SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
soil
The USDA and Corrupt Organic Certifiers Are Betraying Farmers and Consumers
Corporate agribusinesses are playing fast and loose with the rules by choosing friendly compliant certifiers—and when they are caught in the act, the USDA often fails to take action.
Oct 13, 2024
Some of the oldest and largest U.S. Department of Agriculture-accredited certifiers have partnered with corporate agribusiness to change the working definition of organics, allowing large livestock factories; certified, uninspected imports; and soilless hydroponic produce grown in giant industrial greenhouses to be certified organic.
Organic certifiers are mixing lobbying, marketing, and activism with their certification responsibilities, and taking payola from the clients they certify. They are also certifying “producer groups” in Eastern Europe, Central America, and Asia without inspecting and certifying each individual farm.
This is against the law and an egregious conflict of interest—and it’s crushing U.S. farmers in the marketplace while raking in billions of dollars in profit for these large certifiers.
The corrupt practices employed by these certifiers have left authentic organic farmers, who focus on sound soil stewardship and humane animal husbandry based on pasture, highly disadvantaged in the marketplace.
In 1990, Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), tasking the USDA with oversight of dozens of certifiers to ensure their independence and harmonization of standards.
Fast forward to today and the USDA is now allowing a handful of the largest certifiers to collude with corporate agribusiness to industrialize or import the organic food supply at the expense of high standards and the livelihoods of U.S. farmers who adhere to them.
As executive director of OrganicEye, an organic industry watchdog, I’ve witnessed family-scale organic farmers who abide by the USDA’s organic standards get crushed in the marketplace by dubious organic imports allowed into the U.S. without the certification or inspection that federal law requires.
In September, OrganicEye requested that the USDA Office of Inspector General investigate the National Organic Program for failing to prevent corporate influence—including financial payments made to certifiers over and above inspection fees—and failing to enforce other USDA regulations that prevent conflicts of interest, thus lowering the quality of certified organic food.
OrganicEye recently filed a third formal legal complaint against a certifier, Florida Organic Growers (FOG), and their certification arm, Quality Certification Services (QCS), for accepting contributions, conference sponsorships, and other payments over and above certification fees from operations they oversee.
FOG has joined two of the other largest “independent” certifiers in the country, California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) and Oregon Tilth, in selling out hard-working produce and livestock farmers by certifying giant industrial operations, many allegedly flagrantly breaking the law. Legal complaints against all three are currently pending.
When money changes hands between agribusiness clients and the profiting organizations that certify them, we call that “payola,” classically defined as corruption. These certifiers are acting as agents of the USDA. And the regulators in Washington responsible for auditing them are looking the other way.
Large organic certifiers should not be partnering with corporate agribusiness and cashing in on the growth of organics, especially while other certifiers are upholding the traditionally high standards.
In its first action to reign in certification abuses, OrganicEye filed an administrative law complaint against CCOF, the nation’s largest certifier, in November 2023 to address this out-of-control certification system.
We’ve seen organizations like CCOF, Oregon Tilth, and FOG morph from being among the founding farmer-led groups facilitating the growth of organic farming in the U.S. to multimillion-dollar business enterprises certifying multibillion-dollar corporate agribusinesses.
Recent IRS filings show these certification giants have reaped tens of millions of dollars a year in revenue while “masquerading” as tax-exempt public charities, with the vast preponderance of income derived from service fees paid by their business clients.
In addition to the controversies surrounding certification of livestock factories, a number of prominent certifiers, along with the industry’s primary lobby group, the Organic Trade Association, executed a stealthy campaign in 2017 that resulted in regulators allowing mammoth hydroponic greenhouses (soilless production) to be certified as organic, despite statutory and regulatory language requiring careful soil stewardship before a farm can be certified as organic under the USDA program.
That rich, organically-curated soil microbiome is the foundation of organic farming practices, resulting in superior nutrition density and flavor. That’s lacking in hydroponics, which uses liquid fertilizers derived from materials like conventional soybean meal.
The corrupt practices employed by these certifiers have left authentic organic farmers, who focus on sound soil stewardship and humane animal husbandry based on pasture, highly disadvantaged in the marketplace. With many small organic farms struggling economically—and hundreds more being forced out altogether—the devastating impacts are clear.
It doesn’t have to be this way. And not all certifiers are behaving badly.
For example, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association is universally viewed as one of the most ethical certifiers. They do not approve hydroponic greenhouses or factory farms as organic.
Since OrganicEye began publishing its research concerning alleged improprieties at the nation’s largest certifiers, we have received numerous inquiries from farmers indicating interest in switching certifiers.
We hope that our research inspires ethical farmers and certified organic business operations to consider switching their allegiance and economic patronage to certifiers who share their values and interpretations of federal law.
In the meantime, consumers and eaters can use the same guide that we have prepared for farmers to help identify some of the most creditable organic food in the marketplace. Federal law requires every package with the word “organic” on the front label to include the name of the certifier supervising the production process. This is commonly found on the back or side panel near the ingredient list.
