News archive: June 2007

A major British supermarket has dropped Prince Charles as a vegetable suppliers because it says his produce did not meet the right standards. They also dropped fresh produce from Patrick Holden’s farm, the Director of the Soil Association, the UK’s main organic food and farming organization.

The move has prompted Patrick Holden to accuse leading supermarkets of being so centralized and industrialized that they cannot deliver the local organic food their customers want.

Mr Holden said he believes that he and Prince Charles have become victims of the supermarket system’s industrial processes and imposed food miles. They were sacked as suppliers of carrots to Sainsbury’s at the end of January, 2007.

He and the Prince had been forced to truck their vegetables hundreds of miles from their farms to a centralized packing house in East Anglia before they were sent back to be sold in Sainsbury’s stores local to their area.

Mr Holden believes his vegetables were of the highest quality when harvested, but the combined effects of long-distance transport, handling to create large enough batches for the machines that wash and polish the vegetables and further storing after processing to create large enough batches for packing left the vegetables damaged and prone to rot.

The system also resulted in a crop that had been grown for low environmental impact acquiring a greater carbon footprint than conventional carrots grown on an industrial scale, according to Mr Holden. Up to half the crop from the two farms was being rejected in the grading for cosmetic appearance and quality.

Mr Holden said he had decided to speak out because his case was typical. “Everyone who has supplied a supermarket own label will have a story similar to mine to tell but most daren’t tell it for fear of being delisted. This is not confined to one supermarket. It is the unintentional consequence of the centralised supermarket distribution system.”

Sainsbury’s acknowledges that dealing with small suppliers is difficult for big supermarkets, but says it works successfully with others and is willing to try to find a solution to the problems of its highest profile organic farmers. It said its overriding concern had to be the quality of the food it sold.

by Felicity Lawrence for The Guardian, UK.

EU acceptance of GE contamination in all crops, gives New Zealand a real opportunity and point of difference in the world as a GE Free crop producer, according to The Soil & Health Association, New Zealand.

In Brussels on Tuesday, EU Ministers at the Agriculture Council decided to allow contamination of organic food with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The Ministers adopted a new law, which allows organic food containing up to 0.9 percent ‘adventitious or technically unavoidable’ GMO content to be classed and labeled as organic.

“New Zealand has zero tolerance to genetically engineered (GE) contamination and with organic food the worlds fastest food sector growth area, there are fantastic opportunities here for both genuine GE Free organic and conventional growers”, said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. “BioGro organic certification standards for example would not tolerate GE contamination, and some British supermarkets are already demanding BioGro. EU consumers do not want GE either.”

“The European Parliament and environmental groups had called for the threshold of contamination of organic food to be 0.1 percent, which is the lowest level at which genetically modified organisms can be technically detected, but due to our increasingly stringent biosecurity and unique geographical isolation, New Zealand’s zero tolerance need not be altered”, said spokesperson Browning.

“Our special position with only limited field trials, that can quickly be eradicated, has to be one of the best opportunities yet for sustainable economic development, with the added bonus of addressing food miles and other environmental trade barriers. Nuclear Free, GE Free & Zero Tolerance, Clean & Green, 100% Pure, BioGro, are winners, not contamination”

“Crop and Food are likely to apply for a further field trial including onions, garlic and leeks this year, but with a likely legal challenge to the recent ERMA decision allowing a GE Brassica field trial, that may be in doubt, leaving just one pathetic GE onion trial to be ripped out, for New Zealand horticulture to be genuinely GE Free.”

“With the onions gone, removing the equally pathetic field trial of GE trees and 200 GE cattle, would allow New Zealand primary producers to walk a very tall GE Free in the world, just as the community has wanted in survey after survey,” said spokesperson Browning.

“A GE Free and Organic 2020, with economic and sustainability benefits, is a far better picture than the contaminated environment that is being hoisted on Europe, and already exists across many parts of the globe.”

Under pressure from The USA, the European governing body has decided to allow a huge amount of genetic modification to enter the organic food chain. Organic foods in Europe can be labeled “GM-free” even if they contain up to 0.9% genetically modified content, European agriculture ministers decided yesterday.

