Received this press release from the Cornucopia Institute, one of the best corporate watchdogs for organic issues. What makes me want to weep is Organic Valley’s entry into the fray on the wrong side. OV products are my go-to when I can’t find local dairy products that come up to my humanely-raised standards. GMA and OTA don’t surprise me at all - the Organic Trade Association has not been on the side of consumers for a long time.

11/19/09
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Mark Kastel, 608-625-2042

Food Manufacturers and Organic Industry Lobbyists Circle the Wagons
Defend Organic Scofflaw in Court to Protect Corporate Takeover of Organics

CORNUCOPIA, WI – Two powerful lobby groups in the food industry, The Grocery Manufacturers of America and the Organic Trade Association, recently intervened as friends of the court in a federal consumer class-action lawsuit accusing the nation’s largest supplier of private-label organic milk of consumer fraud. In what has been described as “the largest scandal in the history of the organic industry” USDA investigators, in 2007, found that Aurora Dairy had willfully violated federal organic standards. However, industry lobbyists are now concerned that convicting Aurora will set a dangerous legal precedent. Aurora bottles private-label organic milk for Wal-Mart, Costco, Target, Safeway and many other grocery chains.

In August 2007 Bush administration officials were widely criticized for overruling career staff at the USDA and instead of decertifying Aurora as staff had recommended, banning it from organic commerce, the corporate dairy was allowed to continue in business under a one-year probation. Now agribusiness lobbyists are concerned that citizens prevailing in court, alleging fraud, will set a precedent necessitating large corporations to incur added expenses to more carefully check the sources and credibility of their organic suppliers.

“Due diligence by food manufacturers and retailers is the heart and soul of what maintaining the integrity of the organic label is about,” said Mark Kastel, Codirector of The Cornucopia Institute, the farm policy research group that initially exposed the corruption taking place at Aurora.

In an internal document, the Organic Trade Association told its membership that, “OTA is taking this action in order to protect consumers’ access to organic products and the guarantee by organic farmers, producers and processors that their valid organic certificate fully demonstrates that their product is considered organic when marketed.” Lobbyists from the Grocery Manufacturers also were concerned that if the consumers prevail in this legal matter it would become, according to a copy written article in Sustainable Food News, “prohibitively expensive to continue developing organic products.”

“This type of rhetoric is just a stick in the eye to the ethical participants in this industry who make it a point, in their everyday course of business, to judiciously assure that their products meet not only the letter but the spirit of the organic law,” added Kastel.

Just like Aurora Dairy, Wal-Mart and Target were both found to have misrepresented organic products in the marketplace and were the subject of separate USDA investigations.

“Yes, it does cost more money to legally and ethically participate in organic commerce, said Will Fantle, Research Director for Cornucopia. “One of the reasons that big-box retailers are able to undercut their competition on price is they refuse to hire, train and adequately compensate management and frontline employees who know anything about the organic law.”

Aurora produces private label, or storebrand milk, for about 20 of the largest grocery chains in the United States.

In an ironic twist to this story Organic Valley, the nation’s second-largest organic milk marketer and a cooperative, is receiving criticism for its underwriting of a brief supporting Aurora’s position. The farmer-owned cooperative provided the financial support allowing the Organic Trade Association to file its amicus brief opposing the class-action lawsuit brought by consumers in over 40 states. The consumers allege that they were defrauded by the Colorado-based Aurora Dairy corporation.
>
> The news of Organic Valley’s involvement was a shock to some of its co-op members including Kevin Engelbert, a nationally recognized organic leader and dairy farmer from Nichols, New York. “Can this possibly be true? Has OV made a pact with the devil? I know OTA is controlled by the big money interests,” said Engelbert. “The 14 willful violations [by Aurora] prove that some organic certificates aren’t enough to demonstrate that a product is organic when marketed. The ‘organicness’ of questionable products must be challenged when necessary to maintain organic integrity.”

The Cornucopia’s Kastel said he was “flabbergasted” that a cooperative owned by family farmers would stick up for a corporation at the heart of the biggest scandal in history in the organic food industry and he characterized Aurora as a “bad actor” and “bad aberration” in the industry where consumers can generally trust the organic label.

“Aurora’s factory farm milk has injured the vast majority of Organic Valley’s own farmer-members by depriving them of markets for their milk and unfairly driving down retail pricing. Earlier this year the cooperative cut the pay price to its members and required its farmers to reduce production because of a milk surplus in the marketplace — a surplus that would be much smaller if Aurora legitimately managed its dairy cows like Organic Valley’s ethical dairy farmers,” Kastel added.