With the USDA delegating so much authority to certifiers, there are now effectively two organic labels: corporate brands affiliated with OTA lobbyists and certified by their members, motivated by profit and industry growth, and other ethical brands that have not lost touch with the foundational precepts of the organic movement.
OrganicEye is offering free consulting and other resources to farmers around the country who are switching their patronage to certifiers who share their values rather than undercutting their livelihoods.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Deadly Dust Storm in Illinois Blamed on Shortsighted Industrial Farming Methods
"This tragedy should be a wake-up call to Congress to take action in the 2023 Farm Bill," said one advocacy group. "We urge them to shift funds toward practices like cover cropping and conservation buffers, which protect soil from erosion."
May 02, 2023
Agricultural policy experts on Tuesday said the deadly dust storm that led to "zero visibility" for highway drivers this week in Illinois should be a "wake-up call" for lawmakers as advocates fight against industrial farming practices.
A day after at least six people were killed and more than 30 were injured in a pileup on Interstate 55 outside Springfield, the research and advocacy group Farm Action said the dust storm may have been driven by the chronic erosion of soil in rural areas, which has resulted as agribusiness pushes practices such as monocropping—a profitable method which can trigger the depletion of soil nutrients and the weakening of soil.
"Incidents like these are a tragic consequence of the shortsighted practices demanded by the monopoly corporations that control our agriculture system," said the organization in a statement. "Industrial practices which limit crop rotation in favor of monocropping and heavy herbicide application have resulted in unprecedented soil erosion and severe weather events—which cost us not only our agricultural system's resilience but human life itself."
Monocropping became more common in the middle of the 20th century, and herbicide applications increased from 18% of crops in 1960 to 76% of crops in 2008, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, further eroding soil.
Along with Farm Action, experts including Matt Wallenstein, chief soil scientist for gricultural company Syngenta, pointed to profit-driven industrial farming methods as a possible cause of the dust storm.
"Let's take this as a wake-up call to prioritize regenerative agriculture practices that can help prevent soil erosion and build healthier soils," said Wallenstein.
\u201cAnother example (\ud83d\ude41) to emphasize why we need to proritize regenerative agriculture, use of cover crops, grasses, reduced till etc not only add soil Carbon but might prevent these tragic dust storms, soil erosion etc. \n\nhttps://t.co/FSuxO9pFHY\n\n@regeneration_in @soil4climate\u201d— JAY NEPAL (@JAY NEPAL) 1682986328
Farm Action has called on lawmakers to include in the 2023 Farm Bill provisions that would offer subsidized insurance programs and disaster payments for farmers and companies that use regenerative farming practices that limit mechanical disturbances and reduce the use of chemical herbicides and fertilizers.
Methods include "cover cropping," or planting crops in soil that would otherwise be bare after cash crops are harvested, in order to keep living roots in the soil; moving livestock between pastures for grazing; "no-till farming," in which the soil is left intact rather than plowed; and conservation buffers such as hedgerows "that act as windbreaks and habitat for beneficial organisms," according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"The deadly dust storm was preventable. Our staff mourns the abrupt and senseless loss of life, and our hearts go out to the communities of central Illinois," said Farm Action. "This tragedy should be a wake-up call to Congress to take action in the 2023 Farm Bill. We urge them to shift funds toward practices like cover cropping and conservation buffers, which protect soil from erosion."
"If these sustainable practices were scaled up and supported by U.S. farm policies," the group added, "we would see a safer and more resilient system emerge."
Keep ReadingShow Less
From 'Sustainable' to 'Regenerative'--The Future of Food
Oct 28, 2015
Earlier this week, the paywalled site PoliticoPro reported that the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture wants "farmers and agricultural interests to come up with a single definition of sustainability to avoid confusing the public with various meanings of the term in food and production methods."
We agree with Secretary Tom Vilsack that the word "sustainability" is meaningless to consumers and the public. It's overused and misused, and corporations have shamelessly co-opted it for greenwashing.
"Do we want to grow our food in ways that restore climate stability and regenerate--soil, health, economies--rather than merely maintain the status quo?"
But rather than come up with one definition for the word "sustainable" as it refers to food and food production methods, we suggest doing away with it entirely. In its place, as a way of helping food consumers make conscious, informed decisions, we suggest dividing global food and farming into two categories: regenerative and degenerative.
In this new paradigm, consumers could choose food produced by degenerative, toxic chemical-intensive, monoculture-based industrial agriculture systems that destabilize the climate, and degrade soil, water, biodiversity, health and local economies. Or they could choose food produced using organic regenerative practices based on sound ecological principles that rejuvenate the soil, grasslands, and forests; replenish water; promote food sovereignty; and restore public health and prosperity--all while cooling the planet by drawing down billions of tons of excess carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in the soil where it belongs.
'Sustainable'--Is That All We Want?
The dictionary defines "sustainable" as being used without being completely used up or destroyed, involving methods that do not completely use up or destroy natural resources and lasting for a long time.
In other words, sustainability is about maintaining systems without degrading them, about keeping things much the same without progressing.
Industrial agriculture today, with its factory farms, waste lagoons, antibiotics, and growth hormones, GMOs, toxic pesticides, and prolific use of synthetic fertilizers, doesn't come close to "not using up or destroying natural resources." And even if it did, is that all we want or need to achieve?
Or do we want to grow our food in ways that restore climate stability and regenerate--soil, health, and economies--rather than merely maintain the status quo?
Greenwashing and the Labeling Game
Corporations love to brand themselves, and label their products, as "sustainable." The hope is that consumers will view "sustainable" products as superior to mere "conventional" products or, better yet, equate the word "sustainable" with "organic."
However, when a widely discredited and despised company like Monsanto co-opts the word "sustainable," the word loses all meaning for consumers. On its website, Monsanto says:
Our vision for sustainable agriculture strives to meet the needs of a growing population, to protect and preserve this planet we all call home, and to help improve lives everywhere. In 2008 Monsanto made a commitment to sustainable agriculture - pledging to produce more, conserve more, and improve farmers' lives by 2030.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Monsanto's Roundup-Ready, chemical-intensive GMO crops now dominate agriculture globally, poisoning the soil, water, air, farm workers, and consumers. The words on their website fool no one--the agriculture they promote is anything but "sustainable."
It is the same with the certified "sustainability" labels that corporations such as Cargill, Heinz Benelux, Mars, Nestle, Unilever, and Cadbury promote. These labeling schemes—such as Rainforest Alliance, Sustainable Agriculture Network, and UTZ—can be congratulated for promoting the planting of trees on farms, improving the farm environment, and requiring compliance with minimum labor standards. However, they do nothing to curtail the use of soil-destroying, climate-destabilizing chemical fertilizers, and the thousands of toxic pesticides known to cause environmental and health damage.
A "sustainability" label may mean that the production methods behind a product inflict somewhat less damage on the environment. But it doesn't mean the product will cause less damage to human health. Numerous published scientific studies link exposure to the smallest amounts of these "approved" pesticides to cancers, birth defects, endocrine disruption, reproductive problems, developmental neurotoxicity, ADHD, autism, obesity, type 2 diabetes, reproductive problems, immune system damage, epigenetic mutations, kidney, liver, and heart disease and numerous other non-communicable diseases that are currently in epidemic proportions.
Most of the farmers enrolled in these "sustainability programs" used to grow crops or graze animals traditionally, with little or no chemicals. The same is true for the thousands of certified organic coffee and cacao farmers hijacked by these schemes--schemes allowing them to charge a premium without meeting the more rigorous organic standards. How can the promoters of these "sustainability" labels claim that they are reducing chemical use when they have converted thousands of low-input traditional farmers to use chemicals they have never used before?
A global 'Regeneration Revolution' is underway
In the 1970s, Robert Rodale, son of American organic pioneer J.I. Rodale, coined the term 'regenerative organic agriculture' to distinguish a kind of farming beyond simply "sustainable."
According to the Rodale Institute:
Regenerative organic agriculture improves the resources it uses, rather than destroying or depleting them. It is a holistic systems approach to agriculture that encourages continual on-farm innovation for environmental, social, economic and spiritual well-being.
Regenerative organic agriculture "takes advantage of the natural tendencies of ecosystems to regenerate when disturbed. In that primary sense, it is distinguished from other types of agriculture that either oppose or ignore the value of those natural tendencies." Regenerative organic agriculture is marked by tendencies towards closed nutrient loops, greater diversity in the biological community, fewer annuals and more perennials, and greater reliance on internal rather than external resources. Regenerative organic agriculture is aligned with agroecology practiced by farmers concerned with food sovereignty worldwide."
"An increasing number of farmers want to grow food and raise animals using organic and regenerative farming and grazing practices that are not only better for human health but also cool the planet, feed the world, heal the soil, foster food sovereignty and strengthen communities."
We opened this piece by stating that we agree with Vilsack--the word "sustainability," in the context of food and food production, has led to consumer confusion.
But we don't like where Vilsack is headed. "In recent years," he told PoliticoPro, "consumers have raised concerns about conventional agricultural practices, which has led to the growth of organic, GMO-free foods and 'natural' products, often at the expense of the reputation of conventional products. I think it will be incumbent on us to have a common understanding of what [sustainability] means to better serve the interests of agriculture as a whole and consumers."
At the "expense of the reputation of conventional products"? Is Vilsack referring to the well-earned bad reputation of products (those containing GMOs and toxic pesticides, perhaps?) produced using degenerative, rather than regenerative, practices?
A "common understanding" of sustainability might better serve the interests of Monsanto and the agribusiness corporations, but it will do little to serve the interests of small farmers and consumers.
Consumer concern about health, especially pesticides, growth hormones, and GMOs, is the number one driver behind rising sales of organic foods. But as scientists issue increasingly dire warnings about the climate and people throughout the world connect the dots between industrial agriculture and global warming, there is a growing contingent of farmers and consumers who want to do more.
An increasing number of farmers want to grow food and raise animals using organic and regenerative farming and grazing practices, which are better for human health, cool the planet, feed the world, heal the soil, foster food sovereignty, and strengthen communities.
And consumers want to purchase those products, knowing that their production generates healing, not harm.
It's a Regeneration Revolution. And it goes well beyond "sustainability."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular