How Organic is your Organic?

Posted on August 7, 2024 by marcia

You pay more for your organic foods. How certain are you that it is truly organic?

Organic Food Safety: Navigating Labels and Finding Local Sources

August 04, 2024

VIDEO LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VApvWG9gpk8&t=1341s

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

In my interview with organic industry watchdog Mark Kastel, we discuss how the organic food industry has grown significantly, but challenges remain with labeling integrity. Local, direct-from-farmer organics are generally more reliable than large-scale commercial organics sold in supermarkets
Imported organic products face issues of fraud and regulatory loopholes. “Group certification” allows large agribusinesses to avoid proper inspection, particularly affecting products like hazelnuts from Turkey
Nutritional considerations extend beyond organic certification. Even organic practices may not align with optimal nutrition, as seen in chicken feed choices and the debate between brown and white rice
Consumers can find authentic organic products by buying local, using online resources, checking certifier names, and looking for 100% grass fed and finished meat. OrganicEye provides valuable information for making informed choices

The organic food industry has grown tremendously over the past few decades, but concerns remain about the integrity of organic labeling and certification. In my eye-opening interview with organic industry watchdog Mark Kastel, he discusses the challenges facing organic consumers and farmers, offering insights on how to find truly healthy, ethically produced food.

Kastel co-founded The Cornucopia Institute, which celebrates its 20th anniversary in 2024, and is also executive director and founder of OrganicEye. He notes that while the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act was well-intentioned, its implementation has been problematic:¹

“Congress, in 1990, passed the organic foods production act. It gave the USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] the responsibility to protect industry stakeholders, so farmers, ethical business people and eaters, consumers, protect them from unfair competition and fraud. And the legislation itself is really pretty solid and well-intended.

Unfortunately, like a lot of things that happen, it gets handed over to the bureaucrats in Washington and the political appointees of both parties. Something gets lost in translation.”

Kastel explains that, initially, the USDA was resistant to regulating organic food, viewing it as just a “marketing scheme.” However, as the U.S. organic food industry has grown to $61.7 billion annually,² large agribusiness corporations have bought out many pioneering organic brands.

This has led to efforts to make organic certification less rigorous and more profitable. Globally, the organic industry is now a $205.9 billion industry, projected to reach a worth of $532.72 billion by 2032.³

The Two Faces of Organic

According to Kastel, there are essentially two organic labels consumers encounter:

1.Local, direct-from-farmer organics — These include farmers markets, community-supported agriculture (CSAs) and independent local retailers who source directly from farms they know. Kastel states he’s found “virtually no fraud on that local level.”

2.Large-scale commercial organics — This includes major brands sold in supermarkets and big box stores. These products may come from overseas or large industrial operations with less oversight.

The graphic above, created by Phil Howard, a professor with Michigan State University,⁴ illustrates how big business has taken over many smaller organic brands. “It really is almost every major brand, and it’s very deceptive,” Kastel explains.⁵

“You’ll never see General Mills on Cascadian Farms breakfast cereals or Muir Glen tomato products, you’ll see Small Planet Foods. Doesn’t that sound nice? But Dean Foods bought the Horizon label that’s now been sold off a couple of different times … Smuckers is a giant. They own Santa Cruz juices and Knudsen juices.”⁶

Kastel emphasizes the benefits of buying local organic food: “You’re getting food that’s more nutritionally dense, fresher, more flavorful and your dollars stay in your food shed, they’re recirculating … we call this the multiplier effect.”⁷

The Challenge of Imported Organics

One of the biggest concerns in the organic industry is the integrity of imported organic products. Kastel explains, “We’ve helped break some major import fraud partnering with the Washington Post at one point. We’ve partnered with The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal.”⁸ He describes two main types of fraud:

1.Outright fraud or “organic alchemy” — Conventional products are relabeled as organic during shipping.

2.Regulatory loopholes — Large industrial farms exploit weak oversight, especially for animal products like dairy.

Kastel is particularly concerned about a practice called “group certification” for imports:⁹

“Instead of certifying every farm, instead of inspecting every farm, they will allow a group to band together and when that was conceived, even though it was still illegal when it was conceived, it was for very small landholders doing things like bananas, or chocolate or coffee on a half an acre.”

Now, he says, large agribusinesses are using this loophole to avoid proper inspection of their suppliers. Grower/producer groups started out as a way to help small farmers or indigenous groups in developing countries but have morphed to include commercial-scale farms that are escaping USDA oversight.

Only about 2% of the farmers involved in these grower/producer groups are being inspected annually, which means the vast majority — 98% — are not being inspected as frequently, if at all.

“Although almost universally complied with in domestic production, that system has completely broken down for imports,” Kastel said in a news release. “A large percentage of all foreign imports, making up a sizable amount of the organic food Americans eat, are coming from ‘producer groups,’ whose grower-members the USDA has exempted from the requirements to be certified.”¹⁰

For instance, an investigation revealed the USDA’s Organic Integrity Database lists no certified organic hazelnut growers in Turkey. Yet, the country is the leading importer of organic hazelnuts into the U.S., at prices close to conventionally grown hazelnuts.¹¹

“We can grow hazelnuts in the U.S.,” Kastel says, “but they can’t compete with hazelnuts from Turkey, which come from these group certifications, where the farms are not even being inspected, and it’s forcing our Oregon nut growers out of business.”¹²

Nutritional Insights: Beyond the Organic Label

While organic certification is crucial, even organic practices may not always align with optimal nutrition. It’s important to look beyond the organic label to truly understand the health impacts of your food choices. This includes feeding practices, even within organic systems. For instance, feeding grains to chickens is a common practice on organic farms, but the ideal food for them would be insects and bugs.

It can be difficult to find enough insects for this purpose, but many organic farmers supplement with grains that are loaded with damaging omega-6 polyunsaturated fats. Truly health-conscious organic farmers should consider alternatives like sprouted peas or barley, which result in eggs with healthier fat profiles. Ideally, organic standards need to evolve based on our growing understanding of nutrition.

I don’t generally recommend consuming chicken, even if it’s organic and locally produced, due to its typically high linoleic acid content — the result of being fed grains high in omega-6 fatty acids. Ruminants (like cattle and sheep) are a better choice for meat consumption because ruminants have an additional digestive compartment with bacteria that can saturate polyunsaturated fats.

This allows ruminants to eat grains without accumulating high levels of linoleic acid in their tissues. Even a food as seemingly simple as rice has important nuances you should be aware of for optimal health. Kastel mentions eating brown rice, but I recommend white rice instead.

This is because the fiber in brown rice can negatively impact your gut microbiome, especially for people with insulin resistance, which is 99% of the population. Insulin resistance causes mitochondrial dysfunction, decreasing intracellular energy, which then impacts the ability of your gut to stay healthy.

White rice is a healthier option because it lacks the problematic fibers found in brown rice. However, no matter which rice you eat, it should be organic. As Kastel notes, rice cultivation is often chemically intensive. He also points out that both organic and inorganic arsenic can be present in rice, depending on the soil it’s grown in and past agricultural practices in the area.

How to Find Truly Organic Food and Take Control of Your Food Choices

By integrating these nutritional insights with broader discussions about organic certification and farming practices, you can make more informed dietary choices that support both your health and sustainable agricultural systems. The key takeaway is that while organic certification is a valuable starting point, truly health-conscious consumers need to dig deeper to understand the full nutritional impact of their food choices.

Generally, be cautious about embracing trendy alternatives like fake meat and instead focus on whole, organically produced foods. That being said, how can you find authentic organic products?

OrganicEye is an invaluable resource for anyone interested in making healthier food choices and understanding the organic food industry. The website offers a wealth of resources on organic food, farming practices, and industry regulations. Kastel and his team are not selling products; their mission is purely to educate and inform consumers. In addition, Kastel suggests doing the following to find organic, high-quality food:

1.Buy local whenever possible — Farmers markets, CSAs and independent stores that source directly from farms offer the highest integrity.

2.Use online resources — Websites like Local Harvest, Eat Wild and state agriculture department databases can help you locate nearby farms and markets.

3.Check certifier names — Cornucopia Institute plans to publish a list ranking organic certifiers by trustworthiness.

4.Look for 100% grass fed and finished meat — Be wary of misleading “grass fed” claims that don’t guarantee full grass finishing.

While the organic landscape can be confusing and sometimes deceptive, you have the power to make informed choices. By seeking out local sources, understanding labels, and staying informed about industry practices, it’s possible to find truly healthy, ethically produced food.