Europe’s agriculture ministers have agreed on a compulsory logo for organic food as new figures showed more and more farmers are switching to the production method in response to consumer demand. The logo will be applied to foods meeting common standards across the European Union from 2009. However, some producers say these standards have been set too low as they permit genetically modified material that accidentally enters the food chain. To be classed as organic, food must contain 95 per cent organic ingredients but can contain up to 0.9 per cent GMOs, to allow for cross-contamination from other crops.

Francis Blake, Soil Association Standards and Technical Director, is quoted, “They have shifted the responsibility and cost of compliance from the makers of biotech crops to organic producers.”

UK Conservative Food and Farming spokesman Peter Ainworth said, “The EU’s plans to allow nearly one per cent GM contamination to go unacknowledged are shocking”

The USDA is considering relaxing legal standards again for organic foods in America. It has drawn up a list of 38 nonorganic spices, colorings and other ingredients that would be allowed in products it legally defines as ‘organic.’

With the “USDA organic” seal stamped on its label, Anheuser-Busch calls its Wild Hop Lager “the perfect organic experience.”

“In today’s world of artificial flavors, preservatives and factory farming, knowing what goes into what you eat and drink can just about drive you crazy,” the Wild Hop website says. “That’s why we have decided to go back to basics and do things the way they were meant to be … naturally.”

But many beer drinkers may not know that Anheuser-Busch has the organic blessing from federal regulators even though Wild Hop Lager uses hops grown with chemical fertilizers and sprayed with pesticides.

A deadline of midnight Friday to come up with a new list of nonorganic ingredients allowed in USDA-certified organic products passed without action from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, leaving uncertain whether some foods currently labeled “USDA organic” would continue to be produced.

The agency is considering a list of 38 nonorganic ingredients that will be permitted in organic foods. Because of the broad uses of these ingredients — as colorings and flavorings, for example — almost any type of manufactured organic food could be affected, including cereal, sausage, bread and beer.

Organic food advocates have fought to block approval of some or all of the proposed ingredients, saying consumers would be misled.

“This proposal is blatant catering to powerful industry players who want the benefits of labeling their products ‘USDA organic’ without doing the work to source organic materials,” said Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the Organic Consumers Association. of Finland, Minnesota, a nonprofit group that boasts 850,000 members.

USDA spokeswoman Joan Shaffer declined to comment on the plan.

Food manufacturers said this week that they were hoping the agency would approve the rules by Friday to continue labeling their products as organic.

A federal judge had given the USDA until midnight Friday to name the nonorganic ingredients it would allow in organic foods, but the agency did not release its final list by the end of the day.

“They probably don’t know what to do” Cummins said. “On the other hand, it’s hard to believe they’re going to make people change their labels, although that’s what they should do.”

Demand for organic food in the U.S. is booming as consumers seek products that are more healthful and friendlier to the environment. Sales have more than doubled in the last five years, reaching $16.9 billion last year, according to the Organic Trade Association in Greenfield, Massachusetts, which represents small and large food producers.

But with big companies entering what was formerly a mom-and-pop industry, new questions have arisen about what exactly goes into organic food. For food to be called organic, it must be grown without chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Animals must be raised without antibiotics and growth hormones and given some access to the outdoors.

Many nonorganic ingredients, including hops, are already being used in organic products, thanks to a USDA interpretation of the Organic Foods Protection Act of 1990. In 2005, a federal judge disagreed with how the USDA was applying the law and gave the agency two years to revise its rules.

Organic food supporters had hoped that the USDA would allow only a small number of substances, but were dismayed last month when the agency released the proposed list of 38 ingredients.

“Adding 38 new ingredients is not just a concession by the USDA, it is a major blow to the organic movement in the U.S. because it would erode consumer confidence in organic standards,” said Carl Chamberlain, a research assistant with the Pesticide Education Project in Raleigh, N.C.

In addition to hops, the list includes 19 food colorings, two starches, casings for sausages and hot dogs, fish oil, chipotle chili pepper, gelatin and a host of obscure ingredients (one, for instance, is a “bulking agent” and sweetener with the tongue-twisting name of fructooligosaccharides).

