New York Times bestselling author Calley Means tweeted that he was “floored” after seeing what the committee’s “core principle” entails: “REDUCING focus on chronic disease reduction.”

In other words, the people who create the USDA’s nutritional guidelines for America are urging the federal agency to stop focusing on reducing chronic disease through diet. It turns out that the committee’s members are being paid off by pharmaceutical giants Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Abbott, as well as junk food giant Mars.

“This must be disbanded,” Means tweeted, along with the following screenshot of one of the Zoom call slides:

I’m floored.

The USDA Nutrition Guidelines Committee previewed their new guidance today on an internal zoom.

A CORE principle is “REDUCING focus on chronic disease reduction.”

Committee members are paid by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Abbott, and Mars.

This must be disbanded. pic.twitter.com/LTWcxpaHhO

— Calley Means (@calleymeans) October 23, 2024

(Related: Did you know that Sen. Ron Johnson [R-Wisc.] recently held a roundtable discussion at which he urged the Senate to rethink nutritional guidance and distrust almost every institution due to systemic corruption?)

“Healthspan” is the newspeak government is using to manipulate public perception of healthy eating

One of the committee’s members, Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford, is in charge of putting together the USDA’s nutritional guidelines for children. Watch below as Dr. Stanford, an obesity doctor at Mass General Hospital, tells 60 Minutes that the true cause of obesity is “brain disease:”

“It’s a brain disease.”

Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford, an obesity doctor at Mass General Hospital, says that obesity has little to do with willpower and is determined by what a person’s brain thinks their body needs. https://t.co/K2U70bkIKw pic.twitter.com/Oyd8vkJViZ

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) January 2, 2023

“If obesity is mostly genetic … then why the massive growth in obesity over the last 25 years?” someone asked on X / Twitter, making a very good point about Dr. Stanford’s nonsensical claim.

“No. It’s industrialized toxic oils used to dilute and replace naturally healthy oils and fats by Big Food to make their products cheaper,” responded another.

Means also shared this link from the USDA containing the disclosures of who pays the USDA committee to make its recommendations. You will notice that all sorts of major hospitals, medical organizations, pharmaceutical companies, junk food conglomerates and academia is paying the USDA to make dietary recommendations that suit their respective industries.

“I’m astonished to learn that there was any focus on chronic disease reduction to begin with!” tweeted another person, shocked at these revelations.

Others noted that there is simply no money in being healthy. Prevention is good for individuals and society, but it is bad for Big Business, which relies on ever-growing profit streams that typically involve corruption and fraud to make happen.

“Insane we have a chronic illness epidemic and they want to reduce focus instead of fixing it,” tweeted another on X / Twitter. “Time to clean house and bring in medical and health professionals who know how to reduce chronic disease.”

“They are changing the jargon,” wrote another. “Lifespan is quality of health over time. One definition of many: ‘Healthspan refers to the period of time in a person’s life when they are healthy and free from chronic disease or disability.'”

“You can’t improve healthspan if you don’t focus on chronic disease risk reduction. Their guideline is a contradiction.”

More related news coverage can be found at JunkFood.news.

Sources for this article include:

• X.com
• NaturalNews.com
• DietaryGuidelines.gov

Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) sent a letter to USDA secretary Tom Vilsack last week demanding information about its spending on the “dangerous bird flu experiments,” which she says involve a “highly pathogenic avian influenza virus.” In a disturbing coincidence, one of the researchers who is part of the project via the Chinese Academy of Sciences is Wenjun Liu, who Ernst says is affiliated with a pathogens lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology where the COVID-19 pandemic is believed to have originated.

The project was made possible by a $1 million grant from the Biden administration for lab virology experiments exploring the strains of the avian influenza virus that are believed to pose the biggest risk to human and avian populations. It runs through March 2026.

One of the viruses they will be working with is H7N9, a strain that first infected animals and humans in China in 2013 and causes most patients to become seriously ill. Another is the “highly pathogenic” H5NX, which can lead to neurological complications in humans. They will also be working with the H9N2 strain, which is also capable of infecting humans.

Of particular concern is the Chinese component of the experiment. The Chinese Academy of Sciences, which is controlled by the CCP, will be tasked with conducting tests that involve infecting vaccinated Mallard ducks, Japanese quail, Chinese geese and chickens to assess how transmissible the virus is and its potential to be transmitted to “mammalian hosts.”

Ernst asked Vilsack to provide information about any safeguards that have been put in place and whether these experiments involve dangerous gain of function research. This is the type of controversial research that was carried out at the Wuhan lab and involves conducting experiments that make pathogens stronger and more transmissible so that researchers can gain a better understanding of their potential to create pandemics.

She told the New York Post that switching from bats, the animals that were used in the experiments that led to the pandemic, to birds only means that there will be even more pathogens circulating that have the potential to cause pandemics. Therefore, she believes that the USDA should have been more cautious about signing on for this type of research.

She stated: “The health and safety of Americans are too important to just wing it, and Biden’s USDA should have had more apprehension before sending any taxpayer dollars to collaborate with the CCP on risky avian flu research.”

“Here’s my warning: The Biden administration should be walking on eggshells until they cut off every cent going to our adversaries. We cannot allow what happened in Wuhan to happen again,” she added.

In her letter to Vilsack, she cited the notoriously loose safety standards in Chinese labs as another cause for concern.

Some of the bird flu testing involved in the project will be conducted in Athens, Georgia, at the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service. Statistical modeling will take place at the University of Edinburgh’s Roslyn Institute.

Risky gain-of-function research projects violate federal policies

A recent federal government report on the U.S. Agency for International Development and the National Institutes of Health revealed that more than $2 million of taxpayer funds had been sent to Chinese research institutions in Wuhan via sub-grants, including more than $1.4 million that went to EcoHealth alliance to fund the lab’s “genetic experiments to combine naturally occurring bat coronaviruses with SARS and MERS viruses, resulting in hybridized (also known as chimeric) coronavirus strains.”

These experiments were a violation of federal policies pertaining to gain of function research.

Unfortunately, as long as similar experiments continue to receive funding, there is a very real possibility that another lab leak could spur a new pandemic.

Sources for this article include:

• 100PercentFedUp.com
• NYPost.com

This tale is meant to show the supposed failures of laissez-faire capitalism, with its disregard for workers and health. Readers are supposed to walk away with a firm belief in the need for the regulation of these firms. Hurrah! Here comes the mighty state to provide safety to the masses that would otherwise be made sick by crony corporations. That’s far from the truth.

Murray Rothbard himself documents in The Progressive Era the truth of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulation. Rothbard observed that nearly every inspection passed in any form of legislature or bureaucracy was fueled by protectionism from existing firms. These regulations were not there to provide “safety” to consumers but rather to keep competition out of the marketplace by fiat. Rothbard states that the only meaningful definition of monopoly is an exclusive legal right granted by the state. Perhaps then, the only meaningful definition of so-called monopoly powers is a firm’s ability to push regulation that harms their competition through the state.

Even today, the USDA—and its regulations—threaten to crush small farmers under its heel. A small hobby farm, or even one that simply isn’t a factory farm, can hardly stand up to the regulations.

Meat processing in the United States must be done under the supervision of a USDA inspector if the goal is to sell the animal product to another person. A farmer cannot simply butcher his or her own animal, cut it into the usual meat products, and sell it at a farm stand. That would violate USDA regulations. Regardless of the ability of farmers to inspect and keep their own animals healthy or of their own skill in butchering livestock, they must have a USDA inspector to sell the product on the market.

This inspector is not provided, though, free of charge by the USDA through taxpayer dollars. Rather, the individual meat processor must pay out of pocket for these services. As far as meat processing goes, the USDA charges anywhere from $86 to $238 an hour for inspections. This does not guarantee the quality of the meat; it simply gives a rubber stamp to large processors that can afford to pay the processors.

