USDA moves to crack down on 'organic' fraud
Source: Washington Post
BUSINESS
USDA moves to crack down on ‘organic’ fraud
The agency will boost its oversight of organic products in one of the biggest-ever changes to the National Organic Program
By Laura Reiley
January 19, 2023 at 12:11 p.m. EST
The Agriculture Department announced new guidelines for products labeled “organic,” a term that has been increasingly abused as shoppers have sought healthier, environmentally friendly food.
The USDA has a strict definition of “certified organic,” allowing the label to be used only for products that meet certain standards for soil quality, animal-raising practices, pest and weed control, and use of additives. The updates issued by the agency Thursday aim to close loopholes that allowed ingredients that don’t meet the criteria to infiltrate the supply chain.
Tom Chapman, chief executive of the Organic Trade Association, said the updates represent “the single largest revision to the organic standards since they were published in 1990.” They should go a long way toward boosting confidence in the “organic” label, Chapman said, noting that the move “raises the bar to prevent bad actors at any point in the supply chain.”
Millions of pounds of apparently fake ‘organic’ grains convince the food industry there may be a problem
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/12/millions-of-pounds-of-apparently-fake-organic-grains-convince-the-food-industry-there-may-be-a-problem/
Chapman’s business association, which represents nearly 10,000 growers in the United States, has been pushing for stricter guidelines for years, motivated in part by a series of stories in The Washington Post in 2017 revealing that fraudulent “organic” foods were a widespread problem in the food industry.
{snip}
By Laura Reiley
Laura Reiley is the business of food reporter. She was previously a food critic at the Tampa Bay Times, San Francisco Chronicle and Baltimore Sun. She has authored four books, has cooked professionally and is a graduate of the California Culinary Academy. She is a two-time James Beard finalist and in 2017 was a Pulitzer finalist. Twitter https://twitter.com/lreiley
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/01/19/usda-rule-organic-fraud/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
moniss
(8,728 posts)in labeling is that of misdirection. Pork that is labeled "natural" is in fact loaded with a salt water solution. Food processors/producers are very active and creative in finding ways by using misdirection and trying to get regulatory blessing for that misdirection. An example is the use of the term "cellulose powder" when in fact it is just a wordy description for sawdust. Your store bought pot-pie may well have it in there "to prevent caking". I looked for a "fresh ready to bake" chicken pot pie and my grocer had two different brands. One with sawdust and one without. I think you know which one I bought.
PBS just did a great show about the food safety pioneer Harvey Wiley. Excellent look back at how awful some of our food was and how crooked were some of the producers.
spike jones
(1,994 posts)I have heard that while cows are waiting in the feed lots to be slaughter, they are fed a mixture of sawdust and chicken shit. That could be organic depending on the quality of the chicken shit.
moniss
(8,728 posts)is a whole deal. I remember that not that many years ago if a farmer had a sick cow that was near death you were still allowed to ship it for slaughter if the animal could be made to stand on its' own before being hauled away. Think about that the next time you see hamburger from an unknown country of origin that likely has even lower regulations.
spike jones
(1,994 posts)and unfortunately they change the definition of words all the time in order to escape a regulation. They evade the larger question which is should an animal go into slaughter/consumption if the animal is sick. Regardless of whether they can stand. They routinely use shock prods on them to make them stand. I've seen this with my own eyes years ago as a cow near death was repeatedly shocked as they pulled on her with ropes to get her to her feet. As she finally got to her feet she was moaning in such pain and her legs were shaking something terrible. But they were able to declare her not a "down" cow and so on to the slaughter. I was a young kid in grade school. It stays with me to this day the horrible treatment of that cow. But it should come as no surprise that when some of the cows would be "going down" and no prod is available they would jab the animal with pitchforks. As Sinclair aptly put it. The Jungle. That's before they even get to the killing floor.
Archae
(47,245 posts)Hippie farmers carefully watering their plants.
In reality, organic produce and meats use poisons, pesticides and herbicides too, with tractors and combines.
The biggest difference is the price.
Organic food can be up to 4 times more expensive than farm products.
Tumbulu
(6,619 posts)because non synthetic sources of nitrogen cost as much as 10X's more. Synthetic nitrogen, cheap as it is, damages the soil microbiome. Once the soil microbiome is effected, carbon sequestering becomes more difficult, mycorrhizal connections cease, which renders plants dependent upon the farmer even more to supply macro and micronutrients.
Regenerative agriculture, coined by one of the founders of the organic farming movement describes farms that sequester more carbon than they remove by taking products off the farm.
Plants growing on soils dependent upon synthetic inputs also seem to put out higher weighing yields. But the weight is more water than flavor or available nutrients.
Organic farmers, such as myself, figured out an entire system where the extra expenses associated with these regenerative practices such as using natural forms of soil nutrients and the more costly mechanical and biological control agents of pests is paid for by the people who care about such things. Hence the codification of the organic standards into law. Fraud (a human problem, not unique to farming) can be and is prosecuted.
This is a good news.
I am not a hippie, but am a Democrat. Stop putting out misinformation.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)All you pointed out was that so-called “organic” fertilizer costs 10 times more which didn’t contradict anything mentioned. If it’s full disclosure you’re after, you might want to mention how much “organic” fertilizer is harvested via strip mining and how little of it actually accomplishes what you are claiming. Synthetic nitrogen doesn’t “kill” soil microbiome. It’s simply neutral in that regard while “some” so-called organic sources, like cow shit are beneficial. But not all certified organic methods use cow shit, which by the way comes with its own set of health and environmental problems. Your claim that organic produce is more nutrient rich and/or more flavorful has been debunked over and over. You should check your own misinformation.
Tumbulu
(6,619 posts)The soil microbiome killing effect of synthetic nitirogens, as exciting as the high yields achieved first were, is what started the entire interest in sourcing organic vs synthetic sources of nitrogen nearly 100 years ago. Hence the name organic farming.
Non synthetic sources of nitrogen and other soil amendments do not include raw manure of any kind. Read the organic standards. Any animal by-products must be composted or aged. Even the time between animals grazing on farmland and then the planting of the food crops are regulated.
And making claims of strip mining, etc, is just the typical over used rhetoric from the regular GMO apologists who swarm in on any posts related to organic farming or practices. Like clockwork.
Response to Tumbulu (Reply #10)
Post removed
ProfessorGAC
(75,855 posts)And, most manufactured fertilizers are simple nitrate salts and nitrohydrocarbons like urea.
The same compounds found in fecal based nitrogen sources.
The whole issue you describe is OVER fertilization which can be done with any source. Use too much and it causes problems.
You're accusing others of misinformation whole posting about "synthetic nitrogen"?
Tumbulu
(6,619 posts)which was the basis of the creation of the inexpensive forms of nitrogen used in agriculture?
Which led initially to fabulous increases in yields, but left soils weakened. Later to be discovered to have been microbially compromised due to these synthesized forms of nitrogen?
Which is how it was that The Soil Association in the UK, and the Organic Farming Systems in the US and the Biological Farming systems in the EU got going in the first place? Non synthesized forms of nitrogen, even if applied too liberally, did not damage the soil microbiome, which is the actual foundation of agriculture.
Here is a quick reference to the basis of the entire system.
https://www.britannica.com/technology/Haber-Bosch-process
Perhaps you need to brush up a bit on agronomy ?
NickB79
(20,249 posts)It's largely due to changes in soil pH and lack of fibrous organic matter. A few microbial species thrive, but most suffer.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-its-time-to-stop-punishing-our-soils-with-fertilizers-and-chemicals
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-03539-6
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)High applications of nitrogen(from any source, btw) can lower soil ph which can reduce bacteria. This same effect also increases fungal growth. So saying that synthetic nitrogen can decrease soil bacteria under certain conditions is very far from saying it always will and it’s also very far from saying it’s always a negative causal factor to the whole of the soil biome. If you read your first source he identifies tillage as a major problem. Well guess what, no-till agriculture is almost non-existent in the organic industry so it’s not as if so-called organic is without its own set of problems in this regard.
Those who think it has to be organic vs conventional are missing the mark. Sustainability is and should be the goal.
NickB79
(20,249 posts)Since organic nitrogen sources are much bulkier than tanks of anhydrous ammonia. It's like saying a person will gain as much weight eating 3,000 calories of fruit and vegetables a day vs 3,000 calories of junk food. It's technically right, but in practice completely wrong because the lower calorie density of fruits and vegetables makes it physically difficult to eat that much. It mostly happens near feedlots, with their massive waste streams, because long distance transportation of heavy manures is too expensive.
And that completely ignores the role the fibrous components plays in the soil ecosystem, which provides a diverse environment for soil microbes. There are no synthetic sources of nitrogen that also mimic decomposing leaves, stems and roots. Visualize it as a coral reef vs a mud flat for biodiversity, but microscopic in nature.
As for organic no-till, it is a thing that's expanding, albeit slowly. You do need specialized rollers though to kill your weed suppressing cover crop, which can limit it's use.
https://modernfarmer.com/2019/10/the-elusive-goal-of-no-till-organic/
That said, I do agree that sustainability should be the ultimate goal, and the organic vs conventional is misguided. For example, this study showing that intensive conventional ag could be more sustainable than widespread organic, simply because it uses less land for the same yield, with the excess land then returned to nature.
https://www.sustainability-times.com/environmental-protection/intensive-agriculture-is-better-for-the-planet-than-organic-farming/
And I've definitely used my share of herbicide on my land to kill invasive species that threaten our native ecosystems, so I'm by no means an organic absolutist.
Tumbulu
(6,619 posts)is problematic.
I have worked in ag for over 4 decades now, from many sides.
In my opinion the primary problem is that all agriculture in under appreciated and profit margins for the most everyone are minuscule to imaginary. Cost of entry massive and generational.
From the conventional side, all ag research and grower rewards have been focused on efficiency and getting the most product from each crop and acre. Resulting in incredible increases in yield, really over the century. Allowing for amazing improvements in machinery innovation, and safer working conditions for those operating the machinery. But super high up front costs for these pieces of equipment, which require more and more efficiency of scale. Focus has been on precision and elevation of output per person working/laboring. And ever greater production of product being removed from the farm. Which got coined as "carbon mining" by some researchers.
From the organic side, the starting position from the regular world of ag was "it cannot be done- go away!". Those early practitioners and proponents (many being retired scientists from Universities and innovative back to earthers in the 60's and 70's ) were focused on soil ecology and plant biology, and all the other things sort of lost in the larger scale ag 's focus on efficiency. These practitioners of at the time smaller scale ag- primarily involved in the more valuable sorts of products that can be sold directly- vegetables, fruits, eggs, etc- worked at developing direct sales and systems of identifying the products so that the higher costs associated with the non synthesized nitrogen and other more costly labor intensive inputs could be covered with the actual sales of products from the farm. These early creators of the industry did the enormous R & D of figuring out how to produce all these crops at greater scale without the inputs conventional ag depended upon. And then voluntarily created systems of verifying that people calling these products something could back them up. Democratically working all over the world on certification systems. Focus being on what could be grown on a farm that could be sold that would pay for all this soil building (increasing the Soil Organic Matter -SOM) and ecological development.
I used to attend the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movement (IFOAM) meetings and felt such amazement at the dedication of so many people all around the world to these aspirational goals.
Currently the idea of a sort of hybrid approach is now gaining favor. Because of the expansion of the organic farming industry there are all sorts of ancillary business that offer cover crop seeds- yes, the organic standards call for them in crop rotations to build the soil- and compost. Would businesses have invested the funds to produce the seeds in bulk had the organic growers not created the market for them decades ago? Maybe, but I doubt it. And compost? Who was buying compost in the '80's and '90's which then got picked up by municipalities as a way to deal with their green wastes? So, these support industries grew and developed because of organic farmers and their customers supporting them paying the higher prices for it all. A truly dedicated and loyal customer base paying the prices that allowed them to develop all the methods that allowed the entire sector to increase.
The buzz these days is around regenerative ag which is a sort of catch all for all sorts of combinations of the two approaches. Throwing animal grazing in as well. Time will tell what becomes of it all.
My hope is that many, if not most of the practices, developed by the early developers of organic ag do get picked up by the non certified super efficient greater ag community. I feel that if the large scale system can generate income from sequestering carbon- instead of only being paid for what they remove from the farm- that a lot of progress could be made climate wise.
No till seems to me to be a wonderful way to try begin to restore the soils in the large scale system that went down the path of producing the commodity crops engineered to resist herbicides. Thus they can be sprayed with an herbicide not engineered against, killed and new crops planted with reduction in soil disturbance. Organic farming depends on mechanical and biological systems of weed management: timing of irrigations, crop rotations etc. And feeding the soil microbiome with the plant material incorporated into the top layers strategically. No till is not the end all, it is a good tool for the system from which it came.
My list of problems finishes up with the vilification issue. I think that the larger scale ag practitioners should just thank those of us who dedicated our professional lives into the system that developed (through private enterprise, no help from the government, back in those days) the industries that now can be turned to to supply these inputs that will allow them to add to what they already produce. The large scale ag can and will not only be producing amazing amount of product removed from their farm, but will now be drawing carbon from the atmosphere- adding carbon to the soils, as we in the organic farming world have been doing. But they won't have all this hassle of paperwork (which being certified organic requires). Nor will they have to follow every rule and regulation, a cumbersome system that we created ourselves to deal with fraud. And will continue to be required because of human nature.
I hope that all agriculture is better appreciated and more rewarding financially than it has been for it's practitioners. And that people can just appreciate what each group has brought to the table.
Sorry for going on and on, I just thought about your intelligent and thoughtful post above and wanted to share some of the things that came to my mind after reading it.
Tumbulu
(6,619 posts)research that became the basis of the organic/biological farming movement shortly after their introduction between the world wars.
Once people figured this out, then the challenge became, finding out a way to pay for the more expensive forms of fertility. And doing without other toxic off farm inputs.
Which brought forward to concept of marketing these more expensive to produce farm products in a distinct way.
Which is why cracking down on fraud matters.
When society as a whole can support farmers utilizing regenerative practices, then perhaps the purchasing public will not have to be the ones footing the bill. But until then, these more nuanced and sophisticated types of agriculture (that cost more, but produce more nurtitious crops all the while sequestering carbon and building up soils) are relying upon commerce itself to pay for the advances.
Tumbulu
(6,619 posts)Synthetic nitrogen, cheap as it is, damages the soil microbiome. Once the soil microbiome is effected, carbon sequestering becomes more difficult, mycorrhizal connections cease, which renders plants dependent upon the farmer even more to supply macro and micronutrients. Natural forms of nitrogen, which cost as much as 10x's more, support the soil microbiome. And all the soil health that living organisms create.
Regenerative agriculture, coined by one of the founders of the organic farming movement describes farms that sequester more carbon than they remove by taking products off the farm through harvesting and selling of the farm products.
Plants growing on soils dependent upon synthetic inputs also seem to put out higher weighing yields. But the weight of produce has been found to be comprised of more fluids than flavor or available nutrients.
Organic farmers, such as myself, figured out an entire system where the extra expenses associated with these regenerative practices (such as using natural forms of soil nutrients and the more costly mechanical and biological control agents of pests) is paid for by the people who care about such things. Who seek organic products out for a variety of reasons, some health, some environmental, and pay the extra for it. Hence the codification of the organic standards into law. Fraud (a human problem, not unique to farming) must be prosecuted for the good will of the customer to reach the farmers who are trying to do all this soil, land and plant stewardship.
This is a good news.
Brenda
(1,936 posts)https://markbittman.com/avj
Part of a review of the book:
The book is organized into three parts: The Birth of Growing, The Twentieth Century, and Change. Part One begins at the beginning, the introduction of agriculture 10,000 years ago. I was momentarily taken aback when he offered a current consideration that agriculture is responsible for many of the most egregious human behaviors; colonialism, slavery, environmental degradation, and more. He cites Jared Diamond’s article The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race , as well as a quote from the well-received book Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, to back this up. I have been pondering this idea, and my own role in it, ever since.
He moves on to how agriculture evolved from small, personal farms to row after row of monocrops not fit for human consumption, covering much along the way. I thought I would have to read several scholastic tomes to gather the information Bittman provides in this cohesive narrative of our relationship with food and agriculture. He has sifted through countless books and articles, including an extensive index and the opportunity for the reader to delve deeper into any subject if they wish.
____________
I've belonged to a CSA for decades and organic is not a hoax as some here like to claim in ignorance. It takes a small organic farm years to get certified organic, they can't even have non-organic dog food anywhere near the farm. I credit them for keeping me healthy and not on any prescriptions despite everyone I know my age and much younger is taking multiple daily.
FakeNoose
(40,196 posts)I've read other books by Mark Bittmann and he's good.
His books are mostly about healthy cooking and healthy eating.
Tumbulu
(6,619 posts)I like thinking about these sorts of things.
And thanks for appreciating the work of organic farmers.
for being an organic farmer! Such hard work and under appreciation. My current CSA farmer friends are having a land lease problem and I'm starting to get panicky. I don't have an alternative close by so I may have to drive hundreds of miles to get real food if they lose the lease.
Tumbulu
(6,619 posts)so that they do not have to move!
It’s all hard enough without having to learn new soils and syatems.
suhana_zunaya1
(11 posts)
RandiFan1290
(6,671 posts)