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.

An Organic Vegan Twinkie Arrives

This publicity stunt was so good you could taste it.

Author Steve Ettlinger held a book launch party in New York City Thursday night to celebrate publication of Twinkie, Deconstructed: My Journey to Discover How the Ingredients Found in Processed Foods Are Grown, Mined (Yes, Mined), and Manipulated into What America Eats.

During the party at McNally Robinson bookstore in Soho, various Twinkies were offered up for taste tests. There was a "gourmet" Twinkie from Nancy Olson of New York's Gramercy Tavern, an organic-vegan Twinkie by celebrated vegan dessert chef Fran Costigan, and commercial varieties including the Hostess originals, Little Debbie’s Golden Cremes, and Lady Linda Original Crème Fingers.

So which rated the most stars?

Organic vegan Twinkie, photo by Linda Long

"Well, within 45 minutes, the organic-vegan and gourmet versions were gone," says Marci Harnischfeger, our reporter on the scene. "In fact, patrons were plucking them so fast, trays were empty before servers could set them on the table. The commercial varieties seemed to be a hit too, especially with the ‘tweens who could be seen holding boxes of them under their arms and stuffing their faces."

Her favorite - the organic-vegan Twinkie.

Here's her take on it:

"It's much less sweet-tasting than the original, but still retained the ‘mmmm’ factor when it hit my mouth. Nutty, toasted, almost raisiny flavored cake with a cool and refreshing cream filling that left no aftertaste. It was reminiscent of a Twinkie, yet not an exact replica-an aspect I quite enjoyed," she said.

The vegan Twinkie was made with organic ingredients including white and whole wheat pastry flours, maple syrup, and expeller-pressed canola oil; the vegan pastry cream consisted of tofu, agave syrup (a sweetener), almond and vanilla extract, arrowroot (a thickener) and agar (a gel). Costigan plans to have the recipe available soon and when she does, we'll post it.

Ettlinger preferred the Gramercy Park Twinkie, describing it as “refreshing.” He said he could “taste butter” and pronounced it “sweet not overwhelming.” Plus, it left “zero film on the teeth." In short, it was exactly what it was supposed to be: “a treat."

Although Ettlinger described himself as a "whole foods" type before he began this book project, he ate Twinkies at various stages of investigating what went into the product. This hunt took him from phosphate mines in Idaho to corn fields in Iowa, from gypsum mines in Oklahoma to oil fields in China, in the process, "demystifying some of America’s most common processed food ingredients—where they come from, how they are made, how they are used—and why," as his web site puts it.

On his Twinkie-eating journey, he said the flavors of oil, polysorbate 60, and the cellulose gum particularly stood out. We wonder if they might have a certain terroir?

By the way, Ettliinger also posted this interesting nexus of ingredients in a Twinkie.

What's in Your Water?

The Environmental Working Group is launching a new study to see what's in bottled water. But first, it needs to build a database. They've set up a link to compile this info from bottled water drinkers, asking:

• What brand?
• Where did you purchase it?
• How much did you pay?
• What type of container?

Considering their work on other issues like pesticide residues, the results should be interesting.

Mexico Halts US Rice at Border

Mexico this week temporarily stopped shipments of U.S. rice at the border and asked that future loads be certified "GMO Free," according to Dow Jones (subscription required). Two shipments were held up at the border, although they were eventually released and allowed to enter Mexico after the USDA intervened.

The USDA last week told rice farmers not to plant a variety of conventional rice that was contaminated with unapproved genetically modified material. Previous cases of contamination have shut down U.S. rice exports to other nations.

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.

Tracking Spinach in Space

The conventional produce industry is taking a number of steps to restore confidence after the e. coli outbreak last year, including (finally!) tracking produce from the field.

According to this Wall Street Journal story (subscription required)

Dole Food Co., the world's largest producer of fresh vegetables, recently started using radio-frequency identification tags to track leafy greens as they move from fields to trucks and through processing facilities. The system will allow Dole, whose bagged spinach was implicated in the September E. coli outbreak that killed three people and sickened more than 200, to trace contaminated produce not only to a particular farm, but also to a specific part of a field, says Eric Schwartz, president of Dole fresh vegetables.

