What Does “Organic” Really Mean?

Posted on June 29, 2025 by marcia

Food Labels: Chicken, Eggs, Beef, Pork, Lamb, Produce

Know what they mean and How to read them

JUN 28, 2025

With the recent focus on Making America Healthy Again (MAHA) with food, knowing a bit about the USDA and food labeling has never been more important.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is a huge executive division within the US government. It is subdivided into 15 agencies with oversight by 15 administrative offices. The USDA employs nearly 100,000 people, working at more than 4,500 locations nationwide and abroad. For 2024, the USDA was given an operating budget of $24.46 billion, an increase of 11.5% over the previous year. The bureaucratic behemoth has oversight regarding food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and issues related to public policy.

One agency is the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The AMS creates and administers domestic and international marketing opportunities for producers of “food, fiber, and specialty crops.” This includes commodity procurement and contract management for cotton, tobacco, livestock, poultry, specialty crops, and all types of food labeled organic.

As it turns out, the National Organic Program (NOP) is the federal regulatory program within the AMS that develops then enforces national standards for organically produced agricultural products sold within the United States. Run by only 34 employees and the Office of the Deputy Administrator, the NOP was allocated $24 million within the 2024 operating budget to oversee and regulate all elements of the organic food industry. For comparison, the budget for the Packers and Stockyards program, which regulates and monitors the activities of livestock, meat, and poultry, was allocated $35 million.

NOP oversees the work of 84 certifiers who perform audits, write audit report reviews, send out notices of noncompliance, issue corrective action reviews, and respond to consumers and producers seeking information and assistance regarding all food categories of organic food and labeling, including meat. The expanded availability of organic products in retail stores, supermarkets, and online platforms has made it easier for consumers to access organic meat and has contributed to its market’s growth. In 2021, just over 16,000 certified organic farms were in operation in the US, with California having the most certified farms by far (3,061) while nearly 7,000 farms were certified as organic pastureland and rangeland.

Want to become an organic farmer? There’s a lot to know…

The organic food market’s overall growth has impacted the organic meat sector in many positive ways. As consumers become more aware and critical of the quality of food they eat and prepare for their families, their concerns are driving the availability of organic products in retail stores, supermarkets, and online platforms, including the search for organic meat.

The size of the Global Organic Meat Market was valued at USD $18.78 Billion in 2022 and is poised to grow to USD $37.39 Billion by 2031. The concern for animal welfare is a significant driver for the organic markets. North America is expected to lead the global demand for organic meat. This is, at least in part, due to NOP and USDA programs that support the production of organic meat and meat-related goods.

There is also a growing emphasis on regenerative organic practices for the organic meat industry. Organic meat production typically adheres to stricter animal welfare standards than conventional meat production.

Regenerative farming has been used since the late 1970s, but the terms Regenerative Agriculture and Regenerative Farming came into wider circulation in the early 1980s and is becoming a very popular buzzword now. The technology focuses on restoring soil health via holistic land management, rotational grazing, and enhancing crop biodiversity. While organic farms also prioritize soil health, regenerative practices often go beyond organic standards.

Under NOP regulations, each certified organic farm must have an organic systems plan (OSP), a detailed outline that explains how the farm operations will satisfy the requirements of the NOP regulations. Just understanding all the rules used to monitor and market the organic food market is onerous. This includes (in part) keeping track of updates to each of these regulations:

USDA organic regulations (100s of pages long)
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (100s of pages long)
Organic enforcement rules
Organic certification processes
Organic livestock and poultry standards
Organic labeling rules
….and more.

What does “organic” really mean?

According to the USDA,

Organic is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural products have been produced through approved methods. These methods integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster the recycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used.

The Organic Standards can be found here.

The Label Quiz

Many consumers want to eat as “clean” as possible, meaning they want real food that is not contaminated with chemicals, antibiotics, pesticides, GMOs, and toxic vaccines.

Livestock and poultry farmers have caught on to this. Many farmers believe in the organic certification concept but are unwilling to go through the long, and often very expensive, certification program process. After the certification, farmers have to pay an annual, often pricey, fee to maintain the certification.

When consumers see the word “organic” on a package or a label, they have expectations about the product they are purchasing. USDA-certified organic foods must be grown and processed according to federal guidelines that take into consideration soil quality, animal raising practices, pest and weed control, and the use of antibiotics and hormones.

