Pennsylvania's Milk Cover-Up

By Samuel Fromartz

If one trend has been clear in recent years it's the desire by consumers to know where their food comes from and how it's produced.

Product labels – whether organic, local, or produced without antibiotics and hormones – provide a way for consumers to get that information and make a choice.

So why is Pennsylvania swimming against the tide? Late last month, the state Department of Agriculture told 19 dairies that they cannot use language such as "Our farmers’ pledge: no artificial growth hormones," or "From cows not treated with the growth hormone rBST," starting January 1, 2008.

Ohio, New Jersey and Indiana are reportedly mulling similar restrictions. If this occurs, consumers will be denied the right to choose the milk they want and farmers banned from describing their practices.

Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff said the action was promoted by concerns among "consumer groups," farmers and processors, though the action was entirely in line with the policy position of Monsanto, which makes synthetic bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST).

Surveys clearly show consumers desire more transparency — not less — on milk labels. Lake Research Partners found 80 percent of consumers supported the labeling of rBGH-free milk products. The Natural Marketing Institute found that 53 percent of shoppers look for dairy products free of artificial hormones. And Opinion Research found 81 percent of respondents would prefer to buy dairy products derived from cows that do not receive synthetic hormones, assuming little or no pricing difference.

Critics and scientists have raised questions about a possible link between rBGH and a cancer-promoting hormone in humans -- a link denied by Monsanto and other scientists. What is known is that the drug does increase the risk of animal illness, though it also boosts milk production by about 10 percent, which is the reason it is used. Although the Food and Drug Administration approved rBGH in 1993, it has been banned in the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

Wolff argues that since the synthetic bovine growth hormones are indistinguishable from naturally occurring hormones and cannot be detected in milk a label that indicates their absence would be impossible to verify. All milk is also tested to be free of antibiotics, so there's no reason to label their absence either.

But Pennsylvania's action also limits statements about production practices, making it impossible for consumers to identify producers who follow a regime they agree with. Starting in January, a farmer cannot say on a milk label, "I don't use rBGH or antibiotics on my farm" – even though this statement may be factually correct.

Such production claims can be verified. Inspections are required by law for organic farms, for example. Conventional milk producers can issue legal affidavits about their practices under penalty of fraud. But Pennsylvania closed off this avenue by saying that such affidavits were now unacceptable as a basis for label claims.

Organic milk companies have not been exempt from the action. Aurora Organic Dairy and Horizon Organic have gotten letters from the state.

This whole debate isn't new, but it has gained steam as national companies sought out milk produced without rBGH and crimped Monsanto's market for the drug. Dean Foods, the largest milk processor in the nation, has switched some plants to rBGH free milk production. Starbucks, Safeway, and Kroger are going that way too; Chipotle Mexican Grill also plans to convert its entire cheese supply by the end of the year. Many natural food stores have long sold milk produced without synthetic hormones.

By stating they avoid milk produced with rBGH, these companies are following federal directives on the matter. As early as 1994, when the Food and Drug Administration approved Monsanto’s synthetic growth hormone, the FDA allowed production claims, such as "from cows not treated with rBST."

For the past several years, Monsanto has sought to limit these absence claims because they believe they disparage competing milk. In 2003, it sued Oakhurst Dairy in Maine over a label statement that read, "Our farmers' pledge: no artificial growth hormones." The suit was settled out of court, when Oakhurst added the qualifying language: "FDA states: No significant difference in milk from cows treated with artificial growth hormone."

Last year, Monsanto appealed to the FDA to review the approved label wording for rBGH and also sought action from the Federal Trade Commission regarding advertising of rBGH free milk.

The FDA declined to act, noting that it would only intervene in cases where fraudulent claims – as opposed to product descriptions – were made on the milk label. In dismissing Monsanto's complaint, the FTC also found no instance where a national company made false claims about rBST.

Having failed to limit the label in the federal arena, it now appears Monsanto is lobbying state governments to cover up the labels and reduce consumer choice.

Pennsylvania was the first to fall. If other states follow, consumer choice and a farmer's right to free speech will be dealt a blow.

But consumer groups, farmer organizations and milk processors are fighting back, first off with a letter writing campaign to the governor. Expect more action ahead.

First, It Was Organic v. Local

Now it's Organic v. Fair Trade. William G. Moseley points out in the San Francisco Chronicle that tensions are growing acute between these two movements, spurred out by the demand for local food. (Via Lainie's awesome Organic Confidential blog).

If local is the new organic, and demand for imported organic food drops off, then African farmers who depend on organic export markets will have no alternative but to produce conventionally grown food for export. Local activists respond that these farmers should focus on local markets in Africa, but Moseley says they've already done that.

Many farmers in the poorest of African nations - where I do my research - already supply local markets with their grains and produce. While not formally recognized as such, these markets are virtually organic because most poor African farmers restrict pesticide use to traditional export crops such as cotton, cacao and coffee, while local foodstuffs are grown with few or no chemical inputs.

If the local food movements in Europe and North America reduce their demand for organic and fair trade products from afar, the most likely consequence is that African farmers who have entered these niche markets will return to producing their export crops in the conventional, pesticide-intensive manner. While local food markets can provide some income for these farmers, they still are reliant on export opportunities for the bulk of their cash income.

Food miles gives a one-dimensional view of socially responsible food production, though the reality is more complicated. The Soil Association tried to tackle this issue by seeking a fair trade designation for any air shipments of organic food -- a noble step, but one which might still limit these markets.

The question I had after reading Moseley's piece was whether some, all or most exports actually create cash for farmers, or whether these markets follow the plantation model and siphon cash out of the local economy. Again, I would think the answer is not simple.
 

Back From Tahiti!

I wish. Actually I've been up to my eyeballs in other projects. Still, a few things have caught my attention, such as the dictatorial decision by Pennsylvania to ban certain milk labels describing hormone- and antibiotic-free production practices. A flurry of reports have appeared here and here and here. I'm looking into it and hope to post more soon.

Is Organic Better?

Well, researchers on a four-year European Community-funded study think so.

Preliminary results of the $26 million study, conducted at Newcastle University in the UK, found that organic fruit and vegetables contained up to 40 percent more antioxidants. These compounds are thought to play a role in warding off cancer and heart disease. Organic milk contained up to 60 to 80 percent more antioxidants than conventionally produced milk in the summer, and 50 to 60 percent higher levels in the winter. Organic milk also was found to contain higher levels of vitamin E.

The primary researcher, professor Carlo Leifert, said the figures were so dramatic that they would the equivalent of eating an extra portion of fruit and vegetables every day.

The study is in line with others at the University of California Davis, which found higher levels of antioxidents in organic tomatoes. Harold McGee explains that organic crops rely on these substances to ward off pests and diseases in the absence of chemical treatments.

In the Newcastle study, the crops and livestock are raised at a research farm. Details on the work, including several videos, can be found at the researchers' web site.

- Samuel Fromartz

The British Are Coming...

Britain's Tesco, the world's third-largest supermarket chain, raised $2 billion in debt for its Fresh and Easy grocery stores in the United States -- aiming to open three per week. Citigroup analysts said Tesco's U.S.launch could "potentially go down as a genuine turning point in the industry, possibly comparable with Wal-Mart's decision to start opening Supercenters in the 1980s."

The Economist earlier this year said: "If Tesco gambles small and wins, competitors will have time to copy it before it reaches critical mass. Placing a big bet is more dangerous, but it may be the best way to exploit a model that can be scaled up rapidly into thousands of stores across a market." Check out the Economist article for more details about the venture.

In UK, Air-Freighted Organic To Be Fair Trade

By Samuel Fromartz

In a significant decision for global organic food markets, Britain's Soil Association, the nation's premier certification body, has decided to continue certifying air-freighted organic food so long as the products meet ethical standards.

This would bring a "fair trade" designation to organic food, balancing the benefits of trade in developing countries with concerns about rising carbon emissions. "The association rejected calls from the public, environmentalists and some of its own producers for a ban on all air-freighted organic food, deciding this would penalize many poor countries which benefit in terms of jobs and wages from growing organic food for British consumers," the Guardian newspaper reported.

"It is neither sustainable nor responsible to encourage poorer farmers to be reliant on air freight but we recognize that building alternative markets that offer the same social and economic benefits as organic exports will take time," Anna Bradley, chair of the Soil Association's standards board, said.

The proposed standards require organic food producers in developing countries to contribute substantially to the social needs of communities and workers, and guarantee wages and good working conditions.

Significantly, sea-container shipped organic foods will not need to comply with the new standard, a Soil Association press officer said. That means spices and other foods with a long-shelf life that are often shipped by sea will get a pass. So will goods shipped by truck from, say, Turkey.

