Natural Communities Magazine A magazine devoted to the local natural wellness culture.

If the Hippocrates maxim that “food should be considered as our first medicine” is right, we are on the brink of some really bad medicine. Recently, Obama selected as his “Food Czar”, a former Monsanto executive and FDA manipulator, Michael Taylor. More recently, the Orwellian labeled Food Safety Enhancement Bill (HR 2749) was passed easily by the House of Representatives.

The bill is on a fast track for Senate and Presidential approval. If it becomes law as written, this combination of a corrupt Food Czar and misleadingly named Food Safety Bill threatens to take out the food that is medicine and leave us with the food that is poison.

The Food Safety Bill Threatens Safe Food

Before you consider most of this bill as benign or even helpful, as many main stream outlets are promoting, read on and do your own research on the ambiguity of the bill, of which interpretation and enforcement will be left to the discretion of The Food Czar.

The Food Safety Bill does next to nothing to protect consumers from the industrial foods of agribusiness giants such as Monsanto and their ilk. It has the potential to be an instrument of legal oppression for small farmers, organic farming, even farmers’ markets and food co-ops. Some indicate the Bill’s language is broad enough to even include home vegetable gardens!

Setting a uniform fee of $500 annual, regardless of company or farm size, for the privilege of being policed by the FDA is a relatively minor inequity. This bill, when passed into law, gives the FDA the power to have random inspections on any food producing or storage group without probable cause. There have already been raids on food co-ops, such as the Ohio Department of Agriculture La Grange co-op raid in December of 2008, where all the food was seized without testing.

According to Gunny G Online: “This astounding control will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides. Farmers, thus, will be locked not only into the industrialization of once normal and organic farms but into the forced purchase of industry’s products.”

HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation. Does it include judicial review, Congressional oversight, a defined and limited set of penalties and punishments for a defined set of “crimes”? Not even. The so called Food Safety Bill hands carte blanch enforcement to the whims of Obama’s Food Czar.

Introducing Obama’s Food Czar

“The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US Food Safety Czar. This is no joke”, says Jeffrey Smith about Michael Taylor’s appointment in a recent Huffington Post article. Jeffrey Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette. Perhaps that is exaggerated, but Michael Taylor’s history with Monsanto and the FDA through the corporate/government revolving door is scary enough to provoke such an assertion.

In the early 1990’s, Michael Taylor was an attorney for Monsanto. He was parsing legalese and loopholes for the wonderful group that has brought the world DDT, PCB’s, Agent Orange, NutraSweet (aspartame), bovine growth hormone, GMO foods, toxic pesticides and weed killers (Round Up), and terminator seeds.

Michael passed through the revolving door connecting the corporate world and government more than once to ensure Monsanto’s unabated success with pushing profitable poisons into the world’s food supply.

After functioning as a lead attorney with Monsanto, he managed to be appointed as the FDA Policy Chief. From that position he wrote a “white paper” (an authoritative official declaration) on the safety of bovine growth hormones. He ensured that dairy farmers using Monsanto’s rbGH would not be required to label its milk products with the bovine growth hormone, which passes puss and toxins into the cow’s milk.

This white paper also gave Monsanto the ability to sue dairy farmers who labeled their products rbGH or growth hormone free, which Monsanto zealously pursued to financially destroy small dairy farmers. Monsanto Mike also oversaw the FDA ruling that dairy farmers who labeled their products as non rbGH needed to include that the FDA has determined there is no difference between milk from rbGH cows and non rbGH cows, which is a complete lie.

Author/journalist Jeffrey Smith was tipped from a former Monsanto scientist that three colleagues at Monsanto, upon discovering the hazards of milk from rbGH injected cows, switched to organic dairy products. Some FDA scientists also knew of the dangers and the improper testing by Monsanto. But they don’t make the final decisions. That’s a function of the FDA Policy Chief, and that was Michael Taylor.

The revolving door swooshed around and Michael Taylor landed back in Monsanto as vice president and chief lobbyist. Only months ago the door spun around once again and Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the FDA commissioner. Good timing. From that position he could easily be promoted into Obama’s cabinet as the Food Safety Czar.

In case you may still doubt USA government collusion with Monsanto, here’s an interesting item from “Monsanto Buys Terminator Seeds Company” by F. William Engdahl. “In March 1998 the US Patent Office granted Patent No. 5,723,765 to Delta & Pine Land for a patent titled, Control of Plant Gene Expression. The patent is owned jointly, according to Delta & Pine’s Security & Exchange Commission 10K filing, by D&PL and the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture.”

The title “Control of Plant Gene Expression” refers to terminator seeds. These seeds make it impossible to save seeds from a harvest for replanting the next crop, an age old tradition for most farmers. This is a nail in the coffin of independent farming world wide, as once farmers begin using GMO seeds, they have to come back to buy again and again. Monsanto bought Delta & Pine Land (D & PL) in 2008, and now the USDA shares the terminator seed patent rights for royalties with Monsanto.

When Big Business owns Government, it is called fascism. When Government owns Big Business, it is called communism. Does this mean we will now have both for our food supply?

What This Means to Consumers

It means this bill will have the FDA, along with the USDA, to act as minions directly instead of indirectly for Monsanto and other literally unhealthy corporations. The FDA would be linking up with other World Trade Organization (WTO) efforts to control farming world wide, while catering to the greedy ambitions of International Agribusiness, its related industries, and Processed Food Manufacturers. FDA, USDA, and WTO bureaucrats are sponsored and headed by the enemies of organic and wholesome food farming.

The WTO is capable of legally levying ridiculous fines or mandating trade sanctions, including food sanctions, on regions that don’t comply with WTO governed organizations, such as WHO (World Health Organization), the organization that is ushering in dangerous forced vaccinations for 195 member nations. The WTO is planning severe farming regulations that are expected to be world wide.

Setting up a Food Czar from Monsanto with FDA connections via his revolving door career means that rbGH dairy, GMO’s, terminator seeds and pesticides for crops will dominate in our food supply and prosper as “safe” while organic and wholesome foods will be declared dangerous and become a threatened species. The main stream media is already publicizing propaganda against organic food.

You may want to start your own organic garden by yourself or with others soon. This is what the Cubans did in defense of all the trade sanctions imposed on them. And most of Cuba’s crops are now organic!

Activists don’t seem to feel confident about the bill losing steam on its fast track to becoming law. They have decided the best that can be done is petitioning for rewording of key passages with the Senate to soften HR 2749 before it gets to the president for ratification.

About the author
Paul Fassa has managed to survive the normal American diet and his youthful folly by studying real, not medical mafia, health matters informally with his wife over several years, and incorporating them into his lifestyle as a vegetarian. He also practices Chi-Lel Chi Gong, and he is trained as a polarity therapy practitioner. He is dedicated to warning others of the corruption of food and medicine in our time, and guiding others in a better direction for health.

The second circuit federal appellate court on Thursday will hear a challenge to an EPA rule that allows people to be used as guinea pigs in tests of toxic pesticides. The lawsuit, NRDC V. EPA, was brought before the court by a coalition of environmental, farmworker and health groups in 2006. The groups contend that the agency’s human testing rule violates a law passed by Congress in 2005 mandating strict ethical and scientific protections for pesticide testing on humans. At the time, the House Committee on Government Reform found “the actual experiments being considered by EPA are deeply flawed and rife with ethical violations.”

“Testing poisons on people is unethical and against the law,” said Shelley Davis, Beyond Pesticides board member and deputy director of Farmworker Justice, a national advocacy and education center for migrant and seasonal farmworkers, based in Washington, D.C.“The EPA should stop accepting these industry funded tests.”

Previous human testing by industry produced serious ethical and scientific problems including one instance in which a company told participants they were eating vitamins, not toxic pesticides. In other instances citied in the lawsuit, researchers ignored the adverse health effects reported by the participants.

“The only people who get what they want out of these immoral tests are the chemical companies,” said Aaron Colangelo, a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) senior attorney representing the petitioners. “Their testing methods are questionable at best, the only purpose they serve is to weaken pesticide safety standards, and ultimately the people who grow and harvest our food suffer the consequences. This practice must end.”

In 2005, Congress passed a law strictly forbidding the use of pregnant women and minors in pesticide tests. A loophole in the new EPA rule will allow testing of pregnant women, infants and children. Low-income people and students are the most likely to participate in these dangerous experiments, for which they usually receive a few hundred dollars. However, participants injured in the studies are not guaranteed medical care outside of the testing period.

The groups contend the EPA rule violates international ethical standards enumerated in the 1947 Nuremburg Code by permitting the EPA to set safety standards based on tests conducted with only a handful of healthy people. In most tests, participants are not representative of the U.S. population, the test period is scientifically problematic, and group size is not large enough to detect potential harmful health effects.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of NRDC, Pesticide Action Network North America, Farm Labor Organizing Committee, Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, Pineros y Campesinos del Noreste, and Migrant Clinicians Network. Attorneys for the petitioners are NRDC, Farmworker Justice and Earthjustice.

Human testing, which was stopped by a moratorium in 1998, was reintroduced in 2003 by a court ruling on a pesticide industry suit. Following the reintroduction of human studies, EPA began to develop a rule for such testing. This came despite flaws found in such studies, and took into account industry pressure to approve testing in children, among other allowances.EPA released its final rule in 2006, despite the Congressional report decrying human testing in 2005. At the time, committee member Rep. Henry Waxman stated, “What we’ve found is that the human pesticide experiments that the Bush Administration intends to use to set federal pesticide policies are rife with ethical and scientific defects.”Beyond Pesticides rejects human testing as unethical and dangerous to both test participants and agricultural workers exposed to toxic, approved pesticides. For more information on the timeline of human testing regulation, click here. For more information on the lawsuit, view the Petitioners’ brief and Reply brief.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=267

Although the biotech industry and our indentured corporate mass media would have us believe that recent scientific advances in food and farming are derived from genetic engineering and chemicals, according to UK-based GM Watch, the real breakthroughs in farming in 2007 came from organic and sustainable agriculture:

1) In 2007 a deluge of new scientific studies from a wide variety of institutions indicate that in comparison to genetically modified (GM) crops, organic agriculture can better feed the world, reduce global warming, provide greater nutrition, and boost the economy. Digesting new research on the topic, the United Nations announced that organic agriculture is the best way to feed the world and help stabilize the climate.

2) A wide range of new, non-GM crops over the last year are bringing hope to farmers around the world. Some of these include:
- A wheat variety that can withstand high salinity in soil, thereby opening up vast tracks of land previously considered “dead”.
- Non-GM corn and rice varieties that can tolerate droughts.
- Indian farmers find traditional cotton varieties to be much more stress-resistant than GM cotton.
- Iron fortified non-GMO maize strain reduces anemia rates in children.
-Discovery of non-GM variety of allergen-free peanut.

Learn more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9572.cfm

In a global first, over 300 crop safety and pesticide management officials and other experts met last week to discuss challenges associated with pesticide use on “specialty crops” like garlic, ginger and chilies. The Department of Agriculture (USDA), the United Nation’s Food and Agricultural Organization and the Environmental Protection Agency organized the week-long Global Minor Use Summit, which took place at the FAO Headquarters in Rome, Italy. Unlike large-area, highly-traded crops such as corn, wheat, rice or cotton, specialty crops have traditionally been produced in relatively small amounts. As a result, studies on the use of pesticides in the cultivation of specialty crops have not been as systematic or widespread as they have been for major cash crops. Producers, many of them in the developing world, face barriers to export their goods to overseas markets with strong safety standards for imports.

International trade in specialty crops is booming, thanks in part to increased levels of human migration and modern preservation and transportation techniques. FAO data show that trade in non-traditional agricultural exports is worth more than US$30 billion a year. Developing countries have a 56 percent share of that trade. “For some countries and crops, like green beans in Kenya and exotic fruits in Malaysia, these ‘minor crops’ aren’t minor at all — national economies depend on them,” according to Gero Vaagt, a specialist with FAO’s Plant Production and Protection Division.

“There has been considerable interest in the opportunities which the fair trade and organic markets could offer to producers or exporters of non-traditional products, particularly those in developing countries,” according to the FAO technical paper, The market for non-traditional agricultural exports. “It is apparent, however, that the current market for fair trade and organic produce is still small relative to that for conventional produce and vulnerable to over-supply,” the FAO report continues, taking a cautious approach to organic agriculture.

The conference focused on how producers can more easily export non-traditional crops, as import standards aimed at protecting human health become increasingly strict, especially in developed countries. One major problem is that there are gaps at the international level in terms of registered uses for pesticides on specialty crops. Registration is the process through which national authorities evaluate which pesticides can be used by growers, and under what conditions. If a pesticide is permitted for use on certain crops, maximum residue limits (MRLs) are set that aim to quantify how much pesticide residue a product can safely contain. Prior to seeking approval, manufacturers typically conduct extensive field tests and other studies whose results are used by regulators when deciding to approve and register a pesticide. Since this involves a significant financial investment, they tend to focus on pesticides used on major crops only.

“There is little financial incentive for studies of pesticide use for minor crops, and as a result accepted MRLs are lacking, especially at the international level,” explained Shivaji Pandey, Director of FAO’s Plant Protection Division. “This means that when a specialty crop reaches an import market it can be rejected. The pesticide found on it might have been properly applied and existing in safe amounts, but because there’s no registered use for it on that crop, it fails the ‘zero tolerance’ litmus test.”

“What we’re trying to do is to look at ways to come up with more harmonized protection measures for these crops that are efficient, suit the needs of farmers, facilitate trade, ensure food and environmental safety, and benefit consumers,” Pandey said. In particular, he added, following the summit, FAO hopes to see more MRLs for pesticides used on specialty crops established at the international Codex Alimentarius level. Codex is a joint FAO-World Health Organization body that sets international standards for food safety, standards which are relied upon by the World Trade Organization when resolving trade disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=243

The Senate Agriculture Committee approved its draft of the $300 billion 2007-2012 Farm Bill last week. The 1300-page bill, now headed to the main Senate floor, includes, as usual, billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies for chemical and energy­intensive crops, factory farms, and junk food purveyors, while “nickle and dime-ing” organic agriculture, conservation, nutrition, and alternative energy programs. Let your Senators know you want to eliminate all taxpayer subsidies, other than those designed to make our food and farming system healthier and more sustainable, and specifically you want a “Fair Share” for organics commensurate with our current 3% market share. Besides billions in corporate subsidies, this version of the Farm Bill includes implementation of the controversial National Animal Identification System (NAIS). NAIS would require that all farmers, even those with just one cow, horse, or chicken, to implant their animals with an electronic tracking device and permanently report their movements to the USDA. This expensive Big Brother procedure, which lobbyists crafted so as to exempt factory farms, could put many small family farms out of business. Please contact your Senators to cut corporate subsidies, eliminate NAIS, and support increases in funding in the Farm Bill for for conservation, organic agriculture, healthy food and beginning farmer programs.

Take Action: www.organicconsumers.org

After a number of delays, the Senate Agriculture Committee is scheduled to take action on their version of the Farm Bill on Tuesday, October 23rd. Right now, many confidential negotiations and back room deals are underway in preparation for the Committee’s Farm Bill mark-up next week. Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Tom Harkin’s (D-IA) announced today that his draft Farm Bill includes strong provisions to promote organic and sustainable agriculture, conservation, beginning farmers and better nutrition. However, various sources have indicated that funding levels remain low for many of these crucial programs. With the Agriculture Committee set to vote next week, and the full Senate vote as early as the week of October 29th, NOW is the time to act. Please contact your Senators and ask them to support increases in funding for conservation, organic agriculture, healthy food and beginning and minority farmer programs.

TAKE ACTION:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7765.cfm

On September 24, 2007, scientists across the country – including six Nobel prize winners, alarmed by the prospect of registering methyl iodide as a pesticide, issued a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson urging the Agency not to sanction the broad use of methyl iodide now or at any time.

“The gratifying thing is that EPA has been responsive to people who are really concerned about this,” Robert Bergman, a University of California at Berkeley professor who organized the scientists’ letter, told the Associated Press. The letter criticized EPA’s scientific analysis, calling for an independent scientific review of the agency’s assessment.

Methyl iodide and methyl bromide are injected into the soil at rates of 100-400 pounds per acre to kill soil-borne pests. Because of the high application rates and gaseous nature of these chemicals, they drift away from the application site to poison neighbors and farmworkers. EPA’s analysis evaluated possible buffer zones around fields and concluded that bystander exposure would not be significant. It said farmworkers could protect themselves sufficiently with respirators.

The Montreal Protocol, a 1992 commitment by the world’s nations that includes the phase out methyl bromide - one of the five deadly pesticides targeted by Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers - gave hope that farmworkers and others would finally stop being put at risk by this deadly pesticide. Unfortunately, EPA is not only backpedaling on this, but is also facilitating the chemical industry and agribusiness efforts to introduce methyl iodide, a fumigant that may be even more hazardous to human health than methyl bromide.

The state of California lists methyl iodide as a carcinogen under Proposition 65. EPA found that methyl iodide caused thyroid tumors–and introduced a previously unheard of cancer ranking of “Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses that do not alter rat thyroid hormone homeostasis.” The EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee came to this conclusion using only a single study—in which 62-66% of the rats in both the control and the high dose group died during the experiment. In addition to thyroid tumors, the study showed significant changes in thyroid hormone levels, which are closely tied to metabolic disorders. Other animal studies evaluated by EPA also indicated that methyl iodide causes respiratory tract lesions, neurological effects, and miscarriages.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=200

(left) Aerial photo of Aurora “organic” dairy factory farm courtesy of Cornucopia Institute

Just when we thought it couldn’t get any hotter (or any more mind-boggling), the “organic” dairy factory farm controversy reached a new level of intensity over the past week. The USDA announced, to the disappointment of the organic community, that they were not going to take further disciplinary measures against Aurora Organic Dairy, a company that just a few weeks ago had a portion of its organic certification suspended by the USDA for “willfully” violating National Organic Standards since 2003 by failing to pasture its animals and by bringing conventional calves onto its feedlots and then declaring them organic. But caving in to pressure from Aurora and other big corporate players in the organic sector , the USDA now says the #1 organic private label dairy processor in the U.S. can continue selling milk produced on its factory farms as “organic” to its longstanding customers including Target, Wal-Mart, Costco, Safeway, and Woodstock Farms.

In a mind-twisting manipulation of logic, the new acting Secretary of Agriculture, Chuck Connors, a notorious cheerleader for biotech and corporate agribusiness, announced last week that this issue, regarding Aurora’s violation of the USDA National Organic Standards, falls outside the scope of the USDA National Organic Standards. “I know there is controversy out there on a number of issues that really fall outside the bounds, if you will, of what constitutes that organic standard that is necessary in order for the product to have our seal,” said Connors.

(image above) Healthy Land/Healthy Cows—”Real” Organic Farms

(image below) Aurora “Organic” factory confinement dairy—Platteville, Colorado

Now that they have the USDA in their pocket, Aurora is threatening to sue the Organic Consumers Association and Cornucopia Institute for educating and mobilizing consumers to oppose Aurora’s blatant violations of organic integrity. In related news, the recent issue of Fortune Magazine reports Aurora’s factory farms generated a record 100 million dollars in “organic” dairy sales to consumers this year. In other words, when it comes to suing the OCA, Aurora has plenty of money, from selling its cheap “organic” factory farm milk to Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, and Safeway . So given this David versus Goliath situation, OCA needs your financial support today, more than ever, to defend ourselves from this attack by Aurora and to expose the ongoing negligence of the USDA.

Donate to OCA

www.organicconsumers.org

Tonight at 7:20 p.m. EST, August 29, the USDA issued an emergency news release announcing that they had sent a Letter of Revocation to the Aurora Organic Dairy. In lieu of revoking Aurora’s organic certification, the Agency has instead entered into a consent agreement requiring the nation’s largest certified organic dairy to make substantial and wide-ranging changes to the livestock management practices at their operations in Texas and Colorado. (A copy of USDA’s news release has been appears below, in full.)

If the terms of the agreement are not met, USDA officials warn Aurora’s management that the agreement they have reached “will be withdrawn” and the Agency may “revoke the organic certification” for Aurora’s Platteville, CO dairy processing plant that packages private label milk for several national chains, including Wal-Mart, Costco, Target, Trader Joe’s and Safeway. The USDA also warns Aurora’s officials that their operations “will be closely monitored for compliance with the provisions of the agreement.” Although Aurora is the largest private-label organic milk supplier in the United States they also market milk under their own label; High Meadows.

Additionally, Aurora has agreed not to renew the organic certification for its Woodward, Colo., facility.

Unlike the crass public relations spin that was released by Aurora earlier today the formal legal complaints Cornucopia filed with USDA against Aurora in 2005 and 2006 were not dismissed. In fact, earlier tonight I received a call from a high-ranking USDA official to say that the Agency had specifically rushed their official news release on the events out to the public in an effort to dispel the misinformation caused by Aurora’s factually erroneous representations.

Although we should be proud at The Cornucopia Institute that our meticulous research and well documented legal complaints have resulted in this action, and the previously announced decertification of the 10,000-head Vander Eyk dairy in California, we are still not wholly satisfied with the outcome and enforcement action taken by the USDA.

After years of delay Aurora, having expanded to five industrial scale dairies in Colorado and Texas, is still being allowed to remain in business despite being found guilty of multiple violations of organic law. These were not accidental violations – they were willful and premeditated violations of the law by a multimillion dollar business enterprise, the largest organic dairy producer in the United States.

All of the allegations that we outlined in our legal complaints (available on our website) are delineated in this consent agreement. The investigators at AMS compliance have obviously done their jobs well and are to be commended for their diligence. But it is the political appointees at USDA that have decided to let Aurora off somewhat easy in this matter. This is exactly what we warned about in our news release of August 14 (also available at www.cornucopia.org).

Major points that were detailed in the original Cornucopia legal complaints and that are also addressed in the consent agreement include:

• Aurora was not allowing their animals access to pasture
• Aurora brought in animals from a non-certified contract heifer ranch
• Aurora converted animals from conventional to organic production when the regulations (because of their initial 80/20 conversion) prohibited that.
• And Aurora purchased organic feed for their Texas operation from a friend of the dairy manager who had sprayed his crops with herbicides during transition.

During all of this time, Aurora was building market share, helping drive the price down for “real” organic farmers, and being a driving force behind the current surplus in the organic dairy market. They were defrauding consumers by selling milk that did not qualify to be labeled as organic.

The USDA chose not to levy any fines and Aurora is being allowed to remain in business.

It must be noted that §205.100(c)(1) of the organic regulations states that “any operation that knowingly sells or labels a product as organic, except in accordance with the Act, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 per violation.”

This is only a partial victory in protecting the economic interests of the family scale dairy farmers we work for.

Stay tuned. We will aggressively be telling consumers, and the wholesale buyers, that have been buying milk from Aurora, that they have been scammed by charlatans. Hopefully ethical businesses will discontinue their relationship with Aurora and we will see the surplus eaten away by new demand for “real” organic milk.

I want to thank the staff of The Cornucopia Institute for their hard work over the years in pursuing our complaints against Vander Eyk, Aurora and Dean Foods/Horizon (the only factory-farm dairy operator, profiled in our complaints, that has yet to be adjudicated by the USDA). I particularly want to thank our research director, Will Fantle who is responsible for crafting our legal complaints and our legal counsel, Gary Cox, who has helped review documents and spearheaded our lawsuit against the USDA for release of related documents they had illegally withheld from the public.

I especially want to thank the many members of The Cornucopia Institute who had confidence in our work and have financially underwritten the expenses related to this campaign. It is an honor to work for the organic farmers of this country who I have so much respect and admiration for.

We will be releasing more news and analysis when it becomes available.

Best regards,

Mark Kastel
Codirector
The Cornucopia Institute
 608-625-2042

USDA News Release

AURORA ORGANIC DAIRY SIGNS CONSENT AGREEMENT WITH USDA’s AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

WASHINGTON, Aug. 29, 2007 – The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has entered into a consent agreement with Aurora Organic Dairy (Aurora) in response to a Notice of Proposed Revocation issued earlier this year alleging violations of National Organic Program (NOP) regulations. Under the consent agreement, Aurora’s Platteville, Colo., facility must meet several conditions in order to continue to operate as a certified organic dairy operation. These conditions include removing certain animals from the organic herd and ceasing to apply the organic label to certain milk. Additionally, AMS 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.

“The organic industry is booming and the National Organic Program is a high priority for USDA,” said Bruce I. Knight, under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs, “and through this consent agreement consumers can be assured that milk labeled as organic in the supermarket is indeed organic.”

Under terms of the consent agreement Aurora also must file new organic systems plans for its Platteville, Colo., and Dublin, TX, facilities. These new plans will address all of the inconsistencies between its operations and the NOP regulations identified in the Notice of Proposed Revocation.

Major adjustments required at Aurora’s Platteville, Colo., facility include:

1) providing daily access to pasture during the growing season,

acknowledging that lactation is not a reason to deny access to pasture;

2) reducing the number of cows to a level consistent with available pasture with agreed maximum stocking densities;

3) eliminating improperly transitioned cows from its herd and not marketing those cows’ milk as organic; and

4) agreeing to use the more stringent transition process in the NOP regulations for animals added to its dairy herd.

Aurora also agreed not to renew the organic certification for its Woodward, Colo., facility. Additionally, Aurora agreed to enter into written agreements with suppliers of animals for its Dublin, Texas facility that verify the certification of those suppliers and the proper transitioning to the organic status of those animals.

AMS initiated its investigation of Aurora based upon a complaint alleging insufficient pasture for its animals. In investigating this complaint, AMS investigators also uncovered the improper transitioning of animals and a failure to maintain adequate records.

Aurora’s Platteville, Colo. and Dublin, Texas plants will be closely monitored for compliance with the provisions of the agreement. If AMS finds the terms of the consent agreement are not being met, then the agreement will be withdrawn and AMS could revoke the organic certification for Aurora’s Platteville, Colo., plant.

As a result of the investigation, Aurora’s certifying agent, the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA), agreed earlier this year to make several changes in its operation, including attending increased NOP training and hiring additional personnel.

Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990. The OFPA required the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop national standards for organically produced agricultural products to assure consumers that agricultural products marketed as organic meet consistent, uniform standards. The OFPA and the National Organic Program (NOP) regulations require that agricultural products labeled as organic originate from farms or handling operations certified by a State or private entity that has been accredited by USDA.

The NOP is a marketing program housed within the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. Neither the OFPA nor the NOP regulations address food safety or nutrition. Additional information about this program is available on the National Organic Program Web site at www.ams.usda.gov/nop.

Country’s Largest Dairy Likely to Lose Certification

The Cornucopia Institute has learned that the USDA appears about to revoke the organic certification of the nation’s largest industrial dairy operator, Aurora Organic Dairy, with corporate headquarters in Boulder, Colorado.

Aurora operates several giant factory dairies milking thousands of cows each in semi-arid areas of Colorado and Texas. The company has been the subject of a series of formal legal complaints filed with the USDA by The Cornucopia Institute. The complaints from the Wisconsin-based farm policy group filed in 2005 and 2006, called for a USDA investigation into allegations of numerous organic livestock management improprieties on Aurora’s facilities.

“After personally inspecting some of Aurora’s dairies in Texas and Colorado, we found 98% of their cattle in feedlots instead of grazing on pasture as the law requires,” stated Mark Kastel, Cornucopia’s senior farm policy analyst. Cornucopia also found that Aurora was procuring cattle from a non-certified organic source in apparent violation of the law. “Our sources tell us that the USDA’s investigators found many other violations when conducting their probe of Aurora.”

But Kastel warned that the USDA is under intense pressure to scuttle the Aurora decertification order. “We understand that powerful political influence is being brought to bear on the USDA in an effort to delay or water down the penalties against Aurora,” noted Kastel.

As part of their investigation of Aurora, compliance officers at the USDA took sworn testimony from Cornucopia staff, visited Aurora’s facilities and interviewed their organic certifier, the State of Colorado. The Institute found out about the impending enforcement action, and the potential for its delay, from officials in Colorado, a political appointee at the USDA and a highly placed industry executive.

The organic industry is carefully watching what the USDA does with the Aurora matter because of its size and impact on the marketplace. Aurora doesn’t directly market milk under its own name, but it is the country’s largest private-label producer of organic milk. Aurora packages store-brand organic dairy products for Wal-Mart, Costco, Target, Safeway, Trader Joe’s, Wild Oats, and other grocery chains. “The organic regulations are scale neutral,” added Kastel. “In terms of enforcement it shouldn’t matter if we are talking about a powerful corporate player, with thousands of cows, or a smaller family operation, bad actors in this industry need to be removed from the marketplace.”

Because of the delay in USDA enforcement against Aurora Dairy, The Cornucopia Institute today filed a Freedom of Information request (FOIA) with the USDA to secure documents that could uncover possible influence peddling and favoritism at the Department. “We hope that the USDA will issue tough sanctions, if warranted,” Kastel said. “And we want the agency to know that the organic community is very closely monitoring this case.”

Earlier this spring the 10,000-cow Vander Eyk factory dairy in Pixley, California lost its organic certification after an investigation revealed numerous violations of federal organic rules. The industrial-scale operation had been publicly spotlighted by The Cornucopia Institute for organic management irregularities. The Vander Eyk dairy had been selling its milk to Stremicks (Heritage-Foods) and Dean Foods (Horizon).

Based on documents recently received by Cornucopia through an earlier FOIA request, the Vander Eck dairy lost their ability to market organic milk not only because they lacked pasture for their cattle but also because they violated requirements for careful record-keeping to assure that all cows milked were eligible for organic certification and all the feed they consumed was actually organically grown.

“It now appears that our concerns about the giant industrial dairy cutting corners by confining cattle in a ‘factory-farm’ setting was just the tip of the iceberg,” said Will Fantle, Cornucopia’s research director. “The foundation of the organic certification process is the maintenance of a comprehensive farm audit trail which can be reviewed by independent certification inspectors and the USDA. The fact that Vander Eyk could not produce the documents requested by his certifier, and that he did not appeal the enforcement action, is just damning.”

The controversy about the growing number of factory-farms producing organic milk has come to a head this year as the number of farmers transitioning to organic dairy production has dramatically increased causing a surplus of organic milk for the first time. That surplus, largely attributed to the mega-farms, is now driving down prices to family farmers around the country endangering their livelihoods. It’s also become a tragedy for some family farmers around the country who have gone through the arduous and expensive three-year transition to organic management but now have nowhere to ship their milk.

“With at least 15 of these giant dairies operating, mostly in the arid west, they have succeeded in jeopardizing the livelihood of the 1500 or so ethical dairy farm families who are doing this right,” said Merrill Clark, an organic livestock producer from Cassopolis, Michigan and former member of the USDA’s expert advisory panel, the National Organic Standards Board.

“The good news for consumers is that in our survey of organic dairy brands (posted on www.cornucopia.org) a full 90% of namebrand products received very high ratings in our scorecard that critiqued the environmental and animal husbandry practices used in sourcing the organic milk for the dairy products,” the Cornucopia’s Kastel said. “With a small amount of research, consumers who care about maintaining the integrity of organics can easily find organic dairy products they can believe in.”

www.cornucopia.org