Blueberry farmer Arthur Harvey continues to stir
national debate over organic food rules

BY SEAN DONAHUE

Reversal of fortune: Arthur Harvey’s quest to limit national organic
guidelines is back at square one

Maine blueberry farmer Arthur Harvey is once again shaking up the U.S. organic food
industry — but this time he’s not pleased with the effect he’s having. Harvey first attracted
attention in 2002, when he sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture over its management of
national organic food production guidelines (“Harvey vs. the USDA,” Nov. 25, 2002). He
ultimately prevailed in June of this year, forcing the USDA to adopt stricter standards for the
ingredients allowed in foods that are labeled “USDA organic.” In October, though, Harvey
was once again the center of national attention when Congress approved an amendment to
an agricultural appropriations bill that reversed the effects of his lawsuit.

A crucial piece of that suit and Congress’ subsequent amendment pertains to the use of
synthetic substances in organic food processing. Harvey’s lawsuit sought to eliminate a list
of 38 such products previously approved for use in organic foods; Congress acted to
reinstate that list in the organic standards. But even the recent amendment is far from the
end of the matter, say Harvey and others in the organic industry.

In fact, the move has re-ignited a debate within the organic industry about the nature of the
“organic” label. The amendment also created a rift in the organic community by enacting
rules that Harvey and others say benefit big food processors — attracted, they say, to the
$11 billion organic food industry but not entirely committed to its values — over small
farmers and producers. “The [organic] law was based on the assumption that organic foods
are 100% organic, but the trend has been just the opposite, with the USDA expanding the
list of nonorganic and synthetic materials allowed,” says Harvey. “It’s just a question of
dollars and cents.”

The Massachusetts-based Organic Trade Association, which lobbied Congress to reinstate
the pre-Harvey standards and which has been accused of catering to big players in the
organic food industry like General Mills, which owns the organic brand Cascadian Farms,
calls those accusations nonsense. The OTA argues that Harvey’s lawsuit would have hurt
both large and small organic growers and farmers and slowed the growth of the entire
industry. But within Maine’s organic community — which is made up predominantly by small
growers and processors — there’s no consensus about how either the Harvey lawsuit or
Congress’ reversal of that ruling would impact local businesses.

Some small farmers and food processors like Harvey say allowing the use of synthetics can
give large processors a cost advantage over companies that stick to using only natural
ingredients. They add that those products don’t even belong in products carrying the
organic label. Other Maine companies agree with the OTA’s stance, saying that Harvey’s
standards would make it more difficult or impossible to produce their goods. Still other
Maine farmers and companies say the shifting fate of that list of 38 substances has no effect
on the way they grow their food or process their products.

Even those growers and producers, though, share the biggest concern in the organic
industry: that confusion and acrimony over the standards will spill over into consumer
opinion, shaking consumer confidence in the value of the organic label. “Most of Maine’s
farmers didn’t need this amendment. We’re more of a fresh fruit and vegetable state,” says
Russell Libby, executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association.
“But the label and loyalty those people have been building over decades are at risk.”

The CO2 example

USDA approved the list of 38 synthetic substances for use in organic food processing in
2002, after several years of debate among the industry, consumers and the National Organic
Standards Board. Most of those substances — such as the leavening agent ammonium
bicarbonate and the thickener low-methoxy pectin — are used to turn organic raw materials
like wheat and milk into packaged foods like crackers and yogurt.

Faced with the prospect of changing their processing practices after three years of adhering
to the standards, many organic food companies turned to the OTA to help preserve those
standards, says executive director Katherine DiMatteo. In Maine, even some companies that
believed they were unaffected by the changes found themselves facing potential disruptions.

Aaron Anker, co-owner of Brownfield-based granola maker Grandy Oats, says he didn’t pay
much attention to the debate at first because his company’s 100% organic products contain
no synthetic ingredients. Then he learned that some of his suppliers stored their grain using
carbon dioxide — one of the 38 approved substances — as an anti-spoiling and anti-pest
agent. As a businessman, Anker knew that changing the organic standards threatened to
increase grain spoilage, and could hurt his supply of ingredients. As a strong believer in the
philosophy behind organic foods, he felt comfortable with that particular substance and
application. “I have no problem with it,” says Anker. “CO2 is naturally occurring in the air,
and I don’t think it’s going to be toxic to my food or my environment.”

Eliminating CO2 from the organic standards wouldn’t hurt organic grain farmers like Matt
Williams, however. The Linneus-based grower, who supplies wheat to companies such as
Borealis Breads, says he doesn’t need the substance. He simply cleans his storage silos
regularly and uses a layer of ground seashells at the bottom to prevent insects from coming
up through the earth. “Here in the Northeast, storage pests are not as prevalent as they are
in other parts of the country,” says Williams. “It’s not a big issue for us.”

Stories like Williams’ echo Harvey’s argument that food producers can — and should — find
non-synthetic and organic alternatives to many of the synthetic substances previously
approved by USDA. Harvey cites his own blueberry butter made with an organic form of
pectin derived from the apple pulp left over from cider pressing. Although he acknowledges
that the pulp is not widely available, he argues that forcing large organic yogurt and jam
makers to drop synthetic pectin would spark huge demand for the product, creating a new
revenue source for organic orchards.