Although developing countries were the focus of the new standard, it does apply to any air-shipped organic foods, whether from Africa or from the US, Europe, and New Zealand. Perishables such as produce are often air-freighted. The London Telegraph reported that sweet potatoes and salad flown in from the U.S. would likely be stripped of their organic status.

"It's right to continue to allow some organic air freight. Most people say that they only support air freight if it delivers real environmental and social benefits. This linking of organic and fair trade standards does that," Peter Melchett, the Soil Association's policy director, said in the Guardian.

Image source: Soil Association

The Soil Association consulted nearly 200 organizations, including the World Trade Organization, governments and UN bodies. New Zealand, Kenya and the UK's Department for International Development argued strongly against a ban. Supermarkets recognized the public disquiet and argued for a labelling system, and UN bodies urged extreme caution to protect vulnerable economies, the Guardian said.

Patricia Francis, executive director of the Geneva-based International Trade Center (ITC), which is a joint agency of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the World Trade Organization, questioned whether the new certification scheme would be too restrictive.

"Meeting these standards costs money - laboratories, audits and more. Too many standards will hurt African farmers," she said in a BBC report.

The Guardian said that the Soil Association punted when faced with the issue (though it used the word "fudged.") "This is not to single out the organic watchdog for special opprobrium. It has simply made a trade-off, just as many shoppers do in their Saturday-afternoon trolley dashes," the paper said in its editorial.

Chefs: Eat Your Own Dog Food

In the high-tech world, they used to have a saying, "eat your own dog food." It's the equivalent of walk the talk. Here's the foodie world equivalent in a wonderfully considered piece on Alice Waters, who lent her good name to a controversial gated development in Montana. Charlotte McGuinn Freeman, who lives nearby, writes at Ethicurean:

I cannot see how a gated development of second-homeowners who will fly in and out on their private jets can be called sustainable or viewed as contributing to the health of our community. So I cannot understand why Alice Waters — someone who has always seemed to be deeply invested in the health of real communities, someone who wanted to build a restaurant that was like a home, someone who is creating gardens in underserved elementary schools, someone who is actively promoting real, slow, actual food purchased from real farmers – I cannot understand why she has lent her support to a developer who seems to represent everything that is antithetical to real community-building.

As I commented on the post, the food world has been caught in a closed-end loop on sustainability for some time, since it is accessible to so few. It needs to break out beyond this "leading" edge if it is going to get anywhere. And I think, in this piece, Freeman is offering a reality check. Are mission and values aligned in the work? A question, obviously, not just for companies who get most of the heat.

Cornography: New Doc Reveals All!

King Corn might be part of a new genre, cornography, in which row after row of yellow haired, crunchy, leggy babes reveal all.

The first blockbuster in the genre was actually literary, via Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma. Now two innocents, Ian Cheney and Curtis Ellis, follow in Pollan's footsteps, relying on the often-used but still effective device of dropping into the picture. They decide to become corn farmers, albeit on a very small, one-acre, site. Filmmaker Aaron Woolf follows the two on their highly entertaining quest to find out how corn really grows, enters our national diet and what it all means.

Unlike other in-your-face shock documentaries of the recent past, the camera keeps a respectful eye on the midwestern farm and the choices such endeavors entail. More than a couple of farmers admit, in effect, that they are growing crap - whether in cornfields or feedlots - but that they have no choice. The doc also shows how amazingly easy the venture is, given chemicals and genetic breeds, but that the profit only comes by dipping several ways into the taxpayer's pocket.

The film opens in several markets, including Washington, D.C. Go see it and find new meaning in that bucket of popcorn you're eating.

- Samuel Fromartz

A Tight Fist on Farm Money

Keep the money flowing to king corn - that's the clear implication of comments by Collin Peterson, chairman of the House Agricultural Committee.

He told the Financial Times that organic produce and grass-fed beef producers for local consumers need little federal help. "It is growing, and it has nothing to do with the government, and that is good," he told the FT. "For whatever reason, people are willing to pay two or three times as much for something that says ‘organic’ or ‘local’. Far be it from me to understand what that’s about, but that’s reality. And if people are dumb enough to pay that much then hallelujah."

Which means that Peterson wants to keep the billions of subsidies flowing to conventional farm interests, preventing any serious programs for organic or smaller local farmers. (Via Ethicurean and FarmPolicy.com)

More on the policy at Gristmill Blog's post on "Local Food for All."

Aurora Plays Affordability Card

Responding to the class action law suits it faces, Aurora Organic Dairy said they were without merit. "There is absolutely no basis for claims we defrauded consumers by selling milk that isn't organic," CEO Marc Peperzak said in a statement.

He noted that a settlement agreement with the USDA confirmed that "AOD currently has eight valid organic certifications."

In its public relations battle with Cornucopia Institute, Aurora is playing the affordability card. Aurora's critics "want to limit the supply of organic milk and drive up the price paid by American families. This would harm consumers and slow the spread of organic agriculture. If they win, consumers lose," Peperzak said.

Fromartz take: Price has not been the main issue of this fight -- rather it has focused on whether large-scale organic dairy farms are truly following the USDA regulations. Aurora's critics say that by flouting rules, Aurora created a low-cost production model that unfairly competed with those who do follow the rules at a higher cost. But as Peperzak noted, the agreement with the USDA did affirm its organic certificates, much to the chagrin of many of Aurora's critics. Now, for consumers at least, it's up to the courts to decide.

- Samuel Fromartz

Aurora Organic Slapped With Class Action Suits

(Updated with impending Denver Lawsuit)

Two mothers in St. Louis have filed a class action lawsuit against Aurora Organic Dairy (AOD), claiming that the milk they consumed from the nation's largest private-label organic dairy company was not organic, according to Sustainable Food News ($).

Leonie Lloyd and Kristine Mothershead claim they suffered harm by being “tricked” into buying Aurora's private label organic milk at Costco that was not organic. The plaintiffs, represented by the St. Louis law firm Simon Passanante, are seeking compensatory, consequential and punitive damages. The suit also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting AOD from engaging in “illegal activities.”

In April, the USDA's National Organic Program sent a letter to Aurora, citing 14 "willful violations" of the organic regulations by the company. In a subsequent settlement of those allegations, Aurora, which has $100 million in sales, agreed to amend its farming practices and stop selling certain milk. It was allowed to keep its organic certification.

AOD's Senior Vice President Clark Driftmier told Sustainable Food News he had not seen the lawsuit and that the company had not been served.

Meanwhile, the Cornucopia Institute reported late in the day that the St. Louis action is one of two lawsuits.

Law firms based in Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri have so far have filed one of the lawsuits in Missouri, with another suit, covering dozens of additional states where plaintiffs live, due to be filed in Denver tomorrow.  The attorneys are seeking damages from Aurora to reimburse consumers harmed by the company’s actions and are requesting that the U.S. District Courts put an injunction in place to halt the ongoing sale of Aurora’s organic milk in the nation’s grocery stores until it can be demonstrated that the company is complying with federal organic regulations.

Cornucopia says the Denver suit is being handled by attorneys from Lane, Alton, Horst  in Columbus, Ohio; Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, and Herz in Chicago; and Gray, Ritter, and Graham, also based in St. Louis. Attorneys in both suits are seeking additional plaintiffs.

Bean There, Done That

When I was working on Organic Inc., I marveled at the passions the prolific soybean fueled, from vegans dishing up tofu, tempe and soy milk; to raw milk proponents who view the bean as little more than a nasty toxin; to agribusiness giants who process it into soy protein isolate and then add it, like corn, to everything; to Asian cuisine, where the most sublime soy foods are found. Rarely has a bean meant so much to so many.

I knew there was more here than meets the digestive tract, so was pleasantly surprised to see a new book on the subject, Beans: A History by Ken Albala. The passions I encountered while researching soybeans were by no means unique. A “social stigma” against most beans, Albala writes, “remains firmly in place from the time of the ancient Greeks up to the 20th century.”

"The matter is not only gas but class," the Times review points out. "Because beans are cheap to raise and offer a protein payoff that is comparable to meat’s, poor people have traditionally eaten them. The plants that bear beans don’t appeal to the aspirational bourgeoisie. Beans are, in the developed world, markers of a hand-to-mouth lifestyle best left behind. 'In any culture where a proportion of people can obtain protein from animal sources,' Albala observes, 'beans will be reviled as food fit only for peasants.'”

A pity, since the lowly legumes are high in protein and fiber and low in fat. But as history shows, as incomes rise, people want meat.

- Samuel Fromartz

Image: soybeans, Wikipedia