San Francisco Chronicle,  January 28, 2007

           
 
  AGRIBUSINESS
  Organic Erosion
  Will the term organic still mean anything when it's adopted             
               whole hog by behemoths such as Wal-Mart?    
  
by  Jake Whitney
  Sunday, January 28, 2007

  Marin Sun Farms, in Point Reyes, is a collection of ranches on more than
2,000 acres of rolling, certified organic pasture. All year long, cattle and
chickens speckle the hills, free to roam and graze at their leisure.

  The Hereford and Angus cows, in fact, are never confined. They are
grass-fed, except during winter, when they also eat hay and silage. The
chickens' typical diet of plants and insects is supplemented with organic
grains, which they eat at night, in the winter and in otherwise foul weather
when kept in their portable coops. When you imagine an organic cattle
ranch, Marin Sun Farms is probably pretty close to what you picture --
though maybe not exactly.

  No synthetic fertilizers or chemical pesticides are used on the pasture, and
the animals are hormone- and antibiotic-free. But even though most of the
land is certified organic, the cows and chickens raised there are not.

  One reason is because the owner, David Evans, obtains cows from
partner ranchers who use synthetic "wormers" to control parasites -- a
violation of organic standards. But Evans has been slowly accumulating a
base herd with an eye toward becoming entirely organic.

  Lately, however, Evans has begun to wonder if the USDA "Certified
Organic" stamp will be worth the annual fee, which could run more than
$1,000. His pastures -- the largest certified organic acreage in Marin County
-- may seem large, but they are dwarfed by their corporate counterparts.

  As Evans knows, organic food has become big business. According to the
Organic Consumer's Association, sales could hit $18 billion this year, with
half coming from conventional supermarkets. Though still only about 2.5
percent of the agricultural market, demand for organic has grown 20
percent annually in recent years, and most of the top-selling brands are
now owned by agribusiness behemoths.

  Dean Foods, for example, owns White Wave (maker of Silk soymilk) and
Horizon Organic, the No. 1-selling organic brand across the country.
Unilever owns Ben & Jerry's Organic. Groupe Danone, a French
corporation, recently bought Stonyfield Farm. Even Wal-Mart is plunging
deeper into the market, announcing it would dramatically increase its
organic offerings.

  And if you think Evans' 2,000-plus organic acres is a lot, take a look at
Earthbound Farm, which grew from a 2 1/2 acre raspberry and lettuce
farm to the largest organic produce operation in North America, with $350
million in annual sales and more than 150 growers on 30,000 organic acres
under its control.

  Evans worries that the influx of these big companies -- with their
industrial production methods, profit obsession and political muscle -- will
dilute organic standards and, potentially, render the USDA stamp irrelevant.
"If big business kills the name," Evans said, "why go organic?"

  He's not alone. Many critics foresee an erosion not only of organic
standards but also of the movement's true ideals -- which include localism
and sustainability as much as eschewing chemical pesticides and synthetic
fertilizers. Indeed, a battle is raging in organic food production, and it has
already split the industry: between those willing to sacrifice ideals for
growth and those who think organic should remain small, local and
transparent.

  The 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Bill hacked the split between these
groups into a chasm. A rider on the bill legalized, for the first time, the use
of synthetic substances in the processing and post-harvest handling of
organic foods.

  What particularly worries purists is that the rider was sponsored by the
Organic Trade Association, a lobbying group that represents the interests
of big corporations. And, though virtually all of the 38 synthetics are
considered harmless -- and in fact were already being widely used -- some
believe that codifying their use may pave the way for others that may not
be so harmless.

  Jim Riddle, former chairman of the USDA's National Organic Standards
Board, which advises the USDA in setting organic standards, said that what
was most alarming about the rider was the secretive method used to attach
it. According to Riddle, the rider (which is an amendment to the 1990
Organic Foods Production Act) was snuck into the bill -- inserted after an
appropriation's conference committee had adjourned, in order for the
corporations pushing the amendment (Kraft Foods was a leader) to avoid
debate. This way, Riddle said, "There's no author, no one to be held
accountable."

