Meat Products Recipes & Resource Archive Current Bakery Schedule

National Organic Program: http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/

Subscribe to the Moscow Food Co-op Newsletter! Much of the news & information on this Web site comes from the Co-op Newsletter. Find out how you can have it delivered to your mailbox!

Eat Organic
By Vicki Reich, from the June 2003 Newsletter

Two articles recently caught my attention and reconfirmed my commitment to eating organic. They were both so interesting I wanted to share them with you.

The first article was originally from the Danish magazine Oekologisk Jordbrug (Ecological Agriculture). It reported that tapirs and chimpanzees at the Copenhagen Zoo chose organic food over non-organic food when given a choice. If they were given non-organic bananas, they peeled them and ate just the fruit, but when given organic bananas, they ate peels and all. They obviously know something we don’t. You can read one version of the article at http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/bananas022403.cfm.

I saw the second article in the Sno-Isle Natural Foods Co-op newsletter. It was about a study conducted at the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine. The study took a sample of 2-5-year-old children, 18 of whom ate 75% or more organic fruits and vegetables and 21 who ate 75% or more conventional produce. The researchers had the participants record the food the children ate for three days and collected all their urine on the third day. Tests for metabolite concentrations of organophosphorus (OP) pesticides in the urine revealed levels six to nine times higher in children who ate 75% conventional produce than those who ate organic. According to the report on the study the researchers concluded that “Consumption of organic produce represents a relatively simply means for parents to reduce their children’s exposure to pesticides.” I agree.

In October, the new United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic standards are scheduled to come into effect. The standards dictate all aspects of organic production, from farming to production and processing to labeling and retailing. According to the Organic Consumers Association, "this culminates a controversial, decade-long process in which the federal government, specifically the USDA and its appointees to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), now have legal control over what can and can't be labeled 'organic'."

When the process first began, many people had concerns that turning over control of organic certification would degrade the standards. These concerns became reality in 1997 when the USDA proposed federal regulations on organic food that essentially turned the nation's multi-billion dollar organic food industry over to corporate agribusiness. The proposed regulations would include under the umbrella of organic labeling, things like irradiation, genetically-engineered ingredients, and fertilizing with sewage sludge, as well as what the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) calls a "variety of other industrial style-organic practices." This led to unprecedented public outcry (over 275,000 comments) and a major revision of the standards. It is these revised standards that are scheduled to come into effect in October 2002.

While certainly a victory was won, the OCA warns, however, that the new standards "may be at risk again as George Bush, Jr. caters to multinational food giants, biotechnology corporations and the nuclear irradiation lobby." The OCA warns that Bush's secretary of Agriculture, Anne Veneman, has final say over appointees of the NOSB Board. In their article "Is USDA Organic Grade "B" Organic?" the OCA reminds us that Veneman was an "executive for Calgene, a biotechnology company acquired by Monsanto. Later she was the head of the California Department of Agriculture and promoted pro agribusiness, pro industrial forestry policies." So, we know what side of the fence she stands.

It is true that while the new organic standards protect us from some blatant violations of our food, there are efforts underway to further undermine the term "organic" in order to gain a larger share of that market. A good example of this is the current debate over livestock feed. According to the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, Anne Veneman is considering granting exemptions to large poultry farmers to allow them to claim exemption from the current standard requiring that their "organic" poultry be fed organic food. The NCSA is calling for comments on this issue, and a visit to their Web site will give you more information. In their plea, they encourage you (yes, you!) to ask Veneman and Undersecretary Bill Hawkes to:

1. Stand fast with 100% organic feed rules for poultry and other organic livestock.
2. Uphold current livestock rules. Dilution threatens the thriving organic feed industry.
3. Do not bow to pressure that would undermine organic in the marketplace.
4. Keep the implementation date of October 21, 2002, for national organic standards on schedule.

The stakes are high. Large corporations are increasingly clever in their campaign to create and to maintain your dependence on their products. Biodemocracy News states that "no one today is making any money in agriculture except for the transnational corporate giants who control farm commodity prices, agricultural input prices, seeds, patents and retail food sales." GE products are a good (but not only) example of these strategies at work.

While monitoring policy implementation and formation and comment are seen as important, OCA reminds us that the real responsibility lays in "understanding the limitations of the 'USDA Organic' label itself and figuring out how we as organic consumers can find and purchase 'real organic' products, which not only meet the minimum health and production standards of the federal government, but also serve to promote environmental sustainability, social justice and fair trade…and humane treatment of animals." While the OCA sees that for the unforeseeable future, "USDA Organic" is the standard (grade "B" organic) they do not see these standards as the full embodiment of the organic ideal. Specifically, they advise keeping three additional sets of principles in mind:

1. Buy local, unprocessed and in-season foods whenever possible. The OCA claims that the average food item in American supermarkets has traveled 1,400 miles and that 25% of all greenhouse gases in the U.S are a by-product of industrial agriculture.
2. Buy organic shade-grown coffee and other products that bear the "Fair Trade" or "Union Made" label. The OCA reminds us that products produced on corporate farms or plantations where farm workers are exploited can still bear the "USDA Organic" label.
3. Give your business to local businesses. The OCA believes that natural food stores, farmers markets, community-supported agriculture programs, and cooperatives are key institutions if we are to build and maintain a sustainable and socially responsible economy.

