February, 22 2010, 09:30am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Charlotte Vallaeys, 978-369-6409
Mark Kastel, 608-625-2042
Corporate Baking Giant Sara Lee Hijacks Organics
“EcoGrain” Marketing Blitz — Greenwashing New Bread Produced with Toxic Agrochemicals as Something BETTER Than Organic
CORNUCOPIA, Wis.
With the
growing success of organics, and increasing consumer interest in buying foods
that were grown on sustainable farms without toxic chemicals, Sara Lee
Corporation has launched, with much fanfare, a marketing campaign for its Earthgrains bread, chock-full of
environmental-friendly catchphrases.
Sara
Lee claims that "Eco-GrainTM," an ingredient actually used in
small proportions in its Earthgrains brand breads, is more sustainable than organic grain.
What has been described as a "crass and exploitive marketing ploy"
has angered many in the organic community.
"Corporations
like Sara Lee clearly want to profit from consumers' interest in
ecological and healthy food production. But unlike organic companies,
Sara Lee is doing practically nothing to ensure its ingredients are truly
ecologically produced," said Charlotte Vallaeys, a Food and Farm Policy
Analyst at The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based organic industry
watchdog. "It's a crass example of a corporation trying to
capitalize on the valuable market cachet of organic, while intentionally misleading
consumers-without making any meaningful commitment to protect the
environment or produce safer and more nutritious food."
The
Cornucopia Institute, a farm policy research group, points out that the farmers
who grow Eco-Grain differ very little from most conventional grain producers
who use petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides, and have little
in common with certified organic farmers.
The
one attribute that Sara Lee uses to differentiate Eco-Grain production is that
the farmers, although they use chemical fertilizers, incorporate technology
that has reduced fertilizer usage by 15%. In contrast, as mandated by
federal law, organic farmers are required by law to reduce their synthetic
fertilizer use by 100%.
Organic
farmers use natural fertilizers, compost and crop rotations to enrich the
long-term health of the soil, without damaging the environment or potentially
contaminating the food produced.
However,
Cornucopia's Vallaeys points out that, "Even if their new fancy wheat were
truly superior, each Earthgrains 24 ounce loaf contains only 20% flour from
Eco-Grain, with the remainder of the bread's wheat coming from regular,
conventional wheat. The total reduction in chemical fertilizer use in a
loaf of EarthGrains bread therefore amounts to a meager 3%."
"Even
though they've done a countrywide media rollout, including underwriting spots
on National Public Radio, Sara Lee is, in essence, playing a shell game,"
said Mark A. Kastel, Codirector at The Cornucopia Institute. "Even
as they had the audacity to promote a bread with just 20% of their 'value
added' wheat, the rest of their product line has 0% content of the
Eco-Grain. If advertising executives could be charged with malpractice,
this would be a major felony," Kastel said.
The
Cornucopia Institute has written to the
CEOs of both Sara Lee and NPR requesting that the "misleading and
unethical" packaging and advertising campaign, and associated advertising
and underwriting, be immediately suspended while the corporations investigate
their propriety.
In
addition to the organic prohibition against chemical fertilizers, federal
regulations also prohibit organic farmers from using toxic pesticides that are
commonly applied to conventional wheat fields, including those growing
"Eco-Grain."
One
such pesticide typically used in conventional wheat production is
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), which EPA researchers have correlated
with numerous birth defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, as well
as defects like clubfoot, fused digits and extra digits. Other research
has linked the use of toxic pesticides on wheat fields to increased cancer
mortality rates.
And,
in addition to chemical fertilizers and pesticides, conventional wheat farmers
sometimes use synthetic fungicides and other chemicals to treat their fields.
"For
Sara Lee to claim that their wheat is ecologically grown and sustainable, when
they appear to make no effort to reduce or eliminate their use of toxic
pesticides, that have terrible effects on the environment and public health, is
highly disingenuous," says Nathan Jones, who grows organic wheat in King
Hill, Idaho and chairs the Organic Advisory Board of the Idaho State Department
of Agriculture.
In
addition to shunning toxic agrochemicals, organic farmers are required to
improve the long-term health of their soil, and increase biodiversity on their
farms.
"Unfortunately,
this is another example of a major agribusiness trying to blur the line between
products labeled 'organic' and 'natural'," stated
Kastel, who acts as Cornucopia's Senior Farm Policy Analyst. "It
seems that some corporations, like Sara Lee, appear more interested in
corporate profit and greenwashing than true environmental stewardship, and are
doing everything they can to take advantage of this confusion among
consumers," Kastel added.
"The
term 'natural' on products like bread is not regulated by state or
federal government," says Marion Nestle, Professor of Nutrition at New York University. "Companies that use
the term 'all natural' essentially come up with their own
definition."
In
addition, some of Sara Lee's other bread ingredients, such as soy oil and soy lecithin,
are grown and processed using genetic engineering and chemical extraction with
the toxic solvent hexane, both technologies that are banned in organic
production.
In
online marketing materials, Sara Lee even claims that farming methods used to
produce its "100% Natural" bread "have some advantages over
organic farming." They cite only one ecological advantage, claiming
that organic farmers require more land than conventional growers.
"This
claim does not hold up against recent scientific data," said Alison
Grantham, Research Manager at the Rodale Institute in Kutztown, Pennsylvania,
an agricultural research, education and outreach group. "Long-term
trials, such as our nearly 30-year-old Farming Systems Trial, show long-term
average organic farming systems' crop yields match conventional farming
system yields, and that the improvements in soil health achieved by organic
management actually support higher yields during droughts."
"I
just can't believe that Sara Lee would claim to be more sustainable than
organic bakers like me," affirms Daniel Leader, a certified organic bread
baker and owner of Bread Alone Bakery in the Hudson Valley, New York.
"In deference to my customers, I've made an investment in real
sustainability by going organic, and for Sara Lee to tarnish the good name of
organics, and even claim to be superior to organic bread, is simply
unacceptable." Bread Alone Bakery is certified by the Northeast
Organic Farmers Association, a certifier accredited by the USDA.
Sara
Lee's longtime ad jingle campaign doesn't seem to be ringing true for
organic farmers, bakers and consumers-"Everybody doesn't like
something, but nobody doesn't like Sara Lee." It will remain
to be seen whether spending more money on marketing and advertising than on
Eco-Grain itself will pay off for the agribusiness giant.
The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit farm policy research group, is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Their Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate and governmental watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit.
LATEST NEWS
CBO: GOP Social Security Plan Would Cut Benefits by Thousands, Not Extend Solvency
"Their goal is to destroy our Social Security system," one advocate for seniors said of Republican politicians.
Sep 25, 2024
Social Security defenders have long argued that former Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's return to the Oval Office could spell disaster for seniors, and a nonpartisan government analysis released Wednesday bolsters their warnings.
U.S. House Budget Committee Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to analyze the impact of raising the full retirement age (FRA) for Social Security from 67 to 69, as various Republican groups have proposed.
"This report shows that raising the retirement age to 69 would slash benefits by an average of $3,500 a year," Social Security Works executive director Alex Lawson told Common Dreams. "For seniors and people with disabilities, that means not being able to buy groceries, pay a heating bill, or buy birthday presents for their grandkids."
"This cruel benefit cut would hit those who claim benefits early—largely people who work on their feet, not those who work in offices—the hardest," Lawson noted. "Even worse, it is only one of the benefit cuts that Republicans are backing. Their goal is to destroy our Social Security system."
As CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel wrote to Boyle:
All people affected by such an increase in the FRA would receive a smaller amount of Social Security benefits over their lifetime. Workers who chose to delay claiming their retirement benefits by the same number of months as the increase in the FRA would receive the same monthly benefit for a shorter period. Those workers who claimed retirement benefits at the same age as they would have claimed them under current law would receive a smaller benefit for the same number of years.
