• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Is It Organic?--USDA Cheapens "Organic" By No Enfo

Econ101

Well-known member
Posted on Tue, Jul. 25, 2006
email this
print this
Analysis: USDA does not always enforce organic label standards

By Paula Lavigne

The Dallas Morning News

(MCT)

DALLAS - More and more shoppers are forking out extra money for organic foods to avoid chemicals, eat healthy and to support the environment.

But the USDA Organic label, stamped on everything from chocolate chip cookies to milk to mangos, may not be a mark the public always can trust.

Organic food is supposed to be free of most chemical pest killers, fertilizers, antibiotics, hormones, and genetic engineering. Organic farmers and ranchers must enrich the soil and be kind to animals; chickens should strut outside and cows should regularly graze.

But a Dallas Morning News investigation has found that the United States Department of Agriculture does not know how often organic rules are broken and has not consistently taken action when potential violations were pointed out.

"The USDA has failed to enforce the regulations," said Jim Riddle, former chairman of the National Organics Standards Board and an appointed adviser to the USDA when the organic standards were enacted in 2002. "There have been no prosecutions of violations for the organic law yet. ... They've failed to take action."

Though a small slice of the overall food market, organics is growing at 16 percent a year, while overall food sales are rising only 3 percent. They are forecast to continue that pace as big grocers, most recently Wal-Mart, expand their organic offerings.

Barbara Robinson, the USDA executive who oversees the National Organic Program, said her small staff struggles to keep up with the booming industry.

"When you have eight or nine people and everybody wants something, you try to do a little bit of everything."

She said the label is as good as the people who are growing and monitoring the products.

"I don't think there are any absolutes in the world anywhere. I think that's kind of a ridiculous question," she said.

Robinson acknowledged that the agency hasn't fined anyone for misuse of the label, but she said certain products have been ordered to yank it.

Retailers say the label is their cue that products are authentic.

"If you buy an organic product at Wal-Mart, you can trust that it is USDA-certified. But I would not be able to speak to whether those are the right standards or the wrong standards. We are retailers; we are not agronomists or scientists," said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Gail Lavielle.

The organic program monitors at least 20,000 organic growers, ranchers, processing plants and others worldwide.

Texas looms large in organics with more organic land than any other state. It is also home of one the nation's biggest organic companies, Dean Foods in Dallas, which distributes Horizon Organic dairy products and Silk soymilk. Whole Foods of Austin is the largest organic retail chain. Representatives from both companies say they take measures to make sure their products are organic.

USDA officials say the organics label is a selling point rather than a mark of nutrition. The dietary benefit of organics is the subject of dueling debate. However, shoppers often view organic food as an investment in their health.

About 66 percent of U.S. consumers buy organic products occasionally, according to a 2004 survey by the Hartman Group, a consumer research company. Almost half said they bought organic for their health and nutrition.

Those surveyed said having children was the most significant reason to go organic, and that's exactly what prompted 28-year-old Megan Stewart of The Colony, Texas.

Her 1-year-old daughter was recently strapped into a shopping cart filled with organic baby food in an aisle at Whole Foods in Plano, Texas.

"I only get the USDA-certified, rather than just packages that say all-natural or organic," Stewart said. "They are really under tight regulations."

But the Dallas Morning News found the following reasons that organic shoppers may not be buying what they think:

_A review of 216 internal USDA audits shows several examples of violations at organic farms and production plants. However, reports about problems that are supposed to filter up to the agency from on-the-ground monitors are incomplete.

_Much organic food is produced overseas where there is even less oversight. Inspectors in China, for example, describe obvious violations that are not well-tracked or known by the agency.

_Vague rules leave much to interpretation, especially when it comes to treatment of animals.

Organics is full of true believers, farmers and food processors who go above and beyond what they're required to do. But they worry about organic scofflaws making a bad name for the whole industry.

"There's definitely people who don't follow the rules," said Conner Updike, who grows organic beans and squash in central Florida. He uses chicken manure to fertilize his crops, but he has heard that some people cut corners and use ammonium nitrate - a banned fertilizer - that costs half as much and is hard to detect.