Under the agency’s proposal, as much as 5% of a food product could be made with these ingredients and still get the “USDA organic” seal. Hops, though a major component of beer’s flavor, are less than 5% of the final product because the beverage is mostly water.

Sales of organic beer, though still a small portion of total beer sales, have been growing even faster than overall organic food sales. They reached $19 million in 2005, a 40% increase over the previous year (2006 figures are not yet available).

Trying to get a share of the market for green products, Anheuser-Busch introduced two organic beers in September, and soon pitched them in fliers to wholesalers.

“Environmentally conscious consumers are looking for certified organic products, including beer, the fastest-growing organic beverage,” the pitch said. “Capitalize on this growing market with Wild Hop Lager and Stone Mill Pale Ale.”

But while the two beers use 100% organic barley malt, less than 10% of the hops they use is organic. Hops are conelike flowers that grow on vines and impart a bitter taste on beer to offset the sweetness of malts.

Anheuser-Busch said it simply couldn’t find enough organic hops.

“There currently is only a small supply of organically grown hops available for purchase by brewers, and we purchased all we could for brewing these beers,” said Doug Muhleman, vice president of brewing operations for Anheuser-Busch Inc.

But that argument doesn’t wash with Russell Klisch, owner of Milwaukee’s Lakefront Brewery, which has been producing beer with 100% organic hops since 1996.

“If we can do it, we think Anheuser-Busch, the world’s largest beer producer with virtually unlimited resources, should be able to follow our example,” he said.

Klisch said there were enough organic hops to satisfy 90% of the current organic beer demand in the U.S., but some brewers were put off by their higher price.

There are no organic hops commercially grown in the U.S.; most come from New Zealand, Britain and Germany. But Klisch has recently contracted with two Wisconsin farmers to grow some on their land. He doesn’t understand why large brewers can’t do the same.

“You’re telling me that Anheuser-Busch can’t find a little plot of ground somewhere to grow organic hops?” he said.

In addition to hops, two other items on the USDA list have attracted particular attention: casings for sausages and hot dogs, and fish oil.

Casings are the intestines of cows, pigs or sheep, which have been used for centuries to wrap meat into sausages and frankfurters.

Although the casings are a tiny portion of the overall sausage, organic purists object to eating anything from animals that are raised on conventional farms, where livestock may be housed in tight quarters and given antibiotics and growth hormones. Further, they note that the USDA’s food safety division has identified cow intestines as a possible source of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease.

But the USDA has already banned part of the cow’s small intestines for human consumption because of the risk of mad cow disease. Barbara Negron, president of the North American Natural Casing Association in New York, said casings were safe to eat.

“It’s a very safe, clean and natural product,” she said. “It’s not an organic product. It’s a natural product.”

It’s very difficult to maintain pure organic eating habits, Negron added, “unless you want to lock yourself up and only raise your own food.”

Fish oil’s presence on the USDA list has drawn objections because it could carry high levels of heavy metals and other contaminants, said Jim Riddle, a former member of the National Organic Standards Board. But fish oil producers said such contaminants could be screened out through proper processing.

The USDA rules come with what appears to be an important consumer protection: Manufacturers can use nonorganic ingredients only if organic versions are not “commercially available.”

But food makers have found a way around this barrier, in part because the USDA doesn’t enforce the rule directly. Instead, it depends on its certifying agents — 96 licensed organizations in the U.S. and overseas — to decide for themselves what it means for a product to be available in organic form.

Despite years of discussion, the USDA has yet to provide certifiers with standardized guidelines for enforcing this rule.

“There is no effective mechanism for identifying a lack of organic ingredients,” complained executives of Pennsylvania Certified Organic, a nonprofit certifying agent, in a letter to the USDA. “It is a very challenging task to ‘prove a negative’ regarding the organic supply.”

Large companies have a better chance of winning approval to use nonorganic ingredients because the amount they demand can exceed the small supply of organic equivalents, said Craig Minowa, environmental scientist for the Organic Consumers Association.

By Scott J. Wilson, LA Times, June 9, 2007