In a statement responding to the report, Boyle's office highlighted that "for workers currently in their 30s and 40s who are subject to the full retirement age increase, the average annual benefit cut would be 13%, or around $3,500 a year."
As the congressman's office pointed out, the CBO also found that "though increasing the retirement age would reduce spending, it would not create enough savings to change the expected exhaustion date of the Social Security Trust Fund, which is projected to be unable to pay full benefits by the end of fiscal year 2034."
Boyle and Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) have introduced the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act, which would extend the solvency of both programs by requiring Americans with higher incomes to pay more than they do now.
"Social Security is a sacred promise that after a lifetime of hard work, Americans have earned the right to retire with dignity," Boyle said Wednesday. "This independent, nonpartisan report shows just how devastating Republican plans to rip away hard-earned Social Security benefits would be for American workers."
"Instead of saving Social Security by making the ultrarich pay their fair share, the GOP is hellbent on gutting benefits for the middle class," he warned, specifically calling out the congressional Republican Study Committee and the Heritage Foundation, which is behind Project 2025. "Democrats will never stop fighting to keep the promise of Social Security and defend Americans' retirement security from Republican attacks."
The CBO report comes less than six weeks away from the U.S. general election. Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris is facing Trump in the race for the White House.
Before President Joe Biden left the contest and passed the torch to Harris, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, National United Committee to Protect Pensions, and Social Security Works Political Action Committee were backing him over Trump. All three groups have endorsed Harris.
"As president, Biden has been an unwavering protector of Social Security and Medicare," Social Security Works president Nancy Altman wrote in a July opinion piece for Common Dreams. "Harris will be as fierce a defender, and she will do more. She will expand Social Security and Medicare and ensure that all benefits will continue to be paid in full and on time for the foreseeable future by requiring billionaires to pay their fair share."
"In stark contrast, Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress are a serious threat to our earned benefits and to our families," she stressed, also warning of the GOP's positions on medication prices and tax breaks for the rich. "A vote for Democrats is a vote to expand benefits, lower prescription drug prices, and require those billionaires to start paying their fair share."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Latest US Execution, Progressives Say 'Abolish the Death Penalty'
"The use of the death penalty in the United States is one of the ugliest stains on our broken criminal justice system," said Congresswoman Barbara Lee.
Sep 25, 2024
Amid a wave of executions in Republican-led states—including Tuesday's lethal injection of Marcellus Williams in Missouri—progressive U.S. lawmakers and groups renewed calls to "abolish the death penalty."
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Cori Bush (D-Mo.) were among those who took to social media to demand an end to capital punishment following Williams' execution.
"The use of the death penalty in the United States is one of the ugliest stains on our broken criminal justice system," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). "It is disproportionately imposed against poor people and people of color. We must abolish it once and for all."
Williams, 55, was killed by the state of Missouri via lethal injection—a method known for botched executions—despite serious doubts about his guilt. The office that prosecuted him sought to have his murder conviction overturned and members of the victim's family pleaded for clemency.
"Sometimes injustice is so glaring that it leaves us struggling to comprehend how such events could happen in the first place," Bush said in a statement released after Williams' execution.
The congresswoman continued:
The deadly decision to execute Williams came despite urgent pleas from Missourians and people all across the country... who called for clemency. Gov. Mike Parson didn't just ignore these pleas and end Williams' life, he demonstrated how the death penalty is wielded without regard for innocence, compassion, equity, or humanity. He showed us how the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" can be applied selectively, depending on who stands accused and who stands in power.
"The state of Missouri and our nation's legal system failed Marcellus Williams, and as long as we uphold the death penalty, we continue to perpetuate this depravity—where an innocent person can be killed in the name of justice," Bush stressed. "We have a moral imperative to abolish this racist and inhumane practice, and to work towards building a just legal system that values humanity and compassion over criminalization and violence."
"Rest in power, Marcellus Williams," she added.
Williams wasn't the only one executed on Tuesday. Travis Mullis—a 38-year-old autistic man who murdered his infant son—was killed by lethal injection in Texas after waiving his right to appeal.