"It's not fair to me," he said. "I'm trying to obey all the rules and then someone else cheats."

The Washington State Department of Agriculture, for example, discovered a fruit farmer who applied banned chemicals to his orchard and a mint grower selling regular mint under the organic label.

A Canadian certifier cried foul when inspectors found chickens at a Manitoba poultry producer that had no access to the outdoors, as required in organic laws.

Among 268 complaints released by the USDA, about 50 were products erroneously claiming to be organic or falsely using the label. The USDA ordered them to stop.

Problems continue to crop up, but there's no way for the public to know how many cheaters there are.

The Dallas Morning News requested in April records of all violations regarding individual farms, ranches and handlers. USDA officials said they could not provide the documents for at least six months.

Officials said it would take that long to collect and organize the information, though organic program rules mandate the USDA make violation information available to the public on the program's Web site. But after four years, Robinson said her staff hasn't had time to make that happen.

The USDA does not know how many violations there are because it is missing information from those who are supposed to police the industry at the ground level.

The agency collects information from 56 certifiers in the United States and 40 in foreign countries, usually state-run agencies or private companies. Farms and processing plants can choose any USDA-approved certifier.

A banana from Ecuador or rice from southeast Texas can carry the USDA label only if a certifier has given approval. Certifiers hire inspectors to walk through fields, interview plant workers and comb through records. The certifiers are then supposed to notify the USDA when there are problems.

However, The Dallas Morning News reviewed hundreds of audits of certifiers that show many violations. Yet the USDA has never yanked or suspended a certifier's accreditation, despite auditors' recommendations to do so.

Auditors, from a separate USDA branch, wrote that certifiers approved food producers despite evidence that banned chemicals were used. Some gave approval without conducting inspections. USDA officials would not discuss the individual audits. It's unclear whether officials addressed problems auditors pointed out. But several audits note the same problems with the same certifiers year after year.

Inspectors, organic farmers and certifiers themselves say they know some cut corners.

Sam Welsch, owner of OneCert, a certification agency in Lincoln, Neb., said some companies hire the cheapest inspectors, not the most qualified.

"Even if one organization is doing a bad job, and a fraud issue would come up, that's bad for the whole industry," he said.

Big companies, such as Dean Foods, say they protect their consumers by going with reliable, trusted certifiers.

"A lot of certification agencies have been doing this for decades. I see a lot of integrity in the certifiers and think they really have been working hand-in-hand with the USDA," said Kelly Shea, vice president of organic stewardship for WhiteWave Foods, a Dean Foods subsidiary.

Shea said the industry would benefit if the USDA spent more money on enforcement.

Whole Foods took another route to assure customers, and is a certified organic retailer. This special status requires the chain to make sure labeled products have documents to back them up. Whole Foods also tracks food back to its producers, said Joe Dickson, organic programs coordinator for the company.

About 40 percent of organic farms and handlers are in foreign countries, including 300 farms and processing plants in China.

Wal-Mart used some Chinese organic soybeans in its private label soymilk. They've also been in Silk, the popular soymilk brand from WhiteWave.

The United States has 2.2 million organic acres; China has 8.6 million. Almost 90 percent was certified in 2004, which raises a red flag with Riddle, who said it's questionable that China could have transitioned farmland that quickly.

China has a history of dousing fields with chemicals.

Fred Gale, a senior USDA economist who has researched Chinese agriculture, said it was "almost impossible to grow truly organic food in China.

"The water everywhere is polluted, and the soil is contaminated from industry and mining, and the air is bad."

Despite concerns about China, Robinson said the USDA only is responsible for approving the certifiers and it is their job to check on Chinese farms or handlers.

The Organic Crop Improvement Association, a certifying agent in Lincoln, Neb., has given USDA Organic certificates to about 200 operations in China. Executive director Jeff See said his company has built trust with its producers since it started in China more than 12 years ago.

At Rizhao Huasai Foodstuffs Co., in China's Shandong province, sales official Cui Min said workers sometimes use a fertilizer mix that includes human waste on their crops. It's a common practice in China, but a clear violation of the USDA rules.

See, whose company certified Rizhao Huasai, said workers there signed an affidavit stating they follow the rules, including those regarding fertilizers.

Simply trusting the word of a farmer might not be fail-safe, said Gale, of the USDA.

In China "there have always been laws and regulations on the books, but you find a way around them," he said.

Mutsumi Sakuyoshi, a Japanese inspector who has checked Chinese soybean fields for many of the world's largest certifiers, said she confronted one farm's workers after finding an empty plastic bag of herbicide.

Workers told her wind must have blown it from a neighbor's field.

Another farmer gave her an affidavit stating the land under inspection hadn't been used for at least three years. Sakuyoshi found the government official who stamped it and questioned its accuracy.

"He said, `No. I don't know. I don't care. They just asked me to stamp it, so I stamped it,'" she said.

See said American farmers are more skeptical of Chinese organics because they're a competitive threat to domestic producers.

"I wouldn't say there's probably never any problem with what OCIA has going on in China, but we find problems all around the world, even in the U.S," he said.

Even when standards are upheld, there are concerns throughout the industry that rules are unclear.

One of many examples is a rule that livestock must have "access to pasture." It doesn't say how much, for how long, or how much of a cow's meal has to come from leisurely munching.

Big dairies, such as Aurora Organic Dairy and Horizon Organic, were criticized by activist groups for running "industrial-scale" feedlots, where they said cows rarely roamed on acres of dry, stubbly grass. Both companies insist their cows do graze and met the requirements.

The debate triggered boycotts, and led to a lengthy discussion during the Dean Foods shareholders meeting in Dallas in May.

The National Organic Standards Board stepped in, and offered more detail, including a provision that cows must be on pasture for at least 120 days each year. It's now up to the USDA whether to make the recommendation law. Representatives of both dairies said they support the precision.

Chris Grotegut is a farmer in the Texas panhandle who grows corn, wheat, soybeans and other organic crops used in products distributed nationally. He said enforcing clear rules is the only way to make consumers trust the organic label.

"That is a concern ... that credibility is maintained and people don't look at (organics) as a way to turn a conventional product into a fast buck to cheat the system."

---

COST OF ORGANIC

Consumers will sometimes pay twice as much for an organic product. Below are comparisons taken from local stores, including Tom Thumb, Whole Foods and Wal-Mart.

Product, Organic price, Regular price

Raisin bran, 29.3 cents per ounce, 16 cents per ounce

Chicken breast, $8.99 per pound, $4.99 per pound

Strawberries, $4.99 per pound, $2.99 per pound

Baby food, 21 cents per ounce, 14 cents per ounce

Milk, $3.50 per half-gallon, $2.47 per half-gallon
 

Mike

Well-known member
But a Dallas Morning News investigation has found that the United States Department of Agriculture does not know how often organic rules are broken and has not consistently taken action when potential violations were pointed out.

That's my boys! Don't they make you proud! :lol: :mad:

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. :roll:
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
"That is a concern ... that credibility is maintained and people don't look at (organics) as a way to turn a conventional product into a fast buck to cheat the system."


Cheating the system is why National Organic Standards were put in place.
In the debate preceding the NOS, the original organic producers were asking the government to do one thing...test the product for residue.

Econ, hope you had a fruitful time at my birth place...sorry I couldn't be any help. Hope to get a PM to you some day. Take care, Robert
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Chris Grotegut is a farmer in the Texas panhandle who grows corn, wheat, soybeans and other organic crops used in products distributed nationally. He said enforcing clear rules is the only way to make consumers trust the organic label.

"That is a concern ... that credibility is maintained and people don't look at (organics) as a way to turn a conventional product into a fast buck to cheat the system."

That's why there is ScoringAg. You Don't cheat and the person or product that is corupt is in the database . The truth is always known by the purchaser.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Scoringag doesn't enforce organic standards.

The producers are the ones cheating the consumer. The Certification boards need to get some teeth and revoke the lable on the cheaters. The article did state the author didn't know if further action was taken or not... so it's just speculation that USDA is overlooking this.

Right now organics is in its infancy and some growing pains will be experienced, but when there are clear violations I hope they are dealt with. Sabotage could get ugly if every little thing isn't just so. It is feasible a chemical jug or bag can blow onto organic property.

Residue testing is maybe a better way, but conventionally grown products rarely have residues anyway.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
Scoringag doesn't enforce organic standards.

The producers are the ones cheating the consumer. The Certification boards need to get some teeth and revoke the lable on the cheaters. The article did state the author didn't know if further action was taken or not... so it's just speculation that USDA is overlooking this.

Right now organics is in its infancy and some growing pains will be experienced, but when there are clear violations I hope they are dealt with. Sabotage could get ugly if every little thing isn't just so. It is feasible a chemical jug or bag can blow onto organic property.

Residue testing is maybe a better way, but conventionally grown products rarely have residues anyway.

Revoking the label should be the minimum that is done Jason. Telling a crook he can't be a crook anymore without a real penalty is just a joke.

Jason:
Residue testing is maybe a better way, but conventionally grown products rarely have residues anyway.

Econ: This is something I tell my sister in law all the time. If she is going to pay a whole lot more for "organic" then it really should be organic. The people profiting from lying about it should have to pay economic damages great enough to deter them, not just have some slap on the wrist and a wink to let them do it again.

It is not just speculation that the USDA is overlooking this, Jason. That is just your uninformed opinion that we have seen too many times on this board. You would be a little more credible if you would read up on what is happening in the industry before you comment on it out of ignorance.

I wish you all the luck in the world on your business, Jason, but if it is run with the kind of uninformed nonsense you put on this board, I don't see why/how you should succeed.

I might be wrong on that, as I have said it about more than one used car salesman.
 

Jason

Well-known member
I happen to know what organic standards are and have been involved with a few certification boards.

For the USDA to police everything you say they should, they would need a budget bigger than the GDP of the US.

Organic is a fraction of the marketplace. If PRODUCERS cheat they will spoil the market for themselves. So be it. USDA has bigger fish to fry.

Just as in beef consumers will have to decide for themselves who they trust. Companies that can provide what consumers will pay for will succeed. If consumers will pay for an untrustworthy organic label, I'm sure some companies will supply it. Personal integrity, would keep honest producers from cheating.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
I happen to know what organic standards are and have been involved with a few certification boards.

For the USDA to police everything you say they should, they would need a budget bigger than the GDP of the US.

Organic is a fraction of the marketplace. If PRODUCERS cheat they will spoil the market for themselves. So be it. USDA has bigger fish to fry.

Just as in beef consumers will have to decide for themselves who they trust. Companies that can provide what consumers will pay for will succeed. If consumers will pay for an untrustworthy organic label, I'm sure some companies will supply it. Personal integrity, would keep honest producers from cheating.

The problem with the USDA is that they aren't fullfilling their regulatory obligations. That might go over well with you, Jason, but you are a Canadian with a propensity to "cheat" or "play dumb" for your own benefit. You are probably the kind of person they would catch.

Your argument of "If PRODUCERS cheat they will spoil the market for themselves" is fallacious. SOME producers may spoil the market for others and they are the ones that need to be held accountable, not the market as a whole. This is the whole reason you go after those that are breaking the rules---so everyone doesn't have to pay the price. It is also one of the main reasons for regulations, which is an important mandate to the USDA. Sometimes I really think you have real communist leanings with your collective punishment arguments. Either that, or your moral base is so low that you don't know right from wrong.

The USDA needs to have punishments that will cause corrective action. Muslims have a law where if you are caught stealing, your hand is cut off. Consequently, you can have vendors who do not have to watch their money as closely as in a western society. Now I am not calling for such a draconian measure, but when we allow those who break the law to get off scott free all the time, or don't have adequate punishments, the crimes continue. If the USDA wants to spend less time trying to catch abuses, they should have larger penalties, not the minor ones you advise. Unfortunately, the USDA has ceded almost all real penalties away so they can't really do their jobs. They are a PAPER TIGER. It has been at the request of the food industry lobbyists and I have posted some examples of this on this board.