Cornucopia analysis, and USDA research, suggests that as much as a third of the nation’s organic milk supply comes from giant factory farms. Another organic factory farm operator, Dean Foods, the country’s largest milk marketer, and an OTA and GMA member, has been widely criticized in the organic community for procuring much of its milk for its Horizon brand from mega-dairies allegedly breaking the same rules as Aurora.

“If you connect the dots here you have to wonder why the management at Organic Valley is getting into bed with Aurora, Dean Foods and the most powerful lobbyists representing corporate agribusiness,” Kastel lamented. “Not only would Organic Valley membership benefit from Aurora being banned from organics, but if the lobbyists concerns are true, and some of the largest corporate players that have been playing fast and loose with the rules decide to exit the organics, that will only pump up their brand’s market share.”

The friend of the court brief, opposing a lower court ruling, which was funded by Organic Valley, expresses fears about a precedent should consumers be compensated for any fraud committed by Aurora. Melissa Hughes, an in-house lawyer for Organic Valley, told the editor of Sustainable Food News, that if the appeal is upheld “it could have vast implications on retailers, processors, handlers, and ultimately consumers.”

Analysts at Cornucopia strongly refute the contention that the Aurora matter would leave all organic marketers open to tort complaints by consumers. “Obviously, there is strong evidence for these consumers to believe they were defrauded by Aurora and the supermarket chains,” Kastel said. “This is an exceptional situation not indicative of the industry as a whole.”

Kastel cited the fact that Cornucopia sent certified letters to every one of Aurora’s retailer customers informing them that the reputation of their store’s label was at risk and encouraging them to take action. Only two marketers, the Publix supermarket chain in Florida and United Natural Foods International, the largest organic food distributor in the country, did the due diligence necessary and switched suppliers.

“The organic certification documents alone are not enough if evidence is brought to a marketer’s attention that some kind of improprieties are taking place,” Fantle added. “There is always the possibility that collusion or incompetence has taken place on the part of the supplier, certifier or the USDA.”

A comprehensive investigative story that appeared in the pages of the Washington Post referenced the Aurora matter, and a cozy relationship between the powerful Washington lawyer and lobbyist for Aurora, Dean and the OTA, and the former director of the organic program at the USDA. Alleged malfeasance at the Department has sparked the interest of Congress and an expanded investigation is currently taking place by the Office of the Inspector General at the USDA.

“Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 charging the USDA with preventing fraud; protecting the interests of ethical industry participants and consumers,” observed Cornucopia’s Kastel. “The obvious allegation here is that the regulatory branch, the USDA under the Bush administration, failed to properly enforce the law. It is appropriate for citizens who feel they were defrauded to seek a judicial remedy,” he added.
- 30 -

MORE:

When the nation’s largest organic milk producer Aurora dairy, with five “factory style” farms, in Colorado and Texas, each milking thousands of cows, entered the marketplace in 2004 they proudly stated that they would make organic milk more “affordable.” What they didn’t tell their customers was that their products would be more affordable, allowing them to undercut competitors in the marketplace, because they wouldn’t go to the expense of meeting the strict federal regulations governing organic marketing.
>
> In 2007, after investigating legal complaints filed by Cornucopia about Aurora’s organic livestock practices, USDA staff concluded that Aurora had “willfully violated” 14 tenets of federal organic regulations. Aurora was found by federal investigators to have been illegally confining their cattle to feedlots, brought in conventional cattle that could not comply with organic regulations and, most seriously, selling milk labeled as “organic” that did not meet the legal requirements.

In its formal letter to the company, USDA staff at the National Organic Program stated: “Due to the nature and extent of these violations, the NOP proposes to revoke Aurora Organic Dairy’s production and handling certifications under the NOP.”

But the powerful Washington-based lobby of Covington in Burling, representing Aurora, worked with the Bush administration officials at the USDA to instead allow the $100 million corporation to continue in the organic business with a one-year probation and some modest changes to their operations

The “sweetheart” settlement between Aurora and the USDA provoked a consumer led effort to seek justice in federal courts. Nineteen separate class action lawsuits were brought against Aurora and several national grocery retailers selling Aurora’s suspect organic milk including Wal-Mart, Target and Safeway. The lawsuits claiming consumer fraud were eventually consolidated into a single case in the federal district court in St. Louis. Earlier this year, federal court judge E. Richard Webber dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds. An appeal has since been filed seeking to bring the merits of the lawsuit, which have not been heard, back before the court.

“OTA’s action, apparently backed by CROPP [Organic Valley], infuriates me,” said Kevin Engelbert. “I hope every person and organization that belongs to OTA drops their membership immediately.”