USDA organic regulations prohibit the use of GMO ingredients, listing them as “excluded methods.” Foods labeled organic are also not allowed to contain bioengineered ingredients (BE), which means ingredients made using recombinant DNA technology such as gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes. (NOTE: These ingredients ARE in foods that are NOT organic).

Organic products are labeled according to the percentage of organic ingredients they contain. There are four distinct labeling categories for organic products:

100 Percent Organic – Products with this label contain only certified organic ingredients, including any processing aids.
Organic – For products in the “organic” category, at least 95% of the ingredients must be certified organic. The remaining five percent of ingredients must be organically produced, unless commercially unavailable or allowed on the National List.
Made With Organic ***– For multi-ingredient agricultural products, the “Made with organic ***” label means the product must contain at least 70 percent certified organic ingredients. These products may contain up to 30% of allowed non-organic ingredients. All ingredients – including the 30% non-organic ingredients – must be produced without GMOs.

If a product states, “Made with organic grains,” all ingredients derived from grains— including enriched wheat flour, corn oil, or oats—must be certified organic. If a product contains both organic and non-organic forms of the same ingredient, they must be identified separately in the ingredient statement.

Specific Organic Ingredients – This label is a mixture of non-organic and certified organic ingredients. The ingredient statement of the products identifies that the product contains less than 70% organic content.

Chart Source: Cetrafoods.com

These labeling differences help educated consumers to distinguish between products that are either labeled as “made with organic ingredients” or products that are made with a mix of ingredients.

The USDA and NOP organic regulations prohibit organically labeled food from being contaminated with residues from pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, and genetically modified (GMO) or bioengineered (BE) ingredients. Products undergo required residue testing. If foods are found to be even minimally contaminated (there is no minimum level that is tolerated), penalties and warning letters are issued. (In other words, organic food appears to have a zero tolerance level for these residues. That’s good!)

Labels for Meat

Chicken

To be designated as organic, the birds must be raised organically, starting no later than two days after they hatch. The USDA requires the chicken’s feed to be grown without pesticides or synthetic fertilizers and certified.

Being free-range is not the same as being organic. Free-range and cage-free refers to where/how the chickens lived, not what they were fed, and gives no indication about the quality of the air or hygiene levels where they lived. According to the New Roots Institute,

“Outside space provided to free-range chickens is loosely defined and often just a formality: it’s likely too small, barren, and otherwise inadequate for the thousands of chickens being raised in a farm for slaughter.’

Free-range. “Free-range” is a marketing term used by the food industry. It means the bird was provided shelter, unlimited access to food, fresh water, and outdoor access during their production or life cycle for at least 51% of their lives (making it “the majority” of their lives).
Cage-free. This label indicates that the bird could roam within a building, a room, or an enclosed area with unlimited access to food and fresh water. Cage-free hens generally have no access to the outdoors.

Don’t be fooled by food labels that sound like the living conditions are better for chickens. The ASPC (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals^®) has a table to help make informed choices about chicken meat. The guide helps consumers make choices based on chicken welfare. These three are the best choices:

Source: ASPC table

Eggs

With labels like “organic,” “free-range,” “cage-free,” and “vegetarian fed” it’s hard to know which eggs are the best to buy. While food labeling should be simple and transparent, unfortunately, is mostly about marketing.

Conventional Eggs

Conventional eggs are not the most ethical or nutritious eggs. These birds are generally fed poor quality feed that often contains antibiotics and hormones. Hens live in stacked rows of cages and live in a space approximately the size of a sheet of paper. The vast majority of egg-laying hens are confined in battery cages. Unable to spread their wings, caged laying hens are among agribusiness’s most intensively confined animals. The poor living conditions increase the risk of bacterial contamination.

Globally, non-typhoidal Salmonella is the most frequently documented cause of foodborne disease. In the US, it is the second most common cause of foodborne outbreaks, and around 20% of the illnesses caused by Salmonella are related to poultry, poultry products, and eggs.

In a study from 2023, Salmonella contamination varies widely among egg-producing countries. Contamination in US is low, and reported to be 0.005%. In Europe, Salmonella contamination has been found to be about 0.37%, and in China, the world’s largest egg producer eggs, between 0.5% and 5.6% of eggs were found to be contaminated with the bacteria.