  Brian Baker, research director for the Organic Materials Review Institute,
described the rider issue as a "volatile situation" because of organic
consumers' dedication to purity. He pointed out that after the first set of
organic standards were set in 1997, allowing for sewage sludge, irradiation
and genetically modified organisms, the USDA received more than 300,000
letters of protest from furious consumers.

  When asked about the long-term ramifications of the rider, Baker said he
wouldn't "take sides," though he acknowledged it "could open the door" to
other synthetics.

  The very existence of any synthetics in organic food remains
unfathomable to some -- perhaps no one more so than Arthur Harvey, a
74-year-old blueberry farmer from Maine. A purist, Harvey believed that the
organic standards of 2002, and their inclusion of a national list of allowable
synthetics, violated the original 1990 law, which he believed banned all
synthetics. In January 2005, a federal appellate court agreed with him. The
court's ruling would have banned all synthetics had it not been for the OTA
rider. But Harvey didn't give up; he found fault with the rider, too, and is
back in court.

  Though a Maine district court dismissed his latest case in November,
Harvey is appealing the decision. At issue is a category of synthetics known
as "food contact substances." The USDA is currently allowing more than
600 of these in the processing of organic foods -- in addition to the 38
synthetics legalized by the rider.

  Not only would these FCSs be exempt from listing on ingredient labels,
they would not be required to be on the national list -- thus they'd be
exempt from review or approval by the NOSB. And, according to Riddle,
some are toxins, such as dimethyl dicarbonate, an antimicrobial added to
fruit juices (even those that say "100 percent juice"); and a substance
containing methyl chloride, a flammable gas once used as a refrigerant.

  "There's no language in the Organic Foods Production Act, the regulation
or the court ruling to empower this invisible allowance of substances that
don't even appear on the national list," said Riddle, "which never have been
reviewed by the NOSB, and have never gone through a rule-making
process or even a public comment period."

  Caren Wilcox, executive director of the OTA, would not comment on the
rider because she was not with the organization when it was attached. She
also declined to comment on the issue of "food contact substances"
because of Harvey's suit. She asserted, however, that "there has always
been a place for synthetics" in organic foods. She added that it would "be
impossible to produce" organics without synthetics such as ozone, to resist
bacteria; chlorine, a disinfectant; and bleached lecithin and ascorbic acid.

  Harvey disagrees. A producer of his own blueberry jams, Harvey was
motivated (during the brief period when it appeared synthetics would be
banned) to find an organic alternative to a synthetic pectin he'd been using
as a thickening agent. It took some experimentation, but eventually he
discovered that apple pomace would do the trick.

  "I think any manufacturer of organic products is terrified they won't be
able to use synthetics," he said. "Because they are cheaper, and easier to
handle. If you're using pomace, as we are, well, every batch is a little bit
different. So it can be a headache. But it is a natural, organic product, and I
feel much better about making jam this way."

  Wal-Mart's burgeoning market presence is another divisive issue. At a
shareholder's meeting in early 2006, Chief Executive Officer Lee Scott
declared that Wal-Mart would significantly increase its organic offerings.
(These already make up a wide array, from milk and produce to breakfast
cereal and salsa.) The announcement panicked critics who feared that
Wal-Mart's business model of low prices -- Wal-Mart has said its goal is to
sell organics for only 10 percent above conventional prices -- would
pressure organic suppliers to cut corners, thereby diluting the label.

  In September, the Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin watchdog group,
published an analysis of Wal-Mart's early influence on the organic market.
The study found that not only was Wal-Mart "cheapening the value of the
organic label" by sourcing most of its products from "industrial-scale
factory farms and Third World countries," but also -- on multiple occasions
and in multiple stores -- labeling non-organic food as organic with
misleading in-store signs.

  The study even discovered Wal-Mart selling "organic" baby formulas
containing synthetic ingredients prohibited by U.S. organic standards.

  "This is disturbing and a serious problem," Mark Kastel, co-founder of the
institute, said in a November news release accompanying a legal complaint
to the USDA. "Consumers, who are paying premium prices in the
marketplace for organic food, deserve to get what they are paying for."

  In a recent interview, Kastel speculated that the labeling problems, which
he and his staff photographed, probably stemmed more from detachment
and a lack of dedication to organics than from purposeful deception.

  (Karen Burk, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, replied to the charges by saying,
"we believe it to be an isolated incident should a green organic identifying
tag be inadvertently placed by or accidentally shift in front of the wrong
item." She did not comment on the infant formula.)

  The study also found that because of its stringent price demands,
Wal-Mart obtained little organic food from U.S. family-scale farms, but most
from major agribusiness companies, industrial-scale farms and foreign
countries.

  Kastel illustrated how Wal-Mart's low-price-only policy has hurt small
farmers and "cheapened" the organic label.

  After one of Wal-Mart's original organic milk suppliers, Organic Valley -- a
co-operative of small organic dairy farmers -- refused to acquiesce to
Wal-Mart's demands, the giant retailer turned to Horizon Organic (owned
by Dean Foods) and Aurora Dairy, both of which have been accused of
exploiting ambiguities in the organic standards to confine thousands of
cows in feedlot-like conditions with little time spent grazing on pasture.
(The law says cows must have "access to pasture," but doesn't say how
much or how often.)

  "Wal-Mart's dependence on factory farms," the study concluded, is a
typical example of its "philosophy of sourcing products from the least
expensive supplier regardless of the impact on product quality, the
environment or our nation's workers."

  Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the Organic Consumer's
Association, echoed these criticisms.

  "When you get into bed with Wal-Mart, you forget your ethics because of
the money involved," Cummins said. "But you simply cannot act in organic
the same way you did in conventional because consumers are looking for
more than just low prices."

  Cummins added that even if the aforementioned practices by Wal-Mart,
Horizon and Aurora technically fulfilled organic standards, they
nevertheless violated organic ideals like animal rights and the preservation
of fossil fuels. "How organic can food really be that is shipped halfway
around the world?" he said.

  Which brings up another concern: how to insure that organic products
grown outside U.S. borders are actually organic.

  The USDA's National Organic Program is ultimately responsible for the
integrity of all organic food sold in the United States, but it does not
conduct inspections. Instead, it accredits third-party agencies to inspect the
farms, processors and retailers that seek certification.

  Currently, there are 40 accredited foreign certifying agents (and 55
domestic). But serious questions remain about the integrity of the process
in some countries -- especially China. The USDA, in fact, has yet to make an
inspection tour of what Kastel described as China's "government-controlled
certification system," even though the United States is already importing
huge amounts of Chinese organic products.

  (When asked for comment, Joan Shaffer, a spokeswoman for the USDA,
said that the associate deputy administrator of the NOP, Mark Bradley,
would be flying to China later this year to conduct reviews.) Proponents of
small-scale organic say foreign sourcing is a key factor in the dilution of the
label, because transparency, another important organic ideal, is lost.
Knowing your farmer, visiting his ranch and seeing how the food is grown
-- gathering any kind of story behind the food -- becomes virtually
impossible when organics are obtained from overseas.

  "I'd rather spend $5 on some locally grown, organic strawberries than
$2.50 for some Chilean farmer's strawberries at Wal-Mart," David Evans
said. "Why would I want to save $2.50 on those Chilean strawberries when
I don't really know how they were grown, under what conditions or if they
were really grown organically?"

  But, as even the most vehement critics of industrial organic concede,
there are benefits to Wal-Mart's -- and other big corporations' -- market
presence. Perhaps the most significant is the removal of toxic pesticides and
chemical fertilizers from the ecosystem: As demand rises and huge retailers
like Wal-Mart seek to meet it, conventional acres will transition to organic,
and whether those are in the United States, Chile or China, it will be good
for the environment.

  Drew and Myra Goodman, the owners of Earthbound Farm (one of
Wal-Mart's top suppliers), estimate that their business alone has been
responsible for eliminating almost 10 million pounds of synthetic fertilizer
and 313,000 pounds of chemical pesticides. This is a significant boon to the
environment and to national health, not only for the removal of pesticide
residues from food, but also by preserving petroleum, which is used to
create synthetic fertilizer.

  A study by the Rodale Institute found that organic farms fight global
warming by removing carbon from the atmosphere by sequestering it in the
earth at a rate of 3,670 pounds per acre. With the Goodmans' 30,000
acres, that would mean Earthbound Farm alone has removed the equivalent
of more than 7,500 cars from the road.

  Peggy Miars, executive director of California Certified Organic Farmers in
Santa Cruz, one of the nation's largest organic certifiers, believes the
benefits of big businesses' market presence outweigh the potential
negatives.

  Miars said the USDA standards are strict enough (though she
acknowledged ambiguities existed) that the label would remain strong, and,
in addition to the environmental benefits, she said big corporations would
create greater awareness, boost demand and create more markets. "If
consumers who never thought much about organic foods see them at their
local Wal-Mart," she said, "they may investigate more, maybe even stop by
a farmers' market. This would increase demand and the end result is it
would be good for organic."

  But others maintain that even in the best industrial organic models, there
are aspects that mirror conventional agriculture and conflict with organic
ideals -- such as the use of migrant farmworkers, aggressive business
practices designed to crush competition, reliance on monocrop at the
expense of diversity and mass expenditures of fossil fuels in distribution
and production.

  "There's a long list of benefits of small-scale organic that you don't get
with industrial," said Helge Hellberg, the executive director of Marin
Organic, an association of organic producers dedicated to "creating the first
all-organic county in the nation."

  Like Hellberg, most of Marin's organic community does not view Big
Organic as a direct threat to their own farms or way of life -- "we're far
removed from the Wal-Marts of the world," is how Evans put it -- but they
remain an advocate for the preservation of the nation's small farms, yet
another ideal not addressed by the industrial model.

  "We're still losing 400 family farms in the U.S. every week to
development," Hellberg said. "The industrial model, even if it's organic, will
not stop that. We're still shipping food an average of about 2,000 miles
from where it's grown to where it's consumed. The industrial organic
model will not address that."

  But will the local model address skyrocketing demand? While much of
agribusiness's market presence can be chalked up to profit seeking, even
some proponents of small-scale organics think the industrial model may
have its place -- for supplying populations in less agriculturally sustainable
areas, such as Las Vegas or Albuquerque, for example.

  Hellberg, however, believes local, small-scale organics should be the aim.
He said he's seen "the most arid and horrible soils turned around," and he
pointed to Marin's movement as an example he believed could be replicated
in other places -- if not practically, than at least the "mind-set." He said
Prince Charles' November 2005 visit was due to the innovation, tradition
and dedication to ideals of the area's organic farmers.

  The biodiversity of Peter Martinelli's Fresh Run Farm in Bolinas, where
more than 40 crops are grown on 5 acres; Dennis and Sandy Dierks'
Paradise Valley Produce, where unique fertilization methods such as
fermenting seaweed and other microbes to enhance soil fertility are used,
and where the coho salmon are making a comeback because of a healthier
watershed; and Warren Weber's Star Route Farms, the longest
continuously certified organic farm in California, are all examples of the
sustainable model -- and were all "certainly a draw" for His Royal Highness.

  When asked if he thought some ideals needed to be sacrificed to meet
rising demand, Hellberg said: "No, I think the opposite is true. Smaller scale
agriculture, artisan food production, true relationships, integrating
agriculture in your local region and building upon it: That is the model that
shows the most benefits. It is the closest to the heart and there's no place
on earth where you can't apply it."

  Evans agrees. "The most conscious way to buy food is straight from the
farmer," he said. "There's a lot of room for growth in this country for that
kind of relationship. Even better than organic is local organic, and that's a
niche that the big guy just can't get in on."

  Jake Whitney is a freelance writer in New York. His work has appeared in
the New Republic, Editor & Publisher and New York Magazine.

  
  ©2007 San Francisco Chronicle