(Mercola)—U.S. organic farmers are being driven out of business by low-priced organic imports of hazelnuts, turmeric and other products, which may not be grown to the organic standards you’d expect. The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 is a U.S. federal law that was enacted to establish national standards for the production and handling of organic foods.

The act requires that agricultural products labeled as organic be overseen by an independent third party that’s supervised by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The process comes with additional costs and requirements for U.S. organic farmers, which should theoretically be offset by the higher prices commanded for organic foods.

However, uninspected organic imports are flooding the U.S. market from grower/producer groups in developing countries, which are not being subjected to annual inspections — with the USDA’s permission.

“The bottom line: Food is being imported at under the cost of production, forcing U.S. growers — who are complying with the law — out of business,” reported OrganicEye,¹ which is “dedicated to protecting family-scale farmers and preserving the availability of authentic organic food”² in the U.S.

USDA Protects Agribusiness Lobbyists at the Expense of US Organic Farmers

In certain developing countries, the USDA has allowed the formation of grower/producer groups. These groups are often used for crops like coffee, nuts, chocolate, tea and herbs, and while they started out as a way to help small farmers or indigenous groups in developing countries, the loophole is now putting U.S. organic farmers and organic standards at risk. According to OrganicEye:³

“Although there is no legal provision for the exemption, decades ago certifiers started allowing cooperatives, small villages, or groups of indigenous peoples, producing high-value, specialty crops, like coffee, chocolate, or spices, to be grouped together in ‘peer-supervised’ producer groups.

It was assumed that the small landholders would not be able to afford individual certification and inspections and the exception would both help them access world markets, improving their economic standing, and provide authentic organic food to more affluent Western countries.”

The global organic industry, however, is now a $205.9 billion industry, projected to reach a worth of $532.72 billion by 2032,⁴ and the grower groups have morphed to include commercial-scale farms that are escaping USDA oversight. Organic Insider reported:⁵

“As the organic industry surged in popularity and became a multibillion-dollar industry, grower groups were believed to be manipulated by agribusiness entities and compliant certifiers worldwide, according to industry watchdogs, which resulted in their circumventing the rules and avoiding direct USDA oversight.

The narrative was that agribusinesses created agreements with for-profit accredited certifiers so that they, instead of the certifier itself, would inspect the members of the agribusiness’ own supplier base.

… not only were these agribusiness entities doing the organic certification not recognized by the USDA as an approved organic certifier, but there was no restriction on how many participants were in these grower groups, how large individual farms could be or the limit of geographical range. Furthermore, these agribusiness entities didn’t even need to be farmers themselves.”

Only about 2% of the farmers involved in these grower/producer groups are being inspected annually, which means the vast majority — 98% — are not being inspected as frequently, if at all.

“Although almost universally complied with in domestic production, that system has completely broken down for imports,” Mark Kastel, OrganicEye’s executive director, said in a news release. “A large percentage of all foreign imports, making up a sizable amount of the organic food Americans eat, are coming from ‘producer groups,’ whose grower-members the USDA has exempted from the requirements to be certified.”⁶

US Organic Turmeric, Hazelnut Farmers Suffering

OrganicEye interviewed Brian and Valerie Quant, certified organic turmeric farmers who say they’ve been pushed out of the wholesale market by lower priced organic imports. “What grinds my gears is that we, as U.S. farmers and carrying GAP [Good Agricultural Practices] and organic certification, are held to a much higher standard and have annual inspections, associated fees, and extensive required bookkeeping responsibilities,” Brian Quant said.⁷

He added, “I’m not sure it’s really all that great a deal for them [the small foreign farmers] as they are sort of ‘bound’ to the corporate entity whose umbrella they are certified under.”⁸ The USDA Organic Integrity Database is an online resource meant to provide comprehensive information about certified organic operations and help ensure transparency and trust in the organic certification process.

But when OrganicEye investigated public records on organic turmeric production in Fiji, it found significant differences between the USDA’s Integrity Database and information from Fiji’s major exporters. They’ve since filed a legal compliant, asking the USDA to investigate and take any necessary enforcement action against alleged violations of National Organic Program (NOP) requirements.⁹

OrganicEye farmer and attorney Bruce Kaser explains, “In general, it’s a compelling imbalance when you take into account that ‘organic’ is supposed to be produced by farms, yet hardly any certified turmeric farmers exist in the USDA ‘Integrity Database,’ while scads of certified handlers are apparently operating. It’s a huge, inverted pyramid that suggests a totally out-of-whack system.”¹⁰

The complaint mentions certification by Ecocert, a certifier based in France. According to OrganicEye, “Some international certifiers, such as France-based Ecocert (an organization that has been in trouble with the USDA and international bodies over the years), certify over 600 groups alone, likely representing many thousands of individual farmers and agribusinesses.”¹¹

Hazelnut growers have been similarly affected. An investigation revealed the USDA’s Organic Integrity Database lists no certified organic hazelnut growers in Turkey. Yet, the country is the leading importer of organic hazelnuts into the U.S., at prices close to conventionally grown hazelnuts. Kaser filed a legal compliant with the USDA, then a lawsuit against the agency after it failed to take action.

