Certifiers, USDA dropped ball

Here's a an op-ed I wrote for the Rocky Mountain News focusing on the recent agreement between Aurora Organic Dairy and the USDA.

 

By Samuel Fromartz

September 8, 2007

After years of complaints and aggressive public advocacy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture last week did what it should have done long ago: It forced the largest private- label organic milk company in the nation - Boulder-based Aurora Organic Dairy - to amend its farming practices so they comply with regulations.

The department also threatened to revoke the company's organic certification, which allows it to sell organic milk, if it failed to comply during a one-year probationary period.

This enforcement action was among the most significant the USDA has taken to protect the organic marketplace. Earlier this year, it shut down a big organic dairy in California, which also flouted the regulations.

It's a win for organic consumers, ensuring that the private-label organic milk they are buying for $5 to $6 a gallon in the supermarket actually is organic.

It's also a win for the majority of organic dairy farmers, many of whom run much smaller farms and face higher costs as a result of complying with the letter of the law.

Right now, the organic industry has in place a comprehensive certification program to make sure farms and food producers do things right. You can actually see the certifier identified on the organic food product you're buying.

Consumer trust at the heart of the market depends upon every producer and certifier following these regulations.

But this system works only if the certifiers know what they are doing and the USDA takes action to bring scofflaws into line. Until two weeks ago, the system broke down on both counts.

In its "Notice of Proposed Revocation," the USDA alleged that Aurora was in "willful violation" of the organic rules in 14 instances, primarily at its farm in Platteville.

Among the most egregious, Aurora Organic Dairy did not adequately graze its animals on pasture. It also brought cows onto its farms that did not meet the requirements of organically reared livestock.

Aurora countered that its farms always have been certified organic.

True. And therein lies the rub. The Colorado Department of Agriculture, which certified Aurora's farming operations, fell down on the job.

It has agreed to step up training of its staff.

But the state certifiers aren't the only ones deserving of a failing grade. The USDA had been getting loud complaints about Aurora Organic since 2005 from the farm advocacy group, Cornucopia Institute, and competing organic dairy farmers. Aurora was also open about its minimal grazing policy, saying this method, which squeezed thousands of cows into feedlots, was better suited to arid Colorado.

It took two years for the USDA to investigate the complaints and then negotiate a settlement with the company. (This stems from another problem: The USDA has a staff of about a half-dozen people to oversee the entire $17 billion organic food industry in this country.)

Aurora was not standing still at this time, aware that pressure was building. It opened another farm in Colorado designed to increase grazing access for its cows. It began cutting back the size of its massive herd in Platteville (more than 4,000 cows at one point) and plans to reduce the figure to 1,250 animals. It razed buildings to add pasture.

Given the experience of Aurora's founders, who have been in the organic dairy business since the early 1990s, it stretches credulity to believe they did not know what they were doing. What seems more likely is that they made a calculated bid to game the system while building a fast-growing, venture-backed organic dairy business, only correcting things once the action got too hot.

Under the pressure of the USDA consent agreement, Aurora will no doubt complete its program and get back in line.

Hopefully, the system will now work - with certifiers and regulators preventing this kind of case from ever happening again.

USDA Gets Tough on Giant Organic Dairy

By Samuel Fromartz

After years of complaints and aggressive advocacy by the Cornucopia Institute and organic dairy farmers, the USDA did what it should have done long ago: it got the largest private-label organic milk company in the nation, Aurora Organic, to agree to reform its farming practices. It also threatened to revoke Aurora's organic certification if the company did not follow through on these reforms during a one-year probation period.

Cornucopia and others have lobbed criticisms at Aurora for years, primarily for keeping its organic cows in feedlots against the letter and spirit of organic regulations that require the animals to have "access to pasture." Though this entire period, it should be noted, the Colorado Department of Agriculture and Quality Assurance International continued to certify the company's practices as organic and Aurora denied it was doing anything wrong.

According to the USDA complaint, however, the company did not have enough pasture for its cows and was bringing animals onto its farms that may have been improperly transitioned to organic production.

The media was all over the story, but here's a couple of things you might not know. Based in Boulder, Aurora Organic was backed by $18.5 million in venture capital funds from Harvard University's endowment fund and made a business selling store-labeled organic milk to retailers such as Costco, Wal-Mart, Trader Joe's, Target and Safeway. Despite the inordinate negative publicity, no retailer has stepped forward and dropped the company's milk, nor has Harvard or its alumni ever raised any questions publicly about this investment (made through Charlesbank Capital Partners of Boston).

The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service said in a press release it "will exercise increased scrutiny over Aurora's operations during a one-year probationary review period. If Aurora does not abide by the agreement during that time, AMS may withdraw from the agreement and could revoke the organic certification for Aurora's Platteville, Colo., plant."

In its own press release on the matter, Aurora said that it was increasing pasture at its Plateville farm to 400 acres -- a figure I found astounding because company officials had told me the farm had 2,900 acres of irrigated pasture and 12,000 acres of range land when I spoke to them for my book in 2005. What happened to the 14,900 acres of pasture they previously said they had?

It will graze 1,250 animals on those 400 acres, a herd that has been shrinking from the more-than 5,000 cows it once had at the Colorado facility.

Pasture wasn't the only issue. Under the new organic system plan (which every farm must have to get certified), Aurora must:

• Provide daily access to pasture during the growing season, acknowledging that milking cows is not a reason to deny access to pasture
• Reduce the number of cows to a level consistent with available pasture with agreed maximum stocking densities
• Eliminate improperly transitioned cows from its herd and not market those cows' milk as organic
• Agree to use the more stringent transition process in the regulations for animals added to its dairy herd.

This is the second major action by the USDA against an organic dairy company this year. In May, the USDA yanked the organic certification for the Vander Eyk farm - a giant operation in the central valley of California.

Is the USDA finally getting the message that consumers and organic dairy farmers want a high-integrity product? We hope so.

Big Decertified Dairy Pulls Out of Organic

By Samuel Fromartz

 
The Case Vander Eyk Dairy, which reportedly said it was seeking recertification of its 3,500 head organic herd, has decided not to pursue it after all.

The controversial dairy in the Central Valley of California had been certified by Quality Assurance International, but QAI suspended the company's organic dairy operations in May for failing to meet regulatory standards. The dairy then approached California Certified Organic Farmers about beginning the recertification process.

Photo and caption: Cornucopia Insitute

Peggy Miars, executive director of CCOF, one of the oldest organic certification agencies in the nation, said in an email the dairy was in "the initial review stage" for recertification. "Obviously, CCOF holds all applicants to the same strict standards and would ensure that all previous noncompliance issues are resolved."

"However, that seems to be a moot point based on my conversation with our contact at Vander Eyk," Miars continued. "He said that the Vander Eyk family is pulling out of the organic dairy business indefinitely."

Vander Eyk plans on getting CCOF to recertify its pasture as organic but run the dairy as a conventional operation. Presumably, this would give Vander Eyk flexibility to return to organic in the future, since a farm must prove that its pasture was farmed organically for three years before it can win certification. Certifying a conventional dairy herd as organic, however, only takes one year.

The farm had what was known as a "split operation," with 10,000 organic and conventional cows. The operation had been criticized by the Cornucopia Institute, among others, for minimizing pasture on its farm.

To recertify its pasture, it will have to submit a "farm plan" that lays out its organic practices in detail, correct any non-compliance issues, pass certification inspections, and be reviewed by the USDA.

"Organic" Mega-Dairy Reapplies for Certification

The Case Vander Eyk dairy, suspended from organic certification in May, tells the Capital Press it is now working with a new certification agency to get back in business. "We're working with another certifier now and expect to be back in a couple of weeks," said Vander Eyk. "This is not uncommon, and it is very disruptive to our operation."

I would be very eager to find out who this new certifier is. I find it surprising to say the least that a company can be decertified by one entity and then be considered for recertification by another a month later. At the very least, this should prompt a review by the USDA's National Organic Program.

According to this article: "Vander Eyk, who has been an organic milk producer since 1999, said last week he did not know the reason for his suspension by certifier Quality Assurance International." I also find this statement hard to believe, considering the process involved in suspending a producer, a process that includes time for the producer to try and correct the situation.

Organic Through Rose Colored Glasses

(Editors Note: We are correcting the misstatement in the original version of this post that Wolaver's sources organic hops. They do not. We explain their position, beginning in the 12th paragraph below).

By Samuel Fromartz

The news that the USDA was on the verge of approving 38 non-organic agricultural ingredients for use in organic food got a lot of attention this week.

The Los Angeles Times first picked up on the story, then the rest of the media pack, and the early trust seemed to be: the USDA is being pushed by lobbyists to loosen organic food regulations!

But is that the case?

First, a little background about these 38, background that requires us to get deep-and-dirty in the world of USDA organic regulations.

A product can only be labeled organic if 95 percent of the ingredients are in fact organic. (A standard that is accepted globally under various organic regimes).

In that remaining 5 percent, non-organic ingredients can be used, but only if specifically approved by the citizens advisory panel known as the National Organic Standards Board. If they pass muster with the NOSB, they are placed on the so-called National List by the Secretary of Agriculture and allowed to be used.

There was one exception however: non-organic agricultural ingredients had an express pass to get into an organic product. If the organic processor told his certifier than an organic agricultural ingredient was not available, then the certifier could issue a pass for the non-organic version to be used. No review by the NOSB, no placement on the National List. Just a pass by the certifier.

Can't get organic turmeric? Then go ahead use the non-organic version in the 5-percent. Can't get organic hops for beer. Use non-organic hops, again at a 5-percent threshold.

Well, an organic blueberry farmer from Maine, Arthur Harvey, had a big problem with this and sued the USDA. He won in 2005 and the court gave the USDA two years to place specific non-organic agricultural ingredients on the National List. The two years expired June 8, 2007.

So while all the stories are screaming – THE USDA IS GOING TO APPROVE 38 NON-ORGANIC INGREDIENTS! – the real news is that USDA is going to drastically limit the current widespread use of non-organic agricultural ingredients to just 38 and only after they get a a review by the NOSB. This is all thanks to Harvey.

That said, I have a problem with some of these 38 that got by the NOSB.

Take hops, which are getting a blanket exemption. The big boys like Anheuser-Busch argue that they can't find enough organic hops, so need an exemption to use non-organic hops. This is apparently a widespread issue, since a micro-brewer like Wolaver's Organic in Vermont also told me too that they had trouble finding hops. The only source appropriate for the taste profile of their beer comes from New Zealand. One farmer they were sourcing from in the State of Washington (pictured below, at  Wolaver's web site) pulled out of the market a year ago because of the challenges of growing the crop organically.

But why can't Anheuser-Busch and Wolaver's enlist more growers into the market, where organic hops go for three times the price of conventional?  After all, they have had two years since the court ruling in the Harvey case to plan their future demand.

Morgan Wolaver agreed that more needed to be done to entice growers into the market. But in the meantime, they need the exemption if they are going to make organic pale ale. Each year they show their certifier that organic hops are not available and each year they get an exemption.

"How do you build organic demand into an exemption?" Wolaver asked. "It gets back to the breweries to really push this." 

Exactly. And if they don't push on the demand side, then the supply will never be there. To be fair, 98-percent of the ingredients in Wolaver's Organic beer are in fact organic.

The other exemption I find questionable is the use of non-organic casings in organic sausages. The rules on organic meat are strict. No animal qualifies as organic unless it was raised organically from the last trimester of gestation. That means the mother has to be organic too, at least in the last third of its pregnancy. If the offspring does not meet this hurdle, then it's not organic.

Except for intestines. For some reason, intestines used in sausage making will get a pass. I find this curious, since the existence of organic meat suggests that organic intestines are also around. And somebody will have a great incentive to make them into casings if they are required.

I spoke with Jim Riddle, former chairman of the NOSB, and he raised questions about the exemption for fish oil, since organic fish isn't even defined yet. He also pointed out the public was only given 7 days to comment on these issues, which is almost as bad as having no comment period at all.

But should all non-organic ingredients be banned, even if used in minute amounts like colorings? Well, then a huge amount of organic products would vanish, crimping demand for the organic ingredients used in the other 95 percent of these products. You are going to have these exemptions unless you want to take the next logical position and ban many organic processed food products, a position that more than a few organic advocates take, including Harvey. But the consensus, globally, in organic circles - and that includes farmers and NGOs not just Big Organic - has been to allow a select few in once they are reviewed.

So the question always becomes where to draw the line. Ethicurean's post on organic annatto considers this issue, although I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion.

In an ideal world, organic farmers will come up with all the organic agricultural ingredients that processors need.

My worry is that the non-organic ingredients will become the de facto ingredients and no one will step up to the plate to try and produce organic ones. Or that once given an exemption, processors will argue that the organic version is not in the right "form" or doesn't meet "quality" standards, another way it can justify using the non-organic versions.

Right now, though, organic processors are in a pinch. The USDA sent out a notice to certifiers on June 8 reminding them that they must avoid using non-organic ingredients (not on the National List) as of midnight. In the meantime, the USDA has not yet approved any of the 38 replacements, as of today.

So, all those beer makers using non-organic hops and all those sausage makers using non-organic casings are not in compliance with the law, if they are still using those ingredients today.

