When it Comes to What’s in our Food, Americans have Less Transparency than the Chinese. Stonyfield’s Gary Hirshberg Intends to Change That

Herschberg, Gary

The healthy food movement just got a CE-Yo.

Gary Hirshberg, the head of Stonyfield Farm, announced that he was turning the operation of the Londonderry, New Hampshire- based organic yogurt company over to Walt Freese, who has held executive positions at Ben & Jerry’s in Burlington, Vermont, and Celestial Seasonings in Boulder, Colorado.

Hirshberg (who called himself CE-Yo at Stonyfield) is staying with the company as chairman, but will give up day-to-day operations to focus on the Just Label It Campaign, a year-old effort to convince the government to require foods containing genetically modified (GMO) ingredients to be labeled.

According to Hirshberg, 93 percent of Americans feel they have the right to know if food they buy is bioengineered. Given a choice, shoppers avoid GMO products—which is exactly why the chemical industry has fought labeling.

GMO labeling is required in 50 countries, including the European Union, Japan, Australia, and even Russia and China. “That American consumers don’t have rights granted to Chinese citizens is getting to the point of absurdity,” said Hirshberg.

Read the rest at Take Part

Post to Twitter

The Agrichemical Business Goes on Trial

iStock_000015978766Small

Methyl iodide is one of a family of chemicals that researchers view as well-known cancer hazards. The chemical is also a neurotoxin and causes late-term miscarriages. And it kills soil-dwelling organisms — which is why farmers (particularly strawberry and tomato growers) fumigate fields with it prior to planting.

 Calling it one of the most toxic chemicals used in manufacturing, more than 50 scientists, including five Nobel laureates, wrote a letter (PDF) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toward the end of the Bush II administration pleading that methyl iodide not be approved for agricultural use. To no avail. They failed in California, too, which sets its own environmental regulations, independent of the EPA. But the state followed the EPA’s lead and approved it in 2010, just before Governor Schwarzenegger left office.

Last year, lawyers from Earthjustice and California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. filed suit challenging the chemical’s approval on behalf of several environmental and farmworkers groups, who claimed that California officials approved the fumigant despite warnings from scientists in the state’s own Department of Pesticide Regulation. Earlier this month, the case came before the Alameda County Superior Court.

“Nobody disputes that methyl iodide is a potent poison,” Earthjustice lawyer Greg Loarie said in a press release. “By approving the cancer-causing pesticide, California’s pesticide regulators ignored the science and broke important laws designed to protect public health.” Farm laborers and residents of rural areas — particularly children — are most at risk to exposure to methyl iodide, which can be carried on the wind.

Methyl iodide has made no shortage of enemies since being approved. In addition to labor and environmental organizations, their numbers include 35 California legislators who signed a letter last April asking the EPA to “suspend and cancel” all uses of methyl iodide in the United States. At about the same time, the current governor of California, Jerry Brown, promised to reconsider the state’s decision to register methyl iodide. The EPA has opened a public comment period on a petition, asking it to ban methyl iodide, and so far more than 200,000 citizens have written in support of the ban.

In an email to me following an earlier post I wrote, Arysta LifeScience, the manufacturer of methyl iodide, claimed that the chemical is naturally occurring and produced by marine algae. The company said that methyl iodide has been used as a fumigant in the southeast United States since 2007 without a single safety incident reported.

Judge Frank Roesch, who is hearing the California case, is showing that he is no pushover. According to a press release from Pesticide Action Network North America, a plaintiff in the California case, the judge said he found no evidence that the state officials had ever considered not approving methyl iodide. Without such evidence, the judge said that he could not see how the state could “prevail in this lawsuit.”

We’ll see if he still feels that way in a few months, when a decision is expected.

Post to Twitter

Newsbites: It’s Officially Paula Deen Week

Newsbites

I hereby declare this week Paula Deen Week. Her culinary tastes may be questionable, but no one can debate that the woman has a rare knack for self-promotion. As a service to readers of Politics of the Plate, I plowed through dozens of commentaries on Deen’s announcement that she has diabetes, and have winnowed out three must reads.

Mother Jones’s Tom Philpott, a southern gentleman if there ever was one, avoids taking Deen to task personally and instead questions the efficacy and safety of the drug she is now shilling.

Writing on her own blog, Jane Black, who has staked out the nation’s obesity epidemic as her beat, sees Deen’s decision as a missed opportunity in the war on fatness.

And Regina Schrambling, who calls Deen the Liberace of lousy eating on Eater.com . . . well . . . no one can tear the hide off foodie fools and hypocrites as cleanly as the delightfully sharp-tongued Ms. Schrambling.

 

From Tom Philpott

I generally don’t believe in skewering people, even celebrities, for their health problems and/or how they deal with them. So at first I hesitated to join the chorus lambasting Paula Deen for waiting three years to disclose that she has been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. But Deen’s stubborn insistance on using her Food TV forum to promote unhealthy food, and her long-time role as a paid shill for industrial-meat giant Smithfield, tempted me to comment on her announcement. (Evidence is mounting, by the way, that industrially raised meat contributes to diabetes risk.).

What pushed me over the edge was her debut this week as a spokesperson for pharma giant Novo Nordisk’s diabetes treatment Victoza. As Anthony Bourdain tweeted in response to the announcement, “Thinking of getting into the leg-breaking business, so I can profitably sell crutches later.” Here, Deen isn’t making a private decision on how to treat an ailment; she’s turning her ailment into a quite-public revenue stream. And she’s broadcasting a clear message to her legion of fans: Eat all the junkie food you want, and don’t worry, because the pharmaceutical industry will bail you out.

In fact, Deen’s favored Big Pharma diabetes product might be as questionable as the meat she promotes. Read the rest at Mother Jones.com. 

 

From Jane Black

It could have been a turning point in America’s war on obesity. This morning on the Today show, Food Network star Paula Deen—the queen of deep-fried Twinkies—admitted that she had been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. But when asked whether fans should cut back on the “yummy, fattening” recipes she promotes, she told Al Roker: “Honey I’m your cook, not your doctor.”

Deen’s position is hardly a surprise. This is a woman known for fried chicken and broccoli “salad” that includes sugar, mayonnaise, cheese and bacon. Deen knows that even a mention of healthy, responsible eating could undermine her multimillion-dollar television-and-cookbook empire built on the glories sugar and lard.

Still, it was a grand disappointment. Read the rest at Jane Black.net.

 

Regina Schrambling

The Deen Debacle (it’s way worse than a fail) at least makes me glad we get two print newspapers delivered every day. One, apparently going for the Food Network demographic, ran the usual “celebrity gets dire news, turns lemons into artificially-sweetened lemonade.” The other, targeted at investors who need actual information, reported on talking to mad men and getting a rousing “Give me a break!” if not a “WTF?”

This all feels like a flashback to those wondrous days when an unwed mother, whose own mother was marketed as competent to be vice president, merited mega-bucks to flack abstinence. America swallowed both those flagrant ruses. Why not the concept of a woman who got sick eating her own cooking suddenly shilling for a treatment? (And it is a $500-a-month treatment, definitely not a cure.)

The disclosure of the long-rumored disease was about as surprising as learning Ronald McDonald might really be John Wayne Gacy. And it’s no great shock that the Liberace of lousy eating is cashing in as the morning-after dispenser rather than the birth-control provider. Read the rest at Eater.com.

Post to Twitter

Dining on Dioxin

Where there's smoke . . .

Where there's smoke . . .

Dioxins are nasty chemicals. They are human carcinogens. They cause reproductive problems, wreck the immune system, and interfere with hormonal production. The World Health Organization ranks them among the “Dirty Dozen,” a group made up of organic toxins that persist in the environment (and our bodies) for decades.

Although they are produced mainly by industrial processes, more than 90 percent of the dioxins in our bodies get there through our food, particularly meat, dairy products, and fish.

Given their ubiquity—and toxicity—it stands to reason that government health officials would have long ago determined what levels of dioxin are safe in our food supply and set appropriate standards.

But when has reason triumphed in matters related to food safety? It wasn’t until last August that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), after nearly a decade of analysis, announced that it would be releasing a risk assessment of dioxins in food, due out sometime this month.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Caroline Smith DeWaal, the food safety director of the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest praised the EPA’s decision.

But food industry groups wasted no time in condemning the move. “EPA should exercise as much thought and care as possible about the reassessment’s possible impact on consumer attitudes, purchasing decisions, and consumption patterns,” wrote the Food Industry Dioxin Working Group, in comments about the proposed guidelines. The group’s members include the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the International Dairy Foods Association, the National Fisheries Council, the National Pork Producers Council, and the Corn Refiners Association.