At the same time, Western Growers, whose members grow, pack and ship half of the nation's fresh produce, is helping develop a global-positioning system enabling growers to track their goods through the supply chain. In addition, many big produce buyers are spelling out how growers should monitor their farms for possible sources of contamination, including wild hogs and deer, flooding and polluted irrigation water -- and insisting on guarantees that the directions are followed.

Here's why the industry's taking such steps.

"Because of the problem with record keeping, we are not able to trace back to a single location," says Jack Guzewich, director of emergency coordination and response at the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. "We end up with multiple locations, multiple farms. And we have to visit them all."

In the organic food industry, at least, tracking back to the field has been required since regulations took effect in 2002.

Meanwhile, the FDA issued non-binding guidelines on the produce industry to address the e. coli outbreaks.  The Times reported Tuesday:

The F.D.A. is suggesting that the fresh-cut produce industry constantly monitor and control vulnerable places in the production cycle where the bacteria are likely to form.

The guidelines also call for record keeping for recalls and covers personal health and hygiene of workers and sanitation operations.

As the Times noted, the FDA guidelines - which lack any teeth - are lagging behind what the industry is already doing.

Ethicurean Digestive

The Ethicurean daily news summary of food stories has quickly become - on this screen at least - a must read. My only complaint: why weren't you doing this when I was writing my book?
- Samuel Fromartz

Chewy Tip: Fiber on the Cheap

Chews Wise welcoms Marci Harnischfeger, a graduate student in nutrition at New York University, as a contributor.

By Marci Harnischfeger

You might think nutritious foods are costly, but I say, nonsense. Nutritious foods can be cheap, you just have to know where to find them.

Take fiber for instance. Fiber's one of the first things to go when foods are manufactured, but it keeps our intestinal tracts healthy and helps lower cholesterol and maintain a healthy weight. It may even contain other beneficial nutrients that have yet to be discovered.

Most Americans do not come close to meeting their daily recommended 20-25 grams of fiber for women and 30-38 grams of fiber for men, though. Switching to whole grain versions of your favorite starches such as whole wheat bread and brown rice and getting five servings of fruits and vegetables per day are great ways to help meet your fiber needs.

Here's other cheap and easy ways to increase fiber in your diet:

Oatmeal. Perhaps you have seen all the claims. Add oatmeal to your diet and reduce your cholesterol. Well, for many this has been shown to be true. Unfortunately, though, lots of the oatmeal packets on the market tend to have added salt and sugars.

Suggestion: Try oatmeal in a container. You have probably seen it. Tucked away high on the shelf. Using plain rolled oats allows you to control what goes into your bowl. Did you know the preparation directions are the same? Just measure into a bowl, add water, and cook on the stove or microwave. After a few days, you will be able to eyeball the right amounts.

Pennies Saved: Oatmeal in a container is half the price per serving of oatmeal in a packet. If you go to a natural foods store that sells oatmeal in bulk, you'll save even more, by avoiding paying for packaging. Use that money to purchase an apple and chop half of it into the bowl before cooking. Add a dash of cinnamon and enjoy.

Beans: Cannelloni, pinto, black, kidney. Starchy beans are a great way to add fiber into your diet. Unfortunately, with dried beans, you need to plan ahead to soak and cook them. Further, most restaurant beans are loaded with added fats and sodium.

Suggestion: Canned beans. These nuggets are precooked and pack all the same health benefits as dry ones minus all the prep. Rinse your beans in a colander to remove the starchy build up our intestinal bacteria love to eat. This will also help reduce any sodium or other brining solution used during canning and, more importantly, should significantly reduce the gas factor. Throw them on top of ready-made salads, exchange them with meat in recipes, add them to your favorite whole wheat pasta dish, etc.

Pennies Saved: By exchanging beans for meat in a few recipes during the week, you can cut the cost by about two-thirds or more. Plus, canned beans are shelf stable, so they don’t spoil and can be ready to go any time.

Popcorn: Popcorn has roughly three to four times more fiber than potato chips. For people without dental problems or diverticulosis (an intestinal disorder), popcorn can be a satisfying, low calorie snack. Unfortunately, many microwave popcorn bags tend to be loaded with added fats and sodium.

Suggestion: Make your own microwave popcorn.

- Take a brown paper lunch sack and fill the bottom with one layer of popcorn kernels
- Add a drizzle of canola, olive, or vegetable oil (roughly 1 TBSP) and a shake or two of salt if desired
- Fold the top of the bag over twice to make a tight seal and leaving room for the kernals to pop
- Shake well
- Lay popcorn bag on its side in the microwave
- Set the timer for a short 1-2 minutes (if you smell popcorn, take the bag out to avoid burning)
- Open bag carefully to avoid the steam and enjoy.

Pennies Saved: Conventional microwave popcorn is about a buck a bag. Microwave popcorn using the method above costs about 10 cents.

Making these simple changes will not only boost your fiber intake, but allow you to use your ‘pennies saved’ to buy other nutritious foods, or organic versions of the products. You can even spend it on produce from your local farmer.

Remember: Make one change at a time to allow your body time to adjust to the fiber increase. And drink plenty of water to help flush everything through.

Eat GM Rice, But Don't Grow It

You can eat unapproved genetically modified rice, but don't try to grow it.

So says the USDA, according to a story from Dow Jones reporter Bill Tomson published Monday (subscription required).

The USDA banned planting of Clearfield CL131 rice that was apparently contaminated by an unapproved strain of genetically modified rice. The ban applies to seeds produced in 2005-2007.

Now the USDA is moving toward a food safety assessment for the unapproved rice. "We're still coordinating with the (Food and Drug Administration) to get some sort of determination ... on safety," USDA Under Secretary Bruce Knight said.

In the meantime, there's no prohibition on allowing grain from those seeds into the food supply.

Thomas Sim, a director at USDA's Biotechnology Regulatory Services, told Dow Jones any material "not intended for seed" and "in the channels to be milled" will not be affected by the ban. The rice produced last year from Clearfield CL131 seeds is not distinguishable at the mills.

GMO Seed Sales Halted

A federal judge Monday threw out the USDA's approval of genetically engineered alfalfa and issued a temporary injunction to halt sales of the seed.

The unprecedented ruling follows a hearing last week in the case brought by the Center for Food Safety against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for approving GE alfalfa without conducting the required Environmental Impact Statement.

While Monsanto and its allies claimed that delaying the sale or planting of their GE seed would harm farmers, the judge found otherwise. “Disappointment in the delay to their switch to Roundup Ready alfalfa is not an interest which outweighs the potential environmental harm…” posed by the GE crop, he wrote.

The LA Times reports:

The seeds ... are now in their second season of use. Such genetically engineered seeds are grown in 200,000 of the nation's 23 million acres of alfalfa, widely grown for hay and animal grazing.

The seeds were re-engineered so that alfalfa plants can resist the ill effects of another Monsanto product, a widely used herbicide known by the trade name of Roundup. As a result, some farmers say, they can get greater crop yield and better quality alfalfa.

California is the nation's No. 1 alfalfa producer with about 1 million acres under cultivation. The state's 2004 harvest was worth $853 million.

The ban will remain in effect until the judge considers lifting it or making it permanent. Monsanto is banking on increasing the acreage by convincing federal Judge Charles R. Breyer at an April hearing that farmers can use so-called Roundup Ready alfalfa seeds without contaminating neighboring fields.

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.

The Little-Known (Non-GMO) Rice Mutant

As you probably know, if you've been reading the news or this blog, rice farmers have been scrambling to find seed that's not contaminated with traces of genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant rice. (The Washington Post looked at the issue Sunday).

There's a curious fact about the current debacle that you probably haven't heard, though, perhaps because journalists don't want to confuse their readers. You know that popular "conventional" variety in which traces of genetic engineering were most recently found? Clearfield 131? Well, it's also a herbicide-tolerant line of rice. It contains a genetic mutation that allows it to tolerate doses of certain chemical herbicides. Scientists created that genetic change by soaking rice in mutation-inducing chemicals. Similar "Clearfield" varieties have been on the market for years, and nobody outside the rice industry paid much attention.

There's really no difference in the potential risks posed by these two kinds of herbicide-tolerance -- one created through genetic engineering and one created by mutation-causing chemicals. So why is one kind exempt from public scrutiny and government regulation, while the other kind sets off trade embargoes? Probably because genetic engineering, unlike chemical mutagenesis, arrived on the scene full of hype and hubris, promising a new creation. Those grand ambitions, as much as anything, provoked the anti-GMO backlash.

- Dan Charles