I wonder what they're doing? Hopefully ramping up organic ingredient supplies as they should have done all along.

Questions Linger on Sour Organic Milk

Carol Ness in the SF Chronicle has a good follow-up to our breaking story yesterday about the Vander Eyk dairy being stripped of organic certification in California. This is a very significant enforcement action in the organic world, though it begs a few questions.

• Why did QAI certify the confinement dairy in the first place? Did it ever meet the organic regulation?
• Will this signal a trend or aberration?
• Will this mega-farm be able to get recertified?

If confinement dairy practices aren't corrected, then the next phase will be to design an additional label for organic milk that truly reflects organic practices such as pasturing - a prospect that is now being floated. That would be a shame and a cause of additional consumer confusion but that will happen if the USDA's National Organic Program does not move forward with a pasture rule that would outlaw these kind of operations.

Certification Yanked at Big Organic Dairy

By Samuel Fromartz

In a sign that pressure is mounting on big confinement organic dairy farms, Quality Assurance International, a major organic certification agency, has yanked certification for the Case Vander Eyk organic dairy in California, an operation with an estimated 3,500 cows.

This dairy in the central valley of California has been the subject of complaints by the advocacy group, Cornucopia Institute. But QAI's decision marks the first time a certifier has suspended a big confinement dairy, though these farms have been criticized for years.

Photo: Cornucopia Institute

"The process took quite a long time," one source with direct knowledge of the situation said, because of the review requirements under the USDA's National Organic Program.

Once certification is suspended, as it was in this case in mid-May, the operation can no longer sell its products as organic. It can, however, appeal the certifier's decision to the NOP, which then reviews the details of the case.

One source said the farm didn't comply with organic regulations in a number of areas, including pasture.

The Vander Eyk dairy was among several large-scale farms that became lightening rods in the organic  industry over the past several years as the organic dairy market expanded at 20-30 percent a year.

Several large scale farms came on line and others were looking to transition to the market. But many organic dairy farmers, consumer groups and advocates strongly objected to these confinement dairy farms that offered little or no pasture to their milking cows.

Complaints were filed with the USDA's National Organic Program and efforts redoubled to tighten up the regulatory language requiring pasture so these large-scale confinement farms would be shut down.

The Vander Eyk dairy, which had both conventional and organic operations, had been selling milk to Horizon Organic, but it was yanked as a supplier when its contract ran out in 2006, because it no longer met the company's standards. Horizon, the largest organic milk company, had come under a lot of pressure for a large-scale dairy farm it owns in Idaho. But it has since invested millions in the farm to add pasture in a process that is now nearly complete.

Horizon Organic has backed a tighter organic pasture standard, calling for cows to graze at least 120 days on pasture with at least 30 percent of the cow's nutritional needs coming from fresh grass. Organic dairy farmers nationwide are pushing for this strict language and it is currently under review by the NOP.

The Vander Eyk farm was among several, such as Aurora Organic in Colorado, which did not offer meaningful pasture access to its cows. But the language was so vague in the current regulations that it became a loophole that allowed organic confinement farms to exist, much to the dismay of many organic proponents.

"Your headline should read 'Case Closed,'" said Mark Kastel of Cornucopia Institute.

But the final chapter of these big organic dairy farms has yet to be written.

Should Organic Livestock Have Access to Antibiotics?

By Samuel Fromartz

Hue Karreman, a prominent veterinarian who works with organic dairy farmers in Pennsylvania, has published a highly provocative essay on NewFarm.org arguing that organic livestock farmers should consider the use of antibiotics in rare instances – a practice currently banned by organic regulations.

"In essence, when it comes to an individual animal needing truly prompt, effective treatment for a serious infection on an organic farm, the US organic rule may compromise animal welfare," he writes.

His argument opens up a Pandora's box in organics, since the label for so long has been associated with "antibiotic and hormone-free" production methods. Surveys show those labels are a major reason organic milk is so popular with consumers. It is growing at about 20 percent a year.

While I don't expect the prohibition on antibiotics to change soon, Karreman makes an interesting argument – and one not particularly new. (He made the same point when I was working on my book and I include it in chapter 6.)

The main issue with antibiotics is their overuse, which allows bugs to build up resistance. This renders the drugs impotent in humans as well. But Karreman finds the one-time or rare use of the medicine distinctly different from the regular "sub-therapeutic" use of the drugs in livestock production, which is the main cause of rampant overuse.

One reason these therapies are so popular in conventional farming is that the animals suffer from diseases associated with confinement, or a poor diet. The low-forage diet in feedlot beef production, for example, increases the fat content in the muscle, but it also raises the chance of acidosis - or stomach acidity - which in turn is associated with disease. One way to reduce those diseases is to administer low levels of antibiotics, a common practice.

Ideally, organic animals avoid those pitfalls by grazing an adequate amount of time on fresh grass and avoiding the stress of a high-production regime. (Organic dairy cows, for example, produce less milk than conventional animals).

But what happens when an organic animal gets an infection? Currently, under organic production rules, the farmer is required to treat the animal with approved methods (that include herbal remedies, homeopathy, even acupuncture, all of which can be quite successful). But if the animal does not respond to approved therapies, the animal must be given antibiotics and then removed from the organic farm. They can never return.

Karreman believes this end-result puts farmers in a bind. The animal may suffer if the farmer waits to see whether it can heel without antibiotics, yet, if they administer the drug right away they must sell the animal. "Who is to say what medication will be used and when will it be started in the disease process?" He asks.

The issue this raises, of course, is whether organic milk will be able to maintain its distinct identity in the marketplace if antibiotics are allowed.

And like other parts of the organic regulations, would opening the door to rare use of antibiotics invite more extreme practices, such as the sub-therapeutic use that is so objectionable? If you consider the ways the rules have been bent on issues like grazing, that is not unlikely.

Karreman has been one of the few, if not the only one within the organic industry, to stick his head on this issue and make this proposal. At the very least, he faces an uphill battle.

USDA to Rule on Organic Coffee Limits

I've written extensively about a USDA decision last year that could shut down markets for organic coffee, cocoa and bananas from the developing world. Now, it appears that this spate of publicity and activism on the issue has caused the USDA to listen.

Last Thursday, representatives from the National Organic Coalition, Equal Exchange, Rural Advancement Foundation International USA, and the National Cooperative Grocers Association met with the USDA to discuss the issue. They also presented a petition with more than 300 organizations and 3,600 individual signatures objecting to the policy. (A copy of the letter and signatories is posted in a pdf here).

In an email, the National Organic Coalition said "the USDA is promising a statement of clarification very soon. We are uncertain as to what that statement will look like, and we remain concerned." In a separate statement Equal Exchange said:

The USDA assured us that they had heard from us, and you, “loud and clear” and that in “two or three days” they would issue a statement that they thought would make us “happy.” They would not share any more details other than to offer a little more explanation of how they perceived the issue.  Given the stakes, complexities and interests involved, we cannot assume that the USDA statement will completely solve the problem.  (Also, given the nature of any federal agency, it could actually be weeks, not days, before they release their statement.)

Chews Wise will report on this important ruling as soon as we get word. Updates are also available at Equal Exchange's web page.

- Samuel Fromartz

US House Told of Organic Shortages

By Samuel Fromartz

The first-ever US House hearing on organic agriculture convened on Wednesday with the focus squarely on shortages of organic goods and how federal agriculture programs could be designed to help farmers transition to organic farming and increase supplies.

Across the board at the hearing, farmers and processors reported that demand for organic food is swamping supply, because US farmers are not converting to organic agriculture at a fast enough pace. Organic food now represents about 3 percent of retail food sales, but only 0.5 percent of all farm land is organic.

Caren Wilcox, executive director of the Organic Trade Association, told the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture that more than half of those members polled in a recent survey said that they would increase production if they could locate more organic ingredients.

To meet consumer demand in the $15 billion industry, imported organic goods have increased - an issue raised repeatedly by Subcommittee Chairman Dennis Cardoza, a Democrat from the Central Valley of California. "I'm concerned about imported organic products, especially from China," Cardoza said.

Livestock farmers appearing on the panel mentioned that organic feed was in tight supply and expected overseas sources to rise later this year and into 2008. One egg producer mentioned that organic soybean feed from China now costs 25 percent less than feed from the Midwest.

The lawmakers zeroed in on a number of policy issues, most critically, the costs to farmers of transitioning to organic methods. To become certified organic, farmers must refrain from using chemical pesticides and fertilizers for three years, but during that window they cannot sell any products from those fields as "organic." After three years, they qualify for the organic label and usually get a market premium.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, a Minnesota Democrat, asked if there were any funds specifically available to help farmers through the transition period.  He was told there were not, although this is something the organic food industry is seeking in the current round of the farm bill.

Research also came under discussion, since Mark Lipson of the Organic Farming Research Foundation pointed out that it could help farmers in many ways. Organic agricultural research gets about $18 million, compared with $2 billion for conventional agriculture.