I don't know why anyone would put you on a regulatory board, unless they just didn't know you or weren't interested in the regulations doing anything.
 

Jason

Well-known member
You guys are idiots.

I said I support penalties for cheaters.

I also said USDA has bigger fish to fry.

Go ahead and spend millions policing a small problem while big ones get ignored.

There is an opportunity for honest companies to secure consumer loyalty. That is a greater incentive to be honest than maybe we will get caught.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
You guys are idiots.

I said I support penalties for cheaters.

I also said USDA has bigger fish to fry.

Go ahead and spend millions policing a small problem while big ones get ignored.

There is an opportunity for honest companies to secure consumer loyalty. That is a greater incentive to be honest than maybe we will get caught.

What fish have they fried, lately, Jason? Seems to me they are in the don't catch and if you do, immediately release business.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Scoringag doesn't enforce organic standards. Your are right Jason,but ScoringAg makes the audits easy and within a couple of seconds.
 

Jason

Well-known member
No they don't Porker.

Official organic audits involve physically going to the producer and visually inspecting the property for signs of chemical usage.

If any banned chemical is found in the yard or on the certified fields, there better be a plausible explination.

It is pretty easy to see if there is weed damage from herbicide and if there is, loss of certification on that property for at least that year is supposed to happen.

The certification boards set up by the USDA are responsible to do this.

But guess what? It costs big money to physically inspect every producer, and certification boards aren't rolling in money. If they make fees high enough to cover inspections, they won't get any producers to sign on, and if they leave rates low they haven't got the funds to do full inspections.

Until organics get big enough they will for the most part be on the honor system.

Scoring ag might be helpful in tracking the organic produce, but does nothing for protecting consumers from those who will break the rules. If a producer chooses to use scoring ag and has conventionally produced products but lables tham as organic, scoring ag won't change that.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
AMS ANNOUNCES REVOCATION OF ACCREDITATION OF ORGANIC CERTIFICATION AGENCY



WASHINGTON, July 28, 2006 -- On July 26, 2006, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, National Organic Program (NOP) issued a Final Notice of Revocation of Accreditation to the American Food Safety Institute, International (AFSII), Chippewa Falls, Wisc. On June 26, 2006, the NOP had issued a notice of Proposed Revocation to AFSII, citing seven serious violations of the NOP regulations. AFSII officials did not appeal the proposed revocation.



Under the terms of the revocation, principal officers of AFSII and responsibly connected persons are banned from conducting or participating in the certification of organic producers, handlers, livestock operations, or wild crop harvesting operations for not less than three years. AFSII was initially accredited under the NOP on Feb. 10, 2003.



Organic producers and handlers that were certified by AFSII must seek another certifying agent as soon as possible. Files for clients that have not already transferred their certification to another certifier will come under the supervision of the NOP, which will work with them to find another certifier. Clients may no longer use the AFSII seal on certified organic products nor may they show AFSII as the certifier on the label of organic products. The NOP will allow producers and handlers formerly certified by AFSII 30 days to change labels and promotional material to reflect their new certifying agency. Clients certified by AFSII will remain certified until they are revoked, suspended, or surrender their certification.



Also, under the terms of the revocation, the Department ordered AFSII to refer eight of AFSII’s approximately 30 clients to another certifier due to identified conflicts of interest between AFSII and certified operations and to reimburse those clients for the full cost of recertification. NOP regulations prohibit a certifier from providing consulting services for their organic certification clients for 12 months prior to certification.



The Department is continuing to investigate all operations certified by AFSII. AFSII clients who feel they may have been certified in violation of the NOP regulations should contact NOP Associate Deputy Administrator Mark Bradley at (202) 720-3252.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Area firm dropped from USDA program - Offer to withdraw from National Organic Program won’t stop federal enforcement action


Karl G. Kolb

By Mark Gunderman, Chippewa Valley Newspapers

A Chippewa Falls company has become the first in the nation to be forced out of the United States Department of Agriculture’s organic certifier program, despite efforts by the company to withdraw voluntarily.