I believe that action on both fronts is imperative. Keep your money out of the bottomless pockets of corporations and put it into the hands of your neighbors and friends at places like the Co-op. This is an excellent way to promote the "organic ideal." The federal government was forced to bow to public pressure over this issue, and in time, that pressure will undoubtedly be needed again. The fact that our government continually expounds to the safety and health of foods containing GE organisms, sewage sludge, and the like puts them in a compromised position. Can the same organization that promotes these foods, the USDA, also be responsible for protecting us from them? I think not.

Organic Consumers Association: www.purefood.org
National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture: www.sustainableagriculture.net
Anne M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, 202-720-3631
Bill Hawkes Undersecretary of Agriculture, 202-720-4256
U.S. Department of Agriculture
14th and Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Capital Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (to reach your representative and senators)

Kelly Kingsland lives and eats organic food. She believes that food and politics are disappointingly tangled together and hopes to shed some light on that subject.

What foods most often contain pesticides? In researching that question, I found this list of the ten common foods that are the most heavily treated with insecticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. The list was published in the August issue of Real Simple magazine.
For those who wonder which foods you should consider buying organic, this might be a good place to start.

1. Apples. You know that saying "an apple a day keeps the doctor away"? Well, only if the apple is organic!! According to the US Food and Drug Administration, more pesticides are found on apples than any other fruit.
2. Baby food. When a baby is born, its immune system, nervous system, and detoxification system are less developed. Feeding them baby food that has been made from fruits and vegetables contaminated with herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers can break down their ability to build strong systems and can cause them to become more vulnerable to the effects of such chemicals.
3. Butter and Milk. Milk, if it is not organic or from our lovely local dairy, may contain bovine growth hormone and antibiotics.
4. Cantaloupe. These delicious orange melons often contain five of the longest-lasting chemical pesticides that are also highly toxic and carcinogenic.
5. Cucumbers. This veggie is ranked 2nd for cancer risk and 12th overall as the most contaminated food.
6. Grapes. Since grapes ripen quickly, get moldy and attract bugs, grape growers regularly use pesticides to attempt to sustain their crop–especially for those grapes grown in Chile. Grapes grown in that country can receive up to as many as 17 different applications of pesticides.
7. Green Beans. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a registered list of over 60 pesticides that may be used on green beans.
8. Spinach.
9. Strawberries. In the United States, strawberries are one of the most contaminated of all produce items.
10. Winter Squash. Winter squash is similar to the cantaloupe and cucumber in that the chemicals soak into the root system and travel to the inner edible parts of the squash.
    

Nature Article Confirms:
Organic Rules! (Conventional Drools!)

By Kenna S. Eaton, General Manager, from the July 2001 Newsletter

The April 2001 issue of Nature journal printed the results of a study proving that organically-grown food is better for the environment, better for business, more energy-efficient, and produces better tasting fruit than both conventional methods and most integrated production systems. Finally–proof of what you always knew to be true–and the study was done here right in our own back yard!

The study was conducted at Washington State University by a 4-person team from various departments (including several Co-op shoppers). One of the researchers, Preston Andrews, came by the other day to chat with me about the study and its impact on consumers at the Co-op. Andrews has always been interested in organics, but became especially interested after a sabbatical in New Zealand. Together with the other researchers; John Reganold, Jerry Glover, and Herbert Hinman a study was started comparing three different growing methods in a Golden Delicious apple orchard. The inputs and outputs of the various growing methods were monitored until they were able to compare the results. The result shows that organic and integrated apple production systems are not only better for the soil and the environment, but also have comparable yields, higher profits, and greater energy efficiency. In a separate analysis the researchers also measured the taste difference of the various growing methods and Organic proved to be the tastiest. The results provide positive news about organics, which is crucial as the organic movement moves more mainstream.

While this study was conducted on a shoestring budget, says Andrews, the other good news is that there is now a lot of interest, and hopefully some bigger grants will be awarded by the USDA so research can continue with other fruits such as cherries. Andrews, a scientist at heart, had always had a leaning towards purchasing organics but now he has proof that organic is better and it has influenced his own shopping habits.

The profitability of organically-grown products is good for the farmers and can translate well for a small farm, however the downside maybe the industrialization of organics. Conventional growing methods are highly subsidized by the government, and until organically-grown becomes mainstream, farmers cannot expect the same subsidizes. Then again, as soon as the organic growing methods become subsidized then everyone will want part of it and the small farmer will be squeezed out of that field as well. It’s definitely a case of being careful what you wish for! On the positive side, we will probably begin to see a wider selection of organically-grown foods in stores, and lower prices too, as interest and the market grows.

Asked for his final words Andrews said that he still believes ”the more people growing organically, the better it will be for the planet, and the healthier it will be for us.”

Recipes & Resource Archive

For additions or corrections to this page, please contact the Webmaster.