Free-Range Eggs

Lines can get blurred when it comes to the free-range egg label. This is because organic eggs must be from free-range hens, but free-range eggs aren’t necessarily organic, because the birds do not need to be fed organic feed. The USDA only requires free-range eggs come from “free-range” chickens but most really only have limited access to a small, fenced in outdoor area.

Likewise, eggs labeled as “vegetarian,” “antibiotic-free,” or “all-natural” don’t have to meet the strict standards required for certified organic eggs. There’s little oversight, so it’s often up to individual farms or companies to define what those labels mean

Organic Eggs

Under the USDA Organic Certification Requirements, organic eggs must come from chickens that are fed only organic feed that is free of animal by-products, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, or chemical additives. These chickens must not be given any antibiotics or additional hormones.

Organic eggs must be laid by 100% free-range, cage-free chickens with access to an outdoor area, even if it’s small. Overall, organically raised hens offer the highest standard of animal welfare, making them the most ethical egg option available.

Organic eggs are more nutritional sound, even though the industry says there is no difference between organic and non-organic eggs. Since the hens are fed high-quality feed, have more movement, and are drug-free, they produce fresher eggs with more nutrients. The yolks of organic eggs have a richer orange color; they certainly taste richer and healthier. After eating organic eggs, I find the non-organic eggs served in most restaurants taste like styrofoam in comparison.

While organic eggs are often more expensive, sometimes double the cost of commercial eggs, they’re worth it. Look for the USDA Certified Organic label on the egg carton or buy from local farmers who follow the strict standard s for raising organic birds.

Beef

NOTE: Grass-fed describes WHAT the animal was eating, whereas pasture-fed describes WHERE the animal was being fed.

Organic means the cows ate only organic feed and were not given antibiotics or hormones.

Grass-fed

Animals receive most of their nutrients from grass and forages (such as hay) throughout their life. However, the animal’s diet has nothing to do with whether or not it received hormones or antibiotics, or was exposed to toxic pesticides, including glyphosate. In other words, just because it the meat is labeled grass-fed, doesn’t necessarily mean it is organic.

The American Grassfed Association (AGA), a non-governmental organization, developed an approval label to clear this concern. If the meat has an AGA label , it means the animal was raised in a pasture, only fed grass or hay, and was never treated with hormones or antibiotics. American Grassfed Association (AGA) is a producer-founded and run non-profit organization that supports American Family Farms and Ranchers through certification, advocacy, and education programs.

A list of AGA-approved providers can be found here.

Pasture-raised

A pastured-raised animal must have had access to the outdoors for at least 120 days per year. According to USDA regulations, this label includes terminology that refers to only a particular animal. For example, the animal may have lived in a field or on a wide-open ranch, or it may have lived outside in a small pen. The USDA has not developed a labeling policy regarding hormones and antibiotics for pasture-raised products.

Pork

Pigs intended for meat products must be raised organically from the last third of gestation and, like beef, without the use of antibiotics and growth hormone stimulants. To be labeled USDA certified organic, the pork must not only come from pigs raised on organically certified farms but also be processed by a USDA certified organic processing plant.

There are four major aspects of USDA-certified organic regulations relating to pig production—source of animals, feed, healthcare, and living conditions. The only piglets that can be sold as organic are those who whose mother (the sow) has been managed organically from the last third of gestation to birth (gestation ranges from 111 to 120 days.) Federal organic regulations require that organic pigs have access to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean drinking water, and direct sunlight. Organic pigs must have access to clean, dry bedding. If the bedding has crop residue, it must be from organic crops. (Pigs are treated more humanely than chickens).

Pork labeled as organic must come from pigs that have only been fed a diet consisting of organic grains and protein sources, including organic soybean meal. The animal feed must be 100% organically produced and without animal byproducts or daily drugs. GMOs, or hormones. While antibiotics are strictly prohibited, vaccines are allowed….and they get many.

Sheep

As of Jan. 31, 2024, there were 5.03 million head of sheep in the United States, with the largest numbers being located in Texas, California, and Colorado. Even though sheep are produced in all 50 states, most large sheep ranches are located west of the Mississippi River. When it comes to the countries with the most sheep, the US isn’t even in the top 10.

Difference Between Lamb and Mutton

Lamb is meat from a young sheep, under one year of age. Lamb is said to have a very delicate, even slightly sweet, grass-fed flavor; the meat is very tender. Lamb is usually 60-70% more costly than mutton. Mutton is the meat of mature sheep, harvested between 2 to 3 years of age. Mutton is said to have a robust, greasy, even gamey taste compared to true cuts of lamb. Because the animal is older, the meat tends to be tougher and more “chewy.” Most lamb meat sold in the US comes from older sheep.