That’s not the way the OTA sees it, though. The group argues that there simply are no
natural alternatives for some of the 38 approved synthetic substances, such as baking
powder. And being unable to comply with a 100% organic standard would force many
companies to give up their “USDA organic” label in exchange for the “Made with organic
ingredients” label reserved for products that contain at least 70% organic ingredients.

Because manufacturers widely perceive that label to be less attractive to consumers, the
OTA’s DiMatteo says the Harvey lawsuit could have forced many companies to abandon the
organic market altogether, unable to attract customers or charge the organic price premium
to which they’re accustomed. “No [OTA members] I spoke with are supportive of the ‘made
with’ label,” she says. “They could see from their consumer focus groups and research that
people don’t like that label and don’t respond to it.”

Those fears may be overblown, however, says Rockland-based organic wine merchant Paul
Chartrand. He’s finding equal success selling wines labeled “organic” and labeled “made
with organic grapes” (see “In vino veritas”).

Reaching consumers

Some in the Maine organic industry fear that consumer perception of the entire USDA
organic program may take a hit because of the debate. Russell Libby of MOFGA says he’s
particularly upset by the process through which Congress reinstated those organic
standards. Having a conference committee attach a non-funding-related amendment to an
appropriations bill smacks of Washington business-as-usual, says Libby, and creates the
appearance of food industry lobbyists getting heard over the hundreds of thousands of
consumers who he says called to support the changes in Harvey’s lawsuit. “It seems to me
that organic has been presented as higher standard, so the process [of establishing that
standard] has to go through more scrutiny,” says Libby.

Several national consumer groups share Libby’s concerns, including Consumers Union, the
New York-based nonprofit that publishes Consumer Reports, and the Minnesota-based
Organic Consumers Association. Those groups plan to continue fighting against the recent
amendment, in part by lobbying the National Organic Standards Board, which reports to the
USDA, at a meeting this month and launching consumer education efforts about the issue.

The prospect of this debate dragging on worries Anker of Grandy Oats, though. He’s
concerned that industry infighting over minor ingredients will overshadow the big-picture,
global benefits of the organic movement, such as lower use of pesticides and other toxic
materials in food production. “We can strive to get everything already labeled organic to go
to 100% nonsynthetics and remain a small slice of a huge pie, when what we should be
doing is working on conventional food businesses — get them to convert to the organic
standards that are now in place,” he says.

But Arthur Harvey says he’s convinced consumers want their organic products to be 100%
synthetic-free, which is why he’s gearing up to carry on the fight started by his lawsuit. He’s
planning to launch a website in the coming weeks that will advocate for a grassroots, state-
by-state strategy to lobby Congress and the USDA to reverse itself once again and abide by
the stricter organic standards.

Rather than fading away, he hopes the topic becomes even more prevalent in organic
consumers’ minds. “Now is the time for the consumers and some of the farmers to reassert
themselves,” says Harvey. “I think there are lot more of us than there are of [large
manufacturers], and this is going to be a pretty much mainstream topic among organic
consumers.”

Sean Donahue, Mainebiz associate editor, can be reached at sdonahue@mainebiz.biz.

          *      *      *       *        *        *        *
In vino veritas
The organic wine industry has fought this battle before

Wine importer Paul Chartrand is opposed to Congress’ recent move to overturn Arthur
Harvey’s lawsuit, but not because he’s particularly concerned about the use of certain
synthetics in organic products. Instead, he’s irritated by what he says are the organic food
industry’s overblown concerns about being forced to drop their “USDA organic” label for a
“made with organic ingredients” alternative in certain cases.

He’s in a unique position to know, he says, because the organic wine industry went through
a similar fight over the use of sulfites, which resulted in the majority of organic wines being
forced to use a “made with organic grapes” label. “It’s not as bad as all these people are
saying,” says Chartrand, who’s owned Chartrand Imports in Rockland for 20 years. “The
truth is, the market hasn’t shrunk on either side of the coin, and consumers appreciate
knowing the difference if you take the time to educate them.”

For organic winemakers, the issue revolves around the use of sulfur dioxide as an anti-
oxidant and antibacterial substance in wine. During the 90s, opponents of SO2 in organic
wine — largely concerned about people’s allergies to it — argued that even the addition of
tiny percentages of the substance went against consumers’ expectations for an organic
wine.

The problem is, both organic and traditional wines rely on SO2 to prevent spoilage, and
many organic winemakers argued they couldn’t make their product without it. Ultimately,
the National Organic Standards Board ruled that only organic wines without sulfites could
use the “organic” label.

Many winemakers, concerned about quality control, continued using SO2 and simply
adopted the “Made with organic grapes” label, says Chartrand. Others got innovative and
developed ways to make wines using organic alternatives to SO2. As a result, consumers
now have a choice, he says, and seem capable of discerning the difference between the two.

He expects the entire organic food industry would have a similar experience, if they’d only
allow the labeling to reflect what he says is a more accurate description of their products.
“They’re going to be in exactly the same position I’ve been in, and in a sense it’s fairer,” he
says. “It’s not like their synthetic additives are any better than mine.”

© 2005 Mainebiz Publications Inc.

Maine Biz

Navigation Bar Placeholder