the Senate to attach an amendment to the 2006

> agriculture appropriations bill that would make it

> legal for certain synthetic substances to continue to

> be used in the preparation, processing, and packaging

> of organic products that get the USDA seal. The OTA's

> proposed amendment would effectively cancel out a

> recent federal court ruling that determined synthetics

> shouldn't be permitted in the processing of

> certified-organic products -- a ruling that industry

> reps argue could deal a huge blow to their bottom

> lines.

>

> If adopted, the OTA amendment would officially

> green-light the use of 38 synthetic substances

> (including the above-mentioned) that are already being

> used in the production of organic products, and in

> some cases would enable the U.S. Department of

> Agriculture to continue adding others to the list

> without getting feedback from the public or the

> National Organic Standards Board, the independent

> advisory group that crafted the first federal organic

> standards.

>

> The Organic Consumers Association, a network of

> 600,000 consumers of organic products, is up in arms

> over the proposed amendment. Ronnie Cummins, the

> group's national director, is particularly concerned

> that it would weaken the NOSB, which he calls " the

> primary thing that stands between us and the corporate

> agribusiness takeover of the organics industry. " In

> the past two weeks, says the nonprofit group, its

> members and grassroots allies have deluged

> congressional offices with tens of thousands of emails

> and telephone calls opposing the amendment.

>

> OTA's initial lobbying push fell short, resulting in a

> compromise amendment to the Senate version of the

> appropriations bill that calls for study of the issue.

> This week, as the Senate and House dicker over a final

> bill in conference committee, OTA is continuing its

> efforts, hoping to get its amendment added at the 11th

> hour.

>

> DiMatteo, executive director of OTA, says

> that while study " is a good step, " it would only

> prolong ambiguity in the marketplace and harm organic

> producers. " Companies have to make decisions soon

> about purchasing the organic ingredients they put in

> [next year's] products, " she says. " They will refrain

> from doing so if it's unclear whether they can depend

> on the same standards that we worked so hard to

> establish years ago. "

>

> Friedman -- an attorney with the D.C.-based

> law firm Covington & Burling who is representing OTA,

> and a former vice chair of the NOSB -- argues that

> OK'ing continued use of the synthetic substances that

> have been allowed up to this point is " the only way

> for industry to continue offering consumers the same

> certified-organic products that they are purchasing

> today, and have been purchasing for the past three

> years bearing the USDA seal. "

>

> Indeed, many organic producers have grown accustomed

> to using these artificial additives in their processed

> products. Under the USDA's current rules, the organic

> label can be applied to a product if at least 95

> percent of its ingredients are organic, and the

> remaining five percent can contain certain synthetic

> substances.

>

> But the court ruling on " Harvey v. Veneman " earlier

> this year determined that the USDA rule governing

> which synthetic substances are permissible

> contradicted the original intent of the 1990 law that

> called for creating national organic standards. Arthur

> Harvey, an organic blueberry farmer in Maine, stunned

> industry when he won on appeal against the USDA,

> challenging the agency for allowing synthetics into

> processed foods certified as organic.

>

> Were the Harvey court decision to stand, products

> containing the synthetic substances that have been

> allowed for the past three years would no longer be

> eligible for the full-fledged " USDA Organic " label.

> Instead, they could bear the claim " Made With Organic

> Ingredients, " which can be applied to products

> containing a minimum of 70 percent organic

> ingredients. Some organic producers worry that such a

> downgrade for their products would mean serious

> financial losses, because consumers are willing to pay

> a premium for products with a stamp that certifies

> them as organic, but would be less inclined to fork

> over so much dough for those that merely contain

> organic ingredients.

>

> Says Friedman, " Up to 90 percent of the

> multi-ingredient products that today bear the USDA

> organic seal would have to be relabeled. " Most

> crackers, breakfast cereals, bread, milk, cheese,

> yogurt, tofu, bananas, lettuce, and any products

> containing sugar would not be able to bear the organic

> label, he says, because ingredients now used to make

> them would be prohibited by the Harvey ruling. As a

> result, " entire product lines would have to be

> eliminated, " Friedman claims.

>

> Urvashi Rangan, director of the Eco-labels.org project

> of Consumers Union, the nonprofit research group that

> publishes Consumer Reports, doesn't believe the blow

> would be so severe. " There has been lots of pressure

> to weaken standards so companies can capitalize on the

> synthetics market, " she says. But many of the

> synthetic ingredients at issue, such as leavening

> agents, ripening agents, and thickeners, could have

> natural -- albeit somewhat more expensive --

> counterparts, as does the carbon dioxide that is used

> to preserve bananas and lettuce. " We should be pushing

> the market to develop, cultivate, and adopt these

> natural processing agents and ingredients, not their

> cheaper artificial counterparts, " she argues.

>

> Many organic consumers would seem to agree. Says

> Rangan, " According to our research, 46 percent of all

> consumers buy organic-labeled food products, and 85

> percent of all respondents say they do not expect food

> labeled as organic to contain artificial ingredients.

> In other words, allowing synthetics leads to

> fraudulent labeling, plain and simple, and erodes the

> credibility of the term organic. "

>

> Spend Your $.02

> Discuss this story in our blog, Gristmill.Organic

> farmer Cissy Bowman -- CEO of Indiana Certified

> Organic, a USDA-accredited certifying organization --

> says she feels excluded from the lobbying efforts of

> OTA, of which she has been a longtime member: " I don't

> feel that they have been open and transparent with

> their members about their efforts to push this

> amendment through Congress, and I don't believe it

> represents my interests or the interests of my

> clients. " Bowman says her clients are working on

> finding natural alternatives to synthetic substances.

> She suggests that the USDA could clear up consumer

> confusion and help resolve the situation by creating a

> separate official seal for products made with at least

> 70 percent organic ingredients.

>

> Cummins characterizes the OTA's lobbying as an attack

> on the definition of organic, and likens it to the

> USDA's past efforts to dilute organic standards: " In

> 1997 and 1998, the department proposed that genetic

> engineering, food irradiation, and use of toxic sludge

> be permissible on organic farms, " he says. And last

> year, the USDA made moves to allow hitherto prohibited

> pesticides, tainted feeds, and antibiotics in the

> production of organic goods.

>

> In these cases, the organics community -- including

> both industry groups and consumer-advocacy groups --

> rose up in a unified force against the USDA to beat

> back these rollbacks. What makes the current situation

> different is that organic adherents themselves are

> warring.

>

> " We're seeing the community split in two, " said

> Cummins. Jim Riddle, chair of the NOSB, echoed that

> sentiment: " I am very concerned about the fractured

> state of the organic community. "

>

> Muck it up: We welcome rumors, whistleblowing,

> classified documents, or other useful tips on

> environmental policies, Beltway shenanigans, and the

> people behind them. Please send 'em to

> muckraker@....

>

>

>

>

>

> Opinions expressed are NOT meant to take the place of advice given by licensed

> health care professionals. Consult your physician or licensed health care

> professional before commencing any medical treatment.

>

> " Do not let either the medical authorities or the politicians mislead you.

> Find out what the facts are, and make your own decisions about how to live a

> happy life and how to work for a better world. " - Linus ing, two-time

> Nobel Prize Winner (1954, Chemistry; 1963, Peace)

>

>

[Guest guest]

It looks like agri-business has figured out they can

cash in on the growing desire for real food . . .

After all, if everyone stopped eating organic and

non-processed foods, a lot of industries would be out

of business! That means $$$$$$$$!

Apparently there's more money to be made by keeping

people borderline sick . . . Food processors, drug

companies and the medical establishment make money . .

.. The rest of us lose - sometimes our life!

Since getting the information I needed, my medical

bills (except for the dentist) have dropped to

nothing!

Rogene

--- Kenda Skaggs <skaggs@...> wrote:

> This is exactly what Anner was telling me about a

> couple of days ago. This

> is insane! Organic should be organic, why pay the

> extra money if it isn't?

>

> Kenda

>

>

> >

> > O Brother, Where Artificial Thou?

> >

> > Fight over synthetic ingredients splits organics

> > community

> >

> > By Griscom Little, Grist Magazine

> >

> > 29 Sep 2005

> >

> > What do xanthan gum, an artificial thickener,

> ammonium

> > bicarbonate, a synthetic leavening agent, and

> > ethylene, a chemical that accelerates the ripening

> of

> > fruit, have in common? These and other synthetic

> > additives commonly lurk behind that " USDA Organic "

> > stamp of approval you see on the organic products

> > increasingly crowding the shelves of big-box

> stores

> > and boutique food shops alike.

> >

> > Controversy over the use of these artificial

> > substances in certified-organic products has been

> > simmering within the organics community for at

> least

> > three years, since the feds put national organic

> > standards into effect in 2002, and now it's

> finally

> > coming to a boil.

> >

> > Last week, the Organic Trade Association, which

> > represents mainstream producers of organic

> products,

> > including Dole, Kraft, and Horizon, as well as

> > hundreds of smaller-scale farmers and producers,

> > provoked protest among community activists when it

> > lobbied the Senate to attach an amendment to the

> 2006

> > agriculture appropriations bill that would make it

> > legal for certain synthetic substances to continue

> to

> > be used in the preparation, processing, and

> packaging

> > of organic products that get the USDA seal. The

> OTA's

> > proposed amendment would effectively cancel out a

> > recent federal court ruling that determined

> synthetics

> > shouldn't be permitted in the processing of

> > certified-organic products -- a ruling that

> industry

> > reps argue could deal a huge blow to their bottom

> > lines.

> >

> > If adopted, the OTA amendment would officially

> > green-light the use of 38 synthetic substances

> > (including the above-mentioned) that are already

> being

> > used in the production of organic products, and in

> > some cases would enable the U.S. Department of

> > Agriculture to continue adding others to the list

> > without getting feedback from the public or the

> > National Organic Standards Board, the independent

> > advisory group that crafted the first federal

> organic

> > standards.

> >

> > The Organic Consumers Association, a network of

> > 600,000 consumers of organic products, is up in

> arms

> > over the proposed amendment. Ronnie Cummins, the

> > group's national director, is particularly

> concerned

> > that it would weaken the NOSB, which he calls " the

> > primary thing that stands between us and the

> corporate

> > agribusiness takeover of the organics industry. "

> In

> > the past two weeks, says the nonprofit group, its

> > members and grassroots allies have deluged

> > congressional offices with tens of thousands of

> emails

> > and telephone calls opposing the amendment.

> >

> > OTA's initial lobbying push fell short, resulting

> in a

> > compromise amendment to the Senate version of the

> > appropriations bill that calls for study of the

> issue.

> > This week, as the Senate and House dicker over a

> final

> > bill in conference committee, OTA is continuing

> its

> > efforts, hoping to get its amendment added at the

> 11th

> > hour.

> >

> > DiMatteo, executive director of OTA,

> says

> > that while study " is a good step, " it would only

> > prolong ambiguity in the marketplace and harm

> organic

> > producers. " Companies have to make decisions soon

> > about purchasing the organic ingredients they put

> in

> > [next year's] products, " she says. " They will

> refrain

> > from doing so if it's unclear whether they can

> depend

> > on the same standards that we worked so hard to

> > establish years ago. "

> >

> > Friedman -- an attorney with the

> D.C.-based

> > law firm Covington & Burling who is representing

> OTA,

> > and a former vice chair of the NOSB -- argues that

> > OK'ing continued use of the synthetic substances

> that

> > have been allowed up to this point is " the only

> way

> > for industry to continue offering consumers the

> same

> > certified-organic products that they are

> purchasing

> > today, and have been purchasing for the past three

> > years bearing the USDA seal. "

> >

> > Indeed, many organic producers have grown

> accustomed

> > to using these artificial additives in their

> processed

> > products. Under the USDA's current rules, the

> organic

> > label can be applied to a product if at least 95

> > percent of its ingredients are organic, and the

> > remaining five percent can contain certain

> synthetic

> > substances.

> >

> > But the court ruling on " Harvey v. Veneman "

> earlier

> > this year determined that the USDA rule governing

> > which synthetic substances are permissible

> > contradicted the original intent of the 1990 law

> that

> > called for creating national organic standards.

> Arthur

> > Harvey, an organic blueberry farmer in Maine,

> stunned

> > industry when he won on appeal against the USDA,

> > challenging the agency for allowing synthetics

> into

> > processed foods certified as organic.

> >

> > Were the Harvey court decision to stand, products

> > containing the synthetic substances that have been

> > allowed for the past three years would no longer

> be

> > eligible for the full-fledged " USDA Organic "

> label.

> > Instead, they could bear the claim " Made With

> Organic

> > Ingredients, " which can be applied to products

> > containing a minimum of 70 percent organic

> > ingredients. Some organic producers worry that

> such a

> > downgrade for their products would mean serious

> > financial losses, because consumers are willing to

> pay

> > a premium for products with a stamp that certifies

> > them as organic, but would be less inclined to

> fork

> > over so much dough for those that merely contain

> > organic ingredients.

> >

> > Says Friedman, " Up to 90 percent of the

> > multi-ingredient products that today bear the USDA

> > organic seal would have to be relabeled. " Most

> > crackers, breakfast cereals, bread, milk, cheese,

> > yogurt, tofu, bananas, lettuce, and any products

> > containing sugar would not be able to bear the

> organic

> > label, he says, because ingredients now used to

> make

> > them would be prohibited by the Harvey ruling. As

> a

> > result, " entire product lines would have to be

> > eliminated, " Friedman claims.

> >

> > Urvashi Rangan, director of the Eco-labels.org

> project

>

=== message truncated ===