Bigger is not necessarily better, as one can apply basic logic to the inspection process. Those moving larger volumes of meat are able to afford to pay an inspector hourly. By throwing large volumes of the goods over and over in a constant stream at their workers and the inspectors, mistakes can be made. This method of “inspection” incentivizes for large volumes rather than quality. It’s rare to come across a small farm causing health issues, but it has become increasingly common to come across recalls from large processors like Perdue and Lakeside Refrigerated. These large outlets can certainly afford to pay for an inspector, but that doesn’t guarantee quality.

The solution is, rather than increase the scale of operations, America must decentralize its meat packing and processing. This means opposing bureaucracy that forces family operations to pay for a bureaucrat who guarantees neither safety nor quality.

In a free market, quality and safety can be ensured by a variety of means. An organization like the USDA might arise, but it would be held accountable by profits and losses. Individual processing firms may pay the free-market USDA to verify the health of their product. However, if the free-market USDA fails to stop an illness from arising, through their own inspection failures, they may lose their credibility with both consumers and the producers that pay them. Profit and loss provide greater incentives for success than a bureaucracy that theoretically cannot “go under.”

Even better is the decentralization of the food processing industry altogether. Greater accountability can be held to more local institutions, such as farmers currently barred from processing their own food. Word of mouth spreads quickly among neighbors. Any exchange that a consumer is comfortable making, they should be allowed to, knowing full well the risks. Why should a government get between a farmer and their customer buying meat from them?

This is the entire basis for Thomas Massie’s Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption Act, or PRIME Act, which would circumvent the USDA’s jurisdiction for exchanges at a community level. The act would exempt custom slaughterhouses from USDA inspector requirements if the exchange occurs within state borders and follows any state-specific laws. It would be an important step toward decentralizing the food system.

If conservatives and libertarians care about competition for small farms, they should support defanging the federal bureaucracy used by large corporations to capture markets. The USDA should have its regulatory powers removed, and the ability to provide safety in food should be returned to the market. Markets provide a far more welcoming place for producers and a far safer result for consumers.

About the Author

David Brady is a Catholic libertarian and economics and finance undergraduate student at Florida Southern College. He is a co-host of the “Econphonics” podcast and a Mises Apprentice.

Alternative Video Sources:

This isn’t just a  taste of food tyranny. This should be the lead story for evidence that the FDA, USDA, and all federal government agencies involved in food tyranny must be dissolved completely. They’re not here to protect us. They’re only here to protect the globalist agenda.

Here’s a report from Twitter user Inversionism:

The USDA and FDA should be considered terrorist organizations for what they do continually to small farmers and businesses.

Similar to the Rawesome raid, these farmers were doing what’s called a cow share, where people in the community all pay up front and invest in a cow for milk or meat. This has been done by numerous farms all across the country as a means to avoid using meat processors and big business to just to get clean, properly raised, healthy food, without all the extra fees and government bullshit attached. It’s the perfect business model that supports local farmers and cuts out the criminal corporations and captured government orgs.

As expected, the USDA and FDA can’t have any of that happening because they are too busy allowing heavy metals, pesticides, plastics, and forever chemicals in your food, or rubber stamping toxic COVID vaccines for your 6 month old child, so they went to this farm and took all his meat in fridges and freezers, took it to the dump, and threw it all away with a court injunction because he refused to listen to their unconstitutional dictates.

This is the same food he fed his family with, but they didn’t care. Thousands and thousands of dollars of nutrient dense quality animal foods, all thrown away.

The FDA and USDA both need to be completely dissolved. They don’t protect public health. They destroy it.

Infuriating.

There was a time not too long ago when many if not most of the people who worked for the USDA or FDA did so because they had good jobs that were designed to protect Americans. But like so many agencies, departments, and bureaus within our federal government, the mission has morphed into one dedicated to tyranny. Perhaps many of the government employees are unaware. A whole lot of them have been indoctrinated into the “greater good” mentality that allows otherwise lucid people to unhinge themselves from the realities of their situation. Then, there are those who know some of what they do is wrong but they’re just following orders.

Like the IRS and FBI, both the FDA and USDA should be revamped or scrapped altogether. The only reason I even offer revamping as a possibility is because there are far too many Americans who flinch when they hear people like me calling to disband entire government agencies. Therefore, a top-down overhaul is weak but may be the only viable option.

Of course, I’m ignoring the sad reality that nothing will be done. Most of us will vent our outrage online or even at protests but we’ll go unheard and our representatives in DC will do nothing about it. Food security is under attack. What’s happening to Golden Valley Farms is one example of many to come. Our government is cornering the market on food for a reason, and it’s not to protect us against an Amish farmer who has been butchering beef for people without incident for a long time.

“Who controls the food supply controls the people.” — Henry Kissinger

This is just one of many reasons we partnered with Prepper All Naturals to offer high-quality survival beef to our audience. We benefit when you buy from them but we would be recommending for people to stock up on food with or without a sponsor. It’s that important.

Take advantage of 15% off by using promo code “stockup” at checkout.

Sound off about this story on my Substack.

In a novel stance, scientists at the Agricultural Research Service’s Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center argue that ultra-processed foods can make up to 91 percent of a balanced diet. The preliminary study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) contends that a diet predominantly comprising ultra-processed foods can score highly on diet quality and meet most macro and micronutrient requirements.

Julie Hess, an ARS research nutritionist and the study’s guiding force, encourages a shift in perspective—prioritizing food’s nutritional content over its processing level. This approach suggests that ultra-processed foods, which have traditionally been maligned in nutritional debates, can contribute significantly to a balanced diet.

In the study, scientists leveraged the widely used NOVA scale, first introduced in 2009, to classify foods by the degree of processing. As the dominant system in nutrition science, the NOVA classification system categorizes food based on the nature, extent, and purpose of its industrial processing. It includes four broad categories: unprocessed or minimally processed foods (fruit, whole-wheat flour); processed culinary ingredients (sugar, oil); processed foods (fresh bread, cheese); and ultra-processed foods (mass-produced bread with various additives, commercial salad dressings).

Ms. Hess voiced concerns over difficulties with the NOVA system because of potential ambiguities.

“There is not a consistent or easy-to-apply definition of what an ‘ultra-processed’ food is,” she told The Epoch Times.

Her claim has set off a tide of criticism from nutrition scientists. They maintain that the study overlooks abundant evidence connecting ultra-processed food intake to an elevated risk of various diseases, regardless of the food’s nutrient profile.

Carlos Monteiro, a key contributor to the development of the NOVA food classification system, disputes the study’s methodology and the authors’ application of the NOVA system.

“It is a desperate attempt to prevent the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) from mentioning ultra-processed foods since a recommendation against these foods would be beneficial for public health but detrimental to the profits of major corporations,” he told The Epoch Times.

Mr. Monteiro argues that the study miscategorizes certain foods as ultra-processed, thereby misrepresenting the NOVA system. He counters the assertion that ultra-processed foods are Americans’ primary affordable, nutrient-rich source, instead championing greater access to fresh and minimally processed foods.

Peeling Back Layers of USDA Research

For the study, USDA researchers sought to answer a straightforward question: Can ultra-processed foods be part of a healthy diet?

The researchers selected commonly consumed foods based on national survey data. They explain that they listed the ten most consumed foods in categories such as vegetables, fruits, or dairy and sought the ultra-processed version to assemble a diet.

“My lab wanted to include foods commonly consumed by Americans,” Ms. Hess said.

Researchers then called on external experts to evaluate an array of common foods. Their assessments relied on two main frameworks. One was the NOVA system, and the other was the DGA, which sets the standards for a healthy diet. Equipped with expert opinions and these guidelines, the researchers designed a weekly meal plan. Their target was a balanced diet of around 2,000 calories daily, aligning with the average adult’s energy needs.

The plan balanced ultra-processed items such as honey nut oat cereal, whole wheat rolls, and margarine with unprocessed foods such as eggs and broccoli. Despite falling short in vitamin D, vitamin E, and choline for certain age groups, the menu mirrored the Healthy Vegetarian Dietary Pattern’s nutrient profile in the DGA.

“Our study found that several nutrient-dense foods like whole wheat bread, nonfat milk, canned fruit, tofu, fruit juice, and canned fish could be considered ‘ultra-processed,’” Ms. Hess said.

The diet’s quality, as rated by the Healthy Eating Index-2015, was 86 out of 100, considerably higher than the average American score of 58 from HEI-2020. Due to excess sodium and inadequate whole grains, the menu didn’t achieve a perfect score.

Despite these findings, the researchers note some limitations in their study, stating, “This study exemplifies a possible healthy diet comprising mainly ultra-processed foods but does not necessarily use the most commonly consumed UPFs.”

Ms. Hess underscores the need for a clear definition of “ultra-processed.”

“Moving forward, a clear definition of ultra-processed foods and inclusion of nutrient density is needed before labeling ultra-processed foods as healthful or not.”

The authors propose that diets primarily filled with ultra-processed foods, as per the NOVA system, can fulfill nutritional standards and achieve high diet quality scores.

Food Scientists Push Back

The USDA study provoked a flurry of discussion in the nutrition science community and faces scrutiny from several researchers, including Mr. Monteiro. He raises concerns about the study’s unconventional approach and potential conflicts of interest.

“The authors are affiliated with soybean producer entities (an ingredient commonly found in ultra-processed foods) and other institutions connected to the food industry,” Mr. Monteiro said. “The U.S. is one of the largest consumers of ultra-processed foods in the world, and it is also home to major transnational corporations that profit from the sale of these foods.”

His critique extends to the methodological approach, which he refers to as “nutritionism.” He argues the study oversimplifies dietary health by focusing solely on individual nutrients, missing the broader picture.

“By simplistically analyzing a diet and considering only nutrients, the authors produce a false conclusion that it is possible to compose a healthy diet with ultra-processed foods,” he said. “In reality, they have not even been able to prove this hypothesis: the article itself highlights the excessive sodium and insufficient amount of whole grains.”

Mr. Monteiro challenges the study’s understanding of the NOVA classification, saying the authors cherry-picked “ultra-processed” foods that distort the intention of the NOVA scale, thereby mischaracterizing the term and implications of eating “unprocessed” foods.

“They attempt to do so by making a shallow comparison between nutrients in an ultra-processed diet and nutrients in a non-ultra-processed diet, but they fail to consider several crucial points in a study of this kind,” he said.

“They do not mention, for example, the impact of chemical additives in ultra-processed foods. They do not mention their addictive potential. They simply ignore the numerous pieces of evidence, including dozens of large, long-duration cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial, that link the consumption of ultra-processed foods with an increased risk of developing various diseases, independent of the dietary nutrient profile.

“It is a highly questionable study, even in terms of its methodology.”

He underscores that sporadic ambiguities in food categorization don’t undermine the comprehensive application of the NOVA system in worldwide research. Any such uncertainty was recently addressed in a Nature article, which offers scientists a guide on how to handle classification dilemmas for certain foods.

Mr. Monteiro insists the key responsibility to identify ultra-processed foods lies not with consumers but with public policies, education initiatives, or regulations. It’s a critical task that can’t be left to consumer guesswork, he said.

The study is further criticized for its alleged mischaracterization of ultra-processed foods. Monteiro clarifies that adding sugar to yogurt classifies it as processed, but not ultra-processed. It takes the inclusion of additional additives to reach that level. Similarly, whole-grain bread only ventures into the ultra-processed category when it contains nontraditional ingredients, such as emulsifiers or flavors.

“Accessibility and affordability are common characteristics of ultra-processed foods—and that’s exactly where the problem lies,” Mr. Monteiro said. “The focus should be on making fresh and minimally processed foods more accessible.”

He pointedly asked, “Who benefits from replacing fresh foods with ultra-processed options?”

Nutrition expert Marion Nestle shares Mr. Monteiro’s skepticism. In her blog, Ms. Nestle underscores the USDA study as an effort to “cast doubt on the concept of ultra-processed foods (UPF)” and research demonstrating their association with poor health outcomes.

She asserts, “I think the UPF concept is so solidly backed up by evidence that it is here to stay.”

Ms. Nestle further suggests that the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service is conflicted, arguing that it functions as a “marketing arm of the food industry.” Her criticism of the Healthy Eating Index used in the USDA study aligns with Mr. Monteiro’s, noting its focus is purely nutrient-based and not fully equipped to address the issue of ultra-processed foods, which contain additives such as stabilizers, coloring agents, and sweeteners that are linked to disease-causing biological effects.

In addition to the scrutiny from these prominent academics, the USDA study has sparked discussion among the broader scientific community. One voice chiming in is Kevin Hall, a scientist at the National Institutes of Health, who took to Twitter on July 12 to express his reservations.

“Interesting that @USDA is actively promoting to the public (via press release) a diet very high in ultra-processed foods as being ‘healthy’ despite its high Na [sodium] content and without the diet actually ever being tested in people,” he wrote.

Evidence on Health Risks of Ultra-Processed Foods

Ultra-processed foods, industrial creations transformed into easy-to-consume, appetizing meals with long shelf life, have become a significant part of the American diet. These products now comprise a substantial 60 percent of the average adult’s food intake.

There is a widespread lack of understanding about what constitutes ultra-processed foods among the general public. A survey from September 2022 by the International Food Information Council reveals that 76 percent of Americans are in the dark about the classification of ultra-processed foods.

Many consumers are quick to label soda and packaged baked goods as ultra-processed. Yet, some undercover ultra-processed items such as ketchup, certain plant-based milks, and flavored yogurts slip under the consumer’s radar.

“There are a lot of foods that may be marketed or thought of as healthy, but have actually been processed quite a bit,” said Dr. Neha Sachdev, a family physician and director of health systems at the American Medical Association. “It’s important to be aware of the foods you’re eating on a regular basis and how processed these foods are.”

Science continues to uncover the health risks linked to a diet rich in ultra-processed foods. A 2022 study in BMJ involving nearly 23,000 people found that those frequently dining on ultra-processed foods faced higher risks of heart disease and death from all causes. Another revealing piece from BMJ that same year raised alarm bells, suggesting that ramping up consumption of ultra-processed foods might stoke the fires of colorectal cancer risk.

Our brains aren’t fans of these foods either. Studies reveal that a mere 10 percent shift from ultra-processed to less or unprocessed foods could catalyze a significant 19 percent drop in the risk of dementia.

“It is important to highlight that calories are not all created equal,” Dr. Sachdev said. “The same calories that you might get from eating an apple, for example, are very different than the calories you might get from eating an apple fruit bar. These might be equivalent in number, but what ultra-processed calories represent and the nutrition that they provide your body is different.”

Yet, in spite of the concerns raised, the authors of the USDA study maintain that ultra-processed foods have a role in nutrition, particularly for specific demographics. They suggest that these foods, due to their accessibility and convenience, could provide a nutritional fallback in some cases.

“Some key points often omitted from the ultra-processed food discussion are the potential benefits these foods can offer as nutrient-rich options,” Ms. Hess said. “They can be a viable choice for individuals on a tight budget, families, people with limited grocery access, frequent travelers, and others.”

Article cross-posted from The Epoch Times.

• 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.