The lack of research was also creating impediments to national organic regulations, since the USDA does not have enough science-based studies to back up its decisions. This was especially evident in establishing a minimum grazing standard for organic livestock, Lipson said.

Plus, the panel was told repeatedly, the USDA's National Organic Program is sorely understaffed, with a half-dozen staff responsible for everything from writing regulations to enforcing certification standards in China.

Overall, the lawmakers appeared receptive to organic agriculture – a vast change from 1990, when the Organic Foods Production Act that governs the industry was first passed amid heated opposition in the House. What's changed is that many of these lawmakers now have organic farmers in their home districts.

Cardoza even mentioned that he belongs to an organic CSA in California and requires his kids to finish the box of food they get from the farmer each week. "That's how we get them to eat fruits and vegetables," he said.

For testimony, see the House Agriculture Committee web site.

A Spotlight on Farm Subsidies

Farm subsidies don't get a tremendous amount of news coverage and now it's clear why: a lot of the data has remained out of sight until very recently. The numbers are embarrassing, not to say, unfair.

In the US, we have Environmental Working Group to thank for enlightening us on this issue. It has an easy-to-use database to find out who is enriched by subsidies. WaPo has also done a fine series on this issue too, with a recent article this week detailing USDA guaranteed loans that paid for resort attractions near major cities.

In Europe, another project is underway that has forced open the farm welfare rolls and - surprise! - revealed that most go to large farms just as in the US. "Farmsubsidy.org, which campaigns for full disclosure about who gets what under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), calculates that 85 per cent of the €32.5bn handed out in direct payments went to just 18 per cent of Europe's farmers in 2005," the London Observer reported recently.

Farmsubsidy.org was started by a former UK official fed up with the secrecy surrounding subsidy payments in the European Community. According to the Guardian,

The idea that all this should become public originated in 2000 - not from a journalist but from a Labour special adviser, Jack Thurston, who worked for Nick Brown, then agriculture minister. One afternoon, fed up with a rather tedious EU agriculture negotiation, Brown demanded from his permanent secretary, Sir Richard Packer, a list of the top 20 people getting all these EU subsidies. After much trepidation Sir Richard produced the list and allowed the minister to glance at it for 10 minutes. Thurston remembers looking over his shoulder and seeing the royals and multinationals heading the list.

When Brown asked to take it away, the request was refused and he was warned that to publish such information breached the Data Protection Act. After Thurston left his job he wrote a pamphlet for the Foreign Policy Centre think-tank challenging the need for the subsidies and calling for the details to the published. At the same time, a Danish journalist, Nils Mulvad, used a provision under the Danish freedom of information act to demand the release of documents sent to the tax authorities that listed EU subsidy payments. At the third attempt, in 2004, he won his case and Denmark became the first country in the EU to release subsidy payment data. Last year he was voted European Journalist of the Year in European Voice's awards.

Journalistic sleuthing through the farm subsidy rolls has also won attention in the US. Last month, the IRE, Investigative Reporters and Editors, awarded Farmsubsidy.org its highest medal for investigative reporting. IRE published the following judges comments:

Nils Mulvad, a Danish investigative journalist, led a two-year effort to open archives all over Europe to expose the closely guarded secrets of farm subsidies. With help from journalist Brigitte Alfter and researcher Jack Thurston, records on subsidies were acquired from 17 of 25 of the European Union countries. The resulting information was put on a website and made available to reporters and others throughout the EU. It resulted in a number of important stories, including showing how millionaires were among the top recipients and how dairy subsidies were undermining farmers in the Third World. A truly important and groundbreaking effort that will pave the way for the opening of other European Union records to the benefit of journalists worldwide.

And not just journalists, I would add, but also farmers and the public.

- Samuel Fromartz

Organic Beats Clones, 12-0

Big win for the anti-cloning organic camp Thursday.

The National Organic Standards Board, which previously had a draft recommendation to ban clones in organic livestock but which left the issue of their progeny unresolved, did what many consumer groups and farmers wanted: they banned the progeny too. (See our previous post for background on the issue and also organic dairy farmers' response).

The livestock committee of the NOSB - the citizens advisory panel to the USDA on organic regulations - apparently kept their pencils sharpened Wednesday night to get the language right and passed the recommendation at their meeting in Washington Thursday. So not only will  clones be banned from organic systems, but also any of their offspring - which is the main way that they will enter the food supply.

The vote was 12-0 with one abstention.

Just shows what  a little activism will do.

- Samuel Fromartz