The USDA does not have clear labeling rules that differentiate between lamb and mutton. Classifying and labeling the meat lamb, yearling, or mutton is left to producers. Therefore, any sheep meat under 24 months at the time of harvest can be labelled as lamb when it is actually mutton.

An astonishingly large and diverse number of products are made from sheep and their byproducts, from food to cosmetics and shaving cream to surgical sutures. Check out this American Sheep Industry Association flier to see the full list.

What about produce labels?

Produce can be labeled organic if it was grown in soil that has not had any prohibited substances applied to it for at least three years before harvest. Products that are clearing not organic have no misleading labeling, except for products that now bear the label coated with Apeel, which I’ve written about previously.

Another chemical used on produce since 1996 is called 1-MCP, which stands for methyl-cyclopropane, marketed under the name Smart Fresh. When sprayed on apples and oranges, the shelf life can be extended for up to three years by blocking the replication of bacteria on the surface of the fruit, but it can also disrupts human and animal gut microbiome.

Other labels found on produce are the PLU labels, standing for Price-LookUp codes. They allow retailers to manage inventory, process customer checkout faster, and help manage the produce industry supply chain. Assigned by the International Federation for Produce Standards (IFPS), more than 1,400 PLU codes have been assigned to various types of fruits and vegetables. The labels also identify if the produce is organic or conventionally grown.

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.
If the code contains more than five digits, it is not part of the IFPS standardized system.

Summary

the next time you go to the grocery store, spend a little more time reading food labels. Now that you know a little more how they are categorized, you can be an even better consumer for yourself and your family. You’ll want to chose organic eggs, Certified Humane chicken, and AGA labeled beef. You may want to shop using the ASPC food shopping list. They say on their website, but it’s a place to start.

“Where to buy” information is kept up-to-date by individual companies; please contact the store or seller directly to confirm product availability.

*The ASPCA does not audit farms or ranches and instead relies on independent animal welfare certifications as the basis for evaluating different food brands in the marketplace.

from: https://drtenpenny.substack.com/p/food-labels-chicken-eggs-beef-pork?publication_id=931759&post_id=166770095&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

And Now They Are Coming for Beef

Posted on July 24, 2024 by marcia

Rancher Sounds Alarm on Mandatory mRNA Vaccines For Meat Supply

Infowars.com

July 13th 2024, 3:20 pm

USDA “did a trial with 500 pigs. Within the first couple of weeks they had about 100 of them die,” says rancher Trevor Cowley.

A rancher is warning of the government’s experimentation with mRNA vaccines on the U.S. meat supply, noting that 25% of the pigs that received the shots have died.

“The USDA came out with a study on pigs because pigs were the first to be trialed with the mRNA vaccines. They did a trial with 500 pigs. Within the first couple of weeks they had about 100 of them die,” rancher Trevor Cowley said on the “Real Business Owners” podcast last month.

“They analyzed the pigs after they had died…They were still finding traces of the vaccine inside the meat,” he added.

Cowley said the government is also using the bird flu outbreak to advocate for injecting beef cattle with more experimental mRNA vaccines.

Cowley also explained that the federal government pushed for mandatory ID chipping of cattle in response to the bird flu outbreak after failing to implement them earlier in the face of massive public outcry.

Watch the full interview:

from: https://www.infowars.com/posts/rancher-sounds-alarm-on-mandatory-mrna-vaccines-for-meat-supply/

from: https://www.infowars.com/posts/rancher-sounds-alarm-on-mandatory-mrna-vaccines-for-meat-supply/?__cf_chl_tk=ZdqqGxeRUYL17ORdcyPieXtZ52FBBKJqUlgwuleBYRk-1721844959-0.0.1.1-4138

Who Owns the American Farmland?

Posted on February 7, 2024 by marcia

As Chinese Purchases Of US Farmland Soar, It’s Impossible To Track How Much It Owns

January 24, 2024 ZeroHedge via InfoWars 3

Bloomberg noted that America “is seeing more and more of its most fertile land snapped up by China and other foreign buyers.” It is difficult to know just how much farmland China has bought due to problems with how the US tracks such data. According to Department of Agriculture data, foreign ownership and investment in US farmland, pastures and forests jumped to about 40 million acres in 2021, up 40% from 2016. The USDA’s data is flawed and depends on foreigners self-reporting their activity. Food supply lines may be at risk due to foreigners owning US land.

.The topic of China’s ownership of US farmlands is starting to boil over.

Six months after we reported that a “Bipartisan Bill Aims To Block Chinese Purchase Of US Farmland”, more are starting to pay attention yet as even Bloomberg notes that America “is seeing more and more of its most fertile land snapped up by China and other foreign buyers” the big problem remains: it’s difficult to know just how much farmland China has bought due to problem with how the US tracks such data.

Here’s what we do know: according to Department of Agriculture data foreign ownership and investment in US farmland, pastures and forests jumped to about 40 million acres in 2021, up 40% from 2016; but an analysis conducted by the US Government Accountability Office — a non-partisan watchdog that reports to Congress — found mistakes in the data, including the largest land holding linked with China being counted twice. Other challenges include the USDA’s reliance on foreigners self-reporting their activity.

As a result, foreign ownership of US cropland is drawing attention from Washington as concern rises about possible threats to food supply chains and other national security risks. And, as we reported last summer, lawmakers have called for a crackdown on sales of farmland to China and other nations.

(Source: USDA)

“Without improving its internal processes, USDA cannot report reliable information to Congress or the public about where and how much US agricultural land is held by foreign persons,” the report said.

Read full article here…

from: https://needtoknow.news/2024/01/as-chinese-purchases-of-us-farmland-soar-its-impossible-to-track-how-much-it-owns/

Stand Up For Your Local Farmers

Posted on June 16, 2021 by marcia

Support local food sources!

June 16, 2021 By Administrator

When the conventional food system showed its fragility during the COVID shut-downs, local producers kept feeding their communities with high-quality meat, eggs, dairy, and produce. Artisanal small businesses provide fermented foods, kombucha, and many more foods vital for nourishing our communities.

Yet these local farmers and artisanal producers all too often face unnecessary difficulties created by government regulations, policies, and programs.

Now we have a rare opportunity to urge USDA to change! The disruptions in the food system over the last year have led President Biden to direct the USDA to submit a report that assesses the supply chains for the production of agricultural commodities and food products.

As part of developing that report, USDA is accepting public comments on “Supply Chains for the Production of Agricultural Commodities and Food Products” until June 21. The agency will also consider the public comments in its decision on how to spend stimulus funds, since it has been directed to increase durability and resilience within the U.S. food supply.

This is an important opportunity to talk about the significance of localized, decentralized food systems – and to give the agency specific action steps that would help move us to those systems!

In writing your comments, please try to include (1) examples of the challenges farmers and other food producers face in raising, processing, and marketing their products; and (2) specific action items that would help small-scale and diversified producers to build resilient, diversified systems.

Note that the USDA cannot change statutory law. So issues such as the requirement that meat be processed in an inspected slaughterhouse are outside the scope of this comment period. But the agency can change its own regulations, policies, and where it directs funding – so there is a lot that it can do to address problems with that meat inspection program, for example.

Topics to consider including in your comments:

Meat processing: USDA should take steps to support the continuation and establishment of new small- and mid-sized operations.
1. Share your own story about meat processing. Farmers: Were you able to provide meat during the meatpacker shutdowns last spring? Or have you been unable to because of a lack of processing? Consumers: What did you see during the pandemic? From whom did you get meat?
1. As a small farmer or processor, what changes do you think are needed? Remember to focus on things that are in the regulations and policies, as well as direct relief funding for financial support, not statutory changes that are beyond the agency’s ability to change.
1. Consider expressing support for these policy changes:
  1. Revise USDA’s policy governing multiple owners of animals that are processed in custom-exempt slaughterhouses. The USDA currently requires that the custom slaughterhouse record each owner and do the division of the meat, which makes it impractical for more than 4 people to co-own an animal. But the statute and regulations merely provide that the meat must be for the personal or household use of the owners. If USDA modified its policy, then “animal shares” could be far more flexible, allowing farmers and consumers to agree to use custom processors. In effect, we could implement the Wyoming herd share law without the need for new state statutes if USDA makes a simple policy change.
  1. Reform the scale-prejudicial regulations and policies on small-scale slaughterhouses, including: (1) prioritize inspector availability for small-scale processors and provide training specific to small-scale processors; (2) revise the pathogen testing and process-control testing to ensure that small plants are tested proportionally to large plants; (3) reduce the difficulty and expense in developing HACCPs by providing model HACCPs, posting applicable peer-reviewed research, and identifying the control points for different types of products.

The agency needs to stop adopting regulations and policies that are scale-prejudicial. For example, electronic animal ID is much more expensive for small-scale producers, yet the benefits flow to the large players and exporters.
- Share your concerns about electronic ID, both its impact on you and on others in the industry. Do you run your animals in pasture conditions where they are more likely to lose tags, increasing the time and monetary expense? Does your local sale barn have infrastructure for running all electronic ID or would it be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to install it? Would your veterinarian have to buy new equipment to deal with an electronic system?

Other areas of needed infrastructure, whether physical (such as commercial kitchens and storage) or logistical (support for food hubs, farmers markets, etc.): What do you see as needed to build resilient, vibrant local food systems? Again, this can involve changing regulations, policy and guidance documents, or providing funding through USDA programs.

You can submit your comment online at

https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/AMS-TM-21-0034-0076

DEADLINE: Monday, June 21

from: https://www.westonaprice.org/support-local-food-sources/

USDA Censorship, Bee Populations, Corporate Lobbying

Posted on March 22, 2016 by marcia

Is the USDA Just a Corporate Lobbyist Group?

Story at-a-glance

The USDA has come under increasing scrutiny following charges of harassment and censorship. Due to mounting complaints from scientists, the USDA inspector general is opening an investigation.
USDA whistleblower Jonathan Lundgren, Ph.D., claims he was retaliated against when he started talking about his research, which shows neonicotinoids cause decline in bee and Monarch butterfly populations.
Krysta Harden, former deputy secretary of the USDA, has been hired by chemical giant DuPont to head up its “public policy and government affairs strategies” department

By Dr. Mercola

Many, if not most, of our regulatory agencies have a long history of protecting industry interests over public and environmental health. Most recently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has come under increasing scrutiny following mounting charges of harassment and censorship.

In the first week of November 2015, Jonathan Lundgren, who spent the last 11 years working as an entomologist at the USDA, filed a whistleblower complaint against the agency, claiming he’d suffered retaliation after speaking out about research showing that neonicotinoids had adverse effects on bees.¹

In the U.S., nearly all corn, about 90 percent of canola, and approximately half of all soybeans are treated with neonicotinoids. As the use of these pesticides has gone up, bee and Monarch butterfly populations have plummeted.

After publicly discussing his findings, Lundgren claims that “USDA managers blocked publication of his research, barred him from talking to the media, and disrupted operations at the laboratory he oversaw.”

The Washington Post recently published an article that details Lundgren’s complaints and the retaliation waged against him.²

According to Agri-Pulse,³ the Agriculture Department’s inspector general, Phyllis Fong, has now received so many complaints about harassment and censorship, she’s opening a broad investigation to assess “whether there is a systemic problem in the department.”

Charges of Censorship Mount Against USDA

Food and Water Watch⁴ recently followed up on this issue, noting that “when independent, government scientists produce research that threatens corporate agribusinesses, the USDA — according to at least 10 government scientists — censors the results, waters down the findings and punishes the researchers.”

Jonathan Lundgren is one of these 10 scientists. The other 9 have all chosen to remain anonymous for fear of even more reprisals.

Lundgren’s research at the USDA shows that neonicotinoids are instrumental in the decline of bee and Monarch butterfly populations. But his work, and his criticism against factory farming, goes even deeper than that.

He has become convinced and has spoken out about the fact that toxic insecticides like neonics are not some sort of necessary evil. We don’t actually need these types of chemicals at all in agriculture.

As he notes in the video above, organic or regenerative farming actually produces higher yields and requires less land. This, I believe, even more so than his critique of neonics, poses a major threat to corporate agribusinesses.

It does not, however, detract from the USDA’s mission, which is why the agency’s mistreatment of scientists like Lundgren is so revealing.

Whistleblower Sets Up Nonprofit Science Lab and Sustainable Farm

Fortunately, Lundgren has become very outspoken about his whistleblower suit. So much so, the Shafeek Nader Trust presented him with a civic courage award last November, for taking an open stand against the USDA.

Moving forward, he’s also setting up two new businesses: Blue Dasher Farm, which he intends to be a model for large-scale sustainable farming using crop diversity and other regenerative methods, and Ecdysis, a nonprofit science lab for independent research.

