Organic foods cost about twice as much as the same product only without the organic label. Now the Washington Post tells us that foods labeled organic are chock full of the additives found in the cheaper, non-organic product. Kimberly Kindy and Lyndsey Layton report, for example: "Three years ago, U.S. Department of Agriculture employees determined that synthetic additives in organic baby formula violated federal standards and should be banned from a product carrying the federal organic label. Today the same additives, purported to boost brainpower and vision, can be found in 90 percent of organic baby formula."
Organic foods are now a $23 billion a year business. Half of all adults say they buy organic foods at least some times. "But the USDA program's shortcomings mean that consumers, who at times must pay twice as much for organic products, are not always getting what they expect: foods without pesticides and other chemicals, produced in a way that is gentle to the environment," according to the reporters.
The story the Post tells is how consistent lobbying has gradually weakened organic labeling standards. Well, not so gradually, since the National Organic Program was only created in 2002. That leaves consumers in the lurch. Or, as the current chair of the USDA's organic standards board said, "As the organic industry matures, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to find a balance between the integrity of the word 'organic' and the desire for the industry to grow."
The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted yesterday to give the Food & Drug Administration more power to police the nation's food supply. The proposal now goes to the full House. The new law would increase FDA's funding and require the agency to conduct yearly inspections of food facilities that run a high risk of contamination. The law would require all food production facilities to pay a $500 annual fee to help pay for the inspections.
The new law comes after contaminated foods, ranging from spinach to peppers to peanut butter, have sickened thousands of consumers. "A series of foodborne disease outbreaks...has not only sickened and killed American consumers, but has laid bare unacceptable gaps in our food safety laws," said committee chair Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). "Today the Committee will act to close those gaps — and give the Food and Drug Administration new authorities, new tools, and a new source of funding to carry out this vital mission."
The Washington Post notes that the FDA has been given a "formidable to-do list," including regulating tobacco. The agency, however, has compiled a long list of failures. "When I was first talking to the administration and the vetting process was going on, suddenly I realized that every day there was some story about a really bad situation and the FDA, and I thought, 'Do I really want this job'?" said new FDA commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg (above).
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is holding 'listening sessions' on its plan to tag farm animals. Yonder writer Richard Oswald drives to Jefferson City, Missouri, to testify.
The Des Moines Register's Philip Brasher writes today about the moves afoot in Congress to increase inspection of the nation's food producers. A House committee may vote this week on a bill that would "force processors to develop and follow plans for preventing contamination of their products," according to Brasher. "It would also require the government to inspect plants more frequently — as often as twice a year for the highest-risk products." The new laws come with fees to pay for the increased inspection.
Roll Call reports that the meat industry is ready to fight the bill, which would give the Food and Drug Administration regulatory control over the meat industry. Meat producers are currently inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Right now, this is a bill we just don’t support,” said Colin Woodall, executive director of legislative affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “We are very much in support of food safety, but this bill would have a lot of unintended consequences and would add more costly regulations and won’t actually translate into safer food.”
Consumer groups favor moving inspection authority to the FDA.
Europe is headed toward a continent-wide election — and to promote the event, voters are being told the new Parliament will decide how food is labeled.
The Los Angeles Times reports this morning that ranchers are downsizing...their cattle. Writer P. J. Huffstutter reports from Nebraska about some ranchers who are raising minicows, stocky little critters with smaller frames and smaller appetites. These "miniature Herefords consume about half that of a full-sized cow yet produce 50% to 75% of the rib-eyes and fillets, according to researchers and budget-conscious farmers," Huffstutter reports. "We get more sirloin and less soup bone," said Ali Petersson (above, with cow). "People used to look at them and laugh. Now, they want to own them."
There is a trend, according to the Times. Dairy farmers are picking up mini Jerseys, little cows that can produce two to three gallons of milk a day. The mini Herefords weigh in at between 500 and 700 pounds each. There are more than 300 mini Hereford breeders in the U.S. and there are now 20,000 minicows in the country, up from 5,000 a decade ago. (Okay, there are more than 94.5 million head of cattle in the U.S., so the minis aren't taking over.)
These cattle aren't genetically engineered to be small. They come from the original breeds brought to the U.S. from Europe. As U.S. farmers and ranchers produced more grains, they didn't worry about the price of feed as much as the amount of beef on a single cow. "Feed prices were relatively cheap, and grazing lands were accessible," a Purdue University professor said. "The plan was to get more meat per animal. But it went way too far. The animals got too big and eat so much." The microcattle are a return to earlier times. And, hey, there are even been a mini bucking bull rodeos!
Has the way we raise hogs helped create the swine flu variant that is now spreading across the globe? Mike Davis, in a column in the Guardian, writes that "corporate industrialisation of livestock production" in China and now across the world has transformed animal husbandry "into something that more closely resembles the petrochemical industry than the happy family farm depicted in school readers." He quotes a report from the Pew Research Center last year warning that industrial animal production causes a continual cycling of viruses that "increase opportunities for the generation of novel virus through mutation or recombinant events that could result in a more efficient human to human transmission."
Davis' column is based on a warning that appeared in a March 2003 article in Science magazine. Bernice Wuethrich wrote that "after years of stability, the North American swine flue virus has jumped onto an evolutionary fast track, churning out variants every year. Changes in animal husbandry, including increased vaccination, may be spurring this evolutionary surge. And researchers say that the resulting slew of dramatically different swine flue viruses could spell danger for humans, too. The evolving swine flue 'increases the likelihood that a novel virus will arise that is transmissible among humans,' says Richard Webby, a molecular virologist at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee."
Pigs are good "mixing vessels" where human, bird and hog viruses can swirl and match, producing new and sometimes deadly strains. The last two flu pandemics occurred when avian and human flu viruses swapped genes in pigs.
Federal officials are telling consumers it is perfectly safe to eat pork, but fears of a "swin flu" epidemic have collapsed stock prices of ag firms on Wall Street and have led China and Russia to ban the importation of pork from some U.S. states. So far, no flu cases have been discovered in major hog-producing states (Iowa, Illinois or Minnesoata), so these areas aren't yet on the banned list. But commodity traders worry about what will happen with the first cases in those states arise.
Smithfield Foods and Tyson Foods — both members of the Yonder 40 stock index — suffered large losses by mid-afternoon. Tyson's stock was down by just over 10% Monday. Smithfield, the nation's largest hog farmer, was off by nearly 12%.
Robert Moskow, an analyst at Credit Suisse, issued a report early Monday warning that the "part that looks scariest for the U.S. pork industry is that Mexico accounts for 14% of U.S. exports and was off to a great start in 2009." Exports to Mexico are expected to decline as people in that country refrain from going out as the epidemic grows. Smithfield, meanwhile, issued a press release today saying there was no evidence that the flu had infected its Mexican operations.