The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit farm policy research group, is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Their Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate and governmental watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit. The largest portion of its funding comes from individual members, mostly family-scale organic farmers. They can be found on the web at www.cornucopia.org.

If you’ve been reading this blog you know that deceptive food labeling makes me crazy. I’m going to be lazy and copy this email and link from Food Democracy Now. At some point, Big Food has got to get real.

I just joined Food Democracy Now! in calling on the FDA and USDA to investigate the Smart Choices program, a brainchild of big food companies that labels things like Froot Loops and Lucky Charms a “smart choice” for parents. In an age where childhood obesity is becoming an epidemic, this kind of deceptive labeling has to end. Will you join me and make your voice heard too?

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/cms/sign/Smart_Choices/

The Smart Choices program was dreamed up by giant food conglomerates like ConAgra, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Kraft, PepsiCo, Tyson Foods and Unilever, together with some industry “experts.” They say its purpose is to help consumers make “smarter food and beverage choices,” but you’ll be surprised to see what they define as a “Smart Choice”: things like Froot Loops®, Keebler Cookie Crunch® and Lucky Charms®.

The new Smart Choices® label, a large, bright green checkmark is a sign of everything that is wrong with food industry driven labeling programs. It’s important that we stand up. Tell the FDA that America’s children are not for $ale – it’s time to end deceptive labeling. It only takes a moment - Take action today!

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/cms/sign/Smart_Choices/

A long overdue label. Monsatan will probably sue. Eden Foods is one of the most conscientious large food producers out there.

‘Non-GMO’ Seal Identifies Foods Mostly Biotech-Free
By WILLIAM NEUMAN
Published: August 29, 2009
Many makers of organic and natural foods said their credibility depended on ensuring that their products were free of genetically altered ingredients.

CLOSE THE COOL LOOPHOLE
Comments due by September 30, 2008

The 2002 and the 2008 Farm Bills require retailers to disclose the country of origin of beef, lamb, pork, chicken, wild and farm raised fish and shellfish, perishable fruits and vegetables, peanuts and other commodities on their labels. USDA has issued an interim final rule implementing Country of Origin Labeling (COOL), available here: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5070926. The rule will become effective on September 30, 2008 which is also the deadline for comments.

COOL is an important tool for consumers. It allows consumers to choose U.S. produced meats, produce and nuts. The COOL rule, however, provides a vast loophole. It specifically exempts covered commodities found in “processed” food items. The processing loophole is available for foods that have been cooked or marinated or cured or simply when they have been combined with other covered commodities. Excluded, for example, are roasted peanuts, marinated pork loin, salad mixes, fresh fruit cups, dried fruits and vegetables, smoked or cured ham and bacon.

This exemption excludes a significant portion of the foods consumers bring home from their grocery stores on a daily basis and it compromises a consumer’s right to know the origin of the foods they are buying and consuming.

Tell USDA to close the COOL loophole.

There are several ways to submit your comment:

I posted earlier that the raw milk rule had passed its last hurdle, but I was wrong (I’ve deleted that post). NOW it’s passed the hurdle. Here’s the skinny from Ruth Ann Foster:

NORTH CAROLINA RAW MILK ACTION ALERT
From Ruth Ann Foster,
Greensboro, NC Chapter Leader, Raw Milk Coordinator
July 2, 2008

I have just received word from Representative Pricey Harrison that the Senate unanimously passed HB 2524. (Yesterday, it passed unanimously out of the Senate Agriculture/Environment/Natural Resources Committee.) We have successfully reversed the dye rule.

While this bill preserves a freedom we already had, it is still a victory. During the campaign, we developed many relationships increasing awareness and support. Numerous legislators have expressed an interest in creating a bill for legal access to raw milk for human consumption. The Agriculture Department has also stated its desire to work on this issue. As you are aware, legalizing raw milk will require a tremendous effort. Convincing the Public Health Department will be a difficult task.

Another victory in HB 2524 is clarification of the exemption of unpasteurized milk from the commercial feed law. The Agriculture Department cannot force pet milk producers to become licensed as commercial feed manufactures. Sounds ridiculous but this has been their practice. Our compromise is to label containers with, “Not for Human Consumption” and “The Sale of Raw Milk is Not Legal for Human Consumption in North Carolina”. With all the duct tape that labeling will require, there is no need for gray dye!

ACTIONS TO TAKE
Please take a moment to thank our representatives and senators, especially Rep. Pricey Harrison. She has performed a miracle getting this through in record time. Pricey told me as we began working, that disapproval bills rarely pass. It was because of her tenacity and political skill that HB 2524 succeeded.

Consider your proposals for legalizing raw milk. Email me with your comments and suggestions. We can use these to work with our legislators before next session. Ideally, we will meet together in an open forum.

Thank you all for your hard work and the success of HB 2524.
Happy Fourth of July!

Best,
Ruth Ann Foster

Email Ruth Ann at eatreal @ gmail . com.

It’s been almost a year since I stepped foot into a Harris Teeter - hard for even me to believe since it used to be my grocery chain store of choice. If I couldn’t grow it, find it at the farmer’s market, Deep Roots Co-op, or Earth Fare, I pretty much found that I didn’t need it or I picked it up at the drugstore or Petsmart, since I go to those places anyway for prescriptions and cat food.

Then the location I was familiar with demolished the building that was all of maybe ten years old and built a mega-store nearby. I haven’t been back. It’s not just the wastefulness of the move, combined with the decimation of some lovely old oak trees. It’s the agoraphobic thing about the big humongous store. I could force myself to go, but really, why risk getting lost?

We stopped by Petsmart to pick up a cartload of cat food supplies Sunday and a Harris Teeter had opened next door. I was pretty happy about that, because it’s BLT season, so instead of wasting gas to go to Earth Fare for two items, I thought that I’d buy some beer and bacon at Harris Teeter. Last summer when I still shopped there, they carried a brand of bacon called Peterson’s that carried the Certified Humanely Raised label. When I couldn’t find it, I asked a co-manager who was walking by, who brought over the meat manager. He told me that they had “natural” brands: Smithfield and Hormel. I politely told him that “natural” meant nothing, asked him if he had Peterson’s or any other brands that were certified humanely raised. He told me that Harris Teeter had stopped carrying it because it “wasn’t moving.” “That’s a real shame,” I said, and moved on.

It is a real shame. I have a feeling that the people in Greensboro who might have bought it at Harris Teeter are shopping at farmers’ markets, co-ops, and grocery chains such as Earth Fare and Whole Foods. When Harris Teeter decided not to give this product long enough to develop a customer base, it lost all the other business that those customers took to other stores who cater to whole food/conscious consumers. I don’t know what the answer is.

I had been a Harris Teeter shopper for years, and little by little I moved all my business away. This particular product was the only thing they carried that I couldn’t find somewhere else, but I found acceptable alternatives in other stores. They have plenty of organic choices in certain areas, but no choices in bacon that I would choose now. I don’t really need them anymore.

So does that mean that the conventional grocery stores should stop trying to make an effort to make organic and ethical food shoppers AND regular shoppers happy? Are conventional groceries backing away from trying to be all things to all shoppers? Should they bother, if shoppers like me gravitate to the places where I can find a wider variety of groceries that I feel good about buying?

What about the areas that don’t have good farmer’s markets or Earth Fares or Whole Foods? This was a brand new Harris Teeter in a new location, so I assume that he meant the whole chain had stopped carrying it. I was happy to find cage-free eggs at the Food Lion at the beach, even though they didn’t carry many other items I would normally buy. There was no competition there.

When I began my latest food journey, we were struggling for money and I committed to buying one organic item per visit. As I learned more and put more effort into planning and cooking, I found that I could purchase more organic foods if I decreased my processed food buying. Before long I was almost all organic, and then made the shift to local, sustainably raised foods. But it began at a conventional grocery store that put a few organic food items on the shelf. People have to start somewhere, and a lot of times it is where they are already comfortable and familiar that the light goes on. I don’t shop at Wal-Mart, but if you ignore all the other problems inherent with them selling organic food, this reason would be at the top of the “pro” column.

On the converse side, Earth Fare has moved slightly away from their focus on organic, humanely-raised products and are carrying more conventional and local products. So a move toward the middle road seems to be the business decision there as well. I don’t have a problem with that, if their focus stays on the quality.

It looks like my Harris Teeter days are over. As grocery stores go, I like them a lot. I’m not boycotting them at all, just finding them generally unnecessary. Using double coupons always cost me more money because I bought brand-name stuff I didn’t need anyway. Cat food is cheaper at Petsmart. They sell Yuengling beer at Earth Fare. Duke’s mayonnaise is sold almost everywhere around here. I can get the rest at the farmer’s market or the co-op.

Related: Grocers pushing for organic certification. Eh…seems a bit over the top, but at least it’s in the right direction.

Here is the bill as it stands now - copied from NCLEG.net.

SENATE BILL 948*

Commerce, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee Substitute Adopted 5/22/07
Third Edition Engrossed 5/24/07

Short Title: Small Dairy Sustainability.
(Public)

Sponsors:

Referred to:

March 20, 2007

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT to promote small dairy sustainability by allowing consumers to contract with local farmers to become partial or complete owners of dairy animals OR small HERDs of dairy ANIMALS; AND TO REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEALTH WARNING TO BE PROVIDED WHEN RAW MILK IS DISPENSED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. G.S. 130A‑279 reads as rewritten:

“§ 130A‑279. Sale or dispensing of milk.

(a) Only milk that is Grade “A” pasteurized milk may be sold or dispensed directly to consumers for human consumption. Raw milk and raw milk products shall be sold or dispensed only to a permitted milk hauler or to a processing facility at which the processing of milk is permitted, graded, or regulated by a local, State, or federal agency. The Commission may adopt rules to provide exceptions for dispensing raw milk and raw milk products for nonhuman consumption. “Sale” or “sold” shall mean any transaction that involves the transfer or dispensing of milk and milk products or the right to acquire milk and milk products through barter or contractual arrangement or in exchange for any other form of compensation including, but not limited to, the sale of shares or interest in a cow, goat, or other lactating animal or herd. compensation. This subsection is subject to subsection (b) of this section.

(c) Raw milk may not be dispensed to any person for human consumption unless the dispenser of the raw milk provides notice to the person to whom the raw milk is dispensed of the public health risks associated with human consumption of raw milk. The Commission shall adopt rules providing for notice to persons to whom raw milk or raw milk products are dispensed for human consumption of the public health risks associated with human consumption of raw milk. The rules shall include a requirement that containers of raw milk for human consumption must contain a warning label affixed to the container indicating the public health risks associated with human consumption of raw milk. The rules shall also require the public health notice to be provided by means other than container labels in cases where the raw milk is dispensed into a container that is not provided by the dispenser of the raw milk. As used in this subsection “raw milk” includes raw milk products.”

SECTION 2. This act is effective when it becomes law. The Commission for Health Services may adopt temporary or emergency rules in accordance with Chapter 150B of the General Statutes to implement this act.

Hallelujah, it’s possible that North Carolina farmers may regain a source of lost income, and consumers will have a choice.

Whatever your personal feelings are about raw milk, many people have been drinking it for years with no more ill effects than pasteurized milk. Not only that, many people who can NOT drink pasteurized milk can drink raw milk because of the enzymes that remain. There is a lot of misinformation about raw milk out there. Raw milk has been the scapegoat of many an incident, only to be cleared with little mention in the press after testing.

It’s time for those who want the choice of raw milk to have the legal option again. We were allowed this option until 2004. Many states and countries allow the sale of raw milk, and obviously there has not been the consequences that the opposition claims.

I’ve been drinking raw milk again since January. Since that time, my digestive problems have pretty much disappeared. I say again, because I grew up drinking raw milk, from a cow at my neighbor’s house.

There are reports that drinking raw milk helps other health problems too.

And talk about knowing where your food comes from - I know the name of my COW. It would be nice for these farmers to be able to sell their milk for human consumption openly again. Legalization can only help the public, since raw milk fans will find a way to get it on the black market.

This raw milk bill requires the consumer to buy a share of a cow from a farmer. Cow-share programs are common in other states. Raw milk would be required to carry a warning label, much like cigarettes, which are lethal and legal everywhere in this country.

But now it has to pass the House, and you can bet that the lobbyists for big dairy operations are hard at work to stop this bill. I urge you all to contact your state representative and ask them to vote yes on Senate Bill 948!

There are lots of great quotes in yesterday’s New York Times Magazine essay by Michael Pollan entitled Unhappy Meals. Here is one of them:

…it’s also a lot easier to slap a health claim on a box of sugary cereal than on a potato or carrot, with the perverse result that the most healthful foods in the supermarket sit there quietly in the produce section, silent as stroke victims, while a few aisles over, the Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms are screaming about their newfound whole-grain goodness.

This is the kind of “logic” we get from the biotech bullies, who insist on forcing food on European consumers that don’t want it. Most European farmers and consumers are smart enough not to let the genie out of the bottle. From Biotech Food Tears Rifts in Europe, By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL, New York Times, June 6, 2006:

“Labeling has turned out to be a stigma because the public is so frightened, and retailers have become easy targets,” said Mr. Barber, of EuropaBio. “Look at the Greenpeace Web site with its list of brands that use G.M.’s. We’re O.K. with consumers making a choice, but we’re leery because they’re scared, and we’re labeling identical products.”

First of all, they are not identical products. Second of all, how are consumers able to make a choice if their choices are not identified on a label? With a microscope?

But hey, thanks for the tip about the Greenpeace Web site.