According to Lundgren:⁵ “I don’t think science can be done, at least on this subject, in any of the conventional ways. I think we need truly independent scientists — not funded by government or industry.”

USDA Policy Encourages Suppression of Unpopular Science

This charge was made by Jeff Ruch, Executive Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), who on March 26, 2015 filed a Petition For Rulemaking with the Secretary of Agriculture.⁶ (PEER is also the alliance representing Lundgren’s whistleblower case.) In it, he notes that:

“The stated purpose of USDA’s scientific integrity policy is to ensure ‘the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch’s involvement with scientific and technological processes and analyses.’

However, the Policy fails to clearly prohibit political suppression and interference. While the Policy defines political suppression and interference, it does not include these acts in its definition of misconduct.

The USDA, by its own admission, has yet to develop procedures for handling scientific integrity complaints. To compound the problem, an overly broad provision within the Policy actively encourages USDA to suppress scientific work for political reasons.

The provision states that scientists “should refrain from making statements that could be construed as being judgments of or recommendations on USDA or any other federal government policy, either intentionally or inadvertently.”

USDA management routinely relies up this vague but expansively worded provision a pretext for suppressing technical work solely because the scientific conclusions expressed draw the ire of USDA corporate stakeholders.”

The Case of USDA Scientist Jeffery Pettis

The case of Jeffery Pettis adds even more weight to the notion that there’s a definitive agenda at work within the USDA to officially downplay any risks associated with neonicotinoids.

Pettis, who like Lundgren is an entymologist, headed up the USDA’s bee laboratory in Beltsville for 9 years. His career was suddenly derailed after he presented testimony about neonics before the House Agriculture Committee in the spring of 2014. As reported by The Washington Post:⁷

“Pettis had developed what he describes as a ‘significant’ line of research showing that neonics compromise bee immunity.

But in his opening remarks before Congress, he focused on the threat posed by the varroa mite, often put forward by chemical company representatives as the main culprit behind bee deaths.

Only under questioning by subcommittee Chairman Austin Scott (R-Ga.) did Pettis shift. Even if varroa were eliminated tomorrow, he told Scott, ‘we’d still have a problem.’ Neonics raise pesticide concerns for bees ‘to a new level,’ he said. About two months later, Pettis was demoted, losing all management responsibilities for the Beltsville lab ….

Pettis said, the USDA’s congressional liaison told him that the Agriculture Committee wanted him to restrict his testimony to the varroa mite. ‘In my naivete,’ he said, ‘I thought there were going to be other people addressing different parts of the pie. I felt used by the whole process, used by Congress.’

The hearing was ‘heavily weighted toward industry,’ he said, ‘and they tried to use me as a scientist, as a way of saying, ‘See, it’s the varroa mite,’ when that’s not how I see it.’…He said he walked up to Scott afterward, to make small talk, and the congressman ‘said something about how I hadn’t ‘followed the script.'”

Is USDA Shielding Corporations Like Monsanto?

While you would think that the USDA exists to protect you against the vagaries of industry, this is not the case. The chemical and agricultural industries spend millions of dollars to lobby for regulations that are favorable to them, and there’s a constantly revolving door between the agency and private corporations.

For example, USDA Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is widely regarded as a shill for Monsanto, and he’s always been a strong supporter of genetically engineered (GE) crops, regardless of the scientific evidence against it.

The undemocratic and highly unpopular 2005 seed pre-emption bill was also Vilsack’s brainchild. The law stripped local government’s right to regulated GE seed, including where GE can be grown. Overall, Vilsack’s record is one of aiding and abetting concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) or factory farms and promoting both genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and animal cloning.

Roger Beachy is another example. Between 2009 and 2011, he was the head of National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the USDA’s main research arm, and he too is a proponent of GMOs, and has ties to Monsanto. As reported in a previous Grist article:⁸

“In his short stint at USDA, Beachy never hid his enthusiasm for ag biotechnology — or his disdain for organic ag. When I … asked him about funding for organic research, he came up with a novel slander against synthetics-free ag: ‘I’m concerned about the safety of organic food … I’m concerned about the issue of microbial contamination with organic.'”

To get an idea of just how broad and deep Monsanto’s reach is, take a look at the following chart. Over the years, this biotech giant has successfully infiltrated an ever increasing number of high-level federal regulatory positions in the U.S. government; many of which are positions meant to protect your food safety, including a number of top positions within the USDA.

Top USDA Official Goes to Work for DuPont

The most recent person to walk their way through the revolving door between government and industry is Krysta Harden, who spent over 6 years at the USDA — first as chief of staff to Secretary Tom Vilsack, and then deputy secretary. She’s been hired by chemical giant DuPont to head up its “public policy and government affairs strategies” department. You would think this activity would be illegal and prohibited but it is actually encouraged.

The New York Times recently published an in-depth exposé⁹ on the legal battle fought against DuPont for the past 15 years over PFOA contamination and its toxic effects. The Intercept also published a three-part exposé¹⁰ titled “The Teflon Toxin: Dupont and the Chemistry of Deception” last year, detailing DuPont’s history of covering up the facts.

Earlier this month, they came out with a fourth part in the series,¹¹ covering DuPont’s contamination of the Cape Fear River with “a new generation of replacement compounds” that likely have “the same chemical performance properties as the older generation of PFCs.”

DuPont is now working on a merger with Dow, and once the merger is completed, that chemical-seed company will be even larger than Monsanto. Considering DuPont’s history of covering up the toxic effects of their products, this gigantic entity is going to Monsanto in terms of being a serious threat, and the most perniciously evil company on the planet.

Federal Agencies Aid and Abet Corporate Stronghold

to read the remainder of he article, go here: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/03/22/usda-corporate-lobbyist-group.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20160322Z1&et_cid=DM100981&et_rid=1410751387

USDA Introducing Non-GMO Label

Posted on May 15, 2015 by marcia

Huge Victory: USDA Introduces Official Non-GMO Label

Government to launch first non-GMO label

by Mike Barrett
Posted on May 14, 2015

For years the public has been asking the U.S. government to institute mandatory labeling for any products containing genetically modified ingredients. Now, in response to the sounds of public outcry and vital activism, the United States Department of Agriculture is being forced to do something. The agency has developed a new government certification which companies can use to show that the product is completely free of GMOs.

Though the food advancement is arguably just tip-toeing around mandatory GMO labeling, it is definitely a sign that our government agencies are being forced to listen to our collective voice, and that they are really recognizing that there needs to be something in place that can clearly differentiate GMO-riddled and non-GM foods.

Currently, companies have the option to use either the non-profit Non-GMO Project’s verified seal, developed in 2007, or the USDA’s certified organic label. The difference with the newly-created USDA certification and these seals, however, is that the new seal is government-certified (the Non-GMO Project seal isn’t), and the USDA Organic seal comes with many more strict food rules than just being GMO-free. In other words, not all GMO-free foods are 100% organic.

“Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined the department’s plan in a May 1 letter to employees, saying the certification was being done at the request of a “leading global company,” which he did not identify. A copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press.

…Vilsack said the USDA certification is being created through the department’s Agriculture Marketing Service, which works with interested companies to certify the accuracy of the claims they are making on food packages — think “humanely raised” or “no antibiotics ever.” Companies pay the Agricultural Marketing Service to verify a claim, and if approved, they can market the foods with the USDA process verified label.”

The new seal is voluntary, and companies would have to pay for it. The food products adopting the label would have a seal that says “USDA Process Verified” with a claim that it is free of GMOs.

“Recently, a leading global company asked AMS to help verify that the corn and soybeans it uses in its products are not genetically engineered so that the company could label the products as such,” Vilsack wrote in the letter. “AMS worked with the company to develop testing and verification processes to verify the non-GE claim.”

Vilsack said in the letter that the certification “will be announced soon, and other companies are already lining up to take advantage of this service.”

The downside of the USDA label is that it goes hand-in-hand with bills that are designed to block mandatory GMO labeling efforts across the country. A bill that was introduced last year provided the USDA cert, but wouldn’t make it mandatory – AND the bill would override any states laws that the citizens fought so hard for. An example can be seen with Vermont’s recent passing of a mandatory GMO labeling bill that will go into effect next year.

However, with the complications of a national food system, I see this seal as a victory. As long as the seal is attainable and doesn’t cost caring companies an exuberant amount of money to implement, it will be enough to clearly show which companies care enough to go GMO-free and which companies choose to use GMO ingredients.

Thanks to your vital activism and voice, the government is finally seeing that something needs to be done about GMOs in our food, and that is good news.