The consortium complained that the dioxin reassessment’s “focus on food” is beyond the EPA’s area of authority. The EPA, according to the industry group, relied on “grossly inadequate exposure and consumption data, coupled with badly flawed statistical approaches.” They took the EPA to task for forecasting risks over a life span of 70 years because dioxin levels in the environment might drop over that time. The guidelines, they said, are “irrelevant to human health. Yet that is just how it will be perceived by the consuming public and the media if it is released in its current form.”

It’s difficult to see how anyone can consider issues surrounding potential fatal poisons as irrelevant to human health. The European Union and World Health Organization have already established safe limits for dioxins in food. They are weaker than those proposed by the EPA, but in the case of dioxins, any limitations are better than none, which is what we might end up with if the food companies succeed in silencing the EPA scientists.

Post to Twitter

A Documentary that Must Get Made—and How You Can Help

If you enjoy this blog, I’m asking a favor, and it’s not for me.

Please consider making a donation for Sam Mayfield, a documentary producer and friend of mine who is raising funds to defray production costs of her new film Wisconsin Rising! The documentary tells the story of how the people of Wisconsin rose up, occupied their state capitol, and took to the streets in a way that has been rarely seen in recent American history. More than one state’s rejection of a conservative takeover, Wisconsin Rising! is a microcosm of what is at stake in America today, at a time of fiscal crisis and ideologically driven budgets.

Donating is easy through Kickstarter. The site enables you to see a trailer and, if you choose, to use your existing Amazon account to contribute. Donations for as little as $1 are gladly accepted.

But do it now. According to Kickstarter rules, Sam has until Saturday to raise a total of $40,000 or she will lose the more than $23,000 that individuals have already given to the project.

The people that funded Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s attack on workers were radical billionaires with a national agenda. This is an opportunity for the rest of us to be heard.

I was first introduced to Sam’s work through Silenced Voices,  her film about a 16-year-old Mexican boy who was killed in an accident at a Vermont dairy and the group of farmworkers’ rights advocates who accompanied his body back to his home village. It provides a unique and compelling glimpse into the families and culture that migrant workers leave behind when they come to this country and profoundly improved my understanding of the workers I wrote about in Tomatoland. I am indebted to her.

Silenced Voices was extraordinary and important. Wisconsin Rising! will be more so because it effects every worker in the United States.

CLICK HERE TO SEE A TRAILER AND DONATE

Thanks,

Barry

Post to Twitter

Newsbites: Choice Tidbits from the Week in Sustainable Food

Photograph: Coalition of Immokalee Workers

Photograph: Coalition of Immokalee Workers

 

PR Flub of the Week

The award this week goes to Trader Joe’s. The feel-good bastion of all things fair and natural, has steadfastly refused to sign a Fair Food Agreement with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW)—a social-justice organization based in the south-Florida migrant community of Immokalee. The coalition has long been pressing supermarkets for higher wages and some basic rights for the workers who harvest tomatoes. In February, Trader Joe’s will open its first Florida store. The precise location? In tony Naples on Immokalee Road, less than an hour away from ground zero for the worst labor abuses in the country. From recent postings on the CIW’s website, it’s evident that the struggling workers and their supporters intend give Joe a rousing welcome. Read the story

Slugfest at Slow Food

Slow Food USA is embroiled in a traditional family feud. Old-school purists like Poppy Tooker, an expert in the traditional cuisine of New Orleans, and Gary Nabhan, who specializes in the foods of the indigenous people of the Southwest, have issued a volley of emails and blog posts accusing Executive Director Josh Viertel and his Brooklyn-based staff from straying too far from the core beliefs of the organization by becoming less artisanal and more populist. Grist’s Twilight Greenaway brings a measure of reason and clarity to the ugly food fight. Read the story

 Doctor’s Orders

Several years ago Dr. Ken Jaffe laid down his stethoscope, left the city, and moved to a rolling tract in the Catskills to open Slope Farms, a producer of grass-fed beef. In his new blog, Jaffe wonders why the government once took an active role in warning him to limit prescribing antibiotics to human patients, but now gives him carte blanche in giving antibiotics to cattle that don’t need them (something he does not do—unlike most livestock producers). The government should heed the good doctor’s advice. Read the story