Last week, South Carolina executed Freddie Owens by lethal injection after Republican state Attorney General Alan Wilson brushed off a key prosecution witness' bombshell claim that the convicted man did not commit the murder for which his life was taken.
Although the number of U.S. executions has been steadily decreasing from 85 in 2000 to 24 last year, there is currently a surge in state killings, with five more people set to be put to death in three states by October 17.
On Thursday, Alabama is scheduled to kill Alan Eugene Miller using nitrogen gas, despite the inmate suffering severe mental illness. Miller was meant to be put to death in 2022; however, prison staff could not find a vein in which to inject the lethal cocktail and his execution was postponed.
That same day, Emmanuel Antonio Littlejohn is set to be executed by lethal injection in Oklahoma, even after the state's Pardon and Parole Board voted to recommend clemency.
According to a 2014 study, over 4% of people on U.S. death rows did not commit the crime for which they were condemned. The Death Penalty Information Center found that since 1973, at least 200 people who were wrongly convicted and sentenced to death in the U.S. have been exonerated.
"The only way to eliminate the possibility of executing an innocent person is to do away with the death penalty altogether," the advocacy group Human Rights First said Wednesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Condemns Texas National Guard for Firing Pepper Balls at Migrants
"In separate incidents this summer, witnesses saw Texas National Guard members firing pepper-spray projectiles at migrants who posed no risk to National Guard members or anyone else."
Sep 25, 2024
Human Rights Watch on Wednesday condemned the Texas National Guard for firing pepper-spray projectiles at migrants, including women and children, who've presented no danger, citing multiple recent incidents.
"In separate incidents this summer, witnesses saw Texas National Guard members firing pepper-spray projectiles at migrants who posed no risk to National Guard members or anyone else," Bob Libal, an HRW consultant, said in a statement.
New from @HRW and me: The TX Nat'l Guard has repeatedly fired pepper spray projectiles at arriving asylum-seekers, including women & children.
#TXLege should increase oversight of TX Military Dept & deny funding requests until this practice ends. 🧵https://t.co/AuXyAGcFbO
— Bob Libal (@blibal) September 25, 2024
Pepper-spray projectiles, which are often shaped like balls, contain chemical irritants similar to pepper spray. HRW documented several instances of their use by the Texas National Guard, which polices the border as part of Operation Lone Star, a right-wing state project that has already cost more than $11 billion and drawn opposition from rights advocates.
On September 7, a Texas National Guard member in a boat fired several projectiles at a migrant who had crossed onto the U.S. side of the Rio Grande, at Eagle Pass, Texas, according to three witnesses who watched from a park in Mexico. The migrant fell down, did not get up, and didn't receive aid, they told HRW.
"I saw a National Guardsman in the boat train his gun on the man and then he pepper balled him," said Josie Rodrigues, one of the witnesses, who is a resident of Eagle Pass. "He shot him four or five times. I saw the puffs of smoke and the man went down, and he didn't get up again. It looked to me like they were aiming at the person, not around him or at his feet. It was disturbing."
On August 5, a group of migrants, including children, alleged that projectiles were fired at them, causing their eyes to burn; U.S. Border Patrol said that the Texas National Guard was in control of the area where the incident occurred, according to HRW.
The Texas National Guard also fired pepper balls at a Venezuelan couple and their 1-year-old daughter in May, Newsweekreported, based on video from Border Report.
International human rights law has strict rules on the use of force—even sublethal force, as the projectiles are designed to be—by law enforcement.
"Chemical irritants should only be deployed where a law enforcement official has reason to believe there is an imminent threat of injury," according to United Nations' guidance.
HRW is calling for the state Legislature to deny additional funding to the Texas Military Department, which oversees the state's National Guard, until the use of projectiles against migrants ends. The funding was on the agenda at a budget meeting on Wednesday.
"The Texas Legislature should respond by increasing its oversight over the Texas Military Department and denying funding increases to the department until these abuses stop," Lidal said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular