Organic Dairy Wants Stronger Cloning Ban

More than 850 organic dairy farmers came out strongly against the use of cloned animals and their offspring in organic livestock farming.

They issued a number of statements just a week before the National Organic Standards Board - the citizen advisory panel to the USDA's organic program - takes up the issue in a hearing. The Food and Drug Administration late last year issued an opionion that is expected to lead to the approval of cloned animals in the food supply as soon as this year.

The livestock committee of the NOSB recently recommended a ban on clones, but left open the issue of whether progency should be banned as well. (See our previous post for background on the issue).

"...it is imperative that progeny of clones be unequivocally disallowed as well as clones,"  the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Association said. "This is not a question to be taken up when the need arises in the future—the need is here now.  Cloned bulls are in existence whose semen is destined for the artificial insemination market should the ban on cloning be lifted." 

The main way cloned animals are expected to come into the food supply, is through progeny rather than through cloned animals themselves. FOOD Farmers, the group that includes NODPA and the Western and Midwest Organic Dairy Producers Alliances, said:

It does not matter that there is no test to determine whether an animal is derived from cloning or not. The National Organic Program is a process based program, not a test based program. As with field histories, purchased feeds, etc., we producers have to verify through our recordkeeping, affidavits, and paper trail that the organic standards process has been followed. So too will it be necessary to document that no cloned livestock or progeny are brought into a herd of organic livestock or transitioned to organic production. If the necessary documentation is not available on animals, then they will not be able to be considered for organic production.

The individual farms sell to Horizon Organic, Organic Valley, Stonyfield Farms, Humboldt Dairy, as well as through smaller cooperatives including Upstate Farms Cooperative, Organic Choice and LOFCO, independent manufacturers and direct to the consumer.

They issued statements Friday, the day comment was due at the USDA.

How Transparency Works

By Samuel Fromartz

I just read three pieces that show the power of transparency in the food system.

First was the op-ed in the Times I missed yesterday on the conditions of sows in the pork industry (should we call it the pig industry?). Nicolette Hahn Niman points out that Smithfield Farm recently decided to stop using gestation cages which "virtually immobilize pigs during their pregnancies in metal stalls so narrow they are unable to turn around."

Getting rid of gestation crates (already on their way out in the European Union) is welcome and long overdue, but more action is needed to end inhumane conditions at America’s hog farms.

Of the 60 million pigs in the United States, over 95 percent are continuously confined in metal buildings, including the almost five million sows in crates. In such setups, feed is automatically delivered to animals who are forced to urinate and defecate where they eat and sleep. Their waste festers in large pits a few feet below their hooves. Intense ammonia and hydrogen sulfide fumes from these pits fill pigs’ lungs and sensitive nostrils. No straw is provided to the animals because that would gum up the works (as it would if you tossed straw into your toilet).

You get the picture. I saw another email on how this sort of knowledge is affecting producers - in this case, in the dairy industry. The source was Dairy Line, a trade publisher for milk producers.

They are concerned that "well-funded activists" are raising questions about rBST, the synthetic growth hormone that pumps up milk production (and reduces the productive lifespan of cows). They blame the activists, but the fact is, consumers are voting for rBST-free milk with their wallets the more they hear about the issue.

As organic milk - which cannot be produced with synthetic hormones and antibiotics - has raised awareness on this issue, other non-organic milk companies have followed suit and are banning rBST (which is not approved for use in Europe).

The email goes onto state that "similar scenarios have developed in other arenas in recent months ... issues that affect poultry and pork production and 'We’re concerned dairy is coming under the same kind of attack,'" the email said.

As consumers learn more, production methods come under greater scrutiny and traditional agriculture feels the heat. It's happening across the food system.

Finally, transparency can effect decisions at the farm. Albert Straus, of California's Straus Family Creamery (an organic milk producer) decided to test his feed for GM contamination. According to Time magazine, he "was alarmed to find that nearly 6% of the organic corn feed he received from suppliers was "contaminated" by genetically modified (GM) organisms.

So Straus and five other natural food producers, including industry leader Whole Foods, announced last week that they would seek a new certification for their products, "non-GMO verified," in the hopes that it will become a voluntary industry standard for GM-free goods. A non-profit group called the Non-GMO Project runs the program, and the testing is conducted by an outside lab called Genetic ID. In a few weeks, Straus expects to become the first food manufacturer in the country to carry the label in addition to his "organic" one.

The bottom line: Transparency changes food production decisions. It is now having a measurable impact on what we eat.

Did an Organic Advisory Panel Punt on Cloning?

By Samuel Fromartz

That's the question we're asking and here's why.

The USDA's National Organic Program said in January (pdf) that a cloned animal cannot be organic. But it wanted a recommendation from its main citizen advisory panel on what to do about progeny - that is, the offspring of clones, which is the main way that clones will enter the food supply.

Rather than answer that question head on, however, it appears that the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) - the main citizen advisory panel to the USDA on organic food regulations - has sidestepped the issue.

The NOSB's livestock committee came out with a <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/nosb/CommitteeRecommendations/March_07_Meeting/Li
vestock/CloningRec.pdf">policy recommendation on cloning (pdf) that sounds, well, wishy washy when it comes to progeny. The document states:

The NOSB concurs with the NOP and believes that the existing federal organic rules prohibit animal cloning technology and all its products. To strengthen and clarify the existing rules, the NOSB recommends that the NOP amend the regulation to ensure animal cloning technology, and all products derived from such organisms be excluded from organic production.

So far so good. But then the next sentence reads:

Furthermore, the NOSB is very concerned with the issues involving the progeny of animals that are derived using cloning technology, and will work with the NOP on further rulemaking recommendations as issues are identified.

What we're wondering is why the NOSB didn't outright recommend that the progeny of clones be banned as well? Evidently, one NOSB board member was wondering the same thing in this 6-to-1 vote on the recommendation.

The dissenting vote (Kevin Engelbert) reflects a belief that the Livestock Committee should also recommend a rule change ... to prohibit livestock, progeny of livestock, reproductive materials, or any other products derived from animals produced using animal cloning technology (includes somatic cell nuclear transfer or other cloning methods) from being used as a source of organic livestock.

Reached by phone, Engelbert told me that the committee was concerned that there was no test on the market to identify progeny. He argued that the availability of a test should not be the benchmark by which to judge this technology. On principle, progency should be banned and farmers and certifiers should work toward that principle.

As the recommendation states: "If the FDA does not require clones to be tracked, consumers are very likely to turn to organic products, under the assumption that clones are not allowed in organic production."

We could not have said it better, which is why it's in the NOSB's interest to come out on a firm stand against the progeny of clones - just as it did with clones themselves. Comments on this issue can be made for the upcoming NOSB meeting in Washington, D.C., on March 27-29.

Mainstream Cooling on Organics

I've been contending for awhile that the push of organic food into the mainstream was not a slam dunk.

A lot of commentators last year worried about the impact of Wal-Mart getting into the organic market - both on standards and on supplies. But no one really considered what would happen if Wal-Mart's move into organics did not work out. That's a question to consider now, especially with a large potential ramp up in supplies. There are shortages now as products come on line but what happens if the "mainstream" customers don't show up? Will farmers get stuck with a lot of excess organic acreage ... and milk?

Choice quotes of mainstream food execs in a Reuters story:

"Wal-Mart asked everyone for organic (food). At the end of the day consumers buy benefits and it's not exactly clear what the benefits are from organic. They might end up being niche propositions."
- Alan Jope, Global Food Group Vice President at Unilever Plc

"It's not as rapid as Wal-Mart might have liked or as any of us might have liked, but it is definitely growing."
- Cindy Hennessy, senior vice president of innovation at Cadbury Americas beverages.

"We believe the natural market is the larger opportunity."
- Hormel CEO Jeffrey Ettinger

Note that "natural," as a term, is largely undefined by the USDA (applying only to "minimally processed" meat without artificial additives).

This story will continue to unfold in the coming months, as large companies adjust their expectations and demand, potentially, eases a bit.

- Samuel Fromartz

Organic "Power Brokers" Hit D.C.

We're outing the power lobbyists of organic farming!

But first a few questions.

Do they work on the famed "K St." corridor in Washington, D.C.? No. Are they on a first-name basis with senior lawmakers in Congress? No. Do they have a big Washington association behind them filled with former administration officials and congressmen? No. Do they stay at expensive hotels in town? No.

Actually, they're farmers who had to stay in a hotel way out in Maryland.

Left to right: Tony Azevedo, Double T Acres, Stevenson, Calif.; Kathie Arnold, Twin Oaks Dairy, Truxton, N.Y.; Maureen Knapp, Cobblestone Valley Farm, Preble, N.Y. all certified organic farmers.

As Azevedo says: "We go in the front door and get a nice reception but I imagaine that there's other people going in the back door."

Azevedo and others were in town suggesting that Congress allocate more money for organic farming in the current round of the farm bill -- at least to a level commensurate with its growing role in agriculture. The Modesto Bee had a good piece on the issue. The farmers seek

- a $50 million-a-year grant program to assist farmers in adopting organic practices (which would be a new program)

- $5 million annually to help farmers offset the cost of attaining organic certification (refunding an existing program now out of money). This is the only subsidy specifically for organic farmers, amounting to a grand total of $500 per farm, to offset the costs of organic certification.

- a $25 million-a-year organic farming research program (about double the level currently).

Right now organic food is about 3 percent of the food supply. So if it were to get 3 percent of the $2 billion USDA research budget, that figure would amount to $60 million. Azevedo and others don't think that will happen. They even worry that the $25 million they're seeking now is a long shot.

How much does organic research get now? About $12 million in total, according to Mark Lipson of the Organic Farming Research Foundation.

Quick Bite: Organic Dairy

'FOOD' FIGHT
A reader points out that we missed the significance in this item of the formation of a new lobbying group by organic dairy farmers, FOOD (Federation of Organic Dairy) Farmers. Not since the 1980s has a group of organic farmers come together in a national lobbying group.

With the growth of organics, more marginalized players in the 'organic coalition' are going to step up to have a more potent voice in policy. Until now, that voice has been largely represented by the Organic Trade Association, which includes food companies, retailers and consultants. But not all farmers have felt that the OTA represented their interests. Now, the organic dairy farmers - who have shown tremendous consensus on issues like the importance of grazing - are doing something about it.

Where is Organic USA?

The Organic Farming Reserach Foundation posted a nifty little map, showing the location of all certified organic operations in the United States. It also linked the data into Google Earth, so that you can zoom into your neighborhood. Not surprisingly, the majority of operations are concentrated on the West Coast, Upper Midwest, and Northeast. But these only refer to certified operations, so a tofu plant in Watsonville, California gets the same size dot as a 1,500-acre wheat farm in Montana.

A Local Foods Boom: A Few Facts

Whole Foods local produce sales in 2006: $163 million (1)

Percentage of WF's total produce sales that were local in 2006: 16.8 percent (1)

Percentage of WF's total produce sales that will be local in 2007: 20 percent (1)

Percentage of WF's total produce sales that will be local in 2010: 25 percent (1)

WF's total produce sales in 2006: $970 million (2)

Percentage of WF's total produce sales that were organic in 2006: 50 percent (3)

WF's total organic produce sales in 2006: $485 million (2)

Percentage of WF's sales that are fresh produce: 17 percent (2)

WF's total sales 2006: $5.6 billion (4)

WF's expected sales in 2010: $12 billion (1)

Estimated local produce sales at WF in 2010: $510 million (2)*

Estimated annual growth rate in WF's local produce sales until 2010: 33 percent

(1) Comments by CEO John Mackey at 2007 annual meeting, March 5, 2007
(2) My estimates extrapolating from Whole Foods data and projections
(3) Comments by Mackey
(4) Annual Report
*Assuming that $12 billion in sales will be reached, produce remains 17 percent of total sales, and local is 25 percent of all produce sales.

FOOD fight for Tougher Organic Rule

Organic dairy farmers, who for several years have been trying to get a tougher organic grazing regulation, formed a group last week to get this measure passed.

Organic dairy farmers from Maine to California met in LaCrosse, Wisconsin - home of the Organic Valley dairy co-op - on February 23rd and formed FOOD Farmers (Federation of Organic Dairy Farmers).

Why is this an issue? Because some larger-scale dairies have been loosely interpreting the requirement that livestock have "access to pasture." The regulation is so vague it allows some operations to feed their cows primarily on feedlots - not on pasture.

The group is pushing for a regulation for organic dairy animals to consume at least 30% of their food needs (dry matter intake) from pasture for the entire growing season, but for no less than 120 days. The USDA’s National Organic Program is currently in the process of more clearly defining the current standard that requires all ruminant animals, which includes dairy cows, to have access to pasture. "The addition of feed and time requirements will result in a verifiable nationwide standard unlike any other organic standard in the world," the group said.

Let's cut to the chase: this proposed regulation has been around since 2005, but the USDA has so far dragged its heels on implementing it. The vast majority of organic dairy farmers want it. Consumers support it. The only thing standing in the way is the regulatory machinery of the government.

So expect a FOOD fight to make it happen.

Considering Local in a World of Pesticides

By Samuel Fromartz

While you chew over the Time magazine cover story on local and organic foods, consider the latest report from the USDA on pesticide residues. The watchdogs over at Beyond Pesticides - an NGO long fighting against pesticides in our food supply, homes, workplaces and, yes, golf courses - reports on the latest pesticide data from the USDA.

Every year, the USDA grinds up food samples around the country and then measures the pesticide residues it finds. Beyond Pesticides looked over the Pesticide Data Report:

In fruits and vegetables, 73 percent of fresh and 61 percent of processed produce had detectable residues. Drinking water analyses primarily found widely used herbicides and their metabolites; forty-eight different residues were found in untreated intake water and 43 in treated water.

It doesn't end there. Sixteen percent of bottled water samples had pesticide residues. So did 22 percent of soybeans, 75 percent of wheat, 98 percent of apples and 99 percent of heavy cream.

Milk generally contains pesticide residues, primary DDE (the substance that DDT breaks down into when it is metabolized). Why does it show up in milk? Because long-lasting pesticides like DDT concentrate in fatty tissues. This is still the case, even though DDT has been banned since 1972. Since it exists in the soil, plants take it up and then it is consumed by cows. (The FDA, however, says these detectable levels do not pose a health risk). DDE was in 85 percent of milk samples, which is about the same level when the USDA last tested milk.

The PDP report, incidentally, is one of the data sets that Environmental Working Group relies upon to find the foods with the most pesticide residues. They take this data, crunch the numbers, and then come up with a list of the foods with the highest and lowest numbers. That way you can try to make an intelligent choice about what organic foods to buy if you can only afford a few items.

Studies show organic food has lower pesticide residues. A widely publicized study in 2002, looking at 94,000 food samples from 1994-1999, found that organic had about two-thirds less residues than conventional food. It would be interesting if this study were repeated, especially now that so much more food is available organically.

In light of this rather consistent body of data, I've argued elsewhere that the choice between local and organic is a false one: both are good choices for different reasons. And both are such a tiny fraction of the food supply that choosing between them is virtually meaningless.

Mackey-Pollan Smackdown Turns Love Fest

By Carmel Wroth

AMUSE-BOUCHE: Local, of course

The pre-event reception to the Michael Pollan-John Mackey discussion drew quite a crowd.

Hungry (and penniless) graduate students rubbed shoulders with well-heeled foodies, including superstar chef Alice Waters of Chez Panisse, nutritionist and best-selling author Marion Nestle, and Bill Niman, co-founder of Niman Ranch meats.

Of course you’re wondering what there was to eat.

Guests munched on goat cheese fritata, artisanal salami, and crostini, decked with green olive tapenade, warm hedgehog mushroom spread with fresh grated romano, and duck liver pate.

All locally sourced, naturally!

Conversation buzzed—everyone was excited to see the two food luminaries talk. Or maybe they were just pleased they had scored tickets (people were soliciting them on Craig’s List before the event.)

Whole Foods employees had come from far and wide to see their boss.

“John Mackey is cool,” said Elizabeth Wade, a team leader at the Petaluma, California, store.

David Evans, Marin Sun Farms’ owner, who sells his grass-fed meat locally (and not in Whole Foods), said he hoped the Pollan-Mackey conversation would shed light on how “small farms can access a bigger market without sacrificing integrity.”

Yes, indeed, the question of the night.

FIRST COURSE: History Lesson

To start things off, John Mackey - co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods - gave the crowd of nearly 2000 people a 45-minute food history lesson, complete with colorful Powerpoint slides.

He walked us through the entire history of food procurement and production. Six discreet stages of food history from hunting and gathering to Whole Foods Market!

Okay, that’s not entirely fair. Mackey believes that a new era of food is emerging to replace industrial agriculture--what he calls ecological agriculture--and naturally it’s bigger than Whole Foods.

He seems to think his company is the heart of the movement (it may well be), and he clearly articulated a vision for a sustainable alternative to industrial food.

He also broke some news (as he seems to do every time he appears with Pollan). Whole Foods has established a $30 million venture capital fund to make equity investments in artisanal food companies. This presumably comes on top of a $10 million fund set up for farmers last year.

Secondly, the company is launching a “Whole Trade Guarantee” fo the company’s commitment to source certified ethically traded products.

How can you be cynical about this man?

SECOND COURSE: Smack-down Letdown

As the dialogue got under way, there was a rustling of expectation in the audience. The provocative debate was about to begin, right?

After all, these were the two men who disagreed so strongly about whether the organic food business was lapsing into industrialism that they conducted a heated, months-long online argument. (See our previous post for links on the debate)

In person, though, they were almost painfully gentle with one another. They sparred, a little, I guess, but it was more like couple's counseling than a duel.

For starters, there were admissions of mutual gratitude and admiration. Mackey had learned from Pollan. Pollan appreciated Mackey.

The denouement came when Pollan asked Mackey if he blamed the company’s recent stock devaluation on his less than flattering chapter on the Whole Foods. It went like this:

“Well you probably cost us about $2 billion,” said the natural foods tycoon. “Easy come, easy go.”

(Audience laughs)

“Seriously???” (Culinary poet laureate grimaces painfully).

Mackey described how a flurry of unflattering press followed the book, including frequent comparisons to Wal-Mart.

Pollan looked contrite.

Mackey melted: “Aw, I’m just pulling your chain a little bit, Michael!”

What are righteous eco-consumers to make of this not-so-spirited interchange? If you want to see a debate, as one audience member suggested, invite people who are really on opposing sides of an issue.

Pollan and Mackey originally did have their differences, but when Pollan came up with his eloquent critique, Mackey moved rapidly to turn Whole Foods' sustainable battleship in line with Pollan’s vision—or to emphasize the ways it already was already doing so (sourcing more local foods in stores and moving forward with supporting domestic grass-fed meat, for example).

Pollan, for his part, politely closed ranks with perhaps the most influential man in organic and natural food circles, which is, you'll recall, the alternative to 98 percent of the food supply.

Mackey had his own criticism of Pollan, saying “big organic” is not as big and bad as the author claimed.

“You exaggerated the extent of industrialization of organic,” he said, even adding his most contentious comment, “you’ve done some damage!”

Pollan said he “didn’t intend to demonize” big organic. Organic Coca-Cola would be fine by him. (Say what?)

Which leads us back to a fundamental question raised by the evening's discussion, can organic scale up without selling out? Is there a way to produce and distribute enough organic food to reach the vast majority of the population, or will organic food remain in its gilded 2 percent niche?

DESSERT: A challenge

With all these weighty issues on our minds, Mackey asked one last question.

“What is your contribution going to be? What are you going to do to support ecological agriculture?”

Other than shopping at Whole Foods and the farmers' market? We're still pondering that one.

(The Webcast of the event is archived here)

Tailgate Party: Mackey Comments Pre-Debate

John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, made a guest appearance in Michael Pollan’s graduate level journalism class on food issues, hours before their much-anticipated discussion.

We got an inside-the-classroom look at Mackey from a new contributor, Carmel Wroth.

Pollan had cautioned the class against being too aggressive, but maybe it wasn't needed.

There was something about Mackey that makes you want to be on his side. He's so optimistic you get swept up in his good vibes and forward-looking energy. He even challenged the students to take on the mission of expanding the organic food movement beyond the 2 percent of food sales that his generation has managed to carve out.

Through a winding conversation, Mackey never let go of his theme: that natural and organic foods are in the early stages of evolution, but with imagination, faith and the entrepreneurial spirit, it can and will grow.

The subtext wasn’t hard to discern either—Whole Foods is the leader of that evolution, and deserves admiration, not criticism.

Mackey described his company’s plans to keep pushing natural foods forward, including their embrace the “Fair Trade” and “Rainforest Alliance” labels (both focusing on sustainability in the Third World) and their new “Animal Compassion Standards” which he hopes will eventually be adopted industry-wide.

In his all-embracing stance, he was quick to try to find common ground with local food supporters, like Pollan. He called it a “waste of time to have these arguments between local and organic” when both are such small niches.

He predicted a future when local agriculture would be in such a resurgence that there would be no need to fly in fresh produce from international markets (such as the much-maligned mushy asparagus Pollan described in his book The Omnivore's Dilemma). The only globally sourced goods would be things that can’t be grown locally like coffee and bananas.

Yet, somehow all the think-positive talk seemed to be blowing smoke over the very real challenges of scaling up the organic movement without betraying its ideals, or the small farmers once at its heart. Mackey simply brushed aside concerns that scaled-up large, organic farms are likely to be less in line with organic and ecological principles.

Humm ... We'll see how Mackey's positive mojo plays with the Berkeley crowd later this evening.

- Carmel Wroth