 Harris Ranch Feedlot

Hot Topic

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the massive feedlot of Harris Ranch (see photograph) in California, the subject of a recent post on this site, was struck by animal rights arsonists. Read the story 

NAFTA’s Hogwash

When the giant pork producer Smithfield Foods opened a huge facility in his Mexican hometown, Roberto Ortega was forced to close his small butcher shop because he couldn’t compete. So he immigrated to the United States, where he is again slaughtering pigs for—guess who—Smithfield. David Bacon reports in The Nation about how misguided United States policies caused the massive immigration of legal and illegal Mexicans to this country. Read the story

Fisheries Managers Get It Right—at Last

According to Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post (and author of Demon Fish:Travels Through the Hidden World of Sharks)  this year the United States will become the first country to impose catch limits for every wild seafood species it manages. Score one for the oceans. It was a long time coming. Read the story 

Obit

Food snobs should be proud of themselves now. This week, Hostess Brands, known for Twinkies, Ding Dongs, and Wonder Bread, was forced to file for bankruptcy. But fear not, the company’s president and chief executive Brian J. Driscoll assured the New York Times that the embattled firm would emerge from bankruptcy stronger than ever. “With generations of loyal consumers, numerous iconic products, and a talented and experienced work force, Hostess Brands has tremendous inherent strengths to build upon,” Driscoll told the paper. Read the story

Post to Twitter

You Call Them Uni; I Call Them Whore’s Eggs. By Whatever Name, Green Sea Urchins have Become Overexploited

A prickly situation.

A prickly situation.

Back in the 1970s, I spent a summer as a mate on a lobster boat off Nova Scotia. With cold weather, choppy seas, and the physical drudgery of heaving around traps, the job entailed many less-than-pleasant duties, but my least favorite was dealing with green sea urchins—which the lobstermen referred to as “whore’s eggs.”

Several dozen of them could fill a trap. Lobsters had the good sense to avoid a confined space jam-packed with pincushion-like creatures, and the mate’s job was to reach in with his hand, extract the urchins, and toss them overboard. In addition to being a nuisance, urchins wreaked environmental havoc, completely covering entire swaths of the bottom and destroying kelp beds. Biologists considered them to be indestructible.

I would have laughed and said, “from your mouth to God’s ear,” had anyone had told me that within 25 years, sea urchins in the North Atlantic would become uni, a sushi delicacy so valuable and hotly pursued by commercial divers and boats dragging scoops across the bottom that they would eventually become overfished and their numbers would crash.

But that’s precisely what happened. By the mid-1990s, according to the Maine Department of Marine Resources, the state had nearly 3,000 licensed commercial sea urchin fishermen, harvesting 40 million pounds of urchins worth more than $30 million, making the once unsalable “bycatch” the state’s second most valuable fishery after lobsters.

Never underestimate the power of human appetites to decimate an aquatic resource. Even during the sea urchin fishery’s peak years, there were signs of trouble. Urchins began disappearing from areas where they were once plentiful and catch limits were put in place. But to no avail. By 2010, the harvest had dropped to 2.6 million pounds.

Belatedly, the state has begun to develop a plan for resurrecting the urchin population, a task made more difficult because in order to successfully reproduce, the animals have to live in dense colonies. Another difficulty is that the return of the kelp that the urchins once fed upon provides habitat for crabs, which prey on urchins.

Larry Harris of the University of New Hampshire heads a panel of biologists, urchin harvesters, and regulators who are designing the program. They hope to have it in place by this fall.

It’s a testament to how far the numbers of sea urchins have fallen that the group’s modest goal is to eventually restore the fishery to onethird of what it once was.

Post to Twitter

More Cheap PR Stunts from the Folks Who Are Supposed to Protect Our Health

 

E. coli--getting harder and harder to resist.

E. coli--getting harder and harder to resist.

The cynicism of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knows no bounds.

Just before the holidays, the agency, which is supposed to protect Americans’ health, reneged on a 35-year-old pledge to ban farmers from administering low levels (also called subtherapeutic levels) of antibiotics that are used to combat infections in humans to livestock, not to cure disease, but to increase the healthy animals’ growth rates.

The FDA went back on its word during a time when media outlets were short staffed and Americans too focused on last-minute holiday preparations to much about agricultural news. And it made its intentions known quietly in the Federal Register—hardly a volume on the average consumer’s must-read list—without even issuing a press release.

What a difference a couple of weeks make. With the new year only a few days old, the FDA issued a press release that was dutifully disseminated by news outlets including the New York Times  (one would expect better reporting from that source) with headlines like “FDA Restricts Use of Antibiotics in Livestock.”

In the release, the FDA proudly proclaimed that it had ordered livestock producers to stop administering low doses of a single class of antibiotics known as cephalosporins, which are used to treat strep throat, bronchitis, and urinary tract infections in humans. Furthermore, the FDA’s most recent move is nothing more than the belated (and watered down) enactment of a decision to ban cephalosporins that it made in 2008 that was retracted under pressure from agribusiness interests.

On the surface, even that might sound like reason to cheer. But dig a little deeper and it begins to look like this week’s release is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover up that pre-Christmas decision to roll back its order to halt to the routine administration to healthy livestock of all antibiotics that are beneficial to humans, a prohibition that would have included cephalosporins. It’s like a mugger stealing your wallet containg hundreds of dollars, handing you back subway fare home, and then telling you how generous he was.

“This is a modest first step by the FDA,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) in a press release.

Calling it modest is being very diplomatic. Beginning in 1976, scientific study after scientific study has shown that the widespread subtherapeutic use of antibiotics leads to the development of mutant superbugs that are resistant to drugs which have saved millions of human lives.

The FDA’s decision to lift the proposed prohibition on subtherapeutic use of most antibiotics—the decision they don’t want us to know about—came at a time when the case against indiscriminate antibiotic use was building. In mid- December, Tyson Fresh Meats recalled hamburger meat tainted with antibiotic-resistant Salmonella. A few months earlier, Cargill recalled millions of pounds of ground turkey that was contaminated with antibiotic-resistant Salmonella, but not before the superbug sickened 136 consumers in 34 states, hospitalizing 94 and killing one.

The FDA has long been aware of the resistance problem. When it proposed to withdraw its approval of the use of penicillin and tetracycline in farm animals in 1977, the law required that it act immediately. But under pressure from big ag and big pharma (80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the United States are fed to healthy animals), the agency dragged its feet and did nothing, even though public health and environmental organizations, including the American Medical Association urged it to act. With scientific appeals falling on deaf ears, the Natural Resource Defense Council, joined by other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit last spring to make the FDA follow its own rules.

In a calculated attempt to undermine the legal basis for the NRDC suit, the FDA’s pre-holiday reversal simply nullified the original 1977 order, in effect wiping out 35 years of history and scientific research.

“We need to get our head out of the sand and start taking public health advice from scientists rather than industry lobbyists,” Slaughter, who is a microbiologist by training, said in a press release in response to the FDA’s decision to nullify the order. “Every year 100,000 Americans die from bacterial infections acquired in the hospital, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Seventy percent of these infections are resistant to the drugs commonly used to treat them. I wonder how many lives could have been saved if these proposals were adopted in 1977, as they should have been.”

The FDA insists that it still favors “judicious use” of antimicrobials in livestock, but that it is focusing its efforts on “the potential for voluntary reform.” The FDA’s cooperative route is leading in one direction. In 1999, farmers gave healthy animals 17.8 million pounds of antibiotics per year; by 2009 the total was 29.8 million pounds, according to the FDA’s own figures. Slaughter, who introduced The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act in 2009, reported that antibiotic use rose an additional 6.7 percent between 2009 and 2010, after the FDA initiated its new voluntary policy.

There is even evidence that subtherapeutic antibiotic use does not necessarily increase growth rates in livestock. In Europe, the practice has been banned since 1998, and levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria have plummeted, while meat production rates have stayed the same or increased.

When corporate and government PR flacks have information they don’t want the public to see, it’s common for them to release it late in the news cycle. In the evening after deadlines have passed for most television networks and newspapers is a good time. Late Friday afternoons just before skeleton crews man newsrooms for the weekend is better. The Chinese government, for instance, makes it a practice to jail dissidents over Christmas, when no one is paying attention.

So we have two pieces of recent news from the FDA, one came just before Christmas, the other during the first days of the New Year when many news organizations are struggling to catch up after vacation.  The timing of both announcements tells you all you need to know.

Post to Twitter

Meet Your Meat: Feedlot Vs. Free-Range

Before buying your next cut of beef, consider these two photographs.

Harris Ranch Feedlot

 

Open Space Cattle Mariposa Ranch

The top one is of the Harris Ranch Beef Company feedlot along Interstate 5 about halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco. There, up to 100,000 cattle at a time are crowded on top of their own excrement into one square mile of what can be euphemistically called mud (winter) or dust (summer). From the highway, the stench wallops you like a punch in the face and lingers in your car and clothing for miles—and in your memory forever. Critics call the feedlot Cowschwitz.

Harris gained a flicker of national fame when its chairman, David Wood, wrote a letter to the president of California Polytechnic State University threatening to reconsider “financial support” for the college unless it cancelled a solo lecture by Michael Pollan, who was critical of feedlots in his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, a position in part inspired by driving past Harris’s facility. Money talked, and Pollan was relegated to being part of a panel discussion,

Most of the beef consumed in the United States comes from such feedlots, where cattle arrive after living for six months on pasture and grass to be finished for another six months or so on a corn and other grains. Because a diet mainly made up of corn wreaks havoc on the digestive systems of cows, which are ruminants and designed for grass not grain, they are fed daily rations of antibiotics.

The bottom photograph was taken across the valley from Harris’s feedlot on ranchland leased by Open Space Meats. Those cows will stay on pasture eating grass for their entire lives, “doing what God intended a cow to do,” said Seth Nitschke, who owns Open Space with his wife, Mica. When I visited, Nitschke was at the ranch for one of his weekly inspections to see that all was well with his cattle and check on their rate of weight gain.

From the crown of his worn Stetson to the pointy toes of his boots, Nitschke is every inch a cowboy. He often checks his cows on horseback, but that day his steed was a mud-splattered all-terrain vehicle. I jumped on back and held on for dear life as the contraption bucked, heaved, and lurched across streams and blasted through steep, rock-strewn pastures and stands of oaks where the flat valley floor gives way to the foot hills of the Sierra Nevada.

Raising beef cattle on pasture is inherently more challenging than fattening them on feedlots. Nitschke’s first problem was one the folks at Harris never face. There was no sign of any of the 75 cows that called the 1,100-acre ranch home. Near the stone foundation of an old forty-niner’s shack, Nitschke cupped his hands to his mouth and issued an impressively authentic mooooo.

A 1999 graduate of California Polytechnic, Nitschke is no stranger to the feedlot beef business. After graduating, he became cattle buyer for Excel Fresh Meats (part of the agricultural giant Cargill), where he purchased 150,000 animals a year. But when the time came to strike out on his own, he did an about face.

“The way I raise my cattle is more expensive and takes longer (his cows go to slaughter at between 18 and 24 months of age versus 14 months for a feedlot animal), but grass is a wonderful thing. Cows eat it. They get fat, and I produce a better product. They aren’t maxed out to all their livers can handle. We don’t need hormones or antibiotics.”

Nitschke let out another bellow, and this time a few dozen stocky black and brown cows reluctantly emerged from the forest. “The real cowboys say that I’m producing ‘hippie chow,’” he said, in a drawl that would be at home on any range. “But I have a whole lot of customers who love what I do—and I sleep well at night.”

We get our beef from LaPlatte River Angus Farm, which raises a few hundred head a year on pastures near our Vermont home. Perhaps because of my British heritage (via Canada) we faithfully observe Boxing Day, which wouldn’t be Boxing Day without a standing rib roast and Yorkshire pudding. But this year, when we placed our order, the grocer said that all the LaPlatte roasts had been spoken for weeks earlier. All he could get was “Western beef.” Images of Cowschwitz flooded into my mind—and nostrils—and I demurred. Then, after rechecking his supply, the meat man corrected himself. There was one unclaimed roast.

Our beef won’t measure up to Nitschke’s standards. Although the cow that produced it never received antibiotics and grazed on fields for 12 or 15 months, it joined about 80 comrades at LaPlatte’s “home farm” for a couple of months to fatten on corn and hay. Not perfect, but with the help of a big Rhône red, I’ll swallow it.

Post to Twitter

Keeping Organic Purveyors Honest

Where's the documentation?

Where's the documentation?

When is “USDA Organic” not organic? More often than you probably realize. The USDA keeps a “National List” of inorganic products that can legally go into foods labeled as organic. The casings for those tasty USDA Organic sausages can come from conventionally raised animals that have been fed antibiotics. The hops in your favorite organic beer can be sprayed with all manner of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Strawberries can be labeled as organic even if they had their start in a conventional nursery.

According to USDA rules, if 95 percent of a product is made up of organic ingredients, it can be called organic. If it’s 70 percent organic, the label can read “made with organic ingredients.”

For the past several years, public interest groups such as the Cornucopia Institute have complained that the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which has the power to determine what materials can — and cannot — be used in organic production, too often weakens regulations in the face of intense lobbying by corporations who are more interested in the higher profits conferred by the word “organic” than in strong and meaningful standards.

Recently, five new members were nominated for five-year terms to the 15-member board. The Obama administration has had a schizophrenic relationship with agriculture, on one hand cozying up to the likes of Monsanto Co. by advocating for GM crops, and on the other hand winning plaudits from small farm and organic advocates for programs like Know Your Farmer Know your Food and the White House organic garden.

So I was interested to see what type of NOSB appointees were selected. Fortunately, for a firsthand look all I had to do was get in my car and drive 20 miles up the road to Shelburne Farms, where Jean Richardson, an organic inspector, was conducting the annual inspection of O Bread bakery one recent afternoon.

For the past 10 years, Richardson, whom I know personally, has worked primarily for the Vermont Organic Farmers (VOF) certifying organization, which is part of Northeastern Organic Farming Association-Vermont (NOFA-VT). That will change in January: As one of the new NOSB members, her decisions and suggestions will affect any American who grows, produces, processes, or buys organic products.

Clad in well-worn jeans, a denim vest over a salmon-colored turtleneck sweater, and a pair of scuffed work boots, Richardson, whose inspections do occasionally lead to a company or a farm losing its certification, snooped from one end of the bakery to the other, and from floor to ceiling, at times jolly, at times serious, getting down on her hands and knees to peer under counters, running her hands over cooling racks (”What do you clean these with?”), flipping over 50-pound sacks of flour, and peering into mixing machines. Regulations required her to document that every ingredient in the bread met organic standards, following a paper trail that led all the way back to the mill where it was processed and the field where it was grown. It also required her to ascertain that the bakery maintained adequate standards of cleanliness and that there was no chance that food would be contaminated by mice, moths, flies, or other pests.

O Bread’s co-owner, Carla Kevorkian, provided Richardson with a fat sheaf of certificates, invoices, and lot numbers proving that the ingredients she used met organic standards — all except for the raisins in her raisin bread. Kevorkian couldn’t find the invoice for the raisons. She had the box — clearly labeled organic — from which they had been scooped, but that wasn’t enough. Organic guidelines demanded a document with a lot number verifying that the specific raisins used in that batch of bread were organic.

“It must be at home,” Kevorkian said. “My husband’s coming in. I’ll have him bring the invoice.” Richardson smiled, showing her jolly side. “I like to find errors, Carla,” she said, then paused for a flawlessly timed beat, “It’s my raison d’être.”

In addition to being a hands-on organic inspector for the last decade, Richardson is a professor emerita of natural resources and environmental studies at the University of Vermont and an organic maple syrup producer.

“My experience in Vermont has been with small farms, and as an inspector, I work with grassroots producers,” she said, while Kevorkian telephoned her husband. “I want to be sure that the voice of the small growers and processors get heard at a national level. There are times when a regulatory template that works for a large farmer or processor simply cannot work on a small scale. We need regulations for both. And we need clear labels for the consumer to understand.”

Other newly appointed NOSB members include Harold Austin of Zirkle Fruit Co., a Washington state fruit tree grower; Carmela Beck of Driscoll’s, a California berry producer; Tracy Favre of Holistic Management International in New Mexico, a non-profit group that educates about how to manage land sustainably; and Andrea Sonnabend of the California Certified Organic Farmers.

After two and a half hours, Richardson’s inspection of O Bread was complete. Her report would go to VOF, which would make the decision on whether or not O Bread had any “non-compliances.” Richardson had little doubt that the bakery would pass muster. “This company does a good job. They leave themselves a lot of leeway,” she said.

Still, I’ll wager that next year when Richardson comes around, Kevorkian will have an invoice ready for her raisins.

Post to Twitter