“The basis of the lawsuit,” according to Organic Insider, “is that according to OFPA, all organic farms must be certified annually by a qualified and approved organic certifier. As such, the plaintiff is asking the District Court to declare grower group certifications illegal and direct the USDA federal officer in charge of the USDA’s National Organic Program, currently Dr. Jennifer Tucker, to instruct certifiers to cease grower group certifications immediately.”¹²

‘Agribusiness Puppetmasters’ Are Leading Organic Import Inspections

Kastel describes the group certifications allowed by the USDA as a scheme that’s turned into a racket, “with agribusiness puppet masters in charge of inspections.”¹³ As a result, producers of organic imports are not being held to the same rigorous standards as U.S. farmers, and the system, instead of helping indigenous communities, is supporting agribusiness.

In fact, among the 2 in 100 growers that would be inspected, one of them could actually be a ringmaster agribusiness with a faux grower front. OrganicEye reported:

“‘The documented conflict of interest, and the potential for fraud, in this USDA-sanctioned ‘shadow’ inspection/certification program — which is fully supported by the Organic Trade Association, the dominant industry lobby group — is palpable,’ said Kastel.

Even under newly enhanced regulations adopted after repeated incidents of major fraud, commonly known as the Strengthening Organic Enforcement rule, the USDA solely delegates the authority to for-profit certifiers working overseas to design their own group administrative systems and internal controls to prevent fraud by their customers.

Kastel added, ‘We’re trusting the certifiers, whose primary motivator is profit, to oversee their agribusiness ‘clients,’ who in turn are responsible for overseeing all their own suppliers (i.e., the group members).’”

Fraud Is Rampant Even Among US Organics

The USDA’s Strengthening Organic Enforcement rule is intended to enhance the integrity and transparency of the organic supply chain, via expanded certification requirements, enhanced supply chain traceability, increased oversight and inspections and fraud prevention procedures.

The rule follows decades of problems with USDA oversight of organics and rampant fraud in the industry, including several recent high-profile cases. One major fraud case among U.S. organics involved the late Missouri grain broker Randy Constant, who sold tens of millions of dollars’ worth of conventionally grown grain as organic between 2010 and 2017.¹⁴

“Prosecutors said Constant used the proceeds of his fraud to travel more than 20 times to Las Vegas, where he stayed in luxury hotels, hired escorts and gambled. He died by suicide in 2019 after being sentenced to 11 years in prison,” according to the SC Times.¹⁵

In another case in 2021, a grain broker in South Dakota, Kent Duane Anderson, made about $71 million by selling conventionally grown grain as organic. And in 2023, James Wolf, a corn, soybean and wheat farmer in Minnesota, was also indicted for selling “organic” grains that weren’t really organic — and making $46 million in profits in the process.¹⁶

Critics have expressed doubt that even with the new rule the USDA will be able to effectively prevent fraud in the organic food sector. Food lawyer Baylen Linnekin suggested a better option is to return oversight to organic industry groups and the states.¹⁷ OrganicEye also suggests seeking out U.S.-grown organic products and contacting your congressional representatives to protect the authenticity of the organic food supply.

Take Action to Protect Organic Farmers and US Organics

After OrganicEye backed a federal lawsuit demanding that the USDA discontinue their practice of allowing foreign agribusinesses to inspect their own suppliers (a profound conflict of interest), the industry’s corporate lobby group, the Organic Trade Association (OTA), suggested that, if the USDA loses the lawsuit, they will simply go to Congress and lobby to change the law to legalize “group certification.”

Don’t let that happen! Federal law currently requires every organic farm to be certified and inspected annually by independent, accredited, third-party certifiers — not foreign corporations with a financial interest.

Please invest two minutes of your time in sending a personal message directly to your congressperson and two U.S. senators, asking them to respect the spirit and letter of the law protecting organic farmers, ethical businesses, and consumers. To leverage your voice even further, please forward and/or share this action alert with your friends, family and business associates on social media.

• ^{1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11} OrganicEye June 18, 2024
• ² OrganicEye, About
• ⁴ Globe Newswire April 30, 2024
• ^5, 12 Organic Insider November 8, 2023
• ⁹ OrganicEye June 17, 2024
• ¹³ OrganicEye October 17, 2023
• ¹⁴ The New Yorker November 15, 2021
• ^15, 16 SC Times January 26, 2023
• ¹⁷ Reason February 4, 2023

(Article cross-posted from Natural News)

In 2019 the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), an advisory committee of the USDA, decided to consider the use of vaccines produced through “excluded methods” or genetic modification in organic food production. Since then, the committee advised the USDA that GE vaccines could only be permitted in organic production if an equivalent vaccine is commercially unavailable.

However, the OrganicEye, an industry watchdog, suggests otherwise. The OrganicEye said some USDA-certified organic producers are already using GE vaccines in their livestock even though it goes against the principles of organic farming. The watchdog also pointed out that consumers cannot determine whether USDA-certified organic meat, eggs or milk have been produced using GE or GMO-containing vaccines.

“In discussions pursuant to vaccines at previous NOSB meetings, some certifiers, accredited by the USDA… have publicly admitted that they do not even check to determine if vaccines violate the prohibition against genetic engineering.”

This potential fraud and deception in the organic industry indicate that “Big Ag,” or the large agricultural corporations, have been chipping away at the integrity of organic standards – clean and natural food production, free from synthetic inputs and genetic modification.

mRNA veterinary vaccine is really coming if NOSB approves

If the NOSB approves the use of GE and GMO vaccines, there could be a possible influx of genetically modified organisms into the organic market, especially now that mRNA veterinary vaccines have arrived.

Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA and DNA vaccines, revealed in January that BioNTech and Bayer have been working on “novel, first-in-class” messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines for animals over the past six years and these products are now ready for public release. (Related: Australia to unleash genetically modified wheat – who will burn down these fields and stop this human rights horror?

BioNTech-Bayer has been working on three mRNA therapy for animals, including infectious disease vaccines, cancer immunotherapies and protein replacement. Meanwhile, other researchers are also working on mRNA vaccines against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, African swine fever, avian influenza and other food-animal diseases.

However, the ANH-USA claims that organic agriculture needs fewer vaccines than large factory farm producers due to regenerative practices and good animal husbandry.

“It is largely factory farm producers that rely on vaccines, which they see as necessary because of the sheer intensity of their animal husbandry techniques. These require that animals are raised in close proximity to thousands of others in limited spaces, while typically being maintained on diets (typically GMO maize, soy) to which they are not adapted evolutionarily.

These conditions greatly weaken the immune systems of the animals and trigger demand for large quantities of veterinary pharmaceuticals, including vaccines: a perfect storm and high-risk environment for disease outbreaks,” the ANH-USA wrote in the article entitled “Genetically Engineered Vaccines in Organic Meat & Dairy.”

The ANH-USA further explained that the use of vaccines, particularly GE and GMO vaccines, could inadvertently undermine the integrity of organic labeling. Factory farms could potentially label their products as organic, despite complying with practices that are different from regenerative methods.

This could harm farmers who are dedicated to sustainable and regenerative practices, as they find themselves competing against products that may not align with their principles.

“If mRNA animal vaccines become the new standard, replacing older vaccines currently in use, then we could see a world in which USDA-certified organic products were widely contaminated by GE or GMO components originating from mRNA vaccines,” ANH-USA stated.

Learn more about the plan to introduce mRNA into the food supply at FoodEvolution.news.

Watch this episode of “World Alternative Media” as host Josh Sigurdson discusses the evidence proving the meat supply has already been tainted with mRNA.

This video is from the World Alternative Media channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

• Dr. Lee Merritt: SARS-CoV-2 is a genetically engineered BIOWEAPON.
• FrankenMeats are here: Soybeans are being genetically engineered to grow pig protein.
• 900 Mice genetically engineered to be COVID-19 CARRIERS found in believed-to-be-vacant, China-linked Fresno County lab.
• RNA vaccines don’t strictly contain mRNA, they contain modRNA, which genetically manipulates (GMO) healthy human cells.
• Dr. Bryan Ardis: Engineered COVID virus contains DOZENS of synthetic animal venoms.

Sources include:

• BlacklistedNews.com
• RWMaloneMD.substack.com
• Brighteon.com

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.

Agribusiness watchdog OrganicEye today demanded the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) hold a public hearing — or face litigation — on the use of mRNA and other genetically engineered vaccines in organic livestock production. The use of such genetically modified products violates the legal definition of “organic,” the group said.

The request comes after reports that the USDA and some organic certifiers have “quietly looked the other way” as commercial livestock producers have begun using genetically engineered vaccines in animals producing organic-certified meat, eggs and dairy products, according to OrganicEye.

One of the most important differences — perhaps the key difference — between conventional and organic food is the organic label’s strict prohibition on genetically modified farm inputs and ingredients, as laid out in the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.

OrganicEye said that rather than enforcing this rule, the USDA has sanctioned a “don’t ask, don’t tell” protocol — pushed by Big Ag — that allows producers to administer genetically engineered vaccines to animals and still label them “organic.”

The issue is urgent, according to Mark Kastel, executive director of Wisconsin-based OrganicEye, because of the imminent use of mRNA vaccines for livestock, which are currently being developed with massive funding from government and industry.

“The impetus for us to act now is the impending introduction of vaccines for livestock produced using mRNA technology similar to that used by Pfizer and Moderna to produce their respective versions of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine,” Kastel stated.

“There is a continuing controversy in the country concerning this new technology and we should work to preserve organics as the last safe haven for eaters who want to secure a truly ‘natural’ diet,” he added.

It is “unacceptable,” the nonprofit stated, for the USDA to “kick the can down the road” on this highly controversial issue.

OrganicEye is calling on the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to convene a meeting of all stakeholders, not only with industry interests who want these vaccines, Kastel told The Defender, but also with “people who have a concern — whether they’re farmers that don’t need them and feel they’re being competitively injured by competing against these livestock factories, or whether they’re consumers who have a general concern about genetic engineering and the food supply.”

“They have a right to be heard,” he said.

A corrupted oversight process

Synthetic materials are by default banned in organics, unless they have been explicitly permitted because they are deemed “essential” to production and have been evaluated and determined to be safe for human health and the environment.

Congress created the NOSB in the 1990s to recommend industry standards for regulating such materials. It is a powerful advisory board — the USDA cannot allow any synthetic substances in organic production unless the NOSB has explicitly approved and recommended them.

The board was designed to represent stakeholders from across the organics industry, including small farmers and consumers, but it has increasingly become dominated by powerful agribusiness lobbyists — and as a result, increasingly subordinate to agribusiness’ dictates.

The first question that must be investigated, Kastel said, is whether vaccines are “essential” for livestock at all. They are generally not required in livestock production “other than some state regulations pertaining to interstate transportation of livestock,” he said.

But many producers, particularly in industrial agriculture, vaccinate their animals anyway to “mitigate risks.” Kastel said a hearing would allow the public to investigate whether “there’s any good justification coming from anybody other than people involved in conventional livestock production for the use of vaccines.”

Or, maybe animals “maintained in a healthy environment with plenty of outdoor access and pasture for ruminants like beef and dairy cows on family-scale farms,” don’t need any vaccines at all — let alone genetically modified ones, he said.

Many vaccines previously approved for organic production have been phased out and replaced with vaccines produced through genetic modification.

At recent NOSB meetings, accredited organic certifiers admitted that they do not check to see whether vaccines used violate the prohibition against genetic engineering — despite the fact that federal regulations mandate their review.

In response, the NOSB recommended the USDA approve a regulatory amendment allowing for the use of these genetically modified vaccines in organic production in cases where the traditionally produced vaccine was no longer available.

In a policy brief also released today, OrganicEye called this move “likely illegal” because “in all cases, vaccines produced using methods of genetic engineering/modification are clearly forbidden by the national organic standards and are currently excluded from use.”

The USDA did not enact that recommendation and has stated it won’t act in this regulatory area. In other words, Kastel said, the USDA is saying they “have no intention to do new rulemaking,” and are instead letting things stand — taking a “don’t ask, don’t tell,” approach to regulating GMO vaccines.

Dr. Hubert Karreman, doctor of veterinary medicine, North Carolina dairy farmer, charter fellow of the American College of Veterinary Botanical Medicine and former NOSB member, said that instead, the USDA could and should “create a very clear, easily understandable categorization system such that organic farmers don’t use a genetically engineered vaccine by mistake.”

OrganicEye charges the USDA’s reluctance to create that system is due to the influence of “powerful lobbyists and industry interests, mostly with expertise in conventional livestock production as in the case of vaccines,” who have an interest in producers continuing to rely on vaccines, rather than “providing more healthful and secure living environments for domesticated animals.”

In its policy brief, OrganicEye proposed the USDA create a clear categorization for vaccines, review all vaccines for safety prior to approval — including for the persistence of “foreign” DNA, RNA and antibodies in meat — and develop a way to deal with concerns that arise from that review, including removing such vaccines from the market if need be.

OrganicEye is also promoting a campaign to put pressure on the Biden administration to reduce its dependence on political appointees from corporate agribusiness in organic regulatory oversight — a practice that has resulted in the legally questionable conduct the group is protesting.

Veterinarians: ‘Not enough known’ about long-term effects of mRNA vaccines for livestock

“The successful application of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 has further validated the platform and opened the floodgates to mRNA vaccine’s potential in infectious disease prevention, especially in the veterinary field,” according to a study published last year in the journal Viruses.

But, Kastel said another reason for holding a public hearing is that there are many open questions about the safety of mRNA vaccines for animals and humans.

Dr. Max Thornsberry, R-CALF USA animal health committee chair, said in an April briefing for R-CALF USA, a nonprofit representing the interests of independent U.S. cattle producers, that research has shown mRNA likely passes to humans who have consumed products from an mRNA-injected animal.

Research published in JAMA also shows the persistence of COVID-19 antibodies in the human breast milk of vaccinated mothers. And recent research showed that Moderna recommended against vaccination of nursing mothers.

This raises questions, Kastel said, about how animals injected with GMO vaccines, particularly for diseases that don’t even affect humans, might introduce new antibodies into the human food supply. The associated risks need to be studied and evaluated, he said.

Thornsberry added that mRNA research is “still in its infancy, no one really knows the full impact it has on either humans or animals, particularly its long-term impact,” and that it, therefore, warrants greater research on safety and greater transparency.

Holistic veterinarian Dr. W. Jean Dodds told The Defender in January that, “Not enough is known at this time if mRNA vaccines can generate any long-term effects on reproduction or lifespan of domestic farm stock.”

“As livestock become part of the human and animal food chain, we need to be sure that no abnormal cellular or molecular changes to the animal could be induced by this type of vaccine,” Dodds added.

GMO vaccines already in use, but ‘no way for consumers to know’

Concerns that mRNA injections could end up in animal products meant for human consumption prompted warnings from cattle producers and calls for mandatory country of origin labeling so consumers can choose meat from countries that don’t allow mRNA shots in meat animals.

Backlash quickly ensued, with legacy media painting the concerns as “conspiracy theories,” “fearmongering” and “misinformation,” and issuing a series of misleading “fact checks.”

But several new government- and industry-funded studies are, in fact, already underway to develop mRNA vaccines for livestock, part of the massive expansion of the animal vaccine industry projected to be worth at least $26.12 billion by 2030.

Researchers at Iowa State University are undertaking a project funded by the USDA to develop mRNA vaccine technology to prevent bovine respiratory syncytial virus.

Pharmaceutical company Zoetis developed an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for animals that was administered to animals at zoos throughout the country.

And researchers in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service experimented with vaccinating captive-bred black-footed ferrets against COVID-19. They also experimented with social distancing and quarantine of ferrets.

“Third-generation vaccines,” including DNA, RNA and recombinant viral vector vaccines, are not only currently administered to livestock — they also are being developed for companion animals and wild animals.

Merck Animal Health has for several years marketed a “customizable vaccine” made with “RNA particle technology” to make swine flu and other virus vaccines customized to specific animal herd needs. And the USDA allows two “DNA” novel vaccines and avian influenza vaccine for poultry and a swine influenza vaccine.

Citing the need for biosecurity, in September 2022, the New South Wales government fast-tracked the world’s first mRNA vaccines for foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy-skin disease, in a five-year multimillion-dollar deal with U.S. biotech company Tiba Biotech.

There is no way for consumers to know whether genetically engineered vaccines are being used in livestock to produce USDA-certified organic meat, eggs or milk. People have a right to this information, Kastel insisted. They also need to know, he said:

“Is there any deleterious impact? Is it essential? Is it safe? And right now, because GMO vaccines are not legal [in organics], is there really no alternative to them?

“Or is that just the spin from the livestock and biotech industry that wants to change over to GMO vaccines?”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

• Draft regulation currently under consideration would legalize factory farm conditions for organic chickens
• While the proposed rule claims to protect and improve “animal welfare” in organic farming, all it will accomplish is the further destruction of independent organic farmers who do things right and therefore cannot compete with “organic” mega-corporations that can sell their foods at far lower prices because they cheat on the organic standards
• OrganicEye, an organic industry watchdog, warns the proposed rules undermine organic standards further by permanently codifying practices that violate the spirit of organics, and even the current letter of the law
• The proposed rule would allow organic poultry farmers to stack birds in multitiered aviaries stretching from floor to ceiling, providing as little as 1 square foot of space per animal. Outdoor space requirements are also limited to 1 to 2 square feet, depending on the size of the bird
• The draft rule allows egg-laying hens to be confined for the first 16 to 21 weeks of its life, and broiler chickens can be confined until just one or two weeks before their scheduled slaughter. The rule also allows half of the outdoor area to be covered in either concrete or gravel, which prevents the chickens from engaging in their natural instinctual behavior, which is already an organic requirement

At a time when organic farmers are going out of business and being gobbled up by corporate agribusinesses by the hundreds,¹ draft regulation^2,3,4 currently under consideration would legalize factory farm conditions for organic chickens, thereby pushing even more of the smaller organic farmers out.

While the proposed rule claims to protect and improve “animal welfare,” all it will accomplish is the further destruction of independent organic farmers who do things right and therefore cannot compete with “organic” mega-corporations that can sell their foods at far lower prices because they cheat on the organic standards.

There Are Two Kinds of Organic

According to U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, in 2019, nine organic-certified corporate-owned confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in Texas produced 1.5 times more “organic” milk than all 530 family-owned organic dairy farms in Wisconsin combined.⁵

As of 2021, there are 13 corporate dairies in Texas with organic certification, and they’re producing 2.8 times more “organic” milk than the remaining 407 organic family farms in Wisconsin.⁶ In those two years, 123 family farms went out of business in Wisconsin, as did hundreds more in other states.

When small organic farms go out of business, it’s not just that family that loses something. Consumers also lose. They lose access to authentic organic milk that meets their environmental expectations, and they’re deceived, because they think the higher price they pay provides economic justice and reward for farmers who are doing things right.

Meanwhile, most of the organic milk available comes from CAFOs that have anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 cows, with a density of five to 10 cows per acre, that roam in desert conditions.⁷ The scene on these factory farms is as far from idyllic farm life as you can get.

Unlike on a family farm, these CAFO cows don’t graze on grass in pasture. Rather, pasture grass is cut and then fed to the cows, as shown below. When actual pasture size is considered, the effective stocking level can be as high as 20 cows per acre, whereas family farms typically provide 1 acre per cow.⁸

Industry Watchdog Issues Warning

According to the Organic Trade Association (OTA), the regulation is “the first significant movement on organic animal welfare in years.” The Humane Society Legislative Fund has also hailed the proposed rules as “a landmark federal regulation.”⁹

Mark Kastel, executive director of OrganicEye, an organic industry watchdog, vehemently disagrees, saying that rather than strengthening the organic label, the new regulations will undermine it further by permanently codifying practices that violate the spirit of organics, and even the current letter of the law.

“Organics was supposed to be the antidote to the ‘get big or get out’ draconian agribusiness domination of our food supply,” Kastel writes.¹⁰ Instead, organic companies have been acquired by conventional producers that slowly but surely have eroded organic standards through willful violations and lobbying.

As a result, 90% of “organic” eggs now come from gigantic confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) owned by the largest suppliers of conventional eggs, and most certified organic chicken comes from companies that raise birds in near-total confinement and feed them imported grains that may or may not be truly organic, as organic grain fraud is now commonplace.

Legalizing Violations of the Organic Spirit

In a letter to members, Kastel writes:¹¹

“For most of the last decade and a half, stakeholders in the organic industry have alleged that the largest egg companies in the United States have been operating mammoth livestock factories, with the USDA illegally granting organic certification.

In 2022, the agency released a new draft rule which they purport will bring these operations into compliance, assure a level playing field for competitors, and meet consumer expectations …

Other than family-scale farms producing certified organic eggs, the majority of production takes place on commercial operations — commonly with 20,000-30,000 birds per building — with some of the largest conventional egg marketers in the country operating certified organic houses with as many as 200,000 chickens per building and over a million birds on individual ‘farms’ …

The industry’s most vocal watchdog, OrganicEye, has vociferously criticized the proposed regulations as a giveaway to corporate agribusiness interests, codifying the continuing violations of the spirit and letter of the law by failing to assure that organically managed animals have legitimate access to the outdoors and are able to exhibit their natural instinctual behaviors, both requirements of the current statute and regulations.”

Proposed Standards Hardly Enshrine Animal Welfare

According to OrganicEye’s analysis, the proposed new organic rule would allow organic poultry farmers to stack birds in multitiered aviaries stretching from floor to ceiling, providing as little as 1 square foot of space per animal, and that’s including outdoor porches, which have limited access.

The following image was provided by OrganicEye as an example of what this “organic” CAFO setup looks like.

Outdoor requirements aren’t any better — just 1 to 2 square feet depending on the weight of the birds. For comparison, farmers who are part of the Organic Valley cooperative must provide at least 5 square feet per hen, and European organic regulations require 43 square feet per bird.¹²

The draft rule also allows egg-laying hens to be confined for the first 16 to 21 weeks of their life. After this much time spent in indoor confinement, many chickens are too frightened to ever venture outside. They’ve basically been trained not to roam. The situation is even worse for broiler chickens, which can be confined until just one or two weeks before their scheduled slaughter.

What’s more, the new rules would allow for half the outdoor area to be covered in either concrete or gravel. “How are the birds going to engage in their natural instinctual behavior — foraging, eating grass, scratching and pecking for bugs and worms — on concrete?” Kastel asks.

Proposed Rule Fulfills Corporate Lobbyists Wish-List

As noted by OrganicEye, these “anemic requirements” are “straight from the wish list of corporate lobbyists.”¹³ Indeed, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack himself is a former million-dollar-a-year agribusiness lobbyist who was named BIO Governor of the Year in 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) “for his support of the industry’s economic growth and agricultural biotechnology research.”¹⁴

So, Vilsack is hardly a champion for true organic farming, and the USDA’s failure to uphold the integrity of the organic standards under his stewardship¹⁵ highlights his corporate Big-Ag, biotech biases, as does his choice of members to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).

The NOSB is supposed to be a highly-diversified body of industry stakeholders, including organic farmers and consumer advocates, but contrary to that charter, at least 80% of current board members are now affiliated with the industry’s most powerful lobbying group, the OTA.^16,17 According to Kastel:¹⁸

“The OTA has spent years, and invested untold corporate dues, in honing the persona that it is a tax-exempt nonprofit group working in the interest of the public when, in fact, it is a ruthless industry lobby group that has crossed swords with the nonprofit community on virtually every controversial issue before the NOSB.”

Several still independently-owned organic brands, such as Nature’s Path, Nutiva and Dr. Bronner’s, have resigned their memberships in the OTA in protest of its Big Ag bias.¹⁹

Under Vilsack, the NOSB was also stripped of its ability to set its own agenda. It’s supposed to work independently, but as small organic farmers have been bought up by large conventional ag conglomerates,²⁰ the corporate dominance over the NOSB has also grown and organic standards have been watered down to benefit the largest of these corporate “organic” producers.

An Affront to Organic Consumers

OrganicEye describes the proposed rules as “an affront to consumers who are willing to pay a premium to support truly humane treatment of animals and to secure nutrient-dense and more flavorful food for their families.”²¹ Kastel adds:

“It’s Orwellian doublespeak, intentionally misleading the public, for the USDA to claim that these proposed rules are going to improve the status quo of factory farm production currently dominating organic livestock, or that they represent the expectations of consumers.”

OrganicEye board president Jim Gerritsen, a certified organic farmer in Maine, also stated:

“While USDA should be codifying the improved welfare of livestock, and increasing organic integrity, this misguided proposed rule sadly does neither. Rather, it enshrines the very practices which have allowed industrial factory farms to move in, take over, and push out hard-working organic family farms.”

A Call to Action

OrganicEye is now renewing its call to the USDA to enforce current organic regulations and is urging organic consumers and supporters to appeal to President Biden to intervene and stop this latest “giveaway to corporate lobbyists.”

Organic regulations already mandate outdoor access for all livestock, including pasture access for grass fed cows and other ruminants. Importantly, organically raised animals must, by law, have the opportunity to express their natural instinctual behaviors.

The problem is these rules are not being enforced, and the answer to nonenforcement is not new regulations that simply codify the violations and abuses that are already taking place on industrial-scale “organic farms.”

OrganicEye has created a proxy letter you can download here. Simply print it out, sign it, add any personal comments on the back, and mail it to OrganicEye. They will deliver the letters to Biden’s office. As noted in that letter:

“A new approach needs to be developed as an alternative to the tens of millions of dollars currently spent on annual inspections. The vast preponderance of documented fraud — what we assume is only the tip of the iceberg — is being discovered by OrganicEye and others outside of the certification/inspection process.

Resources should be focused on hiring experienced agriculturalists/forensic accountants for more comprehensive/periodic audits (punctuated with liberal unannounced inspections and testing).

The department needs to prioritize listening to the NGO community rather than corporate lobbyists who have been appointed to key leadership positions at the USDA and on the NOSB.”

• ^{1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 20} OrganicEye May 2, 2023
• ² Federal Register Draft Regulation 7 CFR Part 205
• ³ Federal Register NOP Organic Livestock and Poultry Standards August 9, 2022
• ⁴ Center for Food Safety September 13, 2022
• ⁹ Agriculture.com August 8, 2022
• ¹⁰ Dropbox Letter from Mark Kastel 2
• ^11, 12, 21 Dropbox Letter from Mark Kastel
• ¹³ OrganicEye Proxy Letter to President Biden
• ¹⁴ Bio.org September 20, 2001
• ¹⁵ Real Organic Project
• ^16, 18, 19 OrganicEye April 18, 2023
• ¹⁷ OrganicEye April 2023 NOSB Meeting

Article cross-posted from Dr. Mercola’s site.

You can’t even trust buying organic produce anymore, thanks to The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Katy Perry and Oprah. There’s a new label on your produce, and it’s anything but ap”peel”ing. Apeel is a “plant-based protection that helps the produce you love stay fresh for longer”… or, in other words, a chemical coating put on your produce which you can’t wash off so it doesn’t brown or decompose in a normal amount of time.

Exactly how old is that avocado?

Unfortunately, if you think by choosing organic you’re good to go… think again. On their website they state, “We have formulations that are OMRI Listed® for the growers and distributors of USDA Certified Organic produce.”

They say that it helps reduce plastic, which might be true, but what exactly is this coating made of? They state on their FAQs that there is only one ingredient, but then go on to say that it’s only composed of food-grade (multiple) ingredients made from “plant materials”.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Krysten || Organic Paleo Mommy (@krystenskitchen)

Apeel brags about its purified mono- and diglycerides, food ingredients that are found in a variety of foods. According to Dr. Josh Axe, mono- and diglycerides are “the go-to replacement for deadly trans fats and a food industry staple that helps keep oil and fat from separating. (Vani) Hari (The Food Babe) explains that this additive is a byproduct of oil processing, including partially hydrogenated canola and soybean oils. This additive is a byproduct of oil processing which contains artificial trans fat – a danger food ingredient known to cause coronary heart disease and linked to 50,000 fatal heart attacks a year.”

(Side note: The FDA finally determined that trans fats are no longer generally recognized as safe for food use in 2016 and yet mono- and diglycerides are the “the go-to replacement.” But they change the label from trans fats to mono- and diglycerides and then the FDA changes their tune. Interesting or predictable?)

If you’re thinking that you’ll just wash it off, well, I hate to break it you, but you can’t. In their FAQs they essentially say that you can try but won’t succeed. “You could likely remove some of Apeel with water and scrubbing, but it’s unlikely that you’d be able to remove all of it without damaging the fruit or vegetable. Apeel forms a barrier of edible material on the skin or peel, and it wouldn’t maintain the fruit’s natural freshness if it was easily removed.”

Lovely.

When asked if Apeel is a chemical, Jenny Du, the co-founder states, “Well, everything is in fact a chemical”… way to skirt the question there, Jenny! She goes on to say, “We’re all part of ‘star-stuff’… which are elements that surround us to form chemicals…” blah blah blah skirt skirt skirt.

But also, speaking of chemicals, if this mono- and diglycerides are plant derived, I’d like to know what plant they’re derived from AND what that plant was treated with. What chemicals, pesticides and more were used on that plant? They wont tell us because, remember, Jenny Du says that, “everything is a chemical.” (I wish you could see how many times I’ve rolled my eyes already while writing and researching this!)

Watch Jenny’s video below and more importantly check the comments section.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Apeel (@apeel_sciences)

“It’s safe,” says the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the World Health Organization (WHO) and Health Canada… so safe that it’s in products designed for even infants and the elderly, the world’s most sensitive people.

“Specifically, mono- and diglycerides can be found in products such as Similac Pro- Advance® Infant Formula and Ensure® Enlive® Advanced Therapeutic Nutrition.” Both contain corn oil, canola oil, sugar, corn syrup and nothing that I’d ever touch or deem healthy and safe for anyone of any age, especially the oldest and the youngest people in the world.

You may be seeing the Apeel sticker or label on your produce, but there are also other brands using this coating on their produce. Thankfully (PHEW!) some brands are bragging about it because it helps the produce last longer and they’re saving tons of plastic. I’d rather have the plastic than the crappy coating on my cucumbers, apples and lemons, thank you.

Exactly how old is that apple in your fridge? You’ll never know. As time goes on, produce loses nutritional value, but you won’t be able to tell how fresh it is because of the Apeel coating being used. This is misleading, dishonest and doing you a (nutritional) disservice.

Your avocado might look like it was picked yesterday from a nearby farm, but it could be 31 days old. Check out this photo below and see what an normal, real, not-messed-with-by-Apeel avocado would look like after 31 days and then look at what the “tainted” (treated with Apeel) avocado looks like.

It looks good right? Yes! But it’s modified! Produce loses 30% (conservatively) of it’s nutrients just 3 days after being harvested due to light, oxygen and heat.

You will find Apeel products in places like Costco, Trader Joe’s, Gelson’s, Ralphs, Sprouts, Vons, Walmart, Whole Foods, Kroger, Harps Foods, Wakefern brand stores including Price Right, Fairway Market, Target, Bristol Farms and more. Some of the produce companies using Apeel are Topline, Index Fresh, Calve, Del Monte, West Park, Horton Fruit Co, Del Ray Avocado, Natures Pride and more.

In our home, we are very intentional about the foods that we eat and use from foods to products. We avoid seed oils, artificial food coloring, high fructose corn syrup, fast food, refined sugars, bleached flours, fragrances, cheap made-in-China toys, AirPods, plastics, flame retardants, PFAs and the list go on and on and on… which will now include Apeel, aka, mono- and diglycerides.

Once again, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the same people who are buying up all the farmland in the country and trying to sell you on the idea of lab-grown meats saying, “I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef,” are behind this and that means it’s a no from me, dawg.