Applegater., September 01, 2010, Page 21, Image 21

Applegater
SOMETHING TO CEREBRATE
So, you think it’s organic?
BY KATE MORSE, CCH
The USDA established
the National Organic Program
(NOP) in 1990 to regulate the
food industry’s use of the term “organic.” By taking
such a step, they began to define a complex set of
standards having to do with: 1) food raising, pro-
cessing, handling and shipping, for both animal and
vegetable foods, raw and processed; 2) becoming a
certified organic grower or producer; 3) and labeling
requirements.
In the last couple of years, NOP fine-tuned the
regulations, spurred by groups that were perturbed by
lax enforcement especially in the organic dairy indus-
try. The Obama administration appointed a new chair
of the National Organic Standards Board (www.ams.
usda.gov/nosb), but the Secretary of Agriculture also
receives input from The Organic Trade Association
(www.ota.com). To date, the heavy-hitters in organic
foods in this country are Kraft, General Mills, Pepsi,
Cargill, Dean Foods, and the like. Through their
subsidiaries, these companies own the biggest pack-
aged organic brands (e.g., Hain, Muir Glen, Horizon
Dairy). Organic produce is a drop in the bucket.
Just reading the NOP regulations is a week-
long job. What’s interesting is the way they break
down substances that are and aren’t permitted in the
organic production cycle. Now, organic poultry and
livestock must get 100% organic feed, and the clear-
est new prohibitions are those against antibiotics in
poultry and livestock, ionizing radiation, genetically
modified organisms, and sewage sludge. (Note: This
isn’t about bacteria. Sewage sludge, particularly from
municipal solid waste processing facilities, usually
contains excessive amounts of heavy metals such as
lead and cadmium. Leafy green vegetables that give
you minerals get them—good and bad—from the soil
they grew in, making sewage sludge a toxic fertilizer.)
Additionally, the regulations state that some-
thing that is produced organically must be handled,
shipped, and packaged using methods and substances
that are organic, so there is no later contamination.
The organic substance’s manufacture, use, and dis-
posal must have minimal impact on human health
and the environment (NOP defers to other federal
agencies for definition here), and cannot be used to
preserve, recreate flavor, color or texture, or replace
nutrients loss in processing.
A long list of synthetic and non-synthetic
things are permitted for fertilizing, cleaning, and
weed, pest, and disease control. Among these are
several forms of alcohol, chlorine compounds,
copper compounds, and ozone. Petroleum-based
plastic mulches are permitted, except for those
with polyvinyl chloride. Some of the permitted
copper compounds are those exempted from EPA
tolerances, provided the user assures that there is
minimal accumulation in the soil.
Organic livestock can receive aspirin, vac-
cines, iodine, ivermectin (a wormer), furosemide
(a diuretic), lidocaine (an analgesic), oxytocin (a
hormone), tolazoline (a sedative) and other drugs.
However, for each drug, the animal’s milk must be
discarded and the animal itself not harvested for
meat for a specified number of days after its last
dose.
Under the revised regulations, cows and
other ruminants must be on pasture for the entire
growing season, or not fewer than 120 days. The
Cornucopia Institute (www.cornucopia.org), an
organization that “seeks economic justice for the
family-scale farming community,” claims that
30- to 40% of the national organic milk supply
comes from compact animal feeding operations
(CAFOs)—the big industrial feedlot farms. Their
website also contains reports and scorecards on
various organically-labeled foods.
According to NOP, to be labeled “100%
organic,” a product must be just that. To be labeled
“organic,” a product must contain 95% organic in-
gredients. To be labeled “made with organic,” 70%
of the ingredients must be organic.
Enforcement laxity has been a big problem
for the National Organic Program. A report from
the Office of the Inspector General of the USDA
found that organic regulations were grossly ignored
during the past ten years. Serious violations between
2006 and 2008 are just now being addressed. Some
states, such as California, have organic programs
that don’t meet federal guidelines, to the befuddle-
ment of consumers. Additionally, third party
organizations, not the federal government, handle
organic certification enforcement. In the past, they
weren’t consistently testing for pesticide residues.
That’s changing now.
The NOP regs are rife with exceptions, and
they relate strictly to food. Whether your shampoo
is legitimately organic is anybody’s guess.
Kate Morse, CCH • 541-846-1252
Kate Morse is a Certified Classical Homeopath in the
Applegate and former contributing editor at PRE-
PARED FOODS MAGAZINE.
Editor’s note: In case you didn’t know the meaning
of cerebrate, like me, it is to use the power to reason.
What about “natural”?
The USDA’s earliest attempts to
define what the word “natural” means on
a food label date back to 1982. At that
time, both the Federal Trade Commission
and the Food and Drug Administration
were wresting with the issue, too, and the
three agencies shared policy. Over time,
the USDA modified its definition, usually
following adjudicated cases. Eventually, the
food industry couldn’t tell what was law
and what was an exception, and the agen-
cies couldn’t offer much concrete guidance.
Although the USDA attempted to
rectify this in 2005, the regulations re-
main vague. In fact, the USDA “natural”
definition applies only to meat and poultry.
“Natural,” under USDA regulations means
the meat/poultry contains no artificial in-
gredients or added color, and is minimally
processed. Minimal processes are those pro-
cesses which don’t fundamentally alter the
product, and function to preserve it, make
it edible, or keep it safe. Examples include
freezing, dehydrating, and fermenting. Of
course, ill-defined exceptions remain.
Along with this, the FDA holds that
it’s difficult to call any food “natural” once
it’s plucked from the earth. They have cho-
sen not to define the term, but generally
don’t raise a fuss if the so-called “natural”
product doesn’t include added color, artifi-
cial flavor, or synthetic substances.
Fall 2010 21