American Food Safety Institute International (AFSII), 917 N. Bridge St., had its status as an organic certifier revoked as of July 26, according to the USDA National Organic Program Web site.

(The company is headed up by a former UW-Stout professor who taught at the university from 1999 to 2002.)

A letter, obtained by the Chippewa Herald, from Mark Bradley, associate deputy administrator for the USDA to AFSII owner and president Karl G. Kolb on Wednesday stated that a voluntary surrender of accreditation does not end enforcement action. AFSII was revoked as of that date. The letter further demands that all records regarding its accreditation activities be surrendered to the USDA by Friday, July 28.

Broken rules

The matter involves use of an “organic” designation in marketing agricultural products. Organic farms follow specific rules and should not use most chemical insect and weed killers. The USDA’s program designates certain private companies as organic certifiers as a way to verify the agricultural producers follow organic standards.

AFSII has now had its designation as a certifier revoked.

The Dallas Morning News recently reported that the USDA issued an intent to revoke AFSII’s status last month because the company allowed a producer to use banned chemicals, and also certified a water bottler as organic despite rules that water cannot be labeled organic.

Contacted Monday about the Dallas Morning News story, Kolb told the Herald that his company had withdrawn from the program voluntarily as a business decision, because it proved too expensive.

However, a letter from Bradley on the 26th rejects Kolb’s offer to withdraw, and his request to keep the matter out of the news media.

“The surrender or proposed surrender of accreditation by an accredited certifying agent does not administratively circumvent the revocation process. Absent an appeal of the proposed revocation by AFSII, the proposed revocation is effective 30 days from the date the notice was received by AFSII. Therefore, effective July 26, 2006 the American Food Safety Institute International is no longer an accredited certifying agent for NOP,” the letter states.

The letter goes on to state that AFSII is ineligible to be accredited for at least three years, that all agents must stop certifying activities immediately, and certain clients must be referred to other certifiers for recertification at AFSII expense.

Eight specific clients are identified, six in California and two in Arizona.

“Finally, with regard to your request for confidentiality in this issue, it is AMS policy to publish the results of adverse actions once the actions are final. Therefore, your request to withhold information from the press regarding the revocation of accreditation is denied.”

The revocation does not put Kolb out of business. AFSII is part of what Kolb refers to on the company Web site as the “High Sierra Group family of companies.” The organization is involved in a number of other activities, Kolb said, such as food safety certification for food plants and certification for farms in sustainable agriculture programs.

The company moved to Chippewa Falls from southern California in 1996, and was originally run out of Kolb’s car, according to the company Web site.

It eventually moved into an office in the Lake Wissota area, then on the top floor of an old school building, then to an office in downtown Chippewa Falls, and eventually purchased its current office in a former residential home north of the county courthouse.

Former Stout professor

This is not the first time Kolb’s professional career has been touched by controversy. In 1999, he was hired by the University of Wisconsin-Stout as a professor of Industrial Management.

He resigned in the spring of 2002 after university officials found “significant inconsistencies” in his resume, according to a May 2, 2002, article in The Stoutonia, the student newspaper at Stout.

“Dr. Kolb was presented with these and was given an opportunity to respond. We hoped he would; instead he chose to immediately resign,” Associate Dean Dr. Pete Heimdahl told The Stoutonia.

According to the article, Kolb said he resigned because of “a significant lack of due process and the lack of following state, local, and academic bylaws.”

Kolb complained of a “double jeopardy” of having his resume reviewed after his credentials were accepted by a review committee.

Area firm dropped from USDA program - Offer to withdraw from National Organic Program won’t stop federal enforcement action

A Chippewa Falls company has become the first in the nation to be forced out of the United States Department of Agriculture’s organic certifier program, despite efforts by the company to withdraw voluntarily.
 
Top