Take Action to Protect Organic Farmers and US Organics

After OrganicEye backed a federal lawsuit demanding that the USDA discontinue their practice of allowing foreign agribusinesses to inspect their own suppliers (a profound conflict of interest), the industry’s corporate lobby group, the Organic Trade Association (OTA), suggested that, if the USDA loses the lawsuit, they will simply go to Congress and lobby to change the law to legalize “group certification.”

Don’t let that happen! Federal law currently requires every organic farm to be certified and inspected annually by independent, accredited, third-party certifiers — not foreign corporations with a financial interest.

Please click the button below and invest two minutes of your time in sending a personal message directly to your congressperson and two U.S. senators, asking them to respect the spirit and letter of the law protecting organic farmers, ethical businesses and consumers. To leverage your voice even further, please forward and/or share this action alert with your friends, family and business associates on social media.

from: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/08/04/organic-food-safety.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20240804&foDate=true&mid=DM1611167&rid=89601619

Guts and Grains

Posted on July 30, 2024 by marcia

The Hidden Harvest: Unveiling the Truth About Grains in Our Food System

Analysis by Ashley Armstrong

July 30, 2024

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

“Non-GMO” labeling does not mean chemical-free farming. These crops may still be treated with pesticides and herbicides. Many nonorganic grains are heavily sprayed with toxic pesticides like glyphosate just before harvest, a practice called desiccation
A recent study found glyphosate in 44 out of 46 organic and nonorganic gluten-free products tested, with some at alarmingly high levels
Glyphosate exposure can disrupt gut health by killing beneficial bacteria and promoting the growth of harmful bacteria. Consuming organic food has been linked to reduced cancer risk, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine
The EPA’s acceptable daily intake for glyphosate is 7,000 times higher than European standards, raising concerns about regulatory oversight
Supporting organic and regenerative farming practices through consumer choices can help drive positive change in the food system

In an era where health consciousness is at an all-time high, many of us have become increasingly vigilant about the food we consume. We scrutinize labels, opt for organic produce when possible, and make concerted efforts to avoid processed foods. However, there’s a critical aspect of our food system that often flies under the radar … the production and processing of grains.

While many of us strive to make healthier choices, financial constraints often limit our ability to consistently purchase organic produce. (Check out the Environmental Working Group (EWG) “Clean 15,” the 15 produce items that had the lowest levels of pesticide residues, here).

However, when it comes to grains and grain legumes (wheat, oats, chickpeas, and more), the stakes are significantly higher. This overlooked component of our diet may be harboring more dangers than we realize, particularly when it comes to the use of pesticides and herbicides.

Unbeknownst to many consumers, numerous grains are heavily sprayed with toxic pesticides just before harvest, making the sourcing of organic grains, or at least knowing their origin, crucial for our health.

The Non-GMO Misconception

It’s important to note that organic agriculture isn’t without its flaws. While it generally involves fewer synthetic chemicals, some are still permitted. Moreover, organic farming often relies on tillage, a practice that involves mechanically manipulating the soil through plowing or cultivation. This process can be detrimental to soil health, degrading its structure, increasing erosion, and disrupting vital microbial populations.

A common misconception, however, is that “Non-GMO” labeling equates to chemical-free farming. In reality, this label merely indicates that the crops haven’t been genetically modified. It says nothing about the use of pesticides or herbicides during the growing process. This misunderstanding often leads consumers to believe they’re making a healthier choice when, in fact, they may still be exposing themselves to harmful chemicals.

While many people are aware that glyphosate and other toxic herbicides are used to control weeds, fewer realize that these chemicals are also employed as drying agents in some nonorganic farming operations — leading to higher levels of glyphosate in nonorganic products made from oats, wheat and other grains.¹

This practice, known as desiccation, involves spraying crops with glyphosate 1 to 2 weeks before harvest to accelerate the drying process, allowing farmers to harvest sooner.² It’s like giving crops a chemical spa day, except instead of coming out relaxed and rejuvenated, it comes out dead and potentially carcinogenic. Fancy!

The use of glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccant has seen a dramatic increase in recent years. For example, even though wheat is not a GMO crop, glyphosate use on wheat has skyrocketed by 400% in the past two decades.³ This trend isn’t limited to wheat; it extends to a wide range of grains and legumes, including barley, oats, corn, soy, chickpeas, and more.

The practice of using glyphosate for crop desiccation can be traced back to Scotland in the 1980s. According to Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., farmers there struggled with uneven drying of wheat and barley crops. To solve this problem, they began using glyphosate to kill the crops shortly before harvest, accelerating the drying process.

And thus, the practice of spraying glyphosate on crops before harvest was born, soon spreading to other regions and crops. The use of glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccant leaves chemical residues that are then processed into our food, significantly increasing our dietary exposure.⁴ While this practice isn’t universal, it’s particularly common in regions with short growing seasons and wetter harvests.

The Alarming Findings

Recent studies have revealed shocking levels of glyphosate in various grain products.⁵ The EWG conducted tests on popular breakfast cereals and snacks, finding significant amounts of glyphosate in many samples. The highest level was detected in Quaker Oatmeal Squares Honey Nut, which contained 2,837 parts per billion (ppb) of glyphosate — nearly 18 times the EWG’s benchmark.

Even more concerning, a study from March of this year⁶ tested 46 samples of organic and nonorganic gluten-free products for glyphosate and other pesticides.

The results were alarming: 44 out of 46 samples tested positive for glyphosate. The highest level was found in Banza Chickpea Pasta, at a staggering 2,693 parts per million (ppm), the highest amount ever recorded in human food by the lab conducting the study! (Also, some of the foods labeled as gluten-free in this study were found to contain gluten.)

While glyphosate has been the focus of much research and public concern, it’s not the only chemical we should be worried about. The same study from March of this year that found high levels of glyphosate also identified 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orange, as the most prevalent pesticide in the samples. Products like King Arthur’s Gluten Free Flour and Milton’s Sea Salt Crackers were found to have the highest levels of pesticides.

Decimation of Our Guts

The health consequences of glyphosate exposure are becoming increasingly clear, with one of the most significant concerns being its impact on our gut microbiome.⁷

The suffix “-cide” in “herbicide” (and other similar terms like pesticide, fungicide, etc.) comes from the Latin word “caedere,” which means “to kill” or “to cut down.” Therefore, in the context of herbicide, “cide” indicates that the substance is designed to kill.

Glyphosate is designed to kill weeds and microorganisms in the soil, but our digestive systems contain trillions of microorganisms! Studies have shown that glyphosate can hinder the growth of beneficial gut bacteria while promoting the growth of pathogenic bacteria, leading to dysbiosis.⁸

“Glyphosate residues on food could cause dysbiosis, given that opportunistic pathogens are more resistant to glyphosate compared to commensal bacteria.”⁹

The Human Microbiome Project found that 732 out of 941 bacteria species in our gut have at least one copy of the gene that glyphosate targets. This means that 55% of our gut bacteria are sensitive to glyphosate, 38% are resistant, and 7% are unclassified.¹⁰ The potential for glyphosate to disrupt our gut health is, therefore, significant and concerning!

Regulatory Shortcomings

But don’t worry, folks. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has got our backs. They’ve set the acceptable daily intake of glyphosate in our drinking water at a level that’s only … checks notes … 7,000 times higher than the European standard. Because nothing says “We care about public health” quite like allowing a generous helping of herbicide.

For food, the EPA in the United States has set the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for glyphosate at 1.75 mg/kg body weight/day, which is significantly higher than the standards in Europe (0.5 mg/kg) and Canada (0.3 mg/kg).¹¹ Even more alarming is that these standards only consider direct glyphosate toxicity, completely overlooking its potential impact on gut health.

Adding to the complexity of the issue is what researchers call the “cocktail effect.” While glyphosate is the active ingredient in many herbicides, crops are often treated with a mixture of agrochemicals. The synergistic effects of these chemical combinations are largely unknown and unstudied, particularly concerning their impact on the gut microbiome. This gap in our understanding poses significant risks to human health!

Another often-overlooked aspect of pesticide exposure is the cumulative effect. Even if individual foods contain “safe” levels of pesticides relative to the EPAs standards, regular consumption of multiple foods with residues can lead to a significant total exposure over time. This cumulative effect is rarely considered in regulatory decisions or public health guidelines.

“While glyphosate is the active ingredient, food crops are desiccated with GBH, which contain compounds in addition to glyphosate. Complicating matters further is the fact that most GBH are proprietary and their ingredients and the relative percentages are unknown.

This ambiguity poses a significant challenge for researchers as they do not know what they’re working with, the amount present and the synergistic effects of these chemicals when combined. Additionally, crops are often treated with a proverbial ‘cocktail’ of agrochemicals, including other herbicides, in addition to glyphosate and GBH.

The cytotoxic effects of glyphosate appear to increase when combined with other herbicides, including Paraquat … This synergistic phenomenon suggests that relatively low glyphosate residues within our food supply could have serious consequences when combined with other commonly used agrochemicals.”¹²

As awareness of glyphosate’s potential harm grows, some farmers are turning to alternative chemicals like Dicamba. However, this shift doesn’t necessarily represent an improvement in terms of health or environmental impact. It merely replaces one potentially harmful chemical with another, perpetuating a cycle of chemical dependency in agriculture.

It’s crucial to understand that the widespread use of toxic chemicals in farming is not the fault of individual farmers, but rather a result of the broken agricultural system shaped by government policies and industry influences over decades. Farmers often find themselves caught in a challenging situation, pressured by economic realities, market demands, and agricultural policies that have long favored high-yield, chemically intensive farming practices.

The current system, largely shaped by government subsidies, research funding priorities, and regulatory frameworks, has created an environment where conventional, chemical-dependent farming is often the most economically viable option for many farmers.

Additionally, years of specialized education and industry messaging (and propaganda) have reinforced these practices, making it difficult for farmers to transition to alternative methods without significant support and systemic change. Many farmers are simply trying to survive in a system that wasn’t designed with long-term environmental and health consequences in mind.

The Way Forward

The prevalence of glyphosate in our food system is alarming, with the chemical even being detected in women’s breast milk,¹³ indicating its ability to bio-accumulate in the human body.

But we can reduce our exposure significantly by paying attention to where our food comes from (ESPECIALLY when it comes to grains). And the research now supports that reducing consumption of foods high in glyphosate can lead to significant health improvements.

A review conducted by the University of Washington found that agricultural workers who used glyphosate extensively were 41% more likely to develop Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma during their lifetime compared to those who used it infrequently or not at all.¹⁴

Furthermore, a major study published in JAMA Internal Medicine revealed a significant reduction in cancer risk for individuals who consumed a diet rich in organic food.¹⁵

Conclusion

While sourcing organic produce isn’t always feasible, it’s crucial for consumers to be more aware of where their grains (wheat, oats, corn, rice, barley, chickpeas, etc.) or grain by-products (bread, baked-goods, cereal, crackers, etc.) come from. Just as many people advocate knowing your meat’s origin, the same principle should apply to grains and cereal crops.

It’s important to further emphasize that simply eliminating soy or wheat from one’s diet and choosing “gluten-free” doesn’t guarantee the elimination of glyphosate exposure, as many other nonorganic crops are desiccated before harvest.

For example, if you were regularly buying the Banza Chickpea pasta because you thought it was a healthier gluten-free option, you were unknowingly significantly increasing your glyphosate exposure.

Now, I know we’ve covered a lot of ground here, and you might be feeling a bit overwhelmed. You might even be eyeing your morning toast with suspicion, wondering if it’s plotting against you!

But remember, knowledge is power! And in this case, it’s the power to make better choices about what you put in your body. This will not be a “top-down” effort, as the government does not put public health first.

Instead, change will be from the “bottom-up” through consumer demand. Since public health is secondary to corporate interests, it is on us as consumers to educate ourselves about these issues, ask questions, and make informed choices about the foods we consume.

Organic is the better option relative to non-GMO for grains. However, the ideal solution would be sourcing from regenerative farms, although these can be harder to find.

Regenerative grain production involves minimal or zero chemical use and instead focuses on building soil health to produce healthy crops. This approach not only reduces chemical exposure but also improves soil health since tillage is not employed.

Supporting organic and regenerative farming practices and demanding transparency in food production from farmers, cooperatives, and food companies are crucial steps towards a healthier food system. It really is on us!

In the end, the question isn’t always just about what we eat, but about how our food is produced. By paying attention to these often-overlooked aspects of our food system, we can take control of our health and contribute to a more sustainable future for agriculture.

You can make a difference by supporting organic and regenerative farmers. Think of it as voting with your fork (or spoon). Every time you choose an organic grain product, you’re essentially voting against the chemical-based conventional farming system.

from: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/07/30/truth-about-grains-in-our-food-system.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20240730_HL2&foDate=true&mid=DM1608961&rid=85574406

Some Clarification on Organic Labeling

Posted on April 30, 2024 by marcia

The Ins and Outs of Organic Food Labeling

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

The top reason people choose organic foods is to avoid pesticides, yet the myriad of regulations makes it difficult to know exactly what you are eating, especially when it comes to chicken, eggs and dairy
The U.S. Department of Agriculture describes four categories of organic foods: those that are 100% organic, 95% organic, 70% organic and those that have some organic ingredients
When reading meat product labels, you must know the difference between free-range, cage-free, pasture-raised, grass fed and organic. They may sound similar, but they have very different meanings
If you’re familiar with the problems associated with conventional pasteurized milk, you may have started buying organic milk instead. However, manufacturers can use loopholes to add ingredients to grocery store milk. If you want to drink milk, consider using these sources to find raw, grass fed milk
Organic produce can be coated with Apeel, a chemical used to extend shelf life and disrupts the human and animal gut microbiome. The Apeel founder is entrenched in the World Economic Forum (WEF) and started with a $100,000 grant from the Gates Foundation

There are many benefits to buying and consuming organic foods. For some people, the primary reason is the inhumane treatment animals experience from the moment they are born to the minute they die. Cows, chickens, pigs, sheep and other animals can feel pain and experience strong emotions and yet they are treated as inanimate objects.

The unspeakable treatment these animals endure is one tactic used by globalists to push everyone, except maybe themselves, to eat bugs and lab-grown or 3-D-printed meat and other foodstuffs. But for most people, the principal reason for buying organic food is to avoid pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and genetically engineered ingredients.

According to a 2017 survey¹ by Natural Grocers, over 90% of respondents said the main reason was to avoid pesticides and 70% said they did it to avoid genetically modified organisms (GMOs). While organically produced meat and produce are more nutritious, just 40% of Natural Grocers customers choose organic produce because they think it’s more nutritious.

The USDA has a 2024 operating budget of $24.46 billion. Inside this bureaucratic mountain of red tape and oversight exists the Agricultural Marketing Service, which administers domestic and international opportunities for farmers and ranchers. And inside that arm is the National Organic Program (NOP) that “develops then enforces national standards for organically produced agricultural products sold within the United States.”²

Despite rising consumer interest in purchasing organic products, the NOP’s operating budget to regulate the meat and produce organic market is $24 million, as compared to the $35 million allocated to the Packers and Stockyards program that regulates livestock, meat and poultry.

What Does ‘Organic’ Really Mean?

As Tenpenny notes, the organic labels on your meat and produce might not mean what you think they mean. According to information from the USDA, there are four USDA organic labels, and each has a different meaning.³

•100% Organic — Food that qualifies as 100% organic must be made with 100% certified organic ingredients and may use the USDA organic seal or the 100% organic claim.

•Organic — The term organic identifies a product or ingredients that must be certified organic except where non-organic ingredients are allowed that are specified on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. These must constitute no more than 5% of the combined total ingredients. An organic certification means that 95% is certified organic.

•“Made with” organic ingredients — Products must have at least 70% of the product made with certified organic ingredients. The organic seal cannot be used, and the final product cannot be represented as organic.

•Specific organic ingredients — Multi-ingredient products that have less than 70% certified organic content cannot display the organic seal or use the word “organic.” However, they can list certified organic ingredients on the ingredient list.

To obtain the organic seal, a farmer must have an organic systems plan that outlines how the farm operation satisfies the NOP requirements. This requires organic farmers to have a working knowledge of the multiple rules and regulations that encompass hundreds, if not over 1,000 pages. As Tenpenny notes,⁴ it can be an onerous task to keep track of the updates, including those that regulate where and how organic labels can be used.

How to Read Labels on Meat

The labeling process for meat products may be the most complex. The organic regulations prohibit labeling of any product that’s been contaminated with residue of GMO or bioengineered ingredients, pesticides, hormones and antibiotics. Regulations do not allow for any residue level to be able to use the organic seal.

The USDA regulations say that inspectors look at every component of the farm operation to trace products from start to finish, including seed sources, soil, water systems, contamination and co-mingling risks.⁵ This includes what livestock are fed, but does not describe where they are fed.

Let’s talk chickens. To be designated organic, chickens must be raised organically no more than two days after they hatch. Their food must be certified grown organically without pesticides or synthetic fertilizers.⁶

This is what they’re fed but not how they live. Designation as free-range or cage-free describes how they live but not whether they’re organically raised. Tenpenny notes that free-range is a marketing term that just means the bird has unlimited access to food, water and some outdoor access for at least 51% of their life.

Cage-free means they can roam in a building or an enclosed area with unlimited access to food and fresh water in overcrowded conditions. However, the definition of outdoor space is not defined, and cage-free hens typically do not have access to being outside.

The designations in the beef industry may be just as deceptive.⁷ Grass fed describes what the animal eats, but pasture-fed tells you where they ate it. Organic beef means that the cow eats organic feed and is not given antibiotics or hormones. This means that “grass fed” or “pasture-fed” beef may not be eating organic feed. To make this more complicated, pasture-raised and grass fed designations do not include whether the animal received hormones or antibiotics.

In the beef industry, the pasture-raised designation means that the animal had access to being outside for at least 120 days during the year. However, the outdoor designation can include living in a field or being outside in a small pen.

The pork industry has slightly more stringent regulations for USDA-certified organic designation.⁸ Pigs must be raised organically beginning in the last third of the sow’s gestation, not have antibiotics and growth hormone stimulants and must be processed by a USDA-certified organic processing plant. Additionally, organic pigs must have access to direct sunlight, exercise areas, fresh air and shade.

They must have clean dry bedding, and bedding using crop residue must be from organic crops. Additionally, their diet must be produced organically without any animal by-products, hormones or antibiotics. However, pigs are allowed to receive vaccinations, and according to a 2021 paper,⁹ the vaccination program begins at three to six weeks of age and continues through adulthood.

What Makes Eggs Organic and Humane

As Tenpenny points out, labeling should be transparent, but the food industry has made it mostly about marketing.¹⁰ Labels you might find on eggs include organic, free-range, cage-free and vegetarian. As I’ve written before, conventionally raised eggs are not the most nutritional or ethical available, and since they are an important part of a healthy diet, it’s a good thing to buy quality eggs.

Conventionally raised birds are typically loaded with antibiotics and hormones and fed poor-quality feed. The hens live in spaces the size of a sheet of paper and the vast majority are confined in battery cages.¹¹ These animals are likely the most intensively confined animals, unable to spread their wings or exhibit any typical behavior. This is what the labels on eggs mean:¹²

Free-range — Free-range eggs do not need to be organic, since they don’t need to be fed organic feed. The term free-range identifies chickens who have limited access to the outdoors.
Organic — Eggs that are labeled organic must be free-range and must be raised on organic free of animal by-products but not necessarily bugs and worms, which is their natural diet. The birds must not receive hormones or antibiotics.
Other labels — Eggs can also be labeled all-natural, antibiotic-free or vegetarian. There are no strict rules about these labels so it’s up to the farmer to set the standards.

Organic eggs are typically the most expensive eggs at the grocery, but the added nutrition is worth it. The USDA-certified organic label means the eggs were sourced from farmers who follow strict standards.

Ashley Armstrong, cofounder of Angel Acres Egg Co., and I are working to overturn the conventional food system, starting with eggs. Angel Acres Egg Co. specializes in the production of low-PUFA (polyunsaturated fat) eggs. We discussed the importance of low-PUFA eggs in a recent interview, embedded below for your convenience.

They ship low-PUFA eggs to all 50 states — but there is currently a waiting list as she slowly increases the number of chickens within the network to fulfill the demand. More egg boxes will be available this spring, so join the waitlist for low PUFA egg boxes here.

Download Interview Transcript

Organic Dairy

If you’re familiar with the problems associated with conventional pasteurized milk, you may have started buying organic milk instead. Some milk brands on the shelf boast being DHA enriched, which a Washington Post article notes¹³ is accomplished by adding DHA omega-3 oil produced by corn syrup-fed algae.

If you want to drink milk, consider switching to raw, grass fed milk if you can get it. RealMilk.com has a list of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund¹⁴ also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.

Look for the AGA grass fed certification and search their website for AGA-approved producers that adhere to strict standards, including the cows being raised on a diet of 100% forage, never confined to a feedlot, never treated with antibiotics or hormones and born and raised on American family farms.

Organic Produce Can Be Coated in Apeel

Produce can only be labeled organic when it’s been grown in soil that has not had any prohibited chemicals applied for three years before the first harvest. Pesticides also cannot be applied directly to organic produce, with the exception of Apeel.¹⁵ Apeel is a chemical that’s been used on produce since 1996 to extend shelf life, but it also disrupts the human and animal gut microbiome.

The technology began with a $100,000 Grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.¹⁶ Other investors have included the Rockefeller Foundation,¹⁷ the World Bank Group and Anne Wojcicki, co-founder and CEO of the personal genomics company 23andMe.

Apeel Sciences founder, James Rogers, Ph.D., is an agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum (WEF)¹⁸ and a Young Global Leader. Among the articles he has written for the WEF is one in which he hailed COVID lockdowns as a model for future action on climate change.¹⁹ In other words, climate lockdowns.

I’m not the only one questioning the motives behind this product. “Is [Apeel] another Gates/WEF plot to destroy our health? Or a distraction from worse plots?” asked Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director at the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).²⁰ Apeel appears to have slipped through some loophole at the USDA.

Here’s How to Break the Produce Label Code

So, how do you identify the fruits and vegetables you want to eat? Produce has a PLU label, which stands for price look-up. These are standardized codes used across the industry to manage the supply chain. There are more than 1,400 PLU codes assigned to a variety of produce, which you can use to help identify if the produce is organic or conventionally grown.

These codes are four or five digits long and any codes with more than five digits are not part of the standardized system. The next time you’re at the grocery store, spend a minute or two looking at the food labels in the produce department to identify produce that’s genetically modified, bioengineered or designated organic. Tenpenny lists the codes on produce you may want to consider:²¹

A four-digit code starting with the number 3 or 4 (3000 or 4000 series) is used for conventionally grown produce. This means synthetic fertilizers, chemicals and/or pesticides might have been used during the growth of the produce.
A five-digit code starting with the number 3 identifies fruits and vegetables that have been irradiated or electronically pasteurized.
A five-digit code starting with the number 6 identifies pre-cut fruits and vegetables.
A five-digit code starting with the number 8 is designated for fruits and vegetables that have been genetically modified or bioengineered.
A five-digit code starting with the number 9 is designated for organic fruits and vegetables.
from: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/04/29/organic-food-labeling.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art2ReadMore&cid=20240429_HL2&foDate=true&mid=DM1564602&rid=8456357

Who Owns Organic?

Posted on August 24, 2019 by marcia

Infographic: A useful tool to find out who owns organic food

Lindsay Oberst · Published January 28, 2016 · 2 min read

Summary

Consider this fact: In 1995, 81 independent organic processing companies existed in the United States. Ten years later, Big Food had gobbled up all but 15 of them. The newly updated “Who Owns Organic?” infographic, originally published in 2003, provides a snapshot of the structure of the organic industry, showing the acquisitions and alliances of the…

Consider this fact: In 1995, 81 independent organic processing companies existed in the United States. Ten years later, Big Food had gobbled up all but 15 of them.

The newly updated “Who Owns Organic?” infographic, originally published in 2003, provides a snapshot of the structure of the organic industry, showing the acquisitions and alliances of the top 100 food processors in North America.

According to The Cornucopia Institute, this chart — authored by Dr. Phil Howard, an Associate Professor in the Department of Community Sustainability at Michigan State — empowers consumers to see at a glance which companies dominate the organic marketplace.

See the updated version below. (Click on the image to view a larger version,
and then click on it again for even larger detail.) Or see a PDF version here.

If you find the graphic hard to read, you might also wish to check out this graphic created by The Washington Post, which was published in May 2015 and shows 92 organic food brands who are owned by some of the nation’s largest food processors.

Major changes since the last version in May 2013

WhiteWave’s December 2013 acquisition of Earthbound Farm, the nation’s largest organic produce supplier, for $600 million.

Coca-Cola acquired a 10% stake in Green Mountain Coffee for $1.25 billion.

Bimbo Bakeries (Mexico) purchased Canada Bread from Maple Leaf Foods (Canada) for $1.7 billion.

The corporate takeover of organic food

According to a press release from The Cornucopia Institute,

“The chart shows that many iconic organic brands are owned by the titans of junk food, processed food, and sugary beverages—the same corporations that spent millions to defeat GMO labeling initiatives in California and Washington. General Mills (which owns Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, and LaraBar), Coca-Cola (Honest Tea, Odwalla), J.M. Smucker (R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic), and many other corporate owners of organic brands contributed big bucks to deny citizens’ right to know what is in their food.”

“Consumers who want food companies that embody more of the original organic ideals would do well to seek out products from independent organic firms,” Dr. Howard advises. “Given the very uneven playing field they are competing in, independent organic processors are unlikely to survive without such support.”

15 Organic brands that are still independent

Dr. Howard also created the chart, Organic Industry Structure: Major Independents and Their Subsidiary Brands. The independent brands include:

Alvarado Street Bakery
Amy’s Kitchen
Bob’s Red Mill
Cedarlane
Cliff Bar: Luna
Eden Foods
Equal Exchange
Frontier Natural Products: Simply Organic
Lundberg Family Farms
Nature’s Path: Country Choice Organic, Enviro-Kidz
Organic Valley: Organic Prairie
Pacific Natural Foods
Sno Pac
Springfield Creamery: Nancy’s
Traditional Medicinals
Yogi Tea

Dr. Howard observes, “I expect more deals to occur, since organic foods sales continue to increase faster than sales of conventional foods, and corporations are flush with cash and/or access to cheap credit.”

from: https://foodrevolution.org/blog/organic-food-infographic/

“Organic Ready” Corn

Posted on August 11, 2015 by marcia

ould This New ‘Organic Ready’ Corn Help End GMO Cross Pollination and Monsanto?

It could be released as early as one year

by Christina Sarich
Posted on August 11, 2015

In the world of Round Up Ready corn and other genetically modified crops, we’re in dire need of another ‘solution.’ Frank Kutka has been working on ‘Organic Ready’ corn for over 15 years as an all-around answer to biotech’s cancer causing crops.

Kutka is a plant breeder who has been attempting to grow corn that naturally resists GM crop contamination through cross-pollination, thus eliminating Monsanto’s prevalently grown GMO corn from infesting organic farmer’s crops.

Kutka has been searching for traits in the ancient grain teosinte which makes it very unlikely that GM pollen can enter corn silk, thus making cross-pollination nearly impossible. He explains:

“The trait has been known and used for decades. It was first used in popcorn in the 1950s and then in white corn varieties in the 1970s… It greatly reduces the risk of out-crossing.”

Kutka has been searching for this pollen-blocking trait since 2001, when he was a student at Cornell University. If he is successful, then it will make the job of organic farmers much easier, since many of them face contamination of crops that they work very hard to keep organic, paying exorbitant fees to obtain a USDA organic label.

Needless to say, Kutka, like all farmers growing organic crops, faces an enormous challenge. U.S. farmers currently plant millions of acres of GMO corn, among other GMO crops. Around 93% of the year’s corn crop was genetically modified.

While this makes Monsanto happy, it leaves those looking for non-contaminated, heirloom, organic, non-GMO corn a little miffed, to say the least. These millions of acres of corn can also easily contaminate other crops – including those which are not even corn, just because Mother Nature continues to work. GMO genes cross over into other plants, causing them to contain variant DNA like the mother plant. This is many argue that GMO crops must be banned, and that GMO labeling simply isn’t enough.

In 2014, a survey of organic farmers from 17 states, predominantly in the Midwest, shows 67% of farmers planned to delay planting corn so their crops would pollinate later than their neighbors’ GM corn, at an average cost of $16,000. Delaying the growing season is just one expense organic farmers have to contend with in competition with corporate seed monopolies.

Kutka hopes his ‘Organic Ready’ corn will be able to remedy cross-pollination of ‘Roundup Ready’ crops within the year.

Lifestyle Changes for Survival

Posted on June 22, 2015 by marcia

14 Ways to Protect You, Your Family, and Friends from the NWO Agenda

Dees Illustration

By Paul A. Philips

The price of ignorance towards the NWO (New World Order) agenda could be very costly. Fall for any of its carefully cultivated illusions and you could end up broke, losing property, become seriously ill or even end up dead.

Desperate measures are indeed needed for desperate times. Big black totalitarian clouds loom on the horizon…

The psychopathic world ruling elite owning the banks, weapons, gold, drugs and oil … while having the politicians, police, military and mass media, etc. in their pockets are further tightening that unrelenting grip on the control of our money, health, food, water, air … and all the related science and technology for complete domination over the human populace…

In response, this is my heartfelt advice on how to prepare for survival in the unpredictable not-too-distant future. Here are 14 ways to protect you, your family and friends from the NWO agenda.

1. Stop giving attention to corporate-sponsored mainstream media news

Switch off the TV (Tel-Lie-Vision). Turn to alternative media sources instead for the truth. Learn to discern the differences between disinformation and the truth as in the case of the Internet.

2. Stop voting for any of the major political parties

By voting for one of these parties you’re only giving your power away to help the ruling criminals’ further advance their NWO agenda. Stop believing in Republican-Democrat; or, if you’re in the UK, the Lib-Lab-Con sock puppet campaigning shows backed and financed by T.H.E.Y (The Hierarchy Enslaving You).

It doesn’t matter who gets voted in. They’re all funded and backed by the ruling elite. So, whoever wins, the politicians who get in office will only be there to serve their lords and masters: The politicians serve the demands of the ruling elite instead of the wishes of we-the-people.

Yes, there are a growing number of people who know this, but many still don’t fully understand: Any advantages of selecting one party over the other because of a policy in your favour or to your advantage will only be a short-term payoff. In the end, if you vote for one of the major parties because of this then you’ll only have to suffer the far greater long-term cost for having chosen the party with their connections to the ruling elite’s agenda.

3. Detoxify yourself

Use specific foods as well as supplements to detoxify yourself of lifelong body pollution. Restore health and protect the body by removing fluoride, chloride, bromide, heavy metals, radiation and other noxious substances…

4. Drink good clean or filtered water

Avoid chemically impregnated tap or plastic bottled water. Use filters such as those using reverse osmosis to filter the water. Drink adequate supplies.

5. Eat organic food

Eat plenty of organic fruit and vegetables, seeds and nuts… Don’t begrudge the extra cost. In the long run it’s worth it.

6. Avoid junk food

Avoid junk food with its high sugar, salt and cheap/nasty trans-fats … for disease protection. Chemical-laden, processed, irradiated or GMO foods should be avoided.

Avoid cooking with microwave or non-stick coated or aluminium utensils which, in effect, turns the food into junk food that could lead to health problems through toxic contaminants.

Don’t cook food using high temperatures for too long. Extreme temperatures cause the nutritional value (vitamins and enzymes in particular) to denature and greatly reduce the food value.

7. Use natural or organic personal care products

This avoids toxic chemicals often found in non-organic personal care products…

8. Avoid low frequency EMFs (electromagnetic frequencies) radiation

The list includes power grid lines, cell phones and towers, Wi-Fi sources, microwaves, breast cancer mammograms, microwaves, body scanner X-ray detectors such as those at airports … and compact fluorescent lighting (use LED [light emitting diode] clear or white lighting).

Don’t fall for the corporate-sponsored junk science brigade claiming that these EMF sources with their applications are okay. Anyone with a couple of investigative brain cells to rub together will find out that frequent long-term use has been known to cause a range of serious illnesses related to cancer, nervous, hormonal and behavioural problems…

9. Avoid vaccines and vaccinations

Vaccines are NOT safe and have been known to be ineffective. You could end up seriously ill, brain-damaged or even dead from these fraudulent big pharma money spinners to which the revenue-raking government and their paid-off media are only too happy to spread the related disinformation and lies…

10. Don’t fall for joining the military

Don’t become a sucker for the ruling elite’s secretly manufactured wars for power, profit, and political gain, planned population reduction agenda … I know, like other things mentioned in my list, this may come as quite a shock to some people.

11. Have toxic amalgam fillings removed

Mercury amalgam fillings have been known to cause brain damage, lower IQ, contribute to depression and harbour disease-causing bacteria … See a biologic or holistic dentist to get them removed and replaced by safe alternatives such as Zirconium Implants (DON’T use metal-based or plastic BPA resins). Don’t support dentists who use mercury amalgam or fluoride.

Dental decay can be prevented with good nutrition; like, for example, using coconut oil as a mouthwash since it contains the antibacterial lauric acid.

12. Maintain well-stocked supplies of food and water

In case of a crisis, stock up with a few weeks supply of food and water in the hope that by then things would have died down with normality somewhat resumed. The crisis could be a financial one such as a currency collapse, or a fake war, a staged attack (fake alien invasion perhaps, you never know??) or a HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) secret weather modification … etc., used for inducing chaos by the ruling elite and their associates as an excuse to declare martial war on citizens….

13. Maintain self-sufficiency

In line with 12, grow your own food. There are indeed many excellent websites advising how this can be done. I have been saying that self-sufficiency, especially in the way of home-grown food, is a major factor in workable communities. Discernment and unity are other major factors.

Have sufficient physical cash on standby in case of emergency: You may want to consider converting some of your hard-earned cash into gold or silver coins as a good investment.

Try looking at non-power grid alternative energy supplies to power up your home. How about solar panels or batteries or supplemental wind generators … etc.? Electric vehicles would also not be a bad idea.

14. Spread the word

“Those who have the privilege to know, have the duty to act.” – Albert Einstein

This is my ultimatum:

Wake up! Use this or similar pieces to spread the word to your family and friends to get active.

You can read more from Paul A. Philips at his site New Paradigm, where this article first appeared.

from: http://www.activistpost.com/2015/06/14-ways-to-protect-you-your-family-and.html

Stuff We Buy Into

Posted on September 7, 2014 by marcia

37 lies Americans tell themselves to avoid confronting reality

Sunday, September 07, 2014

(NaturalNews) Have you noticed the incredible detachment from reality exhibited by the masses these days? The continued operation of modern society, it seems, depends on people making sure they don’t acknowledge reality (or try to deal with it). “Denial” is what keeps every sector of civilization humming along: medicine, finance, government, agriculture and more.

The trouble with the denial approach is that eventually the lies collide with reality. Until that day comes, however, happy-go-lucky Americans are merrily enjoying their courtship with self delusion, repeating the following 37 lies to themselves as if they were true:

Lie #1) All FDA-approved medications are safe to consume in any combination, because the FDA protects the public.

Lie #2) Food prices keep going up because inflation is a natural force that can’t be halted.

Lie #3) The mainstream media is telling me the truth when it reports on world events.

Lie #4) Chemical food additives are tested for their safety before being widely used across the food supply.

Lie #5) We can all pump groundwater out of the ground forever, and it will never run out.

Lie #6) We can also pump fossil fuels out of the ground forever, and they will never run out, either. Why worry?

Lie #7) If anything bad happens in terms of a national emergency or natural disaster, the government will take care of me.

Lie #8) It doesn’t matter where my food comes from as long as it’s cheap and delicious.

Lie #9) GMOs must be safe to eat because a bunch of scientists paid by the biotech industry all tell each other that GMOs are safe and therefore have reached “scientific consensus.”

Lie #10) Government debt doesn’t matter because the government can simply create more money any time they want.

Lie #11) Mercury in vaccines must be safe to inject into children, otherwise the CDC and FDA wouldn’t allow it to be used in vaccines.

Lie #12) Organic produce is a waste of money. I’ll buy conventional produce treated with pesticides and herbicides because the cost of all the cancer treatments I’ll need 20 years later will be covered by Obamacare anyway.

Lie #13) The history taught to children in public schools is a true and accurate history. Columbus was best friends with the Indians, too!

Lie #14) Swallowing fluoride chemicals is good for babies and children, and that’s why cities put fluoride into public water supplies.

Lie #15) Flu shots prevent the flu. That’s why the package inserts for flu vaccines openly state there is no scientific evidence to support any conclusion that influenza vaccines prevent influenza.

Lie #16) Whatever is backed by “science” must be true. Science is never falsified by corrupt scientists or corporate agendas, and scientific conclusions are never wrong.

Lie #17) The global ecosystem can handle unlimited human pollution without any negative consequences. We can all continue to dump unlimited toxins into the environment.

Lie #18) Cell phone radiation is harmless. The reason we know that is because the cell phone companies hired scientists to say so.

Lie #19) If everybody else is doing something, it must be the right thing to do. After all, how could so many people be wrong?

Lie #20) We don’t need to store food for emergencies because there will always be more food available at the grocery store.

Lie #21) There’s no need to be concerned about Ebola or other infectious diseases in America because the vaccine companies can always and instantly create a new vaccine that works 100% of the time, with zero side effects.

Lie #22) Local police departments need battlefield military weapons, armored cars and body armor because the drug war demands it.

Lie #23) If I buy something at Whole Foods, it must be healthy and free from contaminants like toxic heavy metals. (Or is it really?)
Lie #24) My vote really counts in national elections. We live in a democracy where the People have power over the government.

Lie #25) My checking and savings accounts are perfectly safe no matter what happens because my bank is FDIC insured.

Lie #26) Raw dairy products are dangerous and deadly because the FDA told me so. Those horrible farmers selling raw dairy products should be locked away in prison.

Lie #27) My oncologist recommends chemotherapy treatment for me only because he cares about my wellbeing, not because his clinic sells the chemotherapy drugs at a huge profit.

Lie #28) The government isn’t secretly recording my phone calls or reading my emails. Why would they? I’ve done nothing wrong!

Lie #29) Commercial dog food is healthy and nutritious for dogs. Dog treats made in China are also trustworthy and free from contaminants like lead.

Lie #30) The only way to prevent infectious disease is with a vaccine. Vitamin D and healthy immune support have nothing to do with it.

Lie #31) After I pay off my house, I own it free and clear. (Think again: Property taxes mean you’re only “leasing” it from the county. Stop paying those taxes and you’ll find out very quickly who really owns your home.)

Lie #32) Google will do no evil, and the fact that the company is developing humanoid battlefield robots, autonomous drones and super-human quantum computing brain chips is nothing to worry about.

Lie #33) Cancer is caused entirely by bad luck (or smoking) and has nothing to do with the food I eat or chemicals in my personal environment.

Lie #34) The radiation release from Fukushima wasn’t that bad. Sure, it was many times larger than the Chernobyl disaster, but authorities say we have nothing to worry about.

Lie #35) Autism isn’t caused by vaccines, and the way we know is because the CDC scientist who admitted to a massive conspiracy of scientific fraud to bury the evidence linking vaccines to autism should not be believed.

Lie #36) All foods certified as “organic” are automatically free of toxic heavy metals and contaminants.

Lie #37) Human civilization is the only intelligent civilization in the entire galaxy. Anything else would simply be too scary to contemplate.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/046776_popular_lies_Americans_state_of_denial.html#ixzz3CgVwkuuq

The Threats of ‘Big Organic”

Posted on August 6, 2014 by marcia

Walmarting Organics: Will the Growth of “Big Organic” Lower Food Quality, Weaken Standards, and Destroy Farmers’ Livelihoods?

July 22nd, 2014

Commentary by Mark Kastel

As Yogi Berra said, “It seems like déjà vu all over again.” In 2006 The Cornucopia Institute released a report accusing Walmart of cheapening the value of the organic label by sourcing products from industrial-scale factory farms and developing countries, including China.

At the time, Walmart announced that they would greatly increase the number of organic products they offered and price them at a target of 10% above the cost for conventional food. They failed miserably at that first attempt, eventually removing many of the organic items from their stores.

This past May, Walmart announced they will once again enter the organic arena, in earnest, with the goal of eliminating the premium price for organic food.

Since the announcement, Cornucopia has received numerous press inquiries asking if Walmart’s organic expansion is “good news or bad news” for the industry. My stock answer has been, as it was in 2006: If Walmart lends their logistical prowess to organic food, both farmers and consumers will be big winners by virtue of a more competitive marketplace. However, if the company applies their standard business model, and in essence Walmarts organics, then everyone will lose.

Organic family farmers in this country could see their livelihoods disintegrate the same way so many industrial workers saw their family-supporting wages evaporate as Walmart, Target and other big-box retailers put the screws to manufacturers—forcing a production shift to China and other low-wage countries.

Walmart became the nation’s largest organic milk retailer by partnering with the dairy giant Dean Foods/WhiteWave (Horizon Organic). They then introduced their own private-label organic milk packaged by Aurora Organic Dairy. Aurora, based in Boulder, Colorado, has faced a maelstrom of organic industry criticism and negative press for operating a number of industrial-scale dairies with thousands of cows confined in feedlot-like conditions. They were the subject of a USDA investigation that found the giant dairy had “willfully” violated 14 tenets of the federal organic standards.

This time around Walmart is keeping the sourcing of their organic products a secret by using a private-label supplier and marketing products under the Wild Oats brand, a former natural foods grocery chain briefly owned by Whole Foods before, in 2009, an antitrust rule forced it to divest its holdings (resulting in the eventual shutdown of the Wild Oats chain).

Walmart claims that each item in the line, to consist of about 100 packaged products including pasta, peanut butter, dried spices, and olive oil, will cost at least 25 percent less than other organic goods sold at their store, according to Consumer Reports.

I’ve always said that “private-label, store-brand organics” is an oxymoron. By its very nature the practice is secretive. Grocery chains want to pit supplier against supplier. They want the companies manufacturing their products to feel insecure knowing they could lose the business for a few pennies to a rival competitor. For that reason retailers don’t want their customers to become loyal to a specific brand-name supplier.

In contrast, most organic consumers are label readers. We want to know where our food is coming from, how it is produced and, if livestock are involved, how respectfully they are treated. None of that is possible with private-label products.

Target has taken a different approach. Although they have plenty of private-label brands (Archer Farms, Market Pantry, and Simply Balanced in their grocery aisles), they are also presenting a “curated” product line including many name brands owned by large agribusinesses that have invested in organics.

It should be noted that the product lines at Walmart and Target include both organic and conventional (“natural”) products under the same private-label brands.

Cornucopia’s 2006 report documenting the Walmart/factory-farm connection also highlighted the company’s decision to lower the per unit cost basis on organic products by collaborating with its long-time trading partner China.

Even if the organic certification process in China were not cause for serious concern—coupled with the fact that the USDA has provided little if any regulatory oversight there—food shipped around the world, burning fossil fuels and undercutting our domestic farmers, does not meet the consumer’s traditional definition of what is truly organic.

Meanwhile, Whole Foods Market announced that they are cutting many prices to meet increasing competition from mainstream retailers like Kroger, Safeway and now Walmart, and their stock plunged nearly 19% this past May.

“I don’t think consumers have any idea just how industrialized [mainstream organics] is becoming,” said best-selling food movement author Michael Pollan in an interview with the St. Paul Pioneer Press. “There are some real downsides to organic farming scaling up to this extent,” he added.

Both Pollan and I worry that the expansion of “Big Organic” will lower food quality, weaken standards and hurt small family farms.

There’s a reason that organic food costs more. It costs more to produce, and paying farmers a fair price has always been part of the deal. The claim that Walmart will be able to provide organic food that truly adheres to federal organic standards, without a premium price, seems questionable at best.

The last time Walmart rolled out organic foods on a large scale, The Cornucopia Institute caught them labeling “natural” food as organic. After an investigation by the USDA and making the commitment to take down fraudulent signage, the company was not prosecuted. Walmart obviously did not have the expertise, at the store level, to manage organics.

The gold standard in organic retailing remains the hundreds of member-owned food co-ops and independent natural foods grocery stores across the country. Many of them are like a farmers market seven days a week where you can also find reputable national brands. They also act as a portal for accessing the local food movement. Your community’s farmers market, or joining a CSA, can also provide your family with the highest quality organic food.

When Walmart and Target complete their product roll-out, you can be sure The Cornucopia Institute will publish a new report for our members, the public and the media. We will provide discussion and analysis as to whether these massive corporations have learned from their past failures relating to organics and are now offering a true competitive alternative in the marketplace.

This story originally appeared in The Cultivator, The Cornucopia Institute’s quarterly print publication available to members and online.

Walmarting Organics: Will the Growth of “Big Organic” Lower Food Quality, Weaken Standards, and Destroy Farmers’ Livelihoods?

FIndings: Organic vs Non-Organic Foods

Posted on July 24, 2014 by marcia

Scientists Reviewed 343 Studies to See if Organic Food is Better for You. Here’s What they Found Out.

Are organic foods really healthier than non-organic foods? Researchers from Newcastle University in England have reviewed and conducted meta-analysis on 343 peer-reviewed scientific studies in an effort to find out if organic foods contained greater nutritional value than conventional foods. The results will probably shock some, but will confirm what many people already knew; organic foods are indeed much healthier for human consumption than ‘conventional’ foods.

The study looked at existing research that had been conducted on the differences between organic and conventional foods, finding that there were some significant variations in the nutritional value between the two.

“We carried out meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that indicate statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods”

The most important difference that researchers found was that organic foods contain a much higher amount of antioxidants than conventional crops. Antioxidants prevent oxidation in the body which combats certain diseases and cancers. A WSU press release noted that:

“consumers who switch to organic fruits, vegetables, and cereals would get 20 to 40 percent more antioxidants. That’s the equivalent of about two extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day, with no increase in caloric intake.”

Shoppers often argue that organic foods are too pricy to purchase for an everyday diet. Well, if they contain more nutrition per serving, then the body would require less servings per meal. Logic indicates that by comparing price based on nutritional value rather than amount, shoppers can spend about the same if not less with organics.

Now the downside of eating organic foods is they contain less pesticides. Oh wait…thats right, pesticides are extremely harmful to the body! Researchers found that conventionally grown foods are three to four times more likely to contain pesticide residues. The study indicated that:

“While crops harvested from organically managed fields sometimes contain pesticide residues, the levels are usually 10-fold to 100-fold lower in organic food”

Based on the research, the choice between organic foods and conventionally grown foods is a no-brainer. Organic foods are hands down a more nutritious and health promoting option. So, whether you’re deciding to plant a garden or shop for groceries, remember the important benefits of eating organic foods.

Not only is organic food better for your health, according to the largest study of its kind from Washington State University, it’s also better for the environment.

– See more at: http://theunboundedspirit.com/scientists-reviewed-343-studies-to-see-if-organic-food-is-better-for-you-heres-what-they-found-out/#sthash.SQvqDxrR.dpuf

Scientists Reviewed 343 Studies to See if Organic Food is Better for You. Here’s What they Found Out.

“While crops harvested from organically managed fields sometimes contain pesticide residues, the levels are usually 10-fold to 100-fold lower in organic food”

Not only is organic food better for your health, according to the largest study of its kind from Washington State University, it’s also better for the environment.

– See more at: http://theunboundedspirit.com/scientists-reviewed-343-studies-to-see-if-organic-food-is-better-for-you-heres-what-they-found-out/#sthash.SQvqDxrR.dpuf

Scientists Reviewed 343 Studies to See if Organic Food is Better for You. Here’s What they Found Out.

“While crops harvested from organically managed fields sometimes contain pesticide residues, the levels are usually 10-fold to 100-fold lower in organic food”

Not only is organic food better for your health, according to the largest study of its kind from Washington State University, it’s also better for the environment.

– See more at: http://theunboundedspirit.com/scientists-reviewed-343-studies-to-see-if-organic-food-is-better-for-you-heres-what-they-found-out/#sthash.SQvqDxrR.dpuf

Pro-GMO Scientist Retracts Studies

Posted on March 15, 2014 by marcia

GMO-Science Takes a Blow as Studies Are Retracted

March 11, 2014 | 227,702 views

By Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

Leading scientist for pro-GMO lobby, Dr. Pamela Ronald, recently retracted two studies. Her retracted research has in turn been cited by more than 120 other papers, causing a massive snowball effect of potentially invalidated research
The two now retracted studies formed the basis of her research program into how rice plants detect certain pathogenic bacteria
With the loss of her credibility, and the domino effect these retractions are likely to cause within the scientific field, the entire industry of biotechnology stands to suffer a great blow to its scientific integrity
Genetically engineered foods have never been proven safe for consumption, and there are definitive correlations between the results from GMO animal-feeding studies and the patterns of human disease we’re now seeing

The pesticide producers are one of the most powerful industries on the planet, the influence they possess is enormous. You have probably heard that an Elsevier journal has retracted the Seralini study which showed evidence of harm to rats fed a GMO diet, despite admitting they found no fraud or errors in the study.

This journal had also just recently appointed an ex-Monsanto employee as an editor – one could only guess the value of this strategy for the pesticide industry. Expect Seralini to sue as this story develops, as it appears he has a very strong case.

Alas, the scientific ground on which the genetic engineering of plants is built may now be shakier than ever, thanks to GMO promoting scientists like Dr. Pamela Ronald. A recent article in Independent Science News¹ questions whether she’ll be able to salvage her career, as two of her scientific papers (published in 2009 and 2011 respectively) were recently retracted.

With the loss of her credibility, and the domino effect these retractions are likely to cause within the scientific field, the entire chemical technology industry stands to suffer a great blow to its scientific integrity.

“Her media persona… is to take no prisoners,” Jonathan Latham, PhD writes.² “After New York Times chief food writer Mark Bittman advocated GMO labeling, she called him ‘a scourge on science’ who ‘couches his nutty views in reasonable-sounding verbiage.’ His opinions were “almost fact- and science-free” continued Ronald.

In 2011 she claimed in an interview with the US Ambassador to New Zealand: ‘After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of two billion acres planted, GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment.’“

She may have to turn down her criticism a notch, considering the fact that not one but two of her own studies were found to contain sizeable scientific errors, rendering her findings null and void. Questions have also been raised about a third study published in 2011, according to the featured article.

Public Face of GMOs Loses Scientific Credibility

Ronald’s research group claimed to have identified a molecule used by rice plants to detect pathogenic rice blight, as well as a quorum sensing molecule (meaning a molecule that can coordinate gene expression according to the density of the local population).

These two studies, both of which are now retracted,^3, ⁴ formed the basis of her research program at the University of California in Davis, which is investigating how rice plants detect certain pathogenic bacteria.

Ronald blamed the erroneous work by long gone lab members from Korea and Thailand, referring to the errors as a “mix-up.” She didn’t name her bungling colleagues, however. And while media coverage applauded Ronald for “doing the right thing” by retracting the studies, the featured article⁵ questions whether she really deserves such accolades:

“[S]cientific doubts had been raised about Ronald-authored publications at least as far back as August 2012… German researchers had been unable to repeat Ronald’s discoveries… and they suggested as a likely reason that her samples were contaminated.

Furthermore, the German paper also asserted that, for a theoretical reason, her group’s claims were inherently unlikely. In conclusion, the German group wrote: ‘While inadvertent contamination is a possible explanation, we cannot finally explain the obvious discrepancies to the results…’

Pamela Ronald, however, did not concede any of the points raised by the German researchers and did not retract the Danna et al 2011 paper. Instead, she published a rebuttal.

The subsequent retractions, beginning in January 2013, however, confirm that in fact very sizable scientific errors were being made in the Ronald laboratory. But more importantly for the ‘Kudos to Pam’ story, it was not Pamela Ronald who initiated public discussion of the credibility of her research.

… Ronald’s footnotes [in the explanation that accompanied the retraction of her second article⁶ admit two mislabelings, along with failures to establish and use replicable experimental conditions, and also minimally two failed complementation tests. Each mistake appears to have been compounded by a systemic failure to use basic experimental controls.

Thus, leading up to the retractions were an assortment of practical errors, specific departures from standard scientific best practice, and lapses of judgment in failing to adequately question her labs’ unusual (and therefore newsworthy) results.”

The Snowball Effect of Retracted Studies

According to data from Thomson Reuters,⁷ the numbers of scientific retractions have climbed more than 15-fold since 2001. What many don’t realize is that even a small number of retracted studies can wreak absolute havoc with the science-based paradigm. Other scientists who have based their research on the results from studies that, for whatever reason, end up being retracted, are now perpetuating flawed science as well. In one example, two retracted medical studies led to the retraction of another 17.

In this case, the first of Dr. Ronald’s retracted studies has been cited eight times.⁸ The second? 113 times.⁹ That sounds like an awfully large cleanup job in a field that’s already heavily criticized for its preponderance of “lousy science,” to use the words of award-winning geneticist Dr. David Suzuki.

The Problem with GMO Plant Science

It’s important to realize that genetically engineered plants and animals are created using horizontal gene transfer (also called horizontal inheritance). This is in stark contrast to vertical gene transfer, which is the mechanism in natural reproduction. Vertical gene transfer, or vertical inheritance, is the transmission of genes from the parent generation to offspring via sexual or asexual reproduction, i.e., breeding a male and female from one species.

Horizontal gene transfer, on the other hand, involves injecting a gene from one species into a completely different species, which yields unexpected and often unpredictable results. Proponents of genetically engineered crops assume they can apply the principles of vertical inheritance to horizontal inheritance, but according to Dr. David Suzuki, this assumption is flawed in just about every possible way and is “just lousy science.”

Genes don’t function in a vacuum — they act in the context of the entire genome. Whole sets of genes are turned on and off in order to arrive at a particular organism, and the entire orchestration is an activated genome. It’s a dangerous mistake to assume a gene’s traits are expressed properly, regardless of where they’re inserted. The safety of genetically modified food is based only on a hypothesis, and this hypothesis is already being proven wrong.

The kind of horizontal gene transfer that is currently used to create new crop seeds tends to produce highly inflammatory foreign proteins. As one would expect, were there a connection, inflammation-based chronic diseases have indeed increased right alongside with the proliferation of GMO foods in the US. Clearly, Dr. Ronald never bothered to look at such data, and her declaration that “GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment”¹⁰ is as lacking in scientific support as her retracted research.

Results from Animal-Feeding Studies Correlate with Human Disease Patterns

According to Jeffrey Smith, who is one of the leaders in educating people about the concerns and dangers of GMOs, there are definitive correlations between the results from animal-feeding studies and the patterns of human disease we’re now seeing. For example, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has done a number of animal-feeding studies on GMOs and specifically enumerated the particular categories of diseases and disorders found in these controlled environments. These include:

Gastrointestinal problems Immune problems Reproductive problems

Organ damage Dysfunction and dysregulation of cholesterol Dysfunction and dysregulation of insulin

“You look at the three different corresponding factors: (1) what humans are getting better from, (2) what livestock is getting better from, (3) what afflictions are afflicting the lab animals fed with GMOs, and then you look at what diseases are really taking off in the United States – they’re the same categories,” Smith says.

For example, kidney problems have been demonstrated in 19 different animal-feeding studies, and kidney diseases are on the rise in the US. Could there be a connection? Smith and I both believe this to be the case. According to Smith:

“We heard from two people at a meeting in Arizona, someone whose husband was nearly on dialysis and someone else who had three kidney transplants – both situations reversed when they changed their diet. You see things like the animal-feeding study out of Russia where the babies were a lot smaller after being fed GE soy, and you see the incidence of low-birth-weight babies is going up in the United States… Deaths from senile dementia moved along at a certain pace, and then when GMOs or Roundup were introduced, it shot up… So, you see these correlations between these four things now: (1) the animal-feeding studies, (2) people getting better [when removing GMO], (3) livestock getting better [when removing GMO], and (4) changes in the disease rates.”

GMO Foods Have Never Been Proven Safe for Long-Term Consumption

In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium on genetically modified foods, and said that long-term independent studies must be conducted, stating: “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. …There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…”

Despite this sound warning, genetically engineered foods continue to be added to the US food supply with no warning to the Americans buying and eating this food. Genetic manipulation of crops, and more recently food animals, is a dangerous game that has repeatedly revealed that assumptions about how genetic alterations work and the effects they have on animals and humans who consume such foods are deeply flawed and incomplete. Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant claims genetically engineered crops are “the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen.” What he doesn’t tell you is that:

Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify results.

The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In the world’s first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and cancer.

Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence, independent research is extremely difficult to conduct.

There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the genetically engineered item in question has been approved, not a single country on Earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects.

Vote with Your Pocketbook, Every Day

Remember, the food companies on the left of this graphic spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two labeling campaigns—in California and Washington State—to prevent you from knowing what’s in your food. You can even the score by switching to the brands on the right; all of whom stood behind the I-522 Right to Know campaign. Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference.

As always, I encourage you to continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and to share what you’ve learned with family and friends. Remember, unless a food is certified organic, you can assume it contains GMO ingredients if it contains sugar from sugar beet, soy, or corn, or any of their derivatives.

If you buy processed food, opt for products bearing the USDA 100% Organic label, as organics do not permit GMOs. You can also print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. Alternatively, download their free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications. For more in-depth information, I highly recommend reading the following two books, authored by Jeffrey Smith, the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology:

Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating
Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods

from: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/03/11/retracted-gmo-studies.aspx?e_cid=20140311Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20140311Z1&et_cid=